How macronutrient breakdown can have an effect on your energy levels and mood
I always find it interesting when I come across a study that shows how two diets having similar caloric values, but different macronutrient (protein, fat and carbs) composition compare with one another. That being said, I came across another one of these studies. See below for more details.
In a study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, researchers split 20 obese subjects into two groups. Both groups consumed a calorie-restricted diet (about 30% below maintenance) for 6 weeks, which was provided to them. However, the macronutrient composition of those calories, as I’m sure you’ve already realized, was different.
Group #1 followed a diet consisting of around 30% protein, 30% fat and 40% carbs. Group #2 consumed a diet that contained around 30% protein, 60% fat and, at the start of the study, 5% carbs. They actually increased carb intake by 5 grams each week during weeks 3-6 of the study. That being said, where the trade off came from in regards to the increase in carbs wasn’t clear in the study. However, they basically started off with less than 20g of carbs a day, which is extremely low.
Before and after the study, the researchers measured the body weight and fat mass. They also had them fill out a questionnaire that assessed 6 distinct mood states (i.e. tension-anxiety, depression-dejection, anger-hostility, vigour-activity, fatigue-inertia, and confusion-bewilderment).
What the researchers found was that there was no significant difference in weight loss or fat mass. However, the researchers found that Group #1 had feelings of high energy and a more favourable mood profile.
Therefore, while calories and possibly protein intake still remain of the utmost importance, the overall macronutrient breakdown of those calories can have an effect on your energy levels and mood.
For more information:
Johnston, et al. Ketogenic low-carbohydrate diets have no metabolic advantage over non-ketogenic low-carbohydrate diets. Am J Clin Nutr. 2006. May vol. 83 no. 5 1055-1061