Cited by 20Muscle metabolism and nutritionSports Performance and TrainingExercise and Physiological Responses

Protein Requirements of Pre-Menopausal Female Athletes: Systematic Literature Review

Open access
Mercer, Drew, Convit, Lilia, Condo, Dominique, Carr, Amelia J., Hamilton, D. Lee, Slater, Gary, Snipe, Rhiannon M. J.·2020·Nutrients

Abstract

This systematic literature review aimed to determine the protein requirements of pre-menopausal (e.g., 18–45 years) female athletes and identify if the menstrual cycle phase and/or hormonal contraceptive use influence protein requirements. Four databases were searched for original research containing pre-menopausal female athletes that ingested protein alongside exercise. The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Quality Criteria Checklist was used to determine study quality. Fourteen studies, which included 204 recreationally active or competitive females, met the eligibility criteria for inclusion in this review, and all were assessed as positive quality. The estimated average requirement (EAR) for protein intake of pre-menopausal recreational and/or competitive female athletes is similar for those undertaking aerobic endurance (1.28–1.63 g/kg/day), resistance (1.49 g/kg/day) and intermittent exercise (1.41 g/kg/day) of ~60–90 min duration. The optimal acute protein intake and influence of menstrual cycle phase or hormonal contraceptive use on protein requirements could not be determined. However, pre- and post-exercise protein intakes of 0.32–0.38 g/kg have demonstrated beneficial physiological responses in recreational and competitive female athletes completing resistance and intermittent exercise. The protein requirements outlined in this review can be used for planning and assessing protein intakes of recreational and competitive pre-menopausal female athletes.

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 · 10.3390/nu12113527

Cites

100 of 100 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?

  • A 30 μg ethynyl estradiol dose from a third-generation OC was associated with a significantly greater increase in type I muscle fiber area compared to a 20 μg dose of ethynyl estradiol and non-users.

    “and a significantly greater increase in type I muscle fiber area compared to a 20 μg dose of ethynyl estradiol and non-users”

    From International society of sports nutrition position stand: nutritional concerns of the female athlete (2023) · cites this paper as [227]

    The Discussion (§4.4; page unavailable) reports increased type I muscle fibre cross-sectional area in oral-contraceptive users compared with non-users during 10 weeks of resistance training. It does not identify a 30 μg ethynyl estradiol dose, compare it with a 20 μg dose, or report a significantly greater increase for a third-generation contraceptive. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • A 30 μg ethynyl estradiol dose from a third-generation OC was associated with a trend toward a greater increase in muscle mass compared to a 20 μg dose of ethynyl estradiol and non-users.

    “a 30 μg ethynyl estradiol dose from a third-generation OC was associated with a trend toward a greater increase in muscle mass”

    From International society of sports nutrition position stand: nutritional concerns of the female athlete (2023) · cites this paper as [227]

    The Discussion (§4.4; page unavailable) reports a trend toward increased muscle mass in oral-contraceptive users compared with non-users during 10 weeks of resistance training. It does not identify a 30 μg ethynyl estradiol dose or compare it with a 20 μg dose. Its mention of third-generation contraceptives concerns a separate finding about myofibrillar protein synthesis. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The dosage provided by ethinyl estradiol may be a key variable to consider relative to the skeletal muscle adaptations that are observed.

    “This study highlights that the dosage provided by ethinyl estradiol may also be a key variable to consider relative to the skeletal muscle adaptations that are observed [227].”

    From International society of sports nutrition position stand: nutritional concerns of the female athlete (2023) · cites this paper as [227]

    Section 4.4 says the type or dose of hormones in contraceptives may affect protein requirements and reports differences in muscle protein synthesis and training adaptations among contraceptive users. It does not identify ethinyl estradiol dosage specifically as a variable affecting skeletal muscle adaptations. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • No changes in muscle strength related to training were found in the study of 30 μg versus 20 μg ethynyl estradiol OC doses and non-users.

    “though no changes in muscle strength related to training were found”

    From International society of sports nutrition position stand: nutritional concerns of the female athlete (2023) · cites this paper as [227]

    The Discussion (§4.4; page unavailable) reports muscle-fibre and muscle-mass findings for oral-contraceptive users versus non-users during resistance training, but does not report strength outcomes or compare 30 μg and 20 μg doses. A search for muscle strength found strength findings elsewhere in the review, but none for the claimed contraceptive-dose comparison. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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
Mercer, D., Convit, L., Condo, D., Carr, A. J., Hamilton, D. L., Slater, G., & Snipe, R. M. J.
Affiliations
  • Deakin University (AU)
  • University of the Sunshine Coast (AU)
Corresponding author
Snipe, Rhiannon M. J.
Venue
Nutrients
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2020-11-16
Volume
12
Issue
11
Pages
3527
ISSN
2072-6643 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3104445196
Cited by
20
References
100
Citations by year
2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 5
FWCI
0.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nutrients (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Own your potential (DEAKIN) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cell Biology › Muscle metabolism and nutrition
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Sports Performance and Training
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Exercise and Physiological Responses
Keywords
protein requirements, menstrual cycle phases, hormonal contraceptive use, resistance training, intermittent exercise, recreational athletes, competitive athletes
MeSH terms
Adult, Energy Intake, Contraceptives, Oral, Dietary Proteins, Female, Humans, Menstrual Cycle, Nutritional Requirements, Physical Endurance, Exercise, 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.

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