0
selected
-
1.
Effects of Milk Protein in Resistance Training-Induced Lean Mass Gains for Older Adults Aged ≥ 60 y: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Huang, LP, Condello, G, Kuo, CH
Nutrients. 2021;(8)
Abstract
This review evaluated the effects of milk-based protein supplementation on resistance training (RT)-induced gains in lean body mass or fat free mass (LBM/FFM) and muscle strength for older adults. A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus and EBSCOhost/SPORTDiscus was conducted. Eligibility criteria: Randomized controlled trials comparing all types of milk-based protein supplements with control supplements for the training older adults at mean age ≥ 60 y. Twenty studies were included in the qualitative synthesis, whilst seventeen studies were included in the quantitative synthesis. A dose of 10-15 g of milk protein supplementation was sufficient to augment RT-induced LBM/FFM. Intriguingly, four out of five studies show negative effect of whey protein supplementation at the same dose range (or even higher) compared with control supplementation (-0.49 kg, 95% CI: -0.69, -0.29, I2 = 14%, Z = 4.82, p < 0.001). For milk-based protein supplementation, RT-induced improvements in muscle strength were observed only when the protein doses ≥22 g (+0.66 kg, 95% CI: 0.07, 1.25, I2 = 0%, Z = 2.18, p = 0.03). Conclusion: Milk protein is superior to whey protein in enhancing RT-induced LBM/FFM gains for older adults. Optimal daily protein intake can dilute the protein supplementation effect.
-
2.
Comparison of different protein concentrations of human milk fortifier for promoting growth and neurological development in preterm infants.
Gao, C, Miller, J, Collins, CT, Rumbold, AR
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2020;(11):CD007090
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND Human milk alone may provide inadequate amounts of protein to meet the growth requirements of preterm infants because of restrictions in the amount of fluid they can tolerate. It has become common practice to feed preterm infants with breast milk fortified with protein and other nutrients but there is debate about the optimal concentration of protein in commercially available fortifiers. OBJECTIVES To compare the effects of different protein concentrations in human milk fortifier, fed to preterm infants, on growth and neurodevelopment. SEARCH METHODS We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search CENTRAL (2019, Issue 8), Ovid MEDLINE and CINAHL on 15 August 2019. We also searched clinical trials databases and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials. SELECTION CRITERIA We included all published and unpublished randomised, quasi-randomised and cluster-randomised trials comparing two different concentrations of protein in human milk fortifier. We included preterm infants (less than 37 weeks' gestational age). Participants may have been exclusively fed human milk or have been supplemented with formula. The concentration of protein was classified as low (< 1g protein/100 mL expressed breast milk (EBM)), moderate (≥ 1g to < 1.4g protein/100 mL EBM) or high (≥ 1.4g protein/100 mL EBM). We excluded trials that compared two protein concentrations that fell within the same category. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We undertook data collection and analyses using the standard methods of Cochrane Neonatal. Two review authors independently evaluated trials. Primary outcomes included growth, neurodevelopmental outcome and mortality. Data were synthesised using risk ratios (RR), risk differences and mean differences (MD), with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS We identified nine trials involving 861 infants. There is one trial awaiting classification, and nine ongoing trials. The trials were mostly conducted in infants born < 32 weeks' gestational age or < 1500 g birthweight, or both. All used a fortifier derived from bovine milk. Two trials fed infants exclusively with mother's own milk, three trials gave supplementary feeds with donor human milk and four trials supplemented with preterm infant formula. Overall, trials were small but generally at low or unclear risk of bias. High versus moderate protein concentration of human milk fortifier There was moderate certainty evidence that a high protein concentration likely increased in-hospital weight gain compared to moderate concentration of human milk fortifier (MD 0.66 g/kg/day, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.82; trials = 6, participants = 606). The evidence was very uncertain about the effect of high versus moderate protein concentration on length gain (MD 0.01 cm/week, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.03; trials = 5, participants = 547; very low certainty evidence) and head circumference gain (MD 0.00 cm/week, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.02; trials = 5, participants = 549; very low certainty evidence). Only one trial reported neonatal mortality, with no deaths in either group (participants = 45). Moderate versus low protein concentration of human milk fortifier A moderate versus low protein concentration fortifier may increase weight gain (MD 2.08 g/kg/day, 95% CI 0.38 to 3.77; trials = 2, participants = 176; very low certainty evidence) with little to no effect on head circumference gain (MD 0.13 cm/week, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.26; I² = 85%; trials = 3, participants = 217; very low certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain. There was low certainty evidence that a moderate protein concentration may increase length gain (MD 0.09 cm/week, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.14; trials = 3, participants = 217). Only one trial reported mortality and found no difference between groups (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.17; participants = 112). No trials reported long term growth or neurodevelopmental outcomes including cerebral palsy and developmental delay. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Feeding preterm infants with a human milk fortifier containing high amounts of protein (≥ 1.4g/100 mL EBM) compared with a fortifier containing moderate protein concentration (≥ 1 g to < 1.4 g/100 mL EBM) results in small increases in weight gain during the neonatal admission. There may also be small increases in weight and length gain when infants are fed a fortifier containing moderate versus low protein concentration (< 1 g protein/100 mL EBM). The certainty of this evidence is very low to moderate; therefore, results may change when the findings of ongoing studies are available. There is insufficient evidence to assess the impact of protein concentration on adverse effects or long term outcomes such as neurodevelopment. Further trials are needed to determine whether modest increases in weight gain observed with higher protein concentration fortifiers are associated with benefits or harms to long term growth and neurodevelopment.
-
3.
The Impact of Dairy Protein Intake on Muscle Mass, Muscle Strength, and Physical Performance in Middle-Aged to Older Adults with or without Existing Sarcopenia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Hanach, NI, McCullough, F, Avery, A
Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.). 2019;(1):59-69
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
Sarcopenia is an age-related condition associated with a progressive loss of muscle mass and strength. Insufficient protein intake is a risk factor for sarcopenia. Protein supplementation is suggested to improve muscle anabolism and function in younger and older adults. Dairy products are a good source of high-quality proteins. This review evaluates the effectiveness of dairy proteins on functions associated with sarcopenia in middle-aged and older adults. Randomized controlled trials were identified using PubMed, CINAHL/EBSCO, and Web of Science databases (last search: 10 May 2017) and were quality assessed. The results of appendicular muscle mass and muscle strength of handgrip and leg press were pooled using a random-effects model. The analysis of the Short Physical Performance Battery is presented in narrative form. Adverse events and tolerability of dairy protein supplementation were considered as secondary outcomes. Fourteen studies involving 1424 participants aged between 61 and 81 y met the inclusion criteria. Dairy protein significantly increased appendicular muscle mass (0.13 kg; 95% CI: 0.01, 0.26 kg; P = 0.04); however, it had no effect on improvement in handgrip (0.84 kg; 95% CI: -0.24, 1.93 kg; P = 0.13) or leg press (0.37 kg; 95% CI: -4.79, 5.53 kg; P = 0.89). The effect of dairy protein on the Short Physical Performance Battery was inconclusive. Nine studies reported the dairy protein to be well tolerated with no serious adverse events. Although future high-quality research is required to establish the optimal type of dairy protein, the present systematic review provides evidence of the beneficial effect of dairy protein as a potential nutrition strategy to improve appendicular muscle mass in middle-aged and older adults.
-
4.
Effects of whey protein and resistance exercise on body composition: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Miller, PE, Alexander, DD, Perez, V
Journal of the American College of Nutrition. 2014;(2):163-75
Abstract
OBJECTIVES The objective of the present meta-analysis was to examine the effect of whey protein (WP), with or without resistance exercise, on body weight and body composition in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in generally healthy adult study populations. METHODS A comprehensive literature search was conducted to identify RCTs that investigated WP (concentrate, isolate, or hydrolystate) and body weight, body mass index (BMI), body fat, lean body mass (LBM), fat-free mass (FFM), and waist circumference. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted to generate weighted group mean differences (WGMD) for between-group comparisons (WP vs other protein sources or carbohydrates) and within-WP group comparisons (i.e., differences from baseline to trial end). Studies were classified into 2 distinct groups-WP as a supplement without dietary modification (WPS) and WP as a replacement for other sources of calories (WPR)-and were meta-analyzed separately. Subgroup analyses included examining the effect of resistance exercise and type of WP on the relationship between WP and body composition. RESULTS Fourteen RCTs were included, with a total of 626 adult study completers. Five studies examined the effects of WPR and the remaining 9 studies examined the effects of WPS. Body weight (WGMD: -4.20 kg, 95% confidence interval [CI], -7.67, -0.73) and body fat (WGMD: -3.74 kg, 95% CI, -5.98, -1.50) were significantly decreased from baseline in the WPR within-group analyses. In the between-group analyses, the effects of WP were more favorable when compared with carbohydrates than protein sources other than whey, although findings did not reach statistical significance. Results from the subgroup analyses indicated a statistically significant increase in LBM (WGMD: 2.24 kg, 95% CI, 0.66, 3.81) among studies that included a resistance exercise component along with WP provision. CONCLUSION The current body of literature supports the use of WP, either as a supplement combined with resistance exercise or as part of a weight loss or weight maintenance diet, to improve body composition parameters.
-
5.
Fermented milk for hypertension.
Usinger, L, Reimer, C, Ibsen, H
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2012;(4):CD008118
Abstract
BACKGROUND Fermented milk has been suggested to have a blood pressure lowering effect through increased content of proteins and peptides produced during the bacterial fermentation. Hypertension is one of the major risk factors for cardiovascular disease world wide and new blood pressure reducing lifestyle interventions, such as fermented milk, would be of great importance. OBJECTIVES To investigate whether fermented milk or similar products produced by lactobacilli fermentation of milk proteins has any blood pressure lowering effect in humans when compared to no treatment or placebo. SEARCH METHODS The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), English language databases, including MEDLINE (1966-2011), EMBASE (1974-2011), Cochrane Complementary Medicine Trials Register, Allied and Complementary Medicine (AMED) (1985-2011), Food science and technology abstracts (1969-2011). SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised controlled trials; cross over and parallel studies evaluating the effect on blood pressure of fermented milk in humans with an intervention period of 4 weeks or longer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Data was extracted individually by two authors, afterwards agreement had to be obtained before imputation in the review. MAIN RESULTS A modest overall effect of fermented milk on SBP was found (MD -2.45; 95% CI -4.30 to -0.60), no effect was evident on DBP (MD -0.67; 95% CI -1.48, 0.14). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS The review does not support an effect of fermented milk on blood pressure. Despite the positive effect on SBP the authors conclude, for several reasons, that fermented milk has no effect on blood pressure. The effect found was very modest and only on SBP, the included studies were very heterogeneous and several with weak methodology. Finally, sensitivity and subgroup analyses could not reproduce the antihypertensive effect. The results do not give notion to the use of fermented milk as treatment for hypertension or as a lifestyle intervention for pre-hypertension nor would it influence population blood pressure.
-
6.
Immunogenicity of hydrolysate formulas in children (part 1). Analysis of 202 reactions.
Cantani, A, Micera, M
Journal of investigational allergology & clinical immunology. 2000;(5):261-76
Abstract
Cow's milk protein hydrolyzed formulas appeared in the 1940s with the aim of decreasing or eliminating the allergenicity of cow's milk proteins, in addition to reducing the risk of sensitization. In recent years, the so-called "hypoallergenic" formulas have been developed. The use of such hydrolyzed formulas is based on the premise that predigested proteins, when fed as amino acids and peptides, provide nutrients in a nonantigenic form. Thus, protein hydrolyzed formulas have been classified as hypoallergenic. These formulas are processed by heat and enzymatic hydrolysis, and the conformational and sequential structures are more or less changed. The formulas contain peptides of lower molecular weight than the native protein source, which are thought to be less immunogenic. Hydrolyzed formulas appear to be nutritionally adequate and infants generally gain weight until they refuse the formula because of its bad taste. However, caution should be taken when such formulas are given for prolonged periods since no data are available on nutritional assessment of infants exclusively fed hydrolyzed formulas for several months. In this paper we report and discuss more than 202 reactions to different hydrolyzed formulas, including cases of anaphylactic shock and apparent life-threatening events. The cross-reactivity between different hydrolyzed formulas and cow's milk proteins, and the potential immunogenicity of such formulas are discussed. We conclude that none of the hydrolyzed formulas are nonallergenic, both for allergic children and for high-risk babies. Moreover, we suggest that double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge studies in larger cohorts of babies evaluated with well-defined and well-validated diagnostic methods may establish a more reliable prevalence of allergy to hydrolyzed formulas.