If the study used milk protein, much of which is casein, how much of this effect can be explained by casein's slow absorption? How sure are we it's broadly applicable to protein?
Who needs a gym? Hindu pushups, hindu squats, pikes, sprawls. 20 minutes of those a day as hard as you can and you will be strong fit and ready to fight or f***.
I may have misunderstood, so eating all of your protein in one meal is better because that protein will be used for muscle building protein synthesis at a higher rate than small protein meals ?
10/10, fuckin bullshit. I've broken bones and would give that a 9/10 because surely getting a limb chopped off would be worse. These bozos think stretching is 10/10?? All the science and data and charts are absolutely meaningless when what they're "measuring" is some completely subjective pain rating that is clearly faulty. So easy to then manipulate the data to make it look like "statistically significant" research to get published, but this is the problem when researchers don't have any understanding of the philosophy & logic necessary for the scientific process to work.
Where does the leucine threshold figure in all of this? Presumably you would still need a minimum of 25-50g of quality protein per meal to stimulate muscle protein synthesis (depending on age) but these smaller servings are theoretically better than a 100g serving if the leucine threshold theory is correct. For example you will spike mps twice as often if you have say have 50g protein feedings instead of 100g protein feedings, this is irrespective of the fact that the 100g servings still get utilised.
That's not how it works. Leucine is important but there's no lower limit to trigger it, the 3g is to maximize synthesis. And it doesn't make sense to spike MPS twice if the once runs for twice as long at the same rate? And your training still matters most or pretty much zero will go to your muscles beyond to repair regular breakdown.
@@mikafoxx2717 According to the Leucine threshold theory that is how it works. The research shows that mps increased due to Leucine concentrations elevated in the blood typically only lasts for 1.5-3 hours, even though the concentration of Leucine and other amino acids can remain elevated in the blood for far longer. In order to maximally stimulate mps again, the Leucine concentration in the blood has to drop below a set concentration, which occurs 4-6 hours after the protein/Leucine is first ingested.
@@asprinklingofclouds Thing is, that's false. This study clearly showed that leucine was stored in the muscle tissue even well after protein digestion ends, which makes the muscle still synthesize more of itself, using amino acids that were used for other tissues with a high turnover rate which get recycled. Read the paper in detail if you want, it's a very very good study.
@@mikafoxx2717 I am not in disagreement on the findings of this study, but the other research shows that muscle protein synthesis via enhanced mTOR signalling doesn't improve above a certain leucine threshold. If you only need say 50g of protein to optimise mTOR then you would be better off having 2 meals of 50g protein five hours apart than having 100g all at once, because you will signalling mTOR twice as often.
There is one but very important step missing, concernig protein digestion. It is Point No. 4. After The Amino Acids entered the venous Blood out of the smal intestines they are directet to the liver. The Livere then stores them, or makes glucose out of them or releases them into the vena cava inferior. The Liver will maintain a steady amount of Aminos in your Blood. Otherwise there would be some severe Health Issues to deal with.
None of it changed it’s always the same our bodies doesn’t change based on findings lol Also these studies are always so bad shit changes everyday sometimes even going back to old things lol
It makes no sense that we would have evolved to only utilize small amounts while eating. Kill a gazelle but can only use 25g of it. That's beyond ridiculousness. The fact that it was even considered to be the case means there was zero meaningfull thought put into the question.
Well I feel pretty vindicated. Always seemed obvious it takes longer to digest a steak than the whey bolus they use for those studies, cool to know even then organs are also getting a better benefit on top of muscles still getting it. Makes all the sense in the world.
So, stretching with high intensity also does microtears like when we contract muscles with weights? So double the microtears to double the hypertrophy?
The study uses milk protein, which is slower digesting (as you mention). Is this total protein intake approach affected by the type of protein and rate of absorption/digestion? For example, if it was 100g of whey isolate instead of milk in its whole food matrix, would more protein be lost to energy substrates?
The breaking of the overnight fast and fasted weight training session, is usually done with 100+ grams of protein from various sources. Further intake is always protein centric. I do it that whey because it suits me, ( aids satiation ), and not because of some random human control trial or lab rat / mice experiments. Find what suits YOU!
Who knows but based on other studies it doesn't do a thing for muscle building if it's the regular intake. I actually wondered a similar thing this week. Since a lot of energy demands are discussed more in terms of weekly schedule than daily schedule these days, would it be out of this world to think that having a very skewed protein intake days from little to a lot didn't hurt the gains that much if the weekly intake is the same. The only thing I could think regarding that is how the increased muscle protein synthesis seems to happen maybe at best 48 hours from training so perhaps that's the limitation, but 48 hours is a long time to vary the protein intake. And we're assumedly still talking about average, it might just be that depending on conditions you might still benefit longer for the training induced muscle protein synthesis. Would be happy to hear more educated takes on it or if there's research regarding that.
I think it's been a ridiculous concept that with millions of years of evolution where we were predominantly hunter gatherers and getting meat was more scarce, that evolution went "sorry bro know you just killed an elk but you can only absorb 30g at a time of 1 of the only macronutrients you need for survival lol"
So I guess it says if your protein grams per day are 150, you could eat 100 in the morning and 50 at dinner and that’s the same impact for muscle synthesis as 40/40/40 meals + a 30 gram shake before bed or something. Even though he recommends the latter approach, his research shows you have the flexibility to do the former, if preferred.
probably not going to amount to much. But the study in question only compared 25 to 100. the 100g had 13% go to muscle, while the 25g had 17%. if you ate 25g x 4 across the day, would it have been 4x17% and be slightly higher then the single dose? Who knows. If it did, and it added ~3% units more, would anyone realistically notice? Would it ultimately add up to a real difference. Probably not.
@@frankjames6276yes, but also there's the fine print of tracer amino reuse over 12hrs and also the fact that 100g muscle synthesis wasn't yet done after the 12hr study window.
it's more letting people STOP worrying so much about protein intake. did you even watch the video? they literally said protein distribution is debunked, as long as you get the daily protein goal
To add to the first reply, there are many things that can give you 1%. And even if individually it doesn't matter as much, if you add 10 of those things together, that's 10% extra gains. Or, if you think that you need 5 years to achieve the physique you need, that will shave off 7 months. That's very substantial, but if we ignore every addition to your life that can add 1%, we are leaving some serious gains on the table.
The study only looks at protein intake in your meal IMMEDIATELY after a work-out. It does not look at protein intake in your other meals. Another issue is, if this study is true and representative to other meals, then daily protein need of 1.6/kg of bodyweight is thrown completely out the window. What is the new protein recommendation I ask? Is it not 100 g per meal? so 400 g of protein per day? that just seems impossible. if there is no limit to utility of protein intake for muscle building then we should see far more muscle growth in people who eat 200-400-600 g of protein per day compared to say 100 g/day. We don't see that.
It explains it perfectly. It takes longer to digest and synthesis stays raised for longer. When synthesis is raised pretty much the entire time, pretty much as high as it can be, you'll have reached the maximum. 100g in one meal still raised muscle synthesis beyond their 12hr study window, 150g would be pretty much up to 24 hrs.
It's not a surprising result tbh, animals need to be able to process proteins efficiently when they get them and in nature theres no guarantee on the timing or amounts so just being better at it overall is something that you would expect to naturally evolve.
This makes it look like you can gobble down endless amounts of proteins each sitting, to constantly have high levels of synthesis... But there has to be some sort of cap, otherwise the "grams of protein per kg of bodyweight" recommendations would make no sense. I wish they tested having at least one more meal later down the road, higher in protein for the 25g, and close to nothing for the 100g
Well no, this illustrates that total daily protein intake is important while timing of said intake matters very little to not at all. There is still an upper limit on how much protein your body can use in a day, it just doesn't have to be fed it bit by bit.
@@rebornstillbornyour body has an upper limit for protein synthesis rate. It'll be raised pretty much all day and night on 140g or more for most people. This group with 100g still were in positive protein synthesis rate after 12hrs and that's still less than the recommended intake per day for muscle building.
There was an interesting bit of information in that study regarding how much protein actually made it in to muscle tissue and it looked like the smaller protein group was more efficient using the amount consumed. It would be really great if someone were to replicate this study but also use a condition that has 25g 4 times, at 0, 3, 6, and 9 hours to see if that holds up and is more efficient than 100g at 0 hours.
A meal less than ca. 3 hours before sleep may impact your sleep quality. Personally, I've often found that eating a meal with more than ca. 0.25 grams of protein per Kg body weight can be somewhat taxing, and I see it too on my Garmin stress score.
@@Yupppi It doesn't make me feel stressed in the usual sense of the word. But eating a big meal, makes me want to relax and take it easy. It is basically my body telling me to divert more resources to digestion. Garmin's watches has a stress meter, where they measure in real time how relaxed or stressed/exited your body is. It bumps up my stress score after a big meal - meaning my body is using more of its resources. Both my parents have done a long faste (40 days with nothing but water and "soupe"). They both talked about feeling more mental energy because the body didn't spend energy digesting.
I ve been eating 2 meals a day for a while know because I like to eat big and this way I feel full for longer. My workouts are the same and I haven t lost muscle . I saw that at 3 meals I get fat but at 2 I maintain my weight which is what I want. I see a common theme with nutrition and even training. there are no set in stone rules. it matters ultimately that at the end of day (or on average over a few days at least) you have consumed all macros and micros in the required amounts for you. the body is smart enough to adapt to your lifestyle. YOU CAN MAKE THE RULES, not necessarily the other way around
@@macieknowosad3059 it would change the amount of food per meal (I did say I like to eat big meals) and it would also be more inconvenient for me to prepare another meal. ....I m more than fine with 2 meals, I don t see a problem with it . I gave my example so that I put it out there for others to see it can be done this way as well. as I said, it matters not how many meals or the hour of the day or if you drink water before or after or any bullsheet claims like these, it matters that you meet your needs in your own way....be it 1 meal or 6 meals or 10...it s irrelevant in the grand scheme of things especially if it fits your personality/lifestyle/goals/preferences/body etc
The only thing i'll say to the recommendations is how does a meal before sleep affect your sleep quality aka the majority of your recovery? I've been seeing some things indicating eating before bed affects your sleep quality and thus could have a lot of impacts elsewhere
@@richardbrady1849 MASS Officer hours addresses this. In general, don’t eat fatty or spicy foods before bed; it affects most people falling asleep. Not REM
If eating right before bed negatively effects your sleep, there is nothing wrong with setting up your meal times so that you eat a few hours before bed. As we see from this video, we used to be very particular about getting protein in before bed. Usually a slow digesting casein. But turns out as long as your overall protein is high, that protein synthesis effect will be carried longer.
I don't care to have a heavy meal at that time. I do often have a whey shake (don't talk to me about casein, I hate it) around an hour/hour and 1/2 before bed, to no ill effect.
Maybe the serotonergic effect of carbs helps sleep. I always slept pretty well after a carb heavy meal at night. I want more data on the effects on deep sleep though. @@gokukakarot1855
I couldn't have an extra meal before bed - I've been having a protein shake, using clear whey isolate, an hour before I go to bed. It's very light on the stomach so I haven't felt at all bloated when going to bed & it hasn't affected me getting to sleep.
I would like to see a similar study but with another 2 groups with more (or too much) calories. This would be to see if oxidation rates would elevate. In the real study, was oxidation Not elevated cuz the caloric needs were matched or at needed levels and not surplus?
