39 ± 0.24 (CI: 0.88, 1.90). The hypertrophy analysis comprised 525 subjects and 132 ESs, nested with 47 treatment or control groups and 23 studies. The weighted mean hypertrophy ES across all studies and groups was 0.47 ± 0.08 (CI: 0.31, 0.63). Basic model There was no significant difference between the treatment and control for strength (difference = 0.38 ± 0.36; CI: -0.34, 1.10; P = 0.30). The mean strength

ES difference between treatment and control for each individual Torin 1 datasheet study, along with the overall weighted mean difference across all studies, is shown in Figure 1. For hypertrophy, the mean ES was significantly greater in the treatment compared to the control (difference = 0.24 ± 0.10; CI: 0.04, 0.44; P = 0.02). The mean hypertrophy ES difference between treatment and control for each individual study, along with the overall weighted mean difference across all studies, is shown in Figure 2. Figure 1 Impact of protein timing on strength by study. Figure 2 Impact of protein timing on hypertrophy by study. Full model In the full meta-regression model MEK162 molecular weight controlling for all covariates, there was no significant

difference between the treatment and control for strength (difference = 0.28 ± 0.40; CI: -0.52, 1.07; P = 0.49) or hypertrophy (difference =0.16 ± 0.11; CI: -0.07, 0.38; P = 0.18). Reduced model: strength After the model VS-4718 cost reduction procedure, only training status and blinding remained as significant covariates. The reduced model was not significantly different from the full model (P = 0.73). In the reduced model, there was no significant difference between the treatment and control (difference = 0.39 ± 0.36; CI: -0.34, 1.11; P = 0.29). The mean ES for control was 0.93 ± 0.31 (CI: 0.32, 1.54). The mean ES for treatment

was 1.31 ± 0.30 (CI: 0.71, 1.92). Reduced model: hypertrophy After the model reduction procedure, total protein intake, study duration, and blinding remained as significant covariates. The reduced model was not significantly different from the full model (P = 0.87). In the reduced model, there was no significant difference between the treatment and control (difference = 0.14 ± 0.11; CI: -0.07, 0.35; P = 0.20). The mean ES for control was 0.36 ± 0.09 (CI: 0.18, 0.53). The mean ES for ID-8 treatment was 0.49 ± 0.08 (CI: 0.33, 0.66). Total protein intake (in g/kg) was the strongest predictor of ES magnitude (estimate = 0.41 ± 0.14; CI: 0.14, 0.69; P = 0.004). To confirm that total protein intake was mediator variable in the relationship between protein timing and hypertrophy, a model with only total protein intake as a covariate was created. The difference between treatment and control was not significant (difference = 0.14 ± 0.11; CI: -0.07, 0.35,; P = 0.19). Total protein intake was a significant predictor of ES magnitude (estimate = 0.39 ± 0.15; CI: 0.08, 0.69; P = 0.01).