Cited by 93Nutrition and Health in AgingMuscle metabolism and nutritionBody Composition Measurement Techniques

Lean mass loss is associated with low protein intake during dietary-induced weight loss in postmenopausal women

Open access
Bopp, Melanie J., Houston, Denise K., Lenchik, Leon, Easter, Linda, Kritchevsky, Stephen B., Nicklas, Barbara J.·2008·Journal of the American Dietetic Association

Abstract

The health and quality-of-life implications of overweight and obesity span all ages in the United States. We investigated the association between dietary protein intake and loss of lean mass during weight loss in postmenopausal women through a retrospective analysis of a 20-week randomized, controlled diet and exercise intervention in women aged 50 to 70 years. Weight loss was achieved by differing levels of caloric restriction and exercise. The diet-only group reduced caloric intake by 2,800 kcal/week, and the exercise groups reduced caloric intake by 2,400 kcal/week and expended approximately 400 kcal/week through aerobic exercise. Total and appendicular lean mass was measured using dual energy x-ray absorptiometry. Linear regression analysis was used to examine the association between changes in lean mass and appendicular lean mass and dietary protein intake. Average weight loss was 10.8+/-4.0 kg, with an average of 32% of total weight lost as lean mass. Protein intake averaged 0.62 g/kg body weight/day (range=0.47 to 0.8 g/kg body weight/day). Participants who consumed higher amounts of dietary protein lost less lean mass and appendicular lean mass (r=0.3, P=0.01 and r=0.41, P<0.001, respectively). These associations remained significant after adjusting for intervention group and body size. Therefore, inadequate protein intake during caloric restriction may be associated with adverse body-composition changes in postmenopausal women.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jada.2008.04.017

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Weight loss (~10%) induced by energy restriction resulted in slightly higher lean mass loss than the CCI (8.4% appendicular lean mass and 7.6% total lean mass loss at 20 weeks).

    “Weight loss (~10%) induced by energy restriction resulted in slightly higher lean mass loss than the CCI (8.4% appendicular lean mass and 7.6% total lean mass loss at 20 weeks) (88).”

    From Long-Term Effects of a Novel Continuous Remote Care Intervention Including Nutritional Ketosis for the Management of Type 2 Diabetes: A 2-Year Non-randomized Clinical Trial (2019) · cites this paper as [88]

    The Results and Discussion section (page unavailable) reports a 20-week intervention with 12.2% average weight loss and loss of lean mass, broadly supporting the weight-loss finding. Our copy does not report 8.4% appendicular or 7.6% total lean-mass loss, and it does not compare the intervention with CCI. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [4]Gallagher S Bariatrics: Considering Mobility, Patient Safety and Caregiver Injury 2004 CRC Press New York

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bopp, M. J., Houston, D. K., Lenchik, L., Easter, L., Kritchevsky, S. B., & Nicklas, B. J.
Affiliations
Wake Forest University Health Sciences (US)
Corresponding author
Nicklas, Barbara J.
Venue
Journal of the American Dietetic Association
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-07
Volume
108
Issue
7
Pages
1216-1220
ISSN
0002-8223 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2048874676
Cited by
93
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 1
FWCI
6.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the American Dietetic Association (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute on Aging (R01-AG/DK20583, R01AG020583, P30AG-21332, P30AG028740, P30AG021332)
  • National Center for Research Resources (M01RR-07122, M01RR007122)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Nutrition and Health in Aging
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cell Biology › Muscle metabolism and nutrition
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Body Composition Measurement Techniques
Keywords
lean mass loss, protein intake, postmenopausal women, weight loss, caloric restriction, appendicular lean mass, body composition, aerobic exercise, obesity
MeSH terms
Adipose Tissue, Aged, Body Composition, Combined Modality Therapy, Diet, Reducing, Dietary Proteins, Dose-Response Relationship, Drug, Female, Humans, Middle Aged, Obesity, Retrospective Studies, Weight Loss, Exercise, Absorptiometry, Photon, Body Mass Index, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Postmenopause, Muscle, Skeletal

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review