Do multi-ingredient protein supplements augment resistance training-induced gains in skeletal muscle mass and strength? A systematic review and meta

[madman]

Do multi-ingredient protein supplements augment resistance training-induced gains in skeletal muscle mass and strength? A systematic review and meta-analysis of 35 trials

Kerry R O’Bryan, Thomas M Doering, Robert W Morton, Vernon G Coffey, Stuart M Phillips, Gregory R Cox






Abstract

Objective To determine the effects of multi-ingredient protein (MIP) supplements on resistance exercise training (RT)-induced gains in muscle mass and strength compared with protein-only (PRO) or placebo supplementation.

Data sources Systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and SPORTDiscus.

Eligibility criteria Randomised controlled trials with interventions including RT ≥6 weeks in duration and a MIP supplement.

Design Random effects meta-analyses were conducted to determine the effect of supplementation on fat free mass (FFM), fat mass, one-repetition maximum (1RM) upper body and 1RM lower body muscular strength. Subgroup analyses compared the efficacy of MIP supplementation relative to training status and chronological age.

Results The most common MIP supplements included protein with creatine (n=17) or vitamin D (n=10). Data from 35 trials with 1387 participants showed significant (p<0.05) increases in FFM (0.80 kg (95% CI 0.44 to 1.15)), 1RM lower body (4.22 kg (95% CI 0.79 to 7.64)) and 1RM upper body (2.56 kg (95% CI 0.79 to 4.33)) where a supplement was compared with all non-MIP supplemented conditions (means (95%CI)). Subgroup analyses indicated a greater effect of MIP supplements compared with all non-MIP supplements on FFM in untrained (0.95 kg (95% CI 0.51 to 1.39), p<0.0001) and older participants (0.77 kg (95% CI 0.11 to 1.43), p=0.02); taking MIP supplements was also associated with gains in 1RM upper body (1.56 kg (95% CI 0.80 to 2.33), p=0.01) in older adults.

Summary/conclusions When MIP supplements were combined with resistance exercise training, there were greater gains in FFM and strength in healthy adults than in counterparts who were supplemented with non-MIP. MIP supplements were not superior when directly compared with PRO supplements. The magnitude of effect of MIP supplements was greater (in absolute values) in untrained and elderly individuals undertaking RT than it was in trained individuals and in younger people.





What is already known ► There is no consensus on whether multi-ingredient protein (MIP) supplementation combined with prolonged resistance exercise training (RT) modifies body composition and augments muscle strength.



What are the new findings

► MIP supplementation augments changes in fat-free mass (FFM), upper body one-repetition maximum strength and lower body one-repetition maximum strength during prolonged (≥6 weeks) RT.

► The benefit of consuming an MIP supplement on resistance training-induced gains in FFM is greater in untrained participants (0.95 kg [95% CI 0.51 to 1.39], p<0.0001) than in the trained and in older individuals (>45 years; 66±8 years) compared with those below that age cut-off.

► MIP supplementation during RT is more effective at improving upper body strength gains in elderly individuals (1.56 kg [95% CI 0.80 to 2.33], p<0.0001) than non-MIP supplements.

► MIP supplementation is not superior to protein only supplementation for increasing FFM and strength during periods of RT but does result in a greater increase in fat mass.

 

[DragonBits]

Do multi-ingredient protein supplements augment resistance training-induced gains in skeletal muscle mass and strength? A systematic review and meta-analysis of 35 trials

Kerry R O’Bryan, Thomas M Doering, Robert W Morton, Vernon G Coffey, Stuart M Phillips, Gregory R Cox






Abstract

Objective To determine the effects of multi-ingredient protein (MIP) supplements on resistance exercise training (RT)-induced gains in muscle mass and strength compared with protein-only (PRO) or placebo supplementation.

Data sources Systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and SPORTDiscus.

Eligibility criteria Randomised controlled trials with interventions including RT ≥6 weeks in duration and a MIP supplement.

Design Random effects meta-analyses were conducted to determine the effect of supplementation on fat free mass (FFM), fat mass, one-repetition maximum (1RM) upper body and 1RM lower body muscular strength. Subgroup analyses compared the efficacy of MIP supplementation relative to training status and chronological age.

Results The most common MIP supplements included protein with creatine (n=17) or vitamin D (n=10). Data from 35 trials with 1387 participants showed significant (p<0.05) increases in FFM (0.80 kg (95% CI 0.44 to 1.15)), 1RM lower body (4.22 kg (95% CI 0.79 to 7.64)) and 1RM upper body (2.56 kg (95% CI 0.79 to 4.33)) where a supplement was compared with all non-MIP supplemented conditions (means (95%CI)). Subgroup analyses indicated a greater effect of MIP supplements compared with all non-MIP supplements on FFM in untrained (0.95 kg (95% CI 0.51 to 1.39), p<0.0001) and older participants (0.77 kg (95% CI 0.11 to 1.43), p=0.02); taking MIP supplements was also associated with gains in 1RM upper body (1.56 kg (95% CI 0.80 to 2.33), p=0.01) in older adults.

Summary/conclusions When MIP supplements were combined with resistance exercise training, there were greater gains in FFM and strength in healthy adults than in counterparts who were supplemented with non-MIP. MIP supplements were not superior when directly compared with PRO supplements. The magnitude of effect of MIP supplements was greater (in absolute values) in untrained and elderly individuals undertaking RT than it was in trained individuals and in younger people.





What is already known ► There is no consensus on whether multi-ingredient protein (MIP) supplementation combined with prolonged resistance exercise training (RT) modifies body composition and augments muscle strength.



What are the new findings

► MIP supplementation augments changes in fat-free mass (FFM), upper body one-repetition maximum strength and lower body one-repetition maximum strength during prolonged (≥6 weeks) RT.

► The benefit of consuming an MIP supplement on resistance training-induced gains in FFM is greater in untrained participants (0.95 kg [95% CI 0.51 to 1.39], p<0.0001) than in the trained and in older individuals (>45 years; 66±8 years) compared with those below that age cut-off.

► MIP supplementation during RT is more effective at improving upper body strength gains in elderly individuals (1.56 kg [95% CI 0.80 to 2.33], p<0.0001) than non-MIP supplements.

► MIP supplementation is not superior to protein only supplementation for increasing FFM and strength during periods of RT but does result in a greater increase in fat mass.

Sometimes I have difficulty in interpreting these studies.

This means MIP supplementation creates more fat than protein only supplementation, though it creates an average 1.56 kg increase in upper body strength in untrained or elderly >45 Vs protein non-MIP supplements.

But then it says: "MIP supplementation is not superior to protein only supplementation for increasing FFM and strength during periods of RT but does result in a greater increase in fat mass."

Which sounds like while MIP supplements do work, and work better on those untrained or older than > 45 years older, it doesn't work as well as protein only supplements, and they create more fat. (fat mass).

But the last statement seems to contradict the 3rd statement.

Is this the right way to read this?