↓ Skip to main content

Post-exercise branched chain amino acid supplementation does not affect recovery markers following three consecutive high intensity resistance training bouts compared to carbohydrate supplementation

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition, April 2022
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
50 X users
facebook
9 Facebook pages
video
7 YouTube creators

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
386 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Post-exercise branched chain amino acid supplementation does not affect recovery markers following three consecutive high intensity resistance training bouts compared to carbohydrate supplementation
Published in
Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition, April 2022
DOI 10.1186/s12970-016-0142-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wesley C. Kephart, Petey W. Mumford, Anna E. McCloskey, A. Maleah Holland, Joshua J. Shake, C. Brooks Mobley, Adam E. Jagodinsky, Wendi H. Weimar, Gretchen D. Oliver, Kaelin C. Young, Jordan R. Moon, Michael D. Roberts

Abstract

Amino acid supplementation has been shown to potentially reduced exercise-induced muscle soreness. Thus, the purpose of this study was to examine if branched chain amino acid and carbohydrate (BCAACHO) versus carbohydrate-only sports drink (CHO) supplementation attenuated markers of muscle damage while preserving performance markers following 3 days of intense weight training. Healthy resistance-trained males (n = 30) performed preliminary testing (T1) whereby they: 1) donated a baseline blood draw, 2) performed knee extensor dynamometry to obtain peak quadriceps isometric and isokinetic torque as well as electromyography (EMG) activity at 60°/s and 120°/s, and 3) performed a one repetition maximum (1RM) barbell back squat. The following week participants performed 10 sets x 5 repetitions at 80 % of their 1RM barbell back squat for 3 consecutive days and 48 h following the third lifting bout participants returned for (T2) testing whereby they repeated the T1 battery. Immediately following and 24 h after the three lifting bouts, participants were randomly assigned to consume one of two commercial products in 600 mL of tap water: 1) BCAAs and CHO (3 g/d L-leucine, 1 g/d L-isoleucine and 2 g/d L-valine with 2 g of CHO; n = 15), or 2) 42 g of CHO only (n = 15). Additionally, venous blood was drawn 24 h following the first and second lifting bouts and 48 h following the third bout to assess serum myoglobin concentrations, and a visual analog scale was utilized prior, during, and after the 3-d protocol to measure subjective perceptions of muscular soreness. There were similar decrements in 1RM squat strength and isokinetic peak torque measures in the BCAA-CHO and CHO groups. Serum myoglobin concentrations (p = 0.027) and perceived muscle soreness (p < 0.001) increased over the intervention regardless of supplementation. A group*time interaction was observed for monocyte percentages (p = 0.01) whereby BCAA-CHO supplementation attenuated increases in this variable over the duration of the protocol compared to CHO supplementation. BCAA-CHO supplementation did not reduce decrements in lower body strength or improve select markers of muscle damage/soreness compared to CHO supplementation over three consecutive days of intense lower-body training.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 50 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 386 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Poland 2 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Unknown 382 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 68 18%
Student > Master 54 14%
Student > Postgraduate 29 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 6%
Researcher 21 5%
Other 69 18%
Unknown 122 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 92 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 48 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 43 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 19 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 17 4%
Other 33 9%
Unknown 134 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 83. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 October 2023.
All research outputs
#505,963
of 25,152,132 outputs
Outputs from Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition
#155
of 940 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,374
of 436,910 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition
#148
of 850 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,152,132 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 940 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 63.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 436,910 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 850 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.