Lactalbumin, Not Collagen, Augments Muscle Protein Synthesis with Aerobic Exercise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Protein ingestion and the ensuing hyperaminoacidemia stimulates skeletal muscle protein synthesis in the postexercise period. This response facilitates muscle remodeling, which is important during intensified training. The aim of this study was to determine whether supplementation with α-lactalbumin (LA), with high leucine and tryptophan contents, would improve responses to short periods of intensified aerobic training compared with supplementation with an isonitrogenous quantity of collagen peptides (CP). METHODS: Endurance-trained participants (5 male, 6 female, 24 ± 4 yr, V˙O2 = 53.2 ± 9.1 mL·kg·min, peak power output = 320 ± 48 W; means ± SD) consumed a controlled diet (1.0 g·kg·d protein) and refrained from habitual training for 11 d while taking part in this double-blind randomized, crossover trial. The two intervention phases, which consisted of brief intensified training (4 × 4-min cycling intervals at 70% of peak power output on 3 consecutive days) combined with the ingestion of LA or CP supplements after exercise (20 g) and before sleep (40 g), were separated by 4 d of washout without protein supplementation (i.e., the control phase). In response to each phase, myofibrillar (MyoPS), sarcoplasmic protein synthesis (SarcPS) rates (via H2O ingestion) and parameters of sleep quality were measured. RESULTS: LA ingestion increased plasma leucine (P < 0.001) and tryptophan concentrations (P < 0.001) relative to CP. Intensified training increased MyoPS and SarcPS above the washout phase in LA- and CP-supplemented phases (P < 0.01), with increases being 13% ± 5% and 5% ± 7% greater with LA than CP for MyoPS (P < 0.01) and SarcPS, respectively (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Despite an isonitrogenous diet, protein synthesis was enhanced to a greater extent when trained participants consumed LA compared with CP during intensified aerobic training, suggesting that protein quality is an important consideration for endurance-trained athletes aiming to augment adaption to exercise training.
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) | 0.001 | 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".