NUTRITION – PROTEIN – MAINTAINING MUSCLE MASS DURING WEIGHT LOSS


11 RESEARCH ARTICLES +17 GRAPHICS – CLICK ON IMAGE TO ENLARGE


 January 8 – 2018
Group 1
– Obese patients underwent 12 wks of Very Low Calorie Diet (VLCD)
– They were given supplemental protein support providing about 1000 kcals per day

– Performed a periodized resistance training program
– Only 4% of the total weight loss was due to a reduction in lean mass
– 96% was due to fat loss

– Resting metabolic rate was better maintained in those undergoing resistance training
– High protein and resistance training is a MUST when restricting calories no matter how severe
Control Group
– prescribed “steps per day”
– lost about 25% from reduced lean mass

 January 20 – 2018

PROTEIN RECOMMENDATIONS FOR WEIGHT LOSS IN ELITE ATHLETES: A FOCUS ON BODY COMPOSITION AND PERFORMANCE – 2017


 

 

 

 

 

 

Hector AJ1Phillips SM1.
SUMMARY
– Current recommendations for protein intakes during weight loss in athletes are set at 1.6-2.4 g protein/kg/day
– Severity of caloric deficit and training type and intensity determines at what end of this range athletes choose to be



HIGHER COMPARED WITH LOWER DIETARY PROTEIN DURING AN ENERGY DEFICIT COMBINED WITH INTENSE EXERCISE PROMOTES GREATER LEAN MASS GAIN AND FAT LOSS – 2016



Longland TM1Oikawa SY1Mitchell CJ1Devries MC1Phillips SM2
DESIGN
– 4 wks
– Hypoenergetic (~40% reduction compared with requirements) diets providing 33 kcal/kg LBM
Young men (2 groups; n = 20/group)
(a) lower-protein (1.2 g · kg(-1) · d(-1)) control diet (CON)
(b) higher-protein (2.4 g · kg(-1) · d(-1)) diet (PRO)
– All subjects performed resistance exercise training combined with high-intensity interval training for 6 d/wk
RESULTS
– LBM increased in the PRO group to a greater extent compared with the CON group
– PRO group had a greater loss of fat mass than did the CON group


September – 2017
Stu Phillips group (Longland et al. 2016)
– 1.2g protein/kg BW/day vs. 2.4g protein/kg BW/day
– concurrent caloric restriction and high volume resistance training + HIIT regimen for 4 weeks
– 2.4g protein/kg BW/day for wt loss quality with caloric deficit and training, i.e. increased lean mass & greater fat loss


CONSIDERATIONS FOR PROTEIN INTAKE IN MANAGING WEIGHT LOSS IN ATHLETES – 2015


Murphy CH1Hector AJPhillips SM.
(1) Higher protein intakes during periods of energy restriction can enhance fat-free mass (FFM) preservation, particularly when combined with exercise
(2) From a practical point of view, athletes aiming to reduce fat mass and preserve FFM should be advised to consume protein intakes in the range of;
– approx. 1.8-2.7 g/kg/day or approx. 2.3-3.1 g/kg FFM/day in combination with a moderate energy deficit (-500 kcal) and some form of resistance exercise
– Note: 80kg (176lbs) x 1.8 = 144g PRO; 80kg (176lbs) x 2.7 = 216g PRO


Hulmi JJ1Laakso M1Mero AA1Häkkinen K1Ahtiainen JP1Peltonen H1.
METHODS

– 4-wk prep RT period was conducted in untrained males to standardize training background of the subjects
– Thereafter, the subjects were randomized into 3groups:
A) 30 g of whey proteins (n = 22)
B) isocaloric carbohydrates (maltodextrin, n = 21)
C) protein + carbohydrates (n = 25)
– Within groups, subjects were put into two whole-body 12-wk RT regimens for muscle hypertrophy and maximal strength or muscle strength, hypertrophy and power
– The post-exercise drink was taken immediately after the exercise bout, 2-3x/wk depending on the training period
RESULTS
– 12-week RT led to increased fat-free mass, muscle size and strength independent of post-exercise nutrient intake
– The whey PRO group reduced more total and abdominal area fat compared to carb group independent of type of RT
– A larger relative increase (per kg bodywt) in fat-free mass was observed in the PRO vs. Carb group without significant differences to the combined group


A REVIEW OF DIETARY PROTEIN DURING CALORIC RESTRICTION IN RESISTANCE TRAINED LEAN ATHLETES – 2014


Helms ER1Zinn CRowlands DSBrown SR.
– PRO needs for energy-restricted resistance-trained athletes are likely 2.3-3.1g/kg of FFM (Fat Free Mass) scaled upwards with severity of caloric restriction and leanness
My Examples:
(1) 80kg or 176lb person at 10% bodyfat = 72kg or 158lbs FFM (Fat-Free Mass)
Therefore, 72kg x 2.3g = 165g Protein and 72kg x 3.1g = 223g Protein; Protein range for that person would be 165 to 223g
(2) 80kg or 176lb person at 15% bodyfat = 68kg or 150lbs FFM (Fat-Free Mass)
Therefore, 68kg x 2.3g = 156g Protein and 68kg x 3.1g = 211g Protein; Protein range for that person would be 156 to 221g


REDUCED MPS IS RESCUED BY RESISTANCE EXERCISE AND PROTEIN FOLLOWING SHORT-TERM ENERGY DEFICIT – 2014


Areta JL1, Burke LM, Camera DM, West DW, Crawshay S, Moore DR, Stellingwerff T, Phillips SM, Hawley JA, Coffey VG.
AIM
– Myofibrillar protein synthesis (MPS) response to resistance exercise (REX) and PRO during energy deficit (ED)
METHOD
– Young men (n=8) and women (n=7),
(1) Resting post-absorptive MPS during energy balance – EB
(2) After 5 days of Energy Deficit – ED
(3) MPS while in ED after acute REX in the fasted state and with the ingestion of whey protein (15 and 30 g)
RESULTS
(1) Post-absorptive rates of MPS were 27% lower in ED than EB
(2) but REX stimulated MPS to rates equal to EB
(3) Ingestion of 15 and 30 g of protein after REX in ED increased MPS ~16 and ~34% above resting EB


EFFECT OF 2 DIFFERENT WEIGHT LOSS RATE ON BODY COMPOSITION AND STRENGTH & POWER-RELATED PERFORMANCE IN ELITE ATHLETES – 2011



INTRODUCTION
– When weight loss (WL) is necessary, athletes are advised to accomplish it gradually, at a rate of 0.5-1 kg/wk
– However, it is possible that losing 0.5 kg/wk is better than 1 kg/wk in terms of preserving lean body mass (LBM) and performance
AIM
– Compare changes in body comp, strength, and power during a weekly body-weight (BW) loss of 0.7% slow reduction (SR) vs. 1.4% fast reduction (FR)
DESIGN
– 24 athletes
– SR (n = 13, 24 ± 3 yr, 71.9 ± 12.7 kg) or FR (n = 11, 22 ± 5 yr, 74.8 ± 11.7 kg)
– They followed energy-restricted diets promoting the predetermined weekly WL
– All athletes included 4 resistance-training sessions/wk in their usual training regimen
– The mean times spent in intervention for SR and FR were 8.5 ± 2.2 and 5.3 ± 0.9 wk, respectively
– BW, body composition (DEXA), 1-repetition-maximum (1RM) tests, 40-m sprint, and countermovement jump were measured before and after intervention
RESULTS
– Energy intake was reduced by 19% ± 2% and 30% ± 4% in SR and FR, respectively
– BW and fat mass decreased in both SR and FR by 5.6% ± 0.8% and 5.5% ± 0.7% (0.7% ± 0.8% vs. 1.0% ± 0.4%/wk) and 31% ± 3% and 21 ± 4%, respectively
– LBM increased in SR by 2.1% ± 0.4%, whereas it was unchanged in FR (-0.2% ± 0.7%), with significant differences between groups
CONCLUSION
– Athletes who want to gain LBM and increase 1RM strength during a WL period combined with strength training should aim for a weekly BW loss of 0.7%

THE EFFECTS OF CONSUMING FREQUENT HIGHER PROTEIN MEALS ON APPETITE AND SATIETY DURING WT LOSS IN OVERWEIGHT OBESE MEN – 2011


Leidy HJ1Tang MArmstrong CLMartin CBCampbell WW.
PURPOSE:
– Determine the effects of protein and eating frequency on perceived appetite and satiety during weight loss
DESIGN:
– 12 wks 27 overweight/obese men (age 47±3 yrs) were randomized to groups that consumed an energy-restriction diet (750 kcal/day below daily energy need) as either:
(1) Higher protein (HP, 25% of energy as protein, n = 14)
(2) Normal protein (NP, 14% of energy as protein, n = 13)
CONCLUSION:
– Collectively, these data support the consumption of HP intake, but not greater eating frequency, for improved appetite control and satiety


INCREASED PROTEIN INTAKE REDUCES LEAN BODY MASS LOSS DURING WEIGHT LOSS IN ATHLETES – 2010


Mettler S1Mitchell NTipton KD.
METHODS:
– 20 young resistance-trained athletes were examined for energy expenditure for 1 wk:
(a) 15% (approx 1.0 g x kg) protein (control group, n = 10; CP)
(b) 35% (approx 2.3 g x kg) protein (high-protein group, n = 10; HP) for 2 wk.
RESULTS:
– Total and lean body mass loss were significantly larger in the CP compared with those in the HP


 ADDITIONAL PROTEIN INTAKE LIMITS WEIGHT REGAIN AFTER WEIGHT LOSS – 2005


AIM
– Does protein limit weight regain after a weight loss of 5-10 % in overweight subjects
METHOD
– 113 overweight subjects; age 45.1 years followed a very-low-energy diet for 4 wks, after which there was a 6-month period of WM
– During Weight Maintenance WM, subjects were randomised into either a protein group or a control group
– The protein group received 30 g/d protein in addition to their own usual diet.
RESULTS
– During WM, the protein group showed a lower weight regain, a decreased waist circumference and a smaller increase in respiratory quotient
– Weight regain in the protein group consisted of only fat-free mass, whereas the control group gained fat mass as well.
– Satiety in the fasted state before breakfast increased significantly more in the protein group than in the control group.
CONCLUSIONS
– A protein intake of 18 % compared with 15 % resulted in improved WM in overweight subjects after a weight loss of 7.5 %
– This improved WM implied several factors, i.e. improved body composition, fat distribution, substrate oxidation and satiety


 

Comments are closed.