International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism, 2019, 29, 165-174

https://doi.org/10.1123/ijsnem.2018-0267 SCHOLARLY REVIEW

Dietary Protein for Training Adaptation and Body Composition

Manipulation in Track and Field Athletes
Oliver C. Witard
University of Stirling

Ina Garthe
Norwegian Olympic and Paralympic Committee and Confederation of Sport

Stuart M. Phillips
McMaster University

Track and field athletes engage in vigorous training that places stress on physiological systems requiring nutritional support for
optimal recovery. Of paramount importance when optimizing recovery nutrition are rehydration and refueling which are covered in
other papers in this volume. Here, we highlight the benefits for dietary protein intake over and above requirements set out in various
countries at ∼0.8–1.0 g·kg body mass (BM)−1·day−1 for training adaptation, manipulating body composition, and optimizing
performance in track and field athletes. To facilitate the remodeling of protein-containing structures, which are turning over rapidly
due to their training volumes, track and field athletes with the goal of weight maintenance or weight gain should aim for protein
intakes of ∼1.6 g·kg BM−1·day−1. Protein intakes at this level would not necessarily require an overemphasis on protein-containing
foods and, beyond convenience, does not suggest a need to use protein or amino acid-based supplements. This review also
highlights that optimal protein intakes may exceed 1.6 g·kg BM−1·day−1 for athletes who are restricting energy intake
and attempting to minimize loss of lean BM. We discuss the underpinning rationale for weight loss in track and field athletes,
explaining changes in metabolic pathways that occur in response to energy restriction when manipulating protein intake and
training. Finally, this review offers practical advice on protein intakes that warrant consideration in allowing an optimal adaptive
response for track and field athletes seeking to train effectively and to lose fat mass while energy restricted with minimal (or no) loss
of lean BM.

Keywords: high-quality weight loss, protein recommendations, protein turnover

Dietary protein is widely regarded as a key nutrient for 2011), which describes the loss of fat mass while preserving, or
allowing optimal training adaptation (Tipton, 2008) and optimizing even increasing, fat-free mass (i.e., muscle tissue) during a volun-
body composition (Hector & Phillips, 2018; Murphy et al., 2015) in tary period of energy restriction. Many athletes engage in weight
athletes including track and field athletes. Track and field athletics loss programs to “make weight” for competition (i.e., combat
encompasses a broad spectrum of events including race walking; sports) or for aesthetic reasons (i.e., gymnasts and divers). How-
running (sprints, middle- and long-distance events, and hurdling); ever, the “Holy Grail” for most, if not all, track and field athletes
throwing (shot put, javelin, discus, and hammer); and jumping during weight loss is to optimize their ratio of strength, power, or
(long jump, triple jump, high jump, and pole vault), all with endurance to body weight for a performance advantage.
different ideals for the optimum performance physique (Hirsch Since the previous International Association of Athletics Fed-
et al., 2016). Most track and field athletes are familiar with the erations consensus statement (O’Connor et al., 2007), the evidence
concept of high-quality weight loss (Sundgot-Borgen & Garthe, underpinning nutrition strategies for adaptation and physique
manipulation in athletes has evolved considerably. In particular,
recent attention has focused on advancing understanding of the role
© 2019 The Authors. Published by Human Kinetics, Inc. This is an Open Access of protein nutrition in allowing “optimal” training adaptation
article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License CC
(Tipton, 2008) and body composition (Hector & Phillips, 2018;
BY 4.0, which permits unrestricted noncommercial and commercial use, distribu-
tion, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited,
Pasiakos et al., 2015). Accordingly, here we update the latest
the new use includes a link to the license, and any changes are indicated. See https:// evidence-based protein recommendations for training adaptation
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. This license does not cover any third-party and promoting, if desired, high-quality weight loss in athletes,
material that may appear with permission in the article. with specific application to track and field athletes. In Figure 1,
Witard is with Physiology, Exercise and Nutrition Research Group, Faculty of
we provide a theoretical framework for understanding recom-
Health Sciences and Sport, University of Stirling, Stirling, Scotland. Garthe is with mended dietary protein intakes for optimal adaptation, as opposed
Norwegian Olympic and Paralympic Committee and Confederation of Sport, Oslo, to offsetting deficiency and meeting minimal needs for protein in
Norway. Phillips is with McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Address athletes. The scientific evidence that underpins this framework is
author correspondence to Oliver C. Witard at [email protected]. critically evaluated. To provide practical context, the next sections of
165
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 02/05/23 10:46 PM UTC
166 Witard, Garthe, and Phillips

long-distance events, where body weight is closely related to

performance, may also use rapid weight loss as a strategy to take
advantage of a lighter body weight during competition. Moreover,
long-distance runners and race walkers may be well hydrated at the
start of the race but modestly dehydrated at the finish, due to
voluntary dehydration during the race (Coyle, 2004). Although the
prevalence of rapid weight loss strategies among track and field
athletes are unknown, the risk of serious health and performance
impairments caused by even moderate dehydration are well docu-
mented (Shirreffs et al., 2004), making the relationship between
rapid weight loss and performance a complex concept (Coyle,
2004). Track and field athletes involved in jumping and throwing
events may be an exception to this rule.
A more gradual weight loss with the goal to maximize the ratio
of strength, power, or endurance to body weight is typical for track
Figure 1 — Theoretical framework for understanding recommended and field athletes when performance depends on efficient horizon-
dietary protein intakes for optimal adaptation in track and field athletes. tal (e.g., long-distance running) or vertical (e.g., high jump) move-
AA = amino acid; EAR = estimated average requirement; RDA = ments. In these events, excessive “nonuseful” body weight as fat
recommended daily allowance; BM = body mass. mass can be a disadvantage for performance. A gradual weight loss
of 0.5–1 kg/week due to a modest increase in energy expenditure
and/or, more likely, a lowered energy intake will primarily com-
this review outline the principles of weight loss and expand on why prise of fat mass. This weight loss requires an energy deficit of
weight loss is an important goal for many track and field athletes ∼500–1,000 kcal/day, respectively, but understanding that stochas-
across sprint, throwing, jumping, and race walking disciplines. tic formulas for weight loss of these rates will vary considerably on
an interindividual basis. However, due to metabolic adaptations
that occur at the onset of weight loss combined with a gradually
Weight Loss Principles for Athletes lowered body weight, the energy deficit required for weight loss is
less during the initial stages of dieting than after 2–3 weeks
The principles of weight loss and weight gain are similar because (Dhurandhar et al., 2015).
both require continuous energy imbalance between energy intake While weight loss during the first weeks of negative energy
and/or energy expenditure. Most, but not all, athletes strive balance is largely attributed to changes in glycogen, protein, and
for high-quality weight loss, which can be defined as the loss fluids, long-term weight loss is mainly attributed to changes in fat
of fat mass while preserving, or even increasing, fat-free mass mass and to a varying degree loss of LBM (Weinheimer et al.,
(i.e., muscle tissue) during a voluntary period of energy restriction. 2010). As a result, the degree of the energy deficit needs to be
Notable exceptions to this rule include shot put and discus throwers individualized. Long periods of energy deficit are inherently
in which fat mass as well as muscle mass are considered functional stressful from both physiological and psychological perspectives
for performance. In general, the already high energy expenditure and increase the risk of impaired immune function, injuries,
associated with structured exercise training in high-performance hormonal disturbances, sleep disturbances, loss of bone mass
athletes means that restricting energy intake is likely the necessary, (particularly if calcium and vitamin D intake are inadequate),
and perhaps the preferred (Dhurandhar et al., 2015) option, to and other processes detrimental to health and performance caused
achieve weight loss in this population. Since weight loss is a result by relative energy deficiency (Mountjoy et al., 2014). Thus,
of a predominance of catabolism in adipose tissue, and the gain of considering the counterproductive responses related to long-term
muscle mass (i.e., lean body mass [LBM]) is a result of predomi- energy deficiency and the link between body weight and perfor-
nance of anabolism in skeletal muscle, this requires the track and mance in some track and field events, ongoing monitoring and
field athlete to practice a meticulously tailored meal plan, combined evaluation during weight loss by professionals is warranted
with an adequate and sports-specific strength training stimulus for (Mountjoy et al., 2018). In practice, most track and field athletes
muscle growth. Suffice to say, while it would be easier to gain reduce the volume of resistance training during a weight-loss
muscle in an energy surfeit and to lose fat while in an energy deficit, period prior to competition in favor of more event-specific training.
there are several publications about trained individuals in which the This removal of resistance exercise as a primary external stimulus
process has been shown to occur (Garthe et al., 2011a; Haakonssen for muscle maintenance combined with negative energy balance is
et al., 2013; Longland et al., 2016). likely to exacerbate the loss of LBM. However, as discussed below,
studies have shown that it is possible, even for the elite athlete, to
maintain LBM during a weight loss intervention (Garthe et al.,
Why Weight Management Is of Importance 2011b; Mettler et al., 2010). The main factors that determine high-
for Track and Field Athletes quality weight loss appear to be an adequate dietary intake of high-
quality protein distributed evenly and frequently in relation to
Both gradual and rapid weight loss practices are commonly exercise and recovery, combined with additional strength training
employed across athletic populations. Rapid weight loss (i.e., as stimuli for lean tissue growth.
3–10% of body weight over ∼96 hr) is based predominantly on At the other end of the spectrum, certain athletes, such as those
the loss of bodily fluids caused by passive or active dehydration and in power-oriented throwing events, will strive to gain weight by
is most typically used by weight-class athletes prior to weigh-in maximizing LBM, as their performance depends on high absolute
(e.g., combat sports). Track and field athletes in jumping or muscle strength and power. Athletes with the goal to gain body
IJSNEM Vol. 29, No. 2, 2019
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 02/05/23 10:46 PM UTC
 Protein and High-Quality Weight Loss in Athletes 167

weight could be at risk of excessive intake of food and supplements not likely to aid training adaptation. The main reason for this
and may benefit from professional support. The potential for muscle statement is the recognition that the replacement of damaged or
growth depends not only on nutrition, but also on an athlete’s nonfunctional proteins and the muscle remodeling process is
genetics and resistance training history. A positive energy balance advantageous (Stokes et al., 2018; Tipton et al., 2018).
alone has been shown to elicit an important anabolic effect (Bray As a broad guideline, a daily protein intake between 1.3 and
et al., 2012), but combining strength training and a positive energy 1.7 g·kg BM−1·day−1 is recommended for athletes (Morton &
balance results in the most effective gain in LBM (Kreider et al., Phillips, 2018; Rodriguez et al., 2009). What appears clear, based
1996; Tipton & Wolfe, 2004). on the most recent evidence-based review and meta-analysis, is that
Although there are few studies on weight gain in athletes, it has intakes of protein greater than 1.6 g·kg BM−1·day−1 and possibly as
been suggested that an increase in LBM of 0.25–0.5 kg/week may high as 2.2 g·kg BM−1·day−1 do not further enhance gains in
be a realistic goal for the strength/power-based athlete (Rozenek LBM in weight-stable trained individuals (Morton et al., 2018).
et al., 2002) at least over a relatively short-term (12–16 weeks) Moreover, due to the satiating effect of protein compared with other
period, but this rate would slow drastically with time. To achieve macronutrients (Veldhorst et al., 2008), it is plausible that exces-
this gain in LBM, an energy surplus of ∼500 kcal/day is recom- sive protein intakes could displace intakes of other important
mended for the track and field athlete. However, athletes with a nutrients including carbohydrate and be detrimental to training
long history of heavy strength training may have less potential to adaptation (MacKenzie-Shalders et al., 2015). Protein recommen-
gain LBM (Garthe et al., 2011b). Therefore, the excess energy dations are now thought to be better expressed on a meal-by-meal,
intake in a weight gain intervention should be carefully considered or serving-by-serving basis, rather than daily basis (Murphy et al.,
and monitored as greater rates of weight gain are likely to include 2016; Witard et al., 2016). This approach stems from accumulating
increments in body fat in trained athletes evidence that multiple factors, including the per meal/serving
dose, protein type (i.e., source); meal pattern; and timing (in
relation to training, sleep, and other nutrients) of ingested protein,
Dietary Protein for Training Adaptation as well as the co-ingestion of other nutrients, all modulate the
in Track and Field Athletes response of MPS to ingested protein (Witard et al., 2016). In brief,
based on these studies the dose of protein for track and field athletes
Protein is important for optimizing the physical and likely meta- to consume on a per serving/meal basis for maximal stimulation of
bolic adaptations that occur in skeletal muscle, as well as other MPS would equate to ∼0.3–0.4 g/kg BM (Moore et al., 2015).
tissues, in response to exercise (Tipton, 2008), both during states of Consumed over 3–4 feeding occasions, this equates to a daily
energy balance and energy restriction (Figure 1). The physiological protein intake in the region of 1.3–1.7 g·kg BM−1·day−1. While the
basis for phenotypic changes that take place with either resistance- 0.3 g/kg BM target serving represents a safe intake for protein,
or endurance-based exercise training stems from changes in the this guideline was based on studies that administered isolated intact
quantity, type, and/or activity of various muscle proteins (Hawley proteins, such as whey protein (Moore et al., 2015), gave rise only
et al., 2006). The turnover, or remodeling, of all proteins is a to acute measures of MPS (i.e., meal-to-meal), and included no
constant and concurrent process. Hence, at any given time, mis- other macronutrients and as such would themselves be considered
folded, older damaged (posttranslational damage) proteins are optimal only under the specific conditions employed in the studies.
degraded through muscle protein breakdown (MPB) and are We and others (Gorissen & Witard, 2018; van Vliet et al., 2015)
replaced with new functional muscle proteins through muscle contend that the optimal per meal “real world” serving of a protein-
protein synthesis (MPS). Muscle protein is gained if rates of rich food for maximal stimulation of MPS may be closer to
MPS exceed MPB, termed positive net muscle protein balance. 0.4–0.5 g/kg BM when we consider real foods, not isolated
Conversely, muscle protein is lost if MPB exceeds MPS in a state of proteins, and the coingestion of other macronutrients that would
negative net muscle protein balance, as may be the case during alter rates of digestion and thus patterns of aminoacidemia to
periods of weight loss. stimulate MPS. Hence, for an 80-kg male sprinter, male long
Although an optimum muscle mass may not necessarily jumper, or female javelin thrower, this guideline represents an
equal maximal muscle mass (Tipton et al., 2007), a prerequisite ∼30 g protein serving size, with an example meal plan displayed
for success in predominantly strength/power-based track in Table 1. In contrast, but employing the similar rationale,
(e.g., sprinters) and field (e.g., long jumpers, shot put, javelin, a 55-kg female long-distance runner or race walker would consume
and discus throwers) athletes is to achieve an optimal power to ∼20 g protein serving, with an example meal plan displayed in
body weight ratio. Muscle hypertrophy stems from the remodeling Table 2.
of the contractile myofibrillar proteins in response to resistance In terms of protein type, leucine-rich rapidly digested protein
exercise training. More applicable to the endurance-based track and sources, such as whey protein, have been shown to elicit a greater
field athlete such as middle- and long-distance runners, nonhyper- stimulation of MPS during training recovery compared with slowly
trophic muscle adaptation also results from muscle protein remo- digested proteins of lower leucine composition, such as soy,
deling that stems primarily from a protein turnover favoring a micellar casein (high in leucine and more slowly digested), and
positive net protein balance of sarcoplasmic and mitochondrial wheat (Gorissen et al., 2016; Tang et al., 2009). There also is
muscle proteins. Although both MPS and MPB processes are evidence that track and field athletes would benefit from distribut-
modulated by protein ingestion and exercise, MPS is 4–5 times ing their daily protein intake evenly (e.g., 4–5 equally spaced
more responsive than MPB (Biolo et al., 1997) and changes in servings) throughout the day (Mamerow et al., 2014). This strategy
MPB are of far lesser concern. As a result, best practice nutrition might include a slow-releasing, protein-rich, snack at bedtime
guidelines for muscle adaptation in athletes are primarily based on (Trommelen & van Loon, 2016). Importantly, in the context of
protein recommendations for stimulation of MPS. It should also be this review, these protein recommendations are based on scientific
noted that dietary and/or nutritional factors that purport to suppress data generated in weight-stable (i.e., in energy balance) trained, but
MPB (i.e., branched-chain amino acids; Borgenvik et al., 2012) are by no means elite, athletic individuals.
IJSNEM Vol. 29, No. 2, 2019
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 02/05/23 10:46 PM UTC
168 Witard, Garthe, and Phillips

Table 1 Example Meal Plan for an 80-kg Male Sprinter, Male Long Jumper, or Female Javelin Thrower
Time Meal Foods providing ∼30 g of protein in highlighted meals during the day
08.00 Breakfast 250-g oatmeal porridge and 200-ml low-fat milk
09.30–11.00 Strength training Water and/or sports drink/bar/gel
11.00 Recovery meal 300-g Greek yogurt with granola
12.30 Lunch Omelet of two eggs and cheese, toast/salad
16.00 Dinner 120-g chicken with rice and vegetables
17.00–19.30 Event-specific training Water and/or sports drink/bar/gel
19.30 Recovery meal 300-g cottage cheese with apple and berries
22.00 Evening meal 100-g tuna in a mixed pasta salad
Note. Assuming that a daily protein intake of 1.6 g/kg BM is spread equally between three servings, which equates to a relative per meal protein serving of ∼0.4 g/kg BM or
∼30 g of protein expressed on an absolute basis. Carbohydrate-rich foods should be added to meet the individual daily energy needs. BM = body mass.

Table 2 Example Meal Plan for a 55-kg Female Long-Distance Runner or Race Walker
Time Meal Foods providing ∼20 g of protein in highlighted meals during the day
08.00 Breakfast 200-g Greek yogurt and granola
09.30–11.00 Strength training Water and/or sports drink/bar/gel
11.00 Recovery meal 500-ml smoothie (yogurt and berries)
12.30 Lunch Two fried eggs and toast/salad
16.00 Dinner 100-g salmon with potatoes and vegetables
17.00–19.30 Event-specific training Water and/or sports drink/bar/gel
19.30 Recovery meal 500-ml smoothie with yogurt, fruit, and berries
22.00 Evening meal Ham and cheese sandwich and 200-ml low-fat milk
Note. Assuming that a daily protein intake of 1.6 g·kg BM−1·day−1 is spread equally between three highlighted servings, which equates to a relative per meal protein serving
of ∼0.4 g/kg BM or ∼20 g of protein expressed on an absolute basis. Carbohydrate-rich foods should be added to meet the individual daily energy needs. BM = body mass.

Dietary Protein for High-Quality Weight tightly controlled study measured changes in BM, fat mass, and
LBM following a 2-week period of energy restriction in resistance-
Loss in Track and Field Athletes trained men who consumed ∼60% of their habitual energy intake,
while maintaining their normal training schedule (4–5 sessions per
Dietary protein is widely regarded as a key nutrient for manipulating week, including ≥2 resistance training sessions). The control group
body composition during weight loss in both nonathletic and of athletes continued with their habitual daily protein intake (1.0 g/kg
athletic populations. The benefits of increasing dietary protein levels BM or 1.2 g/kg LBM) during 2 weeks of energy restriction,
above the recommended daily allowance of 0.8 g·kg BM−1·day−1 on whereas the experimental group increased their protein intake to
body composition during weight loss has been extensively investi- 2.3 g/kg BM, equivalent to ∼2.7 g/kg LBM or 35% of individual
gated in overweight and obese populations (Josse et al., 2011; total energy intake. Energy intake was matched between dietary
Krieger et al., 2006; Longland et al., 2016; Wycherley et al., 2012). conditions. Interestingly, whereas the control group of athletes
In contrast, the evidence base that currently informs daily protein lost 1.6 kg of LBM over the 2 weeks of energy restriction, there was
recommendations for athletes during weight loss is limited to only a negligible (0.3 kg) decline in LBM in the high protein-consuming
a handful of studies. To date, the most comprehensive review group. Given that both groups lost ∼1.3 kg of fat mass, in
of protein recommendations during weight loss in athletes was aggregate, the decline in total BM was greater in the control
conducted by Helms et al. (2014). This systematic review of six (3 kg) versus high (1.5 kg) protein group. These findings were
published studies concluded that a daily protein intake of 1.8– remarkably similar, both qualitatively and quantitatively, to
2.7 g·kg BM−1·day−1 or 2.3–3.1 g·kg LBM−1·day−1 was estimated an earlier study in male body builders (Walberg et al., 1988).
as optimal to preserve LBM and still results in the reduction of fat Also consistent with this observation, a recent case study in an elite
mass during energy restriction in lean, resistance-trained athletes female endurance athlete demonstrated an increase in LBM when
(Helms et al., 2014). Noteworthy, however, the fact is that only two protein intake was increased to 2.6 g·kg BM−1·day−1 during
(Mettler et al., 2010; Walberg et al., 1988) of the six studies included ∼2 weeks of reduced energy availability (Haakonssen et al., 2013).
in this review (Helms et al., 2014) actually compared matched Taken together, in terms of practical implications, these data
groups of athletes consuming different levels of protein intake or suggest that strength/power or endurance-based track and field
quantified training. Hence, the practical application of this system- athletes with the goal of preserving or increasing LBM during
atic review to the track and field athlete is perhaps best interpreted weight loss should consume a dietary protein intake in excess of
on a study-by-study basis. 1.6 g·kg BM−1·day−1 (Figure 1). Moving forward, as is the case for
Of the articles included in this systematic review (Helms et al., weight-stable athletes, protein recommendations for high-quality
2014), perhaps the study most relevant to strength/power-based weight loss should move toward expressing recommendations on a
track and field athletes was published by Mettler et al. (2010). This meal-to-meal rather than daily basis.
IJSNEM Vol. 29, No. 2, 2019
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 02/05/23 10:46 PM UTC
 Protein and High-Quality Weight Loss in Athletes 169

A series of elaborate laboratory-based metabolic studies pro- regarding the recommended dose of protein that athletes should
vide a mechanistic link between dietary protein intake, exercise consider consuming on a meal-to-meal basis during energy restric-
training, skeletal muscle protein turnover, and the regulation of tion. However, we contend there is reasonable scientific evidence
muscle mass during energy restriction. The general consensus is for us to propose, with reasonable confidence, that this target per
that the main driver of LBM loss during weight loss is a reduced meal protein dose exceeds the 0.3–0.4 g/kg BM recommendation
stimulation of MPS, with minimal changes in MPB observed set for athletes during energy balance (Tables 1 and 2).
during energy restriction (Hector et al., 2018). This phenomenon Despite convincing evidence that protein intakes to preserve
is intuitive given that MPS is an energetically expensive process, LBM are increased in athletes during weight loss, optimizing
requiring ∼4 moles of adenosine triphosphate to add each amino protein recommendations for high-quality weight loss in elite track
acid during the elongation process of MPS (Browne & Proud, and field athletes also likely depends on several case-specific
2002). As such, the attenuated rate of MPS during energy restric- factors. In theory, three general factors determine the level of
tion suggests an adaptive mechanism to conserve energy during LBM loss during energy restriction and should be considered
weight loss. Accordingly, studies have demonstrated an ∼25% when prescribing protein recommendations for the athlete. First, a
decrease in fasting rates of MPS during the early (5–10 days) stages severe energy deficit that requires a fast rate of weight loss is
of an energy restricted diet (Areta et al., 2014; Hector et al., 2018; associated with a more pronounced loss of LBM compared with a
Pasiakos et al., 2010). slower rate of weight loss (Garthe et al., 2011). Second, indivi-
The findings from several mechanistic studies also indicate that duals who inherently possess greater muscle mass are more
the careful planning of dietary protein intake in combination with susceptible to losing LBM during weight loss compared with
resistance exercise training provides an effective strategy for track those athletes who possess less (Heymsfield et al., 2011). Third,
and field athletes to counter the impaired response of MPS during the habitual protein intake of the athlete prior to energy restriction
weight loss (Hector & Phillips, 2018; Pasiakos et al., 2015). should be considered when setting the target level of protein intake
Two recent studies demonstrated that reduced fasting rates of for the track and field athlete during weight loss. In theory, the
MPS following energy restriction were offset for the next 48 hr athlete who habitually consumes a high protein diet, possesses a
when young men performed resistance-based exercise (Areta et al., significant volume of muscle mass, has a high intrinsic metabolic
2014; Hector et al., 2018). Moreover, whereas 21 days of moderate capacity to degrade amino acids and generate urea, and selects
energy restriction (equivalent to a 20% energy deficit) with a daily a more aggressive weight loss strategy should target a daily protein
protein intake of 0.8 g·kg BM−1·day−1 resulted in a suppressed intake toward the higher (2.4 g·kg BM−1·day−1) end of the
postprandial response of MPS to a 20 g serving of milk, increasing recommended range (Helms et al., 2014). Finally, it is likely
daily protein intake to twice (1.6 g·kg BM−1·day−1) or thrice that the practice of resistance training is a potent local (i.e., muscle
(2.4 g·kg BM−1·day−1) the recommended daily allowance restored specific) stimulus to allow the exercised muscle to retain lean mass
postprandial rates of MPS in response to the same 20-g milk serving during weight loss. This point is illustrated by data from Longland
to levels observed during energy balance (Pasiakos et al., 2013). et al. (2016) who showed that athletes consuming a protein intake
Moreover, a recent study reported a protein dose-dependent increase of only 1.2 g·kg BM−1·day−1 were able to completely ablate their
in the postexercise response of MPS during energy restriction in loss of lean mass, whereas those consuming a protein intake of
trained young men (Areta et al., 2014). The highest MPS response 2.4 g·kg BM−1·day−1 actually gained a modest but significant
was observed with ingestion of 30 g of protein; however, the increase amount of LBM. We propose that in fact of the two stimuli, the
in MPS was linear from 15 to 30 g with no dose fed above that intake. practice of resistance exercise is going to be far more potent than
Thus, it remains unknown whether the response of MPS is further increasing protein intake as a stimulus for promoting retention
increased with a protein dose greater than 30 g during energy of LBM.
restriction. Nonetheless, taken together these data highlight the
interaction of increased daily protein intake and resistance training
in stimulating MPS response during weight loss. High Protein Diets for Health and
Few studies have examined the impact of protein type (Hector Performance in Track and Field Athletes
et al., 2015) or the meal pattern (e.g., daily protein intake distrib-
uted equally between meals or skewed toward the evening meal; There are a number of long-standing claims that a high protein diet,
Murphy et al., 2018) of protein intake on rates of MPS during as advocated here for track and field athletes during weight loss, is
energy restriction, particularly within an athletic context. Never- detrimental for athlete health (Lowery & Devia, 2009; Martin et al.,
theless, if we assume the recommended protein intake during 2005; Metges & Barth, 2000). However, at present, there is no
energy restriction in track and field athletes ranges from 1.6 to scientific evidence to substantiate the claims that protein will
2.4 g·kg BM−1·day−1 (Figure 1), the following calculations can be enhance risk of adverse renal health, particularly within athletic
made to inform refined protein recommendations on a meal-to- populations (Phillips, 2017; Phillips et al., 2016; Van Elswyk et al.,
meal or serving-to-serving basis. For the same 80-kg male sprin- 2018). Moreover, as opposed to what is often touted as a negative
ters, male long jumpers, or female javelin throwers who spread a effect of high protein in stimulating adverse outcomes for bone, a
daily protein intake of 1.6 g·kg BM−1·day−1 equally between four recent meta-analysis from the U.S. National Osteoporosis Foun-
or five servings (i.e., three meals and one or two snacks, including a dation concluded that protein is actually a bone supportive nutrient
bedtime snack), this equates to a relative per meal protein serving of (Shams-White et al., 2017) particularly when athletes are consum-
∼0.4 g/kg BM or ∼32 g of protein expressed on an absolute basis for ing adequate calcium and vitamin D. In short, track and field
three meals and the remainder of his protein as snacks. Alternately, athletes who consume a high protein diet during weight loss are not
if we assume a daily protein recommendation at the high end of this placing themselves at increased risk of kidney problems or poor
recommended range (i.e., 2.4 g·kg BM−1·day−1), this equates to bone health.
a per meal protein serving of ∼0.5 g/kg BM or a 40-g protein dose. Perhaps the greater concern for the track and field athlete who
To this end, these calculations provide only an informed estimate embarks on a high-protein weight-loss diet relates to the choice of
IJSNEM Vol. 29, No. 2, 2019
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 02/05/23 10:46 PM UTC
170 Witard, Garthe, and Phillips

macronutrient to replace with an increased protein intake. By athletes. In this regard, most interest has focused on dietary supple-
default, dietary carbohydrate and/or fat intake must be adjusted mentation with the branched-chain amino acids (BCAA), leucine,
to accommodate for the increase in protein content of the diet. isoleucine, and valine. There is ample evidence that ingested BCAA
According to a meta-analysis, increasing the protein content of an (Karlsson et al., 2004; Moberg et al., 2016), in particular leucine
energy restricted diet at the expense of carbohydrate, rather than fat, (Kimball & Jefferson, 2006), result in stimulation of the molecular
results in a greater decline in BM and fat mass during weight loss signaling pathways that switch on MPS. Recent work also demon-
(Krieger et al., 2006). However, this meta-analysis was based on strated that ingestion of 5.6 g of BCAA alone immediately following
studies conducted in overweight and obese populations. In the a bout of resistance exercise resulted in a moderate (∼27%) increased
context of athlete performance, concern has been raised regarding stimulation of MPS during recovery compared with a carbohydrate
the impact of reducing carbohydrate availability on maintaining placebo (Jackman et al., 2017); however, this effect was almost
training quality and subsequent performance during periods of certainly due to the presence of leucine as the other two BCAA have
weight loss. To address this concern, Mettler et al. (2010) standard- no effect in activating cell signaling and stimulating MPS synthesis
ized carbohydrate intake at habitual levels (3.4 g·kg BM−1·day−1) (Atherton et al., 2010). Similar results also were demonstrated with
and increased protein intake at the expense of fat intake during the ingestion of leucine or the leucine metabolite β-hydroxy-β-
2 weeks of energy restriction in resistance-trained men. In addition methylbutyrate alone (Wilkinson et al., 2013). However, interest-
to improving body composition, athletes who consumed the high- ingly the magnitude of this increased stimulation of MPS during
protein/low-fat diet either maintained or improved their perfor- exercise recovery with BCAA ingestion was ∼50% inferior to the
mance on a series of strength-based exercises. MPS response to ingesting a 20-g dose of whey protein containing
A separate, but related consideration for the track and field similar amounts of BCAA (Witard et al., 2014). The current
athlete in terms of performance during energy restriction concerns knowledge base that directly investigates the impact of protein-
the rate of weight loss. A slower rate of weight loss (0.7% body based supplements, including BCAA, on body composition during
weight loss per week) in elite athletes resulted in more favorable energy restriction is limited and thus future work in the context of
performance and body composition outcomes than when athletes weight loss is warranted.
embarked on a more rapid weight loss (1.4% body weight loss per
week) program (Garthe et al., 2011a). As a general guideline, track General Conclusions
and field athletes are recommended to engage in a slower rate
(∼0.5 kg/week) of weight loss and make subtle adjustments to Tables 3 and 4 provide an overview of the “knowns” and “un-
both their carbohydrate and fat intakes (∼20% of total energy intake) knowns” regarding protein recommendations for training adapta-
rather than excessively reducing either macronutrient alone when tion and body composition manipulation in track and field athletes.
increasing the protein content of an energy restricted diet. In theory, In summary, optimal levels of protein intake in athletes clearly
this measured approach will address fears over reducing dietary exceed the current protein recommended daily allowance of
carbohydrate or fat intakes to levels that may adversely affect the between 0.8 and 1.0 g·kg BM−1·day−1. As outlined, dietary protein
health and performance of the track and field athlete. intakes in the range of 1.3–1.7 g·kg BM−1·day−1 are optimal for
athletes who are maintaining their body weight. In contrast, athletes
Amino Acid-Based Supplements for wishing to undertake high-quality weight loss are advised to
engage in resistance exercise and consume dietary protein intakes
High-Quality Weight Loss in Track and in quantities above 1.6 g·kg BM−1·day−1 and closer to 2.4 g·kg
Field Athletes BM−1·day−1 to promote the retention and potentially increase
LBM. Leucine is a key and critical amino acid for stimulating
Anecdotally, there is significant interest in the role of protein-based the cell signaling pathways that control MPS and should be
supplements during weight loss for improved body composition and emphasized in protein sources consumed postexercise to trigger
performance in athletic populations, including track and field a rise in MPS during weight loss. There are benefits to consuming

Table 3 Protein Recommendations for Training Adaptation and Body Composition Manipulation in Track and Field
Athletes
What we know from scientific literature and how this knowledge may be translated into everyday practice for track and field
athletes
(a) The optimum daily protein intake for the weight stable track and field athletes exceeds the protein RDA (0.8–1.0 g·kg BM−1·day−1) set for the general
adult population.
(b) The optimum daily protein intake for track and field athletes with the goal of weight maintenance or weight gain ranges from 1.3 to 1.7 g·kg
BM−1·day−1 (refer to Table 1).
(c) The optimum per meal/serving of protein for track and field athletes with the goal of weight maintenance or weight gain ranges from 0.3 to 0.4 g/kg
BM per meal (refer to Table 1).
(d) Very high protein intakes of >2.5 g·kg BM−1·day−1 offer no adaptive advantage.
(e) The optimum daily protein intake for track and field athletes with the goal of high-quality weight loss exceeds 1.6 g·kg BM−1·day−1 and may be as
high as 2.4 g·kg BM−1·day−1.
(f) Track and field athletes who consume a high protein diet (e.g., 2.4 g·kg BM−1·day−1) during weight loss are not at increased risk of kidney problems or
poor bone health.
Note. RDA = recommended daily allowance; BM = body mass. High-quality weight loss is defined as the loss of fat mass while preserving, or even increasing, lean body
mass.

IJSNEM Vol. 29, No. 2, 2019

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 02/05/23 10:46 PM UTC
 Protein and High-Quality Weight Loss in Athletes 171

Table 4 Future Research Directions in Dietary Protein for Training Adaptation and Body Composition Manipulation
in Track and Field Athletes
What research has yet to discover Priority areas for future research
(a) The optimum per meal/serving of commonly consumed protein-rich Studies designed to characterize the dose–response of MPS to ingested
foods for maximal stimulation of MPS during exercise recovery. protein-rich foods rather than isolated intact protein sources such as whey and
soy protein.
(b) The longer term benefits of higher protein intakes on high quality Individual or small group case studies in elite athletes with a more realistic
weight loss in track and field athletes. level of weight loss (e.g., 20% vs. 40% energy deficit) over a longer period of
training (>2 weeks).
(c) The optimum per meal/serving of protein during weight loss in track Studies designed to characterize the dose–response of MPS to ingested
and field athletes. protein during energy restriction in athletes.
(d) The impact of protein source and timing on body composition during Studies should determine rates of MPS after manipulating the daytime pattern
weight loss in track and field athletes. of animal- and plant-based protein foods during energy restriction in athletes.
(e) Individual variability in body composition responses to dietary Studies should explore genetic and epigenetic factors that predict body
protein manipulation during weight loss in track and field athletes. composition responses during energy restriction.
(f) Event-specific protein needs in track and field athletics related to body Individual or small group case studies across all track and field events.
composition manipulation.
Note. MPS = muscle protein synthesis.

food-based protein sources due to their nutrient density (Phillips Bray, G.A., Smith, S.R., de Jonge, L., Xie, H., Rood, J., Martin, C.K., : : :
et al., 2015), which would be beneficial for track and field athletes Redman, L.M. (2012). Effect of dietary protein content on weight
especially those who are on energy-restricted diets. gain, energy expenditure, and body composition during overeating:
A randomized controlled trial. JAMA, 307(1), 47–55. PubMed ID:
22215165 doi:10.1001/jama.2011.1918
Acknowledgments Browne, G.J., & Proud, C.G. (2002). Regulation of peptide-chain elonga-
The manuscript preparation and editing was undertaken by O. C. Witard, tion in mammalian cells. European Journal of Biochemistry, 269(22),
I. Garthe, and S. M. Phillips. All authors approved the final version of the 5360–5368. PubMed ID: 12423334 doi:10.1046/j.1432-1033.2002.
paper. We also would like to thank all volunteers who participated in 03290.x
research projects, providing valuable data and information. O. C. Witard Coyle, E.F. (2004). Fluid and fuel intake during exercise. Journal of
reports having received honoraria from PepsiCo. S. M. Phillips reports Sports Sciences, 22(1), 39–55. PubMed ID: 14971432 doi:10.1080/
having received funding, honoraria, and travel expenses from the U.S. 0264041031000140545
National Dairy Council, funding from PepsiCo, and funding from the Dhurandhar, E.J., Kaiser, K.A., Dawson, J.A., Alcorn, A.S., Keating,
Dairy Farmers of Canada. K.D., & Allison, D.B. (2015). Predicting adult weight change
in the real world: A systematic review and meta-analysis accounting
for compensatory changes in energy intake or expenditure. Interna-
References tional Journal of Obesity, 39(8), 1181–1187. doi:10.1038/ijo.
2014.184
Areta, J.L., Burke, L.M., Camera, D.M., West, D.W., Crawshay, S., Garthe, I., Raastad, T., Refsnes, P.E., Koivisto, A., & Sundgot-Borgen, J.
Moore, D.R., : : : Coffey, V.G. (2014). Reduced resting skeletal (2011a). Effect of two different weight-loss rates on body composi-
muscle protein synthesis is rescued by resistance exercise and protein tion and strength and power-related performance in elite athletes.
ingestion following short-term energy deficit. American Journal of International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism,
Physiology—Endocrinology and Metabolism, 306(8), E989–E997. 21(2), 97–104. PubMed ID: 21558571 doi:10.1123/ijsnem.21.2.97
PubMed ID: 24595305 doi:10.1152/ajpendo.00590.2013 Garthe, I., Raastad, T., & Sundgot-Borgen, J. (2011b). Long-term effect of
Atherton, P.J., Smith, K., Etheridge, T., Rankin, D., & Rennie, M.J. weight loss on body composition and performance in elite athletes.
(2010). Distinct anabolic signalling responses to amino acids in International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism,
C2C12 skeletal muscle cells. Amino Acids, 38(5), 1533–1539. 21(5), 426–435. PubMed ID: 21896944 doi:10.1123/ijsnem.21.5.426
PubMed ID: 19882215 doi:10.1007/s00726-009-0377-x Gorissen, S.H., Horstman, A.M., Franssen, R., Crombag, J.J., Langer, H.,
Biolo, G., Tipton, K.D., Klein, S., & Wolfe, R.R. (1997). An abundant Bierau, J., : : : van Loon, L.J. (2016). Ingestion of wheat protein
supply of amino acids enhances the metabolic effect of exercise on increases in vivo muscle protein synthesis rates in healthy older men
muscle protein. American Journal of Physiology—Endocrinology in a randomized trial. The Journal of Nutrition, 146(9), 1651–1659.
and Metabolism, 273(1), E122–E129. PubMed ID: 9252488 PubMed ID: 27440260 doi:10.3945/jn.116.231340
doi:10.1152/ajpendo.1997.273.1.E122 Gorissen, S.H.M., & Witard, O.C. (2018). Characterising the muscle
Borgenvik, M., Apro, W., & Blomstrand, E. (2012). Intake of branched- anabolic potential of dairy, meat and plant-based protein sources
chain amino acids influences the levels of MAFbx mRNA and in older adults. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 77(1), 20–31.
MuRF-1 total protein in resting and exercising human muscle. PubMed ID: 28847314 doi:10.1017/S002966511700194X
American Journal of Physiology—Endocrinology and Metabolism, Haakonssen, E.C., Martin, D.T., Burke, L.M., & Jenkins, D.G. (2013).
302(5), E510–E521. PubMed ID: 22127230 doi:10.1152/ajpendo. Increased lean mass with reduced fat mass in an elite female cyclist
00353.2011 returning to competition: Case study. International Journal of Sports

IJSNEM Vol. 29, No. 2, 2019

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 02/05/23 10:46 PM UTC
172 Witard, Garthe, and Phillips

Physiology and Performance, 8(6), 699–701. PubMed ID: 23538431 Longland, T.M., Oikawa, S.Y., Mitchell, C.J., Devries, M.C., & Phillips,
doi:10.1123/ijspp.8.6.699 S.M. (2016). Higher compared with lower dietary protein during an
Hawley, J.A., Tipton, K.D., & Millard-Stafford, M.L. (2006). Promoting energy deficit combined with intense exercise promotes greater lean
training adaptations through nutritional interventions. Journal of mass gain and fat mass loss: A randomized trial. The American
Sports Sciences, 24(7), 709–721. doi:10.1080/02640410500482727 Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 103(3), 738–746. PubMed ID:
Hector, A.J., Marcotte, G.R., Churchward-Venne, T.A., Murphy, C.H., 26817506 doi:10.3945/ajcn.115.119339
Breen, L., von Allmen, M., : : : Phillips, S.M. (2015). Whey protein Lowery, L.M., & Devia, L. (2009). Dietary protein safety and resistance
supplementation preserves postprandial myofibrillar protein synthesis exercise: What do we really know? Journal of the International
during short-term energy restriction in overweight and obese adults. Society of Sports Nutrition, 6, 3. PubMed ID: 19138405 doi:10.1186/
The Journal of Nutrition, 145(2), 246–252. PubMed ID: 25644344 1550-2783-6-3
doi:10.3945/jn.114.200832 MacKenzie-Shalders, K.L., Byrne, N.M., Slater, G.J., & King, N.A.
Hector, A.J., McGlory, C., Damas, F., Mazara, N., Baker, S.K., & Phillips, (2015). The effect of a whey protein supplement dose on satiety
S.M. (2018). Pronounced energy restriction with elevated protein and food intake in resistance training athletes. Appetite, 92, 178–184.
intake results in no change in proteolysis and reductions in skeletal PubMed ID: 25979566 doi:10.1016/j.appet.2015.05.007
muscle protein synthesis that are mitigated by resistance exercise. Mamerow, M.M., Mettler, J.A., English, K.L., Casperson, S.L., Arentson-
FASEB Journal, 32(1), 265–275. doi:10.1096/fj.201700158RR Lantz, E., Sheffield-Moore, M., : : : Paddon-Jones, D. (2014). Die-
Hector, A.J., & Phillips, S.M. (2018). Protein recommendations for weight tary protein distribution positively influences 24-h muscle protein
loss in elite athletes: A focus on body composition and performance. synthesis in healthy adults. The Journal of Nutrition, 144(6), 876–
International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism, 880. doi:10.3945/jn.113.185280
28(2), 170–177. PubMed ID: 29182451 doi:10.1123/ijsnem.2017-0273 Martin, W.F., Armstrong, L.E., & Rodriguez, N.R. (2005). Dietary protein
Helms, E.R., Zinn, C., Rowlands, D.S., & Brown, S.R. (2014). A intake and renal function. Nutrition & Metabolism, 2, 25. PubMed ID:
systematic review of dietary protein during caloric restriction in 16174292 doi:10.1186/1743-7075-2-25
resistance trained lean athletes: A case for higher intakes. Interna- Metges, C.C., & Barth, C.A. (2000). Metabolic consequences of a high
tional Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism, 24(2), dietary-protein intake in adulthood: Assessment of the available
127–138. PubMed ID: 24092765 doi:10.1123/ijsnem.2013-0054 evidence. The Journal of Nutrition, 130(4), 886–889. PubMed ID:
Heymsfield, S.B., Thomas, D., Nguyen, A.M., Peng, J.Z., Martin, C., 10736347 doi:10.1093/jn/130.4.886
Shen, W., : : : Muller, M.J. (2011). Voluntary weight loss: Systematic Mettler, S., Mitchell, N., & Tipton, K.D. (2010). Increased protein intake
review of early phase body composition changes. Obesity Reviews, reduces lean body mass loss during weight loss in athletes. Medicine
12(5), e348–e361. doi:10.1111/j.1467-789X.2010.00767.x & Science in Sports & Exercise, 42(2), 326–337. doi:10.1249/MSS.
Hirsch, K.R., Smith-Ryan, A.E., Trexler, E.T., & Roelofs, E.J. (2016). Body 0b013e3181b2ef8e
composition and muscle characteristics of division I track and field Moberg, M., Apro, W., Ekblom, B., van Hall, G., Holmberg, H.C., &
athletes. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 30(5), 1231– Blomstrand, E. (2016). Activation of mTORC1 by leucine is poten-
1238. PubMed ID: 27100166 doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000001203 tiated by branched-chain amino acids and even more so by essential
Jackman, S.R., Witard, O.C., Philp, A., Wallis, G.A., Baar, K., & Tipton, amino acids following resistance exercise. American Journal of
K.D. (2017). Branched-chain amino acid ingestion stimulates muscle Physiology–Cell Physiology, 310(11), C874–C884. PubMed ID:
myofibrillar protein synthesis following resistance exercise in hu- 27053525 doi:10.1152/ajpcell.00374.2015
mans. Frontiers in Physiology, 8, 390. PubMed ID: 28638350 doi:10. Moore, D.R., Churchward-Venne, T.A., Witard, O., Breen, L., Burd, N.A.,
3389/fphys.2017.00390 Tipton, K.D., & Phillips, S.M. (2015). Protein ingestion to stimulate
Josse, A.R., Atkinson, S.A., Tarnopolsky, M.A., & Phillips, S.M. (2011). myofibrillar protein synthesis requires greater relative protein intakes
Increased consumption of dairy foods and protein during diet- and in healthy older versus younger men. The Journals of Gerontology,
exercise-induced weight loss promotes fat mass loss and lean mass Series A: Biological Sciences & Medical Sciences, 70(1), 57–62.
gain in overweight and obese premenopausal women. The Journal of doi:10.1093/gerona/glu103
Nutrition, 141(9), 1626–1634. doi:10.3945/jn.111.141028 Morton, R.W., Murphy, K.T., McKellar, S.R., Schoenfeld, B.J.,
Karlsson, H.K., Nilsson, P.A., Nilsson, J., Chibalin, A.V., Zierath, J.R., & Henselmans, M., Helms, E., : : : Phillips, S.M. (2018). A systematic
Blomstrand, E. (2004). Branched-chain amino acids increase p70S6k review, meta-analysis and meta-regression of the effect of protein
phosphorylation in human skeletal muscle after resistance exercise. supplementation on resistance training-induced gains in muscle mass
American Journal of Physiology—Endocrinology and Metabolism, and strength in healthy adults. British Journal of Sports Medicine,
287(1), E1–E7. doi:10.1152/ajpendo.00430.2003 52(6), 376–384. PubMed ID: 28698222
Kimball, S.R., & Jefferson, L.S. (2006). Signaling pathways and molecular Morton, R.W., & Phillips, S.M. (2018). Does protein supplementation
mechanisms through which branched-chain amino acids mediate really augment hypertrophy in older persons with resistance exercise
translational control of protein synthesis. The Journal of Nutrition, training? The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 107(6), 1054–
136(1), 227S–231S. doi:10.1093/jn/136.1.227S 1056. PubMed ID: 29771273 doi:10.1093/ajcn/nqy068
Krieger, J.W., Sitren, H.S., Daniels, M.J., & Langkamp-Henken, B. Mountjoy, M., Sundgot-Borgen, J., Burke, L., Carter, S., Constantini, N.,
(2006). Effects of variation in protein and carbohydrate intake on Lebrun, C., : : : Ljungqvist, A. (2014). The IOC consensus statement:
body mass and composition during energy restriction: A meta- Beyond the female athlete triad—Relative energy deficiency in sport
regression. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 83(2), (RED-S). British Journal of Sports Medicine, 48(7), 491–497.
260–274. PubMed ID: 16469983 doi:10.1093/ajcn/83.2.260 PubMed ID: 24620037 doi:10.1136/bjsports-2014-093502
Kreider, R.B., Klesges, R., Harmon, K., Grindstaff, P., Ramsey, L., Mountjoy, M., Sundgot-Borgen, J.K., Burke, L.M., Ackerman, K.E.,
Bullen, D., : : : Almada, A. (1996). Effects of ingesting supplements Blauwet, C., Constantini, N., : : : Budgett, R. (2018). IOC consensus
designed to promote lean tissue accretion on body composition during statement on relative energy deficiency in sport (RED-S): 2018
resistance training. International Journal of Sport Nutrition and update. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 52(11), 687–697.
Exercise Metabolism, 6(3), 234–246. PubMed ID: 29773536 doi:10.1136/bjsports-2018-099193

IJSNEM Vol. 29, No. 2, 2019

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 02/05/23 10:46 PM UTC
 Protein and High-Quality Weight Loss in Athletes 173

Murphy, C.H., Hector, A.J., & Phillips, S.M. (2015). Considerations for in man. The British Journal of Nutrition, 91(6), 951–958. PubMed
protein intake in managing weight loss in athletes. European Journal ID: 15182398 doi:10.1079/BJN20041149
of Sport Science, 15(1), 21–28. PubMed ID: 25014731 doi:10.1080/ Stokes, T., Hector, A.J., Morton, R.W., McGlory, C., & Phillips, S.M.
17461391.2014.936325 (2018). Recent perspectives regarding the role of dietary protein for
Murphy, C.H., Oikawa, S.Y., & Phillips, S.M. (2016). Dietary protein to the promotion of muscle hypertrophy with resistance exercise train-
maintain muscle mass in aging: A case for per-meal protein recom- ing. Nutrients, 10(2), E180. PubMed ID: 29414855 doi:10.3390/
mendations. The Journal of Frailty & Aging, 5(1), 49–58. PubMed nu10020180
ID: 26980369 Sundgot-Borgen, J., & Garthe, I. (2011). Elite athletes in aesthetic and
Murphy, C.H., Shankaran, M., Churchward-Venne, T.A., Mitchell, C.J., Olympic weight-class sports and the challenge of body weight and
Kolar, N.M., Burke, L.M., : : : Phillips, S.M. (2018). Effect of body compositions. Journal of Sports Sciences, 29(Suppl. 1), S101–
resistance training and protein intake pattern on myofibrillar protein S114. doi:10.1080/02640414.2011.565783
synthesis and proteome kinetics in older men in energy restriction. Tang, J.E., Moore, D.R., Kujbida, G.W., Tarnopolsky, M.A., & Phillips,
The Journal of Physiology, 596(11), 2091–2120. PubMed ID: S.M. (2009). Ingestion of whey hydrolysate, casein, or soy protein
29532476 doi:10.1113/JP275246 isolate: Effects on mixed muscle protein synthesis at rest and follow-
O’Connor, H., Olds, T., Maughan, R.J., and International Association of ing resistance exercise in young men. Journal of Applied Physiology,
Athletics Federations. (2007). Physique and performance for track 107(3), 987–992. doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.00076.2009
and field events. Journal of Sports Sciences, 25(Suppl. 1), S49–S60. Tipton, K.D. (2008). Protein for adaptations to exercise training.
doi:10.1080/02640410701607296 European Journal of Sport Science, 8(2), 107–118. doi:10.1080/
Pasiakos, S.M., Cao, J.J., Margolis, L.M., Sauter, E.R., Whigham, L.D., 17461390801919102
McClung, J.P., : : : Young, A.J. (2013). Effects of high-protein diets Tipton, K.D., Hamilton, D.L., & Gallagher, I.J. (2018). Assessing the role
on fat-free mass and muscle protein synthesis following weight loss: of muscle protein breakdown in response to nutrition and exercise in
A randomized controlled trial. FASEB Journal, 27(9), 3837–3847. humans. Sports Medicine, 48(Suppl. 1), 53–64. doi:10.1007/s40279-
doi:10.1096/fj.13-230227 017-0845-5
Pasiakos, S.M., Margolis, L.M., & Orr, J.S. (2015). Optimized dietary Tipton, K.D., Jeukendrup, A.E., & Hespel, P. (2007). Nutrition for the
strategies to protect skeletal muscle mass during periods of unavoid- sprinter. Journal of Sports Sciences, 25(Suppl. 1), S5–S15. doi:10.
able energy deficit. FASEB Journal, 29(4), 1136–1142. doi:10.1096/ 1080/02640410701607205
fj.14-266890 Trommelen, J., & van Loon, L.J. (2016). Pre-sleep protein ingestion to
Pasiakos, S.M., Vislocky, L.M., Carbone, J.W., Altieri, N., Konopelski, improve the skeletal muscle adaptive response to exercise training.
K., Freake, H.C., : : : Rodriguez, N.R. (2010). Acute energy depri- Nutrients, 8(12), 763. PubMed ID: 27916799 doi:10.3390/
vation affects skeletal muscle protein synthesis and associated intra- nu8120763.
cellular signaling proteins in physically active adults. The Journal of Van Elswyk, M.E., Weatherford, C.A., & McNeill, S.H. (2018). A
Nutrition, 140(4), 745–751. PubMed ID: 20164371 doi:10.3945/jn. systematic review of renal health in healthy individuals associated
109.118372 with protein intake above the US recommended daily allowance in
Phillips, S.M. (2017). Current concepts and unresolved questions in dietary randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Advances in
protein requirements and supplements in adults. Frontiers in Nutrition, Nutrition, 9(4), 404–418. doi:10.1093/advances/nmy026
4, 13. PubMed ID: 28534027 doi:10.3389/fnut.2017.00013 Tipton, K.D., & Wolfe, R.R. (2004). Protein and amino acids for athletes.
Phillips, S.M., Chevalier, S., & Leidy, H.J. (2016). Protein “requirements” Journal of Sports Sciences, 22(1), 65–79.
beyond the RDA: Implications for optimizing health. Applied Physi- van Vliet, S., Burd, N.A., & van Loon, L.J.C. (2015). The skeletal muscle
ology, Nutrition, and Metabolism, 41(5), 565–572. PubMed ID: anabolic response to plant- versus animal-based protein consumption.
26960445 doi:10.1139/apnm-2015-0550 The Journal of Nutrition, 145(9), 1981–1991. PubMed ID: 26224750
Phillips, S.M., Fulgoni, V.L. III, Heaney, R.P., Nicklas, T.A., Slavin, J.L., doi:10.3945/jn.114.204305
& Weaver, C.M. (2015). Commonly consumed protein foods con- Veldhorst, M., Smeets, A., Soenen, S., Hochstenbach-Waelen, A., Hursel,
tribute to nutrient intake, diet quality, and nutrient adequacy. The R., Diepvens, K., : : : Westerterp-Plantenga, M. (2008). Protein-
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 101(6), 1346S–1352S. induced satiety: Effects and mechanisms of different proteins. Physiol-
doi:10.3945/ajcn.114.084079 ogy & Behavior, 94(2), 300–307. doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2008.01.003
Rodriguez, N.R., Di Marco, N.M., & Langley, S. (2009). American Walberg, J.L., Leidy, M.K., Sturgill, D.J., Hinkle, D.E., Ritchey, S.J., &
College of Sports Medicine position stand. Nutrition and athletic Sebolt, D.R. (1988). Macronutrient content of a hypoenergy diet
performance. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 41(3), 709– affects nitrogen retention and muscle function in weight lifters.
731. doi:10.1249/MSS.0b013e31890eb86 International Journal of Sports Medicine, 9(4), 261–266. doi:10.
Rozenek, R., Ward, P., Long, S., & Garhammer, J. (2002). Effects of high- 1055/s-2007-1025018
calorie supplements on body composition and muscular strength Weinheimer, E.M., Sands, L.P., & Campbell, W.W. (2010). A systematic
following resistance training. The Journal of Sports Medicine and review of the separate and combined effects of energy restriction and
Physical Fitness, 42(3), 340–347. PubMed ID: 12094125 exercise on fat-free mass in middle-aged and older adults: Implica-
Shams-White, M.M., Chung, M., Du, M., Fu, Z., Insogna, K.L., Karlsen, tions for sarcopenic obesity. Nutrition Reviews, 68(7), 375–388.
M.C., : : : Weaver, C.M. (2017). Dietary protein and bone health: A doi:10.1111/j.1753-4887.2010.00298.x
systematic review and meta-analysis from the National Osteoporosis Wilkinson, D.J., Hossain, T., Hill, D.S., Phillips, B.E., Crossland, H.,
Foundation. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 105(6), Williams, J., : : : Atherton, P.J. (2013). Effects of leucine and its
1528–1543. PubMed ID: 28404575 metabolite beta-hydroxy-beta-methylbutyrate on human skeletal mus-
Shirreffs, S.M., Merson, S.J., Fraser, S.M., & Archer, D.T. (2004). The cle protein metabolism. The Journal of Physiology, 591(11), 2911–
effects of fluid restriction on hydration status and subjective feelings 2923. PubMed ID: 23551944 doi:10.1113/jphysiol.2013.253203

IJSNEM Vol. 29, No. 2, 2019

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 02/05/23 10:46 PM UTC
174 Witard, Garthe, and Phillips

Witard, O.C., Jackman, S.R., Breen, L., Smith, K., Selby, A., & Tipton, mass in healthy young and older adults. Nutrients, 8(4), 181. PubMed
K.D. (2014). Myofibrillar muscle protein synthesis rates subsequent ID: 27023595 doi:10.3390/nu8040181
to a meal in response to increasing doses of whey protein at rest and Wycherley, T.P., Moran, L.J., Clifton, P.M., Noakes, M., & Brinkworth, G.D.
after resistance exercise. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, (2012). Effects of energy-restricted high-protein, low-fat compared
99(1), 86–95. PubMed ID: 24257722 doi:10.3945/ajcn.112.055517 with standard-protein, low-fat diets: A meta-analysis of randomized
Witard, O.C., Wardle, S.L., Macnaughton, L.S., Hodgson, A.B., & Tipton, controlled trials. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 96(6),
K.D. (2016). Protein considerations for optimising skeletal muscle 1281–1298. PubMed ID: 23097268 doi:10.3945/ajcn.112.044321

IJSNEM Vol. 29, No. 2, 2019

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 02/05/23 10:46 PM UTC