Panacea Index Logo

Command Palette

Search for a command to run...

Adaptations to Concurrent Training in Combination with High Protein Availability: A Comparative Trial in Healthy, Recreationally Active Men.

Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)
December 1, 2018
Baubak Shamim et al. (8 authors)
Clinical TrialJournal ArticleHuman StudyClinical
Study Details

Study Goal

The researchers aimed to determine whether a high-protein diet combined with concurrent exercise training (CET) or resistance training (RES) affects muscle strength, hypertrophy, and anaerobic power adaptations.

Results Summary

The study found that both CET and RES groups showed significant increases in leg press strength (~24-33%), total lean mass (~4%), and vastus lateralis volume (~11-15%), with no differences between groups. However, anaerobic power adaptations showed a trend toward greater improvement in the RES group, suggesting potential interference effects with CET.

Population

Thirty-two recreationally active males (age 25 ± 5 years, BMI 24 ± 3 kg·m²).

Effective Dosage

2 g·kg⁻¹·day⁻¹ of protein.

Duration

Not specified in the abstract.

Interactions

None mentioned.

Extracted Claims (11)
InterventionDirectionEndpointPopulationDosageImpactClaim #
concurrent endurance and resistance training (CET)
increase
leg press 1RM
recreationally active males
~24 ± 13%
increased
#1
resistance training only (RES)
increase
leg press 1RM
recreationally active males
~33 ± 16%
increased
#2
concurrent endurance and resistance training (CET)
increase
total lean mass
recreationally active males
~4%
increased
#3
resistance training only (RES)
increase
total lean mass
recreationally active males
~4%
increased
#4
concurrent endurance and resistance training (CET)
increase
ultrasound estimated vastus lateralis volume
recreationally active males
~15%
increased
#5
resistance training only (RES)
increase
ultrasound estimated vastus lateralis volume
recreationally active males
~11%
increased
#6
resistance training only (RES)
increase
Wingate peak power relative to body mass
recreationally active males
12.5 ± 1.6 W·kg BM
displayed a trend to be greater
#7
concurrent endurance and resistance training (CET)
increase
Wingate peak power relative to body mass
recreationally active males
11.8 ± 1.5 W·kg BM
displayed a trend to be greater
#8
concurrent endurance and resistance training (CET)
decrease
select measures of anaerobic power-based adaptations
recreationally active males
-
appear susceptible to 'interference effects'
#9
concurrent endurance and resistance training (CET)
no change
muscle strength
recreationally active males
-
not susceptible to 'interference effects'
#10
concurrent endurance and resistance training (CET)
no change
muscle hypertrophy
recreationally active males
-
not susceptible to 'interference effects'
#11
Abstract

BACKGROUND: We implemented a high-protein diet (2 g·kg METHODS: Thirty-two recreationally active males (age: 25 ± 5 years, body mass index: 24 ± 3 kg·m RESULTS: Leg press 1RM increased ~ 24 ± 13% and ~ 33 ± 16% in CET and RES from PRE-to-POST (P < 0.001), with no difference between groups. Total lean mass increased ~ 4% in both CET and RES from PRE-to-POST (P < 0.001). Ultrasound estimated vastus lateralis volume increased ~ 15% in CET and ~ 11% in RES from PRE-to-POST (P < 0.001), with no difference between groups. Wingate peak power relative to body mass displayed a trend (P = 0.053) to be greater in RES (12.5 ± 1.6 W·kg BM CONCLUSION: Despite high protein availability, select measures of anaerobic power-based adaptations, but not muscle strength or hypertrophy, appear susceptible to 'interference effects' with CET and should be closely monitored throughout training macro-cycles. Trials Registry: This trial was registered with the Australian-New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12617001229369).

Medical Subject Headings (MeSH)
Adaptation, PhysiologicalAdultDiet, High-ProteinHumansMaleMuscle StrengthMuscle, SkeletalResistance TrainingYoung Adult
Study Links
Quality Scores
SafetyNot Assessed
Efficacy75/10
Quality85/10
Citation Metrics
Total Citations24
Citations/Year3.4
Relative Citation Ratio1.82
NIH Percentile71.6%
Research Impact Scores
APT Score0.75
Weight Score2.24
Normalized Score0.67
Related Supplements