Prediction Equations Overestimate the Energy Requirements More for Obesity-Susceptible Individuals.

Predictive equations to estimate resting metabolic rate (RMR) are often used in dietary counseling and by online apps to set energy intake goals for weight loss. It is critical to know whether such equations are appropriate for those susceptible to obesity. We measured RMR by indirect calorimetry after an overnight fast in 26 obesity susceptible (OSI) and 30 obesity resistant (ORI) individuals, identified using a simple 6-item screening tool. Predicted RMR was calculated using the FAO/WHO/UNU (Food and Agricultural Organisation/World Health Organisation/United Nations University), Oxford and Miflin-St Jeor equations. Absolute measured RMR did not differ significantly between OSI versus ORI (6339 vs. 5893 kJ·d-1, p = 0.313). All three prediction equations over-estimated RMR for both OSI and ORI when measured RMR was ≤5000 kJ·d-1. For measured RMR ≤7000 kJ·d-1 there was statistically significant evidence that the equations overestimate RMR to a greater extent for those classified as obesity susceptible with biases ranging between around 10% to nearly 30% depending on the equation. The use of prediction equations may overestimate RMR and energy requirements particularly in those who self-identify as being susceptible to obesity, which has implications for effective weight management.

Appetite Response among Those Susceptible or Resistant to Obesity.

An alternative approach in determining cause, treatment, and prevention of obesity is to study those who appear resistant to the obesogenic environment. We examined appetite responses in 33 obesity resistant individuals (ORI) versus 28 obesity susceptible individuals (OSI). Fingerprick blood samples to measure ghrelin, total peptide YY (PYY), leptin, glucose, and insulin along with appetite ratings were collected at baseline and 15, 30, 60, 120, and 180 min following consumption of a standardized meal. Fasting, area under the curve (AUC), peak/nadir, and time to peak/nadir were compared. Participants completed the three factor eating questionnaire (TFEQ). No significant differences were observed for ghrelin or PYY. Higher leptin concentrations in the OSI disappeared after controlling for percent body fat (%BF). Significant differences in appetite ratings included a lower hunger nadir among OSI compared with ORI (P = 0.017). Dietary restraint (P < 0.001) and disinhibition (P < 0.001) were lower in ORI compared with OSI, with and without adjustment for %BF. Given the differential body weight of the study groups, similar observed ghrelin concentrations were unexpected, perhaps indicating OSI and ORI respond differently to the same ghrelin concentration. Also ORI response to hunger appears different as they exhibit lower levels of dietary restraint and disinhibition compared with OSI.

Protein supplements: do they alter dietary intakes?

Effects of protein versus mixed macronutrient supplementation on total energy intake (TEI) and protein intake during an ad libitum diet were examined. Trained males undertook two, 2-week dietary interventions which were randomized, double blinded, and separated by 2 weeks. These were high-protein supplementation (HP: 1034.5 kJ energy, 29.6 g protein, 8.7 g fat and 12.3 g CHO) and standard meal supplementation (SM: 1039 kJ energy, 9.9 g protein, 9.5 g fat, and 29.4 g CHO) consumed daily following a week of baseline measures. Eighteen participants finished both interventions and one only completed HP. TEI (mean ± SD) was not different between baseline (11148 ± 3347 kJ) and HP (10705 ± 3143 kJ) nor between baseline and SM (12381 ± 3877 kJ), however, TEI was greater with SM than HP (923 ± 4015 kJ p = .043). Protein intake (%TEI) was greater with HP (22.4 ± 6.2%) than baseline (19.4 ± 5.4%; p = .008) but not SM (20.0 ± 5.0%). No differences in absolute daily protein intake were found. Absolute CHO intake was greater with SM than HP (52.0 ± 89.5 g, p = .006). No differences in fat intake were found. Body mass did not change between baseline (82.7 ± 11.2 kg) and either HP (83.1 ± 11.7 kg) or SM (82.9 ± 11.0 kg). Protein supplementation increases the relative proportion of protein in the diet, but doesn't increase the absolute amount of total protein or energy consumed. Thus some compensation by a reduction in other foods occurs. This is in contrast to a mixed nutrient supplement, which does not alter the proportion of protein consumed but does increase TEI.

Increased blood pH but not performance with sodium bicarbonate supplementation in elite rugby union players.

PURPOSE: This study investigated the effect of ingesting 0.3 g/kg body weight (BW) of sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO3) on physiological responses, gastrointestinal (GI) tolerability, and sprint performance in elite rugby union players. METHODS: Twenty-five male rugby players, age 21.6 (2.6) yr, participated in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover trial. Sixty-five minutes after consuming 0.3 g/kg BW of either NaHCO3 or placebo, participants completed a 25-min warm-up followed by 9 min of high-intensity rugby-specific training followed by a rugby-specific repeated-sprint test (RSRST). Whole-blood samples were collected to determine lactate and bicarbonate concentrations and pH at baseline, after supplement ingestion, and immediately after the RSRST. Acute GI discomfort was assessed by questionnaire throughout the trials, and chronic GI discomfort was assessed during the 24 hr postingestion. RESULTS: After supplement ingestion and immediately after the RSRST, blood HCO3⁻ concentration and pH were higher for the NaHCO3 condition than for the placebo condition (p < .001). After the RSRST, blood lactate concentrations were significantly higher for the NaHCO3 than for the placebo condition (p < .001). There was no difference in performance on the RSRST between the 2 conditions. The incidence of belching, stomachache, diarrhea, stomach bloating, and nausea was higher after ingestion of NaHCO3 than with placebo (all p < .050). The severity of stomach cramps, belching, stomachache, bowel urgency, diarrhea, vomiting, stomach bloating, and flatulence was rated worse after ingestion of NaHCO3 than with placebo (p < .050). CONCLUSIONS: NaHCO3 supplementation increased blood HCO3⁻ concentration and attenuated the decline in blood pH compared with placebo during high-intensity exercise in well-trained rugby players but did not significantly improve exercise performance. The higher incidence and greater severity of GI symptoms after ingestion of NaHCO3 may negatively affect physical performance, and the authors strongly recommend testing this supplement during training before use in competitive situations.