MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Greater Leucine Content Enhances the Acute and Integrated Muscle Protein Synthetic Responses Versus an Isonitrogenous, Isoenergetic Protein Beverage in Healthy Older Women

2017· article· en· W4389006867 on OpenAlexaff
Michaela C. Devries, Chris McGlory, Diane Tuerke, Douglas R. Bolster, Alison Kamil, Maike Rahn, L. J. Harkness-Brennan, Stuart M. Phillips

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMuscle metabolism and nutrition
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnabolismSarcopeniaLeucinePhenylalanineLean body massMyofibrilProtein catabolismPopulationInternal medicineMedicineMuscle proteinSoy proteinEndocrinologyRandomized controlled trialChemistryFood scienceSkeletal muscleBody weightBiochemistryAmino acid

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A decreased anabolic response to protein feeding is one of the mechanisms that underpins sarcopenic muscle loss with aging, with older adults requiring a higher protein dose than younger adults to increase muscle protein synthesis (MPS). Despite this knowledge, a number of commercially available protein beverages targeted to increase protein intake and support lean body mass in older adults contain ≤20 g of protein, and their ability to stimulate MPS in this population is unknown. Leucine has, however, been shown to enhance the MPS response to lower doses of protein and thus may represent an effective ‘anti‐sarcopenic’ ingredient. Objective To compare the acute and integrated myofibrillar MPS response to a typical commercial protein beverage to that of an isonitrogenous, isoenergetic protein beverage with added leucine in older women. Methods Healthy, older women (n = 11/group) were recruited and randomized to one of 2 groups: 1) CON: 15 g mixed protein beverage (soy isolate, milk concentrate and caseinate), 2/d; 2) P15: 15 g milk protein concentrate with 4 g leucine (Glanbia Nutritionals, PepForm ® ), 2/d. Unilateral maximal strength was determined (1‐RM) and one leg was randomized to an exercise condition. For determination of acute MPS, participants underwent a primed constant infusion of 13 C 6 ‐phenylalanine and MPS was determined in the fasted, fed (rested) and fed + exercised (4 sets, 50–60% 1 RM, one leg) state. For determination of integrated MPS, participants consumed 100 mL of D 2 O and MPS was determined prior to (basal) and during 6 d supplementation in the rested and exercised leg. Participants were provided with all food to be consumed throughout the basal and supplementation period, which consisted of 1.0 g/kg/d protein. During the supplementation period the study beverages were incorporated into the diet such that the participant continued to consume 1.0 g/kg/d protein. Results Acute MPS was the same in the fasted state in both groups (CON: 0.034 ± 0.001%/h, P15: 0.034 ± 0.001%/h). Feeding increased MPS in the rested (CON: 0.038 ± 0.001%/h, P15: 0.053 ± 0.002%/h) and exercised (CON: 0.043 ± 0.001%/h, P15: 0.064 ± 0.002%/h) leg in both groups, but the increase was greater with P15 (p < 0.001). Integrated MPS was the same in the basal state in both groups (CON: 1.52 ± 0.03%/d, P15: 1.48 ± 0.03%/d). MPS increased with P15 during the supplementation period in both legs (rested: 1.62 ± 0.03%/d, exercised: 1.73 ± 0.03%/d; p < 0.001), but in the exercised leg only with CON (rested: 1.54 ± 0.02%/d, exercised: 1.62 ± 0.02%/d; p < 0.001) and was greater with P15 than CON in both legs (p < 0.001). Conclusions A protein beverage fortified with 4 g of leucine induced greater increases in acute and integrated MPS than an isonitrogenous protein beverage containing protein equivalent to typical commercially available beverages. As opposed to consumption of P15, which increased MPS, chronic consumption of the CON protein beverage did not increase MPS and thus would not likely attenuate the loss of muscle mass in older adults. Support or Funding Information PepsiCo Global R&D

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicMuscle metabolism and nutritionFrench-language works237,207