Protein Requirements Are Elevated in Endurance Athletes after Exercise as Determined by the Indicator Amino Acid Oxidation Method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: A higher protein intake has been recommended for endurance athletes compared with healthy non-exercising individuals based primarily on nitrogen balance methodology. The aim of this study was to determine the estimated average protein requirement and recommended protein intake in endurance athletes during an acute 3-d controlled training period using the indicator amino acid oxidation method. After 2-d of controlled diet (1.4 g protein/kg/d) and training (10 and 5km/d, respectively), six male endurance-trained adults (28±4 y of age; Body weight, 64.5±10.0 kg; VO2peak, 60.3±6.7 ml·kg-1·min-1; means±SD) performed an acute bout of endurance exercise (20 km treadmill run) prior to consuming test diets providing variable amounts of protein (0.2-2.8 g·kg-1·d-1) and sufficient energy. Protein was provided as a crystalline amino acid mixture based on the composition of egg protein with [1-13C]phenylalanine provided to determine whole body phenylalanine flux, 13CO2 excretion, and phenylalanine oxidation. The estimated average protein requirement was determined as the breakpoint after biphasic linear regression analysis with a recommended protein intake defined as the upper 95% confidence interval. Phenylalanine flux (68.8±8.5 μmol·kg-1·h-1) was not affected by protein intake. 13CO2 excretion displayed a robust bi-phase linear relationship (R2 = 0.86) that resulted in an estimated average requirement and a recommended protein intake of 1.65 and 1.83 g protein·kg-1·d-1, respectively, which was similar to values based on phenylalanine oxidation (1.53 and 1.70 g·kg-1·d-1, respectively). We report a recommended protein intake that is greater than the RDA (0.8 g·kg-1·d-1) and current recommendations for endurance athletes (1.2-1.4 g·kg-1·d-1). Our results suggest that the metabolic demand for protein in endurance-trained adults on a higher volume training day is greater than their sedentary peers and current recommendations for athletes based primarily on nitrogen balance methodology. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrial.gov NCT02478801.
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".