Whey protein isolate or concentrate combined with concurrent training does not augment performance, cardiorespiratory fitness, or strength adaptations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Protein supplementation alters both strength and endurance training adaptations individually; however less is known regarding protein supplementation during concurrent training. The primary purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of whey protein supplementation during six weeks of concurrent training on performance, cardiorespiratory fitness, and maximal strength adaptations, as well as acute hormonal and immune responses. A secondary purpose was to explore the effects of two types of whey protein powders on these latter variables. METHODS: Thirty-one participants were randomly assigned to supplement with a placebo (PLA; N.=10), whey protein isolate (WPI; N.=10), or whey protein concentrate (WPC; N.=11) in addition to their habitual diet. Total protein intake was 1.2, 3.5, and 3.5 g/kg/day for PLA, WPI, WPC groups, respectively. Exercise testing was performed before and after 6 weeks of concurrent training. Blood samples were obtained at rest, and 5 and 60 minutes after a simulated 2000 m rowing race prior to and after training. RESULTS: There were similar but significant improvements in cardiorespiratory fitness (PLA +7.5%; WPI +3.9%; WPC +6.9%), upper body strength (PLA +5.5%; WPI +5.1%; WPC +6.7%), lower body strength (PLA +13.6%; WPI +9.4%; WPC +14.1%) and 2000m rowing performance (PLA -2.5%; WPI -2.3%; WPC -2.3%) in all groups, P<0.05. As well, hormonal and immune responses to acute exercise were similar over time and between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Whey protein supplementation did not differentially influence performance, cardiorespiratory fitness, upper and lower body strength, immune or hormonal adaptations following 6 weeks of concurrent 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 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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".