Whey and Pea (NUTRALYS® S85 Plus), but Not Collagen, Protein Supplementation Beyond the RDA Enhances Integrated Myofibrillar Protein Synthesis in Older Men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Older individuals display a diminished muscle protein synthesis (MPS) response to protein ingestion, referred to as age-related anabolic resistance, which contributes to the progression of age-related muscle loss. We hypothesized that the recommended dietary allowance (RDA; 0.8 g protein/kg/d) for protein would be insufficient to overcome anabolic resistance. We aimed to determine the impact of divergent supplemental protein sources consumed at lower protein-containing meals (breakfast and lunch) on integrated rates of MPS in older individuals. Methods: Thirty-one healthy older men (72 ± 4 y) underwent a controlled diet with protein intake set at the RDA – phase (CON; days 1-7). In a double-blind, randomized controlled fashion, participants were assigned to consume an additional 50g (2x25g) of Whey (WHEY, n=10, Sureprotein™ WPC450) Pea (PEA, n=11, NUTRALYS® S85 Plus), or collagen (COLL, n=10, Bodybalance®) protein daily (25 g/meal at breakfast and lunch) during the supplemental phase (SUPP; days 8-15). Deuterated water ingestion and muscle biopsies enrichment were used to assess integrated MPS and acute postprandial anabolic signaling. Postprandial blood samples were collected to determine feeding-induced aminoacidemia. Results: Integrated-MPS was increased during SUPP with WHEY (1.59 ± 0.11 %/d, p=0.001) and PEA (1.58 ± 0.14 %/d, p=0.001) when compared with RDA (1.46 ± 0.09 %/d WHEY; 1.46 ± 0.10 %/d PEA); however, it remained unchanged with COLL. Supplemental protein was sufficient to overcome anabolic signaling deficits (mTORC1 and rpS6), corroborating the greater postprandial aminoacidemia. Conclusions: Our findings demonstrate that supplemental protein over the current RDA enhanced anabolic signalling and integrated MPS in older men. The source of additional protein and/or the timing of its ingestion may be an important consideration in overcoming age-related anabolic resistance. Funding Sources: J.M. and C.L. were supported by postdoctoral fellowships from the Canadian Institute of Health Research (CIHR). B.S.C. was supported by a Canadian Graduate Scholarship from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC). This study was supported by a grant from Roquette Frères awarded to S.M.P.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".