Maximizing Post-exercise Anabolism: The Case for Relative Protein Intakes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Maximizing the post-exercise increase in muscle protein synthesis, especially of the contractile myofibrillar protein fraction, is essential to facilitate effective muscle remodeling, and enhance hypertrophic gains with resistance training. MPS is the primary regulated variable influencing muscle net balance with dietary amino acid ingestion representing the single most important nutritional variable enhancing post-exercise rates of muscle protein synthesis. Dose-response studies in average (i.e., ~80 kg) males have reported an absolute 20 g dose of high quality, rapidly digested protein maximizes mixed, and myofibrillar protein synthetic rates. However, it is unclear if these absolute protein intakes can be viewed in a "one size fits all" solution. Re-analysis of published literature in young adults suggests a relative single meal intake of ~0.31 g/kg of rapidly digested, high quality protein (i.e., whey) should be considered as a nutritional guideline for individuals of average body composition aiming to maximize post-exercise myofibrillar protein synthesis while minimizing irreversible amino acid oxidative catabolism that occurs with excessive intakes of this macronutrient. This muscle-specific bolus intake is lower than that reported to maximize whole body anabolism (i.e., ≥0.5 g/kg). Review of the available literature suggests that potential confounders such as the co-ingestion of carbohydrate, sex, and amount of active muscle mass do not represent significant barriers to the translation of this objectively determined relative protein intake. Additional research is warranted to elucidate the effective dose for proteins with suboptimal amino acid compositions (e.g., plant-based), and/or slower digestion rates as well as whether recommendations are appreciably affected by other physiological conditions such endurance exercise, high habitual daily protein ingestion, aging, obesity, and/or periods of chronic negative energy balance.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".