Muscle Protein Synthesis Is Not Augmented By Protein-carbohydrate Co-ingestion At Rest Or Following Resistance Exercise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine whether increases in plasma insulin induced by carbohydrate ingestion would augment mixed muscle protein synthesis (MPS) when a bolus dose of whey protein, previously shown to be maximally effective for stimulation of MPS, is consumed at rest and following resistance exercise. METHODS: Nine male participants (23 ± 1.9 y, 24.2 ± 2.1 kg/m2; mean±SD) completed two trials in a double-blind randomized cross-over design. Trials consisted of unilateral knee extension exercise and the post-exercise consumption of a drink that contained 25g of whey protein (PRO) or 25g of whey protein plus 50g of maltodextrin (CHO). Participants completed 4 sets of unilateral resistance exercise performed at 80% maximal effort (8-12 repetitions to failure). RESULTS: There was a main effect for drink composition (CHO > PRO) for plasma glucose concentration (P < 0.05) and plasma insulin concentration (P < 0.05). The area under the glucose and insulin curves were 17.5 and 5 times greater (P < 0.05), respectively, for CHO than PRO. There was no difference in mixed MPS between CHO and PRO (P = 0.99) in the resting leg. Exercise increased mixed MPS by 36.8% and 36.2% in the PRO and CHO groups respectively, with no significant differences between the groups (P = 0.99). CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that when a maximally effective bolus dose (25g) of protein is consumed, carbohydrate consumption, and the consequent increase in plasma insulin, does not further augment the synthesis of mixed muscle proteins at rest or following resistance exercise. These findings support the conclusion that insulin does not stimulate mixed MPS beyond protein ingestion, and the accompanying hyperaminoacidemia, alone. Supported by NSERC
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".