Minimal Amounts of Fish Peptide Hydrolysate Double Fat Loss Compared to Whey Isolate on Energy Restricted Diet

Minimal Amounts of Fish Peptide Hydrolysate Double Fat Loss Compared to Whey Isolate on Energy Restricted Diet

CCK fatloss fish fish protein GLP-1 lose fat protein protein supplement satiety hormones supplements weight loss

I certainly recommend eating fish. Whether I will be recommending fish hydrolysate supplements in the future, however, will have to be determined when additional studies with different baseline diets will have been published.

You may remember that I've written about fish protein hydrolysates / peptides before. Unlike today's article, however, previous articles dealt with the effects of fish protein in rodents. Intrigued by in vitro and animal studies showing that fish-derived peptides demonstrated antihypertensive (Hatanaka. 2009; Kim. 2012; Li. 2012; Ngo. 2011), antioxidant (Nazeer. 2012; Najafian. 2012), immunomodulating effects (Duarte. 2006), reparative properties in the intestine (Fitzgerald. 2005; Marchbank. 2008), and effects in reducing plasma cholesterol and triglycerides levels (Möller. 2008), a group of Italian researchers decided to investigated the effect of Slimpro(R), a supplement containing commercially available fish protein hydrolysate from blue whiting (Micromesistius poutassou), on body composition and on stimulating cholecystokinin (CCK) and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) secretion in 120, overweight, non-obese (25 kg/m² < BMI < 30 kg/m²), male (25%) and female (75%) subjects aged 18 - 55 year.

Do not underestimate fish as a protein source - fish is more than just omega-3!

Salmon Better Than Whey?

Cod protein for recovery

Krill = Super Protein?

Fish Kicks Casein's Ass

Fast vs. slow protein

5x More Than FDA Allows

Unlike the product that was used may suggest, the study was not sponsored by the supplement company. The authors received neither funding nor other external support and they also declare that they don't have a conflict of interest that may be related to patents or direct involvements in the industry. I guess it's important to point that out, even though fact that the scientists chose whey, i.e. an actually relevant control, instead of carbohydrates or just plain water, may have given away the lack of sponsorship, anyways.

Two weeks before the study started, subjects were asked to fill in an alimentary diary reporting their food preferences. A mild hypocaloric ( 300 kcal/day) diet was elaborated for each subject by a dietitian based on subject’s food preferences and habits as reported in the alimentary diary.

Figure 1: The low protein content of the diet is - as highlighted in the annotations to this graphical illustration of the macronutrient composition of the test diets - problematic, to say the least.

Approximately, 55% of energy intake was from carbohydrates, 25% from lipids, and the remaining 20% from proteins. Part of these 20% of protein were either 1.4g and 2.8g of fish protein or 1.4g of whey protein isolate as a control (I just assume that the dosage was 1.4g, because there was only one whey group), which were consumed in form of a flavored shake according to the following protocol:

"Both the active (one dose treatment arm) and the placebo products were taken as follows: ‘dilute the content of one sachet in a large glass of cool water (200 ml). Shake or stir with a spoon. Consume within 10 30 min before the main meal’. In the case of two-dose treatment arm, one sachet of the active product was taken 30 min before lunch and one sachet 30 min before dinner" (Nobile. 2016).

To be able to tell what could be responsible for advantages or disadvantages of the two treatments, the scientists assessed more than just body weight, fat mass (DXA scans), and safety of use as well as the secondary efficacy endpoints, extracellular water, and the circumference of waist, hips, and thighs. They also checked the CCK and GLP-1 levels in their subjects' blood. This is relevant, because this is how the fish hydrolysate is advertised on the manufacturers website:

"Taken daily before meals, Slimpro® increases the production of CCK and GLP-1 in the body, thus amplifying messages associated with a decrease of food intake. Promising results were reported from in vivo et in vitro trials of these molecules that may control food intake. Scientists have described this ingredient as a direct action on the hunger process" (Nobile. 2015).

As it is usually the case in studies like this, some patients were "lost". In this case, we're talking about a total count of eleven subjects who did not reappear for the follow-up check (One subject in the one-dose treatment arm, four subjects in the twodose treatment arm, and six subjects in the placebo treatment arm discontinued intervention because they were no longer interested to participate in the study). The results of the other subjects are plotted in Figure 2:

Figure 2: Changes in body composition after 45 and 90 days of dieting w/ the specific supplements (Nobile. 2016).

As you can see, double-dosing had astonishingly little effect on the subjects' ability to lose body fat. That's in contrast to switching from fish protein hydrolysate to whey protein isolate, which produced measurably, but not statistically reduced rates of fat loss and waist reductions.

Figure 3: Blood biomarker levels. (a) CCK blood levels and (b) GLP-1 blood levels. Intragroup (vs. D0) statistical analysis is reported upon the bars of the histogram. The lines report the intergroup (vs. placebo) statistical analysis. Statistical analysis is reported as follows: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, and ***p < 0.001. Data are mean +/- SE (Nobile. 2016).

And guess what: Even though the bars don't look like it, the asterisks over the bars tell you that these differences may be caused by the same differential expression of the satiety hormones CCK and GLP-1 in the fish hydrolysate vs. whey protein group that has been observed with other control protein in previous studies and is boldly advertised on the producer's website.

Great! Let's eat more fish... It stands out of question that the former is actually a very good idea (assuming you make the right fish choices). I have to warn you, though: Firstly, the fish protein consumed in the study at hand came from fish, but just like whey protein and milk, fish and fish protein hydrolysates will also have different effects.

Is Wild Caught Fish Always the Better Choice? With Sign. More N3 and Less Pollutants?  Learn more!

What is probably way more important, however, is the relative protein deficiency of the subjects. With only 20% of the diet being protein, the study participants hovered around at the meager level of the RDA. Since the effects of 1.4g of fish protein hydrolysate you throw on top of a low protein diet are probably very different from those of the same amount of fish protein consumed alongside 2g/kg of dietary and supplemental protein, I wouldn't guarantee and in fact even doubt that you would see a similar almost 100% increase in fat loss while dieting - and still,  the CCK and GLP-1 boosting effects of fish protein hydrolysates are intriguing | Comment on Facebook!

References:

• Duarte, Jairo, et al. "Immunomodulating capacity of commercial fish protein hydrolysate for diet supplementation." Immunobiology 211.5 (2006): 341-350.
• Hatanaka, Akimasa, et al. "Isolation and identification of antihypertensive peptides from antarctic krill tail meat hydrolysate." Journal of food science 74.4 (2009): H116-H120.
• Kim, Se-Kwon, Dai-Hung Ngo, and Thanh-Sang Vo. "Marine fish-derived bioactive peptides as potential antihypertensive agents." Adv Food Nutr Res 65 (2012): 249-260.
• Li, Ying, et al. "Purification of a novel angiotensin I-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitory peptide with an antihypertensive effect from loach (Misgurnus anguillicaudatus)." Journal of agricultural and food chemistry 60.5 (2012): 1320-1325.
• Marchbank, T., et al. "Clinical trial: protective effect of a commercial fish protein hydrolysate against indomethacin (NSAID)‐induced small intestinal injury." Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics 28.6 (2008): 799-804.
• Möller, Niels Peter, et al. "Bioactive peptides and proteins from foods: indication for health effects." European journal of nutrition 47.4 (2008): 171-182.
• Nazeer, R. A., NS Sampath Kumar, and R. Jai Ganesh. "In vitro and in vivo studies on the antioxidant activity of fish peptide isolated from the croaker (Otolithes ruber) muscle protein hydrolysate." Peptides 35.2 (2012): 261-268.
• Najafian, L., and Abd Salam Babji. "A review of fish-derived antioxidant and antimicrobial peptides: their production, assessment, and applications." Peptides 33.1 (2012): 178-185.
• Ngo, Dai-Hung, et al. "Free radical scavenging and angiotensin-I converting enzyme inhibitory peptides from Pacific cod (Gadus macrocephalus) skin gelatin." International journal of biological macromolecules 49.5 (2011): 1110-1116.

Calculated Energy Requirements ±15% & More Off of True Resting Energy Expenditure | Genotyping May Help Maintain Muscle While Dieting -- ISSN'15 Research Review Issue #5

Calculated Energy Requirements ±15% & More Off of True Resting Energy Expenditure | Genotyping May Help Maintain Muscle While Dieting -- ISSN'15 Research Review Issue #5

calculations energy requirements fat burner fatloss fatty acid oxidation genes genetics genotyping high carb ISSN15 ISSN2015 lose fat low carb

In view of the inaccuracy of the standard equations that are used to calculate our energy requirements we are approaching the age of the "misquantified self".

If I had to find a common theme in the studies discussed in this installment of the ISSN'15 Research Overview, I guess it would be "get lean and stay lean". If you asked for a common bottom line, it would be: It's complicated.

Complicated, because even though our genes appear to have a determining rule in what's the best diet for us, the "calories in vs. calories out" equation is eventually going to determine whether you are losing or gaining weight. That's problematic, not just because many of us have lost their inborn ability to match their energy intake to their individual requirements. It's also problematic in view of the increasing number of people who rely on the numbers of apps and fitness-trackers which are just as unreliable as the standard equations that were fed into the source code to calculate them.

Read more about ISSN and other studies at the SuppVersity

Vitargo, Red Bull, Creatine & More | ISSN'15 #1

Pump Supps & Synephrine & X | ISSN'15 #2

High Protein, Body Comp & X | ISSN'15 #3

Keto Diet Re- search Update | ISSN'15 #4

The Misquantified Self & More | ISSN'15 #5

BCAA, Cholos-trum, Probiotics & Co | ISSN'15 #6

• Eating according to your genes may help you retain lean mass -- You will have noticed that the number of companies that do gene testing in order to tell you "exactly" what and how to eat is exploding lately. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of research that would confirm that any of the test results people often pay several hundred dollars for are worth the paper they are printed on.
  
  Against that background, a recent study from the Texas A&M University comes quite handy for the shareholder value of said companies. The corresponding poster presentation at the ISSN Conference 2015 expanded on the results of a 2015 study by Coletta et al. (2015a), in which the researchers observed "that correctly matching diet type to some obesity-related genes promoted greater fat loss during the first 3 months of a diet and exercise intervention" (Coletta. 2015b). In the study at hand the researchers did now examine "whether these changes were observed following a 6-month diet and exercise training program" (ibid.).
  
  Over the course of the 6-months study, fifty sedentary, obese women (41.6 ± 12 yrs, 35.4 ± 8 kg/m²) who had been genotyped before the intervention, were either truly matched (T) to their diet group based on genotype (n = 28) or falsely matched (F) based on genotype (n = 22).
  

  

  Figure 1: Macronutrient composition of the diets (Coletta. 2015b).

  Irrespective of the group they were assigned to, all subjects consumed the same amount of energy (1,500 kcal/d), but with either a high or low ratio of carbohydrate:fat:protein percentages (see Figure 1). But the women didn't just eat less, they also had to perform a supervised circuit-style resistance-exercise program four days/week and followed a standardized walking program that consisted of 10,000 steps/day on three days/week. 

High carbohydrate diets for metabolic syndrome? A question of your genes - Study suggests that diets high in carbohydrate may not be appropriate for rs328 G carriers with the metabolic syndrome. In said study, two districts in Shanghai, China were randomly selected to be the intervention and control group, and patients (n=235) with metabolic syndrome within these two districts were selected based on a multistage sampling method.

"Three Days on Pasta, Muffin & Bread Diet (84% CHO) = 1kg Add. Lean Mass and a Sign. Trend for Decreased Fat Mass" - Probably the subjects in the study discussed in this SV Classic Article simply had the right genes ;-)

Fasting glucose was reduced in rs328 CC homozygotes (p=0.028) but not G carriers (p=0.686) within the intervention group.

Also an ancillary study with greater statistical power by combining the baseline measurements across both the intervention and control groups was conducted to test the cross-sectional statistical interactions between carbohydrate/fat and lipoprotein lipase genotypes for homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance/insulin/fasting glucose. Increased carbohydrate intakes were positively associated with homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance and insulin in rs328 G carriers but not CC homozygotes (p for interaction was 0.025).

"These results indicate that diet high in carbohydrate may not be suitable for metabolic syndrome rs328 G carriers, calling for the development of personalized dietary intervention for metabolic syndrome subjects," (Zhang. 2015) scientists say.

• Unsurprisingly, the combination of both, diet and exercise triggered significant reductions in weight and body fat in both diet groups (high and low carb). Nevertheless, both, the carbohydrate content of the diet and the genotype < > diet match, had significant effects on the study outcomes, as well. More specifically, ...
  • the participants following a more carbohydrate restricted diet experienced significantly greater weight loss and slightly greater body composition changes (the low-carb-fat-loss-advantage), and
  • matching diet based on gene-type exhibited better retention of fat free mass, albeit with no significant differences between groups in changes in weight or fat mass (the genotype-lean-mass-advantage).
  Now that sounds pretty much like genotyping your diet was always the way to go, right? Well, in view of the fact that the falsely assigned subjects experienced a slightly greater reduction in body fat percentage, the interpretation of the study results does actually depend on one's individual goals and is thus less obvious than it may appear to be when you read the abstract.
• How much should you eat, ladies? Study shows: No equation can answer this question exactly -- You may believe that your apps and fitness trackers were able to tell you "exactly" how much energy you need, but  eventually their recommendations are also based on equations like those Kisiolek et al. tested in their latest study.
  
  

  

  Do We Systematically Underestimate the Energetic Costs of Push-Ups, Pull Ups, Squats & Co? Study Says Anaerobic Exercises Burn 2x More Energy Than Previously Thought | learn more

  For the experiment on which I base the above statement, the scientists recruited twenty-five recreationally active, college-aged women (20.72 ± 0.97 yrs; 163.04 ± 5.67 cm; 67.08 ± 10.40 kg; 29.04 ± 5.80% BF) who underwent a single day of testing, consisting of determination of REE by indirect calorimetry (TrueOne® 2400 Metabolic Measurement system, ParvoMedics, Sandy, UT) followed by body composition assessment.
  
  To avoid interferences by exercise or dietary factors, all subjects were instructed to refrain from strenuous exercise 48 hrs prior to testing in addition to fasting >8 hrs prior.
  
  During the actual testing, the participants laid motionless without falling asleep for 15-20 minutes during REE determination. Data were recorded during a period of time in which criterion variables (e.g., VO2 L/min) changed less than 5% every 5 minutes. In addition, the subjects' body composition was assessed using air displacement plethysmography (BODPOD, Cosmed, USA) via the Siri equatio and fed into the three equations the scientists tested, i.e. the (1) Nelson Equation the (2) Mifflin-St. Jeor Equation and the (3) Harris-Benedict Equation (with a moderate activity factor).
  

  

  Figure 2: Energy expenditure (kcal/24h) according to indirect calorimetry (measured) and the three tested equations (calculated); %-ages indicate differences to measured values (Kisiolek. 2015).

  For all three tested equations the results were significantly different than indirect calorimetry (p < 0.001; see Table 1). More specifically, ...
  • the Nelson and Mifflin-St. Jeor equations underestimated REE when compared to indirect calorimetry by 345.5 ± 51.5 and 220.6 ± 47.3 kcals, respectively,
  • while the Harris Benedict overestimated REE by 272.4 ± 49.3 kcals.
  Against that background it could be considered a "success" that all three equations were moderately correlated with the subjects' objectively measured resting energy expenditure (REE) as determined by indirect calorimetry.
  
  Well, "success" or not, the implications of Kisiolek's study should be clear: "Practitioners should exercise caution when providing dietary recommendations based upon predicted REE values as certain equations may over or underestimate energy requirements by several hundred kilocalories" (Kisiolek. 2015); and I would like to add: If you want to make sure you're nailing it, log your dietary intake during a weight stable week - that's the only way to know for sure how much energy you need.

So what didn't make the "cut"? Worth mentioning, but not discussing in detail are the observations Mullins et al. made when they investigated the effects of Iron Cuts®, a thermogenic supplement from MusclePharm, that appeared to improve the subjects strength, but had no significant effects on the health or body composition of 20 recreationally trained men who participated in Mullins' prospective, double-blind, placebo controlled randomized trial (Mullins. 2015).

Statistical significance was only observed for the small increase in fatty acid oxidation in response to Shred-Matrix® from -3h to pre-workout not for the post increase (Seijo. 2015). Neither of them means that the supplement will actively promote fat loss, though.

The increase in fatty acid oxidation Seijo et al. observed when they studies the acute effects of Shred-Matrix® on fat oxidation is certainly more impressive than the results of Mullins study, but eventually it is of even less practical relevance. As a SuppVersity reader you should now that the currently available research refutes the existence of a reliable mechanistic link between the acute increases in fatty acid oxidation the scientists observed before and after the workout and long-term fat loss (the post-workout increase in fatty acid oxidation was not even significantly higher than the increase in the placebo group, by the way).

In view of the lack of effect on mood state and perception of hunger it is thus very questionable, whether the supplement can actually do what the scientists say their results would "suggest" and augment "the weight-loss benefits at rest and during exercise" (Seijo. 2015) | Comment!

References:

• Coletta, A., et al. "Influence of Obesity-Related Genotype on Weight Loss Success and Body Composition Changes While Participating in an a 3-Month Exercise and Weight Loss Program: Preliminary Findings." The FASEB Journal 29.1 Supplement (2015a): LB241.
• Coletta, A., et al. "Effects of matching diet type to obesity-related genotype on body composition changes in women during a six-month resistance-exercise training and walking program." Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition 12.Suppl 1 (2015b): P16.
• Kisiolek, J., et al. "A comparison of resting energy prediction equations in young recreationally active women." Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition 12.Suppl 1 (2015): P50.
• Mullins, Jacy, et al. "Safety and efficacy of a proprietary thermogenic and cutting agent on measures of muscular strength and endurance, body composition, fat metabolism, and hormone levels." Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition 12.Suppl 1 (2015): P13.
• Seijo, Marcos, et al. "Effectiveness of multi-ingredient supplement on substrate utilisation, perception of hunger, mood state and rate of perceived exertion (RPE) at rest and during exercise." Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition 12.Suppl 1 (2015): P42.
• Zhang, Shixiu, et al. "Diets high in carbohydrate may not be appropriate for rs328 G carriers with the metabolic syndrome." Asia Pac J Clin Nutr 24.3 (2015): Ahead of print