Is there a problem with a 28% PROTEIN diet?

[Kerryhb]

ben_nur@hotmail.com wrote: < High Protein Diets for
Diabetics <
< Alow-fat, high-protein diet may be the best way for <
people with type 2 diabetes to reduce their weight and
control their < blood sugar, say Australian investigators.
The benefit is especially < strong for women.
. . . < The high protein diet consisted of 28 percent protein,
42 < percent carbohydrates, and 28 percent fat. The
lower-protein diet < consisted of 16 percent protein, 55
percent carbohydrates, and 26 < percent fat. Both diets
restricted saturated fat to 8 percent.

What is a downside of eating a diet of 28 percent protein?

Kerry

[Eggs Panca]

No.
________________________
THUS SAYETH WithBACON

[Paul Roger]

On 25 Mar 2002 21:59:54 GMT, kerryhb@aol.com (KerryHB) wrote:

>ben_nur@hotmail.com wrote: < High Protein Diets for
>Diabetics <
> < Alow-fat, high-protein diet may be the best way for <
> people with type 2 diabetes to reduce their weight and
> control their < blood sugar, say Australian
> investigators. The benefit is especially < strong for
> women.
>. . . < The high protein diet consisted of 28 percent
> protein, 42 < percent carbohydrates, and 28 percent fat.
> The lower-protein diet < consisted of 16 percent protein,
> 55 percent carbohydrates, and 26 < percent fat. Both diets
> restricted saturated fat to 8 percent.
>
>
>What is a downside of eating a diet of 28 percent protein?

What Australian investigators?

Paul R

[Somewhat U]

On 25 Mar 2002 21:59:54 GMT, kerryhb@aol.com (KerryHB) wrote:

> The high protein diet consisted of 28 percent protein, 42 <
> percent carbohydrates, and 28 percent fat. The lower-protein
> diet < consisted of 16 percent protein, 55 percent
> carbohydrates, and 26 < percent fat. Both diets restricted
> saturated fat to 8 percent.

88% and 97% respectively. What are the remaining percentages
composed of?

[Paul Roger]

On 25 Mar 2002 21:59:54 GMT, kerryhb@aol.com (KerryHB) wrote:

>ben_nur@hotmail.com wrote: < High Protein Diets for
>Diabetics <
> < Alow-fat, high-protein diet may be the best way for <
> people with type 2 diabetes to reduce their weight and
> control their < blood sugar, say Australian
> investigators. The benefit is especially < strong for
> women.
>. . . < The high protein diet consisted of 28 percent
> protein, 42 < percent carbohydrates, and 28 percent fat.
> The lower-protein diet < consisted of 16 percent protein,
> 55 percent carbohydrates, and 26 < percent fat. Both diets
> restricted saturated fat to 8 percent.
>
>
>What is a downside of eating a diet of 28 percent protein?
>
Okay, got it.

--------------------------------------------
Diabetes Care 2002 Mar;25(3):425-30

Effect of a high-protein, high--monounsaturated fat weight
loss diet on glycemic control and lipid levels in type 2
diabetes. Parker B, Noakes M, Luscombe N, Clifton P. CSIRO
Health Sciences and Nutrition, Adelaide, Australia.

OBJECTIVE---To determine the effect of a high-protein (HP)
weight loss diet compared with a lower-protein (LP) diet on
fat and lean tissue and fasting and postprandial glucose and
insulin concentrations. RESEARCH DESIGN AND
METHODS---Replacing dietary protein for carbohydrate (CHO)
during energy restriction and weight loss has been effective
in sparing lean mass and improving insulin sensitivity in
obese subjects but has not been tested in subjects with type 2
diabetes. We compared an HP diet (28% protein, 42% CHO, 28%
fat [8% saturated fatty acids, 12% monounsaturated fatty
acids, 5% polyunsaturated fatty acids]) with an LP diet (16%
protein, 55% CHO, 26% fat [8% saturated fatty acids, 11%
monounsaturated fatty acids, 5% polyunsaturated fatty acids])
in 54 obese men and women with type 2 diabetes during 8 weeks
of energy restriction (1,600 kcal) and 4 weeks of energy
balance. Body composition was determined by dual-energy X-ray
absorptiometry at weeks 0 and 12. RESULTS---Overall, weight
loss of 5.2 plus minus1.8 kg was achieved independently of
diet composition. However, women on the HP diet lost
significantly more total (5.3 vs. 2.8 kg, P=0.009) and
abdominal (1.3 vs. 0.7 kg, P=0.006) fat compared with the
women on the LP diet, whereas, in men, there was no difference
in fat loss between diets (3.9 vs. 5.1 kg). Total lean mass
decreased in all subjects independently of diet composition.
LDL cholesterol reduction was significantly greater on the HP
diet (5.7%) than on the LP diet (2.7%) (P < 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS---Both dietary patterns resulted in improvements
in the cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk profile as a
consequence of weight loss. However, the greater reductions in
total and abdominal fat mass in women and greater LDL
cholesterol reduction observed in both sexes on the HP diet
suggest that it is a valid diet choice for reducing CVD risk
in type 2 diabetes.
--------------------------------------------------------------

The implications for long-term steady state consumption of 28%
protein may be decreased bone density, particularly if the
diet was high in animal protein, perhaps red meat in
particular. This could be offset by physical activity but not
sure that anyone knows yet.

Some of the weight difference could be to do with less water
stored with lower glycogen on the high protein, lower carb
diet. The LDL difference would need to be assessed over a
longer term -- and 3% is no big deal in any case..

Paul R

[Ada]

> What is a downside of eating a diet of 28 percent protein?
>
> Kerry
Here is the 'fear' and what a new study shows:-)

ada

High-Protein Diet Won't Weaken Your Bone Mon Mar 25, 7:11 PM
ET By Colette Bouchez HealthScoutNews Reporter

MONDAY, March 25 (HealthScoutNews) -- Into the continuing
debate over a high-protein diet's link to bone health comes a
new study showing that, when coupled with adequate calcium and
vitamin D, protein may actually be good for your bones.

For years, scientists have theorized that a high-protein diet
could increase the risk of calcium loss.

But in research reported today in the American Journal of
Clinical Nutrition (news - web sites), doctors say elderly
people who ate a diet high in animal or vegetable protein and
took calcium and vitamin D supplements significantly increased
their bone density. They did better than either those on a
low-protein diet who took the same supplements or those who
took no supplements at all.

"We assessed the protein intake of all the participants, and
divided them into three groups -- low, middle and high. And
our findings were that the higher the protein intake, the
better the bone density changes over a period of three years
if you were in the calcium-supplemented group," says study
author Dr. Beth Dawson-Hughes, a Tufts University scientist.

However, in the control group, the higher amounts of protein
had no such positive effect. In fact, Dawson-Hughes says, the
more protein consumed without benefit of calcium
supplementation, the greater the trend toward bone density
loss, although that loss was not considered significant.

She emphasizes that her research does not conclude that a
high-protein diet without calcium increases the risk of bone
loss. Rather, she says, it suggests the "possibility that
consuming more protein can be helpful to bone, as long as
you're meeting the calcium requirements."

For endocrinologist Dr. Loren Wissner Greene, the finding is
intriguing, partly because past research has shown that
high-protein diets can harm bone health, mostly by increasing
the rate of urinary calcium excretion and interfering with
calcium absorption in the intestines.

"But this study proposes the idea that even if protein does
have a negative effect on the bones, you can not only
overcome this by the addition of adequate calcium and vitamin
D, but that working synergistically, these nutrients may even
cause the protein to turn around and become a helpful
component," she says.

The latest research, a randomized, placebo-controlled trial,
involved 342 healthy men and women over the age of 65. Each
was given either a supplement containing 500 milligrams of
calcium and adequate vitamin D for absorption or a placebo,
which they took daily for three years.

At the start of the study, and in six- months intervals
throughout, researchers measured the bone density of the
participants, using a system known as dual-energy X-ray
absorptiometry. Measurements were taken at various points in
the body, including the neck and the spine.

Midway through the study, researchers also gave out a
questionnaire to determine intake of both calcium-rich and
high-protein foods.

Only at the conclusion of the study did the researchers find
out who was taking the calcium supplements and who was not.
They then tallied the food questionnaires to determine the
amount of protein each person was consuming, as well as their
level of dietary calcium.

From that they developed the following subgroups: low, medium
and high protein intake, with an average of 870 milligrams of
dietary calcium daily; and low, medium and high protein intake
with an average of 1,300 milligrams of calcium daily with
adequate vitamin D.

After adjusting for influences of age, sex, weight and total
calorie intake, they determined that all those on the
high-protein diet who took the calcium and vitamin D
supplements saw positive effects on bone health. Those who ate
the most protein saw the most dramatic effects, particularly
in bone-density measurements of the neck.

By comparison, those who had no vitamin/mineral
supplementation showed almost no positive changes in bone mass
density, no matter how much their protein intake increased.

In fact, says Dawson-Hughes, there was some evidence to show
that when higher amounts of protein were consumed without the
benefits of calcium and vitamin D, bone health suffered.

What's important to note, she adds, is that even in the group
consuming the greatest amount of protein, the level was not
unusually high, averaging about 96 grams a day. The
recommended amount of daily protein is between 40 grams and 60
grams daily.

For Wissner Greene, the message is that you can't go wrong if
you supplement your diet with calcium and vitamin D.

"No matter how much protein you eat, getting adequate calcium
and vitamin D will be healthy for your bones," she says.

What To Do

[Somewhat U]

On 25 Mar 2002 23:07:44 GMT, withbacon@aol.companion (Eggs
Pancakes Syrup Toast Coffee) wrote:

>No.

Eggs, only the most intelligent are allowed to post here from
mfw. Which is why it is just you, I and Brand.

[Paul Roger]

On Mon, 25 Mar 2002 19:51:27 -0500, Somewhat Useful Trainer
<somewhatusefultrainer@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 25 Mar 2002 21:59:54 GMT, kerryhb@aol.com (KerryHB) wrote:
>
>> The high protein diet consisted of 28 percent protein, 42 <
>> percent carbohydrates, and 28 percent fat. The
>> lower-protein diet < consisted of 16 percent protein, 55
>> percent carbohydrates, and 26 < percent fat. Both diets
>> restricted saturated fat to 8 percent.
>
>88% and 97% respectively. What are the remaining percentages
>composed of?

Fibre?

PR

[Paul Roger]

On 25 Mar 2002 20:05:49 -0800, ben_nur@hotmail.com (ada)
wrote:

>> What is a downside of eating a diet of 28 percent protein?
>>
>> Kerry
>Here is the 'fear' and what a new study shows:-)
>
>ada
>
>High-Protein Diet Won't Weaken Your Bone Mon Mar 25, 7:11 PM
>ET By Colette Bouchez HealthScoutNews Reporter
>
<snip the middle>
>
>What's important to note, she adds, is that even in the group
>consuming the greatest amount of protein, the level was not
>unusually high, averaging about 96 grams a day. The
>recommended amount of daily protein is between 40 grams and
>60 grams daily.

Ninety-six grams protein/day is about 400 kcals or a bit less.
This is 20% of an average 2000 kcal diet.

I would tend to call this a moderate-protein diet rather than
a high-protein diet.

Paul R

[Thomas Mue]

On 25 Mar 2002 21:59:54 GMT, kerryhb@aol.com (KerryHB) wrote:

> The high protein diet consisted of 28 percent protein, 42 <
> percent carbohydrates, and 28 percent fat. The lower-protein
> diet < consisted of 16 percent protein, 55 percent
> carbohydrates, and 26 < percent fat. Both diets restricted
> saturated fat to 8 percent.

Somewhat Useful Trainer <somewhatusefultrainer@hotmail.com>
responded:

> 88% and 97% respectively. What are the remaining percentages
> composed of?

Your math is off! 28% + 42% + 28% = 98%, not 88% But the
second set of percents totals 97%

[Somewhat U]

On Tue, 26 Mar 2002 01:13:11 GMT, Paul Rogers
<ecoldata@bigpond.net.au> wrote:

>On Mon, 25 Mar 2002 19:51:27 -0500, Somewhat Useful Trainer
><somewhatusefultrainer@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 25 Mar 2002 21:59:54 GMT, kerryhb@aol.com (KerryHB)
>>wrote:
>>
>>> The high protein diet consisted of 28 percent protein, 42
>>> < percent carbohydrates, and 28 percent fat. The
>>> lower-protein diet < consisted of 16 percent protein, 55
>>> percent carbohydrates, and 26 < percent fat. Both diets
>>> restricted saturated fat to 8 percent.
>>
>>88% and 97% respectively. What are the remaining percentages
>>composed of?
>
>Fibre?

Really? I don't know. I am a novice at this whole
nutrition game.

[Alex Brand]

On Mon, 25 Mar 2002, Somewhat Useful Trainer wrote:

> On 25 Mar 2002 23:07:44 GMT, withbacon@aol.companion (Eggs
> Pancakes Syrup Toast Coffee) wrote:
>
> >No.
>
> Eggs, only the most intelligent are allowed to post here
> from mfw. Which is why it is just you, I and Brand.
^^^^^ Are you referring
to me?

Alex

[Chris -Lsq]

On Mon, 25 Mar 2002 18:59:02 -0500, Somewhat Useful Trainer
<somewhatusefultrainer@hotmail.com> spoke to us and thus said:

>>On 25 Mar 2002 23:07:44 GMT, withbacon@aol.companion (Eggs
>>Pancakes Syrup Toast Coffee) wrote:
>>
>>>No.
>>
>>Eggs, only the most intelligent are allowed to post here
>>from mfw. Which is why it is just you, I and Brand.

~~Just thought I'd leave the above for discussions also,
but where's the research to back up your claims; Saturday
has passed:

On Thu, 21 Mar 2002 19:19:11 -0500, Somewhat Useful Trainer
<somewhatusefultrainer@hotmail.com> spoke to us and thus said:

On Thu, 21 Mar 2002 23:30:03 GMT, Lars (FLSTF'01')
<FLSTFlars@bigpond.nospam.net.au> wrote:

>Seriously - I want to know which parts of HST you can prove
>is nonsense.

I can't "prove" anything but I can offer opinions which I
believe are valid. HST and The Unstoppables cannot prove
anything either.

This would be a good exercise, though.

> I'd like to see what parts you think is nonsense, anecdotal
> and pseudoscience.

If you don't pick one, then you will have to wait until I
get to a very thorough post. I will start a thread with
my response. Say, by Saturday? Out all morning and
afternoon tomorrow.

Chris
--
The Weightlifting Discussion Board
http://www.deepsquatter.com/cgi-bin/deepsquatter.cgi?

And check out the WDB Offical website at:
http://members.home.net/wdbsite/home.html

Eggs, only the most intelligent are allowed to post here from
mfw. Which is why it is just you, I and Brand.---SUT on
sci.med.nutrition

Really? I don't know. I am a novice at this whole nutrition
game.---SUT on sci.med.nutrition

And god forbid, I miss the great unveiling of our "Vietnam
Vet/Real Estate Baron/State Legislator/Presidential Campaign
Chairman/Minor League Player-Owner/National Champion Coach/IT
expert/Fitness Guru/Athletic Trainer/(I'm sure I've missed
some others)". Hell, "they" are probably up accepting an Oscar
right now. --Hoff describing SUT

[Somewhat U]

On 27 Mar 2002 11:08:32 GMT, "Thomas Mueller"
<tmueller@bluegrass.net> wrote:

>> 88% and 97% respectively. What are the remaining
>> percentages composed of?
>
>Your math is off! 28% + 42% + 28% = 98%, not 88% But the
>second set of percents totals 97%

And the remaining is.................<drum
roll>.................

[Chris -Lsq]

On Mon, 25 Mar 2002 18:59:02 -0500, Somewhat Useful Trainer
<somewhatusefultrainer@hotmail.com> spoke to us and thus said:

>>On 25 Mar 2002 23:07:44 GMT, withbacon@aol.companion (Eggs
>>Pancakes Syrup Toast Coffee) wrote:
>>
>>>No.
>>
>>Eggs, only the most intelligent are allowed to post here
>>from mfw. Which is why it is just you, I and Brand.

~~Just thought I'd leave the above for discussions also,
but where's the research to back up your claims; Saturday
has passed:

On Thu, 21 Mar 2002 19:19:11 -0500, Somewhat Useful Trainer
<somewhatusefultrainer@hotmail.com> spoke to us and thus said:

On Thu, 21 Mar 2002 23:30:03 GMT, Lars (FLSTF'01')
<FLSTFlars@bigpond.nospam.net.au> wrote:

>Seriously - I want to know which parts of HST you can prove
>is nonsense.

I can't "prove" anything but I can offer opinions which I
believe are valid. HST and The Unstoppables cannot prove
anything either.

This would be a good exercise, though.

> I'd like to see what parts you think is nonsense, anecdotal
> and pseudoscience.

If you don't pick one, then you will have to wait until I
get to a very thorough post. I will start a thread with
my response. Say, by Saturday? Out all morning and
afternoon tomorrow.

Chris Eggs, only the most intelligent are allowed to post here
from mfw. Which is why it is just you, I and Brand.---SUT on
sci.med.nutrition

Really? I don't know. I am a novice at this whole nutrition
game.---SUT on sci.med.nutrition

And god forbid, I miss the great unveiling of our "Vietnam
Vet/Real Estate Baron/State Legislator/Presidential Campaign
Chairman/Minor League Player-Owner/National Champion Coach/IT
expert/Fitness Guru/Athletic Trainer/(I'm sure I've missed
some others)". Hell, "they" are probably up accepting an Oscar
right now. --Hoff describing SUT

[Paul Roger]

On Mon, 25 Mar 2002 20:57:03 -0500, Somewhat Useful Trainer
<somewhatusefultrainer@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 26 Mar 2002 01:13:11 GMT, Paul Rogers
><ecoldata@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 25 Mar 2002 19:51:27 -0500, Somewhat Useful Trainer
>><somewhatusefultrainer@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 25 Mar 2002 21:59:54 GMT, kerryhb@aol.com
>>>(KerryHB) wrote:
>>>
>>>> The high protein diet consisted of 28 percent protein, 42
>>>> < percent carbohydrates, and 28 percent fat. The
>>>> lower-protein diet < consisted of 16 percent protein, 55
>>>> percent carbohydrates, and 26 < percent fat. Both diets
>>>> restricted saturated fat to 8 percent.
>>>
>>>88% and 97% respectively. What are the remaining
>>>percentages composed of?
>>
>>Fibre?
>
>Really? I don't know. I am a novice at this whole
>nutrition game.

Me too. I think some researchers get picky about how they deal
with fibre in these macronutrient energy calculations. Only
guessing though.

Paul R

[Jay Tanzma]

Somewhat Useful Trainer wrote:
>
> On 27 Mar 2002 11:08:32 GMT, "Thomas Mueller"
> <tmueller@bluegrass.net> wrote:
>
> >> 88% and 97% respectively. What are the remaining
> >> percentages composed of?
> >
> >Your math is off! 28% + 42% + 28% = 98%, not 88% But the
> >second set of percents totals 97%
>
> And the remaining is.................<drum
> roll>.................

Rounding error.

-Jay