Unprocessed red meat in the dietary treatment of obesity: a randomized controlled trial of beef supplementation during weight maintenance after successful weight loss.

BACKGROUND: Consumption of unprocessed red meat in randomized trials has no adverse effects on cardiovascular risk factors and body weight, but its physiological effects during weight loss maintenance are not known. OBJECTIVES: We sought to investigate the effects of healthy diets that include small or large amounts of red meat on the maintenance of lost weight after successful weight loss, and secondarily on body composition (DXA), resting energy expenditure (REE; indirect calorimetry), and cardiometabolic risk factors. METHODS: In this 5-mo parallel randomized intervention trial, 108 adults with BMI 28-40 kg/m2 (45 males/63 females) underwent an 8-wk rapid weight loss period, and those who lost ≥8% body weight (n = 80) continued to ad libitum weight maintenance diets for 12 wk: a moderate-protein diet with 25 g beef/d (B25, n = 45) or a high-protein diet with 150 g beef/d (B150, n = 35). RESULTS: In per protocol analysis (n = 69), mean body weight (-1.2 kg; 95% CI: -2.1, -0.3 kg), mean fat mass (-2.7 kg; 95% CI: -3.4, -2.0 kg), and mean body fat content (-2.6%; 95% CI: -3.1, -2.1%) decreased during the maintenance phase, whereas mean lean mass (1.5 kg; 95% CI: 1.0, 2.0 kg) and mean REE (51 kcal/d; 95% CI: 15, 86 kcal/d) increased, with no differences between groups (all P > 0.05). Results were similar in intention-to-treat analysis with multiple imputation for dropouts (20 from B150 compared with 19 from B25, P = 0.929). Changes in cardiometabolic risk factors were not different between groups, the general pattern being a decrease during weight loss and a return to baseline during weight maintenance (and despite the additional mild reduction in weight and fat mass). CONCLUSIONS: Healthy diets consumed ad libitum that contain a little or a lot of unprocessed beef have similar effects on body weight, energy metabolism, and cardiovascular risk factors during the first 3 mo after clinically significant rapid weight loss.

A protein-supplemented very-low-calorie diet does not mitigate reductions in lean mass and resting metabolic rate in subjects with overweight or obesity: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The European Food Safety Authority recently recommended an increase in the protein content of total diet replacement (TDR) products from 50 to 75 g/day. The rationale was to minimize reductions in lean mass (LM) and resting metabolic rate (RMR) that occur with weight loss, and thereby facilitate maintenance of lost weight. We sought to directly compare the efficacy of TDR regimens with the new vs the current protein requirement. METHODS: We randomized 108 adults with overweight or obesity (body mass index 28-40 kg/m2) to very-low-calorie diets (VLCD) with either 52 or 77 g/day protein for 8 weeks (total energy intake of 600 or 700 kcal/day, respectively). LM was determined by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry and RMR by indirect calorimetry. RESULTS: Attrition rate was 22% in both groups. Both VLCDs decreased body weight, fat mass, LM, and RMR (all P < 0.05). Significant time-by-group interactions were detected for weight and fat mass (both P < 0.05), with corresponding reductions being smaller in the higher-protein than the standard-protein VLCD, likely because of the added calories. On the other hand, reductions in LM (6% from baseline) and RMR (9-10% from baseline) did not differ between groups (P = 0.155 and P = 0.389, respectively), and the contribution of LM to total weight loss was identical (27 ± 2% of lost weight, P = 0.973). CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that the proposed increase in the protein content of TDR products does not attenuate reductions in LM and RMR in individuals with overweight and obesity who are treated with <800 kcal/day VLCDs for 2 months. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.gov # NCT04156165.

Guidance on the preparation and submission of the notification and application for authorisation of traditional foods from third countries in the context of Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 (Revision 1).

[Table: see text] Following the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 on Novel Foods, the European Commission requested EFSA to develop a scientific and technical guidance for the preparation and submission of notifications for traditional foods from third countries. This guidance presents a common format for the organisation of the information to be presented by applicant for the preparation of a well-structured dossier. The safety of a traditional food should be substantiated by reliable data on its composition, its experience of continued use and its proposed conditions of use. Its normal consumption should not be nutritionally disadvantageous. This guidance is also intended to support applicants in providing the type and quality of information EU Member States and EFSA need for the assessments of traditional foods from third countries. The applicant should integrate the information on the composition and the experience of continued use and provide a concise overall consideration on how this substantiates the history of safe use of the traditional food and how this relates to the proposed conditions of use for the EU. Where potential health hazards have been identified on the basis of the composition and/or data from the experience of continued use, they should be discussed. On the basis of the information provided, EFSA will assess the safety related to the consumption of the traditional food under the proposed conditions of use. This guidance was originally adopted by the NDA Panel in 2016. It has been revised in 2020 to inform applicants of the new provisions introduced by Regulation (EC) No 178/2002, as amended by Regulation (EU) 2019/1381 on the transparency and sustainability of the EU risk assessment in the food chain.It is applicable to allnotifications and applications submitted as of 27 March 2021. The 2016 version remains applicable to notifications and applications submitted before 27 March 2021.

Human Muscle Protein Synthesis Rates after Intake of Hydrolyzed Porcine-Derived and Cows' Milk Whey Proteins-A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Abstract: Background: Whey protein has been shown to be one of the best proteins to stimulate muscle protein synthesis rate (MPS), but other high quality proteins, e.g., animal/porcine-derived, could have similar effects. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects of hydrolyzed porcine proteins from blood (HPB) and muscle (HPM), in comparison to hydrolyzed whey protein (HW), on MPS after intake of 15 g alone or 30 g protein as part of a mixed meal. We hypothesized that the postprandial MPS would be similar for porcine proteins and whey protein. DESIGN: Eighteen men (mean ± SD age: 24 ± 1 year; BMI: 21.7 ± 0.4 kg/m2) participated in the randomized, double-blind, three-way cross-over study. Subjects consumed the three test products (HPB, HPM and HW) in a random order in two servings at each test day. Serving 1 consisted of a drink with 15 g protein and serving 2 of a drink with 30 g protein together with a mixed meal. A flood-primed continuous infusion of (ring-13C6) phenylalanine was performed and muscle biopsies, blood and urine samples were collected for determination of MPS, muscle free leucine, plasma amino acid concentrations and urea excretion. RESULTS: There were no statistical differences between the MPS measured after consuming 15 g protein alone or 30 g with a mixed meal (p = 0.53) of HPB (0.048 ± 0.007 vs. 0.049 ± 0.008%/h, resp.), HPM (0.063 ± 0.011 vs. 0.062 ± 0.011 %/h, resp.) and HW (0.058 ± 0.007 vs. 0.071 ± 0.013%/h, resp.). However, the impact of protein type on MPS reached statistical tendency (HPB vs. HPM (p = 0.093) and HPB vs. HW (p = 0.067)) with no difference between HPM and HW (p = 0.88). Plasma leucine, branched-chain, essential and total amino acids were generally higher for HPB and HW than HPM (p < 0.01), which reflected their content in the proteins. Muscle-free leucine was higher for HPB than HW and HPM (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Hydrolyzed porcine proteins from blood and muscle resulted in an MPS similar to that of HW, although with a trend for porcine blood proteins to be inferior to muscle proteins and whey. Consequently, these porcine-derived muscle proteins can be used similarly to whey protein to support maintenance of skeletal muscle as part of supplements and ingredients in foods.

Update of the tolerable upper intake level for vitamin D for infants.

Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies (NDA) was asked to revise the tolerable upper intake level (UL) for vitamin D for infants (≤ 1 year) set in 2012. From its literature review, the Panel concluded that the available evidence on daily vitamin D intake and the risk of adverse health outcomes (hypercalciuria, hypercalcaemia, nephrocalcinosis and abnormal growth patterns) cannot be used alone for deriving the UL for infants. The Panel conducted a meta-regression analysis of collected data, to derive a dose-response relationship between daily supplemental intake of vitamin D and mean achieved serum 25(OH)D concentrations. Considering that a serum 25(OH)D concentration of 200 nmol/L or below is unlikely to pose a risk of adverse health outcomes in infants, the Panel estimated the percentage of infants reaching a concentration above this value at different intakes of vitamin D. Based on the overall evidence, the Panel kept the UL of 25 µg/day for infants aged up to 6 months and set a UL of 35 µg/day for infants 6-12 months. The Panel was also asked to advise on the safety of the consumption of infant formulae with an increased maximum vitamin D content of 3 µg/100 kcal (Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/127 repealing Directive 2006/141/EC in 2020). For infants aged up to 4 months, the intake assessment showed that the use of infant formulae containing vitamin D at 3 µg/100 kcal may lead some infants to receive an intake above the UL of 25 µg/day from formulae alone without considering vitamin D supplemental intake. For infants aged 4-12 months, the 95th percentile of vitamin D intake (high consumers) estimated from formulae and foods fortified or not with vitamin D does not exceed the ULs, without considering vitamin D supplemental intake.

Safety of 1-methylnicotinamide chloride (1-MNA) as a novel food pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 258/97.

Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies (NDA) was asked to deliver an opinion on 1-methylnicotinamide chloride (1-MNA) as a novel food (NF) ingredient submitted pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council, taking into account the comments and objections of a scientific nature raised by Member States. 1-MNA is a substance present naturally in the human body as a normal downstream product of niacin metabolism. The Panel considers that the information provided on the composition, the specification and the batch-to-batch variability of the NF is sufficient. The applicant intends to use 1-MNA in food supplements and proposes a maximum intake of 58 mg/day. 1-MNA is not genotoxic. In a subchronic rat study, epithelium degeneration of the non-glandular stomach was observed at all dose levels with increasing frequency. The Panel notes that the human stomach does not have non-glandular epithelium and considers this finding is toxicologically not relevant for humans. At doses of 500 and 1,000 mg/kg body weight (bw), changes of the urine pH, that did not reverse in the recovery period, were reported. As adversity of this finding cannot be ruled out, the Panel selected 250 mg/kg bw in this rat study as the reference point. The Margin of Exposure to humans weighing 70 kg and consuming 58 mg would be about 300. The Panel notes the upper level for nicotinamide, i.e. 900 mg/day for adults. Taking into account that 1-MNA is a main metabolite from nicotinamide, the Panel considers that it is unlikely that an intake of 58 mg 1-MNA from food supplements would result in adverse health outcomes in humans. The Panel concludes that the NF, 1-MNA, is safe under the proposed uses and use levels.

Coenzyme Q10 supplementation and exercise-induced oxidative stress in humans.

OBJECTIVE: The theoretically beneficial effects of coenzyme Q10 (Q10) on exercise-related oxidative stress and physical capacity have not been confirmed to our knowledge by interventional supplementation studies. Our aim was to investigate further whether Q10 supplementation at a dose recommended by manufacturers influences these factors. METHODS: Using a randomized, double-blind, controlled design, we investigated the effect on physical capacity of 8 wk of treatment with a daily dose of 90 mg of Q10 (n = 12) compared with placebo (n = 11) in moderately trained healthy men 19 to 44 y old. Two days of individualized performance tests to physical exhaustion were performed before and after the intervention. Primary outcomes were maximal oxygen uptake, workload, and heart rate at the lactate threshold. Secondary outcomes were creatine kinase, hypoxanthine, and uric acid. RESULTS: No significant differences between the groups were discerned after the intervention for maximal oxygen uptake (-0.11 L/min, 95% confidence interval -0.31 to 0.08, P = 0.44), workload at lactate threshold (6.3 W, -13.4 to 25.9, P = 0.36), or heart rate at lactate threshold (2.0 beats/min, -4.9 to 8.9, P = 0.41). No differences between the groups were detected for hypoxanthine or uric acid (serum markers of oxidative stress) or creatine kinase (a marker of skeletal muscle damage). CONCLUSION: Although in theory Q10 could be beneficial for exercise capacity and in decreasing oxidative stress, the present study could not demonstrate that such effects exist after supplementation with a recommended dose.

Supplementation with a combination of antioxidants does not affect glycaemic control, oxidative stress or inflammation in type 2 diabetes subjects.

The present clinical trial examined the influence of a supplement, containing a combination of antioxidants extracted from fruit, berries and vegetables, on levels of plasma antioxidants (tocopherols, carotenoids and ascorbate), glycaemic control (blood glucose, HbA1c, insulin), oxidative stress biomarkers (F(2)-isoprostane, malondialdehyd, nitrotyrosine, 8-oxo-7, 8-dihydro-2'-deoxyguanosine, formamidopyrimidine glycosylase sites, frequency of micronucleated erythrocytes) and inflammatory markers (interleukin-6, C-reactive protein, prostaglandin F(2α)-metabolite) in type 2 diabetes. Forty subjects were randomly assigned to control, single or double dose group and completed the study. In summary, 12 weeks of antioxidant supplementation did neither affect glycaemic control nor the levels of biomarkers of oxidative stress or inflammation, despite substantially increased plasma concentrations of antioxidants. The absence of an effect may be explained by the selected study subjects with relatively well-controlled diabetes, a high intake of fruit and vegetable and levels of plasma antioxidants, biomarkers of oxidative stress and inflammatory markers comparable to those found in healthy subjects.

Biomarkers of oxidative stress in overweight men are not influenced by a combination of antioxidants.

The effect of antioxidant supplementation on biomarkers of oxidative stress was investigated in a 6-week intervention study in 60 overweight men. The supplement contained a combination of antioxidants aiming to correspond to the antioxidant content found in a diet rich in fruit and vegetables. Placebo, single or double dose of antioxidants was provided to the subjects. Metabolic variables, plasma antioxidants and biomarkers of oxidative stress (lipid peroxidation and DNA damage) were measured. No effect of supplementation on biomarkers of oxidative stress was observed. Both intervention groups showed substantial increases of plasma antioxidants. This study demonstrated that supplementation with a combination of antioxidants did not affect lipid peroxidation and DNA damage in overweight men, despite increased concentrations of plasma antioxidants. The absence of antioxidant supplement effect might possibly be explained by the chosen study group having a normal level of oxidative stress, duration of the intervention and/or doses of antioxidants.