The Role of Protein and Amino Acid Supplements in the Athleteʼs Diet
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rather than the age-old debate regarding overall protein and amino acid needs of athletes, this paper focuses on the importance of timing and type of protein and amino acid ingestion relative to both muscle growth and exercise performance. Evidence discussed comes from definitive measurement techniques including net protein balance determinations (for acute studies) or quantification of muscle size or strength (for chronic studies) First, recent data indicate that consuming a small meal of mixed macronutrient composition (or perhaps even a very small quantity of a few indispensable amino acids) immediately before or following strength exercise bouts can alter significantly net protein balance, resulting in greater gains in both muscle mass and strength than observed with training alone. With aerobic exercise, some evidence suggests immediate postexercise (but perhaps not pre-exercise) supplementation is also beneficial. Second, protein type may also be important owing to variable speeds of absorption and availability, differences in amino acid and peptide profiles, unique hormonal response, or positive effects on antioxidant defense. In addition to athletes, many others who desire to regain, maintain, or enhance muscle mass or function, including those with muscle-wasting diseases, astronauts, and all of us as we age, need to ensure that nutrient availability is sufficient during the apparently critical anabolic window of time associated with exercise training sessions. Future studies are needed to fine tune these recommendations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".