The effects of whey, pea, and collagen protein supplementation beyond the recommended dietary allowance on integrated myofibrillar protein synthetic rates in older males: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Skeletal muscle mass is determined predominantly by feeding-induced and activity-induced fluctuations in muscle protein synthesis (MPS). Older individuals display a diminished MPS response to protein ingestion, referred to as age-related anabolic resistance, which contributes to the progression of age-related muscle loss known as sarcopenia. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to determine the impact of consuming higher-quality compared with lower-quality protein supplements above the recommended dietary allowance (RDA) on integrated MPS rates. We hypothesized that increasing total protein intake above the RDA, regardless of the source, would support higher integrated rates of myofibrillar protein synthesis. METHODS: Thirty-one healthy older males (72 ± 4 y) consumed a controlled diet with protein intake set at the RDA: control phase (days 1-7). In a double-blind, randomized controlled fashion, participants were assigned to consume an additional 50 g (2 × 25g) of whey (n = 10), pea (n = 11), or collagen (n = 10) protein each day (25 g at breakfast and lunch) during the supplemental phase (days 8-15). Deuterated water ingestion and muscle biopsies assessed integrated MPS and acute anabolic signaling. Postprandial blood samples were collected to determine feeding-induced aminoacidemia. RESULTS: Integrated MPS was increased during supplemental with whey (1.59 ± 0.11 %/d; P < 0.001) and pea (1.59 ± 0.14 %/d; P < 0.001) when compared with RDA (1.46 ± 0.09 %/d for the whey group; 1.46 ± 0.10 %/d for the pea group); however, it remained unchanged with collagen. Supplemental protein was sufficient to overcome anabolic signaling deficits (mTORC1 and rpS6), corroborating the greater postprandial aminoacidemia. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate that supplemental protein provided at breakfast and lunch over the current RDA enhanced anabolic signaling and integrated MPS in older males; however, the source of additional protein may be an important consideration in overcoming age-related anabolic resistance. This trial was registered clinicaltrials.gov as NCT04026607.

The influence of resistance exercise training prescription variables on skeletal muscle mass, strength, and physical function in healthy adults: An umbrella review.

PURPOSE: The aim of this umbrella review was to determine the impact of resistance training (RT) and individual RT prescription variables on muscle mass, strength, and physical function in healthy adults. METHODS: Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we systematically searched and screened eligible systematic reviews reporting the effects of differing RT prescription variables on muscle mass (or its proxies), strength, and/or physical function in healthy adults aged >18 years. RESULTS: We identified 44 systematic reviews that met our inclusion criteria. The methodological quality of these reviews was assessed using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews; standardized effectiveness statements were generated. We found that RT was consistently a potent stimulus for increasing skeletal muscle mass (4/4 reviews provide some or sufficient evidence), strength (4/6 reviews provided some or sufficient evidence), and physical function (1/1 review provided some evidence). RT load (6/8 reviews provided some or sufficient evidence), weekly frequency (2/4 reviews provided some or sufficient evidence), volume (3/7 reviews provided some or sufficient evidence), and exercise order (1/1 review provided some evidence) impacted RT-induced increases in muscular strength. We discovered that 2/3 reviews provided some or sufficient evidence that RT volume and contraction velocity influenced skeletal muscle mass, while 4/7 reviews provided insufficient evidence in favor of RT load impacting skeletal muscle mass. There was insufficient evidence to conclude that time of day, periodization, inter-set rest, set configuration, set end point, contraction velocity/time under tension, or exercise order (only pertaining to hypertrophy) influenced skeletal muscle adaptations. A paucity of data limited insights into the impact of RT prescription variables on physical function. CONCLUSION: Overall, RT increased muscle mass, strength, and physical function compared to no exercise. RT intensity (load) and weekly frequency impacted RT-induced increases in muscular strength but not muscle hypertrophy. RT volume (number of sets) influenced muscular strength and hypertrophy.