Vicia faba Peptide Network Supplementation Does Not Differ From Milk Protein in Modulating Changes in Muscle Size During Short-Term Immobilization and Subsequent Remobilization, but Increases Muscle Protein Synthesis Rates During Remobilization in Healthy Young Men.

Background: Muscle mass and strength decrease during short periods of immobilization and slowly recover during remobilization. Recent artificial intelligence applications have identified peptides that appear to possess anabolic properties in in vitro assays and murine models.

Objectives: This study aimed to compare the impact of Vicia faba peptide network compared with milk protein supplementation on muscle mass and strength loss during limb immobilization and regain during remobilization.

Methods: Thirty young (24 ± 5 y) men were subjected to 7 d of one-legged knee immobilization followed by 14 d of ambulant recovery. Participants were randomly allocated to ingest either 10 g of the Vicia faba peptide network (NPN_1; n = 15) or an isonitrogenous control (milk protein concentrate; MPC; n = 15) twice daily throughout the study. Single-slice computed tomography scans were performed to assess quadriceps cross-sectional area (CSA). Deuterium oxide ingestion and muscle biopsy sampling were applied to measure myofibrillar protein synthesis rates.

Results: Leg immobilization decreased quadriceps CSA (primary outcome) from 81.9 ± 10.6 to 76.5 ± 9.2 cm and from 74.8 ± 10.6 to 71.5 ± 9.8 cm in the NPN_1 and MPC groups, respectively (P < 0.001). Remobilization partially recovered quadriceps CSA (77.3 ± 9.3 and 72.6 ± 10.0 cm, respectively; P = 0.009), with no differences between the groups (P > 0.05). During immobilization, myofibrillar protein synthesis rates (secondary outcome) were lower in the immobilized leg (1.07% ± 0.24% and 1.10% ± 0.24%/d, respectively) than in the non-immobilized leg (1.55% ± 0.27% and 1.52% ± 0.20%/d, respectively; P < 0.001), with no differences between the groups (P > 0.05). During remobilization, myofibrillar protein synthesis rates in the immobilized leg were greater with NPN_1 than those with MPC (1.53% ± 0.38% vs. 1.23% ± 0.36%/d, respectively; P = 0.027).

Conclusion: NPN_1 supplementation does not differ from milk protein in modulating the loss of muscle size during short-term immobilization and the regain during remobilization in young men. NPN_1 supplementation does not differ from milk protein supplementation in modulating the myofibrillar protein synthesis rates during immobilization but further increases myofibrillar protein synthesis rates during remobilization.