Low protein diets produce divergent effects on energy balance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Diets deficient in protein often increase food consumption, body weight and fat mass; however, the underlying mechanisms remain poorly understood. We compared the effects of diets varying in protein concentrations on energy balance in obesity-prone rats. We demonstrate that protein-free (0% protein calories) diets decreased energy intake and increased energy expenditure, very low protein (5% protein) diets increased energy intake and expenditure, whereas moderately low protein (10% protein) diets increased energy intake without altering expenditure, relative to control diet (15% protein). These diet-induced alterations in energy expenditure are in part mediated through enhanced serotonergic and β-adrenergic signaling coupled with upregulation of key thermogenic markers in brown fat and skeletal muscle. The protein-free and very low protein diets decreased plasma concentrations of multiple essential amino acids, anorexigenic and metabolic hormones, but these diets increased the tissue expression and plasma concentrations of fibroblast growth factor-21. Protein-free and very low protein diets induced fatty liver, reduced energy digestibility, and decreased lean mass and body weight that persisted beyond the restriction period. In contrast, moderately low protein diets promoted gain in body weight and adiposity following the period of protein restriction. Together, our findings demonstrate that low protein diets produce divergent effects on energy balance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".