Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: more interesting new research page

  1. #1
    dboxing's Avatar
    dboxing is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    458

    more interesting new research

    Shop Now

  2. #2
    MightyAl's Avatar
    MightyAl is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Quad Cities, IA
    Posts
    508
    During the 56 days of overeating, the participants consumed an excess of 50 729 kcal/d (95% CI, 47 065-54 393 kcal; P = .13 between groups); they all gained weight and there were no differences by sex (P = .12) or by race (P = .19; Figure 3). The weight gain in the low protein diet group was 3.16 kg (95% CI, 1.88-4.44 kg), about half that of the other 2 groups (normal protein diet: 6.05 kg [95% CI, 4.84-7.26 kg]; high protein diet: 6.51 kg [95% CI, 5.23-7.79 kg]; P = .002) (Table). The rate of weight gain in the low protein diet group was significantly less than in the other 2 groups (P < .001). The failure to increase lean body mass in the low protein group accounted for their smaller weight gain.

    I found this bit to be interesting. It does reinforce that excess calories cause weight gain and there is no MAD.

    It does show why the bodybuilder routine of bulking and cutting works.
    Check out my primal blog: http://primalroar.posterous.com/

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    68
    Haven't got through the whole thing yet, but each group was fed 41% of their diet in carbohydrates? ugh. and they gained weight? strange.

  4. #4
    MightyAl's Avatar
    MightyAl is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Quad Cities, IA
    Posts
    508
    Quote Originally Posted by healthpellets View Post
    Haven't got through the whole thing yet, but each group was fed 41% of their diet in carbohydrates? ugh. and they gained weight? strange.
    Not until they were overfed. Might want to look over it again. Plus the extra weigh gain in the higher protein groups was due to an increase in lean body mass and not added adipose tissue.
    Check out my primal blog: http://primalroar.posterous.com/

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by MightyAl View Post
    Not until they were overfed. Might want to look over it again. Plus the extra weigh gain in the higher protein groups was due to an increase in lean body mass and not added adipose tissue.
    is there a breakdown of what was contained in the overfeeding?

  6. #6
    NDF's Avatar
    NDF
    NDF is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    817
    "All food was provided and participants resided in a metabolic unit for 10 to 12 weeks with no prescribed or regular exercise program."

    Something that's interesting.... you can't gain muscle just by eating more or just by eating more protein. There needs to be a stimulus for muscle in order for it to grow. While those who ate a normal or high protein diet appeared to have gained lean body mass, I'd love to know what portion of that lean body mass was actually muscle and what portion was actually just water content (lean body mass is the measure of everything in your body aside from fat). The increase in lean body mass could just be an increase of water content in the body - something which high protein diets can cause in some people.

    I do like that the study points to the fact that weight gain is about calories and not as much about where those calories come from. (ie. carbs are not evil)

  7. #7
    MightyAl's Avatar
    MightyAl is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Quad Cities, IA
    Posts
    508
    is there a breakdown of what was contained in the overfeeding?

    The same as initially described just with more calories. RIF.
    Check out my primal blog: http://primalroar.posterous.com/

  8. #8
    DaisyEater's Avatar
    DaisyEater is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,784
    The low protein diet had 6% of energy from protein, 52% from fat, and 42% from carbohydrates. The normal protein diet had 15% of energy from protein, 44% from fat, and 41% from carbohydrates. The high protein diet had 26% of energy from protein, 33% from fat, and 41% from carbohydrates. There was 47 g/d (95% CI, 42.7-50.5 g/d) of protein in the in the low protein diet group, 139 g/d (95% CI, 117-162 g/d) in the normal protein diet group, and 228 g/d (95% CI, 188-268 g/d) in the high protein diet group compared with 90.2 g/d (95% CI, 83.6-96.9 g/d) during the weight stabilization period.
    Here are the proportions. All were fed about 1000 kcal excess per day. I would love to see this same study modulating the carbs rather than the fat. I do still believe calories count. I don't think we'll find a diet where you can eat unlimited quantities of some macros and not gain, but this seems a good method for quantifying the advantage of a moderate carb diet more precisely if there is one.

    I'm not particularly surprised that the low protein folks gained a higher proportion of fat, though. They weren't really eating enough to maintain their current muscle mass.

  9. #9
    NDF's Avatar
    NDF
    NDF is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    817
    Quote Originally Posted by DaisyEater View Post
    I'm not particularly surprised that the low protein folks gained a higher proportion of fat, though. They weren't really eating enough to maintain their current muscle mass.
    For clarity:
    1) The study talks about lean body mass, not muscle mass. There is a difference. Lean body mass measures everything (fat, water content, muscle, organs) other than body fat.
    2) The increase of lean body mass in the higher and normal protein diets was not likely muscle mass. So while the low protein dieters gained 90% fat and the high and normal protein dieters gained only 50% fat, the difference could be because the high/normal protein dieters gained more water content along with the fat gained where as the lower protein dieters didn't gain the extra water weight.
    3) When you are eating at or above maintenance, you don't have to eat a certain level of protein to maintain muscle mass. In fact, losing muscle mass is MUCH harder than most people realize. Generally it takes a extremely low protein, extremely low calorie diet with excess amounts of exercise.

  10. #10
    dboxing's Avatar
    dboxing is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    458
    Quote Originally Posted by NDF View Post
    For clarity:
    1) The study talks about lean body mass, not muscle mass. There is a difference. Lean body mass measures everything (fat, water content, muscle, organs) other than body fat.
    2) The increase of lean body mass in the higher and normal protein diets was not likely muscle mass. So while the low protein dieters gained 90% fat and the high and normal protein dieters gained only 50% fat, the difference could be because the high/normal protein dieters gained more water content along with the fat gained where as the lower protein dieters didn't gain the extra water weight.
    3) When you are eating at or above maintenance, you don't have to eat a certain level of protein to maintain muscle mass. In fact, losing muscle mass is MUCH harder than most people realize. Generally it takes a extremely low protein, extremely low calorie diet with excess amounts of exercise.
    +1

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •