Carbohydrate Does Not Augment Exercise-Induced Protein Accretion versus Protein Alone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We tested the thesis that CHO and protein coingestion would augment muscle protein synthesis (MPS) and inhibit muscle protein breakdown (MPB) at rest and after resistance exercise. METHODS: Nine men (age=23.0±1.9 yr, body mass index=24.2±2.1 kg·m) performed two unilateral knee extension trials (four sets×8-12 repetitions to failure) followed by consumption of 25 g of whey protein (PRO) or 25 g of whey protein plus 50 g of maltodextrin (PRO+CARB). Muscle biopsies and stable isotope methodology were used to measure MPS and MPB. RESULTS: The areas under the glucose and insulin curves were 17.5-fold (P<0.05) and 5-fold (P<0.05) greater, respectively, for PRO+CARB than for PRO. Exercise increased MPS and MPB (both P<0.05), but there were no differences between PRO and PRO+CARB in the rested or exercised legs. Phosphorylation of Akt was greater in the PRO+CARB than in the PRO trial (P<0.05); phosphorylations of Akt (P=0.05) and acetyl coA carboxylase-β (P<0.05) were greater after exercise than at rest. The concurrent ingestion of 50 g of CHO with 25 g of protein did not stimulate mixed MPS or inhibit MPB more than 25 g of protein alone either at rest or after resistance exercise. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that insulin is not additive or synergistic to rates of MPS or MPB when CHO is coingested with a dose of protein that maximally stimulates rates of MPS.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".