The DOI matches its Crossref record; 35 of the 35 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 16 of the 48 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Higher compared with lower dietary protein during an energy deficit combined with intense exercise promotes greater lean mass gain and fat mass loss: a randomized trial
Open accessAbstract
Background A dietary protein intake higher than the Recommended Dietary Allowance during an energy deficit helps to preserve lean body mass (LBM), particularly when combined with exercise.Objective The purpose of this study was to conduct a proof-of-principle trial to test whether manipulation of dietary protein intake during a marked energy deficit in addition to intense exercise training would affect changes in body composition.Design We used a single-blind, randomized, parallel-group prospective trial. During a 4-wk period, we provided hypoenergetic (~40% reduction compared with requirements) diets providing 33 ± 1 kcal/kg LBM to young men who were randomly assigned (n = 20/group) to consume either a lower-protein (1.2 g · kg(-1) · d(-1)) control diet (CON) or a higher-protein (2.4 g · kg(-1) · d(-1)) diet (PRO). All subjects performed resistance exercise training combined with high-intensity interval training for 6 d/wk. A 4-compartment model assessment of body composition was made pre- and postintervention.Results As a result of the intervention, LBM increased (P < 0.05) in the PRO group (1.2 ± 1.0 kg) and to a greater extent (P < 0.05) compared with the CON group (0.1 ± 1.0 kg). The PRO group had a greater loss of fat mass than did the CON group (PRO: -4.8 ± 1.6 kg; CON: -3.5 ± 1.4kg; P < 0.05). All measures of exercise performance improved similarly in the PRO and CON groups as a result of the intervention with no effect of protein supplementation. Changes in serum cortisol during the intervention were associated with changes in body fat (r = 0.39, P = 0.01) and LBM (r = -0.34, P = 0.03).Conclusions Our results showed that, during a marked energy deficit, consumption of a diet containing 2.4 g protein · kg(-1) · d(-1) was more effective than consumption of a diet containing 1.2 g protein · kg(-1) · d(-1) in promoting increases in LBM and losses of fat mass when combined with a high volume of resistance and anaerobic exercise. Changes in serum cortisol were associated with changes in body fat and LBM, but did not explain much variance in either measure. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT01776359.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
24 Own result · 21 No full text of the sources · 18 Own method · 12 Own interpretation · 7 Partly supported · 4 No basis given · 2 Supported · 2 Supported so far · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“In addition, high-intensity interval training (HIT)/sprint interval training (SIT) during a hypoenergetic period may also aid in promoting LBM retention (7).”
§ Higher compared with lower dietary protein during an energy deficit combined with intense exercise promotes greater lean mass gain and fat mass loss: a randomized trial 1,2 > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [7] Heydari, 2012, The effect of high-intensity intermittent exercise on body composition of overweight young males, J Obes sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion reports increased fat-free mass after high-intensity intermittent exercise in overweight young men. However, Methods §2.4 says participants were advised to maintain their normal eating habits, and Results §3.10 reports no significant dietary change. The study therefore supports the possible lean-body-mass benefit, but not specifically during a hypoenergetic period. (LLM, conf=0.88)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Consuming supplemental protein during resistance training (RT) can result in an increased accretion of LBM (2).”
§ Higher compared with lower dietary protein during an energy deficit combined with intense exercise promotes greater lean mass gain and fat mass loss: a randomized trial 1,2 > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [2] Cermak, 2012, Protein supplementation augments the adaptive response of skeletal muscle to resistance-type exercise training: a meta-analysis, Am J Clin Nutr source
The Discussion reports greater gains in fat-free mass with protein supplementation during resistance training, including approximately 1 kg more in younger adults after about 12 weeks. Its conclusion also reports augmented fat-free-mass gains in younger adults and gains in an older population, supporting the claim about lean body mass. (LLM, conf=0.93)
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Nonetheless, recent data have shown that lower rates of MPS can also be restored by a higher dietary protein intake (3), particularly so with whey protein (30), which was the supplemental protein source used herein.”
§ Higher compared with lower dietary protein during an energy deficit combined with intense exercise promotes greater lean mass gain and fat mass loss: a randomized trial 1,2 > Additional information
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [3] Areta, 2014, Reduced resting skeletal muscle protein synthesis is rescued by resistance exercise and protein ingestion following short-term energy deficit, Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab source
- Partly supportedcites [30] Hector, 2015, von AM, Baker SK, Phillips SM. Whey protein supplementation preserves postprandial myofibrillar protein synthesis during short-term energy restriction in overweight and obese adults, J Nutr sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results (Myofibrillar protein synthesis) show that whey supplementation limited the decline in postprandial MPS more than soy or carbohydrate during a 14-day energy-restricted diet. It did not fully restore MPS: postprandial MPS still fell by 9% in the whey group, and postabsorptive MPS fell in all groups. The general higher-protein-intake clause is attached to a different citation. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“We propose that the lean mass-enhancing effect is one mediated by protein, as meta-analyses have shown (26,27).”
§ Higher compared with lower dietary protein during an energy deficit combined with intense exercise promotes greater lean mass gain and fat mass loss: a randomized trial 1,2 > Additional information
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [26] Krieger, 2006, Effects of variation in protein and carbohydrate intake on body mass and composition during energy restriction: a meta-regression, Am J Clin Nutr source
- Supportedcites [27] Wycherley, 2012, Effects of energy-restricted high-protein, low-fat compared with standard-protein, low-fat diets: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, Am J Clin Nutr source
The Discussion (page unavailable in our copy) reports that, during energy-restricted weight loss, high-protein diets mitigated the reduction in fat-free mass compared with standard-protein diets. This supports the cited basis for the authors’ proposal; the paper establishes better preservation of lean mass, not an absolute increase in it. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Data from our laboratory have shown that w0.25 g protein $ kg 21 per meal (or 0.4 g protein $ kg 21 per meal as a safe intake amount) maximally stimulates MPS in young men when participants are in energy balance (32);”
§ Higher compared with lower dietary protein during an energy deficit combined with intense exercise promotes greater lean mass gain and fat mass loss: a randomized trial 1,2 > Additional information
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [32] Moore, 2015, Protein ingestion to stimulate myofibrillar protein synthesis requires greater relative protein intakes in healthy older versus younger men, J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results report that MPS in young men plateaued at about 0.25 g protein/kg body mass. They report 0.40 g/kg as the estimated breakpoint for older men, not as a ‘safe intake amount’ for young men. The Methods describe resting, postabsorptive participants but do not establish that they were in energy balance; no page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“In these same analyses, the authors noted an effect of protein in mediating a greater loss of fat mass (26,27);”
§ Higher compared with lower dietary protein during an energy deficit combined with intense exercise promotes greater lean mass gain and fat mass loss: a randomized trial 1,2 > Additional information
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [26] Krieger, 2006, Effects of variation in protein and carbohydrate intake on body mass and composition during energy restriction: a meta-regression, Am J Clin Nutr source
- Supportedcites [27] Wycherley, 2012, Effects of energy-restricted high-protein, low-fat compared with standard-protein, low-fat diets: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, Am J Clin Nutr source
The Discussion reports that, compared with an isocalorically prescribed standard-protein diet, a high-protein diet increased fat-mass loss in the meta-analysis. It describes the benefit as modest; the supplied Discussion passage does not give a page number. (LLM, conf=0.91)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We performed correlational analyses between pre-and postintervention hormonal concentrations and body composition pre-and postintervention, or changes in body composition, and saw no significant relations (all P .0.35) between any variables”
§ Higher compared with lower dietary protein during an energy deficit combined with intense exercise promotes greater lean mass gain and fat mass loss: a randomized trial 1,2 > RESULTS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Changes in serum cortisol during the intervention were associated with changes in body fat (r = 0.39, P = 0.01)”
- Also stated in: § RESULTS · plain
“the intervention-induced change in resting overnight-fasting cortisol was significantly correlated with the change in body fat (r = 0.39, P = 0.01)”
§ Higher compared with lower dietary protein during an energy deficit combined with intense exercise promotes greater lean mass gain and fat mass loss: a randomized trial 1,2 > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § RESULTS · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“however, our results did not show a similar correlation (Figure 4).”
§ Higher compared with lower dietary protein during an energy deficit combined with intense exercise promotes greater lean mass gain and fat mass loss: a randomized trial 1,2 > DISCUSSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“CON group also consumed enough protein combined with anabolic exercise throughout the intervention to retain muscle mass.”
§ Higher compared with lower dietary protein during an energy deficit combined with intense exercise promotes greater lean mass gain and fat mass loss: a randomized trial 1,2 > DISCUSSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 34
- It may state two separate claims as one. 25
- The quote only partly states this claim. 5
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“In subjects who were in energy balance (or mildly positive energy balance), exercise-induced changes in hormones such as testosterone, growth hormone, cortisol, and/or insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I) were not associated with changes in MPS (10,11), muscle mass (12,13), or strength (13).”
§ Higher compared with lower dietary protein during an energy deficit combined with intense exercise promotes greater lean mass gain and fat mass loss: a randomized trial 1,2 > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [10] West, 2009, Resistance exercise-induced increases in putative anabolic hormones do not enhance muscle protein synthesis or intracellular signalling in young men, J Physiol sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results report that exercise increased MPS, but MPS did not differ between conditions despite greater hormone elevations in the high-hormone condition. This supports the MPS portion of the citing sentence, to which this source is attached. The paper describes participants as fed and given post-exercise protein; it does not establish that they were in energy balance or mildly positive energy balance. (LLM, conf=0.83)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [11] West, 2012, Sex-based comparisons of myofibrillar protein synthesis after resistance exercise in the fed state, J Appl Physiol source
- Partly supportedcites [12] West, 2010, Elevations in ostensibly anabolic hormones with resistance exercise enhance neither training-induced muscle hypertrophy nor strength of the elbow flexors, J Appl Physiol sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion reports no difference in strength or hypertrophy between arms exposed to low and high postexercise hormone levels after 15 weeks of training. The Results also report elevated cortisol in the high-hormone condition. The cited paper does not establish that participants were in energy balance or mildly positive energy balance; the sentence assigns the MPS finding to other citations. (LLM, conf=0.82)
- Partly supportedcites [13] West, 2012, Associations of exercise-induced hormone profiles and gains in strength and hypertrophy in a large cohort after weight training, Eur J Appl Physiol sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
This source is cited for muscle mass and strength, not MPS. The Results report no association between any measured hormone response and leg-press strength, and no association between GH, free testosterone or IGF-1 and lean body mass. But cortisol was positively correlated with gains in lean body mass, while GH and cortisol were correlated with increases in muscle-fibre area, so the blanket claim of no association with muscle mass is not supported. (LLM, conf=0.91)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“HIT/SIT also results in rapid gains in aerobic fitness, as well as endurance capacity, thus contributing to physical performance outcomes (8,9).”
§ Higher compared with lower dietary protein during an energy deficit combined with intense exercise promotes greater lean mass gain and fat mass loss: a randomized trial 1,2 > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [8] Burgomaster, 2008, Similar metabolic adaptations during exercise after low volume sprint interval and traditional endurance training in humans, J Physiol source
Table 1 (Methods, Subjects) shows peak oxygen uptake rising after three and six weeks of SIT, supporting rapid gains in aerobic fitness. The Discussion reports improved volitional exercise performance after six SIT sessions over two weeks, supporting the endurance-performance part of the claim. The latter finding is reported from the authors’ earlier study rather than measured directly in this one. (LLM, conf=0.87)
- Partly supportedcites [9] Gillen, 2014, Three minutes of all-out intermittent exercise per week increases skeletal muscle oxidative capacity and improves cardiometabolic health, PLoS One sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results (Indices of cardiometabolic health; page unavailable) report that six weeks of very low-volume SIT increased VO2 peak by 12% and maximal workload by 14%, supporting rapid gains in aerobic fitness and a physical-performance measure. The paper does not report a distinct measure of endurance capacity, so that part of the claim is not established by this study. (LLM, conf=0.85)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Combining a higher protein intake with RT during caloric restriction would act synergistically on the rates of MPS, resulting in a greater ratio of fat to LBM lost during energy restriction (5,6), which may be advantageous for physical performance.”
§ Higher compared with lower dietary protein during an energy deficit combined with intense exercise promotes greater lean mass gain and fat mass loss: a randomized trial 1,2 > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [5] Mettler, 2010, Increased protein intake reduces lean body mass loss during weight loss in athletes, Med Sci Sports Exerc source
- Partly supportedcites [6] Josse, 2011, Increased consumption of dairy foods and protein during diet- and exercise-induced weight loss promotes fat mass loss and lean mass gain in overweight and obese premenopausal women, J Nutr sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction says that higher protein intake paired with exercise, especially resistance exercise, can work synergistically to maintain lean mass during weight loss. The Discussion reports greater fat loss and lean mass gain with higher protein and dairy intake during energy restriction and combined aerobic and resistance training. Our copy does not establish that this effect operates through synergistic changes in muscle protein synthesis (MPS) rates. (LLM, conf=0.88)
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Current evidence suggests that the energy deficit likely reduces basal MPS (29) and may also have reduced the sensitivity of MPS to feeding (30,31).”
§ Higher compared with lower dietary protein during an energy deficit combined with intense exercise promotes greater lean mass gain and fat mass loss: a randomized trial 1,2 > Additional information
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [29] Pasiakos, 2010, Acute energy deprivation affects skeletal muscle protein synthesis and associated intracellular signaling proteins in physically active adults, J Nutr source
Citation (29) supports the basal MPS clause. The Experimental design section describes fasted, resting measurements, and the FSR results report approximately 19% lower muscle protein synthesis after a 10-day energy deficit than during weight maintenance. The separate claim about sensitivity to feeding is attached to citations (30,31), not this source. (LLM, conf=0.94)
- Partly supportedcites [30] Hector, 2015, von AM, Baker SK, Phillips SM. Whey protein supplementation preserves postprandial myofibrillar protein synthesis during short-term energy restriction in overweight and obese adults, J Nutr sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Myofibrillar protein synthesis results (page unavailable) report lower postprandial MPS after the 14-day energy deficit, supporting the possibility raised by the citation. But postabsorptive MPS also fell, and the passage does not establish that the feeding-induced increase itself was reduced. The basal-MPS clause is attached to a different citation. (LLM, conf=0.82)
- Supportedcites [31] Murphy, 2015, Hypoenergetic diet-induced reductions in myofibrillar protein synthesis are restored with resistance training and balanced daily protein ingestion in older men, Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab source
The Discussion reports that short-term energy restriction in older men reduced fasted-state MPS, supporting the basal-MPS claim attached to this citation. It also reports reduced fed-state MPS and discusses possible effects on anabolic sensitivity, although the feeding-sensitivity clause is attached to other citations in the citing sentence. (LLM, conf=0.92)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“We have previously reported a similar pattern of body composition change during a longer-duration intervention in overweight/obese premenopausal women (6).”
§ Higher compared with lower dietary protein during an energy deficit combined with intense exercise promotes greater lean mass gain and fat mass loss: a randomized trial 1,2 > Additional information
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [6] Josse, 2011, Increased consumption of dairy foods and protein during diet- and exercise-induced weight loss promotes fat mass loss and lean mass gain in overweight and obese premenopausal women, J Nutr source
The Results (Body composition [DXA]; page unavailable) report fat-mass loss and lean-mass gain in the high-protein, high-dairy group over 16 weeks. The Figure 1 caption identifies the participants as overweight and obese premenopausal women, matching the intervention the citing sentence identifies. (LLM, conf=0.92)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and LBM (r = 20.34,P = 0.03)”
- Also stated in: § RESULTS · plain
“and LBM (r = 20.34,P = 0.03)”
§ Higher compared with lower dietary protein during an energy deficit combined with intense exercise promotes greater lean mass gain and fat mass loss: a randomized trial 1,2 > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
- Also stated in: § RESULTS · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We observed main effects for time for all hormones and no between-group differences.”
§ Higher compared with lower dietary protein during an energy deficit combined with intense exercise promotes greater lean mass gain and fat mass loss: a randomized trial 1,2 > RESULTS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The PRO group had a greater loss of fat mass than did the CON group (PRO: 24.8 6 1.6 kg; CON: 23.5 6 1.4kg; P , 0.05).”
- Also stated in: § RESULTS · plain
“fat mass losses were greater (P , 0.05) in the PRO group (24.8 6 1.6 kg) than in the CON group (23.5 6 1.4 kg)”
- Also stated in: § DISCUSSION · plain
“we observed a greater loss (w1.3 kg) of fat mass in the PRO group than in the CON group”
§ Higher compared with lower dietary protein during an energy deficit combined with intense exercise promotes greater lean mass gain and fat mass loss: a randomized trial 1,2 > Abstract
plaindirectn = 20- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
- Also stated in: § RESULTS · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the estimated glomerular filtration rate increased in the PRO group from pre-to postintervention, but remained unchanged in the CON group”
§ Higher compared with lower dietary protein during an energy deficit combined with intense exercise promotes greater lean mass gain and fat mass loss: a randomized trial 1,2 > RESULTS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the pooled changes in cortisol could explain only 16% and 11% of the variance in changes in fat mass and LBM, respectively.”
§ Higher compared with lower dietary protein during an energy deficit combined with intense exercise promotes greater lean mass gain and fat mass loss: a randomized trial 1,2 > RESULTS
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We did not observe any interaction effects between conditions, but did observe main effects over time for all hormones (Table 5).”
§ Higher compared with lower dietary protein during an energy deficit combined with intense exercise promotes greater lean mass gain and fat mass loss: a randomized trial 1,2 > DISCUSSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“LBM remained unchanged in the CON group (0.1 6 1.0 kg; P , 0.45)”
- Also stated in: § DISCUSSION · plain
“LBM was unchanged during a period of high-intensity exercise training and substantial energy deficit even when the amount of protein consumed (1.2 g $ kg 21 $ d 21 ) was lower”
§ Higher compared with lower dietary protein during an energy deficit combined with intense exercise promotes greater lean mass gain and fat mass loss: a randomized trial 1,2 > RESULTS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
- Also stated in: § DISCUSSION · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We observed a significant time-by-condition interaction for blood urea nitrogen, which increased in the PRO group (P , 0.05) and remained unchanged in the CON group”
§ Higher compared with lower dietary protein during an energy deficit combined with intense exercise promotes greater lean mass gain and fat mass loss: a randomized trial 1,2 > RESULTS
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“LBM increased (P , 0.05) in the PRO group (1.2 6 1.0 kg)”
- Also stated in: § RESULTS · plain
“LBM increased in the PRO group (1.2 6 1.0 kg) compared with preintervention”
- Also stated in: § DISCUSSION · plain
“higher protein-containing (2.4 g $ kg 21 $ d 21 ) diet consumed during a period of marked energy deficit (w40% reduction in estimated energy requirement) during HIT resulted in an increase in LBM”
§ Higher compared with lower dietary protein during an energy deficit combined with intense exercise promotes greater lean mass gain and fat mass loss: a randomized trial 1,2 > Abstract
plaindirectn = 20- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
- Also stated in: § RESULTS · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and to a greater extent (P , 0.05) compared with the CON group (0.1 6 1.0 kg)”
- Also stated in: § RESULTS · plain
“this increase was greater (P , 0.05) than in the CON group”
§ Higher compared with lower dietary protein during an energy deficit combined with intense exercise promotes greater lean mass gain and fat mass loss: a randomized trial 1,2 > Abstract
plaindirectn = 20- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
- Also stated in: § RESULTS · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There was substantial weight loss in both groups from pre-to postintervention, but there were no differences in body weight loss between groups (P .0.8)”
§ Higher compared with lower dietary protein during an energy deficit combined with intense exercise promotes greater lean mass gain and fat mass loss: a randomized trial 1,2 > RESULTS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Creatinine clearance remained unchanged as a result of the protocol in both groups”
§ Higher compared with lower dietary protein during an energy deficit combined with intense exercise promotes greater lean mass gain and fat mass loss: a randomized trial 1,2 > RESULTS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition, we did not observe any independent correlations with hormones or any body composition or performance variables (data not shown).”
§ Higher compared with lower dietary protein during an energy deficit combined with intense exercise promotes greater lean mass gain and fat mass loss: a randomized trial 1,2 > DISCUSSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All measures of exercise performance improved similarly in the PRO and CON groups as a result of the intervention with no effect of protein supplementation.”
- Also stated in: § RESULTS · plain
“With the exception of isometric knee extension torque, strength increased in all exercises, as did measures of aerobic and anaerobic capacity and performance on sit-up and push-up tests (Table 4).There were no differences between groups for any performance-based variable.”
- Also stated in: § DISCUSSION · plain
“there were no differential responses in strength, performance, aerobic fitness, or anaerobic power between groups”
§ Higher compared with lower dietary protein during an energy deficit combined with intense exercise promotes greater lean mass gain and fat mass loss: a randomized trial 1,2 > Abstract
plainn = 20- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § RESULTS · plain
In the paper
“Contrary to our findings, these authors (4) reported that a higher protein diet (2.4 g $ kg 21 $ d 21 ) still resulted in a loss of 1.2 6 0.3 kg LBM as a result of the 21-d intervention.”
§ Higher compared with lower dietary protein during an energy deficit combined with intense exercise promotes greater lean mass gain and fat mass loss: a randomized trial 1,2 > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [4] Pasiakos, 2013, Effects of high-protein diets on fat-free mass and muscle protein synthesis following weight loss: a randomized controlled trial, FASEB J source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In general, cortisol opposes fat loss and promotes loss of LBM during energy restriction (34), which is what we observed.”
§ Higher compared with lower dietary protein during an energy deficit combined with intense exercise promotes greater lean mass gain and fat mass loss: a randomized trial 1,2 > DISCUSSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Changes in serum cortisol were associated with changes in body fat and LBM, but did not explain much variance in either measure.”
§ Higher compared with lower dietary protein during an energy deficit combined with intense exercise promotes greater lean mass gain and fat mass loss: a randomized trial 1,2 > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“We propose that the disparate findings of the previous study (4) and our findings may be due to the timing of our supplementation and the exercise intensity, which could be important in increasing or maintaining LBM while in a severe energy deficit (3).”
§ Higher compared with lower dietary protein during an energy deficit combined with intense exercise promotes greater lean mass gain and fat mass loss: a randomized trial 1,2 > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [4] Pasiakos, 2013, Effects of high-protein diets on fat-free mass and muscle protein synthesis following weight loss: a randomized controlled trial, FASEB J source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [3] Areta, 2014, Reduced resting skeletal muscle protein synthesis is rescued by resistance exercise and protein ingestion following short-term energy deficit, Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As an objective measure of compliance with the PRO diet, we measured serum urea and noted that it increased during the intervention and remained unchanged in the CON group.”
§ Higher compared with lower dietary protein during an energy deficit combined with intense exercise promotes greater lean mass gain and fat mass loss: a randomized trial 1,2 > DISCUSSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“however, when under extreme energy deprivation combined with high energy expenditure, there have been associations observed between changes in hormones and body composition (15,16).”
§ Higher compared with lower dietary protein during an energy deficit combined with intense exercise promotes greater lean mass gain and fat mass loss: a randomized trial 1,2 > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [15] Alemany, 2008, Effects of dietary protein content on IGF-I, testosterone, and body composition during 8 days of severe energy deficit and arduous physical activity, J Appl Physiol source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [16] Nindl, 2007, Utility of circulating IGF-I as a biomarker for assessing body composition changes in men during periods of high physical activity superimposed upon energy and sleep restriction, J Appl Physiol source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Other research suggests that $2 g protein $ kg 21 $ d 21 may be required to maintain LBM when an individual is in an energy deficit (5).”
§ Higher compared with lower dietary protein during an energy deficit combined with intense exercise promotes greater lean mass gain and fat mass loss: a randomized trial 1,2 > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [5] Mettler, 2010, Increased protein intake reduces lean body mass loss during weight loss in athletes, Med Sci Sports Exerc source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.govas NCT01776359.”
- Also stated in: § Research participants · plain
“(NCT01776359)”
§ Higher compared with lower dietary protein during an energy deficit combined with intense exercise promotes greater lean mass gain and fat mass loss: a randomized trial 1,2 > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Also stated in: § Research participants · plain
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Compliance with the nutritional intervention (i.e., consumption of all the provided study foods) was assessed by daily contact with participants, food consumption checklists, and daily weight monitoring, and was estimated to be 93%.”
§ Higher compared with lower dietary protein during an energy deficit combined with intense exercise promotes greater lean mass gain and fat mass loss: a randomized trial 1,2 > Diet
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Because of the nature of the trial, it was impractical to maintain a double-blinded scheme, and yet we do not think this influenced the outcomes, because all analyses were done in a blinded manner and data were only unblinded after all analyses were complete.”
§ Higher compared with lower dietary protein during an energy deficit combined with intense exercise promotes greater lean mass gain and fat mass loss: a randomized trial 1,2 > DISCUSSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Evidence from Areta et al. (3) showed that consuming 30 g protein after resistance exercise while in an energy deficit resulted in a greater stimulation of muscle protein synthesis (MPS) than did consumption of 15 g protein.”
§ Higher compared with lower dietary protein during an energy deficit combined with intense exercise promotes greater lean mass gain and fat mass loss: a randomized trial 1,2 > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [3] Areta, 2014, Reduced resting skeletal muscle protein synthesis is rescued by resistance exercise and protein ingestion following short-term energy deficit, Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A potential limitation of the present trial is the free-living nature of the protocol.”
§ Higher compared with lower dietary protein during an energy deficit combined with intense exercise promotes greater lean mass gain and fat mass loss: a randomized trial 1,2 > DISCUSSION
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Data from Trapp et al. (25) suggest that lipolysis increases over 20 min of HIT training gradually with each session.”
§ Higher compared with lower dietary protein during an energy deficit combined with intense exercise promotes greater lean mass gain and fat mass loss: a randomized trial 1,2 > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Trapp et al. [25] Trapp, 2008, The effects of high-intensity intermittent exercise training on fat loss and fasting insulin levels of young women, Int J Obes (Lond) source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In conclusion, the current study provides direct evidence that a higher protein diet during substantial energy deficit and HIT not only preserves, but increases, LBM and HIT during the energy deficit, irrespective of protein intake, and increases strength and performance in young men.”
§ Higher compared with lower dietary protein during an energy deficit combined with intense exercise promotes greater lean mass gain and fat mass loss: a randomized trial 1,2 > DISCUSSION
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Hypoenergetic diet-induced weight loss results in w20-30% of mass lost as lean body mass (LBM), 3 with the remaining mass lost from adipose tissue (1).”
§ Higher compared with lower dietary protein during an energy deficit combined with intense exercise promotes greater lean mass gain and fat mass loss: a randomized trial 1,2 > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [1] Weinheimer, 2010, A systematic review of the separate and combined effects of energy restriction and exercise on fat-free mass in middle-aged and older adults: implications for sarcopenic obesity, Nutr Rev source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In general, cortisol opposes fat loss and promotes loss of LBM during energy restriction (34), which is what we observed.”
§ Higher compared with lower dietary protein during an energy deficit combined with intense exercise promotes greater lean mass gain and fat mass loss: a randomized trial 1,2 > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [34] Seimon, 2013, Effects of energy restriction on activity of the hypothalamo-pituitary-adrenal axis in obese humans and rodents: implications for diet-induced changes in body composition, Horm Mol Biol Clin Investig source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Pasiakos et al. (4) reported that daily protein at twice the Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) for protein attenuated the loss of LBM during an energy deficit with both aerobic and resistance exercise.”
§ Higher compared with lower dietary protein during an energy deficit combined with intense exercise promotes greater lean mass gain and fat mass loss: a randomized trial 1,2 > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [4] Pasiakos, 2013, Effects of high-protein diets on fat-free mass and muscle protein synthesis following weight loss: a randomized controlled trial, FASEB J source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Intra-and interassay CVs for these metabolites were all ,5%.”
§ Higher compared with lower dietary protein during an energy deficit combined with intense exercise promotes greater lean mass gain and fat mass loss: a randomized trial 1,2 > Blood sampling, hormonal measurements, and urinary measures
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We had good compliance with exercise intervention and propose that subjects exerted high degrees of effort when requested.”
§ Higher compared with lower dietary protein during an energy deficit combined with intense exercise promotes greater lean mass gain and fat mass loss: a randomized trial 1,2 > DISCUSSION
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All data were analyzed with the use of a 2-factor repeated measures ANCOVA with protein intake (between) and time (within) as the main variables.Covariates included age, height, weight, baseline body composition (when assessing body composition), and baseline performance measures (when assessing changes in performance).”
§ Higher compared with lower dietary protein during an energy deficit combined with intense exercise promotes greater lean mass gain and fat mass loss: a randomized trial 1,2 > Statistical analysis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Sample sizes were determined a priori powered on the primary outcome of lean mass loss (by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry) to detect a differential lean mass loss of 1 kg, with a = 0.05 and power at 90%, to require 16 subjects/group”
§ Higher compared with lower dietary protein during an energy deficit combined with intense exercise promotes greater lean mass gain and fat mass loss: a randomized trial 1,2 > Statistical analysis
plainn = 16- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All intra-and interassay CVs for these hormones were ,8%, with the exception of free testosterone, which was ,11%.”
§ Higher compared with lower dietary protein during an energy deficit combined with intense exercise promotes greater lean mass gain and fat mass loss: a randomized trial 1,2 > Blood sampling, hormonal measurements, and urinary measures
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Our hormonal data align roughly with previous work in military personnel undergoing high levels of daily activity in an extreme energy deficit (15,16).”
§ Higher compared with lower dietary protein during an energy deficit combined with intense exercise promotes greater lean mass gain and fat mass loss: a randomized trial 1,2 > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [15] Alemany, 2008, Effects of dietary protein content on IGF-I, testosterone, and body composition during 8 days of severe energy deficit and arduous physical activity, J Appl Physiol source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [16] Nindl, 2007, Utility of circulating IGF-I as a biomarker for assessing body composition changes in men during periods of high physical activity superimposed upon energy and sleep restriction, J Appl Physiol source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Body composition was determined with the use of a 4compartment model of body composition as described previously (19).”
- Also stated in: § Body composition · plain
“CVs for repeated measures on subsequent days were the following: BodPod, 1.2%; bioelectrical impendance, 1.9%; and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, 0.8%.”
§ Higher compared with lower dietary protein during an energy deficit combined with intense exercise promotes greater lean mass gain and fat mass loss: a randomized trial 1,2 > Body composition
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [19] Wilson, 2013, Improved 4-compartment body-composition model for a clinically accessible measure of total body protein, Am J Clin Nutr source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Body composition · plain
In the paper
“The percentage change in free IGF-I was, in the previous work (16), shown to be correlated with the percentage change in fat mass;”
§ Higher compared with lower dietary protein during an energy deficit combined with intense exercise promotes greater lean mass gain and fat mass loss: a randomized trial 1,2 > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [16] Nindl, 2007, Utility of circulating IGF-I as a biomarker for assessing body composition changes in men during periods of high physical activity superimposed upon energy and sleep restriction, J Appl Physiol source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Because of the nature of the trial, it was impractical to maintain a double-blinded scheme, and yet we do not think this influenced the outcomes, because all analyses were done in a blinded manner and data were only unblinded after all analyses were complete.”
§ Higher compared with lower dietary protein during an energy deficit combined with intense exercise promotes greater lean mass gain and fat mass loss: a randomized trial 1,2 > DISCUSSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The trial protocol was approved by the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board and complied with the standards as set out in the Canadian Tri-Council Policy statement on the use of human participants in research”
§ Higher compared with lower dietary protein during an energy deficit combined with intense exercise promotes greater lean mass gain and fat mass loss: a randomized trial 1,2 > Research participants
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“In the study described in these publications (15,16), the degree of energy deficit was greater and protein intake was much lower than in the present study.”
§ Higher compared with lower dietary protein during an energy deficit combined with intense exercise promotes greater lean mass gain and fat mass loss: a randomized trial 1,2 > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [15] Alemany, 2008, Effects of dietary protein content on IGF-I, testosterone, and body composition during 8 days of severe energy deficit and arduous physical activity, J Appl Physiol source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [16] Nindl, 2007, Utility of circulating IGF-I as a biomarker for assessing body composition changes in men during periods of high physical activity superimposed upon energy and sleep restriction, J Appl Physiol source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“RT attenuates the loss of skeletal muscle mass during an energy deficit presumably by stimulating MPS (3,4).”
§ Higher compared with lower dietary protein during an energy deficit combined with intense exercise promotes greater lean mass gain and fat mass loss: a randomized trial 1,2 > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [3] Areta, 2014, Reduced resting skeletal muscle protein synthesis is rescued by resistance exercise and protein ingestion following short-term energy deficit, Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [4] Pasiakos, 2013, Effects of high-protein diets on fat-free mass and muscle protein synthesis following weight loss: a randomized controlled trial, FASEB J source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We had good compliance with exercise intervention and propose that subjects exerted high degrees of effort when requested.”
§ Higher compared with lower dietary protein during an energy deficit combined with intense exercise promotes greater lean mass gain and fat mass loss: a randomized trial 1,2 > DISCUSSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“participants were randomly assigned (with the use of the random number generation of a code: http://www.randomization.com/)”
§ Higher compared with lower dietary protein during an energy deficit combined with intense exercise promotes greater lean mass gain and fat mass loss: a randomized trial 1,2 > Research participants
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We used a single-blind, randomized, parallel-group prospective trial.”
- Also stated in: § Research participants · plain
“The trial was a single-blind, randomized, parallel prospective trial conducted between January 2013 and February 2014 (NCT01776359) at McMaster University.”
§ Higher compared with lower dietary protein during an energy deficit combined with intense exercise promotes greater lean mass gain and fat mass loss: a randomized trial 1,2 > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Research participants · plain
In the paper
“These authors (4) included groups that consumed protein at 3 levels-0.8,1.6, and 2.4 g $ kg 21 $ d 21 -and reported a substantial retention of LBM for the 1.6 g $ kg 21 $ d 21 group, but not with consumption of 2.4 g $ kg 21 $ d 21 of protein.”
§ Higher compared with lower dietary protein during an energy deficit combined with intense exercise promotes greater lean mass gain and fat mass loss: a randomized trial 1,2 > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [4] Pasiakos, 2013, Effects of high-protein diets on fat-free mass and muscle protein synthesis following weight loss: a randomized controlled trial, FASEB J source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This research suggests that the high-intensity exercise our current participants were subjected to likely enhanced their capacity for fat oxidation and may have induced an increase in muscle mitochondrial enzyme activity (25).”
§ Higher compared with lower dietary protein during an energy deficit combined with intense exercise promotes greater lean mass gain and fat mass loss: a randomized trial 1,2 > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [25] Trapp, 2008, The effects of high-intensity intermittent exercise training on fat loss and fasting insulin levels of young women, Int J Obes (Lond) source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nonetheless, we are unaware of data that would suggest that a greater or lesser fat intake, at least of the magnitude seen here, would promote differential lean mass retention and/or differential fat loss when the energy deficit is identical.”
§ Higher compared with lower dietary protein during an energy deficit combined with intense exercise promotes greater lean mass gain and fat mass loss: a randomized trial 1,2 > Additional information
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our data suggest that during a substantial energy deficit, higher protein consumption (2.4 g $ kg 21 $ d 21 ) resulted in an increased stimulation of MPS and/or a suppression of proteolysis to a greater extent than consumption of 1.2 g $ kg 21 $ d 21 , as evidenced by gains in LBM in the PRO group.”
§ Higher compared with lower dietary protein during an energy deficit combined with intense exercise promotes greater lean mass gain and fat mass loss: a randomized trial 1,2 > Additional information
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
Intense high-volume resistance exercise and HIT had not been studied in such a severe energy deficit previously.
“It is also worth noting that our training program involved intense high-volume resistance exercise and HIT/SIT, which has not, to our knowledge, been studied in such a severe energy deficit previously.”
The paper relies on this without support.
It has not yet been established what protein dose would maximally stimulate MPS while in a period of energy deficit.
“however, it has not yet been established what protein dose would maximally stimulate MPS while in a period of energy deficit.”
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“which may have omitted the significant impact protein has during periods of weight loss with RET.88”
From A systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression of the effect of protein supplementation on resistance training-induced gains in muscle mass and strength in healthy adults (2018) · cites this paper as [88]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Longland and colleagues [34] have shown that CRRT with high protein consumption induces an increase in LBM and promotes larger fat loss, if compared to CRRT with low protein consumption.”
From Resistance Training Prevents Muscle Loss Induced by Caloric Restriction in Obese Elderly Individuals: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (2018) · cites this paper as [34]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“During a four-week 40% energy deficient diet, overweight recreationally active men consuming 2.4 g protein/kg body weight/day experienced greater increases in LBM and losses in FM than those consuming a diet containing 1.2 g protein/kg body weight/day when combined with a high volume of resistance exercise [25].”
From Body Composition Changes in Weight Loss: Strategies and Supplementation for Maintaining Lean Body Mass, a Brief Review (2018) · cites this paper as [25]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“but does not improve muscle strength”
From Preserving Healthy Muscle during Weight Loss (2017) · cites this paper as [107]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Subsequently, a 4-week trial by Longland et al. [119] compared a protein intake of 1.2 vs 2.4 g/kg in overweight and obese subjects in hypocaloric conditions (40% below maintenance caloric needs). The lower-protein group’s lean mass was unchanged, and the fat mass was reduced (3.5 kg). In the higher protein group, fat mass reduced to an even greater degree (4.8 kg), while gaining lean mass”
From International Society of Sports Nutrition position stand: diets for body weight reduction (2026) · cites this paper as [119]
In the citing paper
“Higher protein amounts are also required when CHO and/or caloric intakes are low or insufficient [65].”
From International Society of Sports Nutrition Position Stand: nutritional considerations for single-stage ultra-marathon training and racing (2019) · cites this paper as [65]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated major: it would touch a result — a value a result rests on, reported and recomputed p-values on opposite sides of the significance level, two passages that conflict with no sign which is right, or a cited work retracted before this paper was published.
In the paper
§ Higher compared with lower dietary protein during an energy deficit combined with intense exercise promotes greater lean mass gain and fat mass loss: a randomized trial 1,2 > Diet
“Fat mass, kg 22.1 6 7.3 22.8 6 7.2”
§ Higher compared with lower dietary protein during an energy deficit combined with intense exercise promotes greater lean mass gain and fat mass loss: a randomized trial 1,2 > DISCUSSION
“| Body fat, kg | 23.6 6 5.6 | 18.8 6 6.2* y | 24.8 6 6.1 | 21.1 6 6.1* |”
Rated major: it would touch a result — a value a result rests on, reported and recomputed p-values on opposite sides of the significance level, two passages that conflict with no sign which is right, or a cited work retracted before this paper was published.
In the paper
§ Higher compared with lower dietary protein during an energy deficit combined with intense exercise promotes greater lean mass gain and fat mass loss: a randomized trial 1,2 > RESULTS
“fat mass losses were greater (P , 0.05) in the PRO group (24.8 6 1.6 kg) than in the CON group (23.5 6 1.4 kg)”
§ Higher compared with lower dietary protein during an energy deficit combined with intense exercise promotes greater lean mass gain and fat mass loss: a randomized trial 1,2 > DISCUSSION
“| Body fat, kg | 23.6 6 5.6 | 18.8 6 6.2* y | 24.8 6 6.1 | 21.1 6 6.1* |”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Higher compared with lower dietary protein during an energy deficit combined with intense exercise promotes greater lean mass gain and fat mass loss: a randomized trial 1,2 > RESULTS
“the change in body fat (r = 0.39, P = 0.01) (Figure 4) and LBM (r = 20.34,P = 0.03) (Figure 5)”
§ Higher compared with lower dietary protein during an energy deficit combined with intense exercise promotes greater lean mass gain and fat mass loss: a randomized trial 1,2 > DISCUSSION
“Figure: 4 FIGURE 4 FIGURE 4 Linear relations between changes in resting fasting systemic serum hormone concentration and changes in LBM.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Higher compared with lower dietary protein during an energy deficit combined with intense exercise promotes greater lean mass gain and fat mass loss: a randomized trial 1,2 > DISCUSSION
“| Lean mass, kg | 73.1 6 6.8 | 74.3 6 6.7* y | 69.2 6 6.1 | 69.2 6 6.1* |”
§ Higher compared with lower dietary protein during an energy deficit combined with intense exercise promotes greater lean mass gain and fat mass loss: a randomized trial 1,2 > RESULTS
“During the intervention, LBM remained unchanged in the CON group (0.1 6 1.0 kg; P , 0.45)”
Citations
Cites
A New Equation to Estimate Glomerular Filtration Rate
Levey, A. S., Stevens, L. A., Schmid, C. H., Zhang, Y. (., Castro, A. F., Feldman, H. I., Kusek, J. W., Eggers, P., Van Lente, F., Greene, T., et al. (2009) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-150-9-200905050-00006 · Cited by 25,603
Burgomaster, K. A., Howarth, K. R., Phillips, S. M., Rakobowchuk, M., MacDonald, M. J., McGee, S. L., & Gibala, M. J. (2008) · The Journal of Physiology · doi:10.1113/jphysiol.2007.142109 · Cited by 1,257
Self-citationCarbohydrates for training and competition
Burke, L. M., Hawley, J. A., Wong, S. H. S., & Jeukendrup, A. E. (2011) · Journal of Sports Sciences · doi:10.1080/02640414.2011.585473 · Cited by 985
Cermak, N. M., Res, P. T., de Groot, L. C., Saris, W. H., & van Loon, L. J. (2012) · The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.3945/ajcn.112.037556 · Cited by 827
Moore, D. R., Churchward-Venne, T. A., Witard, O., Breen, L., Burd, N. A., Tipton, K. D., & Phillips, S. M. (2015) · The Journals of Gerontology: Series A · doi:10.1093/gerona/glu103 · Cited by 770
Self-citationResistance exercise load does not determine training-mediated hypertrophic gains in young men
Mitchell, C. J., Churchward-Venne, T. A., West, D. W. D., Burd, N. A., Breen, L., Baker, S. K., & Phillips, S. M. (2012) · Journal of Applied Physiology · doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.00307.2012 · Cited by 627
Self-citationWycherley, T. P., Moran, L. J., Clifton, P. M., Noakes, M., & Brinkworth, G. D. (2012) · The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.3945/ajcn.112.044321 · Cited by 606
Trapp, E. G., Chisholm, D. J., Freund, J., & Boutcher, S. H. (2008) · International Journal of Obesity · doi:10.1038/sj.ijo.0803781 · Cited by 533
Krieger, J. W., Sitren, H. S., Daniels, M. J., & Langkamp-Henken, B. (2006) · The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.1093/ajcn/83.2.260 · Cited by 466
Weinheimer, E. M., Sands, L. P., & Campbell, W. W. (2010) · Nutrition Reviews · doi:10.1111/j.1753-4887.2010.00298.x · Cited by 391
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Morton, R. W., Murphy, K. T., McKellar, S. R., Schoenfeld, B. J., Henselmans, M., Helms, E., Aragon, A. A., Devries, M. C., Banfield, L., Krieger, J. W., et al. (2018) · British Journal of Sports Medicine · doi:10.1136/bjsports-2017-097608 · Cited by 1,269
Self-citationISSN exercise & sports nutrition review update: research & recommendations
Kerksick, C. M., Wilborn, C. D., Roberts, M. D., Smith-Ryan, A., Kleiner, S. M., Jäger, R., Collins, R., Cooke, M., Davis, J. N., Galvan, E., et al. (2018) · Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition · doi:10.1186/s12970-018-0242-y · Cited by 945
Preserving Healthy Muscle during Weight Loss
Cava, E., Yeat, N. C., & Mittendorfer, B. (2017) · Advances in Nutrition · doi:10.3945/an.116.014506 · Cited by 452
International society of sports nutrition position stand: diets and body composition
Aragon, A. A., Schoenfeld, B. J., Wildman, R., Kleiner, S., VanDusseldorp, T., Taylor, L., Earnest, C. P., Arciero, P. J., Wilborn, C., Kalman, D. S., et al. (2017) · Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition · doi:10.1186/s12970-017-0174-y · Cited by 301
Collins, J., Maughan, R. J., Gleeson, M., Bilsborough, J., Jeukendrup, A., Morton, J. P., Phillips, S. M., Armstrong, L., Burke, L. M., Close, G. L., et al. (2021) · British Journal of Sports Medicine · doi:10.1136/bjsports-2019-101961 · Cited by 303
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Longland, T. M., Oikawa, S. Y., Mitchell, C. J., Devries, M. C., & Phillips, S. M.
- Affiliations
- McMaster University (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Phillips, Stuart M
- Venue
- The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2016-03
- Volume
- 103
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 738-746
- ISSN
- 0002-9165 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2259417356
- Semantic Scholar
- 6519e64c4b07d86458ffff883278fdcf2b148e15
- Cited by
- 271
- References
- 34
- Citations by year
- 2026: 34 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 28 · 2017: 30 · 2016: 8
- FWCI
- 19.88
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- ResearchSpace (University of Auckland) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (RGPIN-2015-04613)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Muscle metabolism and nutrition
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology (medical) › Nutrition and Health in Aging
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology (medical) › Body Composition Measurement Techniques
- Keywords
- dietary protein, negative energy balance, lean body mass, fat loss, body composition, resistance training, high-intensity interval training, serum cortisol, protein supplementation, weight loss, young men, exercise performance, 4-compartment model, anaerobic exercise, muscle protein synthesis, muscle protein degradation, fat oxidation, substrate oxidation, energy expenditure, fat mass
- MeSH terms
- Adipose Tissue, Adult, Body Composition, Body Fluid Compartments, Energy Intake, Diet, Dietary Proteins, Physical Exertion, Humans, Hydrocortisone, Male, Nutritional Requirements, Prospective Studies, Exercise, Single-Blind Method, Caloric Restriction, Resistance Training, Young Adult
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-08, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-08 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
