TAP reading note: Does Protein Ingestion Timing Affect Exercise-Induced Adaptations? A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis
Direct comparisons of protein before versus after training found no clear difference in lean mass (SMD −0.08, 95% CI −0.398 to 0.244) or chest-press strength (0.07, −0.248 to 0.395). A leg-press signal favoured before-training intake, but was based on only two studies.
Updated 2026-11-13 · Archived
The scientific content and references belong to this edition. The complete captured record is available to download below; later corrections appear in subsequent editions. Website design and interactive software are not archived here.
What the study found
Direct comparisons of protein before versus after training found no clear difference in lean mass (SMD −0.08, 95% CI −0.398 to 0.244) or chest-press strength (0.07, −0.248 to 0.395). A leg-press signal favoured before-training intake, but was based on only two studies.
Scope & limitations
Six reports representing five randomized studies, including trained younger adults and untrained older adults; one study included people with type 2 diabetes.
Authors rated certainty low for lean mass and chest press, and very low for leg press and muscle thickness. The leg-press estimate was SMD 0.70 (0.005–1.388), p=.048; the chest-versus-leg subgroup difference was not significant (p=.07). Dietary control varied, and one study reported differing protein intake. A null result does not establish equivalence.
Population & sample
Six reports representing five randomized studies, including trained younger adults and untrained older adults; one study included people with type 2 diabetes.
Exposure or intervention
Random assignment to protein before versus after repeated resistance-training sessions, generally near the session; one comparison used intake at least two hours afterward.
Outcomes
Lean mass, strength, fat mass and muscle thickness.
Time frame
Included training interventions lasted 6–16 weeks; database search through 15 January 2024.
Research funding
Authors reported no external funding.
Research conflicts of interest
Authors declared no conflicts of interest.
Reading scope
PMC full text: methods, study tables, pooled results, GRADE discussion and declarations. Supplementary files and individual trial datasets were not independently checked.
References
Publication record
TAP-RDN-0082 · v1.0 · English
Author: TAP Editorial Team ·
The Allostasis Project is founded and supported by Resilio.
Record for v1.0 · Updated
Editorial responsibility: TAP Editorial Team
Editorial note
Under the editorial responsibility of the TAP Editorial Team, this publication used AI assistance for content organization and editing.
Download detailed editorial record (JSON) ↓
How responsibilities and review are recorded ↗© The Allostasis Project. All rights reserved. Reproduction or adaptation requires separate permission, subject to applicable legal exceptions.
Download complete edition record (JSON) ↧
Record integrity & available editions
SHA-256: aa738d6a675a6a6f6adda67baa9aae7f5ce07e2b2a1be3b0611e078f1eda1648
Captured: 2026-11-13T05:44:15.526Z
- v1.0 · 2026-11-13