## 4 Discussion
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Weeks**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Body Mass** \\ **(kg)** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Fat-Free** \\ **Mass (kg)** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Fat Mass** \\ **(kg)** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Hip** \\ **Fat Mass** \\ **(\%)** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Waist** \\ **Circumference** \\ **(mm)** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\
\begin{tabular}{c} **Abdominal** \\ **Segital** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} **Hip-to-Waist** \\ **Ratio** \\ \end{tabular} } \\  & & & & & & & & \\ \hline
1 & 79.3 & 64.3 & 15.0 & 18.9 & 89.0 & 99.2 & 20.5 & 0.89 \\
2 & 75.8 & - & - & - & - & - & - \\
3 & 78.1 & - & - & - & - & - & - \\
4 & 77.4 & - & - & - & - & - & - \\
5 & 77.0 & - & - & - & - & - & - \\
6 & 77.4 & 66.0 & 11.4 & 14.7 & 84.0 & 97.0 & 19.9 & 0.86 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Body mass, fat-free mass, fat mass, hip circumference, waist circumference, abdominal sagittal diameter (mm) and hip-to-waist ratio changes for 6 weeks. muscle mass in any energy balance condition [21]. The most determinant variables for augmenting MPS are dietary protein and exercise, in particular resistance exercises [22]. However, negative energy balance downregulates MPS [23]. High-protein diets play the main dietary role in reducing FFM losses during energy restriction (ER) [2; 23], mitigating MPS decreases [23] and achieving a positive net protein balance which determines the area under the MPS/muscle protein breakdown (MPB)) relationship [21]. The recommended protein range for athletes undergoing ER with resistance exercises is 2.3-3.1 g PRO kg FFM day\({}^{-1}\)[9]. However, vegan athletes might consider the upper limit of the recommended protein intake (2.2 g kg day\({}^{-1}\) in a period of energy surplus or 3.1 g kg FFM day\({}^{-1}\) in a period of ER) [12; 24] as a method to prevent possible essential amino acid deficiencies. We should also consider the difference between \"effective\" and \"optimal\" ranges and their relationship with sustainability when setting macronutrient goals. One of the most important strategies employed to meet protein requirements for athletes is the consumption of plant-based protein supplementation, particularly if achieving sufficient protein via whole foods is either difficult or inconvenient [13]. However, protein supplementation is required for athletes in order to reach high amounts of protein requested for this sport, which are far above the normal requests [25]. There is an ongoing debate about the anabolic properties of protein food sources. It has been demonstrated that protein quantity and quality play a determinant role in increasing MPS [26]. The latter was defined as the proportion of amino acids, especially considering the leucine concentrations, which seems to be determinant for maximizing MPS [27]. The athlete consumed soy protein powder due to soy being one of the only plant-based proteins that have been studied in detail for MPS responses [3]. [PERSON] et al. [28] reported that soy protein isolates increased MPS at similar rates to whey in rest conditions, while after resistance exercises, whey protein increased MPS at higher rates in young subjects. The differences in leucine content between whey [29] and soy might be the key factor responsible for the greater capacity to stimulate postprandial MPS rates post-exercise due to the exercise sensitizing the muscle to hyperaminoacidemia and increasing its capacity to use amino acids [3]. Thus, to maximize MPS, a higher intake of protein is therefore required post-exercise [22]. However, in rest conditions, soy protein increases MPS at the same rates as whey protein.