ReviewNutrition & metabolism2025
Food matrix in the context of muscle and whole-body protein synthesis: a scoping review.
Review in Nutrition & metabolism, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUnderstanding the impact of food matrix, the combination of nutrients, bioactive compounds, and physical characteristics in a food product, on muscle protein synthesis (MPS), could provide insights on how to use different meals to promote muscle anabolism. The aim of this review was to explore the impact of the food matrix on MPS or whole-body PS.
methodsPubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane library were searched from inception until January 2024. A narrative synthesis was employed to synthesize the findings and the quality of the studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias 2 tool for randomised trials (RoB 2). The study's protocol was registered in PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews; CRD42024503306).
resultsOnly one study was eligible to be included in this review. MPS was 0.035 ± 0.004 %/hr in the minced beef group vs. 0.034 ± 0.003 %/hr in beef steak, postprandially, showing no significant differences between groups. Increased whole-body PS response was observed after the consumption of minced beef compared to beef steak (29 ± 2 mmol phenylalanine/kg vs. 19 ± 3 mmol phenylalanine/kg, respectively; P < 0.01). The overall risk of bias was considered low.
conclusionsFuture studies should use food products with identical nutrient composition to evaluate the influence of the food matrix on MPS and whole-body PS, considering that current trials have primarily focused on ensuring similar protein intakes across study arms.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
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.