Differential stimulation of myofibrillar and sarcoplasmic protein synthesis with protein ingestion at rest and after resistance exercise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We aimed to determine whether there is a differential stimulation of the contractile myofibrillar and the cellular sarcoplasmic proteins after ingestion of protein and how this is affected by resistance exercise. Fasted (FAST) muscle protein synthesis was measured in seven healthy young men with a primed constant infusion of L-[ring-(13)C(6)]phenylalanine. Participants then performed an intense bout of unilateral resistance exercise followed by the consumption of 25 g of whey protein to maximally stimulate protein synthesis. In the rested (FED) leg myofibrillar (MYO) protein synthesis was elevated (P < 0.01) above FAST at 3 h (approximately 163%) but not at 1 and 5 h (P > 0.05). In contrast, MYO protein synthesis in the exercised (FED-EX) leg was stimulated above FAST at 1, 3 and 5 h (approximately 100, 216, and 229%, respectively; P < 0.01) with the increase at 5 h being greater than FED (P < 0.01). Thus, the synthesis of muscle contractile proteins is stimulated by both feeding and resistance exercise early (1 h) but has a greater duration and amplitude after resistance exercise. Sarcoplasmic (SARC) protein synthesis was similarly elevated (P < 0.01) above FAST by approximately 104% at 3 h in both FED and FED-EX suggesting SARC protein synthesis is stimulated by feeding but that this response is not augmented by resistance exercise. In conclusion, myofibrillar and sarcoplasmic protein synthesis are similarly, but transiently, stimulated with protein feeding. In contrast, resistance exercise rapidly stimulates and sustains the synthesis of only the myofibrillar protein fraction after protein ingestion. These data highlight the importance of measuring the synthetic response of specific muscle protein fractions when examining the effects of exercise and nutrition.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".