Changes in 24-h energy expenditure, substrate oxidation, and body composition following resistance exercise and a high protein diet via whey protein supplementation in healthy older men.

PURPOSE: To investigate changes in 24-h energy expenditure (EE), substrate oxidation, and body composition following resistance exercise (RE) and a high protein diet via whey protein supplementation (alone and combined) in healthy older men. METHODS: In a pooled groups analysis, 33 healthy older men [(mean ± SE) age: 67 ± 1 years; BMI: 25.4 ± 0.4 kg/m2] were randomized to either RE (2×/week; n = 17) or non-exercise (n = 16) and either a high protein diet via whey protein supplementation (PRO, 2 × 25 g whey protein isolate/d; n = 17) or control (CON, 2 × 23.75 g maltodextrin/d; n = 16). An exploratory sub-analysis was also conducted between RE+CON (n = 8) and RE+PRO (n = 9). At baseline and 12 weeks, participants resided in respiration chambers for measurement of 24-h EE and substrate oxidation and wore an accelerometer for 7 days for estimation of free-living EE. RESULTS: Resistance exercise resulted in greater increases in fat-free mass (1.0 ± 0.3 kg), resting metabolic rate [(RMR) 36 ± 14 kcal/d], sedentary EE (60 ± 33 kcal/d), and sleeping metabolic rate [(SMR) 45 ± 7 kcal/d] compared to non-exercise (p < 0.05); however, RE decreased activity energy expenditure in free-living (-90 ± 25 kcal/d; p = 0.049) and non-exercise activity inside the respiration chamber (-1.9 ± 1.1%; p = 0.049). PRO decreased fat mass [(FM) -0.5 ± 0.3 kg], increased overnight protein oxidation (30 ± 6 g/d), and decreased 24-h protein balance (-20 ± 4 g/d) greater than CON (p < 0.05). RE+PRO decreased FM (-1.0 ± 0.5 kg) greater than RE+CON (p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Resistance exercise significantly increased RMR, SMR, and sedentary EE in healthy older men, but not total EE. PRO alone and combined with RE decreased FM and aided body weight maintenance. This study was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT03299972.

Comparative Assessment of the Acute Effects of Whey, Rice and Potato Protein Isolate Intake on Markers of Glycaemic Regulation and Appetite in Healthy Males Using a Randomised Study Design.

Global protein consumption has been increasing for decades due to changes in demographics and consumer shifts towards higher protein intake to gain health benefits in performance nutrition and appetite regulation. Plant-derived proteins may provide a more environmentally sustainable alternative to animal-derived proteins. This study, therefore, aimed to investigate, for the first time, the acute effects on glycaemic indices, gut hormones, and subjective appetite ratings of two high-quality, plant-derived protein isolates (potato and rice), in comparison to a whey protein isolate in a single-blind, triple-crossover design study with nine male participants (30.8 ± 9.3 yrs). Following a 12 h overnight fast, participants consumed an equal volume of the three isocaloric protein shakes on different days, with at least a one-week washout period. Glycaemic indices and gut hormones were measured at baseline, then at 30, 60, 120, 180 min at each visit. Subjective palatability and appetite ratings were measured using visual analogue scales (VAS) over the 3 h, at each visit. This data showed significant differences in insulin secretion with an increase in whey (+141.8 ± 35.1 pmol/L; p = 0.011) and rice (-64.4 ± 20.9 pmol/L; p = 0.046) at 30 min compared to potato protein. A significantly larger total incremental area under the curve (iAUC) was observed with whey versus potato and rice with p < 0.001 and p = 0.010, respectively. There was no significant difference observed in average appetite perception between the different proteins. In conclusion, this study suggests that both plant-derived proteins had a lower insulinaemic response and improved glucose maintenance compared to whey protein.

Assessment of the application for renewal of authorisation of Lantharenol® (lanthanum carbonate octahydrate) for cats.

Lantharenol® is a feed additive consisting of lanthanum carbonate octahydrate. It is currently authorised as a zootechnical additive (decrease in phosphorous excretion via urine) for cats; this opinion concerns the renewal of the authorisation. In 2007, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) adopted an opinion on the safety and efficacy of Lantharenol® as a feed additive for cats. The applicant has provided data demonstrating that the additive complies with the conditions of authorisation. The available evidence, including the results of the post-market monitoring plan, confirms that the use of Lantharenol® in cat food at the maximum authorised concentration of 7.5 g/kg of complete feed is safe for cats. In the absence of new data, the FEEDAP Panel reiterates its previous conclusion that Lantharenol® does not pose a risk by inhalation and is not an irritant to skin or eye and not a dermal sensitiser. The FEEDAP Panel considers that there is no need for a continuation of a specific post-market monitoring plan.

Assessment of the application for renewal of authorisation of VevoVitall® (benzoic acid) as feed additive for weaned piglets and pigs for fattening.

VevoVitall® is a feed additive consisting of benzoic acid. It is currently authorised as a zootechnical additive for weaned piglets and pigs for fattening. This opinion concerns the renewal of the authorisation of benzoic acid as a zootechnical additive in feed. In 2005 and 2017, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) adopted two opinions on the safety and efficacy of VevoVitall® as a feed additive for weaned piglets and pigs for fattening, respectively. The applicant has provided data demonstrating that the additive currently in the market complies with the conditions of authorisation. Furthermore, according to the information provided in the technical dossier, no new evidence has been identified that would make the FEEDAP Panel reconsidering the previous conclusions on the safety of the additive. The Panel confirms that the additive is safe at the maximum authorised concentrations of 5,000 and 10,000 mg/kg feed for weaned piglets and pigs for fattening, respectively; a margin of safety cannot be determined for weaned piglets while a margin of safety of less than 1.5 is established for pigs for fattening. The use of VevoVitall® in feeds for weaned piglets and pigs for fattening at the maximum authorised concentrations does not pose any safety concern for consumers and the environment. The use of VevoVitall® does not pose a risk by inhalation to users and is not a skin sensitiser. The new available data confirm that the additive is a skin irritant and a severe eye irritant. A recommendation concerning the potential toluene residues in the additive has been posted.