T Nation

Good News For Protein!


If you have not yet restocked your supply of Grow! Now might be the time to do it!

Seems protein is making more news and it's looking good:

High Protein Weight Loss Diet Has Metabolic Benefits
Posted on: 06/22/2005

ADELAIDE, Australia--An energy-restricted, high-protein, low-fat diet appears to provide greater nutritional and metabolic benefits to overweight women than those observed with a high-carbohydrate diet, according to a study in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (81, 6:1298-1306, 2005).

One hundred overweight women (body mass index of 28 to 38) were assigned to one of two dietary interventions--high protein or high carb--for 12 weeks in a parallel design. Weight loss was similar in both groups, as were low-density lipoprotein (LDL) and high-density lipoprotein (HDL) decreases.

In addition, bone turnover markers increased in both groups, and calcium excretion decreased. However, women on the high protein diet lost more fat mass, saw a greater decline in triacylglycerol concentrations and had significant increases in serum B12 levels.


Protein = good. lowfat not good.


Slow down, as you've pointed out before....another study is gonna come out soon contradicting this, yawn.

lol....see how annoying that response to scientific information is?

Good info, thank you.


I was just giving a talk on the "other" benefits of dietary protein (as in other than tissue building blocks) and my co-presenter (another well-known T-Nation person) was showing similar data on improved markers of bone health.

These data are pulling the rug out from under those who, for years, have pointed to increased urinary Ca++ losses as synonymous with bone loss and thus a reason to avoid protein.


You completely miss the point about my skepticism regarding various studies.

When a study comes out which supports the true nature of things (and looks like it makes sense relative to the methodology which was undertaken) I support it. Natural food as opposed to man made etc.

For example the protein study simply reaffirms that man was meant to eat protein, as in animals, fish, fowl etc. (we who like to add even more muscle throw in Grow! protein for it's taste, quality and convenience). There is no surprise here, man was meant to eat protein...

When a study appears which seems to defy nature then I "yawn" ignore it and go back to work.

Most of the nut job studies are done regarding training strategy. Someone takes 12 skinny pimple faced College kids makes them do leg extensions and then claims the ones who did the most were consuming "Hypojuice" or some other brand new product that is supposed to grow muscles on a eunuch.

This is usually done to sell a product or method of training. There is usually, (not always) an agenda. Sometimes the study is done with no agenda and was simply done inapropriately.

Don't you remember all of the studies done on "Vanadyl Sulfate," "Chromium," etc.?

When I see these things, I call bull crap!


Exactly, in the case of protein the nut balls were on the other side for years telling us that protein will kill you.

I knew they were wrong and this study backs me up!


Doesnt really show high protein is great... having talked to hte lead investigator, the level of protein in this piece of research is rather low...~100g per day on a 1300kcal diet...

and to the person who said

"Protein = good. lowfat not good. "

the diet was 21% fat, ie low fat.



I should also add


"One hundred women with a mean (SD) body mass index (in kg/m2) of 326 and age of 499 y completed the study. Weight loss was 7.3 0.3 kg with both diets. Subjects with high serum triacylglycerol (1.5 mmol/L) lost more fat mass with the HP than with theHCdiet (x SEM: 6.40.7 and 3.40.7 kg, respectively;P 0.035)"

what it says is there was no significant difference in fat loss between high and lower protein diets, until you seperated them into high and low plasma TAG's...



By all accounts, you are approximately 142 years old, but it is amazing how closely aligned the majority of our attitudes on training and nutrition are.



Hmm. I don't think 21% is so low. But I think it's a decent level. I personally like to keep it closer to 25%. Sometimes near 30%.


low fat is <30% calories from fat


Yeah in this case "low" isn't a subjective term, it actually has a definition. Like "obese" has an actual definition, etc.


That's because great minds think alike :slight_smile: