Protein Requirements for Master Athletes: Just Older Versions of Their Younger Selves
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is established that protein requirements are elevated in athletes to support their training and post-exercise recovery and adaptation, especially within skeletal muscle. However, research on the requirements for this macronutrient has been performed almost exclusively in younger athletes, which may complicate their translation to the growing population of Master athletes (i.e. > 35 years old). In contrast to older (> 65 years) untrained adults who typically demonstrate anabolic resistance to dietary protein as a primary mediator of the 'normal' age-related loss of muscle mass and strength, Master athletes are generally considered successful models of aging as evidenced by possessing similar body composition, muscle mass, and aerobic fitness as untrained adults more than half their age. The primary physiology changes considered to underpin the anabolic resistance of aging are precipitated or exacerbated by physical inactivity, which has led to higher protein recommendations to stimulate muscle protein synthesis in older untrained compared to younger untrained adults. This review puts forth the argument that Master athletes have similar muscle characteristics, physiological responses to exercise, and protein metabolism as young athletes and, therefore, are unlikely to have protein requirements that are different from their young contemporaries. Recommendations for protein amount, type, and pattern will be discussed for Master athletes to enhance their recovery from and adaptation to resistance and endurance 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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".