4.4 Article

High-protein diets containing different milk protein fractions differently influence energy intake and adiposity in the rat

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF NUTRITION
Volume 99, Issue 4, Pages 739-748

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0007114507831709

Keywords

body composition; energy intake; high-protein diet; whey-protein fraction

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study was designed to determine whether (1) protein type and (2) the dietary carbohydrate to lipid content affected daily energy intake, body weight and adiposity in rats receiving high-protein diets ad libitum over a 25 d period. Each of the ten groups (n 8) consumed ad libitum one of the diets described below. A normal protein diet (P14C56L30, containing whole milk protein) and nine high-protein diets were used. The composition of the high-protein diets varied in terms of two parameters: macronutrient composition and protein type. Three macronutrient compositions (P55C35L10, P55C15L30 and P55L45) combined with three protein types (Milk, Whey and beta Lac) allowed us to test nine diets. The results show that both protein type (beta Lac > Whey > Milk) and the carbohydrate to lipid ratio (P55L45 > P55C35L10 or P55C15L30) modulated reductions in energy intake, body weight and adiposity in rats receiving high-protein diets ad libitum, when compared with rats fed a normal diet under the same conditions. By contrast, blood lipid profiles were mainly influenced by the carbohydrate to lipid ratio (P55C15L30 > P55L45 or P55C35L10). Moreover, beta Lac protein was also the most efficient in tending to preserve lean body mass at the expense of fat mass, and improve blood metabolism hormones (insulin, leptin). Taken together, the present results show that whey-derived protein sources, and particularly beta-lactoglobulin-enriched fraction, are of considerable value because of their ability to reduce both body weight gain and the adiposity index.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available