Milk Basic Protein

Body weight

body composition; lean body mass /fat mass; body mass index; changes in body composition

Strength

strength; muscular strength; isokinetic strength of lower limbs

Muscle

muscle mass; lean mass; lean body mass /fat mass

Cholesterol

triglyceride levels; postprandial triglyceride response

Blood sugar

plasma glucose; blood glucose level

Endurance

walk distance; heart rate during the speed endurance production training

Energy

lunch energy intake

Sleep

sleep quality

Sorted by fixed word lists, version v1. A name the rules do not recognise stays unsorted rather than moving to the nearest column.

∅ Nothing in the sources checked

No registered study lists a life outcome for this goal.

△ Only a number moved

4 registered test measure.

— Not recorded

Harms were not a registered measure for this goal.

… Waiting for a reviewer

Who was studied is listed further down the page.

• net whole body protein balance
• net whole body protein synthesis
• muscle protein synthesis
• metabolism
• muscle function
• visceral fat
• nutritional status
• physical performance
• muscle phenylalanine netbalance over the forearm muscle
• physical capacity through the maximum distance traveled
• perceived fullness
• perceived desire to eat
• perceived prospective food consumption
• lunch energy intake
• maximal voluntary isometric contraction of lower limbs

These are harms, study-process measures, or names the rules did not recognise. They are shown rather than dropped.

A different form was studied

The studied form is not the form on the shelf. Nothing in this record points to this reason.

There was nothing to correct

Where a level is already normal, topping it up may change nothing. Nothing in this record points to this reason.

The change is too small to feel

A real change can still sit below what a person notices. Nothing in this record points to this reason.

Day-to-day swing hides it

Sleep, food, stress and time of day move most numbers more than this would. Nothing in this record points to this reason.

Not enough time yet

The studies ran longer than the person has waited. Nothing in this record points to this reason.

It was not taken as studied

Missed days change the result, and studies count them. Nothing in this record points to this reason.

Something else changed at the same time

Two changes at once cannot be told apart afterwards. Nothing in this record points to this reason.

No recorded reason

RNAWiki has nothing stored that would explain it. Nothing in this record points to this reason.

In plain words

Across 49 randomised trials in 1,863 people, adding protein to a training programme produced measurably more muscle and strength than training alone. The amount was about a third of a kilogram of lean mass.

What was measured

Change in fat-free mass, one-repetition maximum, muscle fibre cross-sectional area and mid-femur cross-sectional area

Effect estimate

No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.

Limits

See the technical detail.

From the source

Morton and colleagues meta-analysed randomised controlled trials with at least six weeks of resistance training plus protein supplementation. Across 49 studies and 1,863 participants, protein supplementation significantly increased one-repetition-maximum strength by 2.49 kg (95% CI 0.64 to 4.33), fat-free mass by 0.30 kg (95% CI 0.09 to 0.52), muscle fibre cross-sectional area by 310 square micrometres (95% CI 51 to 570) and mid-femur cross-sectional area by 7.2 square millimetres (95% CI 0.20 to 14.30). Every one of those is statistically significant and every one is small. Two meta-regression findings matter as much as the headline: the effect on fat-free mass fell with increasing age (-0.01 kg per year, P = 0.002) and was larger in people already resistance-trained (+0.75 kg, P = 0.03). The population most often sold protein for sarcopenia is the population in which the supplement effect is weakest.

Source

Morton RW et al. Br J Sports Med 2018;52:376-384

Role in the trial

Not matched to a registered study

Identity check

no open identity hold

Audit mark

verified

Review state

Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim

In plain words

The same meta-analysis found the point where extra protein stops adding anything: once total daily intake passes about 1.6 grams per kilogram of body weight, more protein produced no further muscle gain.

What was measured

Two-phase break point in the relationship between total protein intake and change in fat-free mass

Effect estimate

No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.

Limits

See the technical detail.

From the source

A two-phase break point analysis across the 49 included studies determined that protein supplementation beyond a total protein intake of 1.62 g/kg/day resulted in no further resistance-training-induced gains in fat-free mass. This is not an opinion or a rule of thumb — it is a break point estimated from the pooled data, and it defines the exact boundary of the product's usefulness. A person already eating above that from food is, on the best available evidence, buying a supplement with a measured incremental effect of zero on fat-free mass, no matter how much of it they take. The finding also reframes the whole category: whey is not a muscle-building agent, it is a convenient way to reach a threshold, and past the threshold it is protein-flavoured food.

Source

Morton RW et al. Br J Sports Med 2018;52:376-384

Role in the trial

Not matched to a registered study

Identity check

no open identity hold

Audit mark

verified

Review state

Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim

In plain words

A stable-isotope study measured muscle protein synthesis directly after equal amounts of essential amino acids from whey, casein or soy. Whey produced by far the biggest response.

What was measured

Fractional rate of mixed muscle protein synthesis, percent per hour, at rest and after resistance exercise

Effect estimate

No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.

Limits

See the technical detail.

From the source

Tang and colleagues gave three groups of six healthy young men drinks matched for essential amino acid content at 10 g, as whey hydrolysate, micellar casein or soy protein isolate, after unilateral leg resistance exercise, with mixed muscle protein synthesis measured by primed constant infusion of L-[ring-13C6]phenylalanine. Whey produced larger increases in blood essential amino acids, branched-chain amino acids and leucine than either comparator (P < 0.05). At rest, mixed muscle protein synthesis was 0.091 +/- 0.015 %/h on whey, 0.078 +/- 0.014 on soy and 0.047 +/- 0.008 on casein — whey approximately 93% greater than casein (P < 0.01) and 18% greater than soy (P = 0.067). After exercise the ordering held: whey approximately 122% greater than casein (P < 0.01) and 31% greater than soy (P < 0.05). This is a genuine, mechanistically clean advantage for whey, and it is an acute synthesis rate in six men per group, not a training outcome. The chronic meta-analysis that measured training outcomes did not separate protein sources.

Source

Tang JE, Moore DR, Kujbida GW, Tarnopolsky MA, Phillips SM. J Appl Physiol 2009;107:987-992

Role in the trial

Not matched to a registered study

Identity check

no open identity hold

Audit mark

verified

Review state

Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim

In plain words

The belief that protein must be taken within an hour of training looked supported until researchers accounted for the fact that the timing groups also ate more protein overall. Then the effect disappeared.

What was measured

Effect size for muscle strength and hypertrophy attributable to protein timing, before and after covariate control

Effect estimate

No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.

Limits

See the technical detail.

From the source

Schoenfeld, Aragon and Krieger ran a multi-level meta-regression of randomised controlled trials of protein timing. The strength analysis comprised 478 subjects and 96 effect sizes nested within 41 groups and 20 studies; the hypertrophy analysis comprised 525 subjects and 132 effect sizes nested within 47 groups and 23 studies. A simple pooled analysis without controlling for covariates showed a small-to-moderate effect of protein timing on hypertrophy and no significant effect on strength. In the full meta-regression model controlling for all covariates, no significant difference was found between treatment and control for either strength or hypertrophy, and the reduced model did not differ from the full model. Total protein intake was the strongest predictor of hypertrophy effect size. The authors wrote that these results refute the commonly held belief that timing of protein intake around a training session is critical. It is one of the cleanest published demonstrations that an apparently real effect was a confounder wearing a mechanism.

Source

Schoenfeld BJ, Aragon AA, Krieger JW. J Int Soc Sports Nutr 2013;10:53

Role in the trial

Not matched to a registered study

Identity check

no open identity hold

Audit mark

verified

Review state

Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim

In plain words

A dose-response study found muscle protein synthesis peaked at 20 grams of protein after training. Forty grams did not build more; it was burned for energy instead.

What was measured

Muscle and albumin protein synthesis and whole-body leucine oxidation across 0, 5, 10, 20 and 40 g protein doses

Effect estimate

No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.

Limits

See the technical detail.

From the source

Moore and colleagues had six healthy young men perform intense leg resistance exercise on five separate occasions and consume, in randomised order, drinks containing 0, 5, 10, 20 or 40 g of whole egg protein, with protein synthesis and whole-body leucine oxidation measured over four hours by primed constant infusion of [1-13C]leucine. Muscle protein synthesis showed a dose response and was maximally stimulated at 20 g. Albumin synthesis also plateaued at 20 g. Leucine oxidation increased significantly after 20 and 40 g — that is, protein consumed above the threshold was demonstrably burned rather than incorporated. Phosphorylation of p70S6K, ribosomal protein S6 and eIF2B-epsilon was unaffected by any dose, which the authors read as evidence that the stimulation depends on amino acid availability rather than on further signalling amplification. Six men and whole egg protein is a narrow base, and larger doses matter more in older adults and after whole-body training. But the shape of the curve — a plateau with oxidation of the excess — is the single most useful fact about protein dosing and the one the 50-gram serving scoop ignores.

Source

Moore DR et al. Am J Clin Nutr 2009;89:161-168

Role in the trial

Not matched to a registered study

Identity check

no open identity hold

Audit mark

caution

Review state

Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim

In plain words

High-protein diets were long said to damage kidneys. Pooling 28 randomised trials in healthy adults found no difference in the change in kidney filtration rate.

What was measured

Glomerular filtration rate, post-intervention and as change from baseline, on higher versus normal or lower protein intakes

Effect estimate

No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.

Limits

See the technical detail.

From the source

Devries and colleagues systematically reviewed randomised controlled trials longer than four days comparing higher-protein intakes (at least 1.5 g/kg body weight, or at least 20% of energy, or at least 100 g/day) against normal or lower protein intakes, in adults without kidney disease, with glomerular filtration rate as the outcome. Twenty-eight trials with 1,358 participants were analysed. The post-intervention comparison showed a trivial effect for GFR to be higher after higher-protein intakes (standardised mean difference 0.19, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.31, P = 0.002), while the change in GFR from pre- to post-intervention did not differ between interventions (SMD 0.11, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.27, P = 0.16). There was a linear relation between protein intake and post-intervention GFR (r = 0.332, P = 0.03) but not between protein intake and the change in GFR (r = 0.184, P = 0.33). The physiological reading is that a higher protein load raises filtration as an adaptive response, not as an injury. The caveat that belongs on the record: these are healthy adults, and the trials are short relative to a lifetime of habitual intake.

Source

Devries MC et al. J Nutr 2018;148:1760-1775

Role in the trial

Not matched to a registered study

Identity check

no open identity hold

Audit mark

verified

Review state

Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim

In plain words

Consumer testing found arsenic, cadmium, mercury and lead in protein powders, with 40 percent of 133 products elevated. A follow-up risk assessment concluded the exposures were below regulatory thresholds. Its three authors all worked for the same litigation-support consultancy.

What was measured

That a hazard index below the regulatory screening threshold, calculated by industry-adjacent consultants, closes the question of heavy metal contamination in protein powders

Effect estimate

No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.

Limits

See the technical detail.

From the source

Bandara, Towle and Monnot performed a human health risk assessment responding to a Consumer Reports analysis of 15 protein powders, which had found that average heavy metal amounts in three servings per day exceeded the maximum limits proposed by the US Pharmacopeia, and to a follow-up study reporting that 40% of 133 protein powder products tested had elevated heavy metal levels. Using US EPA reference doses for arsenic and cadmium, the EPA screening level for mercury, and the EPA Adult Lead Methodology model, they calculated hazard quotients and a cumulative hazard index for each product at one and three servings per day. All hazard indices were below 1 and all modelled blood lead levels were below the CDC guidance value of 5 micrograms per decilitre. The highest hazard indices, approaching 1, were in mass-gain products; the lowest were in whey protein powders. Their conclusion was that typical intake would not result in adverse health effects. Two facts belong alongside that conclusion. First, all three authors were affiliated with Cardno ChemRisk, a consultancy whose work is frequently commissioned in product-liability contexts. Second, "hazard index below 1" is a regulatory screening threshold, not a demonstration of no effect, and the underlying contamination finding — that the metals are present, and elevated in a substantial minority of products — is not in dispute.

Source

Bandara SB, Towle KM, Monnot AD. Toxicol Rep 2020;7:1255-1262

Role in the trial

Not matched to a registered study

Identity check

no open identity hold

Audit mark

contested

Review state

Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim