Interesting scientific study in JAMA on excess calories and the diet. They essentially overfed humans in a controlled environment different macro levels, and measured bodyfat/etc afterwards. Their conclusion is: Among persons living in a controlled setting, calories alone account for the increase in fat; protein affected energy expenditure and storage of lean body mass, but not body fat storage.
So this adds to the "amount of calories" arguement vs. the type arguement.
Macro ratio (carbs were always 41%):
Low protein: Protein 5%, Carb 41%, Fat 54%.
Medium protein: Protein 15%, Carb 41%, Fat 44%.
High protein: Protein 25%, Carb 41%, Fat 34%.
I think for the bulk of us, their high protein would be our low, and the carbs would be beyond our high. I'm curious what the results would have been if protein was in the 35-40% range and carbs in in the lower range. My belief is the flaws in this study are that they stayed at 41% carbs and their high protein was only 25% protein.
Even so: "In the low protein group lean body mass dropped by an average 1.5 pounds, while in the normal and high protein groups it increased by an average of about 6.3 pounds and 7 pounds, respectively." I think I'd rather gain weight from increased lean muscle than lose weight by losing it. :)
My question: Anyone seen anything like this study for a more paleo/low carb diet? I do like the idea behind the study, just not the macro breakdowns. I'm curious as to where the "sweet" spot would be for protein vs other macronutrients. From this study, we're seeing 25% protein and 41% carbs still gains weight. From our anectdotal info, higher protein and lower carb leads to lower weight (Paleo diet). But where does that % breakdown really lie? ie. could we go 25% protein, 30% carb, and 45% fat and lose?