Printer Friendly

Obesity and type 2 diabetes mellitus.


* Dietary protein is more satiating than carbohydrate or fat and has been shown to reduce food intake after controlled liquid preloads and meals.

* High-protein, low-energy weight-loss diets may assist compliance by increasing satiety up to three hours after a meal and providing a lower dietary variety, which has been shown to be associated with lower food intake.

* High-protein diets in ad libitum studies show greater weight loss than high-carbohydrate ad libitum diets.

* Isocaloric high-protein and high-carbohydrate diets in energy restriction achieve similar weight loss, but diets with a higher protein-carbohydrate ratio achieve greater loss of fat to lean tissue.

* High-protein low-carbohydrate diets lower triglycerides and glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) more than high-carbohydrate diets.

* High-protein, low-energy weight-loss diets are more nutrient dense than normal-protein, high-carbohydrate weight-loss diets, which may not meet the recommended dietary intake, particularly for calcium, but also iron and zinc for some groups.

* Current recommendations for protein intakes may be lower than optimal for weight management to optimise satiety, body composition and micronutrient nutrition.


To what extent does the composition of the food we eat influence how much of it we eat on an occasion, or to what extent it satisfies us sufficiently to delay the next eating occasion? These are two separate attributes--the former being termed 'satiation' and the latter 'satiety'. Much of the research that has been conducted on food composition has generally focused on 'satiety'--subjectively defined as the feeling of fullness or satisfaction that follows eating. It is generally measured by questionnaire using a visual analogue scale after a food has been consumed. In addition, some studies combine this approach with exposure of the participants to a buffet meal and measure food consumed, which represents a more objective measure of satiety. Satiety appears to be influenced by a wide variety of factors, including macronutrient profile, palatability, food mass, energy density, fibre and glycaemic index (GI). When using real foods, it is almost impossible to control for all of these influences at the same time, and if these factors are controlled, the relevance to real-life foods and diets can be questionable. In addition, the context in which the food is eaten can have a considerable effect on how much food is consumed, which may override perceived satiety. Therefore, an assortment of methodologies is important to understand how different food and diet attributes affect satiety but also food intake and, ultimately, energy balance. This paper reviews studies undertaken to demonstrate the effect of high-protein meals and diets on satiety, weight loss and diabetes management.


Several studies have compared satiety after high-protein or high-carbohydrate or high-fat meals. Typically, these studies compare satiety after different test meals in the same individual in a crossover design. In some studies, the amount of food consumed at a buffet, usually three hours after the test meal, is also assessed. In a recent review of such studies, high-protein meals were more satisfying, with 11 of the 14 studies that compared high protein with at least one other macronutrient finding the protein preload significantly increased subjective ratings of satiety. (1) Few of these studies were able to control for potentially confounding variables. However, the test meals differed widely in physical and sensory properties, so it cannot be concluded that it was the protein conferring these effects. Latner designed a study so that the sensory properties of the meals were exactly the same. (2) In 12 lean female students, 31% more calories were eaten at a subsequent dinner after a high-carbohydrate liquid lunch (450 kcal, 99% carbohydrate from polycose) than high-protein liquid (71% protein) meal or a 50%-protein, 50%-carbohydrate lunch. The protein was a dried powder mix derived from whey.

When protein is provided as a 50-g dose in the form of a beverage and compared with an isocaloric, isovolumetric and palatability-matched carbohydrate beverage, protein has also been shown to be more satiating than glucose. Bowen et al. compared liquid preloads (1.1 MJ, 450 mL) containing 50-g whey, soy, gluten or glucose. (3) Energy intake at the buffet three hours after the preload was 10% lower for all protein preloads compared with the glucose treatment (P < 0.05). Different protein sources behaved similarly. The present study also demonstrated that the effect of protein on satiety appears independent of body mass index (BMI) status, which is an important finding as almost all previous studies had been conducted in lean individuals.


Fryer et al. (4) found that feelings of hunger were lowest on a high-protein diet for 12 male students with nine-week dietary periods. Several additional weight-loss studies designed to examine the metabolic effects of high-protein energy-restricted diets compared with high-carbohydrate or high-fat energy-matched structured diets have not shown differences in kilojoule intake and weight loss despite expected satiety differences. (5-8) Such studies do not allow the effects of increased satiety attributable to protein to be expressed, as the dietary protocols have required all foods to be consumed. Skov et al., (9) comparing an ad libitum high-protein diet with a high-carbohydrate diet, found that enhanced satiety was the most important factor in the weight loss. In these studies protein was substituted for carbohydrate, so it may have been the reduced carbohydrate, rather than the increased protein, that was important. However, controlled studies comparing single macronutrients would suggest that the high-protein component is an important factor. (3) Luscombe-Marsh et al. (10) studied insulin-resistant subjects and showed that if carbohydrate is held constant, a diet with 34% energy as protein was more satiating than a high-fat, 18%-protein diet. As the study diets were controlled to be isocaloric, there were no expected differences in energy balance, suggesting that the satiety effects was not sufficiently strong to override food intake. Weigle et al. (11) measured hunger and fullness in subjects with mean BMI of 26 kg/[m.sup.2] on a high-protein (30% energy) and lower-protein (15% energy) diet with carbohydrate constant at 50% energy for two weeks each. Satiety was increased with the isocaloric high-protein diet, which, when allowed to be consumed ad libitum for 12 weeks, was associated with an energy reduction of 441 [+ or -] 63 kcal/day Body weight decreased by 4.9 [+ or -] 0.5 kg, and fat mass decreased by 3.7 [+ or -] 0.4 kg. The authors suggested that the 'anorexic' effect of protein may relate to the superior weight loss noted on low-carbohydrate diets. However, whether the normal-protein diet eaten ad libitum would have resulted in similar changes was not tested in the present study design.

McMillan-Price et al. (12) compared two high-carbohydrate and two high-protein diets consumed ad libitum for 12 weeks with high and low GI comparisons. While all groups lost a similar mean [+ or -] SE percentage of weight (diet 1, -4.2% [+ or -] 0.6%; diet 2, -5.5% [+ or -] 0.5%; diet 3, -6.2% [+ or -] 0.4%; and diet 4, -4.8% [+ or -] 0.7%; P = 0.09), the proportion of subjects in each group who lost 5% or more of body weight varied significantly by diet (diet 1, 31%; diet 2, 56%; diet 3, 66%; and diet 4, 33%; P = 0.01), suggesting that protein alone in unstructured ad libitum diets may not have clear-cut benefits and that other dietary components may be important. On the other hand, high-protein diets, where carbohydrate is more severely restricted as in the Atkins diet, have been shown to be more effective in weight loss after one year. (13) This observation may be due to the protein-carbohydrate ratio or a consequence of the restricted range of foods allowed on such a pattern, as well as the simplicity of the approach.

Studies using structured meal plans to achieve isocaloric diets (5,6,8,14,15) appear to achieve an almost twofold greater weight loss in the short and longer term compared with ad libitum approaches. (9,12) However, this has not formally been tested in a randomised controlled trial. Studies of those who report long-term success in weight loss show that following a consistent eating pattern is a common characteristic. (16)


Despite no expected weight-loss differences, when high-protein diets are compared isocalorically with high-carbohydrate diets, changes in body composition have been noted. Controlled studies by Piatti et al. (17) and Baba et al. (18) found favourable effects of an isocaloric high-protein relative to high-carbohydrate energy-restricted diet on resting energy expenditure, lean body mass and insulin sensitivity. Both studies were small but well controlled, involving a total of 13-25 participants, and the intervention was of short duration of 3-4 weeks.

Several longer-term studies have noted improvements in body composition despite similar weight losses over a 12-week period. (5,6,8,14,15) An interaction between protein and exercise was noted by Layman et al. (15) in a study involving 48 women over four months. The investigators found that the high-protein diet (1.6 g protein/kg/day approximating 30% energy) and the high-protein diet plus exercise group lost more fat mass than the corresponding high-carbohydrate (0.8 g protein/kg/day) groups. Muscle mass was preserved by exercise in both the high-protein and high-carbohydrate diets.

A meta-regression by Krieger et al. (19) observed that protein intakes of >1.05 g/kg body weight were associated with 0.60-kg additional fat-free mass retention compared with diets with protein intakes [less than or equal to]1.05 g/kg. In studies conducted for >12 weeks, this difference increased to 1.21 kg in lean mass retention favouring high-protein over high-carbohydrate energy-restricted diets.


Weight loss using an ad libitum higher-protein compared with a high-carbohydrate diet has been assessed after six months (9) but also after one year. (20) The 50 participants selected foods that were designated either high protein or high carbohydrate from a special research supermarket. Those people allocated to the high-protein foods felt less hungry and lost more weight than those allocated to the high-carbohydrate diet, with a difference in weight loss between groups of 3.8 kg (and fat of 3.3 kg) at six months. More subjects lost >10 kg in the protein group (35%) than in the carbohydrate group (9%). After one year, 17% of participants in the high-protein group lost >10 kg, but 0% achieved this on high carbohydrate (P < 0.09). After two years, both groups tended to maintain their 12-month weight loss, but more than 50% were lost to follow up. (20)

McAuley et al. (21) enrolled 96 women who had normal fasting glucose levels but were insulin-resistant (BMI > 27 kg/[m.sup.2]), and randomised them to one of three dietary interventions: either a high-carbohydrate, high-fibre (HC) diet, a high-protein high-fat (HF) Atkins Diet, or a high-protein Zone Diet. No guidance was given in relation to energy intake. At 12 months, 76 of the original 96 participants were seen again. There were no differences between the groups in weight, fat or muscle mass loss. More women in the high-protein and HF groups lost more than 10% of their initial body weight at 12 months, compared with the HC group (36% and 25% vs 4%; P < 0.03)

A third long-term ad libitum study by Gardner et al. (13) compared four different diets, including the Atkins high-protein high-fat diet and the Zone high-protein diet, in 311 free-living, overweight/obese (BMI 27-40 kg/[m.sup.2]), non-diabetic, premenopausal women over 12 months. Weight loss was greater for women in the high-protein high-fat group compared with the other diet groups at 12 months, and average 12-month weight was significantly different between the Atkins and Zone diets. Mean 12-month weight loss was -4.7 kg in those with Atkins diets and -1.6 kg in those with Zone diets. Part of the reason for the relative failure of the Zone diet may have been its complexity in ensuring the correct macronutrient proportion at each meal.

A similar study of 160 men and women (22) comparing four commercial diets (Atkins, Ornish, Weight Watchers and Zone) showed no differences at 12 months between diets. There was a high dropout rate from all diets of about 50% overall, with a greater dropout from the Atkins diet.

Keogh et al. (23) followed up participants 12 months after a study involving 12-week structured diets, which were either high protein or high monounsaturated fat. Overall, weight loss was 6.2 kg (SD 7.3; P < 0.01 for time with no significant diet effect) In a multivariate regression model, predictors of weight loss at the end of the study were reported: percentage energy from protein, gender and age ([R.sup.2] = 0.22, P < 0.05). Brinkworth et al. (24,25) followed up participants randomised to a 12-week program on a high-protein or high-carbohydrate dietary pattern after one year. Although there was a net weight loss, there were no significant differences between groups. It was also noted that without ongoing support, dietary compliance did not persist.


Parker et al. (8) showed that women with type 2 diabetes lost significantly more total fat (5.3 vs 2.8 kg) and abdominal fat (1.3 vs 0.7 kg) on the high-protein compared with high-carbohydrate diet. However, men in the present study showed no difference in fat loss between diets (3.9 vs 5.1 kg). Farnsworth et al. (6) showed that in hyperinsulinemic women, total lean mass was significantly better preserved with the high-protein (-0.1 [+ or -] 0.3 kg) than with the high-carbohydrate diet (-1.5 [+ or -] 0.3 kg). The fall in resting energy expenditure was not blunted in either study with a high-protein diet. (7,26)

To assess whether the metabolic effects observed were related to the presence of protein or the absence of carbohydrate, Luscombe-Marsh et al. (10) compared two moderately low-carbohydrate diets high in either protein or monounsaturated fat in hyperinsulinaemic individuals. Equivalent fat and lean loss was observed at three months, suggesting that carbohydrate restriction per se may play a role in the benefits noted above.

A higher-protein lower-carbohydrate diet may also be beneficial for people with features of the metabolic syndrome. (5) In a group of overweight and obese women (n = 100), those with high triglycerides (>1.5 mmol/L) lost more fat mass on the high-protein than with the high-carbohydrate diet (6.4 and 3.4 kg, respectively; P = 0.035). When the results of three studies in overweight non-diabetic subjects were combined (n = 215), subjects with triglycerides >1.7 mmol/L lost more total fat (high-protein diet 6.17 [+ or -] 0.50 kg compared with high-carbohydrate diet 4.52 [+ or -] 0.52 kg) and abdominal fat (diet 1.92 [+ or -] 0.17 kg compared with high-carbohydrate diet 1.23 [+ or -] 0.19 kg) when on a high-protein diet.

Gannon and Nuttall have comprehensively assessed high-protein lower-carbohydrate diets in energy balance in type 2 diabetes with substantial improvements in HbA1c and diurnal glucose profiles without weight loss. (27-31) These studies demonstrate that the lower the carbohydrate content of the high-protein diets, the lower the HbA1c with reductions suggested to be comparable to that achieved with oral hypoglycaemic medications. (32)



Isocaloric studies that have controlled for saturated fat generally observe similar reductions in LDL cholesterol on high-protein or high-carbohydrate diets. (5,6,14)

In a controlled study by Parker et al. in type 2 diabetes, (8) LDL-cholesterol reduction was significantly greater on the high-protein diet (5.7%) than on the low-protein diet (2.7%) despite a similar saturated fat composition of the diets, which is inconsistent with other studies. The opposite inconsistent finding was noted by McMillan-Price et al. in an ad libitum study where LDL cholesterol increased on a high-protein high-GI diet. (12)

A greater triglyceride lowering is usually observed on high-protein, lower-carbohydrate dietary patterns in both controlled (6,14) and ad libitum studies. (9,13) This is especially so in those individuals with a high baseline triglyceride level. (5,6)

Blood pressure

In studies of weight-stable individuals, Hodgson et al. (33) have demonstrated that an increase in protein of about 5% of energy in exchange for carbohydrate lowers blood pressure by about 5 mmHg in hypertensive people, but in most weight-loss studies, higher-protein diets have not been more effective in blood pressure reduction. Brinkworth et al. (24) observed that, after one year follow up of participants with type 2 diabetes on a high-protein or high-carbohydrate weight-loss diet, net blood pressure reduction was greater in the high-protein group.


It has been suggested that high-protein diets may lower bone density or exacerbate renal dysfunction in those people with some degree of renal impairment, but there are limited epidemiological data in support of the latter. (34) Fracture rates are actually reduced by high-protein diets. (35) However, there is a major gap in knowledge on the long-term effects of high-protein diets (i.e. one to two years) in people with type 2 diabetes, especially in people with microalbuminuria and renal disease.


The 50th percentile of protein intakes from the National Nutrition Survey (1995) reports protein intakes in Australia at 96-115 g in men and 70-74 g in women, depending on age. (36) Protein sources in the Australian diet comprise meat poultry and fish 33% and dairy 16%, with at least 25% from non-animal sources, such as cereal and cereal-based foods. (36)

Clearly, based on the estimated average requirement or recommended dietary intake (RDI) for protein as defined in the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Nutrient Reference Values (37) (Table 1), current intakes are in excess of reported requirements for growth and maintenance on a fat-free mass basis. They are not derived for energy-restricted states when protein needs may differ, nor do these figures consider optimum protein needs to increase lean mass and optimise fat loss. (38) The recommendations also describe requirements for 'good quality' protein and assume energy balance. Given that 25% of protein consumed is not necessarily 'good quality protein', the apparent surplus protein consumed is likely somewhat lower.

Dietary protein recommendations may also be expressed as a percentage of energy intake, and the acceptable macro-nutrient distribution range for protein is 15-25% of energy. Due to the absolute need for protein, lower energy intakes such as required for weight management, necessitate protein intakes at the higher end of the range. Fifteen per cent of energy from protein at lower kilojoule intakes does not meet the current RDI for protein for some age/gender groups. If, as has been suggested, current protein recommendations are too low for physical and metabolic health, (39) then the protein RDI stated in the table may not be optimal (see Box 1).

Protein foods are also sources of several micronutrients. In omnivorous Western diets, obtaining the RDI for calcium, iron and zinc from wholefoods necessitates protein intakes in excess of current RDIs to achieve optimal nutrient intakes. For example, if one calculates protein for three serves of dairy foods needed to meet calcium needs, three slices bread, one serve cereal plus 100 g meat, fish or chicken to provide iron and zinc, this totals 68 g protein, which is in excess of the RDI for protein for most individuals. To provide adequate nutrient intakes in low-energy diets necessitates selection of foods that are naturally nutrient rich (NNR) for the kilojoules they provide. The categorisation of foods that are NNR has recently been reviewed by Drewnowski. (40) Foods with more nutrients, higher nutrient concentrations and fewer kilojoules will have a higher score. Foods such as lean meat, low-fat dairy foods and vegetables tend to have a higher NNR score. For lower-kilojoule diets, the choice of foods with a higher NNR score ensures nutritional adequacy Based on the NNR, animal protein foods provide higher scores than vegetable sources of protein such as legumes.


Protein-containing foods and dietary patterns with a higher proportion of protein than is currently recommended appear to have a number of nutritional benefits that can be advantageous in energy-restricted diets. The science to support the use of such diets is strengthening along with the concomitant metabolic benefits in reducing dietary carbohydrate. Improvements in satiety, body composition, nutrient density and metabolic outcomes need to be considered against potential risks, which at this time have not emerged. Higherprotein lower-carbohydrate dietary patterns need to be considered not only as a valid option for weight management, but as the pattern of choice for individuals with insulin resistance.


1 Halton TL, Hu FB. The effects of high protein diets on thermogenesis, satiety and weight loss: a critical review. J Am Coll Nutr 2004; 23: 373-85.

2 Latner JD, Schwartz M. The effects of a high-carbohydrate, high-protein or balanced lunch upon later food intake and hunger ratings. Appetite 1999; 33: 119-28.

3 Bowen J, Noakes M, Clifton PM. Appetite regulatory hormone responses to various dietary proteins differ by body mass index status despite similar reductions in ad libitum energy intake. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2006; 91: 2913-19.

4 Fryer JH, Moore NS, Williams HH, Young CM. A study of the interrelationship of the energy-yielding nutrients, blood glucose levels, and subjective appetite in man. J Lab Clin Med 1955; 45: 684-96.

5 Noakes M, Keogh JB, Foster PR, Clifton PM. Effect of an energy restricted, high-protein, low-fat diet relative to a conventional high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet on weight loss, body composition, nutritional status, and markers of cardiovascular health in obese women. Am J Clin Nutr 2005; 81: 1298-306.

6 Farnsworth E, Luscombe ND, Noakes M, Wittert G, Argyiou E, Clifton PM. Effect of a high-protein, energy-restricted diet on body composition, glycemic control, and lipid concentrations in overweight and obese hyperinsulinemic men and women. Am J Clin Nutr 2003; 78: 31-9.

7 Luscombe ND, Clifton PM, Noakes M, Parker B, Wittert G. Effects of energy-restricted diets containing increased protein on weight loss, resting energy expenditure, and the thermic effect of feeding in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2002; 25: 652-7

8 Parker B, Noakes M, Luscombe N, Clifton P. Effect of a high-protein, high-monounsaturated fat weight loss diet on glycemic control and lipid levels in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2002; 25: 425-30.

9 Skov AR, Toubro S, Ronn B, Holm L, Astrup A. Randomized trial on protein vs carbohydrate in ad libitum fat reduced diet for the treatment of obesity. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 1999; 23: 528-36.

10 Luscombe-Marsh ND, Noakes M, Wittert GA, Keogh JB, Foster P, Clifton PM. Carbohydrate-restricted diets high in either monounsaturated fat or protein are equally effective at promoting fat loss and improving blood lipids. Am J Clin Nutr 2005; 81: 762-72.

11 Weigle DS, Breen PA, Matthys CC et al. A high-protein diet induces sustained reductions in appetite, ad libitum caloric intake, and body weight despite compensatory changes in diurnal plasma leptin and ghrelin concentrations. Am J Clin Nutr 2005; 82: 41-8.

12 McMillan-Price J, Petocz P, Atkinson F et al. Comparison of 4 diets of varying glycemic load on weight loss and cardiovascular risk reduction in overweight and obese young adults a randomized controlled trial. Arch Intern Med 2006; 166: 1466-75.

13 Gardner CD, Kiazand A, Alhassan S et al. Comparison of the Atkins, Zone, Ornish, and LEARN diets for change in weight and related risk factors among overweight premenopausal women: the A TO Z Weight Loss Study: a randomized trial. JAMA 2007; 297: 969-77.

14 Layman DK, Boileau RA, Erickson DJ et al. A reduced ratio of dietary carbohydrate to protein improves body composition and blood lipid profiles during weight loss in adult women. J Nur 2003; 133: 411-17.

15 Layman DK, Evans E, Baum JI, Seyler J, Erickson DJ, Boileau RA. Dietary protein and exercise have additive effects on body composition during weight loss in adult women. J Nutr 2005; 135: 1903-10.

16 Wing RR, Phelan S. Long-term weight loss maintenance. Am J Clin Nutr 2005; 82 (1 Suppl.): 222S-5S.

17 Piatti PM, Monti F, Fermo I et al. Hypocaloric high-protein diet improves glucose oxidation and spares lean body mass: comparison to hypocaloric high-carbohydrate diet. Metabolism 1994; 43: 1481-7.

18 Baba NH, Sawaya S, Torbay N, Habbal Z, Azar S, Hashim SA. High protein vs high carbohydrate hypoenergetic diet for the treatment of obese hyperinsulinemic subjects. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 1999; 23: 1202-6.

19 Krieger JW, Sitren HS, Daniels MJ, Langkamp-Henken B. Effects of variation in protein and carbohydrate intake on body mass and composition during energy restriction: a meta-regression 1. Am J Clin Nutr 2006; 83: 260-74.

20 Due A, Toubro S, Skov AR, Astrup A. Effect of normal-fat diets, either medium or high in protein, on body weight in overweight subjects: a randomised 1-year trial Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 2004; 28: 1283-90.

21 McAuley KA, Hopkins CM, Smith KJ et al. Comparison of high-fat and high-protein diets with a high-carbohydrate diet in insulin-resistant obese women. Diabetologia 2005; 48: 8-16.

22 Dansinger ML, Gleason JA, Griffith JL, Selker HP, Schaefer EJ. Comparison of the Atkins, Ornish, Weight Watchers, and Zone diets for weight loss and heart disease risk reduction: a randomized trial. JAMA 2005; 293: 43-53.

23 Keogh JB, Luscombe-Marsh ND, Noakes M, Wittert GA, Clifton PM. Long-term weight maintenance and cardiovascular risk factors are not different following weight loss on carbohydrate-restricted diets high in either monounsaturated fat or protein in obese hyperinsulinaemic men and women. Br J Nutr 2007; 97: 405-10.

24 Brinkworth GD, Noakes M, Parker B, Foster P, Clifton PM. Long-term effects of advice to consume a high-protein, low-fat diet, rather than a conventional weight-loss diet, in obese adults with type 2 diabetes: one-year follow-up of a randomised trial. Diabetologia 2004; 47: 1677-86.

25 Brinkworth GD, Noakes M, Keogh JB, Luscombe ND, Wittert GA, Clifton PM. Long-term effects of a high-protein, low carbohydrate diet on weight control and cardiovascular risk markers in obese hyperinsulinemic subjects. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 2004; 28: 661-70.

26 Luscombe ND, Clifton PM, Noakes M, Farnsworth E, Wittert G. Effect of a high-protein, energy-restricted diet on weight loss and energy expenditure after weight stabilization in hyperinsulinemic subjects. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 2003; 27: 582-90.

27 Nuttall FQ, Schweim K, Hoover H, Gannon MC. Metabolic effect of a LoBAG30 diet in men with type 2 diabetes. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 2006; 291: E786-91.

28 Gannon MC, Nuttall FQ. Control of blood glucose in type 2 diabetes without weight loss by modification of diet composition. Nutr Metab (Lond) 2006; 3: 16.

29 Nuttall FQ, Gannon MC. The metabolic response to a high-protein, low-carbohydrate diet in men with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Metabolism 2006; 55: 243-51.

30 Nuttall FQ, Gannon MC. Metabolic response of people with type 2 diabetes to a high protein diet. Nutr Metab (Lond) 2004; 1:6.

31 Gannon MC, Nuttall FQ. Effect of a high-protein, low-carbohydrate diet on blood glucose control in people with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes 2004; 53: 2375-82.

32 Nuttall FQ, Gannon MC. Dietary management of type 2 diabetes: a personal odyssey. J Am Coll Nutr 2007; 26: 83-94.

33 Hodgson JM, Burke V, Beilin LJ, Puddey IB. Partial substitution of carbohydrate intake with protein intake from lean red meat lowers blood pressure in hypertensive persons. Am J Clin Nutr 2006; 83: 780-87.

34 Knight EL, Stampfer MJ, Hankinson SE, Spiegelman D, Curhan GC. The impact of protein intake on renal function decline in women with normal renal function or mild renal insufficiency. Ann Intern Med 2003; 138: 460-67.

35 Bonjour JP. Dietary protein: an essential nutrient for bone health. J Am Coll Nutr 2005; 24 (6 Suppl.): 526S-36S.

36 Australian Bureau of Statistics. National Nutrition Survey: Nutrient Intakes and Physical Measurements. ABS Cat. No. 4805. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1995.

37 Department of Health and Ageing. Nutrient Reference Values for Australia and New Zealand Including Recommended Dietary Intakes 2006 Department of Health and Ageing. Canberra: National Health and Medical Research Council. 2007.

38 Layman DK. Protein quantity and quality at levels above the RDA improves adult weight loss. J Am Coll Nutr 2004; 23 (6 Suppl.): 6315-6S.

39 Wolfe F, Michaud K, Li T. Sleep disturbance in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: evaluation by medical outcomes study and visual analog sleep scales. J Rheumatol 2006; 33: 1942-51.

40 Drewnowski A. Concept of a nutritious food: toward a nutrient density score. Am J Clin Nutr 2005; 82: 721-32.

41 Simpson SJ, Raubenheimer D. Obesity: the protein leverage hypothesis. Obes Rev 2005; 6: 133-42.

This section reviews the scientific literature linking diet to chronic lifestyle-related disease. Noakes and colleagues provide an overview of research on dietary protein and effects on body weight and diabetes management. Truswell follows up with a review of the links between food components and cardiovascular disease, with special reference to long-chain omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids, and Hodgson reviews research on food components, notably protein and carbohydrate, on blood pressure. As a food source of protein and fatty acids, red meat consumption is considered within these contexts. Baghurst summarises the literature on relevant studies on red meat consumption and the risk of colorectal cancer, and finally Chapman reviews dietary recommendation, for people living with cancer

Manny NOAKES, Jennifer KEOGH and Peter CLIFTON

CSIRO Human Nutrition, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia

Box 1: Protein leverage hypothesis

Simpson and Raubinheimer (41) postulated that animals (including humans) and insects have a drive to maintain a constant intake of protein and that low-protein diets lead to overconsumption of fat and carbohydrate, with high-protein diets having the reverse effect.

The 'protein leverage' hypothesis (PLH) is the idea that food consumption in humans, like other animals, is adjusted to maintain a target protein intake. According to the PLH, the consumption of a low-protein diet, typical of many Western countries, inevitably requires the ingestion of additional energy. Conversely, the consumption of a diet that is relatively high in protein content requires the ingestion of lower levels of energy, creating the potential for weight loss.
Table 1 Estimated average requirement (EAR) and recommended dietary
intake (RDI) for protein for Australian adults

Adults g/day(g/kg) g/day(g/kg)

 19-30 years 52 (0.68) 64 (0.84)
 31-50 years 52 (0.68) 64 (0.84)
 51-70 years 52 (0.68) 64 (0.84)
 >70 years 65 (0.86) 81 (1.07)
 19-30 years 37 (0.60) 46 (0.75)
 31-50 years 37 (0.60) 46 (0.75)
 51-70 years 37 (0.60) 46 (0.75)
 >70 years 46 (0.75) 57 (0.94)

Source: Nutrient Reference Values for Australia and New Zealand.
Australian Government, Department of Health and Ageing, National Health
and Medical Research Council 2005 ISBN 1864962372.
COPYRIGHT 2007 Dietitians Association of Australia
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2007, Gale Group. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:Section 4: The role of red meat in the prevention and management of chronic disease
Author:Noakes, Manny; Keogh, Jennifer; Clifton, Peter
Publication:Nutrition & Dietetics: The Journal of the Dietitians Association of Australia
Date:Sep 1, 2007
Previous Article:Nutritional challenges for the elderly.
Next Article:Cardiovascular diseases and red meat.

Related Articles
Defining type 2 diabetes.
Red meat associated with type 2 diabetes in women.
Nutrition and Diet Therapy, Evidence-based Applications. Fourth edition.
The Glycaemic Index: A Physiological Classification of Dietary Carbohydrates.
The process of development of this report.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters