Muscle fiber-type specific expression of UCP3-protein is reported here for the firts time, using immunofluorescence microscopy
DOCUMENT
Introduction: The kinetics of protein oxidation, monitored in breath, and its contribution to the whole body protein status is not well established. Objectives: To analyze protein oxidation in various metabolic conditions we developed/validated a 13C-protein oxidation breath test using low enriched milk proteins. Method/Design: 30 g of naturally labeled 13C-milk proteins were consumed by young healthy volunteers. Breath samples were taken every 10 min and 13CO2 was measured by Isotope Ratio Mass Spectrometry. To calculate the amount of oxidized substrate we used: substrate dose, molecular weight and 13C enrichment of the substrate, number of carbon atoms in a substrate molecule, and estimated CO2-production of the subject based on body surface area. Results: We demonstrated that in 255 min 20% ± 3% (mean ± SD) of the milk protein was oxidized compared to 18% ± 1% of 30 g glucose. Postprandial kinetics of oxidation of whey (rapidly digestible protein) and casein (slowly digestible protein) derived from our breath test were comparable to literature data regarding the kinetics of appearance of amino acids in blood. Oxidation of milk proteins was faster than that of milk lipids (peak oxidation 120 and 290 minutes, respectively). After a 3-day protein restricted diet (~10 g of protein/day) a decrease of 31% ± 18% in milk protein oxidation was observed compared to a normal diet. Conclusions: Protein oxidation, which can be easily monitored in breath, is a significant factor in protein metabolism. With our technique we are able to characterize changes in overall protein oxidation under various meta-bolic conditions such as a protein restricted diet, which could be relevant for defining optimal protein intake under various conditions. Measuring protein oxidation in new-born might be relevant to establish its contribution to the protein status and its age-dependent development.
LINK
Fred van de Velde, lector Eiwittransitie in voeding bespreekt de belangrijkste onderwerpen van het lectoraat tijdens zijn HAS Talk.
LINK
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Sufficient protein intake is of great importance in hemodialysis (HD) patients, especially for maintaining muscle mass. Daily protein needs are generally estimated using bodyweight (BW), in which individual differences in body composition are not accounted for. As body protein mass is best represented by fat free mass (FFM), there is a rationale to apply FFM instead of BW. The agreement between both estimations is unclear. Therefore, the aim of this study is to compare protein needs based on either FFM or BW in HD patients.METHODS: Protein needs were estimated in 115 HD patients by three different equations; FFM, BW and BW adjusted for low or high BMI. FFM was measured by multi-frequency bioelectrical impedance spectroscopy and considered the reference method. Estimations of FFM x 1.5 g/kg and FFM x 1.9 g/kg were compared with (adjusted)BW x 1.2 and x 1.5, respectively. Differences were assessed with repeated measures ANOVA and Bland-Altman plots.RESULTS: Mean protein needs estimated by (adjusted)BW were higher compared to those based on FFM, across all BMI categories (P < 0.01) and most explicitly in obese patients. In females with BMI >30, protein needs were 69 ± 17.4 g/day higher based on BW and 45 ± 9.3 g/day higher based on BMI adjusted BW, compared to FFM. In males with BMI >30, protein needs were 51 ± 20.4 g/day and 23 ± 20.9 g/day higher compared to FFM, respectively.CONCLUSIONS: Our data show large differences and possible overestimations of protein needs when comparing BW to FFM. We emphasize the importance of more research and discussion on this topic.
DOCUMENT
INTRODUCTION: Sufficient high quality dietary protein intake is required to prevent or treat sarcopenia in elderly people. Therefore, the intake of specific protein sources as well as their timing of intake are important to improve dietary protein intake in elderly people.OBJECTIVES: to assess the consumption of protein sources as well as the distribution of protein sources over the day in community-dwelling, frail and institutionalized elderly people.METHODS: Habitual dietary intake was evaluated using 2- and 3-day food records collected from various studies involving 739 community-dwelling, 321 frail and 219 institutionalized elderly people.RESULTS: Daily protein intake averaged 71 ± 18 g/day in community-dwelling, 71 ± 20 g/day in frail and 58 ± 16 g/day in institutionalized elderly people and accounted for 16% ± 3%, 16% ± 3% and 17% ± 3% of their energy intake, respectively. Dietary protein intake ranged from 10 to 12 g at breakfast, 15 to 23 g at lunch and 24 to 31 g at dinner contributing together over 80% of daily protein intake. The majority of dietary protein consumed originated from animal sources (≥60%) with meat and dairy as dominant sources. Thus, 40% of the protein intake in community-dwelling, 37% in frail and 29% in institutionalized elderly originated from plant based protein sources with bread as the principle source. Plant based proteins contributed for >50% of protein intake at breakfast and between 34% and 37% at lunch, with bread as the main source. During dinner, >70% of the protein intake originated from animal protein, with meat as the dominant source.CONCLUSION: Daily protein intake in these older populations is mainly (>80%) provided by the three main meals, with most protein consumed during dinner. More than 60% of daily protein intake consumed is of animal origin, with plant based protein sources representing nearly 40% of total protein consumed. During dinner, >70% of the protein intake originated from animal protein, while during breakfast and lunch a large proportion of protein is derived from plant based protein sources.
DOCUMENT
The critical care community still has mixed feelings when considering the optimal nutrition of intensive care unit (ICU) patients, which is understandable as randomized controlled trials have not been very helpful in improving clinical practice. There have been no randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to contribute to the discussion, especially concerning the role of enterally fed protein in optimal critical care. Recent studies on the route of feeding have shown that enteral nutrition (EN) is not necessarily superior to parenteral nutrition (PN) [1, 2]. There appears to be a strong consensus, with backup from a meta-analysis, on the preferential use of EN over PN [3]. The infection rate was especially used as an argument; however, this is not substantiated in recent trials [1, 2]. We have to consider how applicable this current knowledge is to all ICU patients. Early EN is still the preferred way of feeding [3]. Starting feeding early may improve the outcome of ICU patients. RCTs have all investigated (supplemental parenteral) energy delivery [4]. Only two trials have ‘considered’ protein: the PERMIT trial [5] (protein supplemented, equal level) and EAT-ICU trial [6] (protein supplemented, higher level). Early energy delivery should be applied cautiously since it appears to be related to worse outcome in ICU patients [7, 8, 9]. Therefore, and from the perspective of clinical practice, the Swiss Supplemental PN (SPN) trial appears to provide the most logical design [10]—start with early EN and evaluate on day 3 what the level of energy delivery is; when delivery levels are low (< 60%) start supplementation PN. In clinical practice in our ICU the enteral feeding levels are high enough to avoid PN supplementation, which therefore restricts the specific indication to use PN. The focus of this research has been caloric delivery. There are more than enough observational data to support that higher protein delivery is associated with improved outcome in ICU patients [7, 8, 9]. These observational studies clearly show the benefit of higher protein delivery. However, they are considered relatively weak evidence since illness is considered a confounding factor in the relationship between delivery and outcome for which we cannot completely adjust. Randomized trials have not been conducted, although two trials with randomized high(er) amino acid infusion are available and somewhat contradicting [11, 12]. As with the studies on caloric delivery, the studies on protein have been hampered by insufficient knowledge on energy and protein metabolism under these (patho)physiological circumstances in the ICU patient [7, 8, 9]. Therefore, mechanistic studies on the protein physiology in ICU patients is an essential and current development. The Swedish group of Wernerman and Rooyackers has provided crucial information on the topic. They showed that it was possible to change protein balance during the early phase of admission to the ICU from negative to positive by a short-term (3-h) high-level (1 g/kg/day) amino acid (AA) infusion [13]. This observation was very important to help understand the physiology since it showed that, under these circumstances of critical illness, some basic principles of nutrition still perform well. In the December 2017 issue of Critical Care, Sundstrom et al. showed that the effect of supplemental AA infusion at 3 h is still present at 24 h [14]. Why is this so important to know? We know from extensive studies in sports and the elderly that protein synthesis can be stimulated by bolus protein feeding; however, we know relatively little about the effects of continuous (low dose per time unit) feeding. While the absolute levels of protein balance still have to be considered with caution (e.g., choice of tracer), and we are not completely sure where the protein is going, we now know this positive effect on protein balance is lasting. The next challenge is to reconnect this physiological information with the outcome of ICU patients. We have shown that muscle (protein) mass at admission to the ICU is relevant for the outcome of ICU patients [15]. We do not know if we can change muscle mass and outcome of ICU patients with protein nutrition. The study by Sundstrom et al. [14] is very promising for protein balance, but will that be enough to change outcome? And, if so, is that true for all patients—does one size fit all? The ICU patient group is heterogeneous. Earlier, we found high protein delivery to be associated with lower mortality, except for sepsis patients and patients with early caloric overfeeding [7]. The EAT-ICU trial did not find an effect of early goal-directed feeding on physical component score at 6 months or on mortality [6]. Goal-directed feeding included feeding energy based on indirect calorimetry and protein up to 1.5 g/kg/day from day 1. Feeding calories up to the measured caloric target from day 1 may be equal to caloric overfeeding [7]. The 47% of patients with sepsis in the EAT-ICU trial might also not benefit from the higher protein feeding [7]. Therefore, the effects of protein and energy cannot be assessed individually from this trial. Ferrie et al. showed interesting differences in muscle mass and function between an AA infusion rate of 0.8 and 1.2 g/kg/day [12], but not all patients are equal—one size does not fit all! Those patients with a low protein reserve (low muscle mass) may be at highest risk in the ICU and may benefit more from intervention with early protein nutrition. We have to await further studies, including randomized studies and post-hoc observational studies, to further develop this area of interest. The studies trying to understand the mechanism behind the physiological effect are important as well; we might come nearer to the truth of what works and what does not work in ICU nutrition.
DOCUMENT
Increasing awareness of the impact of frailty on elderly people resulted in research focusing on factors that contribute to the development and persistence of frailty including nutrition and physical activity. Most effort so far has been spent on understanding the association between protein intake and the physical domain of frailty. Far less is known for other domains of frailty: Cognition, mood, social health and comorbidity. Therefore, in the present narrative review, we elaborate on the evidence currently known on the association between protein and exercise as well as the broader concept of frailty. Most, but not all, identified studies concluded that low protein intake is associated with a higher prevalence and incidence of physical frailty. Far less is known on the broader concept of frailty. The few studies that do look into this association find a clear beneficial effect of physical activity but no conclusions regarding protein intake can be made yet. Similar, for other important aspects of frailty including mood, cognition, and comorbidity, the number of studies are limited and results are inconclusive. Future studies need to focus on the relation between dietary protein and the broader concept of frailty and should also consider the protein source, amount and timing.
DOCUMENT
IntroductionTo stimulate early recognition and treatment of malnutrition, the Dutch Healthcare Inspectorate obliged all hospitals from 2008–2019 to report the number of malnourished patients with an adequate protein intake on the fourth day of hospital admission. In this article we present results over the past 11 years and discuss success factors and barriers for adequate treatment of malnourished patients in hospitals.MethodsThe annual reports of hospitals on the numbers of patients with a screening result ‘malnourished’ and an adequate protein intake on the fourth day of admission were analysed. Hospitals were categorized based on the percentage of malnourished patients with an adequate protein intake on the fourth day of admission as ‘poor’ (<40% of patients in a hospital achieve an adequate protein intake), ‘moderate’ 40–60% of patients in a hospital achieve an adequate protein intake), and ‘good’ (>60% of patients in a hospital achieve an adequate protein intake). To identify success factors and barriers for adequate treatment and registration of malnourished patients in hospitals, three focus groups were held in June and July 2020. Participants were dietitians and quality employees or nurses who were involved in data collection for malnutrition indicators in their hospitals.ResultsBetween 2008–2019, data were reported of 339,720 malnourished patients. The relative number of patients with adequate intake of protein on the fourth day in hospital ranges from 44%-53% between 2011 and 2019. Before 2013, the number of hospitals that reported data was too small to draw conclusions about results of treatment of malnutrition. Data from 2013 to 2019, show a decline in the number of hospitals with a ‘poor’ score. The number of hospitals with a moderate score increased between 2015 and 2019 and the number of hospitals with a good score remained more or less stable, except for 2018 where more hospitals reached a ‘good’ score. Sixteen professionals from ten different hospitals participated in the focus groups and revealed several determinants of adequate treatment of malnourished patients in hospitals such as awareness, feeling responsible and the need of clear instructions and good collaboration.ConclusionThis inventory of the protein intake of 339,720 hospital malnourished patients over 11 years shows that in one out of five Dutch hospitals >60% of malnourished patients had an adequate protein intake on the fourth day of admission. This shows that meeting protein requirements remains a difficult challenge. Early recognition of malnutrition, optimal multidisciplinary treatment and continuous evaluation is necessary to provide optimal nutritional care in the hospital and beyond.
DOCUMENT
Digitally supported dietary counselling may be helpful in increasing the protein intake in combined exercise and nutritional interventions in community-dwelling older adults. To study the effect of this approach, 212 older adults (72.2 ± 6.3 years) were randomised in three groups: control, exercise, or exercise plus dietary counselling. The dietary counselling during the 6-month intervention was a blended approach of face-to-face contacts and videoconferencing, and it was discontinued for a 6-month follow-up. Dietary protein intake, sources, product groups, resulting amino acid intake, and intake per eating occasion were assessed by a 3-day dietary record. The dietary counselling group was able to increase the protein intake by 32% at 6 months, and the intake remained 16% increased at 12 months. Protein intake mainly consisted of animal protein sources: dairy products, followed by fish and meat. This resulted in significantly more intake of essential amino acids, including leucine. The protein intake was distributed evenly over the day, resulting in more meals that reached the protein and leucine targets. Digitally supported dietary counselling was effective in increasing protein intake both per meal and per day in a lifestyle intervention in community-dwelling older adults. This was predominantly achieved by consuming more animal protein sources, particularly dairy products, and especially during breakfast and lunch.
MULTIFILE
Background & aims: In dietary practice, it is common to estimate protein requirements on actual bodyweight, but corrected bodyweight (in cases with BMI <20 kg/m2 and BMI ≥30 kg/m2) and fat free mass (FFM) are also used. Large differences on individual level are noticed in protein requirements using these different approaches. To continue this discussion, the answer is sought in a large population to the following question: Will choosing actual bodyweight, corrected bodyweight or FFM to calculate protein requirements result in clinically relevant differences? Methods: This retrospective database study, used data from healthy persons ≥55 years of age and in- and outpatients ≥18 years of age. FFM was measured by air displacement plethysmography technology or bioelectrical impedance analysis. Protein requirements were calculated as 1) 1.2 g (g) per kilogram (kg) actual bodyweight or 2) corrected bodyweight or 3) 1.5 g per kg FFM. To compare these three approaches, the approach in which protein requirement is based on FFM, was used as reference method. Bland–Altman plots with limits of agreement were used to determine differences, analyses were performed for both populations separately and stratified by BMI category and gender. Results: In total 2291 subjects were included. In the population with relatively healthy persons (n = 506, ≥55 years of age) mean weight is 86.5 ± 18.2 kg, FFM is 51 ± 12 kg and in the population with adult in- and outpatients (n = 1785, ≥18 years of age) mean weight is 72.5 ± 18.4 kg, FFM is 51 ± 11 kg. Clinically relevant differences were found in protein requirement between actual bodyweight and FFM in most of the participants with overweight, obesity or severe obesity (78–100%). Using corrected bodyweight, an overestimation in 48–92% of the participants with underweight, healthy weight and overweight is found. Only in the Amsterdam UMC population, protein requirement is underestimated when using the approach of corrected bodyweight in participants with severe obesity. Conclusion: The three approaches in estimation of protein requirement show large differences. In the majority of the population protein requirement based on FFM is lower compared to actual or corrected bodyweight. Correction of bodyweight reduces the differences, but remain unacceptably large. It is yet unknown which method is the best for estimation of protein requirement. Since differences vary by gender due to differences in body composition, it seems more accurate to estimate protein requirement based on FFM. Therefore, we would like to advocate for more frequent measurement of FFM to determine protein requirements, especially when a deviating body composition is to be expected, for instance in elderly and persons with overweight, obesity or severe obesity.
DOCUMENT
