TAP reading note: The anabolic response to protein ingestion during recovery from exercise has no upper limit in magnitude and duration in vivo in humans
After one resistance-exercise bout, 100 g of milk protein produced a larger and more prolonged protein-synthesis response than 25 g over the 12-hour observation. This challenges a fixed 20–30 g utilization ceiling under those conditions.
Updated 2026-11-13 · Archived
The scientific content and references belong to this edition. The complete captured record is available to download below; later corrections appear in subsequent editions. Website design and interactive software are not archived here.
What the study found
After one resistance-exercise bout, 100 g of milk protein produced a larger and more prolonged protein-synthesis response than 25 g over the 12-hour observation. This challenges a fixed 20–30 g utilization ceiling under those conditions.
Scope & limitations
36 healthy, recreationally active young men, randomized to 0, 25 or 100 g of milk protein; 12 per group.
Only three doses, one exercise bout and a 12-hour window were tested. The title’s “no upper limit” should not be read as proof of unlimited benefit, an optimal meal size or long-term safety. There was no matched-total comparison of one 100 g dose versus four 25 g meals, and no months-long growth or strength outcome.
Population & sample
36 healthy, recreationally active young men, randomized to 0, 25 or 100 g of milk protein; 12 per group.
Exposure or intervention
Double-blind parallel trial; intrinsically labelled milk protein and intravenous stable-isotope tracers after whole-body resistance exercise.
Outcomes
Amino-acid appearance and incorporation, muscle and whole-body protein synthesis, protein balance and oxidation.
Time frame
12 hours after a single exercise bout and test drink.
Research funding
No separate study funding statement was identified in the consulted main text. The declarations state that FrieslandCampina had no role in funding, data collection, analysis or manuscript preparation.
Research conflicts of interest
Glenn A.A. van Lieshout was a FrieslandCampina employee. The paper links the Maastricht University profiles of Trommelen and van Loon for their wider career funding; those histories were not fully audited here.
Reading scope
PMC main text: design, results and key figures, limitations, participant criteria and declarations. Supplementary participant-level data were not reanalysed.
References
Publication record
TAP-RDN-0083 · v1.0 · English
Author: TAP Editorial Team ·
The Allostasis Project is founded and supported by Resilio.
Record for v1.0 · Updated
Editorial responsibility: TAP Editorial Team
Editorial note
Under the editorial responsibility of the TAP Editorial Team, this publication used AI assistance for content organization and editing.
Download detailed editorial record (JSON) ↓
How responsibilities and review are recorded ↗© The Allostasis Project. All rights reserved. Reproduction or adaptation requires separate permission, subject to applicable legal exceptions.
Download complete edition record (JSON) ↧
Record integrity & available editions
SHA-256: 3a64e8f1815659efd7d34c6e7ec9487ae0184f812833a3ef39b22ea46eaf4c9b
Captured: 2026-11-13T05:44:15.524Z
- v1.0 · 2026-11-13