|

THE
ADVANTAGES OF A HIGH-PROTEIN DIET.
WHAT
ARE THE FEATURES OF A GOOD DIET FOR WEIGHT LOSS?
A good diet does ALL of the following:
It gives an energy
deficit; less calories must be consumed than are required to meet both
the basal metabolic requirements (the energy cost of running the body)
and the energy cost of daily activity.
In other words,
it provides less calories than you are burning each day, so you draw
on your fat reserves to make up the difference.
It preserves full
functionality of physiological and biochemical systems and compensates
for adaptations to the low energy intake which otherwise would reduce
or prevent loss of weight.
Normally, when you
consume less calories than you need, your metabolic rate falls, and
you burn fewer calories. This is a normal response built into humans
(and other animals) to help them get through times of famine (not a
problem now-a-days), but is not helpful for weight loss. The good diet
prevents your metabolic rate from falling.
It favours loss
of weight predominantly from fat tissue and permits no greater loss
of lean body mass than is physiologically acceptable.
Fat is what you
need to lose, but some bad diets actually cause you to lose muscle and
organ tissues, which you may never get back! This weakens you, and if
you are a yo-yo dieter on bad diets, you will get weaker with every
cycle, because you are losing muscle!
It must prevent
occurrence of deficiencies, whether clinical or sub-clinical.
Many bad diets do
not allow for enough essential fatty acids, potassium or other essential
nutrients, and may cause serious side effects.
Diet programmes
which do not meet all these requirements are potentially hazardous and
may not only cause adverse effects, but may result in irreparable harm
in either short or long term.
High protein weight
loss diets, appropriately supplemented with vitamins, minerals and essential
fatty acids, have proven the safest and most effective types of diet
in weight loss.
WHY DO I NEED
PROTEIN?
THE FIRST REASON
WHY YOU NEED PROTEIN IS TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU DO NOT LOSE VALUABLE BODY
PROTEIN FROM YOUR MUSCLES AND ORGANS, SINCE YOU MAY NEVER BE ABLE TO
REPLACE IT AND IT COULD DAMAGE YOU!
Research performed
and published over the last 20 years indicates that high protein weight
loss diets offer substantial advantages over isocaloric diets with lower
amounts of protein and are completely safe, whereas low calorie diets
with insufficient protein may cause considerable damage, some of which
may be permanent. A normal guideline is a minimum of 1.5 g protein per
kg of ideal body weight per day, with a maximum of about 2.5 g protein
per kg ideal body weight per day.
The major criticism
levied at low calorie diets of any type is that protein can be lost
from vital tissues, and from this point of view alone, a demonstrated
high protein intake serves as a counter statement. However, from the
purely physicochemical point of view, it offers advantages to bias the
equilibrium between "protein in" and "protein out"
strongly in favour of intake, thus ensuring an adequate amount of available
amino-acids.
The term nitrogen
balance is, in effect, synonymous with protein balance, and ensuring
that the body is in nitrogen balance (or equilibrium) is an important
consideration when low calorie diets are given for more than a few days.
A negative nitrogen
balance implies that body (structural) protein is being lost, and would
therefore support the criticism of low calorie diets often heard, namely
that they cause loss of lean body mass, possibly from vital organs.
In this respect, however, it must be noted that since a portion of the
weight loss consists of fat free mass that in turn contains a small
amount of protein, a minor reduction of total body protein could be
expected to be a consequence of any weight loss regime in which no steps
were taken to facilitate the efficient recycling of the high quality
protein released from the cytoplasm of adipose tissue cells.
Bistrian et al.
(1981) showed that a diet of about 440 kilocalories per day providing
0.8 grams protein per kg ideal body weight per day was not capable of
maintaining nitrogen balance. The baseline diet used by these investigators,
which provided 1.5 grams of protein per kg ideal body weight did maintain
nitrogen equilibrium.
Vasquez et al. (1985),
in a rather complex study with obese volunteers, showed that nitrogen
balance was positive on a 500 kilocalorie per day diet composed solely
of protein (125 grams per day) given for one week, but was negative
in the same volunteers when protein intake was reduced to 50 grams per
day and the difference was made up with carbohydrate.
Comparable results
were reported by Oi et al. (1987), who conducted balance studies in
obese subjects given 1100 kilocalories per day with progessively diminishing
protein intakes. They found that there was a clear relationship between
protein intake and nitrogen balance, and calculated that the mean requirement
for nitrogen equilibrium was 1.26 grams protein per kg body weight per
day.
PROTEIN INTAKE AND NITROGEN BALANCE ON ISOCALORIC DIETS (1100 KCAL)
(in mg N/kg/day)
| |
HIGH
PROTEIN
(6 patients)
|
LOW
PROTEIN
(6 patients)
|
|
Intake
Urine
Faeces
|
152
+/- 29
137
+/- 27
13
+/- 03
|
-91
+/- 15
99
+/- 23
19
+/- 05
|
|
Balance
|
|
|
Calculated protein
requirement for nitrogen balance: 1.26 g/kg/day. |
A
study in massively obese patients reported by Pasquali et al. (1987)
showed that nitrogen balance on Very Low Calorie Diets (500 kilocalories
per day) was better with 60 grams of protein than with 41 grams of
protein, but was still negative over an 8-week period in most subjects.
Gougeon-Reyburn
et al., (1989), in a comparison of the effects of low energy protein
and carbohydrate diets, showed that the major determinant of protein
balance is protein intake, though a diet based solely on carbohydrate
(400 kilocalories/day) did conserve some protein in comparison to
total fasting. However, the diet devoid of protein caused greater
losses of potassium as well as a more marked acidosis.
Studies
in obese subjects using a VLCD of 412 kilocalories per day, of which
90% derived from protein (1.2 grams per kg ideal body weight), showed
that after an initial net loss of nitrogen, all subjects attained
nitrogen equilibrium in the third week, irrespective of protein quality
(Gougeon, 1992; Gougeon et al., 1992a). It was, however, shown in
an extension of this study (Gougeon et al., 1992b) that when proteins
of exclusively low biological value were used, nitrogen balance again
became negative at about the 6th week of use, while use of a protein
blend of higher biological value prevented the downturn in nitrogen
balance.
The
initial loss of nitrogen appeared to relate to the reduction in the
lean tissue component of the adipose tissue, while the initial lack
of a difference in response to proteins of low or high biological
value appeared to relate to release of essential amino acids for re-utilization,
thus reflecting mechanisms to conserve essential amino acids.
It
may be concluded from the foregoing that nitrogen equilibrium or even
a positive nitrogen balance can be achieved on a low calorie diet
providing the recommended amount of 1.5 grams protein per kg ideal
body weight per day.
THE
SECOND REASON WHY YOU NEED PROTEIN IS BECAUSE IT HAS A "THERMOGENIC"
EFFECT, THAT IS, IT BOOSTS YOUR METABOLISM TO A MUCH GREATER EXTENT
THAN ANYTHING ELSE IN YOUR FOOD! IT HELPS YOU BURN MORE CALORIES!
It
used to be thought that overweight and obesity were caused by "slow
metabolism", or "hormones", and many who are overweight
claim that they do not overeat. Though statistics do not support this
contention (disappearance data for food consumption shows several
hundred calories per capita excess over requirements), there is a
grain of truth in the observation that body weight changes in the
upward direction do not relate directly to Calories consumed.
It
is indeed recognized that hormonal status may be a major contributor
to the aetiology of obesity, and hypothyroidism, for example, is often
associated with obesity. Thyroid function which is in the lower part
of the normal range may thus be a contributor in some cases of obesity
(James, 1983), but this is a complex subject, and mechanisms are not
fully elucidated. Other hormonal systems may also be involved in weight
gain. However, the incidence of obesity which is indisputably due
to hormonal causes is very low, and such cases really require treatment
for the underlying condition rather than dietary therapy for the obesity
itself; removal of the cause generally results in reduction in body
weight.
Though
some authorities still consider that a lower Resting Metabolic Rate
(RMR; such as would be associated with reduced thyroid function) is
the main factor, and can adduce experimental data to support this
rationale, the present consensus of scientific opinion indicates that
the RMR of obese subjects is generally above normal, unless expressed
per kg body weight, in which case it is below normal (Hoffmans et
al., 1979), and points at thermogenesis as being the metabolic area
which is defective in those inclined to obesity (Heleniak and Aston,
1989).
In
the pre-obese and obese states, dietary thermogenesis is reduced,
and the "energy cost" to the body of handling the dietary
intake is lower than that of normal individuals not inclined to obesity
(Jequier, 1987, 1989).
Thus
on equivalent dietary intakes, a person with reduced thermogenesis
may put on weight while a person with the same physical characteristics
but normal thermogenesis will remain in weight equilibrium. The difference
may be as much as 20%; in other words, the individual predisposed
to obesity may require 20% less food than a normal individual to maintain
weight in equilibrium, and if intake is increased, body weight increases.
An interesting observation is that obese subjects have a very poor
thermogenic response to dietary fat, and may use as little as 3% of
the energy in the fat for "handling" purposes,so they are
particularly susceptible to further weight gain when consuming a high
fat diet (Opus cit.).
Thus
the older concept that the ability to put on weight was due to a lower
Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR), though not completely discredited, is
now considered to be only a minor contributor to weight problems,
and the variation in dietary thermogenesis (which manifests as an
increase in Resting Metabolic Weight; RMR) is now known to be the
major factor involved. Since the different macronutrients (protein,
carbohydrate, fat) all have different thermogenic activities, manipulation
of dietary composition can aid in preventing obesity, and can also
assist in treatment of pre-existent obesity. In other words, though
thermogenesis can contribute to obesity and overweight, it can also
be put to use in treating these conditions!
Effects
of food on RMR have long been known (Davidson et al., 1975), and is
sometimes referred to as Specific Dynamic Action (SDA). It was thought
that this had little practical application, but the recent work cited
above on the decreased thermogenic response to food in individuals
who are either obese or predisposed to obesity has resulted in renewed
interest in the exploitation of this physiological phenomenon in treatment
of obesity.
The
SDA of food is very variable, even in normal individuals, but as noted,
it is reduced in obese subjects. The overall effect may be to increase
the metabolic rate by as much as 40% for periods of time up to several
hours (Garrow, 1978). Protein has a greater effect than fat, and carbohydrates
generally have the least effect, but the SDA is difficult to measure,
and there is still no absolute consensus on magnitude and duration
after various types of food. However, there is agreement that protein
is more active than the other macronutrients. Thus when using low
calorie diets, the greatest advantage is obtained with high protein,
low carbohydrate diets.
THERMOGENIC
EFFECT OF PROTEIN
The body imposes a "handling" charge when digesting
protein, fat or carbohydrate; it is greater with protein
than with fat, and lowest with carbohydrate
As demonstrated by Rabast et al. (1979), the effect can be quite dramatic;
these investigators gave two comparable groups of obese subjects isocaloric
diets (1000 kilocalories per day), one of which was low carbohydrate
(25 g per day) and high in fat, the other high carbohydrate (170 g per
day) and low fat. Both contained 46 g protein per day. Over a 50 day
period, weight loss was 14.0 kg in the group given the low carbohydrate
diet, but only 9.8 kg in the group receiving the high carbohydrate diet.
Though in this case protein content was the same in both diets, the
overall thermogenic effect was clearly lower with the high carbohydrate
diet, which in view of the known poor thermogenic effect of carbohydrate
was predictable.
DAILY WEIGHT
LOSS IN PATIENTS ON ISOCALORIC DIETS (1000 KCAL)
|
Low
Carbohydrate
(20 patients)
|
High
Carbohydrate
(20 patients)
|
|
362
+/- 18.2 g
|
298
+/- 17.9 g
|
|
Rabast
et al., 1979.
Significant decreases in blood glucose, cholesterol, triglycerides
and blood pressure were also seen.
|
Oi et al., (1987)
also found that weight loss was improved on the high protein diet:
WEIGHT LOSS
ON ISOCALORIC DIETS (1100 KCAL)
(kg lost over a 2-week period)
|
High
Protein
(6 patients)
|
Low
Protein
(6 patients)
|
|
2.3 +/- 0.5
|
1.4
+/- 0.3
|
THE THIRD REASON
WHY YOU NEED PROTEIN IS THAT IT HAS AN ANABOLIC EFFECT! THAT IS, IT
HELPS REBUILD LEAN TISSUES INSTEAD OF BREAKING THEM DOWN!
Anabolic
effects of ingested protein appear to be due to a number of mechanisms,
the most important of which are probably due to Growth Hormone, somatomedins,
and the catecholamines. The breakdown products of protein after digestion
include the amino-acid arginine. This amino-acid is interesting in
that it stimulates release of growth hormone (GH) from the pituitary.
GH
is a good anabolic agent (superior to anabolic steroids), and is secreted
throughout life, generally in short bursts during REM sleep. These
"bursts" occur more frequently in children and adolescents.
Most, if not all, of the metabolic effects of GH are actually mediated
by the somatomedins, a family of small peptides which resemble proinsulin
in amino-acid composition and structure, and have an anabolic insulin-like
action on muscle and fat tissues (Hall, 1983). There are also circulating
inhibitors, which counteract the effects of the somatomedins and appear
to form part of the regulatory process.
Somatomedins
are formed in the liver, in response to GH, insulin, and, interestingly,
nutritional factors, in particular dietary protein. Thus the actual
substances which mediate the action of growth hormone, and may assist
in mediating some of the actions of insulin, can be produced independently
of growth hormone in response to a high intake of dietary protein!
GH itself may also have a direct stimulatory effect on protein synthesis
by increasing amino-acid transport into cells, and this effect is
not subject to inhibition by the endogenous inhibitors which block
or modulate the metabolic actions of the somatomedins.
The
essential amino acids phenylalanine and tyrosine are also used as
precursors for adrenaline and noradrenaline. The latter in particular
appears to have anabolic effects through mechanisms which are poorly
understood but probably relate to the effects of this hormone on the
metabolism in general.
ANABOLIC
EFFECTS OF A HIGH PROTEIN DIET:
The amino-acid arginine stimulates release of growth hormone.
Dietary
protein directly stimulatesrelease of somatomedins.
Growth
hormone and the somatomedins are potent anabolic agents;
They stimulate
amino-acid uptake into protein.
Phenylalanine and tyrosine act as precursors for noradrenaline, which
also has anabolic effects on muscle.
Tryptophan is the precursor of 5-hydroxy-tryptamine (serotonin; 5-HT),
and serotonin has well-documented effects on the satiety centre; it induces
a sensation of fullness! This is actually different from preventing the
feeling of hunger, but is equally important. Suppressing hunger stills
the feeling of wanting to eat, while inducing satiety causes eating to
stop more quickly, and is thus conducive to eating smaller meals. An important
part of re-educating people to eat properly!
Tryptophan, like
some of the drugs used to treat obesity, increases the availability
of serotonin in the central nervous system (Nathan and Rolland, 1987),
and this is possibly the single most important factor in controlling
dietary intake in human beings. However, tyrosine and phenylalanine
are catecholamine precursors; they therefore increase the availability
of both dopamine and noradrenaline in the central nervous system. This
is analogous to the effect of tryptophan on serotonin, and likewise,
their action is similar to that of the classical anorectic drugs such
as dexamphetamine. They therefore serve to suppress hunger, by increasing
noradrenaline levels in the hunger centre. In this respect, they may
parallel a postulated effect of ketosis.
In practical terms,
tyrosine and phenylalanine probably make little contribution to control
of appetite in man; at the time hunger is experienced, blood levels
of free amino-acids tend to be low, and thus the transfer of these amino-acids
into the central nervous system is at low ebb. They may, however, reinforce
the effects of tryptophan at meal-times. It should be noted that many
"serotoninergic" drugs have anti-depressive or mood-elevating
properties, and the observed effects of high protein diets on mood would
hereby be explained. Histidine, glutamic acid and aspartic acid may
also play a role, but it has not yet been clarified.
The relationship
between post-prandial levels of free amino-acids in the blood and the
central nervous system levels of the neurotransmitters for which they
are precursors is very complex, and studies in man and animals have
given conflicting, sometimes inexplicable, results. However, it is very
clear (Wurtman, 1987) that brain serotonin synthesis is coupled to food-induced
changes in plasma composition, and catecholamine synthesis is thought
to show the same relationship. What is known with certainty is that
plasma levels of free amino-acids increase several fold after a protein-rich
meal (though not all amino-acids increase to the same level; a possible
expression of preferential peripheral utilization), and that insulin
secretion (for example after a meal rich in carbohydrate) decreases
levels of all amino-acids with the possible exception of tryptophan!
It is also clear that increased brain serotonin levels resulting from
greater availability of tryptophan (or, for that matter, from drug treatment!)
suppress cravings for carbohydrate.
NEUROTRANSMITTERS
AND AMINO-ACIDS:
Tryptophan gives serotonin
Tyrosine and phenylalanine give catecholamines
Histidine gives histamine
Glutamic acid gives GABA
(Glutamic and
aspartic acids may also be neurotransmitters)
Tryptophan is the
precursor of 5-hydroxy-tryptamine (serotonin; 5-HT), and serotonin
has well-documented effects on the satiety centre; it induces a sensation
of fullness! This is actually different from preventing the feeling
of hunger, but is equally important. Suppressing hunger stills the
feeling of wanting to eat, while inducing satiety causes eating to
stop more quickly, and is thus conducive to eating smaller meals.
An important part of re-educating people to eat properly!
Tryptophan, like
some of the drugs used to treat obesity, increases the availability
of serotonin in the central nervous system (Nathan and Rolland, 1987),
and this is possibly the single most important factor in controlling
dietary intake in human beings. However, tyrosine and phenylalanine
are catecholamine precursors; they therefore increase the availability
of both dopamine and noradrenaline in the central nervous system. This
is analogous to the effect of tryptophan on serotonin, and likewise,
their action is similar to that of the classical anorectic drugs such
as dexamphetamine. They therefore serve to suppress hunger, by increasing
noradrenaline levels in the hunger centre. In this respect, they may
parallel a postulated effect of ketosis.
In practical terms,
tyrosine and phenylalanine probably make little contribution to control
of appetite in man; at the time hunger is experienced, blood levels
of free amino-acids tend to be low, and thus the transfer of these amino-acids
into the central nervous system is at low ebb. They may, however, reinforce
the effects of tryptophan at meal-times. It should be noted that many
"serotoninergic" drugs have anti-depressive or mood-elevating
properties, and the observed effects of high protein diets on mood would
hereby be explained. Histidine, glutamic acid and aspartic acid may
also play a role, but it has not yet been clarified.
The relationship
between post-prandial levels of free amino-acids in the blood and the
central nervous system levels of the neurotransmitters for which they
are precursors is very complex, and studies in man and animals have
given conflicting, sometimes inexplicable, results. However, it is very
clear (Wurtman, 1987) that brain serotonin synthesis is coupled to food-induced
changes in plasma composition, and catecholamine synthesis is thought
to show the same relationship. What is known with certainty is that
plasma levels of free amino-acids increase several fold after a protein-rich
meal (though not all amino-acids increase to the same level; a possible
expression of preferential peripheral utilization), and that insulin
secretion (for example after a meal rich in carbohydrate) decreases
levels of all amino-acids with the possible exception of tryptophan!
It is also clear that increased brain serotonin levels resulting from
greater availability of tryptophan (or, for that matter, from drug treatment!)
suppress cravings for carbohydrate.
ROLE
OF NEUROTRANSMITERS IN EATING:
Most appetite-control drugs act through serotonin
(e.g. fenfluramine) or noradrenaline (e.g. dexamphetamine)
Dietary manipulation can mimic the effects of these drugs, but without
their side-effects.
Other known facts
are that different proteins have different effects on brain serotonin
levels; lactalbumen, rich in tryptophan, gives a better response than
proteins with a more balanced amino-acid composition, and interestingly,
low quality proteins such as gelatine supplemented with tryptophan also
give good responses. This latter fact is readily explained; all the
so-called "large neutral amino acids" have to compete for
the same transport mechanism into the brain, so that in the presence
of tyrosine, histidine or phenylalanine, tryptophan transport can actually
be reduced.
Thus if tryptophan
is the most prominent amino-acid in the mixture produced by digestion,
it will readily pass into the brain.
In this respect,
a recent study by Anderson et al. (1990) revealed that dieting reduces
plasma tryptophan levels in women and has an effect on brain 5-HT function.
These effects were not seen in men.
To summarize in
simpler terms, the quality and quantity of protein consumed can affect
certain functional centres in the brain, and many of the observed effects
of high protein diets, such as lack of hunger (or better, feeling of
satiety) and elevation of mood could be explained by conversion of tryptophan
to serotonin in the brain.
The sleepiness that
may occur after a large meal may also, in part, be explained by this
mechanism, though in this case diversion of blood flow to the gastro-intestinal
tract (to assist in digestion) and away from the brain is probably the
most important factor. However, tryptophan is only part of the story,
and the full explanation almost certainly involves the other amino-acid
precursors of neurotransmitters in a complex and interrelated fashion.
Stated at the most
superficial level, composition of the diet itself regulates satiety,
hunger and cravings; the high protein, low carbohydrate diet has physiological
actions that are compatible with weight reduction programmes and it
facilitates adherence to such programmes!
SOME POPULAR DIETS
PUT PEOPLE INTO KETOSIS AND THIS IS SAID TO BE A VERY EFFECTIVE WAY OF
LOSING WEIGHT; IS THERE ANYTHING WRONG WITH KETOSIS?
THE BODY WILL
RUN WHEN THE BLOOD IS FULL OF KETONE BODIES, BUT THIS IS BASICALLY A
BIOCHEMICAL TRICK AND NOT VERY SOPHISTICATED. IT ALSO INVOLVES A RISK
OF SIDE EFFECTS, SUCH AS ACIDOSIS (THE BODY FLUIDS BECOME MORE ACID,
WHICH CAN CAUSE PROBLEMS), SIGNIFICANT EUPHORIA (ALMOST LIKE BEING DRUNK),
MOOD CHANGES IN SUSCEPTIBLE INDIVIDUALS, AND INCREASED URIC ACID LEVELS
(WHICH MAY RESULT IN GOUT OR KIDNEY STONES). IT ALSO MAKES THE BREATH
SMELL BAD!
Ketone bodies are
normal products of lipid metabolism, though generally not present in
great amounts. They result from the breakdown of acetoacetyl-coenzyme
A, itself derived from acetyl-coenzyme A. Under normal circumstances,
most of this latter substance is oxidized directly in the liver, or
used to build up fats, but when the body is in negative energy balance,
using fats rather than storing them, the flow is in the reverse direction,
and acetyl-coenzyme A is being produced from fatty acids rather than
the reverse. There is a link between liver content of glycogen (the
way in which carbohydrate is stored) and the production of ketone bodies,
again very complicated, but in essence it means that when the liver
has enough glycogen (from a high carbohydrate intake!), acetyl-coenzyme
A is reconverted into fatty acids rather than into the acetoacetyl compound
which ends up as ketone bodies. Thus to generate the ketosis, carbohydrate
intake must be kept low.
In the absence of
glucose, brain and many other tissues adapt readily to use of ketone
bodies as a source of energy. Thus the fat or normal person, deprived
of food, switches over to being a "ketone burner".
This can help "push"
the metabolism into the protein-sparing mode, but the same effect can
be obtained with a non-ketogenic protein diet, without the risk of side
effects. Using ketosis as a tool to lose weight is something that should
only be done under medical supervision.
The hunger-suppressing
effect of ketosis (as distinct from the satiety-inducing effect of protein)
was strongly commented by Duncan et al. (1962), and has subsequently
been investigated by Blackburn and his colleagues (see, for example,
Lindner & Blackburn, 1976). It is generally accepted (Jones, 1979,
1981) that induction of ketosis creates a mental state of mild euphoria,
and suppresses hunger.
Mood changes have
been conclusively demonstrated in ketotic patients undergoing therapy
with low calorie diets (Jones, unpublished observations). The mechanism
involved is not clearly understood, but the moderate elevation of ketone
bodies in the blood appears to have a range of behavioural properties,
unrelated to the Calorie content per se.
Wadden et al., (1985),
for example, compared groups of patients on isocaloric PSMF and non-ketogenic
formula diets. They found that patients on the PSMF had significantly
less hunger, and were also much less pre-occupied with food (a behavioural
parameter that is not necessarily closely related to hunger sensations).
Davies et al. (1989) found that hunger scores increased as the Calorie
content of a Very Low Calorie Diet was increased.
Silverstone et al.
(1966) could not find a direct relationship between levels of ketone
bodies and hunger, and this has been the experience of other investigators
(Baird et al., 1974; Howard, 1981). Other groups (Apfelbaum et al.,
1967, 1981) claim that the suppression of hunger increases as the ketosis
becomes more severe, and strive to induce moderate to severe ketosis
in their studies.
The general consensus
leans to the argument, that while suppression of hunger (and other mood-related
effects) may be triggered by ketosis, equivalent results can be obtained
by ensuring that protein intake is sufficiently high, and that this
is a much more "natural" way to help dieters cope with their
low calorie diet.
WHAT IS THE BEST
COMPOSITION OF A GOOD WEIGHT LOSS DIET?
ENOUGH PROTEIN
TO ENSURE THAT ALL THE BENEFITS OF A HIGH PROTEIN INTAKE ARE OBTAINED,
ENOUGH CARBOHYDRATE TO PREVENT KETOSIS, AND ENOUGH FAT (OF THE RIGHT
TYPE) TO MAKE SURE THAT ESSENTIAL FATTY ACID DEFICIENCY DOES NOT OCCUR!
It has been argued
that the PSMF, devoid or almost completely devoid of carbohydrate, is
the most effective dietary approach to the treatment of obesity, because
it gives rise to the greatest degree of ketosis, but this argument lacks
experimental verification. While it is clear that ketosis has some interesting
effects, it does not necessarily help weight loss and can be risky.
In fact, some studies have indicated that the presence of a moderate
amount of available carbohydrate can improve rates of weight loss, increase
the protein-sparing effects (through reduction of gluconeogenesis) and
partially offset some metabolic consequences of the lack of dietary
carbohydrate, such as the increase in blood uric acid levels (Vasquez
et al., 1995). Such research has also indicated that with regard to
protein sparing on low calorie diets, the effects of protein and carbohydrate
are independent but additive. Thus there are advantages to the use of
high protein diets which are not ketogenic.
The inclusion of
moderate amounts of fat in the high protein diet optimizes body fat
composition, and Flatt (1995) has shown that lipogenesis in humans significantly
increases when the fat content of a diet falls below 10% of calories.
Thus quite apart
from the very real risk of essential fatty acid (EFA) deficiency, the
use of very low fat diets increases body fat content, and in the presence
of protein and absence of sufficient carbohydrate can create a complex
metabolic chain where protein is converted to carbohydrate via gluconeogenesis,
and the carbohydrate in turn is converted to fat by lipogenesis, with
an ultimate reduction in protein sparing.
The presence of
fat in the diet, and in particular EFAs, has also been related to increases
in rates of weight loss. The fact that patients on low calorie diets
are at greater risk of EFA deficiency than the general population is
well known, is in itself sufficient justification for assuring adequate
EFA intake, but EFAs do more than prevent skin problems, gall bladder
problems or a rise in cholesterol; they actually contribute to fitness
and weight loss. EFAs of the omega-6 and omega-3 families have been
shown to increase thermogenesis. It is not known whether this is an
intrinsic consequence of their mechanisms of action (as precursors for
eicosanoids and as membrane constituents), or whether it merely represents
the rectification of a pre-existent but unsuspected EFA deficiency.
Goubern et al. (1990), for example, showed that brown adipose tissue
cells recovered from EFA-deficient rats responded poorly to noradrenaline
(norepinephrine; the hormone which stimulates thermogenesis), but that
addition of linoleic acid (omega-6 EFA) and the saturated fatty acid,
palmitic acid, to the medium normalized the response.
Alam et al. (1995)
also presented evidence that cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP) production
can be impaired in EFA deficiency, which would manifest as decreased
sensitivity to catecholamines, with subsequent reduced thermogenesis.
Clandinin et al.
(1992) similarly showed that linoleic acid increased the binding of
insulin to adipose tissue cells (and thus inproved their metabolic responses).
These researchers
also reported that omega-3 EFAs increased the responsiveness of muscles
to insulin, and significantly increased the rate of glucose uptake by
the muscle. Takada et al. (1994) showed that a dietary intake of gammalinolenic
acid increased the ability of the liver to oxidize fats.
At an empirical
level, Bucci (1994) cites studies which have shown that supplementation
with long chain omega-3 EFAs (from fish oil) improves aerobic metabolism,
while some research groups (Cunnane et al., 1986; Jones and Schoeller,
1988) have shown that increases in EFA intake improve rates of weight
loss by a presumed thermogenic mechanism and also improve the efficiency
of energy-generating metabolic processes in the body.
THAT IS RATHER COMPLICATED
TO UNDERSTAND? CAN YOU SUMMARIZE IT FOR ME?
The optimal diet for
weight loss consists of:
A significant daily
intake of protein, ideally 1.5 g per kg ideal body weight per day; at
least 60 - 70 g must be of excellent biological value, but once an adequate
intake of essential amino acids has been assured, the remainder may
be of lesser biological value. All protein should be of high digestibility.
A moderate intake
of carbohydrate, sufficient to completely prevent ketosis (about 1.5
g per kg ideal body weight per day appears satisfactory). Compositionally,
this should include simple sugars and complex carbohydrates, including
some dietary fibre. The presence of simple sugars may be important for
optimal absorption.
A moderate intake
of fat rich in EFAs but free from "trans" fatty acids; at
least 10% of energy, but probably less than 24%, provided compositional
requirements are met.
Additionally, and
hardly requiring comment, the daily intake of vitamins and minerals
must be assured.
One further point
justifies the presence of small amounts of available carbohydrate in
products intended for use in the PSMF. The absorption of amino acids
resulting from the digestive breakdown of protein in the lumen of the
intestine is an active process, utilizing significant amounts of energy.
Ideally, the cells
of the intestinal wall oxidise glucose as an energy source, though as
with cells of other tissues, they can utilize ketone bodies, amino acids
and free fatty acids. The liver and kidney are the only gluconeogenetic
organs in the body, and during profound carbohydrate restriction, the
role of the kidney gradually increases. In other words, gluconeogenesis
does not occur in the cells of the intestinal wall whose function is
to actively transport amino acids resulting from protein digestion,
therefore glucose availability in these cells is reduced. Presence of
small amounts of simple sugars in the mixture presented for absorption
may help offset this reduced availability of the preferred substrate
and improve the efficiency of amino acid absorption.
-
back to top -
|