Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34515966›Full record

ReviewSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2021

The Anabolic Response to Plant-Based Protein Ingestion.

Philippe J M Pinckaers, Jorn Trommelen, Tim Snijders, Luc J C van Loon

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 79 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
79citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
9.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

79 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 148 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. The Effect of Fava Bean (Nutrients · 2022
    Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article

19 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Philippe J M PinckaersDepartment of Human Biology, School of Nutrition and Translational Research in Metabolism (NUTRIM), Maastricht University Medical Centre+, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0657-6505
Jorn TrommelenDepartment of Human Biology, School of Nutrition and Translational Research in Metabolism (NUTRIM), Maastricht University Medical Centre+, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0277-5291
Tim SnijdersDepartment of Human Biology, School of Nutrition and Translational Research in Metabolism (NUTRIM), Maastricht University Medical Centre+, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5874-1245
Luc J C van LoonDepartment of Human Biology, School of Nutrition and Translational Research in Metabolism (NUTRIM), Maastricht University Medical Centre+, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands. L.vanLoon@maastrichtuniversity.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6768-9231
Maastricht University Medical Centre · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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.

Indexed as

Dietary ProteinsMuscle, SkeletalAmino Acids, EssentialAnimalsEatingHumansMuscle ProteinsAmino Acids, EssentialDietary ProteinsMuscle Proteins

Identifiers

PMID34515966
PMCPMC8566416
OpenAlexW3200956314

What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.