Muscle strength and hypertrophy occur independently of protein supplementation during short-term resistance training in untrained men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Short-term resistance training has consistently demonstrated gains in muscular strength, but not hypertrophy. Post-resistance training protein ingestion is posited to augment the acute anabolic stimulus, thus potentially accelerating changes in muscle size and strength. The purpose of this investigation was to examine the effects of 4 weeks of resistance training with protein supplementation on strength and muscle morphology changes in untrained men. Participants (mean ± SD; N = 18; age, 22.0 ± 2.5 years; body mass index, 25.1 ± 5.4 kg · m(-2)) were randomly assigned to a resistance training + protein group (n = 9; whey (17 g) + colostrum (3 g) + leucine (2 g)) or a resistance training + placebo group (n = 9). One-repetition maximum (1RM) strength in the leg press (LP) and leg extension (LE) exercises, maximal isometric knee extensor strength (MVIC), and muscle morphology (thickness (MT), cross-sectional area (CSA), pennation angle) of the dominant rectus femoris (RF) and vastus lateralis (VL) was assessed before and after training. Participants performed LP and LE exercises (3 × 8-10; at 80% 1RM) 3 days/week for 4 weeks. Data were analyzed using 2-way ANOVA with repeated measures. Four weeks of resistance training resulted in significant increases in LP (p < 0.001), LE (p < 0.001), MVIC (p < 0.001), RF MT (p < 0.001), RF CSA (p < 0.001), VL MT (p < 0.001), and VL CSA (p < 0.001). No between-group differences were observed. Although nutrition can significantly affect training adaptations, these results suggest that short-term resistance training augments muscle strength and size in previously untrained men with no additive benefit from postexercise protein supplementation.
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".