↓ Skip to main content

The short-term effect of high versus moderate protein intake on recovery after strength training in resistance-trained individuals

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition, April 2022
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
72 X users
facebook
6 Facebook pages
reddit
2 Redditors
video
4 YouTube creators

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
288 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The short-term effect of high versus moderate protein intake on recovery after strength training in resistance-trained individuals
Published in
Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition, April 2022
DOI 10.1186/s12970-017-0201-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Justin Roberts, Anastasia Zinchenko, Craig Suckling, Lee Smith, James Johnstone, Menno Henselmans

Abstract

Dietary protein intakes up to 2.9 g.kg-1.d-1 and protein consumption before and after resistance training may enhance recovery, resulting in hypertrophy and strength gains. However, it remains unclear whether protein quantity or nutrient timing is central to positive adaptations. This study investigated the effect of total dietary protein content, whilst controlling for protein timing, on recovery in resistance trainees. Fourteen resistance-trained individuals underwent two 10-day isocaloric dietary regimes with a protein content of 1.8 g.kg-1.d-1 (PROMOD) or 2.9 g.kg-1.d-1 (PROHIGH) in a randomised, counterbalanced, crossover design. On days 8-10 (T1-T3), participants undertook resistance exercise under controlled conditions, performing 3 sets of squat, bench press and bent-over rows at 80% 1 repetition maximum until volitional exhaustion. Additionally, participants consumed a 0.4 g.kg-1 whey protein concentrate/isolate mix 30 min before and after exercise sessions to standardise protein timing specific to training. Recovery was assessed via daily repetition performance, muscle soreness, bioelectrical impedance phase angle, plasma creatine kinase (CK) and tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α). No significant differences were reported between conditions for any of the performance repetition count variables (p > 0.05). However, within PROMOD only, squat performance total repetition count was significantly lower at T3 (19.7 ± 6.8) compared to T1 (23.0 ± 7.5; p = 0.006). Pre and post-exercise CK concentrations significantly increased across test days (p ≤ 0.003), although no differences were reported between conditions. No differences for TNF-α or muscle soreness were reported between dietary conditions. Phase angle was significantly greater at T3 for PROHIGH (8.26 ± 0.82°) compared with PROMOD (8.08 ± 0.80°; p = 0.012). When energy intake and peri-exercise protein intake was controlled for, a short term PROHIGH diet did not improve markers of muscle damage or soreness in comparison to a PROMOD approach following repeated days of intensive training. Whilst it is therefore likely that moderate protein intakes (1.8 g.kg-1.d-1) may be sufficient for resistance-trained individuals, it is noteworthy that both lower body exercise performance and bioelectrical phase angle were maintained with PROHIGH. Longer term interventions are warranted to determine whether PROMOD intakes are sufficient during prolonged training periods or when extensive exercise (e.g. training twice daily) is undertaken.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 72 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 288 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 288 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 48 17%
Student > Master 35 12%
Other 20 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 6%
Researcher 17 6%
Other 45 16%
Unknown 105 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 67 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 39 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 34 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 2%
Other 21 7%
Unknown 111 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 60. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 August 2023.
All research outputs
#729,059
of 25,753,031 outputs
Outputs from Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition
#199
of 952 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,670
of 450,280 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition
#187
of 852 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,753,031 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 952 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 64.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 450,280 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 852 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.