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.
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.
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.
While the creation of an energy deficit (ED) is required for weight loss, it is well documented that actual weight loss is generally lower than what expected based on the initially imposed ED, a result of adaptive mechanisms that are oppose to initial ED to result in energy balance at a lower set-point. In addition to leading to plateauing weight loss, these adaptive responses have also been implicated in weight regain and weight cycling (add consequences). Adaptions occur both on the intake side, leading to a hyperphagic state in which food intake is favored (elevated levels of hunger, appetite, cravings etc.), as well as on the expenditure side, as adaptive thermogenesis reduces energy expenditure through compensatory reductions in resting metabolic rate (RMR), non-exercise activity expenditure (NEAT) and the thermic effect of food (TEF). Two strategies that have been utilized to improve weight loss outcomes include increasing dietary protein content and increasing energy flux during weight loss. Preliminary data from our group and others demonstrate that both approaches - especially when combined - have the capacity to reduce the hyperphagic response and attenuate reductions in energy expenditure, thereby minimizing the adaptive mechanisms implicated in plateauing weight loss, weight regain and weight cycling. Past research has largely focused on one specific component of energy balance (e.g. hunger or RMR) rather than assessing the impact of these strategies on all components of energy balance. Given that all components of energy balance are strongly connected with each other and therefore can potentially negate beneficial impacts on one specific component, the primary objective of this application is to use a comprehensive approach that integrates all components of energy balance to quantify the changes in response to a high protein and high energy flux, alone and in combination, during weight loss (Fig 1). Our central hypothesis is that a combination of high protein intake and high energy flux will be most effective at minimizing both metabolic and behavioral adaptations in several components of energy balance such that the hyperphagic state and adaptive thermogenesis are attenuated to lead to superior weight loss results and long-term weight maintenance.
