One Week of Single-Leg Immobilization Lowers Muscle Connective Protein Synthesis Rates in Healthy, Young Adults.

PURPOSE: Short periods of limb immobilization lower myofibrillar protein synthesis rates. Within skeletal muscle, the extracellular matrix of connective proteins is recognized as an important factor determining the capacity to transmit contractile force. Little is known regarding the impact of immobilization and subsequent recovery on muscle connective protein synthesis rates. This study examined the impact of 1 wk of leg immobilization and 2 wk of subsequent ambulant recovery on daily muscle connective protein synthesis rates. METHODS: Thirty healthy, young (24 ± 5 yr) men were subjected to 7 d of one-legged knee immobilization followed by 14 d of ambulant recovery. Deuterium oxide ingestion was applied over the entire period, and muscle biopsy samples were collected before immobilization, after immobilization, and after recovery to measure muscle connective protein synthesis rates and mRNA expression of key extracellular matrix proteins (collagen I, collagen III), glycoproteins (fibronectin, tenascin-C), and proteoglycans (fibromodulin, and decorin). A two-way repeated-measures (time-leg) ANOVA was used to compare changes in muscle connective protein synthesis rates during immobilization and recovery. RESULTS: During immobilization, muscle connective protein synthesis rates were lower in the immobilized (1.07 ± 0.30%·d -1 ) compared with the nonimmobilized (1.48 ± 0.44%·d -1 ; P < 0.01) leg. When compared with the immobilization period, connective protein synthesis rates in the immobilized leg increased during subsequent recovery (1.48 ± 0.64%·d -1 ; P < 0.01). After recovery, skeletal muscle collagen I, collagen III, fibronectin, fibromodulin, and decorin mRNA expression increased when compared with the postimmobilization time point (all P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: One week of leg immobilization lowers muscle connective protein synthesis rates. Muscle connective protein synthesis rates increase during subsequent ambulant recovery, which is accompanied by increased mRNA expression of key extracellular matrix proteins.

Vicia faba Peptide Network Supplementation Does Not Differ From Milk Protein in Modulating Changes in Muscle Size During Short-Term Immobilization and Subsequent Remobilization, but Increases Muscle Protein Synthesis Rates During Remobilization in Healthy Young Men.

BACKGROUND: Muscle mass and strength decrease during short periods of immobilization and slowly recover during remobilization. Recent artificial intelligence applications have identified peptides that appear to possess anabolic properties in in vitro assays and murine models. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare the impact of Vicia faba peptide network compared with milk protein supplementation on muscle mass and strength loss during limb immobilization and regain during remobilization. METHODS: Thirty young (24 ± 5 y) men were subjected to 7 d of one-legged knee immobilization followed by 14 d of ambulant recovery. Participants were randomly allocated to ingest either 10 g of the Vicia faba peptide network (NPN_1; n = 15) or an isonitrogenous control (milk protein concentrate; MPC; n = 15) twice daily throughout the study. Single-slice computed tomography scans were performed to assess quadriceps cross-sectional area (CSA). Deuterium oxide ingestion and muscle biopsy sampling were applied to measure myofibrillar protein synthesis rates. RESULTS: Leg immobilization decreased quadriceps CSA (primary outcome) from 81.9 ± 10.6 to 76.5 ± 9.2 cm2 and from 74.8 ± 10.6 to 71.5 ± 9.8 cm2 in the NPN_1 and MPC groups, respectively (P < 0.001). Remobilization partially recovered quadriceps CSA (77.3 ± 9.3 and 72.6 ± 10.0 cm2, respectively; P = 0.009), with no differences between the groups (P > 0.05). During immobilization, myofibrillar protein synthesis rates (secondary outcome) were lower in the immobilized leg (1.07% ± 0.24% and 1.10% ± 0.24%/d, respectively) than in the non-immobilized leg (1.55% ± 0.27% and 1.52% ± 0.20%/d, respectively; P < 0.001), with no differences between the groups (P > 0.05). During remobilization, myofibrillar protein synthesis rates in the immobilized leg were greater with NPN_1 than those with MPC (1.53% ± 0.38% vs. 1.23% ± 0.36%/d, respectively; P = 0.027). CONCLUSION: NPN_1 supplementation does not differ from milk protein in modulating the loss of muscle size during short-term immobilization and the regain during remobilization in young men. NPN_1 supplementation does not differ from milk protein supplementation in modulating the myofibrillar protein synthesis rates during immobilization but further increases myofibrillar protein synthesis rates during remobilization.