Guest viewing limit reached
  • You have reached the maximum number of guest views allowed
  • Please register below to remove this limitation

Super High Protein Study

Royd The Noyd

Royd The Noyd

Board Sponsor
Jose's new paper is finally out.


The effects of consuming a high protein diet (4.4 g/kg/d) on body composition in resistance-trained individuals
2 Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition / by Jose Antonio / 4 hours ago
Background: The consumption of dietary protein is important for resistance-trained individuals. It has been posited that intakes of 1.4 to 2.0 g/kg/day are needed for physically active individuals. Thus, the purpose of this investigation was to determine the effects of a very high protein diet (4.4 g/kg/d) on body composition in resistance-trained men and women. Methods: Thirty healthy resistance-trained individuals participated in this study (mean +/- SD; age: 24.1 +/- 5.6 yr; height: 171.4 +/- 8.8 cm; weight: 73.3 +/- 11.5 kg). Subjects were randomly assigned to one of the following groups: Control (CON) or high protein (HP). The CON group was instructed to maintain the same training and dietary habits over the course of the 8 week study. The HP group was instructed to consume 4.4 grams of protein per kg body weight daily. They were also instructed to maintain the same training and dietary habits (e.g. maintain the same fat and carbohydrate intake). Body composition (Bod Pod(R)), training volume (i.e. volume load), and food intake were determined at baseline and over the 8 week treatment period. Results: The HP group consumed significantly more protein and calories pre vs post (p < 0.05). Furthermore, the HP group consumed significantly more protein and calories than the CON (p < 0.05). The HP group consumed on average 307 +/- 69 grams of protein compared to 138 +/- 42 in the CON. When expressed per unit body weight, the HP group consumed 4.4 +/- 0.8 g/kg/d of protein versus 1.8 +/- 0.4 g/kg/d in the CON. There were no changes in training volume for either group. Moreover, there were no significant changes over time or between groups for body weight, fat mass, fat free mass, or percent body fat. Conclusions: Consuming 5.5 times the recommended daily allowance of protein has no effect on body composition in resistance-trained individuals who otherwise maintain the same training regimen. This is the first interventional study to demonstrate that consuming a hypercaloric high protein diet does not result in an increase in body fat.
 
Excellent find RH. I've often stated this- a lot of the studies that say high protein diets are better often compare super high intakes with below the recommended value for resistance trained athletes.

It's good to see they compared the 4.4g/kg with the 1.8g per KG.
JudoJosh bdcc

Though you two might be interested
 
Read the discussion as well; points out the "calorie is not a calorie" thing which, while not ground breaking, it refutes the idea that eating above maintenance will result in fat gain.

Again, already known but still good to see.
 
:think: dats how dooes old schoolers got gains I thought it were always impossible without protein shakes every 4 hours no matter the regimen
 
I am going to wait and see some intellectuals offer thorough insight. I don't want to muddy the waters with my own haphazard speculation.
 
I have not read the paper yet but have talked a little woth joey about it. Seems there was a bunch of variability- (some gained, some lost, some remained the same). It does appear interesting. Sol (from examine.com) has requested some of the raw data to try and plot it and see if there are any trends which will be cool to see but from what joes says there isnt any. It just all over the place. From what I understand he is doing a second study
 
Using the averages, the HP group was ingesting 169 grams of protein (676 calories) more than the CON group each day for a weekly surplus of 4732 calories (assuming they were otherwise eating at maintenance). That calorie total significantly exceeds even the most conservative estimates of the caloric equivalent to a pound of fat, usually in the range of 3700 calories. That pace spread over the course of the study is nearly 38,000 calories which is pretty interesting. I'm making a bunch of assumptions though - I'll definitely have to read the full report whenever it's available.
 
Imma go ahead and quote myself here with info from a study last year.


Right Hook; said:
Basically the thermogenic effect of food doesnt matter as long as you have at least 20% protein. Meaning if the rest of your calories come from fat or carbs, it nets a similar result. This is a good thing for heavy protein eaters, as more protein may even further increase the thermogenic effect of food (delaying you from becoming a fat ass). They also found that the leaner you are, the more thermogenic the meal will be.

"Food ingestion leads to increases in EE from the diges- tion, absorption, metabolism, and storage of nutrients as well as a theoretical facultative response that may serve as an energy dissipative mechanism. It is not clear whether the EE response to overconsumption is due primarily to intrinsic factors or the macronutrient composition of the food."


Thermogenic Effect of Food was calculated as follows (indirect calorimetry):

Meals were provided at 7:00 AM, 11:00 AM, 4:00 PM, and 7:00 PM. Subjects entered the chamber (time 0) approximately 1 hour after eating breakfast and exited 23.25 hours later. The diet-induced thermogenesis (DIT) was calculated by subtracting the 24h-EE during fasting from the 24h-EE during the relevant dietary intervention. The thermic effect of food (TEF%), defined as the percentage of caloric intake used to metabolize the consumed nutrients, was calculated by divid- ing DIT by the corresponding caloric intake.

Here were the 6 groups (including control):

1. BOF, balanced overfeeding with 50% carbohydrates, 30% fat, and 20% protein;
2. CLP, high-carbohydrate, low-protein overfeeding with 75% carbohydrates, 22% fat, and 3% protein;
3. CNP, high-carbohydrate, normal-protein overfeeding with 75% carbohydrates, 5% fat, and 20% protein;
4. EU, eucaloric feeding;
5. FNP, high-fat, normal-protein overfeeding with 20% carbohydrates, 60% fat, and 20% protein;
6. LPF, low- protein overfeeding with 51% carbohydrates, 46% fat, and 3% protein.

"We found that 24h-EE decreases by an average of 10% during fasting and increases by a similar amount with 100% caloric excess."

"The dietary contribution to the EE response to 24 hours of overfeeding was dominated by the protein content of the diet, with no measurable difference in response to differ- ences in fat or carbohydrate content, and an attenuated DIT with low-protein diets."

"The relative stability of an individual’s TEF% over wide variations in caloric intake and diet composition support the concept that much of the EE response to feed- ing is intrinsic, likely from individual differences in factors such as gut motility, efficiency of absorption and cellular processes, and body composition. This variation may po- tentially contribute to the differences in excess energy stored when people overeat."

"In conclusion, our results demonstrate the limited abil- ity for humans to dissipate excess energy intake as heat during near-maximal, short-term overfeeding. Both high- carbohydrate and high-fat diets have been implicated as contributors to obesity; however, our data indicate there is little difference in EE between these diets. The exception is diets with very low protein content, which have a lower EE response. "

Extent and Determinants of Thermogenic Responses to 24 Hours of Fasting, Energy Balance, and Five Different Overfeeding Diets in Humans

Marie S. Thearle, Nicola Pannacciulli, Susan Bonfiglio, Karel Pacak, and Jonathan Krakoff
Phoenix Epidemiology and Clinical Research Branch (M.S.T., N.P., S.B., J.K.), National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Phoenix, Arizona 85106; and Medical Neuroendocrinology Branch (K.P.), National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland 20892


Context: Individual variation in the ability to convert excess calories to heat and the effects of dietary macronutrient composition are unclear.

Objective: Stability and determinants of the energy expenditure (EE) response to overconsumption were assessed.
Design, Setting, and Participants: Twenty subjects (75% male) with normal glucose regulation were evaluated during 24 hours each of energy balance, fasting, and 5 different diets with 200% energy requirements in a clinical research unit.
Interventions: Five 1-day overfeeding diets were given in random order: high carbohydrate (75%) and low protein (3%); high carbohydrate and normal protein (20%); high fat (46%) and low protein; high fat (60%) and normal protein; and balanced (50% carbohydrates, 20% protein).

Main Outcome Measures: The 24-hour EE, sleeping EE, and thermic effect of food (TEF) during each diet were measured with a metabolic chamber. Appetitive hormones were measured before and after the diets
.
Results: The EE response to overfeeding exhibited good intraindividual reproducibility. Similar in- creases above eucaloric feeding in 24-hour EE (mean 10.7 5.7%, P .001; range 2.9–18.8%) and sleeping EE (14.4 11.3%, P .001; range 1.0 – 45.1%) occurred when overfeeding diets containing 20% protein, despite differences in fat and carbohydrate content, but the EE response during over- feeding diets containing 3% protein was attenuated. The percent body fat negatively correlated with TEF during normal protein overfeeding (r 0.53, P .01). Fasting peptide YY negatively correlated with TEF (r 0.56, P .01) and the increase in sleeping EE (r 0.54, P .01) during overfeeding.

Conclusions: There is an intrinsic EE response to overfeeding that negatively associates with adi- posity, although it represents a small percentage of consumed calories. (J Clin Endocrinol Metab 98: 2791–2799, 2013)
Click to expand...
 
Royd The Noyd said:
Imma go ahead and quote myself here with info from a study last year.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the information. I'm interested to see what the raw data says. Tis has been a huge area of interest for me
 
bdcc said:
See quoted.
Click to expand...

Note

There wasnt any statistically significent changes, as in there was no pattern or trend. There was however some changes in a few of the participants, re: weight gain/loss.
 
Without a standardized training routine, you would expect massive variation in growth as some routines are programmed and periodized very poorly (once per week splits vs. 2+ times per week).
 
What would be the ideal muscle building training programming if you were taking this super high protein ed?
I'm assuming it would have to be gruelling with that much protein in the body to turn into good solid muscle mass?
 
Looseunitwa said:
What would be the ideal muscle building training programming if you were taking this super high protein ed?
I'm assuming it would have to be gruelling with that much protein in the body to turn into good solid muscle mass?
Click to expand...

Well the results did not show a trend, nor was a standardized program outlined so whatever I say would just be speculation. There is no 'ideal' training plan, but rather plans that are more optimal than others.
 
Jiigzz said:
Well the results did not show a trend, nor was a standardized program outlined so whatever I say would just be speculation. There is no 'ideal' training plan, but rather plans that are more optimal than others.
Click to expand...

Thanks champ
Was trying to work out and get from experience trainers that with a diet in protein that high, maybe its a power lifter routine would be best compared to others? and/or maybe again it would be better to train with a light weight/high rep routine etc etc.
 
Some thoughts

I see a lot of comments on facebook that this study somehow proves extra protein isn't better. This isn't really the takeaway in my opinion. If this were true than the control group, which consumed lower protein, would have performed better but they didn't. Neither group improved. Based off this I would want to take a look at the programming of the participants. Especially since neither group showed any improvements in body weight, fat mass, fat free mass, or percent body fat after 8 weeks of training. This will lead me to question their training program. Sadly, this was not provided in the text. However the study author, Jose Antonio, says he will be performing a similar study in the future but this time will control training. Specifically he plans on increasing their training volume. This will give us a far better idea of the effect of overfeeding of protein on resistance trained individuals.

Now what does THIS study say... well in my opinion it demonstrates the difficulty of gaining weight while over feeding on protein. That is it. That in my opinion is the only real takeaway from this study. We can not conclude that increasing protein is worthless in regards to gaining lbm since neither group gained lbm so the resistance training program they followed is obviously questionable.

I look forward to the authors future study and hopefully this should give us a much better picture. Also as @Invalid Link Removed mentioned earlier in the thread, a study where they used carbohydrate instead of the protein would be interesting. Specifically if there was a change in body fat. This would certainly challenge the "calorie is a calorie" mantra that exist. Unless of course the results of overfeeding with carbs had the same result of this one, then that would challenge the current low-carb approach to dieting and support the idea that a calorie is indeed a calorie.
 
Hi..!
Thanku very much for sharing this great information ,this is very informative and helpful . Thanks again for such information.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top