High-protein diet reduces appetite

Eating a high-protein diet can boost the release of a hunger-suppressing hormone, according to new study on mice. The research suggests that a diet rich in protein may be a good way to lose weight and keep it off.

Mice fed a protein-heavy diet produced higher levels of an appetite-regulating protein called peptide YY (PYY), which has been linked to reduced appetite in human studies. What's more, the high-protein mice put on less fat than mice on a low-protein regime.

The discovery boosts the theory that eating more protein might help to reduce appetite and lead to sustained weight loss, says Rachel Batterham of University College London, who led the research, published in the journal Cell Metabolism1. "All the evidence suggests that it will be beneficial," she says.

The discovery may also shed light on how the notorious Atkins diet, which ditches carbohydrates in favour of protein and saturated fats, might work. Studies have shown that people on this diet can loose weight, though it is unclear why. Batterham thinks she may have the answer: "People on the Atkins diet don't feel as hungry — that's how it works."

But, she cautions, that doesn't mean the Atkins diet is a good idea: "No medical person is going to tell you to have all that saturated fat in your diet and no carbohydrates." In its early stages, the regime causes a condition called ketosis, in which the liver, deprived of glycogen from carbohydrates, switches to its starvation mode and begins to metabolize fatty compounds. "The problem is that it makes you feel terrible," Batterham says.

She now plans to organize a long-term study of the effects of a high-protein diet in humans, which might feature foods such as lean meat, soy, tofu and egg.

Batterham undertook this study in part to pin down the link between PYY and appetite. Her team first showed that the hormone reduces appetite in humans in a Nature paper2 in 2002, but other researchers said they could not replicate the effect. So her team turned to mice to investigate it in more depth.

In the new study, as well as showing that mice fed lots of protein put on less weight, Batterham and her colleagues also genetically engineered mice to lack functioning PYY. These mice ate more and became fatter, even on a high-protein regime. When these mice were dosed with replacement PYY, they stopped gorging. This proves, says Batterham, that a lack of PYY is directly linked to overeating.

That might explain why people are growing ever more obese. Since the agricultural revolution, the amount of protein in the average diet has been declining, in favour of carbohydrates from plant crops such as rice and maize. The typical Western diet contains only 16% protein, whereas a prehistoric hunter-gatherer would have consumed twice as much, Batterham claims.

High-protein eating habits such as the 'caveman diet', which can contain up to 35% protein, might therefore be based on some sound principles, Batterham suggests. The PYY system, she points out, has been around for millions of years, and is found in animals ranging from humans right through to primitive fish called lampreys.

Batterham stresses that such diets will still need to be investigated to see if they carry risks of high cholesterol, kidney damage or other problems. "Prehistoric hunter-gatherers did not routinely live to be 80 years old," she points out.

Trans fats were "studied to death" by the FDA and they've had to do a 180 on their healthfulness.

Again, you don't know what you're talking about. If you understood the evolution of the fat debate you wouldn't make such a ridiculous claim. First, we were told that saturated fat was bad. So industry created hydrogenated oils as a healthier alternative. Back then, no one understood that there was good cholesterol and bad cholesterol. There was just cholesterol and it was all bad. Now the debate has come full circle and there is an emerging consensus that trans fats are worse for you than other fats but this is fairly recent. In response, industry is now working to develop a hydrogenated fat that processors can direct where the hydrogen will bond so it won't raise the level of bad cholesterol and will still provide consumers with better flavor and stability. Science learns as it progresses. Only people who possess no understanding of science treat it cynically and demand more from it than is possible.

Much like soy, the impact of trans fats on our health has been blown way out of proportion by the know nothings. Consider these facts: Over the last 20 years, while trans fat use has skyrocketed, heart disease in America has been in a steep decline -- while life expectancy has been up -- over that very same period. National health statistics show that in the era of fast food and obesity, death rates from heart disease has declined from 492.7 per 100,000 in 1970 to 321.8 by 1990, a 33% drop. The spread of transfat hasn't change that trend, with the death rate dropping nearly another 30%, to 232.2, by 2003. So, if trans fats are poison (LOL!!) they're doing a piss poor job of killing us.

The top three preventable causes of heart disease are cigarette smoking, high blood pressure (hypertension),and elevated blood cholesterol. Trans fats only affect the last cause. But to what degree? Dietary factors play a minor role in unhealthy cholesterol levels. Genetics play a much larger role than fats and require medication, more than diet, for control. Your out-of-proportion characterization of trans fat as a poison is absurd and ignores the fact that consuming these products in moderation will not cause any ill effects in healthy bodies.

I don't know how you can go through life not enjoying simple things like ice cream, french fries, milk shakes, Oreo cookies, salad dressing, a frozen margarita on a hot afternoon, a double double from In and Out Burger, Fanta orange soda, Utz BBQ potato chips, Montreal Steak Seasoning on a rib eye, a bowl of good chicken soup from a real deli (yes, they use soup base made with MSG), and on and on and on. Living on raw vegetables and wheat grass may sound good to you but for the life of me I can't imagine why.

You might live to be 90 by adhering your incredibly boring lifestyle and I may only live to be 80 following mine. Is this how you want to end up?

They "study to death" all sorts of pharmaceuticals, which they end up having to pull off the shelves after people die of heart attacks and other issues

Clueless people want miracle life saving drugs that are risk free. Sounds like something a democrat running for office would promise to some whiny leftists who would, in turn, actually believe him. The FDA is motivated by not making mistakes and covering their ass. They are driven by public opinion and politics. Not everything they do is right. I think they're too cautious and people suffering from diseases are forced to leave the country to find new alternatives for treatment. It can't be as bad as you make it out to be (there's that theme coming back again) since about 90% of all new drugs are discovered here in the U.S. With Vioxx, the industry haters had a field day. This was their proof that the drug makers and the FDA were really all about profits and didn't give a damn about the welfare of their fellow Americans. I find a great deal of justice in the fact that so many juries refuse to find Merck guilty.

so don't tell me to simply take the FDA's word that MSG

I wouldn't expect you to do anything so rational. Instead, I expect that you'll continue to believe the crap you read on internet websites hosted by charlatans you know nothing about. I am constantly amazed by what some people will believe. P.T. Barnum really understood people.

or anything artificial or chemically produced is safe.

If you had any knowledge of science or nutrition you might realize how loony that statement is. Everything you eat is chemicals. If you looked at what you eat on a daily basis, it would be filled with artificial ingredients -- however you choose to define that term -- and chemicals. Next time you take a drug that makes you feel better, stops pain, helps you sleep, kills an infection or reduces your fever, be thankful for artificial chemicals. Without them there's a good chance you wouldn't be alive today.

Then why is it when a lot of these FDA types retire or resign from government service, they end up working for these same industries with which they have an "adversarial" relationship?

Simple. The good ones get recruited by private industry because they understand the agency, know the players and possess a high level of competence. I know many companies that recruit scientists from the FDA because, after working with them on an approval or other issues, they find that they know what they're doing and would create value for the company. There are many folks at the FDA who can earn much more money in the private sector than they can in public employment. They find their way to industry because industry is actively pursuing the best talent.

I don't see much evidence of an "adversarial" relationship, if anything, it looks pretty cozy from where I stand.

Where exactly do you stand? I've worked with various departments of the FDA on product approvals and regulatory issues for more than a decade. The FDA is against labeling of GMO foods as such because no one can prove that there is any reason to do so. One of the greatest Americans in history was Norman Borlaug. He saved billions of people from starvation thanks to his pioneering work in genetically modified foods. It was called the green revolution.

I'll stick with avoiding man made foods as much as possible because they don't have a good track record.

ROFL! Yeah, and I suppose you'll use our declining life expectancy as proof. Good grief!

When studies out there show that soy has enough phytoestorgens to affect estrogen hormone levels in both men and women, that can't be healthy.

Is that why we see so many men wearing bras now? Saying that isoflavones are phytoestrogens is just another gross mischaracterization of the issue by those who don't understand it. Unlike estrogen, isloflavones are tissue selective and can have estrogen-like effects in some tissue but either no effects or antiestrogenic effects in other tissues. There are a number of recent studies that clearly show how different isoflavones are from estrogen. You'd have to look for them and then you'd have to be able to understand the research. Applying the term phytoestrogen to isoflavones is terribly misleading since it doesn't fully or accurately describe isoflavones. Use some common sense. Soy makes up about 12% of the diet of the elders on Okinawa. That's a lot of soy. These same people live longer than anyone else on the planet and have some of the lowest rates of cancer and Alzheimer's in the world. If soy was the poison you would have us believe it is, how is it that anyone on this island is living long enough to become an adult? There are children who drink nothing but soy milk during the formative years of their lives. You'd think that they'd be suffering all sorts of afflictions from this poison and wasting away at a young age. Where are the statistics? If soy is poison, and we consume far too much of it, show me where the ill effects are being manifested in our health. We're living longer than ever. The only place this is happening is in your fevered imagination.

And you don't think that fact colors their monitoring of these companies

You are very cynical indeed. Do you also believe that all business is immoral and all managers are corrupt. Are there any people capable of doing their job professionally and acting in the best interest of the public and/or their employer? What is it that you do for a living? When did you become so cynical and bitter? If you think I'm naive, please enlighten me with your experiences dealing with the FDA. I'd be especially interested in any corruption you're aware of and any circumstances where they kow tow'd to industry thereby placing consumers at risk. I ask because, quite frankly, your responses are the kind I'd expect from someone who only sees industry from the outside.

There is no legitimate reason NOT to do so except that the food companies (and their lapdogs at the FDA and in Congress)

There's that bitterness again. What is it about genetically modified foods that you find dangerous - please don't link me to any more BS from Weston Price. Food labeling makes sense when their is a legitimate health concern. We've been genetically modifying foods for quite a long time now so you'd probably have to label most foods as genetically modified today. Your labeling request is nothing more than a stigma advocated by the know nothing busybodies and nanny stater's who wish to exert more control over individuals and business. Your desires would do nothing for food safety but would raise the costs and reduce the choices. It's just bizarre to find conservatives advocating for this kind of government intervention when none is required.

Have you had any luck finding proof that the chemical structure of fructose and glucose from HFCS is any different than the chemical structure of fructose and glucose from hydrolized sucrose? Standing by.

There is no legitimate reason NOT to do so except that the food companies (and their lapdogs at the FDA and in Congress)

There's that bitterness again. What is it about genetically modified foods that you find dangerous?

I'm suspicious of GMO because they haven't been proven to be safe. You can go down the list of modern foods and medicines which we were told by the likes of the FDA were safe for their intended use and found to be dangerous instead. (ever heard of Vioxx, Celebrex, FenFen? How about the flip flop on saccharine?)

Food labeling makes sense when their is a legitimate health concern. We've been genetically modifying foods for quite a long time now so you'd probably have to label most foods as genetically modified today. Your labeling request is nothing more than a stigma advocated by the know nothing busybodies and nanny stater's who wish to exert more control over individuals and business.

If anything, by not requiring the labeling of GMO products is nanny-statism by the FDA, which thinks it and it alone has the right to allow companies to hide information from us that would allow us to make informed decisions about the foods we purchase. By not requiring companies to reveal GMO, they are allowing companies to slip this stuff to us under subterfuge, which I think is sneaky and wrong. People have a right to know what they are eating and to make reasonable choices for their families in regards to the foods they eat.

Your desires would do nothing for food safety but would raise the costs and reduce the choices. It's just bizarre to find conservatives advocating for this kind of government intervention when none is required.

Because the nannies at the FDA say so?! If there's stigma because of GMO, then obviously the proponents of GMO haven't done enough to reassure the public of the safety and reliability of GMO products (and with the FDA's track record on product safety, why shouldn't we be a bit cynical, as you put it?)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.