Examining the effects of a high-protein total diet replacement on energy metabolism, metabolic blood markers, and appetite sensations in healthy adults: protocol for two complementary, randomized, controlled, crossover trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: High-protein diets and total diet replacements are becoming increasingly popular for weight regulation; however, further research is needed to elucidate their impact on the physiology of body weight regulation. The aim of this inpatient metabolic balance study is to compare the impact of a high-protein total diet replacement versus a control diet (North American) on energy expenditure, macronutrient oxidation rates and balances, metabolic blood markers and appetite sensations in healthy adults. METHODS: Two randomized, controlled, cross-over clinical trials conducted separately in men and women will be conducted. In each trial, participants will be allocated to two isocaloric arms: a) Control diet: 55% carbohydrate, 15% protein, and 30% fat; b) High-protein total diet replacement: 35% of carbohydrate, 40% protein, and 25% fat. They will receive the prescribed diets for 32 h while inside the whole-body calorimetry unit. Diets will be designed to ensure participants are in energy balance. The following physiological changes will be compared between groups: energy expenditure, macronutrient oxidation rates and balances, metabolic blood markers, and appetite sensations. Body composition will be assessed at baseline using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. DISCUSSION: This will be the first inpatient metabolic balance study examining the impact of a high-protein total diet replacement on energy metabolism, metabolic blood markers and appetite sensations in healthy young adults (of both sexes) using a whole-body calorimetry unit. Results of this clinical trial can ultimately be used to develop strategies to optimize high-protein diet interventions and weight management. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT02811276 (registered on 16 June 2016) and NCT03565510 (registered on 11 June 2018). PROTOCOL VERSION: NCT02811276: version 10 (2 March 2018); NCT03565510: version 3 (28 September 2018).
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 | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 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".