Cited by 823Muscle metabolism and nutritionNutrition and Health in AgingMuscle Physiology and Disorders

Dietary protein recommendations and the prevention of sarcopenia

Open access
Paddon-Jones, Douglas, Rasmussen, Blake B·2009·Current Opinion in Clinical Nutrition & Metabolic Care

Abstract

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To draw attention to recent work on the role of protein and the amount of protein needed with each meal to preserve skeletal muscle mass in ageing. RECENT FINDINGS: Ageing does not inevitably reduce the anabolic response to a high-quality protein meal. Ingestion of approximately 25-30 g of protein per meal maximally stimulates muscle protein synthesis in both young and older individuals. However, muscle protein synthesis is blunted in elderly when protein and carbohydrate are coingested or when the quantity of protein is less than approximately 20 g per meal. Supplementing regular mixed-nutrient meals with leucine may also enhance the muscle protein synthetic response in elders. SUMMARY: On the basis of recent work, we propose a novel and specific dietary approach to prevent or slow down muscle loss with ageing. Rather than recommending a large, global increase in the recommended dietary allowance (RDA) for protein for all elderly individuals, clinicians should stress the importance of ingesting a sufficient amount of protein with each meal. To maximize muscle protein synthesis while being cognizant of total energy intake, we propose a dietary plan that includes 25-30 g of high quality protein per meal.

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 · 10.1097/mco.0b013e32831cef8b

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Paddon-Jones, D., & Rasmussen, B. B.
Affiliations
The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston (US)
Venue
Current Opinion in Clinical Nutrition & Metabolic Care
Published
2009-01
Volume
12
Issue
1
Pages
86-90
ISSN
1363-1950 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2133222708
Cited by
823
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 44 · 2023: 38 · 2022: 57 · 2021: 52 · 2020: 61 · 2019: 49 · 2018: 64 · 2017: 71 · 2016: 60 · 2015: 58 · 2014: 66 · 2013: 52 · 2012: 53
FWCI
1.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Current Opinion in Clinical Nutrition & Metabolic Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute on Aging (P30AG024832)
  • National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (R01AR049877)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cell Biology › Muscle metabolism and nutrition
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Nutrition and Health in Aging
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Muscle Physiology and Disorders
Keywords
sarcopenia, dietary protein, muscle protein synthesis, aging, skeletal muscle mass, leucine supplementation, RDA
MeSH terms
Aged, Aging, Dietary Proteins, Humans, Leucine, Muscle Proteins, Muscular Atrophy, Protein Deficiency, Exercise, Nutrition Policy, Dietary Supplements

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