Minimal whey protein with carbohydrate stimulates muscle protein synthesis following resistance exercise in trained young men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Whey protein is a supplemental protein source often used by athletes, particularly those aiming to gain muscle mass; however, direct evidence for its efficacy in stimulating muscle protein synthesis (MPS) is lacking. We aimed to determine the impact of consuming whey protein on skeletal muscle protein turnover in the post-exercise period. Eight healthy resistance-trained young men (age=21+/-1 .0 years; BMI=26.8+/-0.9 kg/m2 (means+/-SE)) participated in a double-blind randomized crossover trial in which they performed a unilateral leg resistance exercise workout (EX: 4 sets of knee extensions and 4 sets of leg press; 8-10 repetitions/set; 80% of maximal), such that one leg was not exercised and acted as a rested (RE) comparator. After exercise, subjects consumed either an isoenergetic whey protein plus carbohydrate beverage (WHEY: 10 g protein and 21 g fructose) or a carbohydrate-only beverage (CHO: 21 g fructose and 10 g maltodextran). Subjects received pulse-tracer injections of L-[ring-2H5]phenylalanine and L-[15N]phenylalanine to measure MPS. Exercise stimulated a rise in MPS in the WHEY-EX and CHO-EX legs, which were greater than MPS in the WHEY-RE leg and the CHO-RE leg (all p<0.05), respectively. The rate of MPS in the WHEY-EX leg was greater than in the CHO-EX leg (p<0.001). We conclude that a small dose (10 g) of whey protein with carbohydrate (21 g) can stimulate a rise in MPS after resistance exercise in trained young men that would be supportive of a positive net protein balance, which, over time, would lead to hypertrophy.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".