The Leucine Requirement for Elderly Men Is More Than Double the Current Recommendations (P01-015-19)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of the current study was to determine the leucine requirement in older adult men using the indicator amino acid oxidation (IAAO) method. The requirement for leucine was determined using IAAO with L-[1-13C]phenylalanine as the indicator. Using a repeated measures design, seven healthy older adult men were randomly assigned to receive seven out of nine intakes of leucine: 20, 30, 45, 55, 70, 80, 90, 105, 120 mg· kg–1· d–1. The rate of release of 13CO2from the oxidation of L-[1-13C]phenylalanine was measured and breakpoint analysis using non-linear mixed effects model (PROC NLMIXED) was applied to determine the leucine requirement. The upper 95% confidence interval was determined using Fieller’s theorem. The mean (EAR) and population-safe (upper 95% CI) leucine requirement for older men was determined to be 80 and 101 mg· kg–1· d–1, respectively. These results are more than double the mean and population-safe leucine requirement currently set by the DRIs (34 and 42 mg· kg–1· d–1 for the EAR and RDA, respectively). These results have important implications in the diet of older adults. In order to meet the leucine requirement, older adults should aim to consume a minimum of 1.2 g of high quality protein · kg–1· d–1or consider supplementation if not eating animal protein. In view of the evidence that leucine is important for muscle protein synthesis, recommendations set by the DRI need to be revisited. In addition, all other amino acid requirements should be investigated in older adults. Supported by Canadian Institute of Health Research MOP-10321.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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".