Cited by 4Muscle metabolism and nutritionMuscle Physiology and DisordersProteins in Food Systems

The muscle protein synthetic response to the ingestion of a plant-based protein blend is not different from milk protein in healthy, young males

Open access
Pinckaers, Philippe J.M., Kouw, Imre W.K., Gorissen, Stefan H.M., Senden, Joan M., de Groot, Lisette C.P.G.M., Verdijk, Lex B., Snijders, Tim, van Loon, Luc J.C.·2021·Current Developments in Nutrition

Abstract

It has been reported that plant-based proteins are not as effective as animal-based proteins in their capacity to stimulate muscle protein synthesis rates. This has been attributed to the lower essential amino acid content and the selective deficiency in specific amino acids. It has been hypothesized that a blend of different plant-based proteins may complement each other and, as such, compensate for such deficits. This study compares post-prandial muscle protein synthesis rates following the ingestion of 30 g milk protein with the ingestion of a 30 g blend of wheat, corn, and pea protein in vivo, in healthy young males. In a randomized, double blind, parallel-group design, 24 healthy young males (24 ± 4 y) received a primed continuous infusion of L-[ring-13C6]-phenylalanine and ingested 30 g milk protein (MILK), or a 30 g protein blend with 15 g wheat, 7.5 g corn, and 7.5 g pea protein (PLANT) in beverage form (n = 12 per group). Both interventional drinks were matched for leucine content. Blood and muscle biopsies were collected for 5 h following protein ingestion to assess post-prandial plasma amino acid profiles and myofibrillar protein synthesis rates. Data are expressed as mean ± SD. MILK increased plasma essential amino acid concentrations ∼2 fold more than PLANT over the 5 h post-prandial period (incremental area under curve (iAUC): 151 ± 31 vs 79 ± 12 mmol∙5 h∙L−1 respectively; P < 0.001). Similarly, the leucine iAUC was ∼16% greater for MILK vs PLANT (36 ± 7 vs 31 ± 4 mmol∙5 h∙L−1 respectively; P < 0.05). Ingestion of both MILK and PLANT increased myofibrillar protein synthesis rates when compared to basal post-absorptive values (P < 0.001), with no significant differences between treatments (0.053 ± 0.013 vs 0.064 ± 0.016%∙h−1, respectively; P > 0.05). Ingestion of 30 g of a wheat, corn, and pea protein blend increases muscle protein synthesis rates in healthy, young males. The post-prandial muscle protein synthetic response to the ingestion of 30 g of a wheat, corn and pea protein blend does not differ from the ingestion of an equivalent amount of milk protein in healthy, young males. TiFN

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/cdn/nzab041_032

Cites

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?

  • 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 [88]

  • There is a growing number of studies that contradict, or at least obfuscate, the narrative that nonanimal proteins are inferior.

    “However, there is a growing number of studies that contradict, or at least obfuscate, this narrative [53,[88], [89], [90], [91]].”

    From Nutritional Considerations for the Vegan Athlete (2023) · cites this paper as [88]

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

Cited by 4

Authors
Pinckaers, P. J. M., Kouw, I. W. K., Gorissen, S. H. M., Senden, J. M., de Groot, L. C. P. G. M., Verdijk, L. B., Snijders, T., & van Loon, L. J. C.
Affiliations
Maastricht University Medical Centre (NL)
Venue
Current Developments in Nutrition
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-06
Volume
5
Pages
517
ISSN
2475-2991 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3169877857
Cited by
4
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2
FWCI
0.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Current Developments in Nutrition (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • Socio-Environmental Systems Modeling (submittedVersion)
  • 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
milk protein, muscle protein synthesis, myofibrillar protein synthesis, protein blends, wheat proteins, corn protein, pea protein, essential amino acids, leucine, plasma amino acid profile, protein supplementation, young men, protein complementation, muscle hypertrophy

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