kaspen
2017-02-19, 18:57
Get
access
Log in | Register
Search in:
Journal
Journal of the American College of Nutrition
Volume 36, 2017 - Issue 1
205
Views
0
CrossRef citations
21
Altmetric
Original Research
Effects of Hydrolyzed Whey versus Other Whey Protein Supplements on the Physiological Response to 8 Weeks of Resistance Exercise in College-Aged Males
Christopher M. Lockwood , PhD, Michael D. Roberts , PhD, Vincent J. Dalbo , PhD, Abbie E. Smith-Ryan , PhD, Kristina L. KendallBodybuilding.com, Boise, Idaho , PhD, Jordan R. Moon , PhD & show all
Pages 16-27 | Received 26 Oct 2015, Accepted 06 Jan 2016, Published online: 06 Oct 2016
Download citation
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07315724.2016.1140094
Select Language▼
Translator disclaimer
Abstract
Objective: The objective of this study was to compare the chronic effects of different whey protein forms on body composition and performance when supplemented with resistance training.
Methods: Resistance-trained men (N = 56, 21.4 ± 0.4 years, 79.5 ± 1.0 kg) participated in an 8-week resistance training regimen (2 upper-body sessions and 2 lower-body sessions per week) and received one of 4 double-blinded treatments: 30 g/serving carbohydrate placebo (PLA) or 30 g/serving protein from either (a) 80% whey protein concentrate (WPC), (b) high-lactoferrin-containing WPC (WPC-L), or (c) extensively hydrolyzed WPC (WPH). All subjects consumed 2 servings of treatment per day; specifically, once immediately before and after training and between meals on nontraining days. Blood collection, one repetition maximum (1RM) testing for bench press and hack squat, and body composition assessment using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) occurred prior to training and 48 hours following the last training session.
Results: Total body skeletal muscle mass increased in all groups (p < 0.0125). There were similar between-group increases in upper-body (4%–7%, analysis of covariance [ANCOVA] interaction p = 0.73) and lower-body (24%–35%, ANCOVA interaction p = 0.85) 1RM strength following the intervention. Remarkably, WPH reduced fat mass (−6%), which was significantly different from PLA (+4.4%, p < 0.0125). No time or between-group differences were present for serum markers of health, metabolism, or muscle damage, with the exception of blood urea nitrogen being significantly lower for WPH than WPC (p < 0.05) following the intervention.
Conclusions: WPH may augment fat loss but did not provide any other advantages when used in combination with resistance training. More mechanistic research is needed to examine how WPH affects adipose tissue physiology.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07315724.2016.1140094
access
Log in | Register
Search in:
Journal
Journal of the American College of Nutrition
Volume 36, 2017 - Issue 1
205
Views
0
CrossRef citations
21
Altmetric
Original Research
Effects of Hydrolyzed Whey versus Other Whey Protein Supplements on the Physiological Response to 8 Weeks of Resistance Exercise in College-Aged Males
Christopher M. Lockwood , PhD, Michael D. Roberts , PhD, Vincent J. Dalbo , PhD, Abbie E. Smith-Ryan , PhD, Kristina L. KendallBodybuilding.com, Boise, Idaho , PhD, Jordan R. Moon , PhD & show all
Pages 16-27 | Received 26 Oct 2015, Accepted 06 Jan 2016, Published online: 06 Oct 2016
Download citation
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07315724.2016.1140094
Select Language▼
Translator disclaimer
Abstract
Objective: The objective of this study was to compare the chronic effects of different whey protein forms on body composition and performance when supplemented with resistance training.
Methods: Resistance-trained men (N = 56, 21.4 ± 0.4 years, 79.5 ± 1.0 kg) participated in an 8-week resistance training regimen (2 upper-body sessions and 2 lower-body sessions per week) and received one of 4 double-blinded treatments: 30 g/serving carbohydrate placebo (PLA) or 30 g/serving protein from either (a) 80% whey protein concentrate (WPC), (b) high-lactoferrin-containing WPC (WPC-L), or (c) extensively hydrolyzed WPC (WPH). All subjects consumed 2 servings of treatment per day; specifically, once immediately before and after training and between meals on nontraining days. Blood collection, one repetition maximum (1RM) testing for bench press and hack squat, and body composition assessment using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) occurred prior to training and 48 hours following the last training session.
Results: Total body skeletal muscle mass increased in all groups (p < 0.0125). There were similar between-group increases in upper-body (4%–7%, analysis of covariance [ANCOVA] interaction p = 0.73) and lower-body (24%–35%, ANCOVA interaction p = 0.85) 1RM strength following the intervention. Remarkably, WPH reduced fat mass (−6%), which was significantly different from PLA (+4.4%, p < 0.0125). No time or between-group differences were present for serum markers of health, metabolism, or muscle damage, with the exception of blood urea nitrogen being significantly lower for WPH than WPC (p < 0.05) following the intervention.
Conclusions: WPH may augment fat loss but did not provide any other advantages when used in combination with resistance training. More mechanistic research is needed to examine how WPH affects adipose tissue physiology.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07315724.2016.1140094