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

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

doi:10.3390/nu13020661

Cited by 65 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 70 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Additionally, data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey suggest that plant protein intake has increased significantly from 1999 to 2010 [11], and it has been posited that the increased intakes of plant-based food will continue to increase in decades to come [12]. With regard to efficacy, a meta-analysis from Lim et al [13] compared how animal-based versus plant-based protein supplements affected resistance training adaptations in adults (<50 years old). The authors reported that animal protein only conferred modest improvements in lean body mass (0.41 kg) and percent lean mass (0.50%) compared to plant proteins.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Peanut Protein Supplementation on Resistance Training Adaptations in Younger Adults

Sexton

Smith

et al. 2021

Nutrients

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Protein supplementation is a commonly employed strategy to enhance resistance training adaptations. However, little research to date has examined if peanut protein supplementation is effective in this regard. Thus, we sought to determine if peanut protein supplementation (PP; 75 total g/d of powder providing 30 g/d protein, >9.2 g/d essential amino acids, ~315 kcal/d) affected resistance training adaptations in college-aged adults. Forty-seven college-aged adults (n = 34 females, n = 13 males) with minimal prior training experience were randomly assigned to a PP group (n = 18 females, n = 5 males) or a non-supplement group (CTL; n = 16 females, n = 8 males) (ClinicalTrials.gov trial registration NCT04707963; registered 13 January 2021). Body composition and strength variables were obtained prior to the intervention (PRE). Participants then completed 10 weeks of full-body resistance training (twice weekly) and PP participants consumed their supplement daily. POST measures were obtained 72 h following the last training bout and were identical to PRE testing measures. Muscle biopsies were also obtained at PRE, 24 h following the first exercise bout, and at POST. The first two biopsy time points were used to determine myofibrillar protein synthesis (MyoPS) rates in response to a naïve training bout with or without PP, and the PRE and POST biopsies were used to determine muscle fiber adaptations in females only. Dependent variables were analyzed in males and females separately using two-way (supplement × time) repeated measures ANOVAs, unless otherwise stated. The 24-h integrated MyoPS response to the first naïve training bout was similar between PP and CTL participants (dependent samples t-test p = 0.759 for females, p = 0.912 for males). For males, the only significant supplement × time interactions were for DXA-derived fat mass (interaction p = 0.034) and knee extensor peak torque (interaction p = 0.010); these variables significantly increased in the CTL group (p < 0.05), but not the PP group. For females, no significant supplement × time interactions existed, although interactions for whole body lean tissue mass (p = 0.088) and vastus lateralis thickness (p = 0.099) approached significance and magnitude increases in these characteristics favored the PP versus CTL group. In summary, this is the second study to determine the effects of PP supplementation on resistance training adaptations. While PP supplementation did not significantly enhance training adaptations, the aforementioned trends in females, the limited n-size in males, and this being the second PP supplementation study warrant more research to determine if different PP dosing strategies are more effective than the current approach.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Peanut Protein Supplementation on Resistance Training Adaptations in Younger Adults

Sexton

Smith

et al. 2021

Nutrients

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, whether these gains in muscle mass and strength during resistance-type exercise training differ from the gains observed when an equivalent amount of animal-based protein is supplemented remains equivocal. A recent meta-analysis concluded that the animal- or plant-based origin of the supplemented protein source does not impact the gains in lean mass or muscle strength following prolonged resistance-type exercise training [ 100 ]. However, it seems evident that this conclusion would depend also on the population, the type of training, the training status of the volunteers, and most of all the amount of protein supplemented and the overall habitual protein intake.…”

Section: Plant-based Proteins In Sports Nutritionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Anabolic Response to Plant-Based Protein Ingestion

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is a global trend of an increased interest in plant-based diets. This includes an increase in the consumption of plant-based proteins at the expense of animal-based proteins. Plant-derived proteins are now also frequently applied in sports nutrition. So far, we have learned that the ingestion of plant-derived proteins, such as soy and wheat protein, result in lower post-prandial muscle protein synthesis responses when compared with the ingestion of an equivalent amount of animal-based protein. The lesser anabolic properties of plant-based versus animal-derived proteins may be attributed to differences in their protein digestion and amino acid absorption kinetics, as well as to differences in amino acid composition between these protein sources. Most plant-based proteins have a low essential amino acid content and are often deficient in one or more specific amino acids, such as lysine and methionine. However, there are large differences in amino acid composition between various plant-derived proteins or plant-based protein sources. So far, only a few studies have directly compared the muscle protein synthetic response following the ingestion of a plant-derived protein versus a high(er) quality animal-derived protein. The proposed lower anabolic properties of plant- versus animal-derived proteins may be compensated for by (i) consuming a greater amount of the plant-derived protein or plant-based protein source to compensate for the lesser quality; (ii) using specific blends of plant-based proteins to create a more balanced amino acid profile; (iii) fortifying the plant-based protein (source) with the specific free amino acid(s) that is (are) deficient. Clinical studies are warranted to assess the anabolic properties of the various plant-derived proteins and their protein sources in vivo in humans and to identify the factors that may or may not compromise the capacity to stimulate post-prandial muscle protein synthesis rates. Such work is needed to determine whether the transition towards a more plant-based diet is accompanied by a transition towards greater dietary protein intake requirements.

show abstract

“…The most recent meta-analysis extended the study by Messina et al33 beyond soy protein. Lim et al 34 investigated the difference between the supplementation of various PBP (soy -isolated, protein drinks and bars, pea, rice isolated) vs. PAO (whey, casein, milk and dairy products, beef) in MM gain and strength in response to RE. In addition to studies with healthy individuals, trained and untrained, the authors included studies with unhealthy individuals and those that did not associate RE.…”

Section: Plant-based Protein and Mpsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The three meta-analyses 29,33,34 show essential answers about the effect of PBP supplementation associated with RE on the increase of MM and muscle strength: no differences were found between soy protein vs. whey; between soy protein vs. beef and milk; and between pea and rice vs. whey, casein, milk and dairy products and beef. But there are still questions to be answered.…”

Section: Plant-based Protein and Mpsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The anabolic role of plant-based proteins in response to chronic resistance exercise

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Proper maintenance of skeletal muscle mass is essential to prevent sarcopenia and ensure health and quality of life as aging progress. The two determinants of muscle protein synthesis are the increased load on skeletal muscle through resistance exercise and protein intake. For an effective result of maintaining or increasing muscle mass, it is relevant to consider the quantitative and adequate intake of protein, and the dietary source of protein since the plant-based protein has differences in comparison to animals that limit its anabolic capacity. Given the increase in vegetarianism and the elderly population, which consumes fewer food sources of animal protein, the importance of understanding how protein of plant-based protein can sustain muscle protein synthesis in the long term when associated with resistance exercise is justified, as well as the possibilities of dietary adequacy in the face of this demand.

show abstract

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

Cited by 65 publications

References 70 publications

Effects of Peanut Protein Supplementation on Resistance Training Adaptations in Younger Adults

Effects of Peanut Protein Supplementation on Resistance Training Adaptations in Younger Adults

The Anabolic Response to Plant-Based Protein Ingestion

The anabolic role of plant-based proteins in response to chronic resistance exercise

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About