4.5 Article

Higher protein intake is associated with improved muscle strength in elite senior athletes

期刊

NUTRITION
卷 42, 期 -, 页码 82-86

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.nut.2017.05.003

关键词

Protein intake; Elite senior athletes; Muscle strength; Urinary urea nitrogen-to-urinary creatinine ratio

资金

  1. Italian Ministry of Education, University and Research - MIUR (DEDIPAC project: Decreto Direttoriale) [462]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The optimal protein intake for elderly individuals who exercise regularly has not yet been clearly defined. The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that protein intake level is associated with muscle strength in elderly elite athletes. Methods: We evaluated 50 elite senior athletes (38 men and 12 women) participating in the European Master Games 2011 in an observational cross-sectional study. Participants were divided into two groups lower (LPI) or higher (HPI) protein intake-according to the median value of their ratio of urinary urea nitrogen to urinary creatinine (i.e., 8.8 g/L), as a marker of protein intake. A dietary interview confirmed differences in protein consumption between the LPI and HPI groups. We also evaluated body composition (bioimpedance), muscle strength, and hematochemical indices. Results: LPI and HPI groups were homogeneous for age (72 [68-74] and 71 [68-74] y, respectively), fat-free mass index (18.4 [17-19.4] and 18.2 [17-19.1] kg/m(2)), body fat (18.3% [123-20.7%] and 16.6% [13.6-21.2%]), and glomerular filtration rate (57.7 [53.8-64.9] and 62.7 [56.1-69.3] mL/min/1.73 m(2)). The HPI group showed greater leg and trunk muscle strength (N) compared with the LPI group (left leg extension, 339 [238-369] versus 454 [273-561], respectively, P < 0.05; right leg extension, 319 [249-417] versus 432 [334-635], P <= 0.05; trunk extension, 435 [370-467] versus 464 [390-568], P <= 0.05). Conclusions: Higher protein intake in elite senior athletes is associated with a greater muscle strength. (C) 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据