Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T11:10:55.629Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of meal frequency and protein concentration on the composition of the weight lost by obese subjects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

J. S. Garrow ,
Merril Durrant ,
Sandra Blaza ,
Deborah Wilkins ,
P. Royston  and
Shirley Sunkin
J. S. Garrow
Affiliation:
MRC Clinical Research Centre, Watford Road, Harrow, Middlesex HA1 3UJ
Merril Durrant
Affiliation:
MRC Clinical Research Centre, Watford Road, Harrow, Middlesex HA1 3UJ
Sandra Blaza
Affiliation:
MRC Clinical Research Centre, Watford Road, Harrow, Middlesex HA1 3UJ
Deborah Wilkins
Affiliation:
MRC Clinical Research Centre, Watford Road, Harrow, Middlesex HA1 3UJ
P. Royston
Affiliation:
MRC Clinical Research Centre, Watford Road, Harrow, Middlesex HA1 3UJ
Shirley Sunkin
Affiliation:
MRC Clinical Research Centre, Watford Road, Harrow, Middlesex HA1 3UJ
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

1. Nitrogen balance, weight loss and resting metabolic rate were measured in thirty-eight obese inpatients on 3.4 MJ (800 kcal)/d diets over 3 weeks.

2. All subjects were fed on 13% protein-energy in three rneals/d for the first week.

3. In weeks 2 or 3, using a cross-over design, ten subjects were fed on 15 or 10% protein-energy as three meals/d; fourteen subjects were fed on five or one meal/d with 13%protein energy; and fourteen subjects were fed on 15% protein-energy as five meals/d or 10% protein-energy as one meal/d.

4. N loss was least on the high-protein week and frequent-meal week: the largest difference was found when these effects were combined (P < 0.001).

5. When protein-energy was held constant at 13% N loss decreased significantly (P < 0.01) between week 2 and 3, but when the protein-energy was manipulated there was no significant N conservation in the third week. This suggests that the protein:energy value is more important than meal frequency in the preservation of lean tissue.

6. Weight loss was also least on the ‘high-protein’ week and ‘frequent-meal’ week, but this result reached significance only when the effects were combined (P < 0.05).

7. Resting metabolic rate decreased with time but was not significantly altered by the dietary regimens.

8. Therefore, during the first 3 weeks at an intake of 3.4 MJ/d, a diet with a high-protein concentration, fed as frequent small meals, is associated with better preservation of lean tissue than an isoenergetic diet with lower-protein concentration fed as fewer meals. There was no evidence that meal frequency or protein concentration affect the rate of fat loss.

Type
Papers of direct relevance to Clinical and Human Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 45 , Issue 1 , January 1981 , pp. 5 - 15
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1981

References

Benedict, F. G., Miles, W. R., Roth, P., & Smith, H. M. (1919). Carnegie Inst. Washington, Publ. No. 280.Google Scholar
Bortz, W. M., Wroldsen, A., Issekutz, B. & Rodahl, K. (1966). New Eng. J. Med. 274, 376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calloway, D. H. & Spector, H. (1954). Am. J. clin. Nutr. 2, 405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohn, C., Joseph, D., Bell, L. & Oler, A. (1963). Am. J. Physiol. 205, 71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Debry, G., Rohr, R., Azouaou, R., Vassilitch, I. & Mottaz, G. (1973). In Energy Balance in Man, p. 305 [Apfelbaum, M., editor]. Paris: Masson.Google Scholar
deHaven, J., Sherwin, R., Hendler, R., & Felig, P. (1980). New Eng. J. Med. 302, 477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durrant, M. L., Garrow, J. S., Royston, P., Stalley, S. F., Sunkin, S. & Warwick, P. M. (1980). Br. J. Nutr. 44, 275.Google Scholar
Durrant, M. L., Stalley, S. F., Warwick, P. M. & Garrow, J. S. (1978). Clin. Sci. 54, 4PCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fabry, P. (1976). In Energy Balunce in Man, p. 297 [Apfelbaum, M., editor]. Paris: Masson.Google Scholar
Fabry, P., Fodor, J., Hejl, Z., Braun, T. & Zvolankova, K. (1964). Lancet ii, 614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finkelstein, B. & Fryer, B. A. (1971). Am. J. clin. Nutr. 24, 465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrow, J. S., Durrant, M. L., Mann, S., Stalley, S. F. & Warwick, P. (1978). Int. J. Obesity 2, 441.Google Scholar
Garrow, J. S. & Hawes, S. F. (1972). Br. J. Nutr. 27, 211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrow, J. S., Stalley, S., Diethelm, R., Pittet, Ph., Hesp, R. & Halliday, D. (1979). Br. J. Nutr. 42, 173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, D., Hesp, R., Stalley, S. F., Warwick, P., Altman, D. G. & Garrow, J. S. (1979). Int. J. Obesity, 3, 1.Google Scholar
Hills, M. & Armitage, P. (1979). Br. J. Pharmac. 8, 7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Irwin, M. I. & Feeley, R. M. (1967). Am. J. clin. Nutr. 20, 816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahler, R. (1972). Acta diabet. latina 9, 449suppl. 1.Google Scholar
Metzner, H. L., Lamphiear, D. E., Wheeler, N. C. & Larkin, F. A. (1977). Am. J. clin. Nutr. 30, 712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romsos, D. R., Belo, P. S., Bergen, W. G. & Leveille, G. A. (1978). J. Nutr. 108, 238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romsos, D. R., Miller, E. R. & Leveille, G. A. (1978). Proc. Soc. Exptl Biol. Med. 157, 528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seaton, D. A. & Duncan, L. J. P. (1964). Lancet ii, 612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swindells, Y. E., Holmes, S. A. & Robinson, M. F. (1968). Br. J. Nutr. 22, 667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, C. M., Scanlan, S. S., Topping, C. M., Simko, V. & Lutwak, L. (1971). J. Am. Diet. Ass. 59, 466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar