Protein Ingestion to Stimulate Myofibrillar Protein Synthesis Requires Greater Relative Protein Intakes in Healthy Older Versus Younger Men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adequate protein ingestion-mediated stimulation of myofibrillar protein synthesis (MPS) is required to maintain skeletal muscle mass. It is currently unknown what per meal protein intake is required to maximally stimulate the response in older men and whether it differs from that of younger men. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed data from our laboratories that measured MPS in healthy older (~71 years) and younger (~22 years) men by primed constant infusion of l-ring-[(13)C6]phenylalanine after ingestion of varying amounts (0-40 g) of high-quality dietary protein as a single bolus and normalized to body mass and, where available, lean body mass (LBM). RESULTS: There was no difference (p = .53) in basal MPS rates between older (0.027±0.04%/h; means ± 95% CI) and young (0.028 ± 0.03%/h) men. Biphase linear regression and breakpoint analysis revealed the slope of first line segment was lower (p < .05) in older men and that MPS reached a plateau after ingestion of 0.40 ± 0.19 and 0.24 ± 0.06 g/kg body mass (p = .055) and 0.60 ± 0.29 and 0.25 ± 0.13 g/kg lean body mass (p < .01) in older and younger men, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first report of the relative (to body weight) protein ingested dose response of MPS in younger and older men. Our data suggest that healthy older men are less sensitive to low protein intakes and require a greater relative protein intake, in a single meal, than young men to maximally stimulate postprandial rates of MPS. These results should be considered when developing nutritional solutions to maximize MPS for the maintenance or enhancement of muscle mass with advancing age.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".