ONLINE DRIVERS MEDIA

One study wouldnt be enough to prove that pea is superior to whey as muscle builder, anyways.

In a recent study, French scientist investigated the effects of two types of protein supplementation on muscle thickness and strength in 161 moderate physically active (2–6 hours per week) male participants (mean age 22 years). More specifically, the scientists compared the effects of vegetable Pea protein (NUTRALYS®) vs. Whey protein and Placebo on biceps brachii muscle thickness and strength after a 12-week resistance training program. And as the headline already reveals: The pea protein had the upper hand, when it comes to biceps brachii size, but the way the gains were measured and superior strength gains in the whey group raise questions about whether the results of this study are practically relevant - meaning you have to switch from whey to pea.
These values are based on measurements of arm circumference of the right arm which were taken using a constant tension tape during maximal elbow extension at rest and during a maximal voluntary contraction (with maximal elbow flexion).

Figure 1: Overview of the study design.

"All subjects followed the same training routine, three times per week with a rest day between each session. Training was based on three exercises involving the elbow flexor and extensor muscles. The exercises soliciting the flexor muscles were arm curl and lateral pulldown. In the arm curl exercise, subjects sat with weights in their hands with a ~40° trunk/arm angle. They had to flex/extend the forearm over the arm. For the lateral pull-down, subjects sat with a bar in their hands above the head. They had to flex/extend the forearm over the arm with a vertical movement. The exercise soliciting the extensors was the bench press. Subjects were lying on their backs with a bar in their hands with a 90° trunk/arm angle, arms extended, and had to flex and extend their upper limbs vertically. Throughout the training program, the number of sets was progressively increased from 2 to 5 while the number of repetitions was reduced in parallel from 15 to 5 repetitions maximum (RM). In the final week, the subjects did three sets of 5 RM in order to preclude any fatigue for the D84 tests" (Babault. 2015).

Recovery between sets was identical for all workouts: 2–3 minutes. The load used for each exercise was regularly adapted during training depending on individuals’ maximum load (1-RM, one maximum repetition, evaluated every two weeks).

Figure 2: Muscle thickness in the 3 groups at baseline after 42 and 84 days. There was only a trend (£) for increased gains in the pea protein group (Babault. 2015).

Three measurements were made (at rest and contracted) along the length of the biceps, namely ¼, ½ and ¾ of the length of the upper arm (distance between the acromion process of the scapula and the lateral epicondyle of the humerus). Averaging was performed to obtain mean values for the circumference at rest and contracted.

Faulty measurements due to messed up timing?

That sounds great, but since the time of measurement is not mentioned, it may well be that all the values are fundamentally flawed. Why?

Well, as a SuppVersity reader you know that even in leg muscles, which are muss less prone to "the pump", "Cell Swelling Keeps Muscles "Pumped" For More Than 52h. Size Increases of Up to 16% After a Single Leg Workout!" (learn more).

Practically speaking, this means that the "size measurements" in the study at hand may be worthless if the scientists didnt wait for at least 72h-96h before they measured the sleeve sizes of their subjects.
The absence of information on the time-point at which the sleeve sizes were measured (suggestive of immediately post) and the fact that the strength gains do not reflect the alleged superiority of pea protein as muscle builders (see Figure 3) put a huge question mark behind the assumption that pea protein tends to produce greater muscle gains than whey.

Figure 3: It is strange that the "superior muscle builder" triggers the lowest gains in maximal isometric contractile force. Even the placebo group had greater strength gains - despite a lack of sign. differences at baseline (Babault. 2015).

Rather than "gains", the increases could in fact be a result of increased inflammation and the reduced "gains" in the whey group a result of its anti-inflammatory effects (Buckley. 2010; Sugawara. 2012; Kerasioti. 2013). The existing evidence of anti-inflammatory properties of pea protein (Ndiaye. 2012) does yet render this assumption questionable.
References:

• Babault, et al. "Pea proteins oral supplementation promotes muscle thickness gains during resistance training: a double-blind, randomized, Placebo-controlled clinical trial vs. Whey protein." Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition 12:3 (2015).
• Buckley, Jonathan D., et al. "Supplementation with a whey protein hydrolysate enhances recovery of muscle force-generating capacity following eccentric exercise." Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 13.1 (2010): 178-181. 
• Lang, Vincent, et al. "Satiating effect of proteins in healthy subjects: a comparison of egg albumin, casein, gelatin, soy protein, pea protein, and wheat gluten." The American journal of clinical nutrition 67.6 (1998): 1197-1204.
• Ndiaye, Fatou, et al. "Anti-oxidant, anti-inflammatory and immunomodulating properties of an enzymatic protein hydrolysate from yellow field pea seeds." European journal of nutrition 51.1 (2012): 29-37.
• Kerasioti, Efthalia, et al. "Anti-inflammatory effects of a special carbohydrate–whey protein cake after exhaustive cycling in humans." Food and Chemical Toxicology 61 (2013): 42-46.
• Sirtori, Cesare R., et al. "Hypocholesterolaemic effects of lupin protein and pea protein/fibre combinations in moderately hypercholesterolaemic individuals." British journal of nutrition 107.08 (2012): 1176-1183.
• Smith, Christopher E., et al. "The effect of yellow pea protein and fibre on short-term food intake, subjective appetite and glycaemic response in healthy young men." British Journal of Nutrition 108.S1 (2012): S74-S80.
• Sugawara, Keiyu, et al. "Effect of anti-inflammatory supplementation with whey peptide and exercise therapy in patients with COPD." Respiratory medicine 106.11 (2012): 1526-1534.

In general, you have to count and limit your weekly HIIT sessions. Doing as much as humanly possible, could yet make sense, when youre preparing for Olympia 2016 and realize 5 weeks before the event that you have been lingering for too long ;-)

I think as a SuppVersity reader you know by now that "more wont yield more" - no matter if we are talking about supplements or exercise. Now, while weve had countless examples of the "more aint more" principle thats also at the heart of the "Three Simple Rules of Supplementation" (read article) for supplements (e.g. zinc, chromium, etc.) and the simple notion that eating less wont always result in greater weight loss, evidence for the pro-anabolic / adaptive effects of exercise in general, and non-steady state cardio, in particular is scarce. Against that background its all the more important for us to cherish the publication of a paper from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology and the St Olav University Hospital in Trondheim Norway, Roy told me about by messaging me via the SuppVersity Facebook Page.

"More HIIT doesnt help more, either"

I guess the above would be the elevator pitch for the mythical "turbo lift" in Star Trek. For someone like yourself who has learned never to swallow "expert" wisdom just like that, the statement "more HIIT doesnt hep more, either" obviously wont be satisfying.

Figure 2: Illustration of the training in the low frequency (LF) and high frequency (HF) group.

If you look at the illustration above, you will already know somewhat more about the "more" in the previous sentence. As you can see, the parameter that has been modified is not the volume, its the frequency!  - and thus one of the parameters of which many gymrats think that it could hardly be high enough (AM + PM training, 7 days a week - does that ring a bell?). What this people ignore is the simple truth that ...

... adapatation takes time and training more often does not accelerate this process!

In the end, I am actually quite surprised to see that the net VO2 "gain" the scientists measured in the subsequent detraining phase (see Figure 2) was identical. Or, more explicitly, that packing 24 training sessions into three weeks did not blunt the mitochondrial adaptation processes that are responsible for the increase in VO2max, altogether.

Figure 2: VO2max and heart rate values of the 16 healthy subjects before / after high vs. low frequency HIIT (Hatle. 2014)

If we are brutally honest, though, there is obviously an advantage for the 24 sessions in 8 weeks version of this training protocol (see Figure 3, as well). The VO2max scores were after all identical only in the "catch-up" up period in week 11 and due to the rapid decline after week 12 the benefits faded equally rapid in both groups when the 19 healthy, normalweight, but non-athletic subjects returned to their usual laziness (detraining = not training at all).
References:

• Hatle H, Støbakk PK, Mølmen HE, Brønstad E, Tjønna AE, et al. "Effect of 24 Sessions of High-Intensity Aerobic Interval Training Carried out at Either High or Moderate Frequency, a Randomized Trial." PLoS ONE 9(2). (2014): e88375. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0088375

Yes, coconut oil does contain MCTs, but it is not as some people believe pure MCT. Only ~50% of the fat in coconut oil is actually in MCT form. If you want pure MCTs you have to resort to specific MCT supplements / oils.

The mechanisms by which medium-chain triglycerides (MCTs) may help you to lose fat are manifold. They are not only hard to store for your body. They also counteract fat deposition in adipocytes by increasing thermogenesis and satiety.

MCTs contain 8 to 12 carbon atoms and include caprylic acid (C8:0, octanoic acid), capric acid (C10:0, decanoic acid), and lauric acid (C12:0, dodecanoic acid). Foods high in MCTs include coconut oil (58%), palm kernel oil (54%), desiccated coconut (37%), and raw coconut meat (19% of total energy) (USDA). Average intakes of 1.35 g/day (0.7% of total energy intake | USDA. 2008) MCTs have been reported in the United States and 0.2 g/day in Japan | Kasai. 2003).
MCT is cleaved into glycerol and medium-chain fatty acids in the gut lumen.5 The medium chain length makes a smaller, more soluble molecule compared with a longchain fatty acid, giving it a preferential absorption and metabolic route in the body. As the authors of the latest meta-analysis of the effects of MCTs on body weight say:

"[t]his physicochemical nature of medium-chain fatty acids allows them to pass into the portal vein on route to the liver to be rapidly metabolized via b oxidation with no requirement of reesterification in intestinal cells, incorporation into chylomicrons, or the rate limiting enzyme carnitine acyltransferase for intramitochondrial transport. In comparison, long-chain fatty acids have a slower route, being re-esterified in the small intestine and transported by chylomicrons via the lymphatic and vascular system before being oxidized for energy or stored. Thus, rapid metabolism of MCTs reduces their opportunity of adipose tissue uptake." (Mumme. 2015)

Several human intervention studies have been conducted investigating the weight-reducing potential of MCT, with mixed results. In their latest meta-analysis, Mumme et al. set out to separate the wheat from the chaff in order to answer the question whether MCTs, specifically C8:0 and C10:0, provide significant weight loss benefits and/or trigger changes in body composition compared to "regular" long-chain fatty acids (LCT).

Figure 1: Meta-analysis for changes in body weight (in kilograms) in randomized control trials that compared dietary medium-chain triglycerides (MCTs) with a longer-chain triglyceride (control) shows a favorable effect of MCT intervention on body weight. *Oleic acid as control. **Myristic acid as control. #Body mass index < 23. ##Body mass index > 23. IV inverse variance. SD standard deviation (Mumme. 2015).

The researchers primary outcome measures were body mass, waist and hip circumference, total body fat, and subcutaneous and visceral fat. Secondary outcomes were blood lipids, including triglycerides (TG), total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, and LDL cholesterol. Of the latter the foremost values are those that are of greatest interest and among them the body mass shows a measurable, albeit not earth-shattering reduction in almost all trials. Only the in the 2001 study by Matsuo et al. there was an increase in body weight in response to an MCT supplement that contained almost no medium chain triglycerides.

Figure 2: Meta-analysis for changes in total body fat, total subcutaneous fat, and visceral fat (Mumme. 2015).

In view of the fact that the most relevant obesity parameters, i.e. the waist and hip circumferences and body fat percentages (Figure 2) dropped in all studies that investigated this parameter and considering the fact that there were no significant deterioration - rather improvements - in blood lipids, it appears warranted to assume that the replacement (!), but not the addition, of 2g/day MCTs (1% of the energy) to 54 g/day MCTs (20% of the total energy intake)  over a duration of 4 to 16 weeks leads to measurable and potentially health relevant weight loss, compared to bacon, butter & co, i.e. regular long chain fatty acids.
References:

• DeLany, James P., et al. "Differential oxidation of individual dietary fatty acids in humans." The American journal of clinical nutrition 72.4 (2000): 905-911.
• Hamman, Richard F., et al. "Effect of weight loss with lifestyle intervention on risk of diabetes." Diabetes care 29.9 (2006): 2102-2107.
• Kasai, Michio, et al. "Effect of dietary medium-and long-chain triacylglycerols (MLCT) on accumulation of body fat in healthy humans." Asia Pacific journal of clinical nutrition 12.2 (2003): 151-160.
• Mumme et al. "Effects of Medium-Chain Triglycerides on Weight Loss and Body Composition: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials." EAT RIGHT - Research Review (2015).
• US Department of Agriculture. Nutrient Intakes From Food: Mean Amounts Counsumed per Individual, One Day, 2005-2006. Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service; 2008.

Its one thing to make strength and mass gains, its a whole different story to make them last - if possible, for the rest of your life! Study suggests: Training intense, may help.

Thank God for the Internet. Otherwise we would hardly be able to get our hands on papers that are written by Iranian scientists and published in the Turkish Journal of Sport and Exercise; and that, my dear (mostly) American friends, would be a real pity!

"Effect of acute detraining following two types of resistance training on strength performance and body composition in trained athletes" - thats the title of a paper that was published late last year but popped up in the major databases, only recently. In spite of the delay, the results Vahid Tadibi and his colleagues from the Razi University, the  University of Kordestan and the Islamic Azad University present in this 5-pages paper are unquestionably well worth being covered.
In view of the limited evidence available for the effect of detraining on strength training with different intensity and volume, Tadibi et al. set out to

"determine the influences of short term detraining after two kinds of resistance training on strength performance and body composition in trained athletes."  (Tadibi. 2013)

To this ends, the Iranian researchers recruited 30 healthy men students recruited from
Razi University of Kermanshah. The subjects were divided into two experimental groups as follows:

• group (I) who performed resistance training with low intensity and high volume (GRI: n=15), weight 73.7±10.3 kg, height 174.5±7.5 m and age 24.7±1.4 years old and 
• group (II) who performed low volume and high intensity (GRII: n=25), weight 63.2±6.2, height 175.8±5.5 and age 25.4±1 (years old). 

The participants attended physical education classes for six weeks/three times a week, with duration of 45-60 min each session. Each training session involved three phases in both groups and lasted 50–60minutes:

• warm up, specific or related training and cool down. 

Warm up and cool down phases were similar in both groups included 7 min running with intensity sufficient to raise breath rate, 3 min stretching training.
The actual intervention, i.e. the specific training part consisted of fast-paced circuit training workouts with 60 to 90 seconds rest between the following exercises:

• Figure 1: Graphical overview of the two training regimen

  bench press, 
• squat, 
• biceps curls, 
• triceps extensions, 
• shoulder press

What? No, I have no idea, if they forgot to list the back exercises, or if the subjects actually didnt do any. What I do know, though is that the

"[s]ubjects performed 12– 15 maximal repetitions/set (55–60% 1RM) in group I, low intensity and high volume (LIHV protocol), and 5 maximal repetitions/set (85–90% 1RM) in the group II, low volume and high intensity (HILV protocol)" (Tadibi. 2013)

In order to establish optimal progression the "1RM was retested in the end of every week so that resistance could be adjusted properly" (Tadibi. 2013).

TRAINING ? DETRAINING ? RESULTS?

Apropos progress, you will probably remember that the actual intention of the researchers was not to compare the muscle and strength gains during the six-week training program, but their persistence. Accordingly, the all-important question was what would happen, when the subjects resumed their normal active, but not necessarily resistance trained lifestyle after a 2-week lay-off of any type of systematic (training stoppage).

Figure 1: Relative changes in max strength (left) and body comp (right) from pre- to post-detraining (Tadibi. 2013)

Well, you can see the results of this type of realistic 6-weeks on 2-weeks of regimen in Figure 1 - a result based on which you should be able to confirm the following conclusions:

• Contrary to what common wisdom would predict, the low intensity, high volume (LIHV) and the high intensity, low volume (HILV) regimen produce statistically identical strength gains over the course of the six-weeks training phased (not shown in Figure 1)
• The gains on the high intensity, low volume (HILV) regimen were - albeit not significantly - but visibly more persistent than those that were brought about by the high volume low intensity regimen.
• The high volume training turned out to have significant fat burning effects of the initially significant relative reduction in body fat % of 18% (from  12.15% to 9.73 in LIHV vs.   11.91% to 10.59% in the HILV group), there were yet only 7% left after 2 weeks of detraining (the BF% went back up from 9.73±3.12% to 11.27±3.37%).

As the researchers point out, this result may look different, if the study population was older or sick. In less-conditioned individuals (Hakkinen. 1994), which is - in my humble opinion - a very important hint for both, the young and old SuppVersity readers, as it confirms (once again), that the optimal training routine is a very individual thing and cannot be cookie cut based on a single study.
References:

• Häkkinen, K. "Neuromuscular adaptation during strength training, aging, detraining, and immobilization." Critical Reviews in Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine 6 (1994): 161-161.
• Tadibi, Vahid, et al. "Effect of acute detraining following two types of resistance training on strength performance and body composition in trained athletes." (2013).

Post-Workout High Isoleucine AA+CHO Decreases Glucose Spikes, But Impairs Musclular Glyocogen Resynthesis - Reason Enough to Skip Amino Acids?

If you put any faith into the promises of the supplement industry, amino acid supplements are the solution to all your problems - including those you havent even known about, yet. Against that background its always interesting if scientists study the real world effects of amino acid supplements in a realistic scenario like after strenuous exercise.

In their latest study Wang and colleagues from the University of Texas at Austin and the Shanghai Research Institute of Sports Science did just that: They studied the effects isoleucine and four additional amino acids, on blood glucose homeostasis and glycogen synthesis after strenuous exercise.
As the scientists point out, the results of their study "could provide a practical and safe means of increasing the rate of muscle glycogen synthesis after exercise and enhancing the rate of recovery" (Wang. 2015).

Table 1:  Subjects’ characteristics (Wang. 2015).

Ten healthy active adults volunteered for the study. All subjects were accustomed to cycling for prolonged periods of 3–5 h during an exercise session. The ,aximum oxygen uptake (VO2max) was measured in all subjects on a cycle ergometer by using a TrueOne 2400 metabolic measurement system (ParvoMedics, Sandy, Utah) to verify adequate aerobic fitness levels (results see Table 1).

Figure 1: Basically the AA supplement contained almost exclusively isoleucine. It was administered in the dosage shown above and at twice that amount in the LAA and HAA trials (Wang. 2015)

"Two to three days after the VO2max test, the subjects reported to the laboratory to perform a practice ride to familiarize them with the laboratory environment and the experimental protocol. The practice ride was also used to adjust and verify appropriate workloads for the experimental trials. The practice rides simulated the protocol ride but without blood samples or muscle biopsies being taken. The ride consisted of cycling at 70 % VO2max for 2 h, which was followed by five 1-min sprints at 85 % VO2max. The sprints were separated by 1 min cycling at 45 % VO2max. During the first 15 min of each hour, oxygen uptake was measured for 5 min to verify workload.

Water (250 mL) was provided every 20 min of exercise. Heart rate (HR) was monitored and ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) on a Borg-scale (ranging from 6 to 20) were collected every 30 min of exercise. The practice ride and each of the following three experimental trials were separated by a minimum of 7 days and maximum of 12 days" (Wang. 2015).

The actual tests consisted of cycling on an ergometer to deplete muscle glycogen. Blood sampling and a muscle biopsy were performed immediately on cessation of exercise. After the muscle biopsy, subjects were given the first of two supplement doses. More specifically they received either...

• 1.2 g carbohydrate/kg body weight (CHO), 1.2 g carbohydrate/kg body weight plus 6.5 g AA (CHO/LAA) or 
• the same carbohydrate supplement plus 6.5g (CHO/LAA) or 13 g AA (CHO/HAA) 

immediately after the first muscle biopsy and at 120 min of recovery. The carbohydrate base consisted of simple dextrose dissolved at a ratio of 100g/296 mL in an orange flavored drink (SUN-DEX, Fisher Healthcare, Houston, Texas). The additional amino acids contained 0.046 g cystine 2HCl, 0.023 g methionine, 0.045 g valine, 6.342 g Isoleucine, and 0.044 g leucine per person, or twice that amount in the CHO/HAA trial. The amino acids were simply added to the dextrose drink.

Why would you even believe that there may be benefits from AA supplementation?

As Wang et al. point out, "this amino acid mixture was selected as it was previously reported to be more effective in lowering the blood glucose response to a glucose challenge than isoleucine alone" (Wang. 2015) by Bernard et al. (2011).

Figure 2: Blood glucose AUC during the oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT). Sprague-Dawley rats were gavaged with either glucose (CHO), glucose plus a 5-amino acid mixture (CHO-AA-1), glucose plus a 5-amino acid mixture with increased leucine concentration (CHO-AA-2), or placebo (PLA). Blood was taken from the tail immediately before the gavage and 15, 30, 60, and 120 min afterward (Bernard. 2011).

The three test beverages were similar in color, taste, and texture to allow a double-blinded and counter-balanced study design. All test drinks were randomly assigned and dispensed by a laboratory technician who was not involved in the data collection.

Figure 3: Blood glucose postexercise and during the 4-h recovery. Treatments were with CHO (circle), CHO/LAA (triangle), and CHO/HAA (filled circle) supplements provided immediately after and 2 h after exercise. Values are mean ± SE. CHO/HAA vs. CHO (*p < 0.05). CHO/LAA vs. CHO (# p < 0.05) - left; Blood glucose area under the curve (AUC) during the 4-h recovery. Treatments were CHO, CHO/LAA, and CHO/HAA supplements provided immediately after and 2 h after exercise. AUC was calculated with baseline (pre). Values are mean ± SE. CHO/HAA vs. CHO (*p < 0.05). CHO/LAA vs. CHO (# p < 0.05) - right (Wang. 2015).

As the data in Figure 3 indicates,There was a similar effect in humans as it has previously been observed in rodents. An effect of which you as a SuppVersity reader know that it is probably mostly ascribable to isoleucine (see "The Glucose-Repartitioning Effects of Isoleucine" | more).

Figure 4: Total muscle glycogen storage in the vastus lateralis during the 4-h recovery from intense cycling. Treatments were CHO, CHO/LAA, and CHO/HAA supplements provided immediately after and 2 h after exercise. Values are mean ± SE. CHO/HAA vs. CHO (*p < 0.05 | Wang. 2015)

What is a bit disappointing is the fact that the decrease in blood glucose did not come with an increase in glycogen storage.

As the data in Figure 4 shows, the exact opposite was the case. After 4h of recovery the muscle glycogen levels were not higher, but lower in the amino acid supplemented trials.

For diabetics this wouldnt be a problem. For athletes its yet clearly a disadvantage that the 4-g recovery glycogen levels were lower and significantly lower in the low and high dose amino acid supplement trials.

Eventually this result is surprising because specifically in the high amino acid group (a) the insulin levels, (b) the AS160, a protein that controls insulin mediated glucose uptake, (c) the mTOR & p-AKT levels, (d) the "exercise hormon" levels of serum irisin  and (e) the levels of glycogen synthase which stores carbs in forms of glycogen in the high dose AA trials were significantly elevated.
References:

• Armstrong, Jane L., et al. "Regulation of glycogen synthesis by amino acids in cultured human muscle cells." Journal of biological Chemistry 276.2 (2001): 952-956.
• Bernard, Jeffrey R., et al. "An amino acid mixture improves glucose tolerance and insulin signaling in Sprague-Dawley rats." American Journal of Physiology-Endocrinology and Metabolism 300.4 (2011): E752-E760.
• Doi, Masako, et al. "Isoleucine, a potent plasma glucose-lowering amino acid, stimulates glucose uptake in C2C12 myotubes." Biochemical and biophysical research communications 312.4 (2003): 1111-1117. 
• Ivy, John L., et al. "Early postexercise muscle glycogen recovery is enhanced with a carbohydrate-protein supplement." Journal of Applied Physiology 93.4 (2002): 1337-1344.
• Ivy, J. L., et al. "Post exercise carbohydrate–protein supplementation: phosphorylation of muscle proteins involved in glycogen synthesis and protein translation." Amino acids 35.1 (2008): 89-97.
• Morifuji, Masashi, et al. "Dietary whey protein increases liver and skeletal muscle glycogen levels in exercise-trained rats." British journal of nutrition 93.04 (2005): 439-445.
• Morifuji, Masashi, et al. "Post-exercise carbohydrate plus whey protein hydrolysates supplementation increases skeletal muscle glycogen level in rats." Amino acids 38.4 (2010): 1109-1115.
• Wang, Bei, et al. "Amino acid mixture acutely improves the glucose tolerance of healthy overweight adults." Nutrition Research 32.1 (2012): 30-38.
• Zawadzki, K. M., B. B. Yaspelkis, and J. L. Ivy. "Carbohydrate-protein complex increases the rate of muscle glycogen storage after exercise." J Appl Physiol 72.5 (1992): 1854-9.