Nathan C Winn1, Ryan Pettit-Mee1, Lauren K Walsh1, Robert M Restaino2, Sean T Ready1, Jaume Padilla1,3,4, Jill A Kanaley1. 1. Department of Nutrition and Exercise Physiology, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO. 2. Department of Medical Pharmacology and Physiology, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO. 3. Dalton Cardiovascular Research Center, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO. 4. Department of Child Health, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Physical inactivity is associated with disruptions in glucose metabolism and energy balance, whereas energy restriction may blunt these adverse manifestations. During hypocaloric feeding, higher-protein intake maintains lean mass which is an important component of metabolic health. This study determined whether mild energy restriction preserves glycemic control during physical inactivity and whether this preservation is more effectively achieved with a higher-protein diet. METHODS:Ten adults (24 ± 1 yr) consumed a control (64% carbohydrate, 20% fat, 16% protein) and higher-protein diet (50% carbohydrate, 20% fat, 30% protein) during two 10-d inactivity periods (>10,000 → ~5000 steps per day) in a randomized crossover design. Energy intake was decreased by ~400 kcal·d to account for reduced energy expenditure associated with inactivity. A subset of subjects (n = 5) completed 10 d of inactivity while consuming 35% excess of their basal energy requirements, which served as a positive control condition (overfeeding+inactivity). RESULTS: Daily steps were decreased from 12,154 ± 308 to 4275 ± 269 steps per day (P < 0.05) which was accompanied by reduced V˙O2max (-1.8 ± 0.7 mL·kg·min, P < 0.05), independent of diet conditions. No disruptions in fasting or postprandial glucose, insulin, and nonesterified fatty acids in response to 75 g of oral glucose were observed after inactivity for both diet conditions (P > 0.05). Overfeeding+inactivity increased body weight, body fat, homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance, and 2-h postprandial glucose and insulin concentrations (P < 0.05), despite no changes in lipid concentrations. CONCLUSIONS: We show that independent of diet (normal vs higher-protein), mild energy restriction preserves metabolic function during short-term inactivity in healthy subjects. That is, metabolic deterioration with inactivity only manifests in the setting of energy surplus.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Physical inactivity is associated with disruptions in glucose metabolism and energy balance, whereas energy restriction may blunt these adverse manifestations. During hypocaloric feeding, higher-protein intake maintains lean mass which is an important component of metabolic health. This study determined whether mild energy restriction preserves glycemic control during physical inactivity and whether this preservation is more effectively achieved with a higher-protein diet. METHODS: Ten adults (24 ± 1 yr) consumed a control (64% carbohydrate, 20% fat, 16% protein) and higher-protein diet (50% carbohydrate, 20% fat, 30% protein) during two 10-d inactivity periods (>10,000 → ~5000 steps per day) in a randomized crossover design. Energy intake was decreased by ~400 kcal·d to account for reduced energy expenditure associated with inactivity. A subset of subjects (n = 5) completed 10 d of inactivity while consuming 35% excess of their basal energy requirements, which served as a positive control condition (overfeeding+inactivity). RESULTS: Daily steps were decreased from 12,154 ± 308 to 4275 ± 269 steps per day (P < 0.05) which was accompanied by reduced V˙O2max (-1.8 ± 0.7 mL·kg·min, P < 0.05), independent of diet conditions. No disruptions in fasting or postprandial glucose, insulin, and nonesterified fatty acids in response to 75 g of oral glucose were observed after inactivity for both diet conditions (P > 0.05). Overfeeding+inactivity increased body weight, body fat, homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance, and 2-h postprandial glucose and insulin concentrations (P < 0.05), despite no changes in lipid concentrations. CONCLUSIONS: We show that independent of diet (normal vs higher-protein), mild energy restriction preserves metabolic function during short-term inactivity in healthy subjects. That is, metabolic deterioration with inactivity only manifests in the setting of energy surplus.
Authors: R James Stubbs; Darren A Hughes; Alexandra M Johnstone; Graham W Horgan; Neil King; John E Blundell Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Ruth E Tanner; Lucille B Brunker; Jakob Agergaard; Katherine M Barrows; Robert A Briggs; Oh Sung Kwon; Laura M Young; Paul N Hopkins; Elena Volpi; Robin L Marcus; Paul C LaStayo; Micah J Drummond Journal: J Physiol Date: 2015-07-31 Impact factor: 5.182
Authors: Paul T Reidy; Catherine C Lindsay; Alec I McKenzie; Christopher S Fry; Mark A Supiano; Robin L Marcus; Paul C LaStayo; Micah J Drummond Journal: Exp Gerontol Date: 2017-07-10 Impact factor: 4.032
Authors: Catherine R Mikus; Douglas J Oberlin; Jessica L Libla; Angelina M Taylor; Frank W Booth; John P Thyfault Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Leryn J Boyle; Daniel P Credeur; Nathan T Jenkins; Jaume Padilla; Heather J Leidy; John P Thyfault; Paul J Fadel Journal: J Appl Physiol (1985) Date: 2013-09-26
Authors: Sine Haugaard Knudsen; Louise Seier Hansen; Maria Pedersen; Thomas Dejgaard; Jakob Hansen; Gerrit Van Hall; Carsten Thomsen; Thomas P J Solomon; Bente Klarlund Pedersen; Rikke Krogh-Madsen Journal: J Appl Physiol (1985) Date: 2012-05-03
Authors: Leryn J Reynolds; Daniel P Credeur; Seth W Holwerda; Heather J Leidy; Paul J Fadel; John P Thyfault Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2015-05 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Elizabeth Hegedus; Sarah-Jeanne Salvy; Choo Phei Wee; Monica Naguib; Jennifer K Raymond; D Steven Fox; Alaina P Vidmar Journal: Obes Res Clin Pract Date: 2021-09-02 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: Ana Maestre; Isabel Sospedra; José Miguel Martínez-Sanz; Ana Gutierrez-Hervas; José Fernández-Saez; José Antonio Hurtado-Sánchez; Aurora Norte Journal: Nutrients Date: 2021-11-17 Impact factor: 5.717
Authors: María Martinez-Ferran; Fernando de la Guía-Galipienso; Fabián Sanchis-Gomar; Helios Pareja-Galeano Journal: Nutrients Date: 2020-05-26 Impact factor: 5.717