Protein Timing Does Not Affect Next-Day Recovery of Strength or Power but May Enhance Aerobic Adaptations to Short-Term Variable Intensity Exercise Training in Recreationally Active Males: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Variable intensity training (VIT) characteristic of stop-and-go team sport exercise may reduce performance capacity when performed on successive days but also represent a strategy to induce rapid training-induced increases in exercise capacity. Although post-exercise protein enhances muscle protein synthesis, the timing of protein ingestion following variable intensity training (VIT) on next-day recovery and short-term performance adaptation is unknown. PURPOSE: To determine if immediate (IMM) as compared to delayed (DEL) protein ingestion supports greater acute recovery of exercise performance during successive days of VIT and/or supports chronic training adaptations. METHODS: Sixteen habitually active men performed five consecutive days of variable intensity training (VIT) in the evening prior to consuming a beverage providing carbohydrate and whey protein (IMM; 0.7g and 0.3g/kg, respectively) or carbohydrates alone (DEL; 1g/kg) with the reciprocal beverage consumed the following morning. Performance was assessed before each VIT (recovery) and two days after the final VIT (adaptation). RESULTS: Five consecutive days of VIT progressively decreased anaerobic peak power (~7%) and muscle strength (MVC; ~8%) with no impact of protein timing. Following 2 days of recovery, VIT increased maximal voluntary contraction and predicted VO2peak by ~10% and ~5%, respectively, with a moderate beneficial effect of IMM on predicted VO2peak (ES= 0.78). CONCLUSION: Successive days of simulated team sport exercise decreases markers of next-day performance capacity with no effect of protein timing on acute recovery. However, practical VIT increases muscle strength and aerobic capacity in as little as 5 days with the latter potentially enhanced by immediate post-exercise protein consumption.
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".