Search

Background: Although experimental research supports that resistance training (RT), especially with greater dietary protein intake, improves muscle mass and strength in older adults, comparable research on tendons is needed., Objectives: We assessed the effects of a protein-rich diet emphasizing lean beef, compared with 2 control diets, on RT-induced changes in skeletal muscle and tendon size and strength in older women., Methods: We randomly assigned women [age: 66 ± 1 y, body mass index (BMI): 28 ± 1] to groups that consumed 1) 0.8 g total protein/kg body weight/day from mixed food sources (normal protein control, n = 16); 2) 1.4 g/kg/d protein from mixed food sources (high protein control, n = 17); or 3) 1.4 g/kg/d protein emphasizing unprocessed lean beef (high protein experimental group, n = 16). Participants were provided with all foods and performed RT 3 times/wk, 70% of 1-repetition maximum for 12 wk. We measured quadriceps muscle volume via magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). We estimated patellar tendon biomechanical properties and cross-sectional area (CSA) using ultrasound and MRI., Results: Dietary intake did not influence RT-induced increases in quadriceps strength (P < 0.0001) or muscle volume (P < 0.05). We noted a trend for an RT effect on mean tendon CSA (P = 0.07), with no differences among diets (P > 0.05). Proximal tendon CSA increased with RT (P < 0.05) with no difference between dietary groups (P > 0.05). Among all participants, midtendon CSA increased with RT (P ≤ 0.05). We found a decrease in distal CSA in the 0.8 g group (P < 0.05) but no change in the 1.4 g group (P > 0.05). Patellar tendon MRI signal or biomechanical properties were unchanged., Conclusions: Our findings indicated that greater daily protein intake, emphasizing beef, did not influence RT-induced changes in quadriceps muscle strength or muscle volume of older women. Although we noted trends in tendon CSA, we did not find a statistically significant impact of greater daily protein intake from beef on tendon outcomes. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT04347447., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest During the time this research was conducted, WWC received funding for research from NIH, USDA, Beef Checkoff, Foundation for Meat and Poultry Research and Education, Pork Checkoff, North Dakota Beef Commission, Barilla Group, Mushroom Council, National Chicken Council, and the Whey Protein Research Consortium. All other authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Sexual minority men (SMM) face persistent stigma in Zambia. From a holistic perspective, we aim to explore its impacts within and between multiple socioecological levels, demonstrating how their interactions create a vicious cycle of barriers to the well-being of SMM. In-depth interviews were conducted with 20 purposively recruited SMM from Lusaka, Zambia. All interviews were audio-recorded, after written consent, transcribed verbatim, and iteratively coded employing inductive (i.e., data-driven) approaches for thematic analysis using NVivo. Results suggest three key themes: (1) interpersonal socially perpetuated sexual minority stigma (SMS); (2) multidirectional interactions between psychosocial well-being and risk-taking behaviors; and (3) institutionally perpetuated SMS as a barrier to seeking and receiving health care. SMS permeates across all levels of the socioecological model to negatively impact the psychosocial well-being of SMM while acting also as a barrier to accessing HIV prevention and care. Our study necessitates structural public health intervention to decrease stigma and discrimination against SMM in Zambia, in efforts to increase their psychosocial well-being as well as their access to and utilization of HIV care by breaking the vicious cycle of SMS that pervades through the intrapersonal, interpersonal, and institutional levels of the socioecological model., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.