Big picture is to hit your macros by the end of the day. As it's been mentioned, I just did an article in my research review updating the original nutrient timing series, and I was actually surprised to see the lack of results over a decent battery of non-acute (longer-term) trials shuffling protein &/or carbs around various points relative to the training bout, but no effects occurring as long as the totals were adequate. There's a bunch of interesting things that are seen in the short term (anabolic signalling, amino acid uptake, lower indexes of proteolysis, etc), but these things have for the most part not panned out to impact body composition or strength in the long term -- as long as the totals are hit. There are exceptions, but they definitely are in a narrow cache.

Okay, so with all that said, if I were forced into issuing guidelines, I'd say have a decent hit of protein within an hour of training & within an hour after training. If you have a solid meal preworkout & can't train well with anything you can feel digesting, a 2 hr lag before training will still have you in a state of hyperaminoacidemia during the training bout as long as you don't skimp on protein in your meals.

How much protein per dose? Well, looking at acute effects, the anabolic response seems to be "saturable"... That is to say, beyond a certain amount of protein in a single dose, markers of the anabolic response flatten out. This threshold amount was recently seen to be 25g protein. Adding carbs to this did not further stimulate muscle protein synthesis or inhibit muscle protein breakdown. Not to confuse things more than they need to be, but let it be clear that amounts beyond this will not go to waste; they'll just take longer to process (I've written a full-length article on this in another site).

Important note about the 25g figure - it wasn't a lot of training volume done, and the subjects were 80 kg on average, so you can scale things up accordingly. I'd rather error on the side of abundance & never come up short. That's why I've traditionally recommended a protein dose of 0.2-0.25g/lb LBM (or you can use target bodyweight as a proximal measure of lean mass plus a little extra) taken in solid form at any point 2 hrs prior to training, or in liquid form at any point 1 hr prior to training, and dose it again at any point within an hour after training. Carbs don't appear to be capable of increasing the protein-synthetic response of a single protein dose if the protein dose is large enough (this has already been demonstrated twice in the literature). Therefore carbs can be either consumed or deferred to any point in the day of your choosing (just hit the total target by the day's end).

All of these recommendations change if we're talking about endurance athletes - and they're different still for endurance athletes with multiple glycogen-depleting bouts (of the same muscle group) in a single day.

------

It's highly unlikely to make any measurable difference whether it's whey, casein, or a blend. Both proteins are high-quality, both are effective. They have different absorption kinetics, but the difference they have on net muscle protein accretion appears to be negligible - especially within the context of the diet as a whole, which contains other protein sources. A recent study comparing their acute effects head-to-head using some pretty sophisticated methods found the following:

"Phosphorylation of Akt and p70(S6K) was increased after exercise and protein intake (P < 0.05), but no differences were observed between the types of protein except for total 4E-BP1, which was higher after whey intake than after casein intake (P < 0.05). In conclusion, whey and casein intake immediately after resistance exercise results in an overall equal MPS [muscle protein synthesis] response despite temporal differences in insulin and amino acid concentrations and 4E-BP1."

-----

The protein dosing range I most frequently work with is 2-3g/kg of target bodyweight (TBW is a surrogate measure of target lean body mass + a bit of a safety buffer).

----

GABA & GABAnergic agonists have shown promise in various disease states - particularly those involving cancer- & other disease-related pain, epilepsy, and cognitive decline. Its use for postW or prebed with the bodybuilding context in healthy individuals seems like a waste of money to me.

----

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Layne Norton (in response to someone supporting the idea of 2 meals a day):

I actually disagree with that quite heavily as far as optimizing protein synthesis goes.

8 meals per day is nonsense. But my research specifically showed that multiple stimulations of muscle protein synthesis per day vs 1 or 2 is superior for body composition and muscle mass. And consuming protein at a meal past a certain point (probably 30-50g depending upon the source and your weight/age) does not further increase the peak anabolic response or duration so you'd be better off dosing it at other times to optimize anabolism. That said, you don't want to do it too frequently either, else you actually can impede anabolism as well. I'd recommend reading my scientific review on protein intake and frequency here.

My response to Layne's post:

To Layne specifically:

I read your article, and it was very well-done. However, I disagree with the idea that 1) 8 meals per day will evoke the refractory response and thus inhibit optimal muscle growth, and 2) 2 meals per day is insufficient for optimal muscle retention/growth. We'll take these one at a time.

1) The "protein stat hypothesis" which is the source of your concern for the inhibition of muscle growth by constant AA elevation is exactly that - a hypothesis. It's based on preliminary & circumstantial evidence. The work you cited by Bohe et al is intravenous infusion of AAs examined acutely (in the short-term). This research did not measure effects on muscular size or strength over the long-term. At best, this data is hypothesis-generating, and far from conclusive. To translate this data into a recommendation against high meal frequency is quite a large leap of faith. The other work you cited by Paddon-Jones et al in support of inter-meal AA dosing had some serious treatment imbalance. The experimental group consumed a total of 45g EAA + 90g carbs above & beyond the control group, so the results were not surprising. Furthermore, the control group's protein intake totaled 64g for the day, while the supplemented group averaged 109g. It not only was a matter of treatment imbalance, but it essentially became a comparison of insufficient protein intake versus barely adequate intake, even by sedentary standards.

2) Aside from individual variations in gastric tolerance, the idea that 2 meals per day is not optimal for muscle growth is sort of a slippery slope for a couple of main reasons. First off, most people eating 2 meals a day do not have size gains as their main goal. Their priority is usually fat oxidation, and 2 meals per day in many cases works great for this. Secondly, even if the main goal was muscle retention, there are human studies lasting several weeks showing the muscle-preserving superiority of 1 meal/day instead of 3 (Stote et al, 2008), and 3 meals instead of 6 (Oyvind et al, 2007). In addition, human research has also shown no difference in LBM retention despite 20-hr fasting cycles compared to a conventional eating pattern (Soeters et al, 2009). Furthermore, in young women, no difference in muscle retention was seen between consuming most of the day's protein in one meal, versus the same amount spread across four meals (Arnal et al, 2000). Elderly women put through the same protocol actually had better muscle retention on the large pulse rather than the spread-out pattern (Arnal et al, 1999).

Keep in mind, NONE of these studies involved the abundance of protein that BBers typically ingest, which would actually make differential effects of meal frequency even more miniscule. So... Given the existence of human data to the contrary, a compelling case cannot be made from rodent research - despite the flaws of the existing human research compared to the meticulous execution of the critter designs. The latter is still up for human confirmation at best.

To no one in particular:

The postexercise "anabolic window" is a highly misused & abused concept (which I believe Layne agrees with). 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. And by the way, there are even more compelling data against the standard practice of neurotic micromanagement of meal timing, but it's not my intention to write a book here.

-----

Correlational research sometimes implicates egg yolks as a contributor to heart disease, but this is mainly a leap of faith. When you look at randomized controlled trials (RCTs - the only type of research that can demonstrate cause-and-effect), the picture changes. RCTs examining the effect of eggs on blood lipids, the outcomes for the most part are neutral. For example, check this RCT out looking at 3 eggs/day showing neutral effects on endothelial function & cardiovascular risk, even in hyperlipidemics:

"Egg consumption was found to be non-detrimental to endothelial function and serum lipids in hyperlipidemic adults, while egg substitute consumption was beneficial."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20598142

Here's a review that sums things up well:

"The lack of connection between heart disease and egg intake could partially be explained by the fact that dietary cholesterol increases the concentrations of both circulating LDL and high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol in those individuals who experience an increase in plasma cholesterol following egg consumption (hyperresponders). It is also important to note that 70% of the population experiences a mild increase or no alterations in plasma cholesterol concentrations when challenged with high amounts of dietary cholesterol (hyporesponders). Egg intake has been shown to promote the formation of large LDL, in addition to shifting individuals from the LDL pattern B to pattern A, which is less atherogenic. Eggs are also good sources of antioxidants known to protect the eye; therefore, increased plasma concentrations of lutein and zeaxanthin in individuals consuming eggs are also of interest, especially in those populations susceptible to developing macular degeneration and eye cataracts."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16340654

There's more, but the moral of the story is that egg yolk hysteria is unfounded.

-----

Originally Posted by Shane_ Alan in regards to whey being insulinogenic do you think it will have a meaningful impact if taken with whole food meals for someone who is trying to decrease their insulin resistance on a low carb diet?

Alan: Whey would not have adverse impact on insulin sensitivity. In fact, it may even improve insulin action indirectly. There's a decent amount of literature showing whey's favorable effects on blood glucose control.

This is a grey area of research (artificial sweetners) because it's marred by commercial bias. No one but the industry is gonna fund the prodigious amounts of money required for long-term toxicological research. Lo & behold, the scientific literature does not support any major worries about their consumption within moderate limits. I have dug into this topic quite a bit, and the safety concerns in the public realm are overblown. These compounds are ingested by humans in such miniscule amounts compared to what animal models have shown to be potentially adverse.

----

Compared to nailing your macro targets for the day, the timing of specific nutrients around the training bout (except in certain competitive endurance events) will make little measurable difference. The only way it would compromise optimal progress is if you don't tailor the timing of meals to your personal tolerance. That is, some folks train better in varying degrees of the fed state, while others train better fasted. Something that people don't realize is that there's no "magic anabolic window" that's open for a short period of time near the workout & then closes up shop. As a result of a single training bout, the receptivity of muscle to protein dosing can persist for at least 24 hours: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21289204

----

I agree with you completely that people take it overboard when attempting to optimize their diets. And by overboard, I mean attempts at dietary perfectionism despite the lack of evidence of many of these practices increasing your quality/quantity of life. There's a term for taking the obsession with righteous/perfectionistic/"clean" eating to extremes, and it's called orthorexia. It's much ado about nothing much. I'd rather cover the fundamentals & not be neurotic about things.

----

Sand Blaster: A lot of the BCAA/EAA stuff on the board was done in a calorie deficit and I think many missed that. Basically at one point Wesley and I were seeing how LITTLE we could eat and make up for it with EAA's/BCAAs...and to that end it was very effective.

poster- People should understand what a supplement is before they go saying it didn't offer any results.

BCAA's aren't going to give you big strength gains or make an enormous jump in recovery, ESPECIALLY in a caloric surplus or maintenance. Can you get by without supplementing BCAA's just fine....absolutely. But in a caloric deficit BCAA's can be a huge help. You are basically calorie free feeding your muscles. In a caloric deficit, BCAA's fight catabolism perfectly and they are basically calorie free to boot. That is huge. There are other ways to make it happen, but the fact is sometimes it is just so convenient if you are on the run to toss 5-6 scoops in a couple of liters of water and sip it during times you maybe should be eating, but are just unable.

I also believe BCAA's can play a considerable role in intra/post workout nutrition with really any type of diet.

Sand blaster-you have to understand that I was taking a lot of BCAA/EAA (6-8 times a day) and not much food at all (maybe one meal a day). If I remember correctly I dropped about 30lbs. with no loss in strength.

I had pounds of BCAA and EAAs to use before I moved from Fargo, so I got rid of them this way.

The only reason I quit was that I couldn't stomach it anymore not because it wasn't effective. I so tired of drinking the mixes...and I really had to watch going hypo....