| Literature DB >> 27089362 |
Andrew M Holwerda1, Kaatje Lenaerts2, Jörgen Bierau3, Luc J C van Loon4.
Abstract
Dietary protein digestion and amino acid absorption kinetics determine the post-prandial muscle protein synthetic response. Body position may affect gastrointestinal function and modulate the post-prandial rise in plasma amino acid availability. We aimed to assess the impact of body position on gastric emptying rate and the post-prandial rise in plasma amino acid concentrations following ingestion of a single, meal-like amount of protein. In a randomized, cross-over design, eight healthy males (25 ± 2 years, 23.9 ± 0.8 kg·m(-2)) ingested 22 g protein and 1.5 g paracetamol (acetaminophen) in an upright seated position (control) and in a -20° head-down tilted position (inversion). Blood samples were collected during a 240-min post-prandial period and analyzed for paracetamol and plasma amino acid concentrations to assess gastric emptying rate and post-prandial amino acid availability, respectively. Peak plasma leucine concentrations were lower in the inversion compared with the control treatment (177 ± 15 vs. 236 ± 15 mmol·L(-1), p < 0.05), which was accompanied by a lower plasma essential amino acid (EAA) response over 240 min (31,956 ± 6441 vs. 50,351 ± 4015 AU; p < 0.05). Peak plasma paracetamol concentrations were lower in the inversion vs. control treatment (5.8 ± 1.1 vs. 10.0 ± 0.6 mg·L(-1), p < 0.05). Gastric emptying rate and post-prandial plasma amino acid availability are significantly decreased after protein ingestion in a head-down tilted position. Therefore, upright body positioning should be considered when aiming to augment post-prandial muscle protein accretion in both health and disease.Entities:
Keywords: body position; digestion; gastric emptying; protein
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27089362 PMCID: PMC4848689 DOI: 10.3390/nu8040221
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 5.717
Figure 1Mean (+SEM) plasma glucose (mmol·L−1) (A) and insulin (mU·L−1) (B) concentrations after protein ingestion while seated (Control; n = 8) and in a −20° head-down tilted position (Inversion; n = 8). The data were analyzed with a two-way repeated-measures (treatment × time) ANOVA. Glucose: time effect: p < 0.05; time × treatment interaction: p < 0.05. Insulin: time effect: p < 0.05; time × treatment interaction: p < 0.05. * Significant differences (p < 0.05) between treatments within each time point.
Figure 2Mean (+SEM) plasma leucine (A), essential (EAA) (B), and non-essential (NEAAs) (C) amino acid concentrations (umol·L−1) after protein ingestion in a seated (Control; n = 8) and in a −20° head-down tilted position (Inversion; n = 8). The data were analyzed with a two-way repeated-measures (treatment × time) ANOVA. Leucine: time effect: p < 0.01; time × treatment interaction: p < 0.05. EAAs: time effect: p < 0.01; time × treatment interaction: p < 0.05. NEAAs: time effect: p < 0.01; time × treatment interaction: p > 0.05. Area under the curve over 240 min (arbitrary units, AU) inset and analyzed with a Student’s paired t-test. * Significant differences (p < 0.05) between treatments within each time point.
Figure 3Mean (+SEM) plasma paracetamol concentrations (mg·L−1) after protein ingestion in a seated (Control; n = 7) and a −20° head-down tilted position (Inversion; n = 7). The data were analyzed with a two-way repeated-measures (treatment × time) ANOVA. Time effect: p < 0.05; time × treatment interaction: p < 0.05. Area under the curve over 240 min (arbitrary units, AU) inset and analyzed with a Student’s paired t-test. * Significant differences (p < 0.05) between treatments within each time point.
Figure 4Correlation between post-prandial plasma EAA and paracetamol availability. Values represent area under the curve (AUC) calculations based on plasma EAA and paracetamol concentrations measured over 240 min in each trial (n = 14, one subject on both trials did not ingest paracetamol). The solid line indicates the linear regression line of best fit, and the dashed lines represent the 95% confidence interval. A significant positive correlation was observed (r = 0.68; p < 0.01).