This is where i first saw the above paper referenced -
https://spotmebro.com/layne-norton-phd- ... how-often/
Someone else mentioned Schoenfeld holds to this timimg model as well.
This is my last post.
Moderator: Manveer
This is where i first saw the above paper referenced -
Here's what the study doesn't cover: what happens to an athlete's body composition when they keep their nutrient intake the same, but spread it out over a different number of meals?Wilhelm wrote: ↑Sat Dec 30, 2017 5:08 amThis is where i first saw the above paper referenced -
https://spotmebro.com/layne-norton-phd- ... how-often/
Someone else mentioned Schoenfeld holds to this timimg model as well.
This is my last post.
In my head, this supports the idea of a per meal amino acid threshold that needs to be met. And old ladies are probably very insensitive to such a threshold. So 60g of Protein once a day at least gets the MPS machinery working once vs never.platypus wrote: ↑Sat Dec 30, 2017 9:28 am Dr. Norton mentioned a study with a similiar concept, where consuming protein once a day worked better than four times, but it was done on elderly woman eating 60g protein a day, and I don't think other nutrients were counted for. I really want to see this done on athletes.
That's the figure i came up with after extensive searching. There were some outliers among "normal" people (i.e. not the Eddie Halls of the world) who showed some benefit at 1 to 1.5 grams even.
This seems like a pretty good summary.SeanHerbison wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2018 6:34 am My thought is that none of us know enough about nutrition, specifically protein metabolism, to really do anything more than repeat what seems to make sense to us, or give our personal experience.
That's a tough question. There's definitely situations where meal frequency matters. The obvious would be getting huge, like competitive bodybuilder huge. Eating enough to do that while on the warrior diet would be practically impossible. In that example, though, I hypothesize it's less the nutrient timing that makes the difference, and more the fact that it's really hard to eat 12,000 calories at one meal.SeanHerbison wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2018 3:32 amSkeptical that it's important, or skeptical that it's even part of that last 5% of things to work on?
Yeah, this makes more sense than what I said.SeanHerbison wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2018 6:34 am My thought is that none of us know enough about nutrition, specifically protein metabolism, to really do anything more than repeat what seems to make sense to us, or give our personal experience.
Yeah but that makes for a boring thread.broseph wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2018 7:50 amThis seems like a pretty good summary.SeanHerbison wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2018 6:34 am My thought is that none of us know enough about nutrition, specifically protein metabolism, to really do anything more than repeat what seems to make sense to us, or give our personal experience.
Fixed.SeanHerbison wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2018 6:34 am My thought is that none of us know enough about nutrition, specifically protein metabolism, to really do anything more than just eat more protein.
I stopped doing this.Mahendra wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2018 7:53 am Regarding nutrient timing, for the past ~3 months, I've been eating 2 main meals a day, with a small snack in between.
It consists of something like this:
Breakfast (after morning training):
- Protein shake w/banana
- 3 eggs + 2 slices of bread
Lunch "snack":
Apple
Crackers
Cheddar Cheese
Dinner:
Large meal consisting of enough carbs, protein & fats to meet my remaining macros & calories.
And Ice cream. There's always room for ice cream.
Since I'm small people (and especially during my cut), this allows me to eat more satisfying foods for breakfast & dinner (which are my 2 favourite meals - I dislike lunch time). Now that I've returned to maintenance calories, I can have an even bigger, more delicious dinner.
Regarding training - I don't think it's had any adverse effects on my training at all. Maybe it isn't optimal, but that might be hard to quantify.