Pronounced energy restriction with elevated protein intake results in no change in proteolysis and reductions in skeletal muscle protein synthesis that are mitigated by resistance exercise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Preservation of lean body mass (LBM) may be important during dietary energy restriction (ER) and requires equal rates of muscle protein synthesis (MPS) and muscle protein breakdown (MPB). Currently, the relative contribution of MPS and MPB to the loss of LBM during ER in humans is unknown. We aimed to determine the impact of dietary protein intake and resistance exercise on MPS and MPB during a controlled short‐term energy deficit. Adult men (body mass index, 28.6 ± 0.6 kg/m 2 ; age 22 ± 1 yr) underwent 10 d of 40%‐reduced energy intake while performing unilateral resistance exercise and consuming lower protein (1.2 g/kg/d, n = 12) or higher protein (2.4 g/kg/d, n = 12). Pre‐ and postintervention testing included dual‐energy X‐ray absorptiometry, primed constant infusion of ring ‐[ 13 C 6 ]phenylalanine, and 15 [N]phenylalanine to measure acute postabsorptive MPS and MPB; D 2 O to measure integrated MPS; and gene and protein expression. There was a decrease in acute MPS after ER (higher protein, 0.059 ± 0.006 to 0.051 ± 0.009%/h; lower protein, 0.061 ± 0.005 to 0.045 ± 0.006%/h; P < 0.05) that was attenuated with resistance exercise (higher protein, 0.067 ± 0.01%/h; lower protein, 0.061 ± 0.006%/h), and integrated MPS followed a similar pattern. There was no change in MPB (energy balance, 0.080 ± 0.01%/hr; ER rested legs, 0.078 ± 0.008%/hr; ER exercised legs, 0.079 ± 0.006%/hr). We conclude that a reduction in MPS is the main mechanism that underpins LBM loss early in ER in adult men.—Hector, A. J., McGlory, C., Damas, F., Mazara, N., Baker, S. K., Phillips, S. M. Pronounced energy restriction with elevated protein intake results in no change in proteolysis and reductions in skeletal muscle protein synthesis that are mitigated by resistance exercise. FASEB J. 32, 265‐275 (2018). www.fasebj.org
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".