SynthesisAdvances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.)2020
Protein Intake Greater than the RDA Differentially Influences Whole-Body Lean Mass Responses to Purposeful Catabolic and Anabolic Stressors: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Effects of high-intensity interval training and moderate-intensity continuous training on body composition and glucose and lipid metabolism in college students: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Pooled it
- Pooled it
- No effects of high-The British journal of nutrition · 2025Trial
- Trial
- Trial
- Higher-Protein Nutrition and Concurrent Exercise in Obesity: A Narrative Review of Body Composition, Metabolic Health, and Physical Function.Nutrients · 2026Review
- Review
- Design and Implementation of the Protein-Distinct Macronutrient-Equivalent Diet (PRODMED) Study: An Eighteen-Week Randomized Crossover Feeding Trial Among Free-Living Rural Older Adults.Current developments in nutrition · 2025Article
- Clinical research framework proposal for ketogenic metabolic therapy in glioblastoma.BMC medicine · 2024Review
- Quantification and interpretation of postprandial whole-body protein metabolism using stable isotope methodology: a narrative review.Frontiers in nutrition · 2024Review
- Effects of 16 weeks of two different high-protein diets with either resistance or concurrent training on body composition, muscular strength and performance, and markers of liver and kidney function in resistance-trained males.Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition · 2023Article
- Poultry Consumption and Human Cardiometabolic Health-Related Outcomes: A Narrative Review.Nutrients · 2023Review
- Nutritional Interventions: Dietary Protein Needs and Influences on Skeletal Muscle of Older Adults.The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences · 2023Review
- Is It Time to Reconsider the U.S. Recommendations for Dietary Protein and Amino Acid Intake?Nutrients · 2023Review
- Public Health Need, Molecular Targets, and Opportunities for the Accelerated Development of Function-Promoting Therapies: Proceedings of a National Institute on Aging Workshop.The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences · 2022Article
- Article
- Lean mass sparing in resistance-trained athletes during caloric restriction: the role of resistance training volume.European journal of applied physiology · 2022Review
- The health effects of soy: A reference guide for health professionals.Frontiers in nutrition · 2022Review
- Dietary Protein Intake Is Positively Associated with Appendicular Lean Mass and Handgrip Strength among Middle-Aged US Adults.The Journal of nutrition · 2021Article
- High-Protein Energy-Restriction: Effects on Body Composition, Contractile Properties, Mood, and Sleep in Active Young College Students.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Under stressful conditions such as energy restriction (ER) and physical activity, the RDA for protein of 0.8 g · kg-1 · d-1 may no longer be an appropriate recommendation. Under catabolic or anabolic conditions, higher protein intakes are proposed to attenuate the loss or increase the gain of whole-body lean mass, respectively. No known published meta-analysis compares protein intakes greater than the RDA with intakes at the RDA. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effects of protein intakes greater than the RDA, compared with at the RDA, on changes in whole-body lean mass. Three researchers independently screened 1520 articles published through August 2018 using the PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, and Cochrane databases, with additional articles identified in published systematic review articles. Randomized, controlled, parallel studies ≥6 wk long with apparently healthy adults (≥19 y) were eligible for inclusion. Data from 18 studies resulting in 22 comparisons of lean mass changes were included in the final overall analysis. Among all comparisons, protein intakes greater than the RDA benefitted changes in lean mass relative to consuming the RDA [weighted mean difference (95% CI): 0.32 (0.01, 0.64) kg, n = 22 comparisons]. In the subgroup analyses, protein intakes greater than the RDA attenuated lean mass loss after ER [0.36 (0.06, 0.67) kg, n = 14], increased lean mass after resistance training (RT) [0.77 (0.23, 1.31) kg, n = 3], but did not differentially affect changes in lean mass [0.08 (-0.59, 0.75) kg, n = 7] under nonstressed conditions (no ER + no RT). Protein intakes greater than the RDA beneficially influenced changes in lean mass when adults were purposefully stressed by the catabolic stressor of dietary ER with and without the anabolic stressor of RT. The RDA for protein is adequate to support lean mass in adults during nonstressed states. This review was registered at www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero as CRD 42018106532.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.