4.4 Article

Relationship between animal protein intake and muscle mass index in healthy women

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF NUTRITION
卷 102, 期 12, 页码 1803-1810

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0007114509991310

关键词

Muscle mass index; Animal protein intake; Human nutrition

资金

  1. Medical Research Council in the Academy of Finland
  2. Sigrid Juselius Foundation
  3. Samfundet Folkhalsan
  4. Canadian Institutes of Health Research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The amount and the type of dietary protein could play a role in determining the quantity of skeletal muscle mass. The aim was to examine the relationship between the type of protein intake and the level of muscle mass in healthy omnivorous and vegetarian Caucasian women. The design of the present study was an observational and cross-sectional study. Twenty-one omnivores (Om) and nineteen vegetarians (Ve) were recruited. Muscle mass index (urinary creatinine), dietary intake (5 d dietary records) and biochemical analyses (hormone, phyto-oestrogen and lipid profiles) were obtained. We found differences between groups for muscle mass (Ve: 18 kg v. Om: 23 kg; P=0.010), muscle mass index (Ve: 6.7 kg/m(2) v. Om: 8.3 kg/m(2): P=0.002), animal protein intake in g/d (P=0.001) and in g/kg body weight per d (P=0.003), plant protein intake in g/d (P=0.015) and in g/kg body weight per d (P=0.007), the animal:plant protein intake ratio (P=0.001) and sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG) (P=0.001). Muscle mass index still correlated with animal protein intake in g/d (P=0.001) and in g/kg body weight per d (P=0.008). and the animal:plant protein intake ratio (P=0.007) even after controlling for SHBG and plant protein intake. Finally, animal protein intake (g/d) was the independent predictor of muscle mass index (adjusted r(2) 0.42). Thus, a vegetarian diet is associated with a lower muscle mass index than is an omnivorous diet at the same protein intake. A good indicator of muscle mass index in women seems to be animal protein intake.

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

4.4
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