Loading
Life sciences · Journal article
Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition · September 14, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Journal article.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Background. Evidence is limited regarding whether assigned protein targets modify responses to resistance training (RT) alone or to the same RT program plus cycling (concurrent training [CT]) in middle-aged and older women. This randomized 2 × 3 factorial trial examined bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA)-derived skeletal muscle mass (SMM; primary outcome), other body composition outcomes, muscular and functional performance, and cycle-derived estimated VO₂max.Methods. In this randomized 2 × 3 factorial trial, 108 women aged 40-77 years were assigned to 12 weeks of supervised RT or CT (identical RT followed by cycling) and protein targets of 0.8, 1.6, or 2.2 g·kg-1·d-1. Baseline-adjusted ANCOVA tested training × protein interactions and marginal training and protein effects. Complete-case analyses included 83 participants.Results. For SMM, no training-condition × protein-target interaction (p = 0.856), marginal protein-target effect (p = 0.726), or marginal training-condition effect (p = 0.273) was detected. CT had a lower baseline-adjusted week-12 BFP than RT (adjusted difference, -2.04 percentage points; 95% CI, -2.94 to -1.14; p < 0.001). RT had a higher baseline-adjusted week-12 leg-press estimated 1-RM than CT (CT - RT: -6.68 kg; 95% CI, -8.32 to -5.04; p < 0.001), whereas CT had a higher baseline-adjusted week-12 cycle-derived estimated VO₂max (adjusted difference, 4.53 mL·kg-1·min-1; 95% CI, 3.80 to 5.25; p < 0.001). No detectable marginal protein-target effects or training-condition × protein-target interactions were observed for the key secondary outcomes.Conclusions. No detectable differences in SMM or key secondary outcomes were attributable to assigned protein target. Compared with RT, CT favored estimated aerobic fitness and BFP, whereas RT favored leg-press strength. Because CT included additional cycling and greater exercise exposure, these differences cannot be attributed solely to training modality. Null protein findings do not establish equivalence among doses.