A whey protein-based multi-ingredient nutritional supplement stimulates gains in lean body mass and strength in healthy older men: A randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Protein and other compounds can exert anabolic effects on skeletal muscle, particularly in conjunction with exercise. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of twice daily consumption of a protein-based, multi-ingredient nutritional supplement to increase strength and lean mass independent of, and in combination with, exercise in healthy older men. Forty-nine healthy older men (age: 73 ± 1 years [mean ± SEM]; BMI: 28.5 ± 1.5 kg/m2) were randomly allocated to 20 weeks of twice daily consumption of either a nutritional supplement (SUPP; n = 25; 30 g whey protein, 2.5 g creatine, 500 IU vitamin D, 400 mg calcium, and 1500 mg n-3 PUFA with 700 mg as eicosapentanoic acid and 445 mg as docosahexanoic acid); or a control (n = 24; CON; 22 g of maltodextrin). The study had two phases. Phase 1 was 6 weeks of SUPP or CON alone. Phase 2 was a 12 week continuation of the SUPP/CON but in combination with exercise: SUPP + EX or CON + EX. Isotonic strength (one repetition maximum [1RM]) and lean body mass (LBM) were the primary outcomes. In Phase 1 only the SUPP group gained strength (Σ1RM, SUPP: +14 ± 4 kg, CON: +3 ± 2 kg, P < 0.001) and lean mass (LBM, +1.2 ± 0.3 kg, CON: -0.1 ± 0.2 kg, P < 0.001). Although both groups gained strength during Phase 2, upon completion of the study upper body strength was greater in the SUPP group compared to the CON group (Σ upper body 1RM: 119 ± 4 vs. 109 ± 5 kg, P = 0.039). We conclude that twice daily consumption of a multi-ingredient nutritional supplement increased muscle strength and lean mass in older men. Increases in strength were enhanced further with exercise training. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02281331.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".