Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22022472›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2011

Testing protein leverage in lean humans: a randomised controlled experimental study.

Alison K Gosby, Arthur D Conigrave, Namson S Lau, Miguel A Iglesias, Rosemary M Hall, Susan A Jebb, Jennie Brand-Miller, Ian D Caterson, David Raubenheimer, Stephen J Simpson

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01646749 (Effects of Beef Protein Consumption on Energy Intake - The Protein Leverage Hypothesis), which is not on this map. Cited by 87 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
87citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT01646749 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2012, after this paper: background citation

Effects of Beef Protein Consumption on Energy Intake - The Protein Leverage Hypothesis

TypeinterventionalSponsorMaastricht University Medical CenterRan2012 to 2013Enrolled30ConditionsObesity, Severe OverweightArmsDifferences in protein content (En%) of meals
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

87 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Review
  10. Protein Decoys, Alcohol, and Energy Intake: Testing a Mechanistic-Ecological Model.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2026
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review

27 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Alison K GosbySchool of Biological Sciences, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. alison.gosby@sydney.edu.au
Arthur D Conigrave
Namson S Lau
Miguel A Iglesias
Rosemary M Hall
Susan A Jebb
Jennie Brand-Miller
Ian D Caterson
David Raubenheimer
Stephen J Simpson

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_U105960389
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A significant contributor to the rising rates of human obesity is an increase in energy intake. The 'protein leverage hypothesis' proposes that a dominant appetite for protein in conjunction with a decline in the ratio of protein to fat and carbohydrate in the diet drives excess energy intake and could therefore promote the development of obesity. Our aim was to test the 'protein leverage hypothesis' in lean humans by disguising the macronutrient composition of foods offered to subjects under ad libitum feeding conditions. Energy intakes and hunger ratings were measured for 22 lean subjects studied over three 4-day periods of in-house dietary manipulation. Subjects were restricted to fixed menus in random order comprising 28 foods designed to be similar in palatability, availability, variety and sensory quality and providing 10%, 15% or 25% energy as protein. Nutrient and energy intake was calculated as the product of the amount of each food eaten and its composition. Lowering the percent protein of the diet from 15% to 10% resulted in higher (+12±4.5%, p = 0.02) total energy intake, predominantly from savoury-flavoured foods available between meals. This increased energy intake was not sufficient to maintain protein intake constant, indicating that protein leverage is incomplete. Urinary urea on the 10% and 15% protein diets did not differ statistically, nor did they differ from habitual values prior to the study. In contrast, increasing protein from 15% to 25% did not alter energy intake. On the fourth day of the trial, however, there was a greater increase in the hunger score between 1-2 h after the 10% protein breakfast versus the 25% protein breakfast (1.6±0.4 vs 25%: 0.5±0.3, p = 0.005). In our study population a change in the nutritional environment that dilutes dietary protein with carbohydrate and fat promotes overconsumption, enhancing the risk for potential weight gain.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultDietary CarbohydratesDietary FiberDietary ProteinsEnergy MetabolismFemaleHumansHungerMaleMiddle AgedSodium ChlorideThinnessYoung AdultDietary CarbohydratesDietary FiberDietary ProteinsSodium Chloride

Identifiers

PMID22022472
PMCPMC3192127

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.