ArticleNutrients2025
Impact of Protein Intake on Training Response in Chronic Lung Disease.
Article in Nutrients, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesLoss of muscle strength and mass is common in patients with chronic lung disease (CLD) and contributes to functional decline. Resistance training and adequate protein intake improve muscle function in healthy adults, but data for this patient population are limited.
methodsIn this prospective, non-randomized controlled study, 16 patients with CLD (51-85 years) participated in three six-week intervention phases: phase 1-usual diet, phase 2-daily protein intake according to recommendations (1.2-1.5 g/kg bodyweight), and phase 3-additional protein supplementation immediately after training. Combined strength and endurance training was performed throughout the entire intervention period. The main outcome was maximum strength and body fat, while secondary outcomes included physical capacity, weight, activity, and quality of life (QoL). Data were analyzed using linear mixed-effect models to evaluate interaction effects between time points and phases with an intention-to-treat analysis.
resultsIn the patients' usual diets, daily protein intake was below the recommended levels; during the intervention, protein intake increased significantly but did not reach the recommended target range. Maximum strength was increased marginally significantly by 4.6 kg during the intervention time without an interaction effect. Body fat reduction was significantly modeled using the interaction effect, whereas body weight remained unchanged. These enhancements are remarkable given that the training intensity was very low (less than once weekly), and protein consumption was below recommended levels.
conclusionsTargeted resistance training, combined with increased protein intake, led to measurable improvements in strength and body composition. These findings demonstrate that low-effort interventions can be implemented in real-life settings, providing a practical strategy to improve strength (a significant prognostic indicator) and increase protein consumption among this vulnerable population.
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.