Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 314

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Combined ingestion of protein and free leucine with carbohydrate increases postexercise muscle protein synthesis in vivo in male subjects

Koopman, René, Wagenmakers, Anton J. M., Manders, Ralph J. F., Zorenc, Antoine H. G., Senden, Joan M. G., Gorselink, Marchel, Keizer, Hans A., van Loon, Luc J. C.·2005·American Journal of Physiology-Endocrinology and Metabolism
DOI 10.1152/ajpendo.00413.2004
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The present study was designed to determine postexercise muscle protein synthesis and whole body protein balance following the combined ingestion of carbohydrate with or without protein and/or free leucine. Eight male subjects were randomly assigned to three trials in which they consumed drinks containing either carbohydrate (CHO), carbohydrate and protein (CHO+PRO), or carbohydrate, protein, and free leucine (CHO+PRO+Leu) following 45 min of resistance exercise. A primed, continuous infusion of l-[ ring-13 C 6]phenylalanine was applied, with blood samples and muscle biopsies collected to assess fractional synthetic rate (FSR) in the vastus lateralis muscle as well as whole body protein turnover during 6 h of postexercise recovery. Plasma insulin response was higher in the CHO+PRO+Leu compared with the CHO and CHO+PRO trials (+240 ± 19% and +77 ± 11%, respectively, P < 0.05). Whole body protein breakdown rates were lower, and whole body protein synthesis rates were higher, in the CHO+PRO and CHO+PRO+Leu trials compared with the CHO trial ( P < 0.05). Addition of leucine in the CHO+PRO+Leu trial resulted in a lower protein oxidation rate compared with the CHO+PRO trial. Protein balance was negative during recovery in the CHO trial but positive in the CHO+PRO and CHO+PRO+Leu trials. In the CHO+PRO+Leu trial, whole body net protein balance was significantly greater compared with values observed in the CHO+PRO and CHO trials ( P < 0.05). Mixed muscle FSR, measured over a 6-h period of postexercise recovery, was significantly greater in the CHO+PRO+Leu trial compared with the CHO trial (0.095 ± 0.006 vs. 0.061 ± 0.008%/h, respectively, P < 0.05), with intermediate values observed in the CHO+PRO trial (0.0820 ± 0.0104%/h). We conclude that coingestion of protein and leucine stimulates muscle protein synthesis and optimizes whole body protein balance compared with the intake of carbohydrate only.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1152/ajpendo.00413.2004

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 314

Metadata

Authors
Koopman, R., Wagenmakers, A. J. M., Manders, R. J. F., Zorenc, A. H. G., Senden, J. M. G., Gorselink, M., Keizer, H. A., & van Loon, L. J. C.
Venue
American Journal of Physiology-Endocrinology and Metabolism
Publisher
American Physiological Society
Published
2005-04
Volume
288
Issue
4
Pages
E645-E653
ISSN
  • 0193-1849 (ISSN-L)
  • 1522-1555
DOI
10.1152/ajpendo.00413.2004
OpenAlex
W2117748342
Cited by
314
References
11
FWCI
4.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.