Cited by 42Muscle metabolism and nutritionMuscle Physiology and DisordersProteins in Food Systems

Ingestion of an ample amount of meat substitute based on a lysine-enriched, plant-based protein blend stimulates postprandial muscle protein synthesis to a similar extent as an isonitrogenous amount of chicken in healthy, young men

Open access
Kouw, Imre W.K., Pinckaers, Philippe J.M., Le Bourgot, Cindy, van Kranenburg, Janneau M.X., Zorenc, Antoine H., de Groot, Lisette C.P.G.M., Verdijk, Lex, Snijders, Tim +1 more·2022·British Journal Of Nutrition

Abstract

Abstract Plant-based proteins are considered to be less effective in their capacity to stimulate muscle protein synthesis when compared with animal-based protein sources, likely due to differences in amino acid contents. We compared the postprandial muscle protein synthetic response following the ingestion of a lysine-enriched plant-based protein product with an isonitrogenous amount of chicken. Twenty-four men (age 24 ± 5 years; BMI 22·9 ± 2·6 kg·m−2) participated in this parallel, double-blind, randomised controlled trial and consumed 40 g of protein as a lysine-enriched wheat and chickpea protein product (Plant, n 12) or chicken breast fillet (Chicken, n 12). Primed, continuous intravenous l-(ring-13C6)-phenylalanine infusions were applied while repeated blood and muscle samples were collected over a 5-h postprandial period to assess plasma amino acid responses, muscle protein synthesis rates and muscle anabolic signalling responses. Postprandial plasma leucine and essential amino acid concentrations were higher following Chicken (P < 0·001), while plasma lysine concentrations were higher throughout in Plant (P < 0·001). Total plasma amino acid concentrations did not differ between interventions (P = 0·181). Ingestion of both Plant and Chicken increased muscle protein synthesis rates from post-absorptive: 0·031 ± 0·011 and 0·031 ± 0·013 to postprandial: 0·046 ± 0·010 and 0·055 ± 0·015 % h−1, respectively (P-time < 0·001), with no differences between Plant and Chicken (time x treatment P = 0·068). Ingestion of 40 g of protein in the form of a lysine-enriched plant-based protein product increases muscle protein synthesis rates to a similar extent as an isonitrogenous amount of chicken in healthy, young men. Plant-based protein products sold as meat replacers may be as effective as animal-based protein sources to stimulate postprandial muscle protein synthesis rates in healthy, young individuals.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0007114521004906

Cites

0 references resolved

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • A plant/animal protein blend or exclusively plant protein blend can stimulate an equivalent MPS response to an animal-based comparison.

    “A handful of studies have supported the blending theory by demonstrating that a plant/animal protein blend [89,90,92,93] or exclusively plant protein blend [88,94,95] can stimulate an equivalent MPS response to an animal-based comparison.”

    From Nutritional Considerations for the Vegan Athlete (2023) · cites this paper as [94]

  • A lysine-enriched plant-based protein blend demonstrated parity with a chicken comparison with respect to its ability to increase MPS in humans.

    “A single study has investigated a lysine-enriched plant-based protein blend and demonstrated parity with a chicken comparison with respect to its ability to increase MPS in humans [94].”

    From Nutritional Considerations for the Vegan Athlete (2023) · cites this paper as [94]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Still being checked.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kouw, I. W. K., Pinckaers, P. J. M., Le Bourgot, C., van Kranenburg, J. M. X., Zorenc, A. H., de Groot, L. C. P. G. M., Verdijk, L., Snijders, T., & van Loon, L. J. C.
Affiliations
Maastricht University Medical Centre (NL)
Venue
British Journal Of Nutrition
Published
2021-12-09
Volume
128
Issue
10
Pages
1955-1965
ISSN
  • 0007-1145 (ISSN-L)
  • 1475-2662
OpenAlex
W4200138244
Cited by
42
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 5
FWCI
3.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • British Journal Of Nutrition (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Socio-Environmental Systems Modeling (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • VUBIR (Vrije Universiteit Brussel) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cell Biology › Muscle metabolism and nutrition
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Muscle Physiology and Disorders
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Proteins in Food Systems
Keywords
plant proteins, muscle protein synthesis, postprandial response, chicken breast, wheat proteins, chickpea protein, meat substitutes, amino acid metabolism, leucine, plasma amino acids, protein quality

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.

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