ObjectiveWe performed a systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression to determine if dietary protein supplementation augments resistance exercise training (RET)-induced gains in muscle mass and strength.Data sourcesA systematic search of Medline, Embase, CINAHL and SportDiscus.Eligibility criteriaOnly randomised controlled trials with RET ≥6 weeks in duration and dietary protein supplementation.DesignRandom-effects meta-analyses and meta-regressions with four a priori determined covariates. Two-phase break point analysis was used to determine the relationship between total protein intake and changes in fat-free mass (FFM).ResultsData from 49 studies with 1863 participants showed that dietary protein supplementation significantly (all p<0.05) increased changes (means (95% CI)) in: strength—one-repetition-maximum (2.49 kg (0.64, 4.33)), FFM (0.30 kg (0.09, 0.52)) and muscle size—muscle fibre cross-sectional area (CSA; 310 µm2 (51, 570)) and mid-femur CSA (7.2 mm2 (0.20, 14.30)) during periods of prolonged RET. The impact of protein supplementation on gains in FFM was reduced with increasing age (−0.01 kg (−0.02,–0.00), p=0.002) and was more effective in resistance-trained individuals (0.75 kg (0.09, 1.40), p=0.03). Protein supplementation beyond total protein intakes of 1.62 g/kg/day resulted in no further RET-induced gains in FFM.Summary/conclusionDietary protein supplementation significantly enhanced changes in muscle strength and size during prolonged RET in healthy adults. Increasing age reduces and training experience increases the efficacy of protein supplementation during RET. With protein supplementation, protein intakes at amounts greater than ~1.6 g/kg/day do not further contribute RET-induced gains in FFM.

We performed a systematic review, meta‐analysis, and meta‐regression to determine if increasing daily protein ingestion contributes to gaining lean body mass (LBM), muscle strength, and physical/functional test performance in healthy subjects. A protocol for the present study was registered (PROSPERO, CRD42020159001), and a systematic search of Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Sciences databases was undertaken. Only randomized controlled trials (RCT) where participants increased their daily protein intake and were healthy and non‐obese adults were included. Research questions focused on the main effects on the outcomes of interest and subgroup analysis, splitting the studies by participation in a resistance exercise (RE), age (<65 or ≥65 years old), and levels of daily protein ingestion. Three‐level random‐effects meta‐analyses and meta‐regressions were conducted on data from 74 RCT. Most of the selected studies tested the effects of additional protein ingestion during RE training. The evidence suggests that increasing daily protein ingestion may enhance gains in LBM in studies enrolling subjects in RE (SMD [standardized mean difference] = 0.22, 95% CI [95% confidence interval] 0.14:0.30, P < 0.01, 62 studies, moderate level of evidence). The effect on LBM was significant in subjects ≥65 years old ingesting 1.2–1.59 g of protein/kg/day and for younger subjects (<65 years old) ingesting ≥1.6 g of protein/kg/day submitted to RE. Lower‐body strength gain was slightly higher by additional protein ingestion at ≥1.6 g of protein/kg/day during RE training (SMD = 0.40, 95% CI 0.09:0.35, P < 0.01, 19 studies, low level of evidence). Bench press strength is slightly increased by ingesting more protein in <65 years old subjects during RE training (SMD = 0.18, 95% CI 0.03:0.33, P = 0.01, 32 studies, low level of evidence). The effects of ingesting more protein are unclear when assessing handgrip strength and only marginal for performance in physical function tests. In conclusion, increasing daily protein ingestion results in small additional gains in LBM and lower body muscle strength gains in healthy adults enrolled in resistance exercise training. There is a slight effect on bench press strength and minimal effect performance in physical function tests. The effect on handgrip strength is unclear.

Skeletal muscle disuse leads to atrophy, declines in muscle function, and metabolic dysfunction that are often slow to recover. Strategies to mitigate these effects would be clinically relevant. In a double-blind randomized-controlled pilot trial, we examined the safety and tolerability as well as the atrophy mitigating effect of a novel amino acid composition (AXA2678), during single limb immobilization. Twenty healthy young men were randomly assigned (10 per group) to receive AXA2678 or an excipient- and energy-matched non-amino acid containing placebo (PL) for 28d: days 1–7, pre-immobilization; days 8–15, immobilization; and days 16–28 post-immobilization recovery. Muscle biopsies were taken on d1, d8 (immobilization start), d15 (immobilization end), and d28 (post-immobilization recovery). Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was utilized to assess quadriceps muscle volume (Mvol), muscle cross-sectional area (CSA), and muscle fat-fraction (FF: the fraction of muscle occupied by fat). Maximal voluntary leg isometric torque was assessed by dynamometry. Administration of AXA2678 attenuated muscle disuse atrophy compared to PL ( p < 0.05) with changes from d8 to d15 in PL: ΔMvol = −2.4 ± 2.3% and ΔCSA = −3.1% ± 2.1%, both p < 0.001 vs. zero; against AXA2678: ΔMvol: −0.7 ± 1.8% and ΔCSA: −0.7 ± 2.1%, both p > 0.3 vs. zero; and p < 0.05 between treatment conditions for CSA. During immobilization, muscle FF increased in PL but not in AXA2678 (PL: 12.8 ± 6.1%, AXA2678: 0.4 ± 3.1%; p < 0.05). Immobilization resulted in similar reductions in peak leg isometric torque and change in time-to-peak (TTP) torque in both groups. Recovery (d15–d28) of peak torque and TTP torque was also not different between groups, but showed a trend for better recovery in the AXA2678 group. Thrice daily consumption of AXA2678 for 28d was found to be safe and well-tolerated. Additionally, AXA2678 attenuated atrophy, and attenuated accumulation of fat during short-term disuse. Further investigations on the administration of AXA2678 in conditions of muscle disuse are warranted. Clinical Trial Registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov , identifier: NCT03267745.

Resistance training promotes microvasculature expansion; however, it remains unknown how different resistance training programs contribute to angiogenesis. Thus, we recruited experienced resistance-trained participants and determined the effect of 12 wk of either high-repetition/low-load or low-repetition/high-load resistance training performed to volitional fatigue on muscle microvasculature. Twenty men performed either a high-repetition [20-25 repetitions, 30-50% of 1-repetition maximum (1RM); n = 10] or a low-repetition (8-12 repetitions, 75-90% of 1RM; n = 10) resistance training program. Muscle biopsies were taken before and after resistance training, and immunohistochemistry was used to assess fiber type (I and II)-specific microvascular variables. High-repetition/low-load and low-repetition/high-load groups were not different in any variable before resistance training. Both protocols resulted in an increase in capillarization. Specifically, after resistance training, the capillary-to-fiber ratio, capillary contacts, and capillary-to-fiber perimeter exchange index were elevated, and sharing factor was reduced. These data demonstrate that resistance training performed to volitional failure, using either high repetition/low load or low repetition/high load, induced similar microvascular adaptations in recreationally resistance-trained young men.

No abstract