Dataset Information

Higher-protein diets improve indexes of sleep in energy-restricted overweight and obese adults: results from 2 randomized controlled trials.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Limited and inconsistent research findings exist about the effect of dietary protein intake on indexes of sleep. OBJECTIVE:We assessed the effect of protein intake during dietary energy restriction on indexes of sleep in overweight and obese adults in 2 randomized, controlled feeding studies. DESIGN:For study 1, 14 participants [3 men and 11 women; mean ± SE age: 56 ± 3 y; body mass index (BMI; in kg/m(2)): 30.9 ± 0.6] consumed energy-restricted diets (a 750-kcal/d deficit) with either beef and pork (BP; n = 5) or soy and legume (SL; n = 9) as the main protein sources for 3 consecutive 4-wk periods with 10% (control), 20%, or 30% of total energy from protein (random order). At baseline and the end of each period, the global sleep score (GSS) was assessed with the use of the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) questionnaire. For study 2, 44 participants (12 men and 32 women; age: 52 ± 1 y; BMI: 31.4 ± 0.5) consumed a 3-wk baseline energy-balance diet with 0.8 g protein · kg baseline body mass(-1) · d(-1). Then, study 2 subjects consumed either a normal-protein [NP (control); n = 23] or a high-protein (HP; n = 21) (0.8 compared with 1.5 g · kg(-1) · d(-1), respectively) energy-restricted diet (a 750-kcal/d deficit) for 16 wk. The PSQI was administered during baseline week 3 and intervention weeks 4, 8, 12, and 16. GSSs ranged from 0 to 21 arbitrary units (au), with a higher value representing a worse GSS during the preceding month. RESULTS:In study 1, we showed that a higher protein quantity improved GSSs independent of the protein source. The GSS was higher (P < 0.05) when 10% (6.0 ± 0.4 au) compared with 20% (5.0 ± 0.4 au) protein was consumed, with 30% protein (5.4 ± 0.6 au) intermediate. In study 2, at baseline, the GSS was not different between NP (5.2 ± 0.5 au) and HP (5.4 ± 0.5 au) groups. Over time, the GSS was unchanged for the NP group and improved for the HP group (P-group-by-time interaction < 0.05). After intervention (week 16), GSSs for NP and HP groups were 5.9 ± 0.5 and 4.0 ± 0.6 au, respectively (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION:The consumption of a greater proportion of energy from protein while dieting may improve sleep in overweight and obese adults. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT01005563 (study 1) and NCT01692860 (study 2).

SUBMITTER: Zhou J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4763499 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Higher-protein diets improve indexes of sleep in energy-restricted overweight and obese adults: results from 2 randomized controlled trials.

Zhou Jing J Kim Jung Eun JE Armstrong Cheryl Lh CL Chen Ningning N Campbell Wayne W WW

The American journal of clinical nutrition 20160210 3

<h4>Background</h4>Limited and inconsistent research findings exist about the effect of dietary protein intake on indexes of sleep.<h4>Objective</h4>We assessed the effect of protein intake during dietary energy restriction on indexes of sleep in overweight and obese adults in 2 randomized, controlled feeding studies.<h4>Design</h4>For study 1, 14 participants [3 men and 11 women; mean ± SE age: 56 ± 3 y; body mass index (BMI; in kg/m(2)): 30.9 ± 0.6] consumed energy-restricted diets (a 750-kcal ...[more]

PMID: 26864362

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundLimited evidence suggests that consuming a higher-protein diet during weight loss improves subjective indices of sleep in overweight and obese adults.ObjectiveWe sought to a priori assess the effects of consuming the recommended versus a higher protein Healthy US-Style Eating Pattern during energy-restriction on sleep quality indices.DesignUsing a randomized, parallel study design, 51 adults (mean ± SEM age: 47 ± 1 y; BMI: 32.6 ± 0.5 kg/m2) consumed a controlled USDA Healthy US-Style Eating Pattern containing 750 kcal/d less than their estimated energy requirement for 12 wk. Participants were randomly assigned to consume either 5 or 12.5 oz-equivalent (eq)/d of protein foods. The additional 7.5 oz-eq/d came from animal-based protein sources and displaced primarily grains. Objective (wrist-worn actigraphy) and subjective (Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, Epworth Sleepiness Scale) sleep quality indices were measured at baseline, week 6, and week 12.ResultsAmong all participants, body mass decreased (-6.2 ± 0.4 kg). Dietary protein intake did not affect any objective or subjective sleep quality outcomes measured (repeated measures ANOVA). Over time, objective measures of time spent in bed, time spent sleeping, sleep onset latency, and time awake after sleep onset did not change; however, sleep efficiency improved (1 ± 1%; P = 0.027). Subjectively, global sleep scores [GSS: -2.7 ± 0.4 arbitrary units (au)] and daytime sleepiness scores (-3.8 ± 0.4 au; both P < 0.001) improved over time. The GSS improvement transitioned the participants from being categorized with "poor" to "good" sleep (GSS: >5 compared with ≤5 au of a 0-21 au scale; baseline 7.6 ± 0.4 au, week 12: 4.8 ± 0.4 au).ConclusionsAlthough objective sleep quality may not improve, adults who are overweight or obese and poor sleepers may become good sleepers while consuming either the recommended or a higher-protein energy-restricted Healthy US-Style Eating Pattern. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT03174769.

Project description:Residual feed intake (RFI) is the difference between observed and predicted feed intake of an animal, based on growth and maintenance requirements. In Yorkshire pigs, divergent selection for increased (Low RFI) and decreased (High RFI) RFI was carried out over 10 generations (G) while feeding a corn- and soybean-meal-based, higher-energy, lower-fiber (HELF) diet. In G8 to G10, representing 4 replicates, barrows and gilts (n = 649) of the RFI lines were fed the HELF diet and a diet incorporating coproducts that were lower in energy and higher in dietary fiber (LEHF). The diets differed in ME, 3.32 vs. 2.87 Mcal/kg, and in neutral detergent fiber (NDF), 9.4% vs. 25.9%, respectively. The impact of the LEHF diet on 1) performance and growth, 2) diet digestibility, 3) genetic parameter estimates, and 4) responses to selection for RFI, when fed the HELF, was assessed. In general, the LEHF diet reduced the performance of both lines. When fed the HELF diet, the Low RFI pigs had lower (P < 0.05) ADFI (-12%), energy intake (-12%), ADG (-6%), and backfat depth (-12%); similar (P > 0.05) loin muscle area (LMA; +5%); and greater (P < 0.05) feed efficiency (i.e., 8% higher G:F and 7% lower RFI) than the High RFI line. These patterns of line differences were still present under the LEHF diet but differences for ADFI (-11%), energy intake (-10%), G:F (+2%), and RFI (-6%) were reduced compared to the HELF diet. Apparent total tract digestibility (ATTD) of the HELF and LEHF diets was assessed using 116 barrows and gilts from G8. When fed the HELF diet, ATTD of DM, GE, N, and NDF were similar between lines (P ≥ 0.27), but when fed the LEHF diet, the Low RFI pigs had greater digestibility (7%, 7%, 10%, and 32%) than the High RFI line (P ≤ 0.04). To measure responses to selection for RFI and estimate genetic parameters, data from all 10 generations were used (HELF; n = 2,310; LEHF, n = 317). Heritability estimates of performance traits ranged from 0.19 to 0.63, and genetic correlations of traits between diets were high and positive, ranging from 0.87 (RFI) to 0.99 (LMA). By G10, RFI in the Low RFI line was 3.86 and 1.50 genetic SD lower than in the High RFI line when fed the HELF and LEHF diets, respectively. Taken together, the results of this study demonstrate that responses to selection for RFI when fed a HELF diet are not fully realized when pigs are fed an extremely LEHF diet. Thus, feeding diets that differ from those used for selection may not maximize genetic potential for feed efficiency.

Project description:Background and aimsLow-carbohydrate diets (LCD) and low-fat diets (LFD) have shown beneficial effects on the management of obesity. Epidemiological studies were conducted to compare the effects of the two diets. However, the results were not always consistent. This study aimed to conduct a meta-analysis to compare the long-term effects of LCD and LFD on metabolic risk factors and weight loss in overweight and obese adults.MethodsWe performed a systematic literature search up to 30 March, 2022 in PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library. The meta-analysis compared the effects of LCD (carbohydrate intake ≤ 40%) with LFD (fat intake < 30%) on metabolic risk factors and weight loss for ≥6 months. Subgroup analyses were performed based on participant characteristics, dietary energy intake, and the proportions of carbohydrates.Results33 studies involving a total of 3,939 participants were included. Compared with participants on LFD, participants on LCD had a greater reduction in triglycerides (-0.14 mmol/L; 95% CI, -0.18 to -0.10 mmol/L), diastolic blood pressure (-0.87 mmHg; 95% CI, -1.41 to -0.32 mmHg), weight loss (-1.33 kg; 95% CI, -1.79 to -0.87 kg), and a greater increase in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (0.07 mmol/L; 95% CI, 0.06 to 0.09 mmol/L) in 6-23 months. However, the decrease of total cholesterol (0.14 mmol/L; 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.20 mmol/L) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (0.10 mmol/L; 95% CI, 0.06 to 0.14 mmol/L) was more conducive to LFD in 6-23 months. There was no difference in benefits between the two diets after 24 months. Subgroup analyses showed no significant difference in the reduction of total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and blood pressure between the two diets in participants with diabetes, hypertension, or hyperlipidemia.ConclusionThe results suggest that LCD and LFD may have specific effects on metabolic risk factors and weight loss in overweight and obese adults over 6 months. At 24 months, the effects on weight loss and improvement of metabolic risk factors were at least the same. These indicated that we might choose different diets to manage the overweight and obese subjects. However, the long-term clinical efficacy and effects of various sources of carbohydrates or fat in the two diets need to be studied in the future.

Project description:OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of isocaloric, energy-restricted very low-carbohydrate ketogenic (VLCK) and low-fat (LF) diets on weight loss, body composition, trunk fat mass, and resting energy expenditure (REE) in overweight/obese men and women. DESIGN: Randomized, balanced, two diet period clinical intervention study. Subjects were prescribed two energy-restricted (-500 kcal/day) diets: a VLCK diet with a goal to decrease carbohydrate levels below 10% of energy and induce ketosis and a LF diet with a goal similar to national recommendations (%carbohydrate:fat:protein = ~60:25:15%). SUBJECTS: 15 healthy, overweight/obese men (mean +/- s.e.m.: age 33.2 +/- 2.9 y, body mass 109.1 +/- 4.6 kg, body mass index 34.1 +/- 1.1 kg/m2) and 13 premenopausal women (age 34.0 +/- 2.4 y, body mass 76.3 +/- 3.6 kg, body mass index 29.6 +/- 1.1 kg/m2). MEASUREMENTS: Weight loss, body composition, trunk fat (by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry), and resting energy expenditure (REE) were determined at baseline and after each diet intervention. Data were analyzed for between group differences considering the first diet phase only and within group differences considering the response to both diets within each person. RESULTS: Actual nutrient intakes from food records during the VLCK (%carbohydrate:fat:protein = ~9:63:28%) and the LF (~58:22:20%) were significantly different. Dietary energy was restricted, but was slightly higher during the VLCK (1855 kcal/day) compared to the LF (1562 kcal/day) diet for men. Both between and within group comparisons revealed a distinct advantage of a VLCK over a LF diet for weight loss, total fat loss, and trunk fat loss for men (despite significantly greater energy intake). The majority of women also responded more favorably to the VLCK diet, especially in terms of trunk fat loss. The greater reduction in trunk fat was not merely due to the greater total fat loss, because the ratio of trunk fat/total fat was also significantly reduced during the VLCK diet in men and women. Absolute REE (kcal/day) was decreased with both diets as expected, but REE expressed relative to body mass (kcal/kg), was better maintained on the VLCK diet for men only. Individual responses clearly show the majority of men and women experience greater weight and fat loss on a VLCK than a LF diet. CONCLUSION: This study shows a clear benefit of a VLCK over LF diet for short-term body weight and fat loss, especially in men. A preferential loss of fat in the trunk region with a VLCK diet is novel and potentially clinically significant but requires further validation. These data provide additional support for the concept of metabolic advantage with diets representing extremes in macronutrient distribution.

Project description:Emerging evidence suggests a positive association of diet and obesity with depression. Researchers have examined several diet-mood hypotheses, including investigating the extent to which carbohydrates may impact mood. There is limited research on how glycemic load, a characteristic of carbohydrates, impacts mood in healthy adults. Eighty-two healthy weight and overweight/obese, but otherwise healthy, adults enrolled in a randomized, crossover controlled feeding study testing low-compared to high-glycemic load diets. All participants completed self-report mood and energy level questionnaires during each arm of the intervention. Diets were isocaloric and were matched by macronutrient content as a percent of total energy. Mood was assessed with the Profile of Mood States (POMS) subscales; tension-anxiety, depression-dejection, anger-hostility, vigor-activity, fatigue-inertia, and confusion-bewilderment, total mood disturbance (TMD), and negative affect (NA) in addition to the Center for Epidemiological Studies - Depression (CES-D) scale at baseline and end of both 28-day feeding periods. Linear mixed models tested the intervention effect on mood, controlling for baseline POMS and CES-D scores, diet type, diet sequence, feeding period, sex, and percent body fat classification. The consumption of the high-glycemic load diet resulted in a 38% higher score for depressive symptoms on the CES-D (P = 0.002) compared to the low-glycemic load diet as well as 55% higher score for TMD (P = 0.05), and 26% higher score for fatigue/inertia (P = 0.04). In subgroup analyses, the overweight/obese participants had 40% higher scores on the CES-D scale compared to healthy weight participants (P = 0.05). In conclusion, a high-glycemic load diet was associated with higher depression symptoms, total mood disturbance, and fatigue compared to a low-glycemic load diet especially in overweight/obese, but otherwise healthy, adults. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00622661.

Dataset Information

Higher-protein diets improve indexes of sleep in energy-restricted overweight and obese adults: results from 2 randomized controlled trials.

Publications

Higher-protein diets improve indexes of sleep in energy-restricted overweight and obese adults: results from 2 randomized controlled trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets