View Single Post
Old 06-30-2011, 10:09 AM   #2
William McAlpine
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 138
Default

Some snips from the paper:

Quote:
Mean energy intake (including supplements) was 9060 + or - 560, 9140 + or - 510, and 940 + or - 460 kJ/d for the CHO, WP and SP groups, respectively and did not differ among treatment groups.
Quote:
Energy and macronutrient intakes were higher for men than for women (P<.0001), with no detectable effect of treatment on changes in energy, protein, carbohydrate, or fat intake during the course of the intervention. Between the initial and final recall, there was a decrease in carbohydrate intake in the group consuming the WP supplement (P<.04).
Quote:
Additionally, consuming WP resulted in a significantly smaller waist circumference compared with the group consuming supplemental CHO. This finding is important, because the amount of intra-abdominal adipose tissue is more significantly correlated with metabolic complications in obese individuals than in subcutaneous fat.
Quote:
Circulating IGF-1 concentrations were higher in the group consuming the SP supplement than in the groups supplemented with WP or CHO, whereas IGFBP-3 concentrations were lower in the group supplemented with WP than in the other 2 groups. THE IGFBP-1 concentration was not affected by treatment. T3 uptake was lower in the group supplemented with SP; the group supplemented with CHO did not differ from either protein group. Free T4 concentrations were lower in the groups supplemented with WP and CHO than in the group supplemented with WP and CHO than in the group supplemented with SP.

The authors did not suggest a mechanism why WP would be superior to weight loss. Any ideas?
William McAlpine is offline   Reply With Quote