4.6 Article

EFFECTS OF DIETARY PROTEIN ON THE COMPOSITION OF WEIGHT LOSS IN POST-MENOPAUSAL WOMEN

期刊

JOURNAL OF NUTRITION HEALTH & AGING
卷 12, 期 8, 页码 505-509

出版社

SERDI EDITION
DOI: 10.1007/BF02983202

关键词

Hypocaloric diet; protein intake; lean mass; elderly

资金

  1. NIH [R01-AG/DK20583]
  2. Wake Forest University Claude D. Pepper Older Americans Independence Center [P30-AG21332]
  3. Wake Forest University General Clinical Research Center [M01-RR07122]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To determine whether a hypocaloric diet higher in protein can prevent the loss of lean mass that is commonly associated with weight loss. Design: An intervention study comparing a hypocaloric diet moderately high in protein to one lower in protein. Setting: Study measurements were taken at the Wake Forest University General Clinical Research Center (GCRC) and Geriatric Research Center (GRC). Participants: Twenty-four post-menopausal, obese women (mean age = 58 +/- 6.6 yrs; mean BMI = 33.0 +/- 3.6 kg/m(2)). Intervention: Two 20-week hypocaloric diets (both reduced by 2800 kcal/wk) were compared: one maintaining dietary protein intake at 30% of total energy intake (1.2-1.5 g/kg/d; HI PROT), and the other maintaining dietary protein intake at 15% of total energy (0.5-0.7 g/kg/d; LO PROT). The GCRC metabolic kitchen provided lunch and dinner meals which the women picked up 3 days per week and ate outside of the clinic. Measurements: Body composition, including total body mass, total lean mass, total fat mass, and appendicular lean mass, assessed by dual energy x-ray absorptiometry, was measured before and after the diet interventions. Results: The HI PROT group lost 8.4 +/- 4.5 kg and the LO PROT group lost 11.4 +/- 3.8 kg of body weight (p = 0.11). The mean percentage of total mass lost as lean mass was 17.3% +/- 27.8% and 37.5% +/- 14.6%, respectively (p = 0.03). Conclusion: Maintaining adequate protein intake may reduce lean mass losses associated with voluntary weight loss in older women.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据