Greater Protein Intake at Breakfast or with Snacks and Less at Dinner Is Associated with Improved Metabolic Health in US Adults (P18-003-19)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Greater protein intakes have been associated with decreased weight, BMI, waist circumference (WC) and increased HDL-cholesterol (HDL-C) concentrations. However, the relationship between protein intake during specific eating occasions and metabolic health is not well described. This study measured protein intake at meals (breakfast, lunch, dinner) and snacks and evaluated associations between protein intake at meals or snacks and markers of metabolic health in US adults. METHODS: Using the National Cancer Institute method, deciles of individual usual intake (IUI) for protein at meals and combined snacking occasions were calculated using NHANES 2013–2016 data (n = 10,112; ≥19 y). Relationships between protein intake at meals and snacks and markers of metabolic health were determined using regression analysis. Covariates included age, age(2), sex, ethnicity, physical activity level, poverty income ratio, IUI of carbohydrate at specific meal/snack, IUI of total fat at specific meal/snack, BMI (non-weight-related variables), and IUI of protein at other meals/snacks. P < 0.01 was considered significant. RESULTS: Deciles of protein intake ranged (10(th) and 90(th) percentiles, mean ± SE) from 5.9 ± 0.1 to 22.6 ± 0.3 g/d at breakfast, 14.0 ± 0.1 to 34.6 ± 0.4 g/d at lunch, 24.3 ± 0.3 to 46.8 ± 0.2 g/d at dinner, and 4.9 ± 0.1 to 16.5 ± 0.2 g/d at snacking occasions. Greater protein intake at breakfast was positively related to HDL-C (0.51 ± 0.17 mg/dL per decile, P = 0.004). Protein intake at dinner was positively associated with the homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance (0.23 ± 0.08 per decile, P = 0.008). Protein intake from snacks was inversely associated with diastolic blood pressure (−0.27 ± 0.09 mm Hg per decile, P = 0.004) and positively associated with HDL-C (0.68 ± 0.20 mg/dL per decile, P = 0.002). Protein intakes at meals and snacks were not associated with BMI, WC, systolic blood pressure, insulin, glucose, total cholesterol, LDL-cholesterol, triglycerides, or CVD risk. CONCLUSIONS: In US adults, consuming greater protein at breakfast or with snacks and less protein at dinner may be related to improved metabolic health. FUNDING SOURCES: The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not reflect official policy of the Army, DoD, or U.S. Government. Supported by DMRP/USAMRMC.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".