Cited by 41Muscle metabolism and nutritionNutrition and Health in AgingBody Composition Measurement Techniques

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

Open access
Hudson, Joshua L, Wang, Yu, Bergia III, Robert E, Campbell, Wayne W·2020·Advances in Nutrition

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.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/advances/nmz106

Cites

61 of 61 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hudson, J. L., Wang, Y., Bergia III, R. E., & Campbell, W. W.
Affiliations
Purdue University West Lafayette (US)
Corresponding author
Campbell, Wayne W
Venue
Advances in Nutrition
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-05
Volume
11
Issue
3
Pages
548-558
ISSN
  • 2156-5376 (ISSN-L)
  • 2161-8313
OpenAlex
W2993534016
Cited by
41
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 6
FWCI
0.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Advances in Nutrition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cell Biology › Muscle metabolism and nutrition
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Nutrition and Health in Aging
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Body Composition Measurement Techniques
Keywords
protein intake, protein requirements, RDA, lean body mass, muscle mass, caloric restriction, resistance training, catabolic stress, muscle protein synthesis, muscle protein degradation
MeSH terms
Adult, Body Composition, Dietary Proteins, Humans, Resistance Training

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