Article

Evaluation of protein requirements for trained strength athletes

Department of Pediatrics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Journal of Applied Physiology (Impact Factor: 3.43). 12/1992; 73(5):1986-95.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Leucine kinetic and nitrogen balance (NBAL) methods were used to determine the dietary protein requirements of strength athletes (SA) compared with sedentary subjects (S). Individual subjects were randomly assigned to one of three protein intakes: low protein (LP) = 0.86 g protein.kg-1.day-1, moderate protein (MP) = 1.40 g protein.kg-1.day-1, or high protein (HP) = 2.40 g protein.kg-1.day-1 for 13 days for each dietary treatment. NBAL was measured and whole body protein synthesis (WBPS) and leucine oxidation were determined from L-[1-13C]leucine turnover. NBAL data were used to determine that the protein intake for zero NBAL for S was 0.69 g.kg-1.day-1 and for SA was 1.41 g.kg-1.day-1. A suggested recommended intake for S was 0.89 g.kg-1.day-1 and for SA was 1.76 g.kg-1.day-1. For SA, the LP diet did not provide adequate protein and resulted in an accommodated state (decreased WBPS vs. MP and HP), and the MP diet resulted in a state of adaptation [increase in WBPS (vs. LP) and no change in leucine oxidation (vs. LP)]. The HP diet did not result in increased WBPS compared with the MP diet, but leucine oxidation did increase significantly, indicating a nutrient overload. For S the LP diet provided adequate protein, and increasing protein intake did not increase WBPS. On the HP diet leucine oxidation increased for S. These results indicated that the MP and HP diets were nutrient overloads for S. There were no effects of varying protein intake on indexes of lean body mass (creatinine excretion, body density) for either group. In summary, protein requirements for athletes performing strength training are greater than for sedentary individuals and are above current Canadian and US recommended daily protein intake requirements for young healthy males.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Stuart M Phillips, Jun 03, 2014
7 Followers
 · 
426 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We hypothesized that during prolonged resistance training, time-divided ingestion pattern of casein-based protein supplement is of superior efficiency in comparison with the ingestion of the same supplement immediately before each training session. In a crossover study, 13 men aged 18 to 19 years were evaluated during 2 well-controlled, 8-week training and supplementation periods. In the time-focused supplementation regimen (TFR), the subjects consumed the supplement in the morning and in the afternoon, immediately before the training session. Time-divided supplementation regimen (TDR) included 1 morning dose, whereas the second dose was ingested in the evening, 5 hours after training. The daily dose of the supplement contained approximately 70 g of protein (82% casein) and less than 1 g of carbohydrate and fat. Body mass, body composition (dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scanned), and one-repetition maximum (1RM) for bench press and squat were determined at the beginning and at the end of both 8-week training and supplementation periods. Training produced a significant increase in 1RM strength both in the bench press (9.4% and 7.2%) and the squat exercise (10.7% and 17.8%) in the TFR and TDR, respectively, with no differences between the supplementation regimens. Fat-free mass increased from 62.4 +/- 1.2 to 63.5 +/- 1.3 kg (P = .046) with TDR, whereas no change was evident with TFR. The increase in 1RM strength in the squat exercise was related to the increase in fat-free mass in TDR (r = 0.569; P = .041). These findings may have practical implications for the timing of ingestion of protein supplements to enhance the efficacy of resistance training.
    Nutrition research 07/2009; 29(6):405-13. DOI:10.1016/j.nutres.2009.03.008 · 2.59 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We evaluated whether colostrum (Col) or an isocaloric and isonitrogenous blend of whey and casein in addition to creatine (Cr) affects body composition, muscular strength and endurance, and anaerobic performance during resistance training. Forty-nine resistance-trained subjects participated in a standardized 12-wk total body resistance training program. In a double-blind and randomized manner, subjects supplemented their diet with a protein control (Pro), Pro/Col, Pro/Cr, or Col/Cr. Supplements were isocaloric and isonitrogenous and provided 60 g/d of casein/whey (Pro) or Col as the protein source. At 0, 8, and 12 wk of supplementation, subjects were weighed, had body composition determined using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), performed one-repetition maximum (1RM) and 80% of 1RM tests on the bench press and leg press, and 30-s anaerobic sprint capacity tests. Data (mean +/- SD) were analyzed by repeated measures analysis of variance and reported as raw data in all tables and as changes from baseline for all figures for the Pro, Pro/Col, Pro/Cr, and Col/Cr groups, respectively. Resistance training increased 1RM strength, muscular endurance, and anaerobic sprint capacity equally in all groups. Significant main and interaction effects (P < 0.05) were found for body mass, DXA total scanned mass, and fat-free mass (FFM; lean plus bone), whereas no changes (P > 0.05) were noted for fat mass, percent fat, or bone content. Post hoc analysis showed that, compared with Pro, subjects ingesting Pro/Col, Pro/Cr, and Col/Cr showed greater gains in body mass and DXA total scanned mass. Subjects ingesting Pro/Cr and Col/Cr had greater increases in FFM during training in comparison with Pro/Col. In conjunction with 12 wk of resistance training, ingestion of Col or a blend of whey and casein protein with a vitamin/mineral supplement containing Cr resulted in greater improvements in FFM in comparison with Pro and Pro/Col.
    Nutrition 09/2007; 23(9):647-56. DOI:10.1016/j.nut.2007.06.015 · 3.05 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The Dietary Reference Intakes (DRI) specify that the requirement for dietary protein for all individuals aged 19 y and older is 0.8 g protein.kg-1.d-1. This Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) is cited as adequate for all persons. This amount of protein would be considered by many athletes as the amount to be consumed in a single meal, particularly for strength-training athletes. There does exist, however, published data to suggest that individuals habitually performing resistance and (or) endurance exercise require more protein than their sedentary counterparts. The RDA values for protein are clearly set at "...the level of protein judged to be adequate... to meet the known nutrient needs for practically all healthy people...". The RDA covers protein losses with margins for inter-individual variability and protein quality; the notion of consumption of excess protein above these levels to cover increased needs owing to physical activity is not, however, given any credence. Notwithstanding, diet programs (i.e., energy restriction) espousing the virtue of high protein enjoy continued popularity. A number of well-controlled studies are now published in which "higher" protein diets have been shown to be effective in promoting weight reduction, particularly fat loss. The term "higher" refers to a diet that has people consuming more than the general populations' average intake of approximately 15% of energy from protein, e.g., as much as 30%-35%, which is within an Acceptable Macronutrient Distribution Range (AMDR) as laid out in the DRIs. Of relevance to athletes and those in clinical practice is the fact that higher protein diets have quite consistently been shown to result in greater weight loss, greater fat loss, and preservation of lean mass as compared with "lower" protein diets. A framework for understanding dietary protein intake within the context of weight loss and athletic performance is laid out.
    Applied Physiology Nutrition and Metabolism 01/2007; 31(6):647-54. DOI:10.1139/h06-035 · 2.23 Impact Factor