Cited by 110Muscle metabolism and nutritionMuscle Physiology and DisordersProteins in Food Systems

Mycoprotein ingestion stimulates protein synthesis rates to a greater extent than milk protein in rested and exercised skeletal muscle of healthy young men: a randomized controlled trial

Open access
Monteyne, Alistair J, Coelho, Mariana OC, Porter, Craig, Abdelrahman, Doaa R, Jameson, Thomas SO, Jackman, Sarah R, Blackwell, Jamie R, Finnigan, Tim JA +3 more·2020·The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition

Abstract

Background Mycoprotein is a fungal-derived sustainable protein-rich food source, and its ingestion results in systemic amino acid and leucine concentrations similar to that following milk protein ingestion.Objective We assessed the mixed skeletal muscle protein synthetic response to the ingestion of a single bolus of mycoprotein compared with a leucine-matched bolus of milk protein, in rested and exercised muscle of resistance-trained young men.Methods Twenty resistance-trained healthy young males (age: 22 ± 1 y, body mass: 82 ± 2 kg, BMI: 25 ± 1 kg·m-2) took part in a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study. Participants received primed, continuous infusions of L-[ring-2H5]phenylalanine and ingested either 31 g (26.2 g protein: 2.5 g leucine) milk protein (MILK) or 70 g (31.5 g protein: 2.5 g leucine) mycoprotein (MYCO) following a bout of unilateral resistance-type exercise (contralateral leg acting as resting control). Blood and m. vastus lateralis muscle samples were collected before exercise and protein ingestion, and following a 4-h postprandial period to assess mixed muscle fractional protein synthetic rates (FSRs) and myocellular signaling in response to the protein beverages in resting and exercised muscle.Results Mixed muscle FSRs increased following MILK ingestion (from 0.036 ± 0.008 to 0.052 ± 0.006%·h-1 in rested, and 0.035 ± 0.008 to 0.056 ± 0.005%·h-1 in exercised muscle; P <0.01) but to a greater extent following MYCO ingestion (from 0.025 ± 0.006 to 0.057 ± 0.004%·h-1 in rested, and 0.024 ± 0.007 to 0.072 ± 0.005%·h-1 in exercised muscle; P <0.0001) (treatment × time interaction effect; P <0.05). Postprandial FSRs trended to be greater in MYCO compared with MILK (0.065 ± 0.004 compared with 0.054 ± 0.004%·h-1, respectively; P = 0.093) and the postprandial rise in FSRs was greater in MYCO compared with MILK (Delta 0.040 ± 0.006 compared with Delta 0.018 ± 0.005%·h-1, respectively; P <0.01).Conclusions The ingestion of a single bolus of mycoprotein stimulates resting and postexercise muscle protein synthesis rates, and to a greater extent than a leucine-matched bolus of milk protein, in resistance-trained young men. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as 660065600.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/ajcn/nqaa092

Cites

69 of 69 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Bolus ingestion of mycoprotein, a fungal-derived protein-rich food source, resulted in greater stimulation of MPS compared with a leucine-matched bolus of milk protein.

    “We have recently demonstrated that bolus ingestion of mycoprotein, a fungal-derived protein-rich food source, resulted in greater stimulation of MPS compared with a leucine-matched bolus of milk protein [91].”

    From Nutritional Considerations for the Vegan Athlete (2023) · cites this paper as [91]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Monteyne, A. J., Coelho, M. O., Porter, C., Abdelrahman, D. R., Jameson, T. S., Jackman, S. R., Blackwell, J. R., Finnigan, T. J., Stephens, F. B., Dirks, M. L., & Wall, B. T.
Affiliations
  • University of Exeter (GB)
  • Shriners Hospitals for Children - Galveston (US)
  • Quorn (United Kingdom) (GB)
Corresponding author
Wall, Benjamin T
Venue
The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-08
Volume
112
Issue
2
Pages
318-333
ISSN
0002-9165 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3026952517
Cited by
110
References
69
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 5
FWCI
6.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Open Research Exeter (University of Exeter) (acceptedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion)
  • Socio-Environmental Systems Modeling (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Shriners Hospitals for Children (#84090)
  • University of Exeter
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cell Biology › Muscle metabolism and nutrition
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Muscle Physiology and Disorders
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Proteins in Food Systems
Keywords
mycoprotein, milk protein, skeletal muscle protein synthesis, resistance training, protein intake, leucine, vastus lateralis, resistance-trained men, amino acid infusion, sustainable protein sources, mTOR signaling, MAPK signaling
MeSH terms
Adult, Amino Acids, Double-Blind Method, Fungal Proteins, Humans, Male, Milk Proteins, Muscle Proteins, Exercise, Muscle, Skeletal, Resistance Training, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review