Supplement evidence

070 / 575Protein form

Pea protein

View my plan →

The short answer

A plant protein that can support training adaptation when total protein and essential amino acids are adequate.

Evidence and scope: Conditional or population-specific
This status does not grade the ingredient for every goal, outcome, or person.
Important limitation: Benefit depends on the population, formulation, baseline status, and objective; results should not be generalized.
Before deciding: Key concern: Pea/legume allergy, kidney disease, sodium content, and product testing require review.

01 / PRACTICAL GUIDE

Dose, absorption, and combinations

These are indication-specific reference or studied ranges—not a personalized prescription. Start with the objective, then check the form, label, medicines, and health conditions.

Reference range by objective

Per-meal protein25–40 g per serving within the daily target

Reference or studied range—not a personalized prescription. The product label or a clinician may specify a different dose.

Dose source ↗

More is not automatically better. A clinician or product label may specify a different amount.

Absorption / solubilityFat/water classification is not the key factor

Fat/water solubility is not the useful decision point; preparation, fluid, timing, or strain identity matters more.

How it is commonly taken

Combine with a varied diet; leucine content may be lower than whey.

Do not combine casually

Pea/legume allergy, kidney disease, sodium content, and product testing require review.

Dose and use source ↗

Dose and use links lead to primary or official source material. Search links are discovery tools, not proof that every returned paper applies.

02 / EVIDENCE

What the research says

We keep supportive, mixed, negative, safety, and contextual findings together. The headline never replaces the underlying papers.

3research papers in this ledger

3unique primary studies represented

303unique participants represented

These are audited counts for this JIVANA collection, not search-result totals. Participants are counted once when multiple papers use the same cohort; review papers are not added again to participant totals.

Open the research timelineResearch timeline

Entries are ordered by publication year. A study period appears only when the source reports it.

2024

Mixed or qualifiedPMID 38999765

Efficacy of Pea Protein Supplementation with Resistance Training in Sedentary Adults

Strength and muscle-mass changes did not differ between pea and whey, and both were well tolerated. Without a nonprotein control and with only 35 per-protocol participants, the trial supports comparability between products, not efficacy beyond training alone.

Published: 2024Duration: 84 daysn=50 participants

Study design and methods

Design: Randomized, triple-blind, active-comparator trial
Population: 50 sedentary adults aged 30–59 randomized to the reported pea- or whey-protein arms; 35 remained in per-protocol analysis
Intervention: Daily pea-protein or whey-protein isolate with a resistance-training program
Outcome: Whole-body strength, muscle mass, recovery, tolerability, and safety

Funding or conflict note: Roquette funded the trial; three authors were Roquette employees and the remaining authors worked for the contract research organization.

Open research record ↗

2020

Does not support the tested claimPMID 32784847

Effects of Whey and Pea Protein Supplementation on Post-Eccentric Exercise Muscle Damage

Pea had an intermediate but nonsignificant biomarker effect versus water and did not improve soreness or performance; whey lowered some biomarkers but also did not improve symptoms or performance. Biomarker recovery should not be presented as functional recovery.

Published: 2020Duration: 5 days after one 90-minute eccentric-exercise boutn=92 participants

Study design and methods

Design: Randomized, double-blind, three-arm trial
Population: 92 nonathletic, nonobese men aged 18–55
Intervention: Pea protein or whey protein 0.9 g/kg/day in three doses, or water only
Outcome: Muscle-damage biomarkers, soreness, and bench-press and Wingate performance

Funding or conflict note: Roquette funded the study; company scientists helped design and write it but did not collect or analyze data.

Open research record ↗

2015

Mixed or qualifiedPMID 25628520 · NCT02128516

Pea proteins oral supplementation promotes muscle thickness gains during resistance training

Overall muscle thickness rose with training and only trended toward a group difference; a significant pea-versus-placebo difference appeared in a sensitivity analysis of the weakest entrants. Strength increased without group differences, and pea did not differ from whey.

Published: 2015Duration: 12 weeksn=161 participants

Study design and methods

Design: Randomized, double-blind, placebo- and whey-controlled trial
Population: 161 men aged 18–35 beginning or returning to upper-limb resistance training
Intervention: Pea protein 25 g twice daily, whey protein at the same schedule, or placebo
Outcome: Biceps thickness and strength

Funding or conflict note: Three authors were employed by Roquette, maker of the branded pea protein studied.

Open research record ↗

Unscreened discovery appendix—not evidence12 candidate publicationsSearch run: Aug 21, 2026

Complete for the displayed PubMed query at the search timestamp—not for all databases or every possible synonym. Candidates can be irrelevant, duplicate the same study, or report negative findings. They are never summed as evidence or participants until screened.

03 / SOURCES

Start with the source material

Official evidence overviewPubMed bounded human-evidence search Live PubMed discovery searchNational Library of Medicine

The live search is for discovery only. Search-result counts change and are not included in the audited totals above.

Recent PubMed discovery recordsDirect links to the first 12 records returned by the reproducible search. These are discovery candidates—not reviewed summaries or a count of supportive findings.

04 / EXPERT CONTEXT

Expert context—not evidence

Expert positions are dated context—not scientific evidence. They never raise the evidence status or become consensus by repetition.

No direct, source-verified endorsement is currently recorded. Research authorship or discussion alone is not treated as endorsement.