Effects of pork protein ingestion prior to and following performing the army combat fitness test: markers of performance

Background Military personnel engaged in intense activities must consume enough quality protein in their diet to maintain protein balance and promote recovery. Plant-based proteins are considered lower-quality protein sources than animal proteins due to their lower amount of essential amino acids (E...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Kelly Hines, Hudson Lee, Sarah E. Johnson, Adriana Gil, Nicolas D. Barringer, Christopher J. Rasmussen, Ryan Sowinski, Drew E. Gonzalez, Richard B. Kreider
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Taylor & Francis Group 2025-09-01
Series:Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/10.1080/15502783.2025.2550150
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1849227079734788096
author Kelly Hines
Hudson Lee
Sarah E. Johnson
Adriana Gil
Nicolas D. Barringer
Christopher J. Rasmussen
Ryan Sowinski
Drew E. Gonzalez
Richard B. Kreider
author_facet Kelly Hines
Hudson Lee
Sarah E. Johnson
Adriana Gil
Nicolas D. Barringer
Christopher J. Rasmussen
Ryan Sowinski
Drew E. Gonzalez
Richard B. Kreider
author_sort Kelly Hines
collection DOAJ
description Background Military personnel engaged in intense activities must consume enough quality protein in their diet to maintain protein balance and promote recovery. Plant-based proteins are considered lower-quality protein sources than animal proteins due to their lower amount of essential amino acids (EAA) and only containing trace amounts of creatine. The purpose of this study was to determine whether ingestion of military-style meals-ready-to-eat (MREs) containing plant-based (Plant) or pork-based (Pork) sources or protein would affect recovery after the Army Combat Fitness Test (ACFT).Methods Twenty-three (n = 23) Corps of Cadets members participated in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, and crossover-designed study where they consumed Plant or Pork protein containing MREs. On testing days, participants donated a blood sample and consumed a pre-exercise meal on testing days. After four hours, participants performed the ACFT. Participants were then fed 3 MREs daily containing ≈ 1,250 kcals, 145 g carbohydrate, 45 g protein, 60 g fat, providing 1.7 g/kg/d of protein. Plant-based MREs contained 15.2 g/d (0.20 g/kg/d) of EAA and 0.215 g/d (0.003 g/kg/d of creatine) compared to 22.9 g/d (0.31 g/kg/d) of EAA and 1.82 g/d (0.024 g/kg/d) of creatine in the pork-based MREs. Participants returned to the lab in a fasted condition at 0600 after 24, 48, and 72 hours of recovery while being fed 3 MREs daily and having markers of recovery assessed. On day 3, participants repeated the ACFT four hours after consuming an MRE. Data were analyzed using general linear model statistics and percentage changes from baseline with 95% confidence intervals.Results Univariate analysis revealed no significant interaction effects (p > 0.05) between treatments in performance variables. However, the percentage change from baseline analysis showed that participants improved hand-release push-up repetitions (Pork 5.0% [1.1, 8.9], p = 0.013; Plant 5.4% [1.5, 9.3], p = 0.007) and plank test time (Pork 18.8% [4.7, 32.9], p = 0.010; Plant 14.8% [0.6, 28.9], p = 0.041). Two-mile run times were faster with the Plant (−3.8% [−6.4, −1.1], p = 0.006), while non-significantly decreased with Pork (−2.0% [−4.7, 0.6], p = 0.125). Total ACFT score values (Pork 22.9 [5.9, 39.9], p = 0.009; Plant 12.9 [−4.1, 29.9], p = 0.134) increased from baseline with Pork (see Figure 1).Conclusion Results provide some evidence that the protein quality of the MREs can affect recovery and performance from intense military-style exercise. MREs should contain high-quality protein sources or be supplemented with 6–10 g/d of EAA and 2–3 g/d of creatine monohydrate to offset dietary deficiencies, particularly in military personnel following a plant-based diet. Registered clinical trial #ISRCTN47322504.
format Article
id doaj-art-62301699446945898b1ee5acb8ee9d22
institution Kabale University
issn 1550-2783
language English
publishDate 2025-09-01
publisher Taylor & Francis Group
record_format Article
series Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition
spelling doaj-art-62301699446945898b1ee5acb8ee9d222025-08-24T03:36:12ZengTaylor & Francis GroupJournal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition1550-27832025-09-0122sup210.1080/15502783.2025.2550150Effects of pork protein ingestion prior to and following performing the army combat fitness test: markers of performanceKelly Hines0Hudson Lee1Sarah E. Johnson2Adriana Gil3Nicolas D. Barringer4Christopher J. Rasmussen5Ryan Sowinski6Drew E. Gonzalez7Richard B. Kreider8Texas A&M University, Exercise & Sport Nutrition Lab, Department of Kinesiology and Sport Management, College Station, TX, USATexas A&M University, Exercise & Sport Nutrition Lab, Department of Kinesiology and Sport Management, College Station, TX, USATexas A&M University, Exercise & Sport Nutrition Lab, Department of Kinesiology and Sport Management, College Station, TX, USATexas A&M University, Exercise & Sport Nutrition Lab, Department of Kinesiology and Sport Management, College Station, TX, USAGraduate School, Lionel University, Carpinteria, CA, USATexas A&M University, Exercise & Sport Nutrition Lab, Department of Kinesiology and Sport Management, College Station, TX, USATexas A&M University, Exercise & Sport Nutrition Lab, Department of Kinesiology and Sport Management, College Station, TX, USATexas A&M University, Exercise & Sport Nutrition Lab, Department of Kinesiology and Sport Management, College Station, TX, USATexas A&M University, Exercise & Sport Nutrition Lab, Department of Kinesiology and Sport Management, College Station, TX, USABackground Military personnel engaged in intense activities must consume enough quality protein in their diet to maintain protein balance and promote recovery. Plant-based proteins are considered lower-quality protein sources than animal proteins due to their lower amount of essential amino acids (EAA) and only containing trace amounts of creatine. The purpose of this study was to determine whether ingestion of military-style meals-ready-to-eat (MREs) containing plant-based (Plant) or pork-based (Pork) sources or protein would affect recovery after the Army Combat Fitness Test (ACFT).Methods Twenty-three (n = 23) Corps of Cadets members participated in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, and crossover-designed study where they consumed Plant or Pork protein containing MREs. On testing days, participants donated a blood sample and consumed a pre-exercise meal on testing days. After four hours, participants performed the ACFT. Participants were then fed 3 MREs daily containing ≈ 1,250 kcals, 145 g carbohydrate, 45 g protein, 60 g fat, providing 1.7 g/kg/d of protein. Plant-based MREs contained 15.2 g/d (0.20 g/kg/d) of EAA and 0.215 g/d (0.003 g/kg/d of creatine) compared to 22.9 g/d (0.31 g/kg/d) of EAA and 1.82 g/d (0.024 g/kg/d) of creatine in the pork-based MREs. Participants returned to the lab in a fasted condition at 0600 after 24, 48, and 72 hours of recovery while being fed 3 MREs daily and having markers of recovery assessed. On day 3, participants repeated the ACFT four hours after consuming an MRE. Data were analyzed using general linear model statistics and percentage changes from baseline with 95% confidence intervals.Results Univariate analysis revealed no significant interaction effects (p > 0.05) between treatments in performance variables. However, the percentage change from baseline analysis showed that participants improved hand-release push-up repetitions (Pork 5.0% [1.1, 8.9], p = 0.013; Plant 5.4% [1.5, 9.3], p = 0.007) and plank test time (Pork 18.8% [4.7, 32.9], p = 0.010; Plant 14.8% [0.6, 28.9], p = 0.041). Two-mile run times were faster with the Plant (−3.8% [−6.4, −1.1], p = 0.006), while non-significantly decreased with Pork (−2.0% [−4.7, 0.6], p = 0.125). Total ACFT score values (Pork 22.9 [5.9, 39.9], p = 0.009; Plant 12.9 [−4.1, 29.9], p = 0.134) increased from baseline with Pork (see Figure 1).Conclusion Results provide some evidence that the protein quality of the MREs can affect recovery and performance from intense military-style exercise. MREs should contain high-quality protein sources or be supplemented with 6–10 g/d of EAA and 2–3 g/d of creatine monohydrate to offset dietary deficiencies, particularly in military personnel following a plant-based diet. Registered clinical trial #ISRCTN47322504.https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/10.1080/15502783.2025.2550150Mresprotein sourcerecoverymilitary fitness
spellingShingle Kelly Hines
Hudson Lee
Sarah E. Johnson
Adriana Gil
Nicolas D. Barringer
Christopher J. Rasmussen
Ryan Sowinski
Drew E. Gonzalez
Richard B. Kreider
Effects of pork protein ingestion prior to and following performing the army combat fitness test: markers of performance
Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition
Mres
protein source
recovery
military fitness
title Effects of pork protein ingestion prior to and following performing the army combat fitness test: markers of performance
title_full Effects of pork protein ingestion prior to and following performing the army combat fitness test: markers of performance
title_fullStr Effects of pork protein ingestion prior to and following performing the army combat fitness test: markers of performance
title_full_unstemmed Effects of pork protein ingestion prior to and following performing the army combat fitness test: markers of performance
title_short Effects of pork protein ingestion prior to and following performing the army combat fitness test: markers of performance
title_sort effects of pork protein ingestion prior to and following performing the army combat fitness test markers of performance
topic Mres
protein source
recovery
military fitness
url https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/10.1080/15502783.2025.2550150
work_keys_str_mv AT kellyhines effectsofporkproteiningestionpriortoandfollowingperformingthearmycombatfitnesstestmarkersofperformance
AT hudsonlee effectsofporkproteiningestionpriortoandfollowingperformingthearmycombatfitnesstestmarkersofperformance
AT sarahejohnson effectsofporkproteiningestionpriortoandfollowingperformingthearmycombatfitnesstestmarkersofperformance
AT adrianagil effectsofporkproteiningestionpriortoandfollowingperformingthearmycombatfitnesstestmarkersofperformance
AT nicolasdbarringer effectsofporkproteiningestionpriortoandfollowingperformingthearmycombatfitnesstestmarkersofperformance
AT christopherjrasmussen effectsofporkproteiningestionpriortoandfollowingperformingthearmycombatfitnesstestmarkersofperformance
AT ryansowinski effectsofporkproteiningestionpriortoandfollowingperformingthearmycombatfitnesstestmarkersofperformance
AT drewegonzalez effectsofporkproteiningestionpriortoandfollowingperformingthearmycombatfitnesstestmarkersofperformance
AT richardbkreider effectsofporkproteiningestionpriortoandfollowingperformingthearmycombatfitnesstestmarkersofperformance