Reid-McCann Rachel J, Brennan Sarah F, Ward Nicola A, Logan Danielle, McKinley Michelle C, McEvoy Claire T
Nutrition and Metabolism Research Group, Centre for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast BT12 6BJ, United Kingdom.
Nutr Rev. 2025 Jul 1;83(7):e1581-e1603. doi: 10.1093/nutrit/nuae200.
Dietary protein is recommended for sarcopenia-a debilitating condition of age-related loss of muscle mass and strength that affects 27% of older adults. The effects of protein on muscle health may depend on protein quality.
The aim was to synthesize randomized controlled trial (RCT) data comparing plant with animal protein for muscle health.
Forty-three eligible RCTs were sourced from Medline, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and CENTRAL databases.
Four reviewers (R.J.R.-M., S.F.B., N.A.W., D.L.) extracted data from RCTs (study setting, population, intervention characteristics, outcomes, summary statistics) and conducted quality assessment using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0.
Standardized mean differences (SMDs) (95% CIs) were combined using a random-effects meta-analysis and forest plots were generated. I2 statistics were calculated to test for statistical heterogeneity.
Thirty RCTs (70%) were eligible for meta-analysis and all examined muscle mass outcomes. Compared with animal protein, plant protein resulted in lower muscle mass following the intervention (SMD = -0.20; 95% CI: -0.37, -0.03; P = .02), with stronger effects in younger (<60 years; SMD = -0.20; 95% CI: -0.37, -0.03; P = .02) than in older (≥60 years; SMD = -0.05; 95% CI: -0.32, 0.23; P = .74) adults. There was no pooled effect difference between soy and milk protein for muscle mass (SMD = -0.02; 95% CI: -0.20, 0.16; P = .80) (n = 17 RCTs), yet animal protein improved muscle mass compared with non-soy plant proteins (rice, chia, oat, and potato; SMD = -0.58; 95% CI: -1.06, -0.09; P = .02) (n = 5 RCTs) and plant-based diets (SMD = -0.51; 95% CI: -0.91, -0.11; P = .01) (n = 7 RCTs). No significant difference was found between plant or animal protein for muscle strength (n = 14 RCTs) or physical performance (n = 5 RCTs). No trials examined sarcopenia as an outcome. Animal protein may have a small beneficial effect over non-soy plant protein for muscle mass; however, research into a wider range of plant proteins and diets is needed.
PROSPERO registration no. CRD42020188658.
膳食蛋白质被推荐用于治疗肌肉减少症,这是一种与年龄相关的肌肉质量和力量丧失的衰弱病症,影响着27%的老年人。蛋白质对肌肉健康的影响可能取决于蛋白质质量。
本研究旨在综合比较植物蛋白和动物蛋白对肌肉健康影响的随机对照试验(RCT)数据。
从Medline、Embase、Scopus、Web of Science和CENTRAL数据库中筛选出43项符合条件的随机对照试验。
四名评审员(R.J.R.-M.、S.F.B.、N.A.W.、D.L.)从随机对照试验中提取数据(研究背景、人群、干预特征、结果、汇总统计数据),并使用Cochrane偏倚风险2.0进行质量评估。
采用随机效应荟萃分析合并标准化均数差(SMD)(95%置信区间),并生成森林图。计算I²统计量以检验统计异质性。
30项随机对照试验(70%)符合荟萃分析条件,且所有试验均考察了肌肉质量结果。与动物蛋白相比,植物蛋白干预后肌肉质量较低(SMD = -0.20;95%置信区间:-0.37,-0.03;P = 0.02),在年轻人(<60岁;SMD = -0.20;95%置信区间:-0.37,-0.03;P = 0.02)中的影响比老年人(≥60岁;SMD = -0.05;95%置信区间:-0.32,0.23;P = 0.74)更强。大豆蛋白和牛奶蛋白对肌肉质量的合并效应差异无统计学意义(SMD = -0.02;95%置信区间:-0.20,0.16;P = 0.80)(n = 17项随机对照试验),但与非大豆植物蛋白(大米、奇亚籽、燕麦和土豆;SMD = -0.58;95%置信区间:-1.06,-0.09;P = 0.02)(n = 5项随机对照试验)和植物性饮食(SMD = -0.51;95%置信区间:-0.91,-0.11;P = 0.01)(n = 7项随机对照试验)相比,动物蛋白可改善肌肉质量。在肌肉力量(n = 14项随机对照试验)或身体机能(n = 5项随机对照试验)方面,植物蛋白和动物蛋白之间未发现显著差异。没有试验将肌肉减少症作为结果进行考察。动物蛋白对肌肉质量可能比对非大豆植物蛋白有小的有益作用;然而,需要对更广泛的植物蛋白和饮食进行研究。
PROSPERO注册号CRD42020188658。