muscle loss Archives - Health Tips From The Professor

How Much Protein Do Post-Menopausal Women Need?

March 19, 2024 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Does The Design Of The Protein Supplement Matter?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

You’ve probably heard the saying, “It’s all downhill after 30”. That’s a particularly gloomy way of looking at it, but Father Time does take a toll on our body. I’m going to focus on age-related loss of muscle mass today, a physiological process called sarcopenia.

There are three factors that influence the rate at which we lose muscle mass as we age:

1) Our physiology changes. Our bodies break down our protein stores more rapidly and we have a harder time utilizing the protein in our diet to replenish those protein stores.

2) We become less active. In some cases, this reflects physical disabilities, but all too often it is because we are not giving weight-bearing exercises the proper priority in our busy lives.

3) Our diets become inadequate. The major driver of this phenomenon is loss of appetite which results in decreased caloric intake. However, physical disability, isolation, and insufficient income also contribute.

Sarcopenia in turn results in:

Loss of muscle strength. Even the simple act of picking up a grandchild or a bag of groceries can become problematic.

Increased risk of falls and fractures.

Lower quality of life.

Obviously, sarcopenia is a major health issue for those of us in our golden years. If you are younger, it is a concern for your parents or grandparents. Sarcopenia is a health issue that affects everyone.

But what can be done to prevent sarcopenia? We can’t change our physiology, but we can change our activity level and our diet. Weight-bearing exercise tugs on our muscle fibers. That stimulates those fibers to incorporate protein into new muscle cells. It is no wonder that weight-bearing exercise is recommended for preventing sarcopenia.

What about diet? Are older adults getting enough protein in their diet to benefit from weight-bearing exercise? I have shared studies showing that older adults need more protein and higher levels of the amino acid leucine to benefit from their workouts.

But those studies were done with men. There have been no studies comparing younger and older women until now.

In this article, I discuss a recent study (CF McKenna et al, Journal of Applied Physiology, Feb 22, 2024 doi.org/10.1152/applphysiol.00886.2023) that asks how much protein is needed to stimulate muscle protein synthesis following a workout in post-menopausal women and compares it to the protein needs of younger women.

How Was The Study Done?

The investigators enrolled 16 post-menopausal women who were part of a much larger study investigating exercise and nutritional regimens that preserve and/or enhance muscle mass in women.

The women in this study were on average 60 years old with a BMI of 26 (overweight). They had no heart disease, dietary restrictions, and did not take any supplements that could affect protein metabolism.

They were compared to a cohort of pre-menopausal women (average age = 24, BMI = 25 (borderline overweight)) recruited from the same large study. The experimental protocol was the same for the pre-menopausal and post-menopausal cohorts.

The study design was what is called a parallel-group design. Simply put, one leg was exercised using a leg extension machine, while the other leg was rested. The rested leg served as the control for each participant in the study.

Participants were tested ahead of time to determine the “one-repetition maximum” (1RM) weight for complete leg extension for each participant.

On the day of the experiment participants arrived in the laboratory after an overnight fast. One iv line was inserted, and a labeled amino acid was infused into the bloodstream, so the investigators could measure new protein synthesis at any time during the 4-hour experiment. Another iv line was inserted, so the investigators could withdraw blood samples.

At the beginning of the experiment, each participant was given either a whey protein drink (whey protein isolate fortified with vitamins C, B1, B2, B3, folate, B6, and B12 and minerals calcium, magnesium, iron, zinc, and potassium) or water. They then performed a bout of single-leg extensions starting with a warm-up of 2 sets of repetitions at 30% 1RM followed by 3 sets of 12 repetitions at 65% 1RM with 90 seconds of rest provided between sets.

Immediately following exercise, muscle biopsies were collected from both legs (t=0). Muscles biopsies were also collected at 120 and 240 minutes after exercise. Blood samples were collected continually during the experiment.

Muscle tissue was isolated from each biopsy, and something called myofibrillar protein synthesis (protein synthesis in muscle fibers) was determined based on the amount of labeled amino acid incorporated into muscle protein. The amount of protein synthesis due to exercise was determined by subtracting the incorporation of labeled amino acid in muscle fibers in the rested leg from that in the exercised leg.

What Is Leucine?

Leucine is an essential amino acid. It is present in all dietary proteins, but it is more abundant in whey and soy protein than in some vegetable proteins.

Leucine is also one of three branched-chain amino acids (valine and isoleucine are the other two). If you are familiar with the weightlifting and body-building world, you will know that branched-chain amino acids are thought to be important for muscle gain. However:

It turns out that leucine is the only branched chain amino acid that stimulates muscle protein synthesis (Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 291: E381-E387, 2006). And protein is what gives muscles their strength and their bulk.

The other branched chain amino acids appear to play a supporting role in the quantities that occur naturally in most proteins. And adding extra valine and isoleucine to a protein supplement appears to reduce the effectiveness of leucine at stimulating muscle gain (Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 291: E381-E387, 2006).

What Have Previous Studies Shown?

With respect the amount of protein needed to optimize muscle gain after workouts, previous studies have shown that:

The optimal protein intake for maximizing muscle gain post workout is 15-20 gm for young men (Katsanos et al, Am J Clin Nutr 82: 1065-1073, 2005; Moore et al, Am J Clin Nutr, 89: 161-168, 2009) and 20-25 gm for older men (Symons et al, Am J Clin Nutr 86: 451-456, 2007).

More protein isn’t necessarily better. The effect of protein intake on post workout muscle gain maxes out at around 25 gm for young men and 30 gm for older men (Symons et al, J Am Diet Assoc 109: 1582-1586, 2009).

Whey protein is the best choice for enhancing muscle gain immediately after a workout. Other protein sources (soy, casein, chicken) are better choices for sustaining muscle gain over the next few hours.

A previous study by the authors of the present study showed that 15 gm of whey protein was sufficient to stimulate muscle protein synthesis in young women (average age 20). Thus, young women and young men both appear to benefit from 15 gm of protein after a workout.

How Much Protein Do Post-Menopausal Women Need?

This is a complex study, so let’s just start with the big takeaway from the study:

The same whey protein supplement that increased muscle mass in younger women failed to stimulate “cumulative muscle protein synthesis” [net increase in muscle mass] in post-menopausal women. (This was measured by determining net accumulation of labeled amino acids into the muscle fibers of the exercised leg compared to the rested leg.)

With that out of the way, we can focus on some less important findings:

There was a short-term (0-2h) transient increase in muscle protein synthesis following exercise with and without the whey protein supplement, but the result was not cumulative. In other words, the transient protein synthesis did not result in an increase in muscle mass.

There was a long-term (2-4h) transient increase in muscle protein synthesis following exercise for the group taking the whey protein supplement, but, again, the result was not cumulative. It did not result in a net increase in muscle mass.

In the group taking the whey protein supplement there was a transient increase in both insulin and leucine in the blood between 2 and 4 hours. Either or both could have driven the transient increase in protein synthesis observed during that same times.

In the words of the authors, “Ingestion of 15 gm whey protein failed to stimulate [net] myofibrillar (muscle) protein synthesis in post-menopausal women. While resistance exercise with and without feeding stimulate late (2-4 h) and early (0-2h) increases in myofibrillar protein synthesis, further exercise and nutritional manipulations may be necessary to robustly stimulate the skeletal muscle adaptive response to exercise.”

They went on to say that increased exercise intensity and/or increased protein intake may be necessary for post-menopausal women to maintain or increase muscle mass.

What Does This Study Mean For Post-Menopausal Women?

I should start by acknowledging that this was a small study, as are most studies in this field of research. In part this reflects the expense of these experiments and the lack of major government support. But it also reflects the difficulty in recruiting subjects for this kind of experiment. They are hooked up to two iv’s for over four hours and have three muscle biopsies removed from each leg during that time. That’s a pretty invasive experimental protocol.

With this limitation in mind, the biggest takeaway from this study is that post-menopausal women need more protein to build muscle mass than younger women. Young women, just like young men, can build muscle mass with as little as 15 gm of protein post-workout.

Unfortunately, this study did not determine how much protein post-menopausal women need to build muscle mass post-workout. And that is a critical question, because women typically have less muscle mass than men when sarcopenia starts to set in. Resistance (weight-bearing) exercise and adequate protein intake are key to preventing the debilitating effects of sarcopenia in post-menopausal women.

In their conclusion, the authors said that “…further exercise and nutritional manipulations may be necessary [to optimize the post-workout gain in muscle mass for post-menopausal women].”

From an exercise standpoint, the authors speculated that higher intensity exercise may be needed to increase muscle mass in post-menopausal women. However, the exercise protocol they used was based on public health recommendations for resistance training for older adults. A more rigorous exercise protocol might not be suitable for many post-menopausal women.

From a nutritional standpoint, they noted that a previous study had shown that 35 gm of protein post-workout was sufficient to build muscle mass in post-menopausal women. However, they considered 35 gm of protein to be a dangerously high intake for a single serving of protein for post-menopausal women. I concur.

In summary, we know that 15 gm of protein post-workout is too little for postmenopausal women, and while 35 gm of protein is sufficient, it is probably too much. Until further studies are performed in post-menopausal women, I would recommend the 20-25 gm of protein shown to support post-workout muscle gain in older men.

But it is not just the amount of protein that is important. The design of the protein supplement also matters.

Does The Design Of The Protein Supplement Matter?

While the amount of protein in a post-workout supplement is important, the design of the protein supplement also matters. While there are lots of crazy claims on the internet, there are two natural ways to maximize the effect of a protein supplement on muscle mass. Insulin and the amino acid leucine both drive muscle protein synthesis and help maximize post-workout muscle gain.

Recent research has shown that 2-3 gm of leucine (2 gm for young men; 3 gm for older men) is sufficient to maximize post workout muscle gain if protein levels are adequate (Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 291: E381-E387, 2006). We don’t know the corresponding leucine requirements for women, so we will need to assume they are similar.

- A 15-gram serving of whey protein isolate only provides 1.4 gm of leucine, far below what is likely to be needed to drive post-workout muscle gain in post-menopausal women.

- If you are a man over 50 or a post-menopausal woman, you should look for a post-workout protein supplement containing added leucine. And even younger adults will get “more bang for your buck” by choosing protein supplements with added leucine.

The insulin response is maximized when the carbohydrate to protein ratio is around 2.5 to 1. The manuscript did not list carbohydrates among the ingredients used in the whey protein supplement used in this study. But if it is like many whey protein supplements nowadays, it probably contained little or no carbohydrate.

- Although less popular in today’s low carbohydrate world, post-workout supplements with a high carbohydrate to protein ratio are also effective in maximizing post-workout muscle gain.

The Bottom Line

Sarcopenia (age-related muscle loss) is a major concern for older Americans. Sarcopenia can result in:

Loss of muscle strength. Even the simple act of picking up a grandchild or a bag of groceries can become problematic.

Increased risk of falls and fractures.

Lower quality of life.

Sarcopenia can be prevented by a combination of resistance exercise and adequate amounts of protein following the workout.

We know that older men require more protein than young men in a post-workout supplement designed to help them maximize the muscle gain associated with resistance exercise. But similar experiments had not been performed with women until now.

In the article above I share a study that shows that post-menopausal women need more protein than young women in a post-workout supplement. But the study did not determine how much protein they need.

I also discuss the amount of protein post-menopausal women likely need in a post-workout supplement, and how that protein supplement could be designed to maximize muscle gain and prevent sarcopenia.

For more information on this study and my recommendations read the article above.

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

______________________________________________________________________________

My posts and “Health Tips From the Professor” articles carefully avoid claims about any brand of supplement or manufacturer of supplements. However, I am often asked by representatives of supplement companies if they can share them with their customers.

My answer is, “Yes, as long as you share only the article without any additions or alterations. In particular, you should avoid adding any mention of your company or your company’s products. If you were to do that, you could be making what the FTC and FDA consider a “misleading health claim” that could result in legal action against you and the company you represent.

For more detail about FTC regulations for health claims, see this link.

https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/health-products-compliance-guidance

_______________________________________________________________________

About The Author

Dr Chaney also ran an active cancer research program at UNC and published over 100 scientific articles and reviews in peer-reviewed scientific journals. In addition, he authored two chapters on nutrition in one of the leading biochemistry text books for medical students.

Since retiring from the University of North Carolina, he has been writing a weekly health blog called “Health Tips From the Professor”. He has also written two best-selling books, “Slaying the Food Myths” and “Slaying the Supplement Myths”. And most recently he has created an online lifestyle change course, “Create Your Personal Health Zone”. For more information visit https://chaneyhealth.com.

For the past 45 years Dr. Chaney and his wife Suzanne have been helping people improve their health holistically through a combination of good diet, exercise, weight control and appropriate supplementation.

What Kind Of Protein Is Best For Strength?

February 13, 2024 by Dr. Steve Chaney

What Kind Of Protein Is Best For You?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Every bodybuilder “knows” that whey is the best protein for building strong muscles. After all, it:

Is absorbed more rapidly than some other proteins.
Contains all nine essential amino acids.
Is naturally rich in leucine, a branched chain amino acid that stimulates increased muscle mass.

However, as someone who is not a vegan but who follows the vegan literature, I frequently come across testimonials from bodybuilders and elite athletes who say they get all the strength and muscle mass they need from plant proteins.

I’ve always assumed they must have dietitians designing the perfect plant protein diet for them. But a recent study surprised me. It challenged that assumption.

Before I talk about this study, let me change our focus. Most of us will never be bodybuilders or elite athletes, but all of us face a common challenge. We all tend to lose muscle mass as we age, something referred to as sarcopenia. I have discussed this in a previous issue of “Health Tips From the Professor”.

Simply put, sarcopenia results in:

Loss of muscle strength. Even the simple act of picking up a grandchild or a bag of groceries can become problematic.
Increased risk of falls and fractures.
Lower quality of life.

Sarcopenia is a major health issue for those of us in our golden years. If you are younger, it is a concern for your parents or grandparents. Sarcopenia is a health issue that affects everyone.

In my previous article I discussed the role of adequate protein intake and exercise in preventing age-related sarcopenia. But I did not discuss what kind of protein was best for preventing muscle loss, and the frailty that comes with it, as we age.

The article (EA Struijk et al, Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle, 13: 1752-1761, 2022) I will discuss today suggests that plant protein is best for preventing frailty in women as they age. It’s a surprising conclusion, so join me as I evaluate this study.

How Was This Study Done?

The data for this study came from the Nurses Health Study which started in 1976 with 121,700 women nurses and is still ongoing. This study followed 85, 871 female nurses for an average of 22 years starting when they were 60.

Food frequency questionnaires were administered to the participants in the study every four years starting in 1980. The questionnaires were used to calculate:

Total calories consumed.
Percent of calories from protein, carbohydrate, and fat.
Percent of calories from different kinds of protein.
The overall quality of the diet.
Saturated fat, polyunsaturated fat, cholesterol, and alcohol intake.

For this study the investigators used the cumulative average values from all questionnaires completed by participants in the study from age 60 until the onset of frailty.

Frailty was assessed every four years starting in 1992 using something called the FRAIL scale. The FRAIL scale defines frailty based on five self-reported criteria: fatigue, low strength, reduced aerobic capacity, having 5 or more chronic illnesses, and recent significant unintentional weight loss.

It is important to note that strength is only one of the five criteria used to identify frailty, although decreased muscle mass can contribute to lack of energy and reduced aerobic activity.

It is also worth pointing out that multiple studies have shown that primarily plant-based diets are associated with a decrease in chronic diseases.

I will come back to both of these points when I discuss the results of this study.

What Kind Of Protein Is Best For Strength?

I will start with the “big picture” results from this study and then cover some of the important details.

Average intake of:

Total protein was 18.3% of calories consumed.
Animal protein was 13.3% of calories consumed.
Plant protein was 5.0% of calories consumed.
Dairy protein was 3.8% of calories consumed.

When protein intake was divided into quintiles (5 equal parts) and women consuming the most protein were compared to those consuming the least protein for an average of 22 years:

Those consuming the most total protein had a 7% increased risk of developing frailty.

Those consuming the most animal protein had a 7% increased risk of developing frailty. (It is perhaps not surprising that the results were essentially the same for total and animal protein since animal protein was 73% of the total protein consumed by women in this study.)

Those consuming the most plant protein had a 14% decreased risk of developing frailty.

Consumption of dairy protein did not affect frailty.

Substituting as little as 5% of calories of plant protein for:

Dairy protein decreased the risk of developing frailty by 32%.

Animal protein decreased the risk of developing frailty by 38%.

Non-dairy animal protein (meat, fish, and eggs) decreased the risk of developing frailty by 42%.

In addition, substituting as little as 5% of calories of dairy protein for non-dairy animal protein decreased the risk of developing frailty by 14%.

But, as I said above, the frailty scale used in this study included the criteria of developing 5 or more chronic illnesses, and long-term consumption of plant protein is known to reduce the risk of developing chronic illnesses. So, it is important to break the study down into its component parts. When that was done the statistically significant results were:

Those consuming the most total protein had a 7% increased risk of low strength and a 25% increased risk of developing 5 or more chronic diseases.

Those consuming the most animal protein had a 9% increased risk of low strength and a 35% increased risk of developing 5 or more chronic diseases.

Those consuming the most plant protein had an 18% decreased risk of low strength. (It is interesting to note that plant protein consumption did not have a statistically significant effect on the development of chronic diseases in this study. That suggests that the “protective” effect of plant protein may simply be due to the absence of animal protein from the diet.)

Consumption of dairy protein did not affect any of the frailty criteria.

Finally, prevention of strength loss due to age-related sarcopenia is known to require exercise as well as adequate protein intake.

So, it was somewhat surprising that no difference in the association between protein intake and frailty was seen in women with high physical activity compared with those with lower physical activity levels. However, this may be because the range in activity level between the women in this study was relatively small. There didn’t appear to be a significant number of “gym rats” among the women in this study.

What Kind Of Protein Is Best For You?

One take-away from this study is clear. If you are a woman and want to minimize sarcopenia (loss of muscle mass and strength as you age), plant protein is an excellent choice.

A variety of plant proteins is best, so you get all the essential amino acids.

You don’t need to become a vegan. This study showed that replacing as little as 5% of your calories from animal protein with plant protein can have a significant benefit. Any healthy primarily plant-based diet will do.

This study enrolled only women aged 60 or above, so we don’t know whether the results apply to men or to younger women.

We don’t know why plant protein is better than animal protein at preventing age-related sarcopenia.

It could be because primarily plant-based diets are anti-inflammatory, and inflammation plays a role in sarcopenia.

Or it could be because primarily plant-based diets reduced the risk of chronic diseases, and chronic diseases can lead to loss of strength.

To be clear, this is a study that focuses on the type of protein that is best for long-term health and strength as we age. This is not a study of the best protein for increasing muscle mass following a workout.

Multiple studies show that whey protein can be a good post-workout choice.

However, other studies show that plant protein can also be a good post-workout choice if extra leucine is added to make it equivalent to whey protein in terms of leucine content.

The Bottom Line

You have probably heard that it is all downhill after age 30. But it doesn’t have to be.

One of the downhill slopes we all face is something called sarcopenia (age-related muscle loss). The resulting loss of strength and agility can severely impact our quality of life in our golden years.

We can prevent sarcopenia with the combination of a high protein diet and resistance training (weight bearing exercise).

But what kind of protein is best? In this issue of “Health Tips From the Professor” I review a large, well-designed study that suggests plant protein is the best choice for women if they wish to reduce age-related muscle loss and the weakness that comes with it.

For more details about the study and what it means for you, read the article above.

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.

______________________________________________________________________________

For more detail about FTC regulations for health claims, see this link.

https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/health-products-compliance-guidance

_____________________________________________________________________

About The Author

Dr. Chaney has a BS in Chemistry from Duke University and a PhD in Biochemistry from UCLA. He is Professor Emeritus from the University of North Carolina where he taught biochemistry and nutrition to medical and dental students for 40 years. Dr. Chaney won numerous teaching awards at UNC, including the Academy of Educators “Excellence in Teaching Lifetime Achievement Award”. Dr Chaney also ran an active cancer research program at UNC and published over 100 scientific articles and reviews in peer-reviewed scientific journals. In addition, he authored two chapters on nutrition in one of the leading biochemistry text books for medical students.

Does Time-Restricted Eating Have A Downside?

January 25, 2022 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Are The Benefits Of Time-Restricted Eating An Illusion?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Weight loss is difficult. If you are like most American adults, you have tried at least 5 or 6 diets by the time you are 50, and all of them have failed. Or maybe you have found a diet that works reasonably well at helping you lose weight, but it’s difficult to stick with. And you worry that it may not be healthy long-term.

But hope springs eternal, and there are always new diets to try. One of the newer diet fads is something called intermittent fasting. The most popular form of intermittent fasting (because it is the easiest to follow) is something called time-restricted eating.

The concept is simple. You don’t change what you are eating. Instead, you restrict the time during which you are eating those foods. Typically, you restrict your time of eating to 8 hours a day and abstain from all food the rest of the day. Hence, the term “time-restricted eating”.

I won’t go into the supposed benefits of time-restricted eating. You have probably heard those already from advocates of this form of eating. But you may be wondering if those benefits are true and whether time-restricted eating has any drawbacks.

Fortunately, a recent study (T Moro et al, Medicine and Science In Sports & Exercise, 53, 2577-2585, 2021) answers those questions. It put a group of athletes on either a control diet or a time-restricted diet for an entire year and looked at the relative benefits and drawbacks of both diets.

How Was This Study Done?

This study recruited 19 healthy, resistance-trained males (average age = 29, average weight = 185 pounds) for the study. All the subjects had at least 5 continuous years of resistance training, no steroid use, and no known medical conditions.

The subjects completed a 7-day food diary prior to the study, at the end of 2 months, and at the end of 12 months. The participants were instructed not to change their usual caloric intake or diet composition. In addition, each participant received a personalized diet protocol based on the analysis of their food diary at baseline.

The results from the first two months have previously been reported (T Moro et al, Journal of Translational Research, 14: 290, 2016). This report covers the subsequent 10 months.

During the first two months, the participants were contacted weekly by a dietitian to ensure adherence to the diet. During the interviews, the dietitian asked questions about meal timing and composition, appetite, and any difficulties in maintaining the diet protocol. When necessary, the dietitian gave advice to improve adherence to the diet. During the subsequent 10 months, the participants were contacted less frequently, and the interviews were shorter.

The participants were divided into two groups. The selection was random except that the two groups were matched with respect to caloric intake at baseline (~2,900 calories/day).

The ND (normal meal distribution) group ate their meals over a 12-hour period, with meals at ~8AM, 1 PM, and 8 PM. The distribution of calories for this group was 25%, 40%, and 35% over the three meals.

The TRE (time-restricted eating) group ate their meals over an 8-hour period, with meals at ~1PM, 4 PM, and 8 PM. The distribution of calories for this group was 40%, 25%, and 35% over the three meals.

The training regimen consisted of strength training specifically designed to increase muscle mass. A standardized 3-times per week training regimen was established during the first two months of supervised training. The participants continued the same training regimen on their own for the next 10 months. Workouts were performed between 4 and 6 PM to fall within the eating window for both groups.

Finally, tests for inflammatory markers, cholesterol & other blood lipids, blood sugar control, hormones, body composition, and strength were performed before the program started, at 2 months, and again at 12 months.

What Are The Benefits Of Time Restricted Eating?

When the investigators looked at health outcomes at the end of 12 months:

Inflammatory markers were significantly reduced in the TRE (time-restricted eating) group compared to the ND (normal meal distribution) group.

Blood sugar control was significantly improved in the TRE group compared to the ND group.

Lipid profiles were significantly improved in the TRE group compared to the ND group.

These results are consistent with the findings of earlier short-term studies on the benefits of time restricted eating.

The authors concluded. “Our results suggest that long-term time-restricted eating in combination with a resistance training program is feasible, safe, and effective in reducing inflammatory markers and risk factors.”

At this point you are probably thinking, “It sounds like everything I have heard about time-restricted eating is true. I can’t wait to get started.”

What Causes The Benefits Of Time-Restricted Eating?

Before you jump on the time restricted eating bandwagon, let’s look more closely and ask what caused these apparent health benefits.

When the investigators looked at changes in caloric intake over the 12-month period:

The TRE group spontaneously decreased their total caloric intake by 6.4% in spite of being told not to change their diet.

- The decrease in caloric intake was driven by a decrease in both carbohydrate and fat intake, while protein intake remained constant.

- Most of this change occurred between 2 and 12 months when they were no longer being closely supervised by dietitians.

In contrast, caloric intake and macronutrient intake did not change significantly for the ND group.

The reason for the decrease in caloric intake is not known.

If you follow social media or blogs about time-restricted eating, you have been given some scientific-sounding mumbo-jumbo about how the 16 hours of fasting changes your metabolism and/or reduces your appetite. However, this is speculation. There is scant evidence for it.

A more likely explanation is that when you restrict the time you allow yourself to eat, you naturally eat less without thinking about it. You are simply less hungry when the second and third meals roll around. [This may explain why even these highly disciplined athletes required weekly coaching by dietitians to keep their caloric intake constant.]

And when the investigators looked at changes in body weight over the 12-month period:

The TRE group lost 3.4% of their body weight.

- Most of that weight loss was due to a decrease in fat mass, but there was also a loss of muscle mass.

In contrast the ND group increased their total body weight by 3.4%.

- In other words, at the end of 12 months the difference between the TRE and ND groups amounted to almost 7% of their body weight. This difference was highly significant.

- Most of the increase in body weight in the ND group was due to a 2.9% increase in muscle mass.

These results are also consistent with the findings of earlier studies of time-restricted eating.

The observed decrease in body weight and fat mass is important because whenever you decrease body weight and fat mass, you:

Reduce inflammatory markers.
Improve blood sugar control.
Improve lipid profiles.

In the words of the authors, “…it is plausible that the caloric reduction observed in the TRE group may have contributed to the reductions in body mass and additional health benefits…”

Of course, that still sounds pretty good. Who wouldn’t want to lose weight and get healthier? But are the weight reduction and health benefits unique to time-restricted eating? That is the claim of those who promote this diet.

But is it true? To answer that question, we need to take a broader view of popular diets. We need to ask, “Is something special about time-restricted eating, or would other restrictive diets give similar results?”

Are The Benefits Of Time-Restricted Eating An Illusion?

There are two diet truths that nobody is talking about:

1) Forget the metabolic mumbo-jumbo. The primary reason restrictive diets cause you to lose weight is that you unconsciously eat less while you are on these diets.

For time-restricted eating, you eat less because you have restricted the time when you can eat. With other restrictive diets, you have restricted the foods you can eat. The reason why that causes you to eat less is more subtle. I call it the “Bagels and Cream Cheese Effect”.

- When you go on a low-fat diet, it sounds great to say you can eat all the bagels you want. But without the cream cheese, bagels become boring, and you eat less.

- When you go on a low-carb diet, it sounds great to say you can eat all the cream cheese you want. But without the bagels, cream cheese becomes boring, and you eat less.

2) The proponents of fad diets make them look good by comparing them to the typical American diet. Anything is better than the American diet. However, when you make the comparisons based on the reduction in caloric intake or the amount of weight lost, the health benefits of popular diets are virtually identical. For example:

- When you compare the Atkins diet and other low carb diets with the typical American diet, inflammation is lower on the low carb diets. However, one recent study compared people on the Atkins diet with people who had lost an equal amount of weight on a balanced diet that included all food groups. Guess what? Inflammation is much higher on the Atkins diet when you compare it to a healthy diet that gives equal weight loss.

- This study reported that the time-restricted eating group ate less, lost more weight, and had better health parameters than the control group. However, previous studies that compared time-restricted eating with groups that reduced caloric intake to the same extent by simply counting calories have found the two groups had identical weight loss and improvement in health parameters.

In other words, there is nothing magical about time-restricted eating. Any diet that causes you to eat less will give identical results. There are only two questions left:

Can you stick with time-restricted eating long term?

Time-restricted eating is not everyone’s cup of tea. But this study suggests that if you can stick with it better than with other restrictive diets, you are likely to lose weight and reap some health benefits.

2) Should you stick with time-restricted eating long term?

To answer this question, you need to know whether there are any downsides to time-restricted eating.

Does Time-Restricted Eating Have A Downside?

Of course, most people would consider weight loss and an improvement in health parameters as a definite plus. It’s all good. Or is it? Does time-restricted eating have any downsides? This study identified two potential downsides:

1) Decreased anabolic hormones.

- Anabolic hormones (hormones that stimulate an increase in muscle mass) were decreased in the TRE group. Specifically:

- - Testosterone was decreased by 17% at the end of 12 months in the TRE group.

- - Insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) was decreased by 14% in the TRE group.

- Both anabolic hormone levels were unchanged in the ND group.

2) Decreased muscle mass. Between months 2 and 12:

- Muscle mass was decreased by 2.3% in TRE group and increased by 2.9% in the ND group.

- The cross-sectional area of arm and thigh muscles was decreased by an average of 4.3% in the TRE group and increased by an average of 8.5% in the ND group.

In the words of the authors, “With our results, we confirmed that a long-term TRE protocol could impair the ability of maintaining muscle mass, possibly because of a reduction in caloric intake and a direct effect of fasting on the production of anabolic hormones.”

That is putting it mildly. The participants in this study were engaged in a rigorous 3-times/week strength training program specifically designed to increase muscle mass and were consuming over 100 grams of protein a day. So, a continuous increase in muscle mass and cross-sectional area would be expected. This was seen in the ND group but not in the TRE group, which actually lost muscle mass. The average “Joe” or “Jane” would likely lose even more muscle on this diet.

And continuous, long-term loss of muscle mass has significant health consequences including:

Decreased metabolic rate, which makes it more difficult to maintain a healthy weight.
Decreased insulin sensitivity, which increases the risk of diabetes.
Increased risk of osteoporosis.
Muscle weakness, which increases the risk of falling.

Dr. Paoli, the lead scientist on this study, was quoted as saying, “The main take home message is that there are pros and cons to prolonged time-restricted eating. Although time-restricted eating may produce some physiological advantages, it is not a miracle as often suggested in social media posts.”

The Bottom Line

A recent study looked at the pros and cons of following a time-restricted eating (TRE) diet compared to a diet with normal meal distribution (ND) for 12 months.

The TRE group had reduced inflammation, better blood sugar control, and better lipid profiles than the ND group.

However, the improved health parameters were not caused by some magical metabolic changes due to fasting.

The TRE group unconsciously reduced their caloric intake and lost weight compared to the ND group. And any time you lose weight, you get reduced inflammation, better blood sugar control, and better lipid profiles.

In the words of the authors, “…it is plausible that the caloric reduction observed in the TRE group may have contributed to the reductions in body mass and additional health benefits…”

And there is nothing unique about time-restricted eating.

Any restrictive diet is likely to give similar results. (For more details, read the article above.)

Finally, there were some significant downsides to time-restricted eating.

The TRE group had a reduction in anabolic hormones and lost muscle mass.

This is putting it mildly. The participants in this study were engaged in a rigorous 3-times/week strength training program specifically designed to increase muscle mass and were consuming over 100 grams of protein a day. They should have gained muscle mass. Instead, they lost it.

Continuous, long-term loss of muscle mass has significant health consequences including:

Decreased metabolic rate, which makes it more difficult to maintain a healthy weight.
Decreased insulin sensitivity, which increases the risk of diabetes.
Increased risk of osteoporosis.
Muscle weakness, which increases the risk of falling.

For more details read the article above.

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.

Are High Protein Diets Your Secret To Successful Weight Loss?

October 17, 2013September 17, 2013 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Do High Protein Diets Reduce Fat And Preserve Muscle?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Are high protein diets your secret to healthy weight loss? There are lots of diets out there – high fat, low fat, Paleolithic, blood type, exotic juices, magic pills and potions. But recently, high protein diets are getting a lot of press. The word is that they preserve muscle mass and preferentially decrease fat mass.

If high protein diets actually did that, it would be huge because:

It’s the fat – not the pounds – that causes most of the health problems.

Muscle burns more calories than fat, so preserving muscle mass helps keep your metabolic rate high without dangerous herbs or stimulants – and keeping your metabolic rate high helps prevent both the plateau and yo-yo (weight regain) characteristic of so many diets.

When you lose fat and retain muscle you are reshaping your body – and that’s why most people are dieting to begin with.

So let’s look more carefully at the recent study that has been generating all the headlines (Pasiakos et al, The FASEB Journal, 27: 3837-3847, 2013).

The Study Design:

This was a randomized control study with 39 young (21), healthy and fit men and women who were only borderline overweight (BMI = 25). These volunteers were put on a 21 day weight loss program in which calories were reduced by 30% and exercise was increased by 10%. They were divided into 3 groups:

One group was assigned a diet containing the RDA for protein (about 14% of calories in this study design).
The second group’s diet contained 2X the RDA for protein (28% of calories)
The third group’s diet contained 3X the RDA for protein (42% of calories)

In the RDA protein group carbohydrate was 56% of calories, and fat was 30% of calories. In the other two groups the carbohydrate and fat content of the diets was decreased proportionally.

What Did The Study Show?

Weight loss (7 pounds in 21 days) was the same on all 3 diets.

The high protein (28% and 42%) diets caused almost 2X more fat loss (5 pounds versus 2.8 pounds) than the diet supplying the RDA amount of protein.

The high protein (28% and 42%) diets caused 2X less muscle loss (2.1 pounds versus 4.2 pounds) than the diet supplying the RDA amount of protein.

In case you didn’t notice, there was no difference in overall results between the 28% (2X the RDA) and 42% (3X the RDA) diets.

Pros And Cons Of The Study:

The con is fairly obvious. The participants in this study were all young, healthy and were not seriously overweight. If this were the only study of this type one might seriously question whether the results were applicable to middle aged, overweight coach potatoes. However, there have been several other studies with older, more overweight volunteers that have come to the same conclusion – namely that high protein diets preserve muscle mass and enhance fat loss.

The value of this study is that it defines for the first time the upper limit for how much protein is required to preserve muscle mass in a weight loss regimen. 28% of calories is sufficient, and there appear to be no benefit from increasing protein further. I would add the caveat that there are studies suggesting that protein requirements for preserving muscle mass may be greater in adults 50 and older.

The Bottom Line:

1) Forget the high fat diets, low fat diets, pills and potions. High protein diets (~2X the RDA or 28% of calories) do appear to be the safest, most effective way to preserve muscle mass and enhance fat loss in a weight loss regimen.

2) That’s not a lot of protein, by the way. The average American consumes almost 2X the RDA for protein on a daily basis. However, it is significantly more protein than the average American consumes when they are trying to lose weight. Salads and carrot sticks are great diet foods, but they don’t contain much protein.

3) Higher protein intake does not appear to offer any additional benefit – at least in young adults.

4) Not all high protein diets are created equal. What some people call high protein diets are laden with saturated fats or devoid of carbohydrate. The diet in this study, which is what I recommend, had 43% healthy carbohydrates and 30% healthy fats.

5) These diets were designed to give 7 pounds of weight loss in 21 days – which is what the experts recommend. There are diets out there promising faster weight loss but they severely restrict calories and/or rely heavily on stimulants, they do not preserve muscle mass, and they often are not safe. In addition they are usually temporary. I do not recommend them.

6) This level of protein intake is safe for almost everyone. The major exception would be people with kidney disease, who should always check with their doctor before increasing protein intake. The only other caveat is that protein metabolism creates a lot of nitrogenous waste, so you should drink plenty of water to flush that waste out of your system. But, water is always a good idea.

7) The high protein diets minimized, but did not completely prevent, muscle loss. Other studies suggest that adding the amino acid leucine to a high protein diet can give 100% retention of muscle mass in a weight loss regimen – but that’s another story for another day.

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.