Background: It is currently unclear whether altering the carbohydrateto-protein ratio of low-fat, energy-restricted diets augments weight loss and cardiometabolic risk markers. Objective: The objective was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that compared energy-restricted, isocaloric, high-protein, low-fat (HP) diets with standard-protein, low-fat (SP) diets on weight loss, body composition, resting energy expenditure (REE), satiety and appetite, and cardiometabolic risk factors. Design: Systematic searches were conducted by using MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify weight-loss trials that compared isocalorically prescribed diets matched for fat intake but that differed in protein and carbohydrate intakes in participants aged $18 y. Twenty-four trials that included 1063 individuals satisfied the inclusion criteria.

Over the past 20 y, higher-protein diets have been touted as a successful strategy to prevent or treat obesity through improvements in body weight management. These improvements are thought to be due, in part, to modulations in energy metabolism, appetite, and energy intake. Recent evidence also supports higher-protein diets for improvements in cardiometabolic risk factors. This article provides an overview of the literature that explores the mechanisms of action after acute protein consumption and the clinical health outcomes after consumption of long-term, higher-protein diets. Several meta-analyses of shorter-term, tightly controlled feeding studies showed greater weight loss, fat mass loss, and preservation of lean mass after higherprotein energy-restriction diets than after lower-protein energyrestriction diets. Reductions in triglycerides, blood pressure, and waist circumference were also reported. In addition, a review of the acute feeding trials confirms a modest satiety effect, including greater perceived fullness and elevated satiety hormones after higherprotein meals but does not support an effect on energy intake at the next eating occasion. Although shorter-term, tightly controlled feeding studies consistently identified benefits with increased protein consumption, longer-term studies produced limited and conflicting findings; nevertheless, a recent meta-analysis showed persistent benefits of a higher-protein weight-loss diet on body weight and fat mass. Dietary compliance appears to be the primary contributor to the discrepant findings because improvements in weight management were detected in those who adhered to the prescribed higher-protein regimen, whereas those who did not adhere to the diet had no marked improvements. Collectively, these data suggest that higher-protein diets that contain between 1.2 and 1.6 g protein $ kg 21 $ d 21 and potentially include meal-specific protein quantities of at least w25-30 g protein/meal provide improvements in appetite, body weight management, cardiometabolic risk factors, or all of these health outcomes; however, further strategies to increase dietary compliance with long-term dietary interventions are warranted. Am J Clin Nutr 2015;101(Suppl):1320S-9S.

Both diets achieved comparable weight loss and HbA1c reductions. The LC sustained greater reductions in diabetes medication requirements, and in improvements in diurnal blood glucose stability and blood lipid profile, with no adverse renal effects, suggesting greater optimization of T2D management.

OBJECTIVETo evaluate the effects of two low-fat hypocaloric diets differing in the carbohydrate-to-protein ratio, with and without resistance exercise training (RT), on weight loss, body composition, and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk outcomes in overweight/obese patients with type 2 diabetes.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSA total of 83 men and women with type 2 diabetes (aged 56.1 ± 7.5 years, BMI 35.4 ± 4.6 kg/m2) were randomly assigned to an isocaloric, energy-restricted diet (female subjects 6 MJ/day, male subjects 7 MJ/day) of either standard carbohydrate (CON; carbohydrate:protein:fat 53:19:26) or high protein (HP; 43:33:22), with or without supervised RT (3 days/week) for 16 weeks. Body weight and composition, waist circumference (WC), and cardiometabolic risk markers were assessed.RESULTSFifty-nine participants completed the study. There was a significant group effect (P ≤ 0.04) for body weight, fat mass, and WC with the greatest reductions occuring in HP+RT (weight [CON: −8.6 ± 4.6 kg, HP: −9.0 ± 4.8 kg, CON+RT: −10.5 ± 5.1 kg, HP+RT: −13.8 ± 6.0 kg], fat mass [CON: −6.4 ± 3.4 kg, HP: −6.7 ± 4.0 kg, CON+RT: −7.9 ± 3.7 kg, HP+RT: −11.1 ± 3.7 kg], and WC [CON: −8.2 ± 4.6 cm, HP: −8.9 ± 3.9 cm, CON+RT: −11.3 ± 4.6 cm, HP+RT: −13.7 ± 4.6 cm]). There was an overall reduction (P < 0.001) in fat-free mass (−2.0 ± 2.3 kg), blood pressure (−15/8 ± 10/6 mmHg), glucose (−2.1 ± 2.2 mmol/l), insulin (−4.7 ± 5.4 mU/l), A1C (−1.25 ± 0.94%), triglycerides (−0.47 ± 0.81 mmol/l), total cholesterol (−0.67 ± 0.69 mmol/l), and LDL cholesterol (−0.37 ± 0.53 mmol/l), with no difference between groups (P ≥ 0.17).CONCLUSIONSAn energy-restricted HP diet combined with RT achieved greater weight loss and more favorable changes in body composition. All treatments had similar improvements in glycemic control and CVD risk markers.