Efficacy of Pea Protein Supplementation in Combination with a Resistance Training Program on Muscle Performance in a Sedentary Adult Population: A Randomized, Comparator-Controlled, Parallel Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Animal-sourced whey protein (WPr) is the most popular protein supplement among consumers and has been shown to improve muscle mass and strength. However, due to allergies, dietary restrictions/personal choices, and growing demand, alternative protein sources are warranted. Sedentary adults were randomized to pea protein (PPr) or WPr in combination with a weekly resistance training program for 84 days. Changes in whole-body muscle strength (WBMS) including handgrip, lower body, and upper body strength, body composition, and product perception were assessed. The safety outcomes included adverse events, vital signs, clinical chemistry, and hematology. There were no significant differences in the change in WBMS, muscle mass, or product perception and likability scores between the PPr and WPr groups. The participants supplemented with PPr had a 16.1% improvement in WBMS following 84 days of supplementation (p = 0.01), while those taking WPr had an improvement of 11.1% (p = 0.06). Both study products were safe and well-tolerated in the enrolled population. Eighty-four days of PPr supplementation resulted in improvements in strength and muscle mass comparable to WPr when combined with a resistance training program in a population of healthy sedentary adults. PPr may be considered as a viable alternative to animal-sourced WPr without sacrificing muscular gains and product enjoyment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".