Gluconeogenesis-stimulated protein turnover in carbohydrate restriction
The following hypothesis is suggested from classic studies of starvation done in chronically fasted obese individuals [27,28]. The brain's metabolism requires 100 grams of glucose per day. In the early phase of starvation, glycogen stores are rapidly reduced, so the requirement for glucose, is met by gluconeogenesis. Approximately 15–20 grams are available from glycerol production due to lipolysis, but fatty acid oxidation generally cannot be used to produce glucose. Therefore, protein breakdown must supply the rest of substrate for conversion to glucose in the early phases of starvation. By 6 weeks of starvation, ketone bodies plus glycerol can replace 85% of the brain's metabolic needs, the remainder still arising from gluconeogenesis due to protein. It should be mentioned that, since the fundamental role of ketones is to spare protein, it might be expected that the reliance on protein would actually decrease with time, perhaps relating to the anecdotal observation of "hitting the wall" on weight loss diets.
Very low carbohydrate diets, in their early phases, also must supply substantial glucose to the brain from gluconeogenesis. For example, the early phase of the popular Atkins or Protein Power diet restricts dieters to about 20–30 grams of carbohydrate per day, leaving 60–65 grams to be made up from protein-originated gluconeogenesis. One hundred grams of an "average" protein can supply about 57 grams of glucose so 110 grams protein would be needed to provide 60–65 grams glucose. Increased gluconeogenesis has been directly confirmed using tracer studies on day 11 of a very low carbohydrate diet (approx 8 grams/day) [29]. If indeed, 110 grams of endogenous protein is broken down for gluconeogenesis and re-synthesized, the energy cost, at 4–5 kcal/gram could amount to as much as 400–600 kcal/day. This is a sizable metabolic advantage. Of course, the source of protein for gluconeogenesis may be dietary rather than endogenous. Whereas endogenous protein breakdown is likely to evoke energetically costly re-synthesis in an organism in homeostasis, dietary protein may conserve energy. The source of protein for the observed gluconeogenesis [29] remains an open question, but there is no a priori reason to exclude endogenous rather than dietary sources. This is therefore a hypothesis that would need to be tested. The extent to which the protein for gluconeogenesis is supplied by endogenous protein would explain very high-energy costs. It should be noted, however, that even if limited to breakdown of dietary protein sources, there would be some energy cost associated with gluconeogenesis.
Metabolic advantage: does it happen?
Having established that there is no theoretical barrier to metabolic advantage and that there are plausible mechanisms that could account for such an effect, we must ask whether it can be demonstrated experimentally, that is, whether the proposed effects are of sufficient magnitude to be a practical feature of weight reduction strategies, in particular very low carbohydrate diets. If so there will be increased weight loss for the same caloric intake, or metabolic advantage. A recent animal model provides support for greater metabolic inefficiency in rats fed carbohydrate restricted diets compared with higher carbohydrate, leading to excess weight loss [30]. Human data in Table 2 illustrates 10 clinical trials of isocaloric diets with a lower versus higher carbohydrate arm in each trial [31-40]. It can be seen that the lower carbohydrate arm in 9 of 10 studies demonstrates increased weight reduction in comparison with the higher carbohydrate arm. Three of the studies show statistical significance (p < 0.05 or better). Even without statistical significance of individual studies, however, the likelihood that the lower carbohydrate arm would have an advantage in 9 of 10 studies is equivalent to the likelihood of 9 coin toss experiments having excess heads in comparison to excess tails. The 9th binomial coefficient shows this probability to be p < 0.01.
While the above suggests the possibility of metabolic advantage, it does not prove it, nor do we know the magnitude of the effect, or the factors that control it. The studies above were chosen from among those quoted by many of the authors who have disputed the existence of metabolic advantage. Nonetheless, a formal meta-analysis would be necessary to avoid the possibility of conscious or unconscious bias in their selection. Further, it would be necessary to establish evidence that energetically costly metabolic processes are more prevalent in low carbohydrate diets than in diets of higher carbohydrate content. Whereas the proposed mechanisms are plausible, they need to be proven.
Conclusions
Thermodynamics is not the limiting factor behind the concept of metabolic advantage. On the contrary, thermodynamics guarantees inefficiency in all metabolic processes and is silent on the possibility that inefficiency may be augmented in some instances. A familiar example of inefficiency is thyrotoxicosis, with attendant weight loss and heat generation despite unchanged or increased caloric consumption. The theoretical possibility of inefficiency and metabolic advantage due to macronutrient compositional change exists, but demonstration of the phenomenon can only be resolved experimentally. Isocaloric dietary studies with a low vs. a higher carbohydrate arm support the experimental possibility of metabolic advantage. A formal meta-analysis would be required to evaluate this more objectively. Further studies, including tracer methods, would be required to establish mechanisms. The presence of high quantities of dietary protein (often a feature of low carbohydrate diets) is known to stimulate protein turnover, an energetically costly process. However, it is unclear whether this is the only factor, or whether it is necessary for metabolic advantage to occur. In particular, obligate gluconeogenesis from endogenous sources may also contribute to induction of protein turnover.
Competing interests
The author(s) declare that they have no competing interests.