scholarly journals Post‐exercise ingestion of a high protein diet does not enhance exercise‐induced skeletal muscle hypertrophy in rats

2011 ◽  
Vol 25 (S1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tomotsugu Matsui ◽  
Yukari Yokota ◽  
Emi Kondo ◽  
Koji Okamura
2012 ◽  
Vol 26 (S1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kai Zou ◽  
Heather D. Huntsman ◽  
Carmen Valero ◽  
John T. Skelton ◽  
Joseph T. Adams ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 126 (1) ◽  
pp. 30-43 ◽  
Author(s):  
Henning Wackerhage ◽  
Brad J. Schoenfeld ◽  
D. Lee Hamilton ◽  
Maarit Lehti ◽  
Juha J. Hulmi

One of the most striking adaptations to exercise is the skeletal muscle hypertrophy that occurs in response to resistance exercise. A large body of work shows that a mammalian target of rapamycin complex 1 (mTORC1)-mediated increase of muscle protein synthesis is the key, but not sole, mechanism by which resistance exercise causes muscle hypertrophy. While much of the hypertrophy signaling cascade has been identified, the initiating, resistance exercise-induced and hypertrophy-stimulating stimuli have remained elusive. For the purpose of this review, we define an initiating, resistance exercise-induced and hypertrophy-stimulating signal as “hypertrophy stimulus,” and the sensor of such a signal as “hypertrophy sensor.” In this review we discuss our current knowledge of specific mechanical stimuli, damage/injury-associated and metabolic stress-associated triggers, as potential hypertrophy stimuli. Mechanical signals are the prime hypertrophy stimuli candidates, and a filamin-C-BAG3-dependent regulation of mTORC1, Hippo, and autophagy signaling is a plausible albeit still incompletely characterized hypertrophy sensor. Other candidate mechanosensing mechanisms are nuclear deformation-initiated signaling or several mechanisms related to costameres, which are the functional equivalents of focal adhesions in other cells. While exercise-induced muscle damage is probably not essential for hypertrophy, it is still unclear whether and how such muscle damage could augment a hypertrophic response. Interventions that combine blood flow restriction and especially low load resistance exercise suggest that resistance exercise-regulated metabolites could be hypertrophy stimuli, but this is based on indirect evidence and metabolite candidates are poorly characterized.


2006 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 362-372 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryan D. Andrews ◽  
David A. MacLean ◽  
Steven E. Riechman

Variability in protein consumption may influence muscle mass changes induced by resistance exercise training (RET). We sought to administer a post-exercise protein supplement and determine if daily protein intake variability affected variability in muscle mass gains. Men (N = 22) and women (N = 30) ranging in age from 60 to 69 y participated in a 12-wk RET program. At each RET session, participants consumed a post-exercise drink (0.4 g/kg lean mass protein). RET resulted in significant increases in lean mass (1.1 ±1.5 kg), similar between sexes (P > 0.05). Variability in mean daily protein intake was not associated with change in lean mass (r < 0.10, P > 0.05). The group with the highest protein intake (1.35 g · kg−1 · d−1, n = 8) had similar (P > 0.05) changes in lean mass as the group with the lowest daily protein intake (0.72 g · kg−1 · d−1, n = 9). These data suggest that variability in total daily protein intake does not affect variability in lean mass gains with RET in the context of post-exercise protein supplementation.


2008 ◽  
Vol 22 (S1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tracey J Smith ◽  
Matthew A Pikosky ◽  
Jean‐Marc Schwartz ◽  
Jennifer Rood ◽  
Carmen Castaneda‐Sceppa ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brad Jon Schoenfeld ◽  
Bret Contreras

This letter is a response to the paper by Damas et al (2017) titled, “The development of skeletal muscle hypertrophy through resistance training: the role of muscle damage and muscle protein synthesis,” which, in part, endeavored to review the role of exercise-induced muscle damage on muscle hypertrophy. We feel there are a number of issues in interpretation of research and extrapolation that preclude drawing the inference expressed in the paper that muscle damage neither explains nor potentiates increases in muscle hypertrophy. The intent of our letter is not to suggest that a causal role exists between hypertrophy and microinjury. Rather, we hope to provide balance to the evidence presented and offer the opinion that the jury is still very much out as to providing answers on the topic.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document