Luscombe-Marsh Natalie D, Noakes Manny, Wittert Gary A, Keogh Jennifer B, Foster Paul, Clifton Peter M
Department of Medicine, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia, Adelaide, Australia.
Am J Clin Nutr. 2005 Apr;81(4):762-72. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/81.4.762.
When substituted for carbohydrate in an energy-reduced diet, dietary protein enhances fat loss in women. It is unknown whether the effect is due to increased protein or reduced carbohydrate.
We compared the effects of 2 isocaloric diets that differed in protein and fat content on weight loss, lipids, appetite regulation, and energy expenditure after test meals.
This was a parallel, randomized study in which subjects received either a low-fat, high-protein (LF-HP) diet (29 +/- 1% fat, 34 +/- 0.8% protein) or a high-fat, standard-protein (HF-SP) diet (45 +/- 0.6% fat, 18 +/- 0.3% protein) during 12 wk of energy restriction (6 +/- 0.1 MJ/d) and 4 wk of energy balance (7.4 +/- 0.3 MJ/d). Fifty-seven overweight and obese [mean body mass index (in kg/m(2)): 33.8 +/- 0.9] volunteers with insulin concentrations >12 mU/L completed the study.
Weight loss (LF-HP group, 9.7 +/- 1.1 kg; HF-SP group, 10.2 +/- 1.4 kg; P = 0.78) and fat loss were not significantly different between diet groups even though the subjects desired less to eat after the LF-HP meal (P = 0.02). The decrease in resting energy expenditure was not significantly different between diet groups (LF-HP, -342 +/- 185 kJ/d; HF-SP, -349 +/- 220 kJ/d). The decrease in the thermic effect of feeding with weight loss was smaller in the LF-HP group than in the HF-SP group (-0.3 +/- 1.0% compared with -3.6 +/- 0.7%; P = 0.014). Glucose and insulin responses to test meals improved after weight loss (P < 0.001) with no significant diet effect. Bone turnover, inflammation, and calcium excretion did not change significantly.
The magnitude of weight loss and the improvements in insulin resistance and cardiovascular disease risk factors did not differ significantly between the 2 diets, and neither diet had any detrimental effects on bone turnover or renal function.
在低能量饮食中用蛋白质替代碳水化合物时，膳食蛋白质可促进女性脂肪减少。尚不清楚这种效果是由于蛋白质增加还是碳水化合物减少所致。
我们比较了两种等热量饮食（蛋白质和脂肪含量不同）对试餐后体重减轻、血脂、食欲调节和能量消耗的影响。
这是一项平行随机研究，在能量限制期（6±0.1 MJ/d，持续12周）和能量平衡期（7.4±0.3 MJ/d，持续4周），受试者分别接受低脂高蛋白（LF-HP）饮食（脂肪29±1%，蛋白质34±0.8%）或高脂标准蛋白（HF-SP）饮食（脂肪45±0.6%，蛋白质18±0.3%）。57名超重和肥胖[平均体重指数（kg/m²）：33.8±0.9]且胰岛素浓度>12 mU/L的志愿者完成了该研究。
尽管LF-HP餐后受试者的进食欲望较低（P = 0.02），但两组间的体重减轻（LF-HP组，9.7±1.1 kg；HF-SP组，10.2±1.4 kg；P = 0.78）和脂肪减少并无显著差异。两组间静息能量消耗的降低无显著差异（LF-HP组，-342±185 kJ/d；HF-SP组，-349±220 kJ/d）。LF-HP组随体重减轻的食物热效应降低幅度小于HF-SP组（分别为-0.3±1.0%和-3.6±0.7%；P = 0.014）。体重减轻后，对试餐的葡萄糖和胰岛素反应有所改善（P < 0.001），但饮食组间无显著差异。骨转换、炎症和钙排泄均无显著变化。
两种饮食在体重减轻幅度以及胰岛素抵抗和心血管疾病危险因素改善方面无显著差异，且两种饮食对骨转换或肾功能均无不良影响。
