Differential Responses of Blood Essential Amino Acid Levels Following Ingestion of High Quality Plant-Based Protein Blends Compared to Whey Protein - A Double-Blind Randomized, Cross-Over, Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study assessed bio-equivalence of high-quality, plant-based protein blends versus Whey Protein Isolate (WPI) in healthy, resistance-trained men. The primary endpoint was incremental area under the curve (iAUC) of blood essential Amino Acids (eAAs) 4 hours after consumption of each product. Cmax and Tmax of blood leucine were secondary outcomes. Subjects (n=18) consumed three plant-based protein blends and WPI (control). Analysis of Variance model was used to assess for bio-equivalence of total sum of blood eAA concentrations. The total blood eAA iAUC ratios of the three blends were: [90% CI]: #1: 0.66 [0.58-0.76]; #2: 0.71 [0.62-0.82]; #3: 0.60 [0.52-0.69], not completely within the pre-defined equivalence range [0.80-1.25], indicative of 30-40% lower iAUC versus WPI. Leucine Cmax of the three blends was not equivalent to WPI, #1: 0.70 [0.67-0.73]; #2: 0.72 [0.68-0.75]; #3: 0.65 [0.62 – 0.68], indicative of a 28-35% lower response. Leucine Tmax for two blends were similar to WPI (#1: 0.94 [0.73-1.18]; #2: 1.56 [1.28-1.92]; #3: 1.19 [0.95-1.48]). The plant-based protein blends were not bio-equivalent. However, blood leucine kinetic data across the blends approximately doubled from fasting concentrations whereas blood Tmax data across two blends was similar to WPI. This suggests evidence of rapid hyperleucinemia, which correlates with a protein’s anabolic potential.
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 | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".