Αcute effects of essential amino acid gel-based and whey protein supplements on appetite and energy intake in older women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deficiencies in protein and energy intakes are partly responsible for age-related sarcopenia. We investigated the effects of supplements matched in essential amino acid (EAA) content (7.5 g) on energy intake and appetite. Ten women aged 69.2 ± 2.7 years completed 3 trials in a randomised, crossover design. Composite appetite scores, peptide-YY (PYY), and insulin responses to a 200-mL whey protein (WP) isolate (275 kJ), a 50-mL EAA gel (GEL, 478 kJ), or nothing as the control (CON) condition were investigated over 1 h, followed by an ad libitum breakfast. Energy intake at breakfast (CON, 1957 ± 713; WP, 1413 ± 623; GEL, 1963 ± 611 kJ) was higher in CON and GEL than in WP (both P = 0.006). After accounting for supplement energy content, energy intake in GEL was higher than in CON (P = 0.0006) and WP (P = 0.0008). Time-averaged area under the curve for composite appetite scores (CON, 74 ± 20; WP, 50 ± 22; GEL, 60 ± 16 mm) was higher in CON than WP (P = 0.015). Time-averaged area under the curve for PYY (CON, 87 ± 13; WP, 119 ± 27; GEL, 97 ± 22 pg·mL−1) was higher in WP than CON (P = 0.009) and GEL (P = 0.012). In conclusion, supplementation with WP facilitated an increase in protein intake, whereas supplementation with GEL increases in both energy and protein intakes, when consumed before an ad libitum breakfast. Such findings highlight potential gel-based EAA supplementation intake for addressing age-related sarcopenia.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".