When it comes to building muscle, not all dietary proteins are created equal, recent research conducted by the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences in the US has found.
A study concluded that 100 percent ground beef packs a bigger punch for muscle protein synthesis than a soy-based alternative. In fact, findings suggested that a human would need double the amount of soy-based protein to achieve the same results.
The study, published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, examined the anabolic response -how the body builds muscle – after consuming a 120 gram beef pattie versus one or two 120 gram patties of a popular soy-based pattie product. The results showed that just one serving of beef did the job, while two servings of the soy-based Impossible burger alternative were necessary to see the same muscle-building benefits.
For those counting calories, the difference is striking: Beef delivered these results with fewer calories — 279 compared to 462 for the soy alternative.
“While both beef and soy are considered ‘complete’ proteins, the amino acids in beef are simply more available for the muscle to use efficiently,” the study’s principal investigator Dr Robert Wolfe, a UAMS professor of geriatrics said.
“This efficiency can be important since the body is in a constant state of protein turnover to rebuild and repair proteins for functional health, especially when combined with physical activity and as part of healthy development and aging,” he said.
The study is part of a growing body of evidence highlighting the importance of quality protein for muscle health, especially as humans grow older.
Muscle mass plays a key role in maintaining strength, balance and the ability to age independently. For older adults, optimising muscle health through diet and exercise can make a big difference in quality of life.
“Protein quality matters, as much as quantity,” Dr Wolfe said. “This research underscores the fact that foods like nutrient-rich ground beef can offer more muscle-building benefits, and that’s critical as people make dietary choices, especially when balancing calorie intake.”
The UAMS study was conducted on 24 healthy adults aged from 18 to 40, who were randomly assigned to consume one of the three test meals — one 120g 100pc ground beef pattie (80CL, meaning 80pc lean, 20pc fat); one 120g Impossible plant-based pattie built on soy; or two Impossible patties.
For the technically minded, the research group noted in discussion that the measurement of the response of whole-body protein kinetics to dietary protein consumption was not without controversy.
“The controversial issue is how to account for the contribution of the exogenous (external cause or origin) protein to the endogenous (internal cause or origin) amino acid flux representative of protein breakdown,” they said.
“Our approach assumes the contribution of exogenous protein is equal to the amount of protein ingested, corrected for true digestibility. Because the digestibility of beef and soy protein is high and similar, it is unlikely our assumption had a significant impact on the comparative results between the two protein food sources.”
“Most importantly, the exogenous contribution to amino acid flux is only relevant for the calculation of protein breakdown and net balance. The rate of whole-body protein synthesis does not distinguish the origin of the amino acid tracee and is calculated the same for all tracer infusion methods,” researchers said.
“Thus, our observation that whole-body protein synthesis increased after beef consumption compared to soy is independent of the tracer method employed.”
Researchers disclosed that the project was financially supported by a grant from the US National Cattleman’s Beef Association, however NCBA had no role in the design, execution, interpretation, or writing of the study.
Source: Applied Sciences
HAVE YOUR SAY