Quote: (09-13-2012 04:55 PM)MikeCF Wrote:
Quote: (09-13-2012 04:30 PM)alecks Wrote:
Nutrient timing IS bullshit people.I used to believe it myself but its all broscience
Spend some time on this site:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/
You'll find dozens of studies like these:
An abundant supply of amino acids enhances the metabolic effect of exercise on muscle protein.
Timing of postexercise protein intake is important for muscle hypertrophy with resistance training in elderly humans.
Independent and combined effects of amino acids and glucose after resistance exercise.
Effect of parenteral glutamine peptide supplements on muscle glutamine loss and nitrogen balance after major surgery.
Postexercise protein intake enhances wholebody and leg protein accretion in humans.
Effect of glucose supplement timing on protein metabolism after resistance training.
Differential anabolic effects of testosterone and amino acid feeding in older men.
Thanks to Alan Aragon!Hierarchy of Importance
When speaking of nutrition for improving body composition or training performance, it's crucial to realize there's an underlying hierarchy of importance. At the top of the hierarchy is total amount of the macronutrients by the end of the day. Distantly below that is the precise timing of those nutrients. With very few exceptions, athletes and active individuals eat multiple times per day. Thus, the majority of their day is spent in the postprandial (fed) rather than a post-absorptive (fasted) state. The vast majority of nutrient timing studies have been done on overnight-fasted subjects put through glycogen depletion protocols, which obviously limits the applicability of the outcomes. Pre-exercise (and/or during-exercise) nutrient intake often has a lingering carry-over effect into the post-exercise period. Throughout the day, there's a constant overlap of meal digestion & nutrient absorption. For this reason, the effectiveness of nutrient timing does not require a high degree of precision.
The Primary Laws of Nutrient Timing
The First Law of Nutrient Timing is: hitting your daily macronutrient targets is FAR more important than nutrient timing.
The Second Law of Nutrient Timing is: hitting your daily macronutrient targets is FAR more important than nutrient timing.
NOTE: Please do not misinterpret the above to mean that timing is irrelevant. On the contrary, it's very relevant. Timing just happens to have MUCH LESS impact on results than hitting your macro totals for the day. This doesn't diminish the fact that people need to individualize their meal timing so that it maximizes their training performance (& does not hinder it). The latter manipulations vary widely, because people have different training protocols, goals, and tolerances. For example, some people experience their best training performance in an immediately fed state, while others do best in a semi-fasted or fasted state. Endurance athletes who neglect carbohydrate timing will not optimize their training capacity. Strength/power athletes with minimal endurance demands have much less of a concern for this. There's no way to 'universalize' a nutrient timing prescription that applies to everyone & all types of athletes. But to reiterate, macro totals for the day overshadow timing in terms of importance, especially for bodybuilding. If macro totals for the day are not hit, the most precisely neurotic timing of meals is all for sh!t.
I also suggest you read:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19943985This study shows there was no difference in weight loss between subjects with high/low meal frequencies.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9155494Evidence supports that meal frequency has nothing to do with energy in the subjects.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11319656Yet again, no difference in energy in the subjects compared to 2 meals/d to 6 meals/d.
And if you want to do some more detailed digging, you can read:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1905998Eur J Clin Nutr. 1991 Mar;45(3):161-9.LinksInfluence of the feeding frequency on nutrient utilization in man: consequences for energy metabolism.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11319656Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2001 Apr;25(4):519-28.LinksCompared with nibbling, neither gorging nor a morning fast affect short-term energy balance in obese patients in a chamber calorimeter.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18053311Br J Nutr. 2008 Jun;99(6):1316-21. Epub 2007 Dec 6. LinksAcute effects on metabolism and appetite profile of one meal difference in the lower range of meal frequency.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1905998Eur J Clin Nutr. 1991 Mar;45(3):161-9.LinksInfluence of the feeding frequency on nutrient utilization in man: consequences for energy metabolism.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11319656Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2001 Apr;25(4):519-28.LinksCompared with nibbling, neither gorging nor a morning fast affect short-term energy balance in obese patients in a chamber calorimeterhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18053311Br J Nutr. 2008 Jun;99(6):1316-21. Epub 2007 Dec 6. LinksAcute effects on metabolism and appetite profile of one meal difference in the lower range of meal frequency.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9155494Br J Nutr. 1997 Apr;77 Suppl 1:S57-70. LinksMeal frequency and energy balance.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15806828Forum Nutr. 2003;56:126-8.LinksHighlighting the positive impact of increasing feeding frequency on metabolism and weight management.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9504318Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1998 Feb;22(2):105-12.LinksEvidence that eating frequency is inversely related to body weight status in male, but not female, non-obese adults reporting valid dietary intakes.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15085170Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2004 May;28(5):653-60. LinksDecreased thermic effect of food after an irregular compared with a regular meal pattern in healthy lean women.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15220950Eur J Clin Nutr. 2004 Jul;58(7):1071-7. LinksRegular meal frequency creates more appropriate insulin sensitivity and lipid profiles compared with irregular meal frequency in healthy lean women.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17228037Obesity (Silver Spring). 2007 Jan;15(1):100-6. LinksAssociation of eating frequency with body fatness in pre- and postmenopausal women.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15640455Am J Clin Nutr. 2005 Jan;81(1):16-24. LinksComment in:Am J Clin Nutr. 2005 Jan;81(1):3-4.Beneficial metabolic effects of regular meal frequency on dietary thermogenesis, insulin sensitivity, and fasting lipid profiles in healthy obese women
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10578205Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1999 Nov;23(11):1151-9.LinksAcute appetite reduction associated with an increased frequency of eating in obese males.
he postexercise "anabolic window" is a highly misused & abused concept. Preworkout nutrition all but cancels the urgency, unless you're an endurance athlete with multiple glycogen-depleting events in a single day. Getting down to brass tacks, a relatively recent study (Power et al. 2009) showed that a 45g dose of whey protein isolate takes appx 50 minutes to cause blood AA levels to peak. Resulting insulin levels, which peaked at 40 minutes after ingestion, remained at elevations known to max out the inhibition of muscle protein breakdown (15-30 mU/L) for 120 minutes after ingestion. This dose takes 3 hours for insulin & AA levels to return to baseline from the point of ingestion. The inclusion of carbs to this dose would cause AA & insulin levels to peak higher & stay elevated above baseline even longer.
So much for the anabolic peephole & the urgency to down AAs during your weight training workout; they are already seeping into circulation (& will continue to do so after your training bout is done). Even in the event that a preworkout meal is skipped, the anabolic effect of the postworkout meal is increased as a supercompensatory response (Deldicque et al, 2010). Moving on, another recent study (Staples et al, 2010) found that a substantial dose of carbohydrate (50g maltodextrin) added to 25g whey protein was unable to further increase postexercise net muscle protein balance compared to the protein dose without carbs. Again, this is not to say that adding carbs at this point is counterproductive, but it certainly doesn't support the idea that you must get your lightning-fast postexercise carb orgy for optimal results.
To add to this... Why has the majority of longer-term research failed to show any meaningful differences in nutrient timing relative to the resistance training bout? It's likely because the body is smarter than we give it credit for. Most people don't know that as a result of a single training bout, the receptivity of muscle to protein dosing can persist for at least 24 hours: Enhanced amino acid sensitivity of myofibrillar prote... [J Nutr. 2011] - PubMed - NCBI
More from earlier in the thread:
Here's what you're not seeming to grasp: the "windows" for taking advantage of nutrient timing are not little peepholes. They're more like bay windows of a mansion. You're ignoring just how long the anabolic effects are of a typical mixed meal. Depending on the size of a meal, it takes a good 1-2 hours for circulating substrate levels to peak, and it takes a good 3-6 hours (or more) for everythng to drop back down to baseline.
You're also ignoring the fact that the anabolic effects of a meal are maxed out at much lower levels than typical meals drive insulin & amino acids up to. Furthermore, you're also ignoring the body's ability of anabolic (& fat-oxidative) supercompensation when forced to work in the absence of fuels. So, metaphorically speaking, our physiology basically has the universe mapped out and you're thinking it needs to be taught addition & subtraction