• Hi, I'm the owner and main administrator of Styleforum. If you find the forum useful and fun, please help support it by buying through the posted links on the forum. Our main, very popular sales thread, where the latest and best sales are listed, are posted HERE

    Purchases made through some of our links earn a commission for the forum and allow us to do the work of maintaining and improving it. Finally, thanks for being a part of this community. We realize that there are many choices today on the internet, and we have all of you to thank for making Styleforum the foremost destination for discussions of menswear and fashion.
  • STYLE. COMMUNITY. GREAT CLOTHING.

    Bored of counting likes on social networks? At Styleforum, you’ll find rousing discussions that go beyond strings of emojis.

    Click Here to join Styleforum's thousands of style enthusiasts today!

High Protein diets help with weight loss

Eason

Bicurious Racist
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
14,674
Reaction score
1,908
In January's American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, there was a study on the long-term effects of a high-protein diet.

According to the 64 week study, the researchers found that there was a direct relationship between weight loss and protein intake. The more protein people ate, the more weight they lost.

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/87/1/23?etoc

Chalk another point up for protein.
 

hahnb

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2008
Messages
93
Reaction score
0
Originally Posted by Eason
In January's American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, there was a study on the long-term effects of a high-protein diet.

According to the 64 week study, the researchers found that there was a direct relationship between weight loss and protein intake. The more protein people ate, the more weight they lost.

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/87/1/23?etoc

Chalk another point up for protein.


Kind of a redundant study, no? It's common knowledge that weight loss/gain is about calories in vs. calories out. It's as simple as that. If I ate 6000 calories a day consisting of primarily protein products, I'm going to gain weight, not lose it-so there is zero correlation between the two factors. The only possible correlation would be between calories ate and weight lost.

It really makes me wonder why people even do studies like this.
 

Eason

Bicurious Racist
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
14,674
Reaction score
1,908
The diets were of equal caloric values, the difference was simply one had 34% of the intake in protein (high protein) and the other had 64% in carbohydrate sources.
 

Deluks917

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
952
Reaction score
7
Protein in quantity also seriously reduces loses in lean body mass even in very low cal diets.
 

rxcats

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2007
Messages
618
Reaction score
195
Originally Posted by hahnb
Kind of a redundant study, no? It's common knowledge that weight loss/gain is about calories in vs. calories out. It's as simple as that. If I ate 6000 calories a day consisting of primarily protein products, I'm going to gain weight, not lose it-so there is zero correlation between the two factors. The only possible correlation would be between calories ate and weight lost.

It really makes me wonder why people even do studies like this.


Quickly looking at the abstract, I didn't see calories mentioned. Eating a high protein diet likely has an anorexiant effect thereby reducing caloric intake; you are less hungry, so you eat less. I personally eat a higher protein/lower carbohydrate diet which has enabled me to loose weight and maintain it for several years now. To all of my overweight friends who like to throw off on it, I say, "whatever works for you", and leave it at that.
 

hahnb

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2008
Messages
93
Reaction score
0
Originally Posted by Eason
The diets were of equal caloric values, the difference was simply one had 34% of the intake in protein (high protein) and the other had 64% in carbohydrate sources.

Physical activity during the day can make a difference of being above or below your maintenance amount of calories. Unless these people lived in a lab during the entire course of the study, it still doesn't have much relevance because they may have had different levels of activity during the day.

The reason people lose weight on "low carb" diets is because by not being able to eat carbs, you eliminate 75% of all food you can eat-hence you eat less, you lose weight. Carbs have very little to do with it. Carb cycling is a more effect way to implement a "carb" diet-and usually only fitness athletes, not the average joe, use carb cycling.

This study is sort of the equivalent of the movie "Supersize Me". It's amazing that people believe this guy gained weight because he ate fast food. He gained weight because he over-ate, plain and simple. He was eating right around 6k calories per day. He could have eaten 6k calories of tuna and he would have put on just as much weight.
 

smw356

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2006
Messages
488
Reaction score
0
Originally Posted by hahnb
The reason people lose weight on "low carb" diets is because by not being able to eat carbs, you eliminate 75% of all food you can eat-hence you eat less, you lose weight. Carbs have very little to do with it. Carb cycling is a more effect way to implement a "carb" diet-and usually only fitness athletes, not the average joe, use carb cycling.


You use your point to disprove itself here. FYI.
 

Viktri

Distinguished Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2007
Messages
1,131
Reaction score
5
Originally Posted by hahnb
Kind of a redundant study, no? It's common knowledge that weight loss/gain is about calories in vs. calories out. It's as simple as that. If I ate 6000 calories a day consisting of primarily protein products, I'm going to gain weight, not lose it-so there is zero correlation between the two factors. The only possible correlation would be between calories ate and weight lost.

It really makes me wonder why people even do studies like this.


It is far from redundant!

Check out this thread:
http://www.styleforum.net/showthread.php?t=56458&page=4

Compare these responses:


Study does not support this:
Originally Posted by why
It has everything to do with it. Diet-induced thermogenesis is the number of calories required to metabolize macronutrients. If 100 calories of protein are consumed, 20-30% of those calories from the 100 consumed are used to metabolize the protein, leaving 70-80% storable as fat.

No, I'm not in college. I'm a bum on the street corner.



Study does support this:
Originally Posted by ken
Right, the number of calories required to use the macronutrients. Fortunately, protein is used for other things in the body (like building muscle) so the difference isn't all stored as fat.

(100 calories of protein) - (25 calories lost to DIT) - (x calories used to repair muscle) - (x calories excreted as waste) - (x calories of whatever else happens to protein in the body) = (calories left to store as fat)



Simply put, many people believe calories in < calories expended = weight loss, regardless of the calorie. However, this is not true.

Protein is used for many parts of the body and as such will be consumed by the body so the body has less calories to use for energy and burns more fat (energy reserves).
 

James Bond

Distinguished Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,089
Reaction score
1
Originally Posted by hahnb
Kind of a redundant study, no? It's common knowledge that weight loss/gain is about calories in vs. calories out. It's as simple as that. If I ate 6000 calories a day consisting of primarily protein products, I'm going to gain weight, not lose it-so there is zero correlation between the two factors. The only possible correlation would be between calories ate and weight lost.

It really makes me wonder why people even do studies like this.


A calorie is not a calorie.
 

smw356

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2006
Messages
488
Reaction score
0
Originally Posted by Viktri
It is far from redundant!

Check out this thread:
http://www.styleforum.net/showthread.php?t=56458&page=4

Compare these responses:


Study does not support this:



Study does support this:



Simply put, many people believe calories in < calories expended = weight loss, regardless of the calorie. However, this is not true.

Protein is used for many parts of the body and as such will be consumed by the body so the body has less calories to use for energy and burns more fat (energy reserves).


actually it supports both of those
 

whacked

Distinguished Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2006
Messages
7,364
Reaction score
6
Originally Posted by smw356
actually it supports both of those

Yeah it does. why's selections of words just isn't very clear.
 

redgrail

Distinguished Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2007
Messages
1,323
Reaction score
0
It's been pretty well established for a while now that since the agricultural revolution, when we switched to cereal crops with a low micronutrient to calorie ratio for a majority of our caloric needs, we experienced relative abundance in cereal crops and have become more likely to be undernourished and more likely to be obese.
Add to that the thermic effect of feeding, and it's not hard to see why diets high in lean protein are conducive to weight loss. No-carb diets are probably not so healthful, but for other reasons (the high fat intake associated).
Study basically confirms what's been commonly known for a while, doesn't it?
 

hahnb

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2008
Messages
93
Reaction score
0
I really don't understand what the confusion is about. The study touches on a subject that has already been figured out for the last hundred years. The amount of calories determine if you're going to gain or lose weight. I have friends who compete and have dropped to 5% bf for competitions and have never used low-carb diets.

Get 1.5-2g of protein per lb that you weigh, and fill the rest up with whatever you like up to your desired amount of calories. Make sure to include EFAs good fats etc...

It isn't rocket science. We don't need a study to tell us how to lose weight. People over-complicate things to the point that it's ridiculous.
 

whacked

Distinguished Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2006
Messages
7,364
Reaction score
6

Eason

Bicurious Racist
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
14,674
Reaction score
1,908
Seriously. We don't need to do scientifically controlled studies because we know everything already!
 

Styleforum is proudly sponsored by

Featured Sponsor

What Is The Best Value Shoe Brand For Money?

  • Meermin

    Votes: 40 15.2%
  • TLB Mallorca

    Votes: 42 16.0%
  • Cheaney

    Votes: 10 3.8%
  • Carmina

    Votes: 42 16.0%
  • Crockett & Jones

    Votes: 49 18.6%
  • Other

    Votes: 80 30.4%

Related Threads

Forum statistics

Threads
457,371
Messages
9,914,999
Members
206,661
Latest member
likemao
Top