Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 256

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 55 of the 55 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Testing Protein Leverage in Lean Humans: A Randomised Controlled Experimental Study

Open access
Gosby, Alison K., Conigrave, Arthur D., Lau, Namson S., Iglesias, Miguel A., Hall, Rosemary M., Jebb, Susan A., Brand-Miller, Jennie, Caterson, Ian D., Raubenheimer, David, Simpson, Stephen J.·2011·PLoS ONE
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0025929
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

A significant contributor to the rising rates of human obesity is an increase in energy intake. The 'protein leverage hypothesis' proposes that a dominant appetite for protein in conjunction with a decline in the ratio of protein to fat and carbohydrate in the diet drives excess energy intake and could therefore promote the development of obesity. Our aim was to test the 'protein leverage hypothesis' in lean humans by disguising the macronutrient composition of foods offered to subjects under ad libitum feeding conditions. Energy intakes and hunger ratings were measured for 22 lean subjects studied over three 4-day periods of in-house dietary manipulation. Subjects were restricted to fixed menus in random order comprising 28 foods designed to be similar in palatability, availability, variety and sensory quality and providing 10%, 15% or 25% energy as protein. Nutrient and energy intake was calculated as the product of the amount of each food eaten and its composition. Lowering the percent protein of the diet from 15% to 10% resulted in higher (+12±4.5%, p = 0.02) total energy intake, predominantly from savoury-flavoured foods available between meals. This increased energy intake was not sufficient to maintain protein intake constant, indicating that protein leverage is incomplete. Urinary urea on the 10% and 15% protein diets did not differ statistically, nor did they differ from habitual values prior to the study. In contrast, increasing protein from 15% to 25% did not alter energy intake. On the fourth day of the trial, however, there was a greater increase in the hunger score between 1-2 h after the 10% protein breakfast versus the 25% protein breakfast (1.6±0.4 vs 25%: 0.5±0.3, p = 0.005). In our study population a change in the nutritional environment that dilutes dietary protein with carbohydrate and fat promotes overconsumption, enhancing the risk for potential weight gain.

Overview

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0025929

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 55 references

Cited by

See all 256

Metadata

Authors
Gosby, A. K., Conigrave, A. D., Lau, N. S., Iglesias, M. A., Hall, R. M., Jebb, S. A., Brand-Miller, J., Caterson, I. D., Raubenheimer, D., & Simpson, S. J.
Venue
PLoS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2011-10-12
Volume
6
Issue
10
Pages
e25929
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0025929
OpenAlex
W2090497272
Cited by
256
References
55
FWCI
5.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Testing Protein Leverage in Lean Humans: A Randomised Controlled Experimental Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pone.0025929
The paper
Gosby, A. K., Conigrave, A. D., Lau, N. S., Iglesias, M. A., Hall, R. M., Jebb, S. A., Brand-Miller, J., Caterson, I. D., Raubenheimer, D., & Simpson, S. J. (2011). Testing Protein Leverage in Lean Humans: A Randomised Controlled Experimental Study. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0025929

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.