| Literature DB >> 28880219 |
Alyssa N Varanoske1, Jay R Hoffman2, David D Church3, Ran Wang4, Kayla M Baker5, Sarah J Dodd6, Nicholas A Coker7, Leonardo P Oliveira8, Virgil L Dawson9, David H Fukuda10, Jeffrey R Stout11.
Abstract
Carnosine is a naturally occurring intramuscular dipeptide that is thought to attenuate fatigue during high-intensity exercise. Carnosine content is influenced by various factors, including gender and diet. Despite research reporting that carnosine content is lower in women compared to men and lower in vegetarians compared to omnivores, no investigations have examined carnosine content in women based on dietary protein intake and its effect on muscle fatigue. Twenty recreationally active women were assigned to either a high (HI; n = 5), moderate (MOD; n = 10), or low (LO; n = 5) group based upon intramuscular carnosine content of the vastus lateralis. Each participant underwent two unilateral maximal voluntary isometric contractions (MVIC) of the knee extensors separated by an isokinetic exercise protocol consisting of five sets of 50 repeated maximal unilateral contractions. Magnitude-based inferences were used to analyze group differences. Percent decline in rate of force development and peak torque (PT) during the MVICs and changes in PT and mean torque during the muscle-fatiguing protocol were lower in HI compared to both MOD and LO. Additionally, absolute and relative dietary protein intake were greater in HI compared to MOD or LO. Results indicated that greater intramuscular carnosine content was reflective of greater dietary protein intake and that individuals with higher carnosine content displayed a greater attenuation of fatigue compared to those with lower carnosine.Entities:
Keywords: dietary protein intake; fatigue; histidine dipeptides; intracellular buffering capacity; muscular acidosis
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28880219 PMCID: PMC5622748 DOI: 10.3390/nu9090988
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 5.717
Figure 1Study design. PAR-Q: Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire; MHQ: Medical History Questionnaire; MVIC: Maximal Voluntary Isometric Contraction.
Figure 2Average peak torque (a) and mean torque (b) from each set of the five sets of 50 isokinetic knee extension repetitions depending on intramuscular carnosine content. HI: high intramuscular carnosine content; MOD: moderate intramuscular carnosine content; LO: low intramuscular carnosine content. Standard deviations are denoted by positive error bars.
Group comparisons of average change scores in peak torque and mean torque from set 1 to all other sets of 50 isokinetic knee extension repetitions, with magnitude-based inferences and interpretations of mean differences.
| Percent Chance Greater | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | Timepoint | Comparison | Group 1 | Group 2 | Mean Difference | Group 1 | Trivial | Group 2 | Interpretation |
| Set 1–2 | LO vs. MOD | −10.3 ± 6.3 | −10.5 ± 6.9 | 0.2 ± 8.0 | 30.9 | 42.0 | 27.1 | Unclear | |
| LO vs. HI | −10.3 ± 6.3 | −5.3 ± 6.6 | −5.1 ± 9.4 | 5.9 | 18.5 | 75.6 | Unclear | ||
| MOD vs. HI | −10.5 ± 6.9 | −5.3 ± 6.6 | −5.3 ± 8.1 | 3.5 | 17.0 | 79.6 | Likely Group 2 | ||
| Set 1–3 | LO vs. MOD | −13.5 ± 7.5 | −13.5 ± 8.1 | −0.0 ± 10.0 | 32.9 | 33.7 | 33.4 | Unclear | |
| LO vs. HI | −13.5 ± 7.5 | −7.2 ± 5.9 | −6.3 ± 10.0 | 4.9 | 13.7 | 81.4 | Likely Group 2 | ||
| MOD vs. HI | −13.5 ± 8.1 | −7.2 ± 5.9 | −6.3 ± 8.9 | 3.1 | 13.2 | 83.7 | Likely Group 2 | ||
| Set 1–4 | LO vs. MOD | −12.2 ± 7.3 | −14.0 ± 8.8 | 1.8 ± 9.9 | 47.1 | 32.2 | 20.6 | Unclear | |
| LO vs. HI | −12.2 ± 7.3 | −7.9 ± 6.5 | −4.3 ± 10.0 | 9.1 | 22.4 | 68.5 | Unclear | ||
| MOD vs. HI | −14.0 ± 8.8 | −7.9 ± 6.5 | −6.1 ± 9.6 | 4.5 | 15.0 | 80.4 | Likely Group 2 | ||
| Set 1–5 | LO vs. MOD | −13.1 ± 6.8 | −13.4 ± 8.9 | 0.3 ± 9.8 | 34.9 | 34.8 | 30.3 | Unclear | |
| LO vs. HI | −13.1 ± 6.8 | −6.4 ± 5.8 | −6.7 ± 9.2 | 2.9 | 11.1 | 86.0 | Likely Group 2 | ||
| MOD vs. HI | −13.4 ± 8.9 | −6.4 ± 5.8 | −7.0 ± 9.5 | 2.9 | 11.2 | 85.8 | Likely Group 2 | ||
| Set 1–2 | LO vs. MOD | −8.5 ± 5.7 | −8.6 ± 5.7 | 0.1 ± 6.8 | 28.6 | 44.8 | 26.6 | Unclear | |
| LO vs. HI | −8.5 ± 5.7 | −4.1 ± 5.5 | −4.5 ± 8.2 | 5.5 | 19.2 | 75.4 | Unclear | ||
| MOD vs. HI | −8.6 ± 5.7 | −4.1 ± 5.5 | −4.6 ± 6.7 | 2.8 | 17.6 | 79.6 | Likely Group 2 | ||
| Set 1–3 | LO vs. MOD | −11.2 ± 7.1 | −11.6 ± 7.0 | 0.4 ± 9.1 | 35.9 | 34.4 | 29.7 | Unclear | |
| LO vs. HI | −11.2 ± 7.1 | −5.3 ± 5.1 | −5.9 ± 9.7 | 4.8 | 13.2 | 82.0 | Likely Group 2 | ||
| MOD vs. HI | −11.6 ± 7.0 | −5.3 ± 5.1 | −6.3 ± 7.7 | 1.9 | 10.2 | 87.9 | Likely Group 2 | ||
| Set 1–4 | LO vs. MOD | −11.1 ± 7.1 | −12.5 ± 7.4 | 1.5 ± 8.7 | 45.7 | 33.6 | 20.7 | Unclear | |
| LO vs. HI | −11.1 ± 7.1 | −6.1 ± 5.4 | −4.9 ± 9.2 | 6.3 | 17.4 | 76.4 | Unclear | ||
| MOD vs. HI | −12.5 ± 7.4 | −6.1 ± 5.4 | −6.4 ± 8.1 | 2.3 | 10.4 | 87.3 | Likely Group 2 | ||
| Set 1–5 | LO vs. MOD | −11.3 ± 6.9 | −12.1 ± 7.6 | 0.7 ± 8.8 | 38.8 | 34.9 | 26.3 | Unclear | |
| LO vs. HI | −11.3 ± 6.9 | −4.9 ± 4.6 | −6.5 ± 8.6 | 2.7 | 10.1 | 87.2 | Likely Group 2 | ||
| MOD vs. HI | −12.1 ± 7.6 | −4.9 ± 4.6 | −7.2 ± 8.1 | 1.5 | 7.6 | 90.9 | Likely Group 2 | ||
“Group 1” refers to the first (left) group in the “Comparison column, whereas “Group 2” refers to the second (right) group in the “Comparison” column. “Mean Difference” represents the difference between “Group 1” and “Group 2”. Values for “Group 1”, “Group 2”, and “Mean Difference” are presented as mean ± standard deviation. “Percent Chance Greater” columns refer to the chance estimation that one group was greater than another for a particular variable, and the “Interpretation” column displays the mechanistic inference of which group had a greater value. HI: high intramuscular carnosine content; MOD: moderate intramuscular carnosine content; LO: low intramuscular carnosine content.
Figure 3Average percent decline in peak torque and rate of force development during maximal voluntary isometric contraction of the knee extensors from before the muscle-fatiguing protocol to after, depending on intramuscular carnosine content. HI: high intramuscular carnosine content; MOD: moderate intramuscular carnosine content; LO: low intramuscular carnosine content; PT: peak torque; RFD: rate of force development. Standard deviations are denoted by positive error bars.
Group comparisons of percent decline in peak torque and rate of force development during maximal voluntary isometric contraction of the knee extensors from before the muscle-fatiguing protocol to after, with magnitude-based inferences and interpretations of mean differences.
| Percent Chance Greater | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | Comparison | Group 1 | Group 2 | Mean Difference | Group 1 | Trivial | Group 2 | Interpretation |
| LO vs. MOD | 32.8 ± 8.4 | 24.7 ± 12.6 | 8.1 ± 14.0 | 81.7 | 12.2 | 6.2 | Unclear | |
| LO vs. HI | 32.8 ± 8.4 | 23.5 ± 10.0 | 9.3 ± 13.0 | 87.1 | 8.8 | 4.1 | Likely Group 1 | |
| MOD vs. HI | 24.7 ± 12.6 | 23.5 ± 10.0 | 1.2 ± 14.0 | 43.9 | 26.0 | 30.2 | Unclear | |
| LO vs. MOD | 8.96 ± 50.1 | 26.0 ± 26.6 | −17.0 ± 61.0 | 18.0 | 16.6 | 65.3 | Unclear | |
| LO vs. HI | 8.96 ± 50.1 | 1.1 ± 34.0 | 7.9 ± 62.0 | 51.2 | 18.9 | 29.9 | Unclear | |
| MOD vs. HI | 26.0 ± 26.6 | 1.1 ± 34.0 | 25.0 ± 34.0 | 85.9 | 10.8 | 3.3 | Likely Group 1 | |
“Group 1” refers to the first (left) group in the “Comparison” column, whereas “Group 2” refers to the second (right) group in the “Comparison” column. “Mean Difference” represents the difference between “Group 1” and “Group 2”. Values for “Group 1”, “Group 2”, and “Mean Difference” are presented as mean ± standard deviation. “Percent Chance Greater” columns refer to the chance estimation that one group was greater than another for a particular variable, and the “Interpretation” column displays the mechanistic inference of which group had a greater value. HI: high intramuscular carnosine content; MOD: moderate intramuscular carnosine content; LO: low intramuscular carnosine content.