Featured projects (1)

Project
Characterize skeletal muscle, physical and mental performance responses to prolonged negative energy balance, dietary protein and carbohydrate manipulations during high altitude acclimatization (4300 m).

Featured research (6)

Background Effects of high protein (HP) diets and prolonged energy restriction (ER) on integrated muscle protein kinetics have not been determined. Objective The objective of this study was to measure protein kinetics in response to prolonged ER and HP on muscle protein synthesis (MPS; absolute rates of synthesis) and muscle protein breakdown (MPB; half-lives) for proteins across the muscle proteome. Methods Female 6-wk-old obese Zucker rats (Leprfa+/fa+, n = 48) were randomly assigned to one of four diets for 10 wk: ad libitum-standard protein (AL-SP; 15% kcal from protein), AL-HP (35% kcal from protein), ER-SP, and ER-HP (both fed 60% feed consumed by AL-SP). During week 10, heavy/deuterated water (2H2O) was administered by intraperitoneal injection, and isotopic steady-state was maintained via 2H2O in drinking water. Rats were euthanized after 1 wk, and mixed-MPS as well as fractional replacement rate (FRR), relative concentrations, and half-lives of individual muscle proteins were quantified in the gastrocnemius. Data were analyzed using 2-factor (energy × protein) ANOVAs and 2-tailed t-tests or binomial tests as appropriate. Results Absolute MPS was lower in ER than AL for mixed-MPS (–29.6%; P < 0.001) and MPS of most proteins measured [23/26 myofibrillar, 48/60 cytoplasmic, and 46/60 mitochondrial (P < 0.05)], corresponding with lower gastrocnemius mass in ER compared with AL (–29.4%; P < 0.001). Although mixed-muscle protein half-life was not different between groups, prolonged half-lives were observed for most individual proteins in HP compared with SP in ER and AL (P < 0.001), corresponding with greater gastrocnemius mass in HP than SP (+5.3%; P = 0.043). Conclusions ER decreased absolute bulk MPS and most individual MPS rates compared with AL, and HP prolonged half-lives of most proteins across the proteome. These data suggest that HP, independent of energy intake, may reduce MPB, and reductions in MPS may contribute to lower gastrocnemius mass during ER by reducing protein deposition in obese female Zucker rats.
Evidence suggests that carbohydrate and protein (CHO-PRO) ingestion after exercise enhances muscle glycogen repletion to a greater extent than carbohydrate (CHO) alone. However, there is no consensus at this point, and results across studies are mixed, which may be attributable to differences in energy content and carbohydrate intake relative to body mass consumed after exercise. The purpose of this study was determine the overall effects of CHO-PRO and the independent effects of energy and relative carbohydrate content of CHO-PRO supplementation on post-exercise muscle glycogen synthesis compared to CHO alone. Methods: Meta-analysis was conducted on crossover studies assessing the influence of CHO-PRO compared to CHO alone on post-exercise muscle glyocgen synthesis. Studies were identified in a systematic review from Pubmed and Cochrane Library databases. Data are presented as effect size [ES(95%CI)] using Hedges' g. Subgroup analyses were conducted to evaluate effects of isocaloric and non-isocaloric energy content, and dichotomized by median relative carbohydrate (high: ≥0.8g/kg/hr, low: <0.8g/kg/hr) content on glycogen synthesis. Results: 20 studies were included in the analysis. CHO-PRO had no overall effect on glycogen synthesis [0.13(-0.04,0.29)] compared to CHO. Subgroup analysis found that CHO-PRO had a positive effect [0.26(0.04,0.49)] on glycogen synthesis when the combined intervention provided more energy than CHO. Glycogen synthesis was not significant [-0.05(-0.23,0.13)] in CHO-PRO compared to CON when matched for energy content. There was no statistical difference of CHO-PRO on glycogen synthesis in high [0.07(-0.11,0.25)] or low [0.21(-0.08,0.50)] carbohydrate content compared to CHO. Conclusion: Glycogen synthesis rates are enhanced when CHO-PRO are coingested after exercise compared to CHO only when the added energy of protein is consumed in addition to, not in place of, carbohydrate.
Background: Systematic analysis of dietary protein intake may identify demographic groups within the American population that are not meeting the Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs). Objective: This cross-sectional study analyzed protein intake trends (2001-2014) and evaluated recent conformity to the DRIs (2011-2014) according to age, sex, and race or ethnicity in the US population. Design: Protein intakes and trends during 2-y cycles of NHANES 2001-2014 (n = 57,980; ≥2 y old) were calculated as absolute (grams per day) and relative [grams per kilogram of ideal body weight (IBW) per day] intakes and as a percentage of total energy. Sex and race or ethnicity [Asian, Hispanic, non-Hispanic black (NHB), and non-Hispanic white (NHW)] differences were determined for protein intake and percentage of the population below the Estimated Average Requirement (EAR) and Recommended Dietary Allowance, and above and below the Acceptable Macronutrient Distribution Range (AMDR). Results: Usual protein intakes (mean ± SE) averaged from 55.3 ± 0.9 (children aged 2-3 y) to 88.2 ± 1.1 g/d (adults aged 19-30 y). Protein comprised 14-16% of total energy intakes. Relative protein intakes averaged from 1.10 ± 0.01 (adults aged ≥71 y) to 3.63 ± 0.07 g · kg IBW-1 · d-1 (children aged 2-3 y), and were above the EAR in all demographic groups. Asian and Hispanic populations aged >19 y consumed more relative protein (1.32 ± 0.02 and 1.32 ± 0.02 g · kg IBW-1 · d-1, respectively) than did NHB and NHW (1.18 ± 0.01 g · kg IBW-1 · d-1). Relative protein intakes did not differ by race or ethnicity in the 2-18 y population. Adolescent (aged 14-18 y) females and older (aged ≥71 y) NHB men had the largest population percentages below the EAR (11% and 13%, respectively); <1% of any demographic group had intakes above the AMDR. Conclusions: The majority of the US population exceeds minimum recommendations for protein intake. Protein intake remains well below the upper end of the AMDR, indicating that protein intake, as a percentage of energy intake, is not excessive in the American diet. This trial was registered at www.isrctn.com as ISRCTN76534484.
Muscle loss at high altitude (HA) is attributable to energy deficit and a potential dysregulation of anabolic signaling. Exercise and protein ingestion can attenuate the effects of energy deficit on muscle at sea level (SL). Whether these effects are observed when energy deficit occurs at HA is unknown. To address this, muscle obtained from lowlanders ( n = 8 males) at SL, acute HA (3 h, 4300 m), and chronic HA (21 d, -1766 kcal/d energy balance) before [baseline (Base)] and after 80 min of aerobic exercise followed by a 2-mile time trial [postexercise (Post)] and 3 h into recovery (Rec) after ingesting whey protein (25 g) were analyzed using standard molecular techniques. At SL, Post, and REC, p-mechanistic target of rapamycin (mTOR)Ser2448, p-p70 ribosomal protein S6 kinase (p70S6K)Ser424/421, and p-ribosomal protein S6 (rpS6)Ser235/236 were similar and higher ( P < 0.05) than Base. At acute HA, Post p-mTORSer2448 and Post and REC p-p70S6KSer424/421 were not different from Base and lower than SL ( P < 0.05). At chronic HA, Post and Rec p-mTORSer2448 and p-p70S6KSer424/421 were not different from Base and lower than SL, and, independent of time, p-rpS6Ser235/236 was lower than SL ( P < 0.05). Post proteasome activity was lower ( P < 0.05) than Base and Rec, independent of phase. Our findings suggest that HA exposure induces muscle anabolic resistance that is exacerbated by energy deficit during acclimatization, with no change in proteolysis.-Margolis, L. M., Carbone, J. W., Berryman, C. E., Carrigan, C. T., Murphy, N. E., Ferrando, A. A., Young, A. J., Pasiakos, S. M. Severe energy deficit at high altitude inhibits skeletal muscle mTORC1-mediated anabolic signaling without increased ubiquitin proteasome activity.

Lab head

Stefan Pasiakos
Department
  • Military Performance Division

Members (6)

Andrew John Young
  • U.S. Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine
Scott Montain
  • U.S. Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine
J. Philip Karl
  • U.S. Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine
Lee Margolis
  • U.S. Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine
Christopher Carrigan
  • U.S. Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine
Jess Gwin
  • U.S. Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine
Harris R. Lieberman
Harris R. Lieberman
  • Not confirmed yet
Claire E. Berryman
Claire E. Berryman
  • Not confirmed yet
Nancy E. Murphy
Nancy E. Murphy
  • Not confirmed yet