Low-Carbohydrate Training Increases Protein Requirements of Endurance Athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Training with low-carbohydrate (CHO) availability enhances markers of aerobic adaptation and has become popular to periodize throughout an endurance-training program. However, exercise-induced amino acid oxidation is increased with low muscle glycogen, which may limit substrate availability for postexercise protein synthesis. We aimed to determine the impact of training with low-CHO availability on estimates of dietary protein requirements. METHODS: Eight endurance-trained males (27 ± 4 yr, 75 ± 10 kg, 67 ± 10 mL·kg body mass·min) completed two trials matched for energy and macronutrient composition but with differing CHO periodization. In the low-CHO availability trial (LOW), participants consumed 7.8 g CHO·kg before evening high-intensity interval training (10 × 5 min at 10-km race pace, 1 min rest) and subsequently withheld CHO postexercise (0.2 g·kg). In the high-CHO availability trial (HIGH), participants consumed 3 g CHO·kg during the day before high-intensity interval training, and consumed 5 g CHO·kg that evening to promote muscle glycogen resynthesis. A 10-km run (~80% HRmax) was performed the following morning, fasted (LOW) or 1 h after consuming 1.2 g CHO·kg (HIGH). Whole-body phenylalanine flux and oxidation were determined over 8 h of recovery via oral [C]phenylalanine ingestion, according to standard indicator amino acid oxidation methodology, while consuming sufficient energy, 7.8 g CHO·kg·d, and suboptimal protein (0.93 g·kg·d). RESULTS: Fat oxidation (indirect calorimetry) during the 10-km run was higher in LOW compared with HIGH (0.99 ± 0.35 g·min vs 0.60 ± 0.26 g·min, P < 0.05). phenylalanine flux during recovery was not different between trials (P > 0.05) whereas phenylalanine oxidation (reciprocal of protein synthesis) was higher in LOW compared with HIGH (8.8 ± 2.7 μmol·kg·h vs 7.9 ± 2.4 μmol·kg·h, P < 0.05), suggesting a greater amino acid requirement to support rates of whole-body protein synthesis. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that performing endurance exercise with low-CHO availability increases protein requirements of endurance athletes.
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) | 0.002 | 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".