Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38228945›Full record

Trial reportEuropean journal of nutrition2024

Post-prandial muscle protein synthesis rates following the ingestion of pea-derived protein do not differ from ingesting an equivalent amount of milk-derived protein in healthy, young males.

Philippe J M Pinckaers, Joey S J Smeets, Imre W K Kouw, Joy P B Goessens, Annemarie P B Gijsen, Lisette C P G M de Groot, Lex B Verdijk, Luc J C van Loon, Tim Snijders

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in European journal of nutrition, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.2field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Philippe J M PinckaersTiFN, Wageningen, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0657-6505
Joey S J SmeetsDepartment of Human Biology, NUTRIM School of Nutrition and Translational Research in Metabolism, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2877-0114
Imre W K KouwTiFN, Wageningen, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4435-0101
Joy P B GoessensTiFN, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Annemarie P B GijsenDepartment of Human Biology, NUTRIM School of Nutrition and Translational Research in Metabolism, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Lisette C P G M de GrootTiFN, Wageningen, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2778-2789
Lex B VerdijkTiFN, Wageningen, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9196-8767
Luc J C van LoonTiFN, Wageningen, The Netherlands. l.vanloon@maastrichtuniversity.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6768-9231
Tim SnijdersTiFN, Wageningen, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5874-1245
Maastricht University Medical Centre · NLTiFN · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposePlant-derived proteins have received considerable attention as an alternative to animal-derived proteins. However, plant-derived proteins are considered to have less anabolic properties when compared with animal-derived proteins. The lower muscle protein synthesis rates following ingestion of plant- compared with animal-derived protein have been attributed to the lower essential amino acid content of plant-derived proteins and/or their specific amino acid deficiencies. This study aimed to compare post-prandial muscle protein synthesis rates following the ingestion of 30 g pea-derived protein with 30 g milk-derived protein in healthy, young males.

methodsIn a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group design, 24 young males (24 ± 3 y) received a primed continuous L-[ring-

resultsMILK increased plasma essential amino acid concentrations more than PEA over the 5 h post-prandial period (incremental area under curve 151 ± 31 vs 102 ± 15 mmol∙300 min∙L

conclusionPost-prandial muscle protein synthesis rates following the ingestion of 30 g pea-derived protein do not differ from the response following ingestion of an equivalent amount of milk-derived protein. International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (NTR6548; 27-06-2017).

Indexed as

Milk ProteinsPisum sativumAdultAmino Acids, EssentialDietary ProteinsEatingHumansMaleMuscle ProteinsMuscle, SkeletalPostprandial PeriodYoung AdultAmino Acids, EssentialDietary ProteinsMilk ProteinsMuscle ProteinsAmino acidsDairyFractional synthesis ratePlant-based proteins

Identifiers

PMID38228945
PMCPMC10948472
OpenAlexW4390906247

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.