Apelin is a putative exercise-sensitive myokine that has been shown to be associated with physical independence during aging. Physical performance is highly dependent on muscle strength, with a clear role of dietary protein (i.e., > Recommended Dietary Allowance) for the maintenance of age-related muscle strength. However, the influence of dietary protein density on exercise-induced apelin remains unknown. Therefore, our aim was to evaluate plasma apelin concentrations and its relationship with muscle strength in middle-aged adults consuming differential amounts of animal-based protein during progressive resistance training. 41 overweight middle-aged adults (50 ± 2 y, BMI 28 ± 1 kg · m−2, M = 19, F = 22) were stratified and randomized to consume either high protein (1.68 ± 0.06 g · kg−1·d−1) or moderate amounts of animal-based protein (1.16 ± 0.04 g · kg−1·d−1) during a 10-week weight-maintenance nutrition counseling-controlled resistance training program. Body composition was assessed by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. Muscle strength was assessed by one-repetition maximum (1RM) and isometric maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) at 60° knee angle. Oral glucose tolerance tests were performed at baseline and post-intervention. Main effects of time were observed for increases in lean body mass (P = 0.003), upper and lower body 1RM (all P ≤ 0.001), isometric MVC (P = 0.013), and plasma apelin concentrations (P = 0.007). There were no changes in body adiposity or glucose-insulin regulation (e.g., HOMA-IR, Matsuda) with the intervention (all P ≥ 0.152). Apelin was positively and significantly associated with isometric MVC (extension: r = 0.233, P = 0.047; flexion: r = 0.308, P = 0.008), but not 1RM. Our results show that resistance training increases circulating apelin concentrations which is related to isometric strength gain. However, higher consumption of animal-based protein foods does not potentiate these resistance-exercise induced adaptations in overweight middle-aged adults. Funded in part by the Beef Checkoff. CFM funded by JBT Fellowship, UIUC.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
McKenna et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: