What does the evidence say about Pea Protein Muscle Recovery Randomized Trial?

Updated October 2026

Quick Answer

Pea Protein Muscle Recovery Randomized Trial has evidence relevant to benefits, uncertainty, and practical interpretation, but conclusions should stay close to the cited sources. One representative finding is: Background This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial examined the effects of a chickpea protein hydrolysate (CPH) on biomarkers associated with exercise-induced muscle damage and inflammation in federated male road cyclists.

Key Takeaways

  • 01Background This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial examined the effects of a chickpea protein hydrolysate (CPH) on biomarkers associated with exercise-induced muscle damage and inflammation in federated male road cyclists. [García-Durán J (2026)]
  • 02LDH decreased in the EXP group while increasing slightly in the placebo group, whereas CRP decreased in EXP and increased in PLA. [García-Durán J (2026)]
  • 03The high baseline protein intake (>2 g/kg/day) and short intervention duration may have limited changes in body composition, nevertheless, the observed biomarker responses suggest that CPH supplementation may influence selected physiological processes associated with exercise-induced inflammation and cellular stress. [García-Durán J (2026)]
  • 04Methods Twenty-four participants completed a 14-day intervention receiving either 12 g/day of chickpea protein hydrolysate (EXP) or a placebo (PLA) following training sessions. [García-Durán J (2026)]
The current Migaku evidence database contains 2 reusable source documents for Pea Protein Muscle Recovery Randomized Trial. This answer focuses on benefits, uncertainty, and practical interpretation. - Background This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial examined the effects of a chickpea protein hydrolysate (CPH) on biomarkers associated with exercise-induced muscle damage and inflammation in federated male road cyclists. [García-Durán J (2026); evidence level 4] - LDH decreased in the EXP group while increasing slightly in the placebo group, whereas CRP decreased in EXP and increased in PLA. [García-Durán J (2026); evidence level 4] - The high baseline protein intake (>2 g/kg/day) and short intervention duration may have limited changes in body composition, nevertheless, the observed biomarker responses suggest that CPH supplementation may influence selected physiological processes associated with exercise-induced inflammation and cellular stress. [García-Durán J (2026); evidence level 4] - Methods Twenty-four participants completed a 14-day intervention receiving either 12 g/day of chickpea protein hydrolysate (EXP) or a placebo (PLA) following training sessions. [García-Durán J (2026); evidence level 4] - We establish a structured framework to separately report evidence from preclinical animal models and clinical human trials, evaluating acute ( 7 days) horizons across three domains: (i) neurocognitive function/mood, (ii) gut microbiota/hormonal responses, and (iii) aminoacidemia/metabolic-inflammatory responses in aging cohorts. [Hao S (2026); evidence level 4] Evidence levels are sorting aids, not final clinical grades. Level 1 usually indicates systematic-review style evidence, level 2 indicates randomized trials or public-health guidance, and lower levels need more cautious wording. This page is educational. People with medical conditions, pregnancy, medication use, or unusual symptoms should ask a qualified clinician before changing supplements, medication, or treatment routines.

Sources

  1. Effects of a chickpea protein hydrolysate on exercise-induced biomarkers of muscle damage and inflammation in federated road cyclists.
  2. Comparative effects of pea protein vs. dairy proteins (α-lactalbumin and casein) on aminoacidemia, exercise performance, gut microbiota, hormonal responses, neurocognitive function, mood, and metabolic-inflammatory responses in older adults.