Postexercise Dietary Leucine Retention for Whole-Body Anabolism Is Greater With Whey Protein Isolate and Fish-Derived Protein Hydrolysate Than Nonessential Amino Acids in Trained Young Men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Marine-derived proteins, such as blue whiting-derived protein hydrolysates (BWPH), represent high-quality sources of dietary protein, but their ability to support postexercise anabolism is not established. The impact of BWPH on whole-body anabolism was compared with an isonitrogenous whey protein isolate (WPI) and nonessential amino acid (NEAA) control in 10 trained young males (31 ± 4 years) who, on three separate visits, performed a session of whole-body resistance exercise and then consumed, in randomized crossover fashion, BWPH, WPI, or NEAA (0.33 g/kg; 19, 33, and 0 mg/kg leucine, respectively) with L-[1-13C]leucine. Breath, blood, and urine samples were collected for 6-hr postprandial to assess dietary leucine oxidation, amino acid (AA) concentrations, and 3-methylhistidine: creatinine ratio. Peak and area under the curve concentrations for leucine, branched-chain amino acids, and essential amino acids were greater in WPI compared with BWPH (all p < .05) but with no differences in time to peak concentration. Total oxidation reflected leucine intake (WPI > BWPH > NEAA; p < .01), whereas relative oxidation was greater (p < .01) in WPI (28.6 ± 3.6%) compared with NEAA (21.3 ± 4.2%), but not BWPH (28.6 ± 8.8%). Leucine retention, a proxy for whole-body protein synthesis, was greater in WPI (185.6 ± 9.5 μmol/kg) compared with BWPH (109.3 ± 14.1 μmol/kg) and NEAA (5.74 ± 0.30 μmol/kg; both p < .01), with BWPH being greater than NEAA (p < .01). Urinary 3-methylhistidine: creatinine ratio did not differ between conditions. Both WPI and BWPH produced essential aminoacidemia and supported whole-body anabolism after resistance exercise, but a higher intake of BWPH to better approximate the leucine and EAA content of WPI may be needed to produce an equivalent anabolic response.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".