High-Protein Energy-Restriction: Effects on Body Composition, Contractile Properties, Mood, and Sleep in Active Young College Students

Background: It is often advised to ensure a high-protein intake during energy-restricted diets. However, it is unclear whether a high-protein intake is able to maintain muscle mass and contractility in the absence of resistance training.Materials and Methods: After 1 week of body mass maintenance (4...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Christian Roth, Lukas Rettenmaier, Michael Behringer
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Frontiers Media S.A. 2021-06-01
Series:Frontiers in Sports and Active Living
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fspor.2021.683327/full
_version_ 1819065953251491840
author Christian Roth
Lukas Rettenmaier
Michael Behringer
author_facet Christian Roth
Lukas Rettenmaier
Michael Behringer
author_sort Christian Roth
collection DOAJ
description Background: It is often advised to ensure a high-protein intake during energy-restricted diets. However, it is unclear whether a high-protein intake is able to maintain muscle mass and contractility in the absence of resistance training.Materials and Methods: After 1 week of body mass maintenance (45 kcal/kg), 28 male college students not performing resistance training were randomized to either the energy-restricted (ER, 30 kcal/kg, n = 14) or the eucaloric control group (CG, 45 kcal/kg, n = 14) for 6 weeks. Both groups had their protein intake matched at 2.8 g/kg fat-free-mass and continued their habitual training throughout the study. Body composition was assessed weekly using multifrequency bioelectrical impedance analysis. Contractile properties of the m. rectus femoris were examined with Tensiomyography and MyotonPRO at weeks 1, 3, and 5 along with sleep (PSQI) and mood (POMS).Results: The ER group revealed greater reductions in body mass (Δ −3.22 kg vs. Δ 1.90 kg, p < 0.001, partial η2 = 0.360), lean body mass (Δ −1.49 kg vs. Δ 0.68 kg, p < 0.001, partial η2 = 0.152), body cell mass (Δ −0.85 kg vs. Δ 0.59 kg, p < 0.001, partial η2 = 0.181), intracellular water (Δ −0.58 l vs. Δ 0.55 l, p < 0.001, partial η2 = 0.445) and body fat percentage (Δ −1.74% vs. Δ 1.22%, p < 0.001, partial η2 = 433) compared to the CG. Contractile properties, sleep onset, sleep duration as well as depression, fatigue and hostility did not change (p > 0.05). The PSQI score (Δ −1.43 vs. Δ −0.64, p = 0.006, partial η2 = 0.176) and vigor (Δ −2.79 vs. Δ −4.71, p = 0.040, partial η2 = 0.116) decreased significantly in the ER group and the CG, respectively.Discussion: The present data show that a high-protein intake alone was not able to prevent lean mass loss associated with a 6-week moderate energy restriction in college students. Notably, it is unknown whether protein intake at 2.8 g/kg fat-free-mass prevented larger decreases in lean body mass. Muscle contractility was not negatively altered by this form of energy restriction. Sleep quality improved in both groups. Whether these advantages are due to the high-protein intake cannot be clarified and warrants further study. Although vigor was negatively affected in both groups, other mood parameters did not change.
first_indexed 2024-12-21T15:54:39Z
format Article
id doaj.art-2003dec329694a9992c96d30f4ec6c66
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 2624-9367
language English
last_indexed 2024-12-21T15:54:39Z
publishDate 2021-06-01
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format Article
series Frontiers in Sports and Active Living
spelling doaj.art-2003dec329694a9992c96d30f4ec6c662022-12-21T18:58:07ZengFrontiers Media S.A.Frontiers in Sports and Active Living2624-93672021-06-01310.3389/fspor.2021.683327683327High-Protein Energy-Restriction: Effects on Body Composition, Contractile Properties, Mood, and Sleep in Active Young College StudentsChristian RothLukas RettenmaierMichael BehringerBackground: It is often advised to ensure a high-protein intake during energy-restricted diets. However, it is unclear whether a high-protein intake is able to maintain muscle mass and contractility in the absence of resistance training.Materials and Methods: After 1 week of body mass maintenance (45 kcal/kg), 28 male college students not performing resistance training were randomized to either the energy-restricted (ER, 30 kcal/kg, n = 14) or the eucaloric control group (CG, 45 kcal/kg, n = 14) for 6 weeks. Both groups had their protein intake matched at 2.8 g/kg fat-free-mass and continued their habitual training throughout the study. Body composition was assessed weekly using multifrequency bioelectrical impedance analysis. Contractile properties of the m. rectus femoris were examined with Tensiomyography and MyotonPRO at weeks 1, 3, and 5 along with sleep (PSQI) and mood (POMS).Results: The ER group revealed greater reductions in body mass (Δ −3.22 kg vs. Δ 1.90 kg, p < 0.001, partial η2 = 0.360), lean body mass (Δ −1.49 kg vs. Δ 0.68 kg, p < 0.001, partial η2 = 0.152), body cell mass (Δ −0.85 kg vs. Δ 0.59 kg, p < 0.001, partial η2 = 0.181), intracellular water (Δ −0.58 l vs. Δ 0.55 l, p < 0.001, partial η2 = 0.445) and body fat percentage (Δ −1.74% vs. Δ 1.22%, p < 0.001, partial η2 = 433) compared to the CG. Contractile properties, sleep onset, sleep duration as well as depression, fatigue and hostility did not change (p > 0.05). The PSQI score (Δ −1.43 vs. Δ −0.64, p = 0.006, partial η2 = 0.176) and vigor (Δ −2.79 vs. Δ −4.71, p = 0.040, partial η2 = 0.116) decreased significantly in the ER group and the CG, respectively.Discussion: The present data show that a high-protein intake alone was not able to prevent lean mass loss associated with a 6-week moderate energy restriction in college students. Notably, it is unknown whether protein intake at 2.8 g/kg fat-free-mass prevented larger decreases in lean body mass. Muscle contractility was not negatively altered by this form of energy restriction. Sleep quality improved in both groups. Whether these advantages are due to the high-protein intake cannot be clarified and warrants further study. Although vigor was negatively affected in both groups, other mood parameters did not change.https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fspor.2021.683327/fullfat-free-massTensiomyographymuscle qualitysports nutritionproteolysis
spellingShingle Christian Roth
Lukas Rettenmaier
Michael Behringer
High-Protein Energy-Restriction: Effects on Body Composition, Contractile Properties, Mood, and Sleep in Active Young College Students
Frontiers in Sports and Active Living
fat-free-mass
Tensiomyography
muscle quality
sports nutrition
proteolysis
title High-Protein Energy-Restriction: Effects on Body Composition, Contractile Properties, Mood, and Sleep in Active Young College Students
title_full High-Protein Energy-Restriction: Effects on Body Composition, Contractile Properties, Mood, and Sleep in Active Young College Students
title_fullStr High-Protein Energy-Restriction: Effects on Body Composition, Contractile Properties, Mood, and Sleep in Active Young College Students
title_full_unstemmed High-Protein Energy-Restriction: Effects on Body Composition, Contractile Properties, Mood, and Sleep in Active Young College Students
title_short High-Protein Energy-Restriction: Effects on Body Composition, Contractile Properties, Mood, and Sleep in Active Young College Students
title_sort high protein energy restriction effects on body composition contractile properties mood and sleep in active young college students
topic fat-free-mass
Tensiomyography
muscle quality
sports nutrition
proteolysis
url https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fspor.2021.683327/full
work_keys_str_mv AT christianroth highproteinenergyrestrictioneffectsonbodycompositioncontractilepropertiesmoodandsleepinactiveyoungcollegestudents
AT lukasrettenmaier highproteinenergyrestrictioneffectsonbodycompositioncontractilepropertiesmoodandsleepinactiveyoungcollegestudents
AT michaelbehringer highproteinenergyrestrictioneffectsonbodycompositioncontractilepropertiesmoodandsleepinactiveyoungcollegestudents