Meta-analysisindependent cross-checkabstract checked★ key study I-FAST-121 standard review

Protein and muscle in healthy adults

Systematic review and meta-analysis of protein intake to support muscle mass and function in healthy adults.

Overview

Nunes EA et al.. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle 2022 · PMID 35187864 · DOI 10.1002/jcsm.12922

Eating more protein each day slightly increased muscle mass in people doing strength training.

Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: moderate

Original publication

Plain-language summary

Study explained simply
What did the researchers want to find out?

Pool RCTs on protein and muscle.

How was the study done?

Meta-analysis of 74 RCTs.

How many people, animals or samples were studied?

Healthy adults.

What was actually found?

Small LBM gains.

How large was the observed effect?

SMD 0.22 (0.14-0.30).

What do the results mean in everyday life?

Regular adequate protein helps keep muscle, especially when older.

What are the study's limitations?

Mostly in exercisers.

What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

Indirectly contradicts alternate-day protein.

Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

Applies; same physiology.

What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

Effect of protein-free days.

Scientific in-depth review

1. Full reference

Authors
Nunes EA et al.
Journal
J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle
Year
2022
Identifier
PMID 35187864 DOI 10.1002/jcsm.12922
Verification
verified – PubMed efetch 2026-10-26; Crossref update-to/updated-by check
Retracted
no
Corrections
none
Extent checked
abstract only
Conflicts of interest and funding

One author reports dairy and beef industry honoraria and a patent (stated).

2. Research question

Does increasing daily protein intake increase lean body mass, strength and function in healthy adults?

3. Study design and population

Study design
Meta-analysis – Systematic review, three-level meta-analysis and meta-regression of RCTs
Population

Healthy non-obese adults

Country

International

Period

not stated in abstract

Sample size

74 RCTs

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

not stated in abstract

4. Methods and endpoints

Exposure / intervention

Increased daily protein intake

Comparator

Lower protein intake

Endpoints

Lean body mass, strength, physical function

Statistical methods

Three-level random effects SMD

5. Actual results

Results

LBM gain with more protein during resistance exercise SMD 0.22 (95% CI 0.14-0.30; 62 studies; moderate evidence); significant in >=65-year-olds at 1.2-1.59 g/kg/day and <65 at >=1.6 g/kg/day with resistance exercise. Lower-body strength SMD printed as 0.40 with CI 0.09-0.35 (internally inconsistent).

Absolute risks

not reported

Authors' conclusion

Increasing daily protein results in small additional LBM and lower-body strength gains in healthy adults doing resistance training.

6. Strengths

  • 74 RCTs; registered protocol

7. Weaknesses

  • Most trials with resistance exercise
  • Industry COI
  • Reporting error in abstract CI for strength

8. Risk of bias

Orienting tool
AMSTAR 2
Type of assessment
simplified assessment (abstract only)
Full formal assessment
no
Overall risk of bias
some concerns
Rationale

COI and reporting inconsistency.

9. Assessment of the statistical interpretation

LBM effect small but consistent; strength CI misprinted (stats/I-FAST-121_nunes_protein.py).

10. Relevance to the specific claim

Supports that adequate daily protein supports muscle mass, especially in older adults; indirect for alternate-day intake.

11. Independent contrary findings

12. Transferability to Germany and Europe

Universal biology; applies in Europe and Egypt.

13. Overall methodological judgement

Indirect contradicting evidence for reducing protein to alternate days.

Multidimensional assessment
Multidimensional assessment
Authenticity of the sourceverified
Methodological qualitymoderate
Risk of biassome concerns
Precision of resultsmoderate
Directnessindirect
Reproducibilityreplicated
Consistency with the overall evidenceconsistent
Regional transferabilityhigh
Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive)essentially correct but incomplete

14. Open questions

15. Linked fact checks