Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33670701›Full record

SynthesisNutrients2021

Animal Protein versus Plant Protein in Supporting Lean Mass and Muscle Strength: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Meng Thiam Lim, Bernice Jiaqi Pan, Darel Wee Kiat Toh, Clarinda Nataria Sutanto, Jung Eun Kim

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Nutrients, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05482997 (Athlete Whey Protein Sensitivity), which is not on this map. Cited by 86 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
86citing papers in PubMed, 12 pooled it
10.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT05482997 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

Athlete Whey Protein Sensitivity: Prevalence and Performance

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of the Incarnate WordRan2023 to 2023Enrolled36ConditionsFood IntoleranceArmsWhey Protein Concentrate, Pea Protein Isolate, Rice Protein Concentrate, Hemp Protein
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

86 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 148 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

26 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Meng Thiam LimDepartment of Food Science & Technology, National University of Singapore, 3 Science Drive 3, Singapore 117543, Singapore.
Bernice Jiaqi PanDepartment of Food Science & Technology, National University of Singapore, 3 Science Drive 3, Singapore 117543, Singapore.
Darel Wee Kiat TohDepartment of Food Science & Technology, National University of Singapore, 3 Science Drive 3, Singapore 117543, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0003-1608-0669
Clarinda Nataria SutantoDepartment of Food Science & Technology, National University of Singapore, 3 Science Drive 3, Singapore 117543, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0002-7198-2713
Jung Eun KimDepartment of Food Science & Technology, National University of Singapore, 3 Science Drive 3, Singapore 117543, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0002-3912-9042
National University of Singapore · SG

Funding

National University of Singapore R160-000-A03-133National University of Singapore Mind Science Centre R160-000-A62-720
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although animal protein is usually considered to be a more potent stimulator of muscle protein synthesis than plant protein, the effect of protein source on lean mass and muscle strength needs to be systematically reviewed. This study aimed to examine potential differences in the effect of animal vs. plant protein on lean mass and muscle strength, and the possible influence of resistance exercise training (RET) and age. The following databases were searched: PubMed, Embase, Scopus and CINAHL Plus with Full Text, and 3081 articles were screened. A total of 18 articles were selected for systematic review, of which, 16 were used for meta-analysis. Total protein intakes were generally above the recommended dietary allowance at the baseline and end of intervention. Results from the meta-analyses demonstrated that protein source did not affect changes in absolute lean mass or muscle strength. However, there was a favoring effect of animal protein on percent lean mass. RET had no influence on the results, while younger adults (<50 years) were found to gain absolute and percent lean mass with animal protein intake (weighted mean difference (WMD), 0.41 kg; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.08 to 0.74; WMD 0.50%; 95% CI 0.00 to 1.01). Collectively, animal protein tends to be more beneficial for lean mass than plant protein, especially in younger adults.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAge FactorsAnimal Proteins, DietaryFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMuscle, SkeletalMuscle StrengthNutritional Physiological PhenomenaPlant Proteins, DietaryRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResistance TrainingAnimal Proteins, DietaryPlant Proteins, Dietarybody compositionmuscle massmuscular strengthprotein source

Identifiers

PMID33670701
PMCPMC7926405
OpenAlexW3133188974

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.