Greater stimulation of myofibrillar protein synthesis with ingestion of whey protein isolate <i>v.</i> micellar casein at rest and after resistance exercise in elderly men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We aimed to determine the effect of consuming pure isolated micellar casein or pure whey protein isolate on rates of myofibrillar protein synthesis (MPS) at rest and after resistance exercise in elderly men. Healthy elderly men (72 (sem 1) years; BMI 26·4 (sem 0·7) kg/m²) were divided into two groups (n 7 each) who received a primed, constant infusion of l-[ring-¹³C₆]phenylalanine to measure MPS at rest and during 4 h of exercise recovery. Participants performed unilateral leg resistance exercise followed by the consumption of isonitrogenous quantities (20 g) of casein or whey. Blood essential amino acids and leucine concentration peaked 60 min post-drink and were greater in amplitude after whey protein ingestion (both, P < 0·05). MPS in the rested leg was 65 % higher (P = 0·002) after ingestion of whey (0·040 (sem 0·003) %/h) when compared with micellar casein (0·024 (sem 0·002) %/h). Similarly, resistance exercise-stimulated rates of MPS were greater (P < 0·001) after whey ingestion (0·059 (sem 0·005) %/h) v. micellar casein (0·035 (sem 0·002) %/h). We conclude that ingestion of isolated whey protein supports greater rates of MPS than micellar casein both at rest and after resistance exercise in healthy elderly men. This result is probably related to a greater hyperaminoacidaemia or leucinaemia with whey ingestion.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".