Evidence mapPaperPMID 41931963Full record

Trial reportThe journal of nutrition, health & aging2026

Effect of a protein intervention during resistance training with varying training intensities on muscle outcomes in frail community-dwelling older adults: a randomized controlled trial.

Esmée J M Biersteker, Mohammed Benali, Jantine van den Helder, Jos Twisk, Michael Tieland, Peter J M Weijs, Josje D Schoufour

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in The journal of nutrition, health & aging, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Esmée J M BierstekerDepartment of Nutrition and Dietetics, Faculty of Health, Sport and Physical Activity, Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, Dokter Meurerlaan 8, Amsterdam, 1067 SM, the Netherlands; Amsterdam Movement Sciences Research Institute, VU University, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Electronic address: e.j.m.biersteker@hva.nl.
Mohammed BenaliDepartment of Nutrition and Dietetics, Faculty of Health, Sport and Physical Activity, Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, Dokter Meurerlaan 8, Amsterdam, 1067 SM, the Netherlands; Amsterdam Movement Sciences Research Institute, VU University, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Jantine van den HelderDepartment of Nutrition and Dietetics, Faculty of Health, Sport and Physical Activity, Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, Dokter Meurerlaan 8, Amsterdam, 1067 SM, the Netherlands; Amsterdam Movement Sciences Research Institute, VU University, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Jos TwiskAmsterdam Public Health Research Institute, VU University, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Epidemiology and Data Sciences, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Michael TielandDepartment of Nutrition and Dietetics, Faculty of Health, Sport and Physical Activity, Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, Dokter Meurerlaan 8, Amsterdam, 1067 SM, the Netherlands; Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition, School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.
Peter J M WeijsDepartment of Nutrition and Dietetics, Faculty of Health, Sport and Physical Activity, Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, Dokter Meurerlaan 8, Amsterdam, 1067 SM, the Netherlands; Amsterdam Movement Sciences Research Institute, VU University, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, VU University, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, Amsterdam University Medical Center, VU University, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Josje D SchoufourDepartment of Nutrition and Dietetics, Faculty of Health, Sport and Physical Activity, Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, Dokter Meurerlaan 8, Amsterdam, 1067 SM, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesOptimising nutritional and exercise strategies is essential to preserve muscle health and physical function in frail older adults. This study aims to investigate the effects of a protein intervention during progressive resistance training (PRT) with varying training intensities on muscle strength, muscle mass, and physical performance in frail community-dwelling older adults. We were particularly interested in whether these effects differed according to variations in habitual protein intake and resistance training intensity.

designSecondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial.

participantsThis 12-week RCT randomized 295 frail community-dwelling older adults into PRT-only or PRT with a protein intervention (PRT-Pro). Frailty was defined by receipt of in-home care services or a Tilburg Frailty Indicator score ≥5.

interventionAll participants performed under one-to-one supervision, twice-weekly full-body resistance training performed until muscle failure with varying training intensities (20-80% of one-repetition maximum (1RM)). Participants in the protein intervention group received dietary counselling and tailored daily provision of whey protein supplements (20 g) to support achieving a protein intake of 1.2-1.5 g/kg/day. To prevent over-feeding, for participants with a BMI > 30 kg/m MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcome was leg press muscle strength (1RM). Secondary outcomes included appendicular lean mass and physical performance.

resultsParticipants had a mean age of 73.9 ± 6.0, with 69% being female. Protein intake increased in PRT-Pro compared to PRT-only (0.4 g/kg, 95%CI: 0.3-0.5, p < 0.001). Overall, the protein intervention did not result in significantly greater gains in leg press muscle strength, appendicular lean mass, or physical performance compared to PRT-only (p > 0.05). In exploratory subgroup analyses, participants with baseline habitual protein intake <1.2 g/kg showed greater improvements in leg press strength with protein intervention (6.4 kg, 95% CI: 1.3-11.4, p = 0.013), with the largest effect observed in those <0.8 g/kg (10.9 kg, 95% CI: 1.5-20.4, p = 0.025) compared with PRT-only. Training intensity did not modify the effects of the protein intervention.

conclusionA protein intervention during resistance training did not enhance overall muscle strength, muscle mass, or physical performance in frail older adults. The protein intervention was associated with greater strength gains in exploratory analyses among participants with lower baseline protein intake (<1.2 g/kg/day), with the most pronounced associations observed in those consuming <0.8 g/kg/day. These findings highlight the potential importance of baseline protein status, although they require confirmation in larger trials involving frail older populations. STUDY ID: NL-OMON54919 (at ICTRP Search Portal), date of registration: 09-02-2021.

Indexed as

Dietary ProteinsFrail ElderlyMuscle, SkeletalMuscle StrengthResistance TrainingWhey ProteinsAgedAged, 80 and overDietary SupplementsFemaleFrailtyHumansIndependent LivingMaleDietary ProteinsWhey ProteinsFrailtyOlder adultsProtein intakeProtein interventionResistance trainingSarcopenia

Identifiers

PMID41931963
PMCPMC13087472

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.