Coingestion of protein with carbohydrate during recovery from endurance exercise stimulates skeletal muscle protein synthesis in humans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Coingestion of protein with carbohydrate (CHO) during recovery from exercise can affect muscle glycogen synthesis, particularly if CHO intake is suboptimal. Another potential benefit of protein feeding is an increased synthesis rate of muscle proteins, as is well documented after resistance exercise. In contrast, the effect of nutrient manipulation on muscle protein kinetics after aerobic exercise remains largely unexplored. We tested the hypothesis that ingesting protein with CHO after a standardized 2-h bout of cycle exercise would increase mixed muscle fractional synthetic rate (FSR) and whole body net protein balance (WBNB) vs. trials matched for total CHO or total energy intake. We also examined whether postexercise glycogen synthesis could be enhanced by adding protein or additional CHO to a feeding protocol that provided 1.2 g CHO x kg(-1) x h(-1), which is the rate generally recommended to maximize this process. Six active men ingested drinks during the first 3 h of recovery that provided either 1.2 g CHO.kg(-1).h(-1) (L-CHO), 1.2 g CHO + 0.4 g protein x kg(-1) x h(-1) (PRO-CHO), or 1.6 g CHO x kg(-1) x h(-1) (H-CHO) in random order. Based on a primed constant infusion of l-[ring-(2)H(5)]phenylalanine, analysis of biopsies (vastus lateralis) obtained at 0 and 4 h of recovery showed that muscle FSR was higher (P < 0.05) in PRO-CHO (0.09 +/- 0.01%/h) vs. both L-CHO (0.07 +/- 0.01%/h) and H-CHO (0.06 +/- 0.01%/h). WBNB assessed using [1-(13)C]leucine was positive only during PRO-CHO, and this was mainly attributable to a reduced rate of protein breakdown. Glycogen synthesis rate was not different between trials. We conclude that ingesting protein with CHO during recovery from aerobic exercise increased muscle FSR and improved WBNB, compared with feeding strategies that provided CHO only and were matched for total CHO or total energy intake. However, adding protein or additional CHO to a feeding strategy that provided 1.2 g CHO x kg(-1) x h(-1) did not further enhance glycogen resynthesis during recovery.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".