MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Postprandial Plasma Amino Acid And Appetite Responses To Plant-Blend Protein Ingestion In Healthy Young Adults.

2023· article· en· W4387062586 on OpenAlexaff
Lucy M. Rogers, A. Belfield, Marie Korzepa, Ryan N. Marshall, Ari Gritsas, Tyler A. Churchward‐Venne, Leigh Breen

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicConsumer Attitudes and Food Labeling
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPostprandialAppetiteGhrelinCrossover studyIngestionAmino acidAnabolismLeucinePea proteinWhey proteinChemistryFood scienceEssential amino acidInternal medicineEndocrinologyAnimal scienceMedicineBiochemistryBiologyPlaceboInsulinHormone

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The muscle anabolic response to most plant-derived proteins is inferior to that of animal-derived proteins, due to a lower content and specific deficiencies of essential amino acids (EAA). Plant protein blends with complementary amino acid profiles may augment postprandial aminoacidemia, which could have potential implications for appetite regulation. This study assessed postprandial plasma amino acid and ghrelin concentrations, and subjective appetite ratings following ingestion of a pea-rice protein blend, compared with pea-only and whey protein. METHODS: In a randomised, double-blind, crossover design, 11 healthy adults (M n = 5, F n = 6; Mean ± SD age: 22 ± 3 years; BMI: 23 ± 3 kg/m2) ingested 0.3 g·kg-1·mass-1 of pea-rice blend, pea protein or whey protein (25 ± 6 g of protein for all). Arterialised blood samples were collected in the fasted state and over 240-min postprandially. Plasma concentrations of amino acids and ghrelin were assessed via ultra-performance liquid chromatography mass spectrometry (UPLC-MS) and ELISA, respectively. Subjective appetite ratings over 240-min were measured via Visual Analogue Scales. Time-dependent and -independent variables were analysed via mixed-effects models. RESULTS: Mean plasma EAA incremental area the under curve (iAUC) was higher in Whey, compared to Pea (p < 0.01; mean diff (95% CI): 44218 (15806 to 72631) au) and Blend (p < 0.01; 14358 (16031 to 101121) au), with no differences between Pea and Blend (p = 0.67). Plasma leucine iAUC was also higher in Whey compared to Pea (p < 0.01; 10034 (4940 to 15128) au) and Blend (p < 0.01; 12454 (5856 to 19053) au), with no differences between Pea and Blend (p = 0.52). Plasma total, and non-essential amino acid iAUCs were not different between treatments (all p > 0.05). Plasma ghrelin, and subjective ratings of thirst, hunger and fullness were transiently altered after protein ingestion, with no differences between treatments (all p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: In healthy adults, ingestion of the pea-rice protein blend did not augment postprandial aminoacidemia above pea protein. No between-trial differences in indices of appetite regulation were apparent despite differences in plasma aminoacidemia between Whey vs. Blend and Pea, suggesting that protein-induced satiety may be independent of amino acid bioavailability.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.275 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & ExerciseSame topicConsumer Attitudes and Food LabelingFrench-language works237,207