| Literature DB >> 29216301 |
Ramzi J Khairallah1, Karen M O'Shea1, Christopher W Ward1,2, Dustie N Butteiger3, Ratna Mukherjea3, Elaine S Krul3.
Abstract
Athletes as well as elderly or hospitalized patients use dietary protein supplementation to maintain or grow skeletal muscle. It is recognized that high quality protein is needed for muscle accretion, and can be obtained from both animal and plant-based sources. There is interest to understand whether these sources differ in their ability to maintain or stimulate muscle growth and function. In this study, baseline muscle performance was assessed in 50 adult Sprague-Dawley rats after which they were assigned to one of five semi-purified "Western" diets (n = 10/group) differing only in protein source, namely 19 kcal% protein from either milk protein isolate (MPI), whey protein isolate (WPI), soy protein isolate (SPI), soy protein concentrate (SPC) or enzyme-treated soy protein (SPE). The diets were fed for 8 weeks at which point muscle performance testing was repeated and tissues were collected for analysis. There was no significant difference in food consumption or body weights over time between the diet groups nor were there differences in terminal organ and muscle weights or in serum lipids, creatinine or myostatin. Compared with MPI-fed rats, rats fed WPI and SPC displayed a greater maximum rate of contraction using the in vivo measure of muscle performance (p<0.05) with increases ranging from 13.3-27.5% and 22.8-29.5%, respectively at 60, 80, 100 and 150 Hz. When the maximum force was normalized to body weight, SPC-fed rats displayed increased force compared to MPI (p<0.05), whereas when normalized to gastrocnemius weight, WPI-fed rats displayed increased force compared to MPI (p<0.05). There was no difference between groups using in situ muscle performance. In conclusion, soy protein consumption, in high-fat diet, resulted in muscle function comparable to whey protein and improved compared to milk protein. The benefits seen with soy or whey protein were independent of changes in muscle mass or fiber cross-sectional area.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29216301 PMCID: PMC5720789 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0189246
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Composition of experimental diets.
| Diets | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ingredient | MPI | WPI | SPI | SPC | SPE |
| gm | |||||
| Milk Protein Isolate | 215.4 | - | - | - | |
| Whey Protein Isolate | - | 199.1 | - | - | |
| Soy Protein Isolate | - | - | 196.8 | - | |
| Soy Protein Concentrate | - | - | - | 223.1 | |
| Soy Protein Isolate, enzyme-treated | 200.9 | ||||
| DL-Methionine | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| Corn starch | 240 | 240 | 240 | 240 | 240 |
| Maltodextrin 10 | 75 | 75 | 75 | 75 | 75 |
| Sucrose | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| Cellulose, BW200 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 |
| Cocoa Butter | 37.5 | 37.5 | 37.5 | 37.5 | 37.5 |
| Linseed Oil | 4.5 | 4.5 | 4.5 | 4.5 | 4.5 |
| Palm Oil | 52.5 | 52.5 | 52.5 | 52.5 | 52.5 |
| Safflower Oil | 28.5 | 28.5 | 28.5 | 28.5 | 28.5 |
| Sunflower Oil, High Oleic | 27 | 27 | 27 | 27 | 27 |
| tBHQ | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.03 |
| Salts, S10026 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 |
| DiCalcium Phosphate | 13 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 13 |
| Calcium Carbonate | 5.5 | 5.5 | 5.5 | 5.5 | 5.5 |
| Potassium Citrate, 1 H2O | 16.5 | 16.5 | 16.5 | 16.5 | 16.5 |
| Vitamin Mix, V13401 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 |
| Vitamin E Acetate. 50% | 0.13 | 0.13 | 0.13 | 0.13 | 0.13 |
| Choline Bitartrate | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Protein kcal% | 19 | 19 | 19 | 19 | 19 |
| Carbohydrate kcal% | 44.6 | 44.6 | 44.6 | 44.6 | 44.6 |
| Fat kcal% | 36.3 | 36.3 | 36.3 | 36.3 | 36.3 |
1MPI-85, Idaho Milk Products
2WPI, Whey Protein Isolate, Hilmar™ 9410
3SUPRO®760, Soy Protein Isolate, DuPont Nutrition & Health
4ALPHA®5800, Soy Protein Concentrate, DuPont Nutrition & Health
5Soy Protein Isolate, Enzyme-Treated, DuPont Nutrition & Health (non-commercial)
Fig 1Baseline in vivo muscle performance.
Values are means ± SEM. a. Maximum force in vivo in the plantarflexor at baseline. b. Maximum rate of contraction in vivo in the plantarflexor at baseline. c. Maximum rate of relaxation in vivo in the plantarflexor at baseline.
Fig 2In vivo muscle performance at 8 wks.
Values are means ± SEM. a. Maximum rate of contraction (maximum dF/dt) in vivo in the plantarflexor at 8 wks. b. Maximum rate of relaxation (minimum dF/dt) in vivo in the plantarflexor at 8 weeks. c. Specific force (maximum force normalized to total cross-sectional area of the plantarflexor) in vivo in the plantarflexor at 8 weeks. *, P<0.05 by Holm-Sidak post hoc analysis compared to MPI group. MPI, milk protein isolate. WPI, whey protein isolate. SPI, soy protein isolate. SPC, soy protein concentrate. SPE, Enzyme-treated soy protein.
Fig 3In situ muscle performance at 8 wks.
Values are means ± SEM. Maximum force in situ measured at 8 weeks.
Fig 4Muscle fiber cross-sectional area.
Values are means ± SEM a. Total cross-sectional area (CSA) in the plantarflexor. b. Mean muscle fiber CSA in the plantarflexor. c. Percentages of muscle fiber types in the plantarflexor. d. Type IIA muscle fiber CSA in the plantarflexor. e. Type IIB muscle fiber CSA in the plantarflexor muscle. f. Type IIX muscle fiber CSA in the plantarflexor muscle. g. Type I muscle fiber CSA in the plantarflexor muscle. h. Satellite cell composition in the plantarflexor muscle. There were no significant differences between groups for any of the measures.