The DOI matches its Crossref record; 36 of the 36 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 17 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Association between protein intake and lean body mass in a group of Masters Athletes
Open accessAbstract
Recommendations for protein intake are based on total body weight; however, these recommendations do not consider lean body mass (LBM). The purpose of the present study was to identify the average protein intake in g/kg LBM in a group of healthy Masters Athletes (≥26 years of age, exercising ≥2 d/week). Data were obtained from a cross-sectional study. Body weight (kg), height (cm) and LBM via dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry were measured. Dietary intake was measured using a 2005 Block Food Frequency Questionnaire. The average energy intake, the percent energy from protein and the average protein intake in g/kg LBM were calculated. Differences between protein intake and the US Recommended Dietary Allowance (US RDA) (0⋅8 g/kg body weight) were determined. Alpha levels were set a priori to P < 0⋅05. A total of 176 participants (94 women, 82 men; 39 ± 11 years of age; body mass index: 24⋅6 ± 3⋅4 kg/m 2) were analysed. The average energy intake, the percent protein energy and the average protein intake were 7996⋅9 ± 110⋅9 kilojoules (kJ)/d (1,910⋅4 ± 26⋅5 kcal), 15⋅5 ± 2⋅6 % and 1⋅43 ± 0⋅53 g/kg LBM, respectively. No differences existed between women and men for protein intake/kg LBM. Both sexes had significantly higher protein intakes than the US RDA (P < 0⋅001). We identified the average protein intake (g/kg LBM) in healthy Masters Athletes that may contribute to evolving perspectives on the determination of protein needs. The present study helps establish the relationship between protein intake and LBM so that we may further increase our accuracy when developing future protein recommendations.
Overview
CoChat Summary
TL;DR
In a cross-sectional sample of 176 healthy Masters Athletes, average protein intake was 1.43 ± 0.53 g/kg lean body mass (LBM), with no significant difference between women and men. Protein intake indexed to LBM was significantly higher than the US RDA (0.8 g/kg body weight), supporting further exploration of LBM-based protein recommendations.
Key findings
- In 176 Masters Athletes (94 women, 82 men; 39 ± 11 years; BMI 24.6 ± 3.4 kg/m²), average protein intake was 1.43 ± 0.53 g/kg LBM, and protein provided 15.6 ± 2.6% of energy, within the 10–35% AMDR.
- No significant sex difference was found for protein intake indexed to LBM: women 1.49 ± 0.53 vs men 1.36 ± 0.53 g/kg LBM (t(174) = −1.55, P = 0.12).
- Protein intake averaged 1.0 ± 0.4 g/kg total body weight. Both women and men had significantly higher protein intake per kg LBM than the US RDA (0.8 g/kg body weight): total sample t(175) = 15.73, P < 0.001; women t(93) = 12.69, P < 0.001; men t(81) = 9.56, P < 0.001.
- Average LBM was 51.8 ± 10.7 kg overall, 43.7 ± 5.0 kg in women and 61.1 ± 7.3 kg in men.
Methods
- Cross-sectional study of healthy Masters Athletes, defined as ≥26 years of age and exercising ≥2 days/week; participants were excluded if active smokers, pregnant, or diagnosed with uncontrolled chronic disease; recruitment used flyers around the Philadelphia area.
- Body weight, height, and BMI were measured; LBM was assessed by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA); dietary intake was assessed with a self-administered 2005 Block Food Frequency Questionnaire.
- Descriptive statistics summarized energy and protein intakes; independent-samples t-tests compared women and men for protein intake in g/kg LBM; one-sample t-tests compared average protein intake to the US RDA (0.8 g/kg body weight); alpha was set a priori at P < 0.05, and post hoc power with n = 176 and effect size 0.5 was 0.99.
Limitations
- The paper states that dietary intake was self-reported, introducing potential self-report bias or misrepresentation, though participants were unaware protein was the nutrient of interest.
- The paper also notes the lack of nitrogen balance data to corroborate results, assumptions of weight and metabolic stability and constant yearly intake, and that absolute protein measures did not account for protein quality or distribution across the day; weight-stability assumptions were uncontrolled.
- Evident from the text: the cross-sectional design cannot establish causality or determine whether protein needs should be based on LBM, and the sample of healthy Masters Athletes recruited around Philadelphia limits generalizability. The abstract and Results/Table also report inconsistent energy-intake variability (e.g., 7996.9 ± 110.9 vs 7995.3 ± 3461.8 kJ/d), an internal reporting inconsistency.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Figures
Verification
Claims the paper makes
0 Valid · 0 Not valid · 10 Not checked · 14 Own results and interpretations
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The average protein intake was 1⋅43 ± 0⋅53 g/kg LBM for the total sample.”
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
“The average energy intake, the percent protein energy and the average protein intake were 7996⋅9 ± 110⋅9 kilojoules (kJ)/d (1,910⋅4 ± 26⋅5 kcal), 15⋅5 ± 2⋅6 % and 1⋅43 ± 0⋅53 g/kg LBM, respectively.”
§ Association between protein intake and lean body mass in a group of Masters Athletes > Results > Dietary protein intake and the US RDA
plainn = 176- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“No differences existed between women (1⋅49 ± 0⋅53) and men (1⋅36 ± 0⋅53) in g/kg LBM, (t(174) = −1⋅55, P = 0⋅12).”
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
“Protein intake of 1⋅4 g/kg LBM was similar between women and men, with a protein-to-energy ratio of about 0⋅038 compared to the normative values for light and moderately active women (0⋅059 to 0⋅074) and men (0⋅081 to 0⋅098)(17).”
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
“No differences existed between women and men for protein intake/kg LBM.”
§ Association between protein intake and lean body mass in a group of Masters Athletes > Results > Dietary protein intake and the US RDA
plainn = 176- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The average energy intake for the total sample was 7995⋅3 ± 3461⋅8 kilojoules (kJ)/d [1910 ± 827 kilocalories (kcal)].”
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
“The average energy intake, the percent protein energy and the average protein intake were 7996⋅9 ± 110⋅9 kilojoules (kJ)/d (1,910⋅4 ± 26⋅5 kcal), 15⋅5 ± 2⋅6 % and 1⋅43 ± 0⋅53 g/kg LBM, respectively.”
§ Association between protein intake and lean body mass in a group of Masters Athletes > Results > Participant characteristics
plainn = 176- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We also found a significantly higher protein need per kg LBM when compared to the US RDA for both women and men.”
§ Association between protein intake and lean body mass in a group of Masters Athletes > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption not shown here.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“DXA is considered one of the most accurate methods for body composition assessment due to its demonstrated validity, reliability and precision(10–13).”
§ Association between protein intake and lean body mass in a group of Masters Athletes > Materials and methods > Anthropometric and body composition assessment
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [10] Lee SY & Gallagher D (2008) Assessment methods in human body composition. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care 11, 566– 572. 18685451 PMC2741386 source
- Not checked yetcites [11] Roubenoff R, Kehayias JJ, Dawson-Hughes B, (1993) Use of dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry in body-composition studies: not yet a ‘gold standard’. Am J Clin Nutr 58, 589– 591. 8237861 source
- Not checked yetcites [12] Albanese CV, Diessel E & Genant HK (2003) Clinical applications of body composition measurements using DXA. J Clin Densitom 6, 75– 85. 12794229 source
- Not checked yetcites [13] Norcross J & Van Loan MD (2004) Validation of fan beam dual energy X-ray absorptiometry for body composition assessment in adults aged 18–45 years. Br J Sports Med 38, 472– 476. 15273189 PMC1724896 source
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
3 more claims
Create a free account to see all 24 claims and to verify the 17 references still open.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 12
- Probably not a substantial claim. 8
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“four studies reported on athletes from multi-sport backgrounds [17,29,30,31]”
From Protein Intake, Physical Performance and Body Composition in Master Athletes—A Short Scoping Review (2025) · cites this paper as [30]
In the citing paper
“Dietary intake was assessed through single or multi-days dietary recalls—one study used Food-Frequency Questionnaires [30].”
From Protein Intake, Physical Performance and Body Composition in Master Athletes—A Short Scoping Review (2025) · cites this paper as [30]
In the citing paper
“Six cross-sectional studies [17,22,29,30,31] and one before–after study [27] reported daily protein intakes, ranging between 1.0 and 1.9 g/kg/d.”
From Protein Intake, Physical Performance and Body Composition in Master Athletes—A Short Scoping Review (2025) · cites this paper as [30]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Association between protein intake and lean body mass in a group of Masters Athletes > Abstract
“7996⋅9 ± 110⋅9 kilojoules (kJ)/d (1,910⋅4 ± 26⋅5 kcal)”
§ Association between protein intake and lean body mass in a group of Masters Athletes > Results > Participant characteristics
“The average energy intake for the total sample was 7995⋅3 ± 3461⋅8 kilojoules (kJ)/d [1910 ± 827 kilocalories (kcal)].”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Association between protein intake and lean body mass in a group of Masters Athletes > Results > Dietary protein intake and the US RDA
“| kJ/d (kcal/d) | 7995⋅3 (1,910⋅4 ) | 3461.8 kJ/d 1910.4 kcal/d |”
§ Association between protein intake and lean body mass in a group of Masters Athletes > Results > Participant characteristics
“The average energy intake for the total sample was 7995⋅3 ± 3461⋅8 kilojoules (kJ)/d [1910 ± 827 kilocalories (kcal)].”
Citations
Cites
Bauer, J., Biolo, G., Cederholm, T., Cesari, M., Cruz-Jentoft, A. J., Morley, J. E., Phillips, S., Sieber, C., Stehle, P., Teta, D., et al. (2013) · Journal of the American Medical Directors Association · doi:10.1016/j.jamda.2013.05.021 · Cited by 2,553 · cited 1×
“This increased protein intake resulted in a better retention of LBM in older adults (74⋅2 ± 3⋅6 years of age), suggesting that protein needs may be higher in older individuals, which is in agreement with others.((21)) In addition, protein intake within the AMDR of 10–35 % of energy intake routinely allows intake to ex…”
ResultNutrition and Athletic Performance
(2016) · Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · doi:10.1249/mss.0000000000000852 · Cited by 1,305 · cited 1×
“Notably, for active populations, it has been suggested that protein needs are closer to a range of 1⋅2–2⋅0 g/kg((18)).”
BackgroundHouston, D. K., Nicklas, B. J., Ding, J., Harris, T. B., Tylavsky, F. A., Newman, A. B., Lee, J. S., Sahyoun, N. R., Visser, M., & Kritchevsky, S. B. (2008) · The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.1093/ajcn/87.1.150 · Cited by 1,214
Validation of a self-administered diet history questionnaire using multiple diet records
Block, G., Woods, M., Potosky, A., & Clifford, C. (1990) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/0895-4356(90)90099-b · Cited by 1,197
International Society of Sports Nutrition Position Stand: protein and exercise
Jäger, R., Kerksick, C. M., Campbell, B. I., Cribb, P. J., Wells, S. D., Skwiat, T. M., Purpura, M., Ziegenfuss, T. N., Ferrando, A. A., Arent, S. M., et al. (2017) · Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition · doi:10.1186/s12970-017-0177-8 · Cited by 873
International Society of Sports Nutrition position stand: protein and exercise
Campbell, B., Kreider, R. B., Ziegenfuss, T., La Bounty, P., Roberts, M., Burke, D., Landis, J., Lopez, H., & Antonio, J. (2007) · Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition · doi:10.1186/1550-2783-4-8 · Cited by 716
Assessment methods in human body composition
Lee, S. Y., & Gallagher, D. (2008) · Current Opinion in Clinical Nutrition & Metabolic Care · doi:10.1097/mco.0b013e32830b5f23 · Cited by 694
Sarcopenic obesity: a critical appraisal of the current evidence
Prado, C. M. M., Wells, J. C. K., Smith, S. R., Stephan, B. C. M., & Siervo, M. (2012) · Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.1016/j.clnu.2012.06.010 · Cited by 589 · cited 1×
“Additionally, sarcopenic obesity is a new class of obesity in older adults in which low skeletal muscle mass is coupled with high levels of adiposity((27)).”
BackgroundLean Tissue Imaging: A New Era for Nutritional Assessment and Intervention
Prado, C. M. M., & Heymsfield, S. B. (2014) · Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition · doi:10.1177/0148607114550189 · Cited by 550
Protein, weight management, and satiety
Paddon-Jones, D., Westman, E., Mattes, R. D., Wolfe, R. R., Astrup, A., & Westerterp-Plantenga, M. (2008) · The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.1093/ajcn/87.5.1558s · Cited by 549
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Medicine, 2005, Dietary Reference Intakes for Energy, Carbohydrate, Fiber, Fat, Fatty Acids, Cholesterol, Protein, and Amino Acids (Macronutrients)
- 2007, Protein and Amino Acid Requirements in Human Nutrition: Report of a Joint WHO/FAO/UNU Expert Consultation
Cited by
Pérez-Castillo, Í. M., Rueda, R., Pereira, S. L., Bouzamondo, H., Chicharro, J. L., Segura-Ortiz, F., & Atherton, P. J. (2025) · Nutrients · doi:10.3390/nu17223503 · Cited by 25
Protein Intake, Physical Performance and Body Composition in Master Athletes—A Short Scoping Review
Franzke, B., Maierhofer, R., & Putz, P. (2025) · Nutrients · doi:10.3390/nu17030498 · Cited by 3
Ingesta óptima de proteínas en atletas de elite para el incremento de masa muscular
Badillo-Hernández, A. G., Cortés, T. L. F., Calderón‐Ramos, Z. G., & Polo, A. O. (2023) · Educación y Salud Boletín Científico Instituto de Ciencias de la Salud Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Hidalgo · doi:10.29057/icsa.v11i22.10119 · Cited by 1
Ramadan, F. R., Sholihah, L. A., Mayasari, N. R., & Gusrianto, W. A. (2024) · GEMA Lingkungan Kesehatan · doi:10.36568/gelinkes.v22i2.171
Effects of Water Consumption and Body Water Content on Exercise Performance in Recreational Athletes
Brown, M. (2024) · VTechWorks (Virginia Tech)
Metadata
- Authors
- Stanzione, J. R., Boullata, J. I., Bruneau, M. L., & Volpe, S. L.
- Affiliations
- Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania (US)
- Drexel University (US)
- Virginia Tech (US)
- Corresponding author
- Volpe, Stella L.
- Venue
- Journal of Nutritional Science
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2022
- Volume
- 11
- Pages
- e30-e30
- ISSN
- 2048-6790 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC9066312
- OpenAlex
- W4285238781
- Cited by
- 5
- References
- 36
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1
- FWCI
- 0.72
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Nutritional Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- VTechWorks (Virginia Tech) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- VUBIR (Vrije Universiteit Brussel) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Muscle metabolism and nutrition
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology (medical) › Body Composition Measurement Techniques
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology (medical) › Nutrition and Health in Aging
- Keywords
- protein intake, lean body mass, masters athletes, protein requirements, dietary protein, energy intake, sex differences, protein recommendations, older adults
- MeSH terms
- Body Composition, Body Weight, Cross-Sectional Studies, Dietary Proteins, Female, Humans, Male, Athletes
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-14, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-14 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
