4.7 Article

Pea Proteins Have Anabolic Effects Comparable to Milk Proteins on Whole Body Protein Retention and Muscle Protein Metabolism in Old Rats

Journal

NUTRIENTS
Volume 13, Issue 12, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nu13124234

Keywords

pea proteins; plant proteins; sarcopenia; skeletal muscle; protein digestibility; muscle protein metabolism

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Old rats were found to use pea protein with the same efficiency as casein or whey proteins, with similar effects on body composition, tissue weight, skeletal muscle protein synthesis and degradation. This suggests that using plant-based proteins could help older individuals diversify their protein sources and meet nutritional intake recommendations more easily.
Plant proteins are attracting rising interest due to their pro-health benefits and environmental sustainability. However, little is known about the nutritional value of pea proteins when consumed by older people. Herein, we evaluated the digestibility and nutritional efficiency of pea proteins compared to casein and whey proteins in old rats. Thirty 20-month-old male Wistar rats were assigned to an isoproteic and isocaloric diet containing either casein (CAS), soluble milk protein (WHEY) or Pisane (TM) pea protein isolate for 16 weeks. The three proteins had a similar effect on nitrogen balance, true digestibility and net protein utilization in old rats, which means that different protein sources did not alter body composition, tissue weight, skeletal muscle protein synthesis or degradation. Muscle mitochondrial activity, inflammation status and insulin resistance were similar between the three groups. In conclusion, old rats used pea protein with the same efficiency as casein or whey proteins, due to its high digestibility and amino acid composition. Using these plant-based proteins could help older people diversify their protein sources and more easily achieve nutritional intake recommendations.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available