Effect of whey and casein proteins on muscle protein synthesis after resistance exercise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rate of protein digestion varies across amino acid sources and differentially affects whole‐body protein kinetics at rest. We investigated the effect of consuming whey or casein proteins on muscle protein synthesis (MPS) after an acute bout of unilateral resistance exercise. On three occasions, eight healthy resistance trained men (24.4 ± 4.8 yr; BMI = 27.1 ± 4.2 kg·m −2 ) performed a unilateral bout of resistance exercise and then consumed a drink containing 10g of essential amino acids in the form of whey protein, whey and casein (1:1), or casein protein. Mixed MPS was determined by pulse‐tracer injections of L‐[ring‐ 2 H 5 ] and L‐[ 15 N] phenylalanine 120–180 min after protein ingestion. The pattern of amino acid appearance in the blood after consuming the protein drinks was not affected by the source of amino acids. Rates of MPS were greater in the exercised compared to the non‐exercised leg (p < 0.05); however, there were no drink‐specific differences. Hence, while the source of amino acids may affect whole‐body protein kinetics, this effect is not apparent in skeletal muscle. We conclude that the ingestion of whey and casein proteins, in isolation or combination, stimulates mixed MPS to a similar extent after an acute bout of resistance exercise. Supported by the US National Dairy Council.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".