None of the “no greater benefits” studies were outside of normal distribution. high throughput screening However, three studies [22, 24, 25] had spreads that were higher than three studies [6, 8, 10] of the “muscular benefits” grouping. These seemed likely explained, however, by the fact that changes to habitual protein intake were much larger in the latter [6, 8, 10] than the former [22, 24, 25]. Protein change theory Only twelve studies

included in this review reported baseline dietary intakes. Among studies showing muscular benefits of increased protein intake, the three with the smallest increases from habitual protein intake (19.5-28.6%) were conducted on untrained participants [6, 8, 10]. Most studies were on trained participants and larger increases in protein intake. However the ~4 kcal/kg greater energy intake in one of these studies [10] or perhaps the longer duration of another study [8] may have made it easier for a smaller change to yield significant results. That said, total energy intake was higher in some higher protein groups than control and lower than control in EVP4593 cell line other studies (Table 1) making it hard to use energy intake as a clear predictor of results. Further supporting higher habitual protein intake during resistance training, Ratamess et al.’s strength/power athletes consuming 2.3 g/kg/day were significantly

leaner than those consuming 1.45 or 0.95 g/kg/day [28]. While monitored for 10 wk, the 2.3 g/kg/day group consumed

~400-700 kcal or ~6-10.5 kcal/kg/day more than the other tertiles, yet remained significantly leaner by ~5-8% bodyfat. Strong correlations have been shown between increased habitual protein intake [29], regular ingestion of quality protein [30], and muscle mass. In contrast, Thalacker-Mercer et al., found no association between habitual protein intakes of 0.97-1.07 g/kg/day and muscular gains [31]. However, since Ratamess et al. showed no differences between 0.95 and 1.45 g/kg/day [28], it seems unlikely that 0.97 versus 1.07 g/kg/day was enough difference to see a protein effect [31]. Variability in resistance this website training volume (1–5 sets/exercise), intensity (3–20 RM), and frequency Silibinin (3-5- day/wk) across studies in this review may also have interacted with response to protein supplementation. However, most studies used resistance training variables in the middle of these ranges and there was no pattern of a greater frequency of training programs employing certain variables within the benefits or no greater benefits groupings. Since protein benefits muscle mass in lieu of resistance training [32, 33], even if a training program was suboptimal, a higher protein intake should still offer a statistically significant benefit over a lower intake. The findings of Ratamess et al. and Thalacker-Mercer et al.