↓ Skip to main content

Novel essential amino acid supplements enriched with L-leucine facilitate increased protein and energy intakes in older women: a randomised controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Nutrition Journal, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
23 X users
patent
1 patent
facebook
1 Facebook page
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
102 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
Novel essential amino acid supplements enriched with L-leucine facilitate increased protein and energy intakes in older women: a randomised controlled trial
Published in
Nutrition Journal, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12937-017-0298-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Theocharis Ispoglou, Kevin Deighton, Roderick FGJ King, Helen White, Matthew Lees

Abstract

Inadequate protein intake (PI), containing a sub-optimal source of essential amino acids (EAAs), and reduced appetite are contributing factors to age-related sarcopenia. The satiating effects of dietary protein per se may negatively affect energy intake (EI), thus there is a need to explore alternative strategies to facilitate PI without compromising appetite and subsequent EI. Older women completed two experiments (EXP1 and EXP2) where they consumed either a Bar (565 kJ), a Gel (477 kJ), both rich in EAAs (7.5 g, 40% L-leucine), or nothing (Control). In EXP1, participants (n = 10, 68 ± 5 years, mean ± SD) consumed Bar, Gel or Control with appetite sensations and appetite-related hormonal responses monitored for one hour, followed by consumption of an ad libitum breakfast (ALB). In EXP2, participants (n = 11, 69 ± 5 years) ingested Bar, Gel or Control alongside an ALB. In EXP1, EI at ALB was not different (P = 0.674) between conditions (1179 ± 566, 1254 ± 511, 1206 ± 550 kJ for the Control, Bar, and Gel respectively). However, total EI was significantly higher in the Bar and Gel compared to the Control after accounting for the energy content of the supplements (P < 0.0005). Analysis revealed significantly higher appetite Area under the Curve (AUC) (P < 0.007), a tendency for higher acylated ghrelin AUC (P = 0.087), and significantly lower pancreatic polypeptide AUC (P = 0.02) in the Control compared with the Bar and Gel. In EXP2, EI at ALB was significantly higher (P = 0.028) in the Control (1282 ± 513 kJ) compared to the Bar (1026 ± 565 kJ) and Gel (1064 ± 495 kJ). However, total EI was significantly higher in the Bar and Gel after accounting for the energy content of the supplements (P < 0.007). Supplementation with either the Bar or Gel increased total energy intake whether consumed one hour before or during breakfast. This may represent an effective nutritional means for addressing protein and total energy deficiencies in older women. Clinical trial register: retrospectively registered, ISRCTN12977929 on.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 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 102 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 102 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 16 16%
Student > Master 14 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 14%
Researcher 7 7%
Lecturer 6 6%
Other 16 16%
Unknown 29 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 19 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Other 9 9%
Unknown 37 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 04 October 2022.
All research outputs
#1,948,755
of 25,208,845 outputs
Outputs from Nutrition Journal
#479
of 1,504 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,677
of 451,408 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nutrition Journal
#8
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,208,845 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,504 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 39.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 451,408 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.