Pre-sleep protein supplementation after an acute bout of evening resistance exercise does not improve next day performance or recovery in resistance trained men.

Background: To evaluate the effect of pre-sleep protein supplementation after an acute bout of evening resistance training on next day performance and recovery the following day in physically active men. Methods: Eighteen resistance trained men performed a single bout of resistance exercise then received either a pre-sleep protein (PRO) supplement containing 40 g of casein protein (PRO; n = 10; mean ± SD; age = 24 ± 4 yrs; height = 1.81 ± 0.08 m; weight = 84.9 ± 9.5 kg) or a non-caloric, flavor matched placebo (PLA; n = 8; age = 28 ± 10 yrs; height = 1.81 ± 0.07 m; weight = 86.7 ± 11.0 kg) 30 min before sleep (1 h after a standard recovery drink). Blood samples were obtained pre-exercise and the following morning (+12-h) to measure creatine kinase and C-reactive protein. Visual analog scales were utilized to assess perceived pain, hunger, and recovery. One-repetition maximum (1RM) tests for barbell bench press and squat were performed pre-exercise and the following morning (+12-h). Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS (V.23) and p ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: There were no significant differences between the groups in next morning performance or muscle damage biomarkers. However, pre-sleep PRO resulted in a lower perception of hunger that approached significance the following morning when compared to PLA (PRO:43.6 ± 31.2, PLA: 69.4 ± 2.22; 95% C.I. = -53.6, 2.0; p = 0.07; d = 0.95). Conclusions: Following an evening bout of exercise, pre-sleep PRO did not further improve next morning muscle damage biomarkers or maximal strength performance in resistance trained men compared to a non-caloric PLA. However, there may be implications for lower perceived hunger the next morning with pre-sleep PRO consumption compared to PLA.

Effects of Pre-Sleep Whey vs. Plant-Based Protein Consumption on Muscle Recovery Following Damaging Morning Exercise.

Pre-sleep whey protein intake has been shown to improve overnight muscle protein synthesis, muscle size and strength, and muscle recovery. Despite a growing interest in alternative protein sources, such as plant-based protein, there is no evidence regarding the efficacy of plant-based proteins consumed pre-sleep. Therefore, we aimed to compare whey vs. plant-based pre-sleep protein dietary supplementation on muscle recovery in middle-aged men. Twenty-seven recreationally active, middle-aged men performed 5 sets of 15 repetitions of maximal eccentric voluntary contractions (ECC) for the knee extensors (ext) and flexors (flex), respectively, in the morning. Participants consumed 40 g of either whey hydrolysate (WH, n = 9), whey isolate (WI, n = 6), rice and pea combination (RP, n = 6), or placebo (PL, n = 6) 30 min pre-sleep on the day of ECC and the following two nights. Catered meals (15% PRO, 55% CHO, 30% Fat) were provided to participants for 5 days to standardize nutrition. Plasma creatine kinase (CK), interleukin-6 (IL-6), and interleukin-10 (IL-10) were measured at pre, immediately post (+0), +4, +6, +24, +48, and +72 h post-ECC. Isometric (ISOM) and isokinetic (ISOK) maximal voluntary contraction force were measured at pre, immediately post (+0), +24, +48, and +72 h post-ECC. Muscle soreness, thigh circumference, and HOMA-IR were measured at pre, +24, +48, and +72 h post-ECC. CK was increased at +4 h post-ECC, remained elevated at all time points compared to baseline (p < 0.001), and was significantly greater at +72 h compared to all other time points (p < 0.001). IL-6 was increased at +6 h (p = 0.002) with no other time differing from baseline. ISOMext was reduced after ECC (p = 0.001) and remained reduced until returning to baseline at +72 h. ISOMflex, ISOKext, and ISOKflex were reduced after ECC and remained reduced at +72 h (p < 0.001). Muscle soreness increased post-ECC (p < 0.001) and did not return to baseline. Thigh circumference (p = 0.456) and HOMA-IR (p = 0.396) did not change post-ECC. There were no significant differences between groups for any outcome measure. These data suggest that middle-aged men consuming 1.08 ± 0.02 g/kg/day PRO did not recover from damaging eccentric exercise at +72 h and that pre-sleep protein ingestion, regardless of protein source, did not aid in muscle recovery when damaging eccentric exercise was performed in the morning.

The effects of a caffeine-like supplement, TeaCrine®, on muscular strength, endurance and power performance in resistance-trained men.

BACKGROUND: TeaCrine® is the synthetic version to naturally occurring theacrine (1, 3, 7, 9-tetramethyluric acid) found in the leaves of Camellia kucha tea plants. A few studies have examined the effects of TeaCrine® on cognitive perception, but no research exists examining its effects on resistance exercise performance. The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy of TeaCrine®, a caffeine-like compound, on maximal muscular strength, endurance, and power performance in resistance-trained men. METHODS: Twelve resistance-trained men participated in a randomized, double-blind, cross-over designed study. Each participant performed one-repetition maximum (1RM) bench press, 1RM squat, bench press repetitions to failure (RTF) at 70% 1RM, squat RTF at 70% 1RM, and 2-km rowing time trial 90 min after consumption of: (1) Caffeine 300 mg (CAFF300); (2) TeaCrine® 300 mg (TEA300); (3) TeaCrine® + Caffeine (COMBO; 150 mg/150 mg); (4) Placebo 300 mg (PLA). Power and velocity were measured using a TENDO Power Analyzer. Visual analogue scales for energy, focus, motivation to exercise, and fatigue were administered at baseline and 90 min post-treatment ingestion (pre-workout). Rating of perceived exertion was assessed after bench press RTF and squat RTF. RESULTS: There were no differences between groups for 1RM, RTF, and power in the bench press and squat exercises. Only CAFF300 resulted in significant increases in perceived energy and motivation to exercise vs. TEA300 and PLA (Energy: + 9.8%, 95% confidence interval [3.3-16.4%], p < 0.01; + 15.3%, 95% CI [2.2-28.5%], p < 0.02; Motivation to exercise: + 8.9%, 95% CI [0.2-17.6%], p = 0.04, + 14.8%, 95% CI [4.7-24.8%], p < 0.01, respectively) and increased focus (+ 9.6%, 95% CI [2.1-17.1%], p = 0.01) vs. TEA300, but there were no significant differences between CAFF300 and COMBO (Energy + 3.9% [- 6.9-14.7%], Focus + 2.5% [- 6.3-11.3%], Motivation to exercise + 0.5% [- 11.6-12.6%]; p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Neither TEA300, CAFF300, COMBO, or PLA (when consumed 90 min pre-exercise) improved muscular strength, power, or endurance performance in resistance-trained men. Only CAFF300 improved measures of focus, energy, and motivation to exercise.