The Role of Milk- and Soy-Based Protein in Support of Muscle Protein Synthesis and Muscle Protein Accretion in Young and Elderly Persons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The balance between muscle protein synthesis (MPS) and muscle protein breakdown (MPB) is dependent on protein consumption and the accompanying hyperaminoacidemia, which stimulates a marked rise in MPS and mild suppression of MPB. In the fasting state, however, MPS declines sharply and MPB is increased slightly. Ultimately, the balance between MPS and MPB determines the net rate of muscle growth. Accretion of new muscle mass beyond that of normal growth can occur following periods of intense resistance exercise. Such muscle accretion is an often sought-after goal of athletes. There needs to be, however, an increased appreciation of the role that preservation of muscle can play in offsetting morbidities associated with the sarcopenia of aging, such as type 2 diabetes and declines in metabolic rate that can lead to fat mass accumulation followed by the onset or progression of obesity. Emerging evidence shows that consumption of different types of proteins can have different stimulatory effects on the amplitude and possibly duration that MPS is elevated after feeding; this may be particularly significant after resistance exercise. This effect may be due to differences in the fundamental amino acid composition of the protein (i.e., its amino acid score) and its rate of digestion. Milk proteins, specifically casein and whey, are the highest quality proteins and are quite different in terms of their rates of digestion and absorption. New data suggest that whey protein is better able to support MPS than is soy protein, a finding that may explain the greater ability of whey protein to support greater net muscle mass gains with resistance exercise. This review focuses on evidence showing the differences in responses of MPS, and ultimately muscle protein accretion, to consumption of milk- and soy-based supplemental protein sources in humans.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".