4.5 Article

The protein type within a hypocaloric diet affects obesity-related inflammation: The RESMENA project

期刊

NUTRITION
卷 30, 期 4, 页码 424-429

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.nut.2013.09.009

关键词

Cardiovascular diseases; Inflammation markers; Macronutrient distribution; Weight loss; Metabolic syndrome

资金

  1. Health Department of the Government of Navarra [48/2009]
  2. Linea Especial about Nutrition, Obesity and Health (University of Navarra) [LE/97]
  3. CIBERobn
  4. RETICS
  5. Government of Navarra [233/2009]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare the effect of two energy-restricted, differing with regard to protein content, on the inflammation state of obese individuals with features of metabolic syndrome. Methods: Ninety-six participants completed an 8-wk randomized intervention trial that compared the RESMENA diet (-30% energy, with 30% energy from protein) with a control diet (-30% energy, with 15% energy from protein) that was based on American Heart Association criteria. Results: The mean body weight losses were 7.09 +/- 0.82 kg and 6.73 +/- 0.71 kg, respectively, with no differences seen between the groups. The endpoint inflammation score which was based on high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, interleukin-6, tumor necrosis factor-alpha, and plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 levels was significantly lower (P = 0.012) in the low-protein group (6.81 +/- 232 versus 7.94 +/- 1.94). The linear regression analyses revealed that total protein intake was positively associated with inflammation (P = 0.007) as well as with animal protein (P = 0.025) and meat protein (P = 0.015), but neither vegetable- nor fish-derived proteins were found to influence inflammatory status. Conclusions: Our results suggest that the type of protein consumed (more than the total protein consumed) within an energy-restricted diet influences the inflammation status associated with obesity-related comorbidities. (C) 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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