All provided informed written consent to participate Eltanexor manufacturer in the study, which was approved

by the Saint Louis University Institutional Review Board. All data were coded and protected to meet the standards for confidentiality for all subjects. Study Design This was an observational study in which the measured protein PD0332991 order intake and perceived protein needs were evaluated and compared to the RDI for protein intake and to the maximum beneficial level of protein intake for athletes. Subject Characteristics Height, weight and age were self-reported. Body mass index (BMI) was calculated from height and weight in kg/m2. Body Composition Chest, abdomen, and thigh skinfold thicknesses were measured with a Lange callipers by using standard methodology as published elsewhere [7]. Each site was measured 3 times or more until 3 measures at a given site were within 0.1 mm. The Jackson and Pollock 3-site equation was used to calculate body density. The Brozek equation was used to calculate lean body mass

(LBM) and percentage body fat [7]. Perceived Protein Needs Subjects were asked to complete a protein survey and a protein menu selection to assess perceived protein needs. The protein survey was used to identify the athletes’ LY2109761 purchase perception of protein needs by asking the subjects to list, in g/kg/d, g/lb/d and % daily calories, “”how much protein do you think you need to get the biggest benefit from your training program and to get the best performance in your sport?”" Subjects were presented with the option of selecting “”do not know”". The survey also assessed subjects’ seasonal changes in protein intake and frequency, intensity, type and time for endurance and strength-trained this website activities using self-reported answers including the Borg Scale for rating of perceived exertion. It was anticipated that many athletes would not be able to report a specific value for protein intake (i.e. g/kg/d or % total energy intake) to reflect their perceptions about protein needs. However, it seemed likely that most would

be able to look at a menu of specific food items and indicate if they believed that the menu had adequate protein to meet their needs. Therefore, subjects were asked to review 5 menus that represented isoenergetic diets but varied in terms of protein levels (0.8 g/kg/d, 1.42 g/kg/d, 2.0 g/kg/d, 4.0 g/kg/d, 5.0-6.0 g/kg/d). Subjects were blinded to the actual amount of protein. Each of the protein menus only listed specific foods and their serving sizes and provided the option to add in a protein supplement. Menu sets were available at 3 calorie levels (3100 kcal/d, 3500 kcal/d, 3800 kcal/d). Each subject received the menu set that corresponded most closely to their estimated energy needs, as estimated using published equations [8]. The subjects were instructed to select one of the 5 menus that they perceived would meet their protein needs during their highest level of training.