Cited by 113Muscle metabolism and nutritionSports Performance and TrainingExercise and Physiological Responses

The Effects of Whey vs. Pea Protein on Physical Adaptations Following 8-Weeks of High-Intensity Functional Training (HIFT): A Pilot Study

Open access
Banaszek, Amy, Townsend, Jeremy R., Bender, David, Vantrease, William C., Marshall, Autumn C., Johnson, Kent D.·2019·Sports

Abstract

This study examined the effects of whey and pea protein supplementation on physiological adaptations following 8-weeks of high-intensity functional training (HIFT). Fifteen HIFT men (n = 8; 38.6 ± 12.7 y, 1.8 ± 0.1 m, 87.7 ± 15.8 kg) and women (n = 7; 38.9 ± 10.9 y, 1.7 ± 0.10 m, 73.3 ± 10.5 kg) participated in this study. Participants completed an 8-week HIFT program consisting of 4 training sessions per week. Participants consumed 24 g of either whey (n = 8) or pea (n = 7) protein before and after exercise on training days, and in-between meals on non-training days. Before and after training, participants underwent ultrasonography muscle thickness measurement, bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA), two benchmark WODs (workout of the day), 1-Repetition Maximum (1RM) squat and deadlift testing, and Isometric Mid-thigh Pull (IMTP) performance. Separate analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were performed on all measures collected at POST. Both groups experienced increased strength for 1RM back squat (p = 0.006) and deadlift (p = 0.008). No training effect (p > 0.05) was found for body composition, muscle thickness, IMTP peak force, IMTP rate of force development, or performance in either WOD. Using PRE values as the covariate, there were no group differences for any measured variable. We conclude that ingestion of whey and pea protein produce similar outcomes in measurements of body composition, muscle thickness, force production, WOD performance and strength following 8-weeks of HIFT.

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/sports7010012

Cites

43 of 44 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?

  • In nutritional studies concerning muscle recovery and strength gains following high-intensity functional training, pea protein yields similar outcomes to whey protein.

    “In nutritional studies concerning muscle recovery and strength gains following high-intensity functional training, pea protein yields similar outcomes to whey protein [24].”

    From Pea Protein Isolates: From Extraction to Functionality. (2025) · cites this paper as [24]

    The Results (section 3.1; page unavailable) report similar squat and deadlift strength gains in the pea- and whey-protein groups after eight weeks of high-intensity functional training. The paper does not report a measure of muscle recovery, so it does not establish similar recovery outcomes. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In a high-intensity functional training program over eight weeks, 48 g/day of whey or pea protein resulted in similar body composition, muscle thickness, force production, workout performance, and strength.

    “Banaszek et al. [124] supplemented participants in a high-intensity functional training program over eight weeks with 48 g/day of either whey or pea protein and observed that both proteins resulted in similar body composition, muscle thickness, force production, workout performance, and strength.”

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [31]Green S. Salkind N. Akey T. Methods for controlling type i error across multiple hypothesis tests Using SPSS for Windows: Analysing and Understanding Data Prentice Hall PTR Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA 2000 395 396

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Banaszek, A., Townsend, J. R., Bender, D., Vantrease, W. C., Marshall, A. C., & Johnson, K. D.
Affiliations
Lipscomb University (US)
Corresponding author
Townsend, Jeremy R.
Venue
Sports
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2019-01-04
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
12
ISSN
2075-4663 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2907148692
Cited by
113
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 3
FWCI
6.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Sports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
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
whey protein, pea protein, protein supplementation, high-intensity functional training, muscle strength, body composition, muscle thickness, rate of force development, isometric mid-thigh pull

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