↓ Skip to main content

Testing Protein Leverage in Lean Humans: A Randomised Controlled Experimental Study

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, October 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
13 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
184 X users
facebook
5 Facebook pages
reddit
1 Redditor
video
8 YouTube creators

Citations

dimensions_citation
197 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
263 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Testing Protein Leverage in Lean Humans: A Randomised Controlled Experimental Study
Published in
PLOS ONE, October 2011
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0025929
Pubmed ID
Authors

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

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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 184 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 263 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 1%
Australia 3 1%
Portugal 2 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 252 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 44 17%
Researcher 35 13%
Student > Master 35 13%
Student > Bachelor 35 13%
Other 18 7%
Other 51 19%
Unknown 45 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 55 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 40 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 34 13%
Psychology 17 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 14 5%
Other 43 16%
Unknown 60 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 255. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 March 2024.
All research outputs
#148,334
of 25,904,557 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#2,267
of 225,915 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#496
of 150,329 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#21
of 2,600 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,904,557 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 225,915 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 150,329 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2,600 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.