Background: Ageing is associated with DNA methylation changes in all human tissues, and epigenetic markers can estimate chronological age based on DNA methylation patterns across tissues. However, the construction of the original pan‐tissue epigenetic clock did not include skeletal muscle samples and hence exhibited a strong deviation between DNA methylation and chronological age in this tissue.Methods: To address this, we developed a more accurate, muscle‐specific epigenetic clock based on the genome‐wide DNA methylation data of 682 skeletal muscle samples from 12 independent datasets (18–89 years old, 22% women, 99% Caucasian), all generated with Illumina HumanMethylation (HM) arrays (HM27, HM450, or HMEPIC). We also took advantage of the large number of samples to conduct an epigenome‐wide association study of age‐associated DNA methylation patterns in skeletal muscle.Results: The newly developed clock uses 200 cytosine‐phosphate–guanine dinucleotides to estimate chronological age in skeletal muscle, 16 of which are in common with the 353 cytosine‐phosphate–guanine dinucleotides of the pan‐tissue clock. The muscle clock outperformed the pan‐tissue clock, with a median error of only 4.6 years across datasets (vs. 13.1 years for the pan‐tissue clock, P < 0.0001) and an average correlation of ρ = 0.62 between actual and predicted age across datasets (vs. ρ = 0.51 for the pan‐tissue clock). Lastly, we identified 180 differentially methylated regions with age in skeletal muscle at a false discovery rate < 0.005. However, gene set enrichment analysis did not reveal any enrichment for gene ontologies.Conclusions: We have developed a muscle‐specific epigenetic clock that predicts age with better accuracy than the pan‐tissue clock. We implemented the muscle clock in an r package called Muscle Epigenetic Age Test available on Bioconductor to estimate epigenetic age in skeletal muscle samples. This clock may prove valuable in assessing the impact of environmental factors, such as exercise and diet, on muscle‐specific biological ageing processes.

The purpose of this study was to investigate if acute caffeine exposure via mouth-rinse improved endurance cycling time-trial performance in well-trained cyclists. It was hypothesized that caffeine exposure at the mouth would enhance endurance cycling time-trial performance. Ten well-trained male cyclists (mean± SD: 32.9 ± 7.5 years, 74.7 ± 5.3kg, 176.8 ± 5.1cm, VO_2peak = 59.8 ± 3.5ml·kg–1·min–1) completed two experimental timetrials following 24 hr of dietary and exercise standardization. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over design was employed whereby cyclists completed a time-trial in the fastest time possible, which was equivalent work to cycling at 75% of peak aerobic power output for 60 min. Cyclists were administered 25ml mouth-rinses for 10 s containing either placebo or 35mg of anhydrous caffeine eight times throughout the time-trial. Perceptual and physiological variables were recorded throughout. No significant improvement in time-trial performance was observed with caffeine (3918 ± 243s) compared with placebo mouth-rinse (3940 ± 227s). No elevation in plasma caffeine was detected due to the mouth-rinse conditions. Caffeine mouth-rinse had no significant effect on rating of perceived exertion, heart rate, rate of oxygen consumption or blood lactate concentration. Eight exposures of a 35 mg dose of caffeine at the buccal cavity for 10s does not significantly enhance endurance cycling time-trial performance, nor does it elevate plasma caffeine concentration.

Objective To determine the effects of multi-ingredient protein (MIP) supplements on resistance exercise training (RT)-induced gains in muscle mass and strength compared with protein-only (PRO) or placebo supplementation. Data sources Systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and SPORTDiscus. Eligibility criteria Randomised controlled trials with interventions including RT ≥6 weeks in duration and a MIP supplement. Design Random effects meta-analyses were conducted to determine the effect of supplementation on fat-free mass (FFM), fat mass, one-repetition maximum (1RM) upper body and 1RM lower body muscular strength. Subgroup analyses compared the efficacy of MIP supplementation relative to training status and chronological age. Results The most common MIP supplements included protein with creatine (n=17) or vitamin D (n=10). Data from 35 trials with 1387 participants showed significant (p<0.05) increases in FFM (0.80 kg (95% CI 0.44 to 1.15)), 1RM lower body (4.22 kg (95% CI 0.79 to 7.64)) and 1RM upper body (2.56 kg (95% CI 0.79 to 4.33)) where a supplement was compared with all non-MIP supplemented conditions (means (95% CI)). Subgroup analyses indicated a greater effect of MIP supplements compared with all non-MIP supplements on FFM in untrained (0.95 kg (95% CI 0.51 to 1.39), p<0.0001) and older participants (0.77 kg (95% CI 0.11 to 1.43), p=0.02); taking MIP supplements was also associated with gains in 1RM upper body (1.56 kg (95% CI 0.80 to 2.33), p=0.01) in older adults. Summary/conclusions When MIP supplements were combined with resistance exercise training, there were greater gains in FFM and strength in healthy adults than in counterparts who were supplemented with non-MIP. MIP supplements were not superior when directly compared with PRO supplements. The magnitude of effect of MIP supplements was greater (in absolute values) in untrained and elderly individuals undertaking RT than it was in trained individuals and in younger people. Trial registration number CRD42017081970.

Participation rates of masters athletes in endurance events such as long-distance triathlon and running continue to increase. Given the physical and metabolic demands of endurance training, recovery practices influence the quality of successive training sessions and, consequently, adaptations to training. Research has suggested that, after muscle-damaging endurance exercise, masters athletes experience slower recovery rates in comparison with younger, similarly trained athletes. Given that these discrepancies in recovery rates are not observed after non–muscle-damaging exercise, it is suggested that masters athletes have impairments of the protein remodeling mechanisms within skeletal muscle. The importance of postexercise protein feeding for endurance athletes is increasingly being acknowledged, and its role in creating a positive net muscle protein balance postexercise is well known. The potential benefits of postexercise protein feeding include elevating muscle protein synthesis and satellite cell activity for muscle repair and remodeling, as well as facilitating muscle glycogen resynthesis. Despite extensive investigation into age-related anabolic resistance in sedentary aging populations, little is known about how anabolic resistance affects postexercise muscle protein synthesis and thus muscle remodeling in aging athletes. Despite evidence suggesting that physical training can attenuate but not eliminate age-related anabolic resistance, masters athletes are currently recommended to consume the same postexercise dietary protein dose (approximately 20 g or 0.25 g/kg/meal) as younger athletes. Given the slower recovery rates of masters athletes after muscle-damaging exercise, which may be due to impaired muscle remodeling mechanisms, masters athletes may benefit from higher doses of postexercise dietary protein, with particular attention directed to the leucine content of the postexercise bolus.

Methods Five masters (age, 53 ± 2 yr; V˙O2max, 55.7 ± 6.9 mL·kg−1·min−1) and six younger (age, 27 ± 2 yr; V˙O2max, 62.3 ± 1.5 mL·kg−1·min−1) trained triathletes volunteered for the study. Baseline skeletal muscle and saliva were initially sampled, after which a 150-mL bolus of deuterium oxide (70%) was consumed. Participants then completed a 30-min downhill run; three 20-km cycling time trials (TT) were completed 10, 24, and 48 h after the run. Saliva was collected each morning, and skeletal muscle was again sampled 72 h after the run; both were used for MPS analysis. Diet was controlled throughout the study. Results Over 3 d, masters triathletes showed a significantly lower myofibrillar fractional synthetic rate (1.49% ± 0.12%·d−1) compared with the younger (1.70% ± 0.09%·d−1) triathletes (P = 0.009, d = 1.98). There was also a trend for masters triathletes to produce a slower cycle TT (−3.0%, d = 0.46) than younger triathletes (−1.4%, d = 0.29) at 10 h postrun in comparison with the baseline performance. The between-group comparison of change was moderate (d = 0.51), suggesting slower acute recovery among masters triathletes. Conclusions The present data show lower MPS rates in well-trained masters triathletes over 3 d of training, and this likely contributes to poorer muscle protein repair and remodeling. Furthermore, acute recovery of cycle TT performance tended to be poorer in the masters triathletes....

Postexercise nutrition is a critical component of an athlete’s recovery from training and competition. However, little is known about athletes’ postexercise dietary practices or knowledge of dietary recommendations, particularly among masters athletes. The purpose of this study was to compare and contrast the knowledge of postexercise nutritional recommendations, and typical postexercise intakes of carbohydrate and protein, between masters and younger triathletes. 182 triathletes (Male = 101, Female = 81) completed an online survey distributed by Triathlon Australia. Knowledge of postexercise nutrition recommendations for protein and carbohydrate intake were assessed as a group, and contrasted between subgroups of masters (≥50 years) and younger triathletes (≤30 years). Using dietary recall, postexercise intakes of carbohydrate and protein were examined and contrasted between masters and younger triathletes. As a group, 43.1% and 43.9% of all triathletes answered, “I don’t know” when asked to identify the recommended postexercise carbohydrate and protein intakes, respectively. Dietary analysis revealed masters triathletes consumed significantly less carbohydrate (0.7 ± 0.4 g.kg^-1) postexercise than recommended (1.0 g.kg^-1; p = .001), and in comparison with younger triathletes (1.1 ± 0.6 g.kg^-1; p = .01). Postexercise protein intakes were similar between masters (19.6 ± 13.5 g) and younger (26.4 ± 15.8 g) triathletes. However, relative to body mass, masters triathletes consumed significantly less protein (0.3 ± 0.2 g.kg^-1) than younger triathletes (0.4 ± 0.2 g.kg^-1; p = .03), and consumed significantly less energy postexercise (22.7 ± 11.7 kJ.kg^-1) than younger triathletes (37.8 ± 19.2 kJ.kg^-1; p = .01). The present data suggests triathletes have poor knowledge of recommendations for postexercise carbohydrate and protein intakes. Furthermore, low postexercise intakes of carbohydrate and protein by masters athletes may impair acute recovery.