MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2072495586 · doi:10.1007/s12603-015-0442-y

Effect of cysteine-rich whey protein (Immunocal®) supplementation in combination with resistance training on muscle strength and lean body mass in non-frail elderly subjects: A randomized, double-blind controlled study

2015· article· en· W2072495586 on OpenAlexaff
Antony D. Karelis, Virginie Messier, Corinne Suppère, Philippe Briand, Rémi Rabasa‐Lhoret

Bibliographic record

VenueThe journal of nutrition health & aging · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMuscle metabolism and nutrition
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMontreal Clinical Research InstituteUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLean body massWhey proteinCaseinResistance trainingMuscle massStrength trainingMuscle strengthMedicineRandomized controlled trialSarcopeniaPhysical therapyInternal medicineAnimal scienceEndocrinologyFood scienceBody weightChemistryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the present study was to examine the effect of a cysteine-rich whey protein (Immunocal®) supplementation in combination with resistance training on muscle strength and lean body mass (LBM) in elderly individuals. We hypothesized that the cysteine-rich whey protein (Immunocal®) group would experience a greater increase in muscle strength and lean body mass versus the control group (casein). DESIGN: Randomized double-blind controlled intervention study. SETTING: Institut de Recherches Cliniques de Montréal in Montreal, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Ninety-nine non-frail elderly subjects were recruited. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomly assigned into two groups. The experimental group received a cysteine-rich whey protein isolate (Immunocal®) (20 g/day) and the control group received casein (20 g/day) during a 135-day period. In addition, both groups performed the same resistance training program (3 times per week). MEASUREMENTS: Body composition (DXA) and muscle strength (leg press) were measured. RESULTS: Of the 99 recruited participants, 84 completed the 135-day study period. Of these, 67 subjects (33 in the casein group and 34 in the Immunocal® group) complied and used at least 80 % of the study product and completed at least 80 % of their training sessions. Results in this selected group show an increase in all three muscle strength variables (absolute, normalized by BW and by LBM) by 31.0 %, 30.9 % and 30.0 %, respectively in the casein group as well as 39.3 %, 39.9 % and 43.3 %, respectively in the Immunocal® group after the intervention (p < 0.05). The increases in muscle strength favored Immunocal® versus casein by approximately 10 % when expressed in kg per kg BW and in kg per kg LBM (p < 0.05). No significant changes were found between pre-and-post intervention in both groups for total LBM. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings showed increases in muscle strength in both groups after resistance training, however, significant additional increases were observed in muscle strength with the addition of a cysteine-rich whey protein (Immunocal®) versus casein.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.288 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations49
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueThe journal of nutrition health & agingSame topicMuscle metabolism and nutritionFrench-language works237,207