3 ± 5.5 <0.001 0.250 0.350 411.7 ± 8.8 <0.001 0.014 0.903 EX(+) 342.0 ± 7.2 354.1 ± 8.5 Collagen(+) EX(-) 391.0 ± 8.5 391.5 ± 5.4 EX(+) 340.5 ± 7.3 335.7 ± 8.7 Body weight gain (g/d)                   Collagen(-) EX(-) 4.0 ± 0.1 <0.001 0.189 0.259 4.1 ± 0.1 <0.001 0.006 0.758 EX(+) 3.1 ± 0.1 3.2 ± 0.1 Collagen(+) EX(-) 3.7 ± 0.1 3.7 ± 0.1 EX(+) 3.0 ± 0.1 3.0 ± 0.1 Food intake (g/d)                   Collagen(-) EX(-) 20.9 ± 0.2 <0.001 0.215 0.147 19.9 ± 0.2** <0.001 0.019 0.712 EX(+) 18.2 ± 0.4 17.9 ± 0.3 Collagen(+) EX(-) 20.2 ± 0.2 19.3 ± 0.2** EX(+) 18.3 ± 0.3

17.5 ± 0.12* Food efficiency1                   PD98059 research buy Collagen(-) EX(-) 0.19 ± 0.00 <0.001 0.224 0.784 0.20 ± 0.00** <0.001 0.028 0.926 EX(+) 0.17 ± 0.00 0.18 ± 0.00* Collagen(+) EX(-) 0.18 ± 0.01 0.19 ± 0.00   EX(+) 0.16 ± 0.00 PI3K Inhibitor Library screening       0.17 ± 0.01       1Food efficiency was calculated by Body weight gain (g/d)/Food intake (g/d). EX(−): sedentary group, EX(+): exercise group. Values are expressed as means ± SE. Data were analyzed

by two-way ANOVA at the 5% level of significance. Interaction means Exercise-Collagen interaction. *p < 0.05 and *p < 0.01 vs. respective 20% protein group. BMC Exercise and dietary HC effects were obtained in the adjusted BMC of lumbar spine, tibia proximal metaphysis, and tibia diaphysis among the 20% protein groups (p < 0.001 for exercise, p < 0.05 for dietary HC, respectively). These adjusted BMC values were significantly higher in the exercise groups than those in the sedentary groups, and were also significantly higher in the HC groups than those in the casein groups. Among the 40% protein groups, similar results were obtained except for tibia diaphysis (p < 0.01 for exercise; p < 0.05 for dietary HC, respectively) (Figure  1). There were no differences between the 20% protein groups and the 40% protein groups. Figure 1 Adjusted bone mineral content of lumbar spine, tibia proximal metaphysis, and tibia diaphysis. Bone mineral content of lumbar spine (A), tibia proximal metaphysis (B) and tibia diaphysis

(C) adjusted to the 100 g body weight. The lumbar spine and tibia of each rat were isolated by dissection, and muscle and connective tissue were carefully removed. BMC was then measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Vertical bars indicate the standard error. p value indicates statistical significant difference among dietary PTK6 protein groups. Femoral weights and length Exercise and dietary HC effects were obtained in the adjusted wet weight and dry weight of femur among the 20% protein groups (p < 0.001, p < 0.01 for exercise; p < 0.01, p < 0.001 for dietary HC, respectively). In the adjusted ash weight, exercise effect was obtained among the 20% protein groups (p < 0.001). Among the 40% protein groups, similar results were obtained for exercise (p < 0.001, respectively) and for dietary HC (p < 0.01, p < 0.001, p < 0.01, respectively) (Table  3). There were no differences between the 20% protein groups and the 40% protein groups.