Protein timing revisited
DatMurse
Posts: 1,501 Member
http://www.jissn.com/content/10/1/5Abstract
Nutrient timing is a popular nutritional strategy that involves the consumption of combinations of nutrients--primarily protein and carbohydrate--in and around an exercise session. Some have claimed that this approach can produce dramatic improvements in body composition. It has even been postulated that the timing of nutritional consumption may be more important than the absolute daily intake of nutrients. The post-exercise period is widely considered the most critical part of nutrient timing. Theoretically, consuming the proper ratio of nutrients during this time not only initiates the rebuilding of damaged muscle tissue and restoration of energy reserves, but it does so in a supercompensated fashion that enhances both body composition and exercise performance. Several researchers have made reference to an anabolic “window of opportunity” whereby a limited time exists after training to optimize training-related muscular adaptations. However, the importance - and even the existence - of a post-exercise ‘window’ can vary according to a number of factors. Not only is nutrient timing research open to question in terms of applicability, but recent evidence has directly challenged the classical view of the relevance of post-exercise nutritional intake with respect to anabolism. Therefore, the purpose of this paper will be twofold: 1) to review the existing literature on the effects of nutrient timing with respect to post-exercise muscular adaptations, and; 2) to draw relevant conclusions that allow practical, evidence-based nutritional recommendations to be made for maximizing the anabolic response to exercise.
0
Replies
-
Tagging and thanks.0
-
This is an instant classic paper by two brilliant and accomplished guys.
Everyone should read it. I've had it saved for a while.
Good link.0 -
bump0
-
It's a great read and I learned a lot, but it didn't definitively answer any of the questions I had. The article seems to discuss several theories and reference studies with conflicting results for each. Basically, it says: "Hmmmmm - yeah, maybe."
My take-away from this. Just to be safe:
- Ensure sufficient glycogen stores before training (eat carbs 60-90 minutes before training)
- Do not deplete said stores (don't over-train)
- Consume a protein / carb mix before and after training
Again, lots of good facts but really nothing definitive or suggestions for things we aren't already doing. Then again, I probably missed a bunch of good stuff.
/far from an expert.0 -
This is an instant classic paper by two brilliant and accomplished guys.
Everyone should read it. I've had it saved for a while.
Good link.
^Yep, I tagged from my phone, didn't realize it was the Aragon/Schoenfeld paper. Totally agree with you there.0 -
It's a great read and I learned a lot, but it didn't definitively answer any of the questions I had. The article seems to discuss several theories and reference studies with conflicting results for each. Basically, it says: "Hmmmmm - yeah, maybe."
My take-away from this. Just to be safe:
- Ensure sufficient glycogen stores before training (eat carbs 60-90 minutes before training)
- Do not deplete said stores (don't over-train)
- Consume a protein / carb mix before and after training
Again, lots of good facts but really nothing definitive or suggestions for things we aren't already doing. Then again, I probably missed a bunch of good stuff.
/far from an expert.
Regarding glycogen I think the takeaway is just that carbohydrate timing should be tailored primarily around performance based metrics and training demands. The reason this distinction is important (IMO) is that there are some people who believe that carbohydrate timing needs to be manipulated for some perceived benefit to body composition that exists outside of those performance benefits. One example would be the idea that you need to spike your whey with dextrose for additional protein synthesis.
I think it's a good study in that it at least gives people a theoretical basis for which to apply nutrient timing along with a reasonable recommendation.
Originally (before Alan and others started busting some of these dietary myths) people were convinced that you had a 30 minute window to get in X amount of protein and sometimes they'd take this to an extreme, saying things like "if you don't get in protein immediately post workout you may as well not even work out" or some other nonsense like that.
Then we saw a limited group of people dispel these and other myths, but unfortunately people (in internet forums/etc) then ran too far in the other direction with statements like "nutrient timing is totally irrelevant" which is also a false statement. Typical exclusion of the middle for the most part.
I think this study is valuable in that it does a good job attempting to explain what the research indicates along with what might constitute a reasonable recommendation without swinging the pendulum too far in either direction.
Fortunately, for most people, it's likely that their current meal pattern won't leave them too far off of these recommendations. For example, just given my normal lifestyle I have some whey in my coffee, I go lift a couple hours later, and I go home and eat. And without making any effort at all to meet any perceived benefit from specific protein timing, I'm already very likely covering any perceived benefit to per-workout nutrition.
I'm rambling, but those are my thoughts on the article in general.0 -
Marking this to read later and remind me to look into it more 'cause it's interesting.0
-
I think it's a good study in that it at least gives people a theoretical basis for which to apply nutrient timing along with a reasonable recommendation.
I completely agree. I did not know many of the facts behind these notions and the article definitely opened my eyes to these. I also highly recommend reading, I just wish we had a consensus among the experts on the studies.0 -
Love the conclusion..."Distilling the data into firm, specific recommendations is difficult due to the inconsistency of findings and scarcity of systematic investigations..."
Translation into layspeak - "it's all broscience"."If protein is delivered within particularly large mixed-meals (which are inherently more anticatabolic), a case can be made for lengthening the interval to 5–6 hours."
Translation - if you get your protein from real food, normal meal timing is just fine.0 -
"If protein is delivered within particularly large mixed-meals (which are inherently more anticatabolic), a case can be made for lengthening the interval to 5–6 hours."
Translation - if you get your protein from real food, normal meal timing is just fine.
What is real food?0 -
"If protein is delivered within particularly large mixed-meals (which are inherently more anticatabolic), a case can be made for lengthening the interval to 5–6 hours."
Translation - if you get your protein from real food, normal meal timing is just fine.
What is real food?
Mixed-macro food, not just protein powder.0 -
"If protein is delivered within particularly large mixed-meals (which are inherently more anticatabolic), a case can be made for lengthening the interval to 5–6 hours."
Translation - if you get your protein from real food, normal meal timing is just fine.
What is real food?
Mixed-macro food, not just protein powder.
but casein is still derived from milk?
BRB casein 3x a day at 8 hour intervals.0 -
Tagging0
-
What did you guys think of this http://journals.lww.com/acsm-healthfitness/Fulltext/2013/09000/How_to_Increase_Muscle_Mass__What_Does_Science.9.aspx
It's not quite the same subject, and although they encourage use of food over supplements...
Their end message seems to be, that for trained young men, whey protein every three hours is the best way to feed your muscle children for gains.
(Based on a couple of new studies)
I'm not yet convinced.0 -
What did you guys think of this http://journals.lww.com/acsm-healthfitness/Fulltext/2013/09000/How_to_Increase_Muscle_Mass__What_Does_Science.9.aspx
It's not quite the same subject, and although they encourage use of food over supplements...
Their end message seems to be, that for trained young men, whey protein every three hours is the best way to feed your muscle children for gains.
(Based on a couple of new studies)
I'm not yet convinced.
protein is digested at different rates. whey at 2 hour intervals would be much more optimal due to the absorption rate being 10g per hour.
However time of digestion of "fast digesting proteins" is altered when consumed with other foods.0 -
Thank you for the links. I gathered from the research and the synopsis that timing DOES in fact, appear to be important when it comes to protein ingestion and muscular hypertrophy.
Practical nutrient timing applications for the goal of muscle hypertrophy inevitably must be tempered with field observations and experience in order to bridge gaps in the scientific literature. With that said, high-quality protein dosed at 0.4–0.5 g/kg of LBM at both pre- and post-exercise is a simple, relatively fail-safe general guideline that reflects the current evidence showing a maximal acute anabolic effect of 20–40 g [53,84,85].
So I'm a bit confused at why one would think timing doesn't matter at all. Because that's not what the evidence so far, supports.0 -
Thank you for the links. I gathered from the research and the synopsis that timing DOES in fact, appear to be important when it comes to protein ingestion and muscular hypertrophy.
Practical nutrient timing applications for the goal of muscle hypertrophy inevitably must be tempered with field observations and experience in order to bridge gaps in the scientific literature. With that said, high-quality protein dosed at 0.4–0.5 g/kg of LBM at both pre- and post-exercise is a simple, relatively fail-safe general guideline that reflects the current evidence showing a maximal acute anabolic effect of 20–40 g [53,84,85].
So I'm a bit confused at why one would think timing doesn't matter at all. Because that's not what the evidence so far, supports.
it matters to a a degree. It is not something to stress about.0 -
it matters to a a degree. It is not something to stress about.
Right, so it does matter. I agree with the OP who said that some people take that 'to some degree' and turn it into 'it doesn't matter at all'.
Good discussion all around.0
