Affiliation:
1. Tufts University Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, Boston, MA, USA
2. Tufts University School of Medicine, Department of Public Health and Community Medicine, Boston, MA, USA
3. Nutritional Epidemiology, Jean Mayer US Department of Agriculture Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University, Boston, MA, USA
Abstract
ABSTRACT
Understanding the health effects of protein intake is bedeviled by a number of factors, including protein quality and source. In addition, different units, including grams, grams per kilogram body weight (g/kg BW), and percent energy, may contribute to confusion about protein's effects on health, especially BW-based units in increasingly obese populations. We aimed to review the literature and to conduct a modeling demonstration of various units of protein intake in relation to markers of cardiometabolic health. Data from the Framingham Heart Study Offspring (n = 1847; 60.3 y; 62.5% women) and Third Generation (n = 2548; 46.2 y; 55.3% women) cohorts and the NHANES 2003–04 (n = 1625; 46.2 y; 49.7% women) and 2005–06 (n = 1347; 43.7 y; 49.5% women) cycles were used to model cross-sectional associations between 7 protein units (grams, percent energy, g/kg ideal BW, g/kg actual BW, BW-adjusted g/kg actual BW, g/kg lean BW, and g/kg fat-free BW) and 9 cardiometabolic outcomes (fasting glucose, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, total and HDL cholesterol, triglycerides, BMI, waist circumference, and estimated glomerular filtration rate). The literature review indicated the use of myriad units of protein intake, with differential results on cardiometabolic outcomes. The modeling demonstration showed units expressed in BW were confounded by BW, irrespective of outcome. Units expressed in grams, percent energy, and ideal BW showed similar results, with or without adjustment for body size. After adjusting for BW, results of units expressed in BW aligned with results of grams, percent energy, and ideal BW. In conclusion, protein intake in cardiometabolic health appears to depend on protein's unit of expression. Authors should be specific about the use of WHO (g/kg ideal BW) compared with US (g/kg actual BW) units, and ideally use gram or percent energy in observational studies. In populations where overweight/obesity are prevalent, intake based on actual BW should be reevaluated.
Funder
International Life Sciences Institute
US Department of Agriculture–Agricultural Research Service
The Framingham Heart Study
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
Boston University School of Medicine
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Subject
Nutrition and Dietetics,Medicine (miscellaneous),Food Science
Reference106 articles.
1. Dietary reference intakes for energy, carbohydrate, fiber, fat, fatty acids, cholesterol, protein, and amino acids (macronutrients);Institute of Medicine,2005
2. Optimizing protein intake in adults: Interpretation and application of the recommended dietary allowance compared with the acceptable macronutrient distribution range;Wolfe;Adv Nutr,2017
3. Protein and amino acid requirements in human nutrition: Report of a joint WHO/FAO/UNU expert consultation [Geneva, 9 - 16 April 2002];Joint Expert Consultation on Protein and Amino Acid Requirements in Human Nutrition, Weltgesundheitsorganisation, FAO, United Nations University, editors,2007
4. Energy and protein requirements: Report of a joint FAO/WHO/UNU expert consultation;Joint FAO/WHO/UNU Expert Consultation on Energy and Protein Requirements, editor,1985
5. Scientific opinion on dietary reference values for protein: Dietary reference values for protein;European Food Safety Authority Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies (NDA);EFSA J,2012