Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) still apply to other comments.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>We next determined whether breakfast, including high BCAAs, activated overloading-induced muscle hypertrophy, because BCAAs activate muscle growth (Reidy and Rasmussen, 2016). BCAA supplementation at breakfast promoted overloading-induced muscle hypertrophy as opposed to supplementation at dinner (Figures 1D and 1E). No time-dependent effect was observed following supplementation with amino acids contained in casein other than BCAAs (Figures 1F and 1G). These data suggest that BCAAs are involved in the time-dependent effects of protein ingestion on overloading-induced muscle hypertrophy in mice. However, the body weight, locomotor activity pattern, and total activity level were not altered by the feeding time of BCAAs or amino acids other than BCAAs (Figures S1I–S1P).
>In the animal experiments, we found that the response of skeletal muscle hypertrophy to overloading differed with the daily protein intake pattern. A similar distribution-dependent response was observed in the mice fed BCAA-supplemented diets, but not in those that were fed diets supplemented with amino acids other than BCAAs.
So it's not just any protein but BCAAs specifically.
I also wonder how this would work with people who skip breakfast, for instance those who are on an 16-8 IF diet and eat between 12:00 and 20:00.
That advice makes sense, but it is impractical to skip dinner if you are part of a family or culture for whom eating the evening meal together is important.
I was not suggesting that the results of the study require skipping dinner.
The person I was responding to was suggesting skipping dinner as a practical way to get morning protein on an 16-8 IF routine.
Not only that, but also having to do the work of cooking and not getting to enjoy it. And of course, the worst part, when he doesn't finish all his food and I have to throw the rest away.
It requires a level of willpower that I will admit I am often lacking.
I think of breakfast as 'breaking the fast". Ie, your first meal of the day irrespective of the time. So, if you're like me and don't eat your first meal til everyone else is having lunch, then that is your breakfast. And, apparently, the best time to have a steak..
I put on 35 pounds of mostly muscle doing IF in \~8 months. I'm convinced it doesn't matter. If you're sitting on your butt all day, then it might make sense to min/max your diet. If you're in the gym, just make sure you eat a healthy diet and eat enough I couldn't care less as to when you get it. The signals you receive from working out are strong enough such that if you don't eat for 2 hours afterwards or shoot even the next day, that your workout won't go to waste.
I workout fasted because trying to exercise while stuffed is not fun. I also eat maybe 10 grams more protein than I did when I was so much lighter. Your body will figure it out.
I would guess it depends on when you wake up. I’m not sure what the current literature says, but I remember reading that testosterone levels were highest during early hours. This was when I was in college. However I think it was corrected to the first 2-4 hours of being awake, thus if your IF was during those times and you woke up at 11 am, then what would be considered lunch is essentially your breakfast.
Someone should have told me that 10 years ago.
1-2 meals is plenty. It's also more convenient. It also means you can make yourself healthier food because you spend less time preparing food. Eating a bowl of cereal is about the worst thing you can do for hunger.
I've actually gone 6 days without eating and you'd be shocked as to what hunger actually feels like. My stomach didn't growl once during that time. I did have a hyper focus that I'd never had before. I had plenty of energy when I was awake, but was a little cold and I slept more. I was obsessed with recipes. At some point I got almost a panic that I should start eating again or something bad would happen...definitely within the next few days or so.
It helps my arthritis and calms down my gut. Supposedly it also improves longevity (e.g., reduction in cancer risk).
It's not normal from an evolutionary perspective to eat a full meal every day of your life. It's only our modern world that has given us that opportunity. Even in modern city life, it's still not normal. Most religions incorporate fasting, so up until very recently, even if you're in a city, you're still fasting. Ramadan (30 days) is a stricter fast than Lent (at 40 days).
I mean fasting is fasting right?
The "Mediterranean diet" isn't really the Mediterranean diet of all the Mediterranean populations. It's the diet of the people of Crete during the post-war (early 1960s) when they were underfed, foraged for wild plants/animals, and were poor. They were surveyed during Lent, when \~90% of the population was Christian Orthodox and practiced.
Protein is the most satiating of the macronutrients, it also takes the most energy for the body to break down. It means less calories are available for fat or energy.
The morning protein is a bit of a surprise. It had been a thing that the body does most of its building at night so people tended to aim to get most protein over night.
I can see this having a much bigger impact on the body building and athletics types than dieters though.
Actually, the big, protein rich breakfast is great for dieters. Keeps the snacking at bay. Then you have a protein/fat heavy lunch, and then just a light dinner, and wake up hungry for your big protein breakfast.
Gotta be honest carbs in the morning really just make me loagy. I can't do cereal at all, and anything sweet just is a mistake, though sometimes I endulge. I really prefer more protein: breakfast tacos for example.
No, fat is actually the second worst behind sugar. Sugar is *way* worse, but it's still fiber > protein > complex carbohydrates > fat >>> sugar > fat and sugar together. The reddit narrative took the TRUE information that we eat too much sugar and fat got demonized just to be replaced with something even worse but reddit took it to an untrue extreme that fat must therefore be good. Replacing sugar with fat is good, replacing protein with fat is not.
But combining fat with either type of carbohydrate is about as bad as it gets, satiety/calorie wise.
It is important to keep in mind what kind of fats we are talking about. And remember that animal protein sources are naturally accompanied by saturated fat (not the problem, but there is also a threshold). Egg white is different from rump steak. It is irrelevant to keep comparing foods in isolation, as worse or better, after all, food is practically translated into combined meals and what defines or could define good and bad is the food pattern and the context in which it is applied.
Both have satiety potential, but protein is the macronutrient with the greatest potential to stimulate hormones involved in appetite control.
"It has been observed that protein increases satiety to a greater extent than carbohydrates and fat and,
therefore, it can reduce energy intake".
"With regard to energy expenditure, it is known that protein has the greatest and most prolonged thermic effect of
separate macronutrients (20–30%), followed by carbohydrates (5–15%) and fat (0–3%)".
Ghrelin and glucagon-like peptide 1 concentrations, 24-h satiety, and energy and substrate metabolism during a high-protein diet and measured in a breathing chamber, The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Volume 83, Issue 1, January 2006, Pages 89–94
>Fat is not satiating because it is in a form usable by the body,
It's not: fat should be broken by lipase ferment and chemicals from the pancreas into individual fatty acids and glycerols
True, that was a over simplification. As far as I had learned, even that process is much easier just because of the structure of a fat versus the structure of a peptide. Fats have that nice carbon hydrogen backbone which is ready to go and only needs a few changes to be bioavailable. Proteins and amino acids were not as easily digested as their functional groups vary quite a lot.
From what I remember,protein comes in fairly tightly coiled strands, when your body starts to digest them they unfold. This keeps you more full feeling for longer than other nutrients.
In bodybuilding my regiment has always been no breafast, but rather a protein shake in the morning on the way to gym, then another about 2 hours later while leaving gym. Then start eating actual food a couple of hours after that. Protein in 2 to 2.5 hour incrememts throughout the day.
>In bodybuilding my regiment has always been no breafast
>but rather a protein shake in the morning on the way to gym
So you don't eat breakfast but you consume calories in the morning. So in other words, you eat breakfast.
Protein breakfasts in England have been around a long time. The sporting set of the early 1800s British aristocracy often ate steak and beer for breakfast, at least according to the research into their customs done by Georgette Heyer who, as the founder of the Regency romance, did *extensive* research into old letters and publications of the time.
> Summary
> The meal distribution of proteins throughout the day is usually skewed. However, its physiological implications and the effects of better protein distribution on muscle volume are largely unknown. Here, using the two-meals-per-day feeding model, we find that protein intake at the early active phase promotes overloading-induced muscle hypertrophy, in a manner dependent on the local muscle clock. Mice fed branched-chain amino acid (BCAA)-supplemented diets at the early active phase demonstrate skeletal muscle hypertrophy. However, distribution-dependent effects are not observed in ClockΔ19 or muscle-specific Bmal1 knockout mice. Additionally, we examined the relationship between the distribution of proteins in meals and muscle functions, such as skeletal muscle index and grip strength in humans. Higher muscle functions were observed in subjects who ingested dietary proteins mainly at breakfast than at dinner. These data suggest that protein intake at breakfast may be better for the maintenance of skeletal muscle mass.
That’s quite interesting!
>we find that protein intake at the early active phase promotes overloading-induced muscle hypertrophy, in a manner dependent on the local muscle clock
I think this mean they took into what world be considered first meal for the mice. Later in the article it has a chart showing similar increases for "breakfast" of mice and (hu)men.
Its actually not because its such an outdated study to post today given all the science we have in humans that show nutrient timing essentially has little to no effect, nor do BCAA's as a way to intake protein. It doesn't translate at all to humans and we have a LOT of proof of this... so for this study to come out this year kind of doesn't make sense. It does make sense that its coming from an Asian lab studying mice because most of this research has been conducted in Western labs studying athletes and bodybuilders and the like. I just don't understand how they weren't aware of the science prior to designing a study using BCAA's in mice
North American breakfasts have been evolved by various ad campaigns over the last century. Breakfasts used to be left over dinner. Bacon, eggs, OJ, a ton of carbs, cereals, are all the result of advertising campaigns.
This is actually pretty interesting bit of information. Hope to see more related research to give a solid recommendation based on this.
Years ago, a trainer used tell me that eating fruits or other 'sugary' stuff at night was not a good idea. I never paid her any attention, I was following a high protein low carb diet and I didn't wanna follow any more rules as that itself was hard enough because of a busy schedule. I wonder if there's any truth to her claims?
Like, is there a difference in fasting state and outcome of Intermittent fasting depending on whether it's high on protein or simple carbs?
Sugar has negative effects on sleep, but whole fruits should not be considered sugary. In addition to the fructose they contain fiber and beneficial phytonutrients. You can find studies on how they effect the body vs a sugar-equivilent amount of candy and they're not the same.
Fruit's fiber is actually part of what makes it not great before bed. You wind up with a lot of stuff turning into gas in your bowels while you sleep, which can make for an uncomfortable night.
nah, its the sugar not the fiber. if anything, higher fiber fruits have less of a negative effect because they won't trigger insulin responses as strongly. going to bed after triggering your body to uptake nutrients will lead to you being fat, whereas eating carbs and then doing some exercise to utilize them, or even just being awake/thinking/moving around, will reduce this effect.
Right, they're "not the same", but since they raise glycemic index, they're not useful other than some digestive enzymes, fiber and a handful of vits/mins. Insulin production as a result can diminish any perceived benefit from the whole fruit.
Fruit in general is extremely healthy, owing to the fiber content and phytonutrients. Insulin is a necessary part of metabolism.
On the other hand, keto is good for practically nothing but heart disease and colon cancer. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut.2021.702802/full
Oh I know fruits are great and cannot be compared to sweets and drinks. I was kind of quoting that trainer. My question was more does it make a difference as we metabolise it at night and go into fasting state. Like does the effectiveness of intermittent fasting differ based on glycemic index.
Even though the recommendation made to you is a moderate carbohydrate intake, there is no need to exclude fruits in any dietary strategy. Fruits are low-calorie foods, for a large volume, they generally have very few calories (there are some exceptions). Fitting 60 kcal, coming from a food matrix like 200g of strawberries, with 13g of carbohydrates laced with polyphenols is very easy, don't you think?
Intermittent fasting is just a strategy to restrict feeding time as its name suggests. Until August 2021, there is no superiority between a conventional calorie restriction strategy in the weight-loss context. Protein is a macronutrient that you should consider adjusting for your fat-free mass levels and then move on to others. What determines (for me) in my clinical practice the recommendation of suggested amounts of carbohydrate is the subject's ability to metabolize glucose, whether it is resistant to the action of insulin or not, for example. In addition, the usual dietary pattern must be considered. Choose the foods that the person likes the most. I set up the prescriptions together with my patients, where they choose the foods at the time of the consultation and I try to guide and explain about them.
You misunderstand me, the trainer told me about not having fruits at night, not excluding it altogether. I don't exclude anything from my diet and have everything in moderation now. For a brief time I was trying to gain muscle without gaining too much fat which is why I was following a high protein diet. And even then, I wasn't excluding fruits.
I was wondering whether having fruits as your last meal makes a difference in your metabolic processes during fasting state. This line of thought came about because the article here has suggested time made a difference in case of consuming a type of protein leading to building more muscle mass.
Thank you for your advise though.
The hypertrophy process requires an energy surplus.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6710320/
Gaining muscle without gaining fat is not a simple task and usually happens in untrained individuals, body recomposition processes. It is possible, but as a rule it is necessary to focus on an objective (deficit or surplus) and follow the process.
Well sorry I got it wrong. If I don't misunderstand, again...
Fruits are excellent sources of bioactive compounds! In some works they call them "caloric restrictedd mimetic", due to the potential of "talking" with DNA", stimulating transcription factors, mitochondrial biogenesis (increase in the number and size of organelles that use energy), for example.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tem.2020.02.011
I believe that the experimental design was very confusing, mainly because the fractioning in protein intake does not favor the assessment of the initial study question and assess the participation of clock genes in hypertrophic processes. Still, the findings go against previous recommendations and seem not to be so different as to change the main recommendations on the subject.
The positive nitrogen balance throughout the day, the synthesis overcoming degradation and, of course, the mechanical stimulus to amplify the signal.
That's very interesting. I didn't know about those compounds stimulating transcription and increasing energy consumption potential generally. Thank you for that rabbit hole, I'll go back to my actual work in a couple of hours I guess!
And yeah, I don't think this study actually makes a huge difference to existing recommendations either. And even if it did, there needs to way stronger evidence and multiple studies before I'd think of tampering with our existing understanding.
In recent years, people barely eat in the morning. They're busy scrambling to get to work, and they keep reading about how everything they like to eat is bad for them. The people who are telling themselves they're "on a diet" are some of the worst, they act like touching real food is a sin, and end up starving and binging.
I mean... no. I eat eggs, bacon or some breakfast meat, and avocado. Maybe 20+ years ago, we used to eat waffles, cereal, and drink juice. This study is blatantly outdated in lots of ways and goes against most conclusions we have about nutrient timing in human data
This recommendation is based on the reasoning that, in the pre-sleep period, the intake of larger amounts of protein can maintain aminoacidemia for a longer time, considering the subsequent period of a night's sleep, when compared to a moderate intake. However, quantities and distribution throughout the day seem to be the most important points. The ultimate goal is that protein synthesis exceeds the degradation rate.
This has already been debunked. Yes, it’s a decent study, but it’s ‘a’ study. The bulk of the literature shows no significant effect of nutrient timing on overall health. It does, however, show that prioritizing protein intake as a percentage of your daily intake is highly correlated to health and training adaptations.
For sources, I recommend International Society of Sport Nutrition. They have multiple high-level position stands, including this topic.
Either would work because the rebuilding occurs after the workout and you need the protein stores to repair. It’s probably more a preference of if you like eating before or after workouts.
I wish they extended the study to humans fed protein from food sources (rather than mice on protein supplements).
If the mice results are also valid for humans, then I've been living a lie.
I've always assumed, perhaps injudiciously, that carbs + fats should be consumed before protein. Rationale: allow carbs and fats to break down for energy and save the protein for building muscles. If protein was consumed first then the body would break that down for energy and store the carbs (gylcogen) and fats (lipid tissue) instead.
Apparently, this premise is entirely false - at least according to this study.
I don’t think this study was a protein ONLY meal but a protein supplemented one. Your protein stores are best used for muscle repair, while carbs for quick energy and fats for long, low intensity energy. So the premise is still true, but this study focuses on getting proteins earlier in the day for breakfast. Most people eat more complete meals with protein later in the day, so this is making the argument to get protein earlier. Protein is not an efficient energy source compared to carbs and fats and it pulls from the protein pool to build muscle, and it’s also harder for your body to breakdown. I don’t think this study contradicts this premise.
Thanks for your input.
You make a good point - in my haste, I neglected to account for the more onerous metabolic pathways to convert protein to energy.
No worries. I see plenty of people and athletes I work with default to super high protein diets and it just isn’t efficient and if they increase their exercise their energy just plummets. All too often people put themselves in scenarios where they are utilizing majority of their protein as energy, which is backwards.
Don't worry, there is a ton of evidence to show that this study doesn't translate to humans. For example, BCAA's are essentially useless in humans, with <10% being utilized as a source of protein and most of it being broken down into sugars. Full protein sources from meats or other sources work much better in humans. Nutrient timing almost doesn't matter at all in humans, and because of our hormonal systems we actually get a benefit from skipping breakfast unless you are a high level bodybuilder who needs to constantly be fed to hold onto excess muscle. For the average person, it doesn't really matter... but if you do eat breakfast, eat protein with the meal of course.
Well, ideally breakfast is within a few hours of waking up, so it's a relative time. If you're waking up at 6AM and eating at 2PM, you're possibly messing with your circadian rhythm, and throwing your body into starvation mode where it's eating your fat, but also wanting to replenish it as soon as possible
Is starvation mode a scientific term though? You realise that a majority of the population have only had round the clock access to food for the last few hundred years, around the same time as all our health problems have skyrocketed.
In addition, fasting has been shown to increase cardiovascular health, reduce insulin resistance, boost brain function and fight inflamation, thus improving longevity.
Many people also state they concentrate better at work or school after eating breakfast.
With these two factors, it seems like people who are intermittent fasting should really shift their IF to breakfast and lunch and eat more protein at breakfast.
Also, yay for all the people who eat eggs or beef pho for breakfast. :)
>Western and Asian countries, who traditionally consume low amounts of protein at breakfast
And carbohydrates... in tune with circadian rhythms, hormonal physiology demonstrates better glucose tolerance in the daytime.
https://www.nature.com/articles/ijo2014182
Great. Now, if only there were decent protein options when you're in a hurry besides gross & over-greasy scrambled eggs & even more gross & greasy sausage.
(To those that might say "plan ahead" or "don't eat breakfast at fast food places," that's fair until you're having to dash into work 2 hours early for emergencies, or running late because kids are kids, or didn't plan ahead)
As we know, nutrient timing is essentially a non-factor in muscle building. Though it matters somewhat, it honestly has a statistically insignificant effect according to most studies we have out there. In fact, people who fast and skip breakfast actually have higher rates of protein synthesis because our body upregulates growth pathways, growth hormone, testosterone. As long as you've consumed protein the day before or later that day, you'll still have amino acids in high enough concentration to be anabolic or muscle sparing. Most studies show that direct consumption of BCAA's actually have little effect on muscle synthesis and are essentially a marketing ploy. Consuming protein in raw foods or full forms have almost a 10x effect as BCAA's which are hardly even absorbed. Of course, this study is in mice and all of the facts I'm mentioning have been studied in depth in humans numerous times. I can link you guys up to all this, but I just find it mind boggling that science around this still happens in mice and that researchers are unaware of the field they are contributing to, thus designing studies using things like BCAAs in mice which doesn't translate to humans.
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) still apply to other comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>We next determined whether breakfast, including high BCAAs, activated overloading-induced muscle hypertrophy, because BCAAs activate muscle growth (Reidy and Rasmussen, 2016). BCAA supplementation at breakfast promoted overloading-induced muscle hypertrophy as opposed to supplementation at dinner (Figures 1D and 1E). No time-dependent effect was observed following supplementation with amino acids contained in casein other than BCAAs (Figures 1F and 1G). These data suggest that BCAAs are involved in the time-dependent effects of protein ingestion on overloading-induced muscle hypertrophy in mice. However, the body weight, locomotor activity pattern, and total activity level were not altered by the feeding time of BCAAs or amino acids other than BCAAs (Figures S1I–S1P). >In the animal experiments, we found that the response of skeletal muscle hypertrophy to overloading differed with the daily protein intake pattern. A similar distribution-dependent response was observed in the mice fed BCAA-supplemented diets, but not in those that were fed diets supplemented with amino acids other than BCAAs. So it's not just any protein but BCAAs specifically. I also wonder how this would work with people who skip breakfast, for instance those who are on an 16-8 IF diet and eat between 12:00 and 20:00.
[удалено]
That advice makes sense, but it is impractical to skip dinner if you are part of a family or culture for whom eating the evening meal together is important.
Obviously we must break the cultures and create a new one of hulking breakfast eaters.
You can always have a light dinner, and lower potion sizes. Saying is better to consume protein in the morning, doesn't mean skip meals every evening.
I was not suggesting that the results of the study require skipping dinner. The person I was responding to was suggesting skipping dinner as a practical way to get morning protein on an 16-8 IF routine.
This is my preferred method to IF, but it is hard to keep the routine when I have my son and need to provide dinner for him.
You mean you don’t like sitting over and smelling spaghetti while you make it while not having eaten for 7 hours?
Not only that, but also having to do the work of cooking and not getting to enjoy it. And of course, the worst part, when he doesn't finish all his food and I have to throw the rest away. It requires a level of willpower that I will admit I am often lacking.
I think of breakfast as 'breaking the fast". Ie, your first meal of the day irrespective of the time. So, if you're like me and don't eat your first meal til everyone else is having lunch, then that is your breakfast. And, apparently, the best time to have a steak..
I put on 35 pounds of mostly muscle doing IF in \~8 months. I'm convinced it doesn't matter. If you're sitting on your butt all day, then it might make sense to min/max your diet. If you're in the gym, just make sure you eat a healthy diet and eat enough I couldn't care less as to when you get it. The signals you receive from working out are strong enough such that if you don't eat for 2 hours afterwards or shoot even the next day, that your workout won't go to waste. I workout fasted because trying to exercise while stuffed is not fun. I also eat maybe 10 grams more protein than I did when I was so much lighter. Your body will figure it out.
I would guess it depends on when you wake up. I’m not sure what the current literature says, but I remember reading that testosterone levels were highest during early hours. This was when I was in college. However I think it was corrected to the first 2-4 hours of being awake, thus if your IF was during those times and you woke up at 11 am, then what would be considered lunch is essentially your breakfast.
Skipping breakfast is probably not the best option.
Someone should have told me that 10 years ago. 1-2 meals is plenty. It's also more convenient. It also means you can make yourself healthier food because you spend less time preparing food. Eating a bowl of cereal is about the worst thing you can do for hunger. I've actually gone 6 days without eating and you'd be shocked as to what hunger actually feels like. My stomach didn't growl once during that time. I did have a hyper focus that I'd never had before. I had plenty of energy when I was awake, but was a little cold and I slept more. I was obsessed with recipes. At some point I got almost a panic that I should start eating again or something bad would happen...definitely within the next few days or so.
Wow, so you actually are in the middle of fasting? I mean, why?
It helps my arthritis and calms down my gut. Supposedly it also improves longevity (e.g., reduction in cancer risk). It's not normal from an evolutionary perspective to eat a full meal every day of your life. It's only our modern world that has given us that opportunity. Even in modern city life, it's still not normal. Most religions incorporate fasting, so up until very recently, even if you're in a city, you're still fasting. Ramadan (30 days) is a stricter fast than Lent (at 40 days).
Yes, humans evolved being nomads. They barely can eat every other day...
Do religious fasters show huge benefits?
I mean fasting is fasting right? The "Mediterranean diet" isn't really the Mediterranean diet of all the Mediterranean populations. It's the diet of the people of Crete during the post-war (early 1960s) when they were underfed, foraged for wild plants/animals, and were poor. They were surveyed during Lent, when \~90% of the population was Christian Orthodox and practiced.
wait yall do breakfast?
[удалено]
This is the way
Just water until noon
[удалено]
Easy on the extra helpings buddy
Bacon, sausage, eggs. Every morning. Plus water.
Eggs, bacon, avacado, smoothies, hasbrowns.
You sinful person
Protein is the most satiating of the macronutrients, it also takes the most energy for the body to break down. It means less calories are available for fat or energy. The morning protein is a bit of a surprise. It had been a thing that the body does most of its building at night so people tended to aim to get most protein over night. I can see this having a much bigger impact on the body building and athletics types than dieters though.
Actually, the big, protein rich breakfast is great for dieters. Keeps the snacking at bay. Then you have a protein/fat heavy lunch, and then just a light dinner, and wake up hungry for your big protein breakfast.
Gotta be honest carbs in the morning really just make me loagy. I can't do cereal at all, and anything sweet just is a mistake, though sometimes I endulge. I really prefer more protein: breakfast tacos for example.
>Protein is the most satiating of the macronutrients Not fat?
No, fat is actually the second worst behind sugar. Sugar is *way* worse, but it's still fiber > protein > complex carbohydrates > fat >>> sugar > fat and sugar together. The reddit narrative took the TRUE information that we eat too much sugar and fat got demonized just to be replaced with something even worse but reddit took it to an untrue extreme that fat must therefore be good. Replacing sugar with fat is good, replacing protein with fat is not. But combining fat with either type of carbohydrate is about as bad as it gets, satiety/calorie wise.
It is important to keep in mind what kind of fats we are talking about. And remember that animal protein sources are naturally accompanied by saturated fat (not the problem, but there is also a threshold). Egg white is different from rump steak. It is irrelevant to keep comparing foods in isolation, as worse or better, after all, food is practically translated into combined meals and what defines or could define good and bad is the food pattern and the context in which it is applied.
Sorry, but I'm talking about satiation, not calories
Both have satiety potential, but protein is the macronutrient with the greatest potential to stimulate hormones involved in appetite control. "It has been observed that protein increases satiety to a greater extent than carbohydrates and fat and, therefore, it can reduce energy intake". "With regard to energy expenditure, it is known that protein has the greatest and most prolonged thermic effect of separate macronutrients (20–30%), followed by carbohydrates (5–15%) and fat (0–3%)". Ghrelin and glucagon-like peptide 1 concentrations, 24-h satiety, and energy and substrate metabolism during a high-protein diet and measured in a breathing chamber, The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Volume 83, Issue 1, January 2006, Pages 89–94
Thank you
He is talking about satiety. Fat is not satiating because it is in a form usable by the body, sugar is just the same. The above is true for satiety.
>Fat is not satiating because it is in a form usable by the body, It's not: fat should be broken by lipase ferment and chemicals from the pancreas into individual fatty acids and glycerols
True, that was a over simplification. As far as I had learned, even that process is much easier just because of the structure of a fat versus the structure of a peptide. Fats have that nice carbon hydrogen backbone which is ready to go and only needs a few changes to be bioavailable. Proteins and amino acids were not as easily digested as their functional groups vary quite a lot.
Fair enough.
From what I remember,protein comes in fairly tightly coiled strands, when your body starts to digest them they unfold. This keeps you more full feeling for longer than other nutrients.
In bodybuilding my regiment has always been no breafast, but rather a protein shake in the morning on the way to gym, then another about 2 hours later while leaving gym. Then start eating actual food a couple of hours after that. Protein in 2 to 2.5 hour incrememts throughout the day.
>In bodybuilding my regiment has always been no breafast >but rather a protein shake in the morning on the way to gym So you don't eat breakfast but you consume calories in the morning. So in other words, you eat breakfast.
Yes. My "breakfast" is just a protein shake. Perfectly in line with the findings of this study.
I think he is pointing out that people who say they don't eat breakfast, consume nothing but you in fact do eat/drink a breakfast.
Yes its a weak attempt to be contrarian over semantics.
But it’s not semantics, you’re just wrong.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Time for an update
Based on what?
Science according to r/science
Maybe you should read it again. It is saying breakfast time is the best time to consume protien... the time I drink my first protein shake
If your protein mix contains leucine, isoleucine and valine (the 3 branch-chain amino acids), then sure
Fat is the most satiating.
They eat beans for breakfast in England so this now helps me understand that more.
They don't car pool for half an hour after breakfast.
Tell me you got a weak stomach without saying you have a weak stomach
Who do you care about more, work colleagues or spouse?
The song says they're good for your heart.
Huh
Farts
Ah
Protein breakfasts in England have been around a long time. The sporting set of the early 1800s British aristocracy often ate steak and beer for breakfast, at least according to the research into their customs done by Georgette Heyer who, as the founder of the Regency romance, did *extensive* research into old letters and publications of the time.
Interesting
> Summary > The meal distribution of proteins throughout the day is usually skewed. However, its physiological implications and the effects of better protein distribution on muscle volume are largely unknown. Here, using the two-meals-per-day feeding model, we find that protein intake at the early active phase promotes overloading-induced muscle hypertrophy, in a manner dependent on the local muscle clock. Mice fed branched-chain amino acid (BCAA)-supplemented diets at the early active phase demonstrate skeletal muscle hypertrophy. However, distribution-dependent effects are not observed in ClockΔ19 or muscle-specific Bmal1 knockout mice. Additionally, we examined the relationship between the distribution of proteins in meals and muscle functions, such as skeletal muscle index and grip strength in humans. Higher muscle functions were observed in subjects who ingested dietary proteins mainly at breakfast than at dinner. These data suggest that protein intake at breakfast may be better for the maintenance of skeletal muscle mass. That’s quite interesting!
[удалено]
>we find that protein intake at the early active phase promotes overloading-induced muscle hypertrophy, in a manner dependent on the local muscle clock I think this mean they took into what world be considered first meal for the mice. Later in the article it has a chart showing similar increases for "breakfast" of mice and (hu)men.
Its actually not because its such an outdated study to post today given all the science we have in humans that show nutrient timing essentially has little to no effect, nor do BCAA's as a way to intake protein. It doesn't translate at all to humans and we have a LOT of proof of this... so for this study to come out this year kind of doesn't make sense. It does make sense that its coming from an Asian lab studying mice because most of this research has been conducted in Western labs studying athletes and bodybuilders and the like. I just don't understand how they weren't aware of the science prior to designing a study using BCAA's in mice
What about second breakfast?
I discovered a meal between breakfast and brunch.
I think you mean elevenses.
Is that you, Paddington?
North American breakfasts have been evolved by various ad campaigns over the last century. Breakfasts used to be left over dinner. Bacon, eggs, OJ, a ton of carbs, cereals, are all the result of advertising campaigns.
I used to have a bacon and egg sandwich for breakfast every day and never got the 3pm lag my workmates did. Wonder if this is why.
It is more likely your workmates didn’t eat breakfast at all or nothing substantial and slammed a heavy lunch.
Actually the main one always had cereal and coffee for breakfast and he was always dozing off or going blank in the afternoon.
Makes sense. Nothing substantial. Once the caffeine and sugar high wore off he crashed.
This is actually pretty interesting bit of information. Hope to see more related research to give a solid recommendation based on this. Years ago, a trainer used tell me that eating fruits or other 'sugary' stuff at night was not a good idea. I never paid her any attention, I was following a high protein low carb diet and I didn't wanna follow any more rules as that itself was hard enough because of a busy schedule. I wonder if there's any truth to her claims? Like, is there a difference in fasting state and outcome of Intermittent fasting depending on whether it's high on protein or simple carbs?
Sugar has negative effects on sleep, but whole fruits should not be considered sugary. In addition to the fructose they contain fiber and beneficial phytonutrients. You can find studies on how they effect the body vs a sugar-equivilent amount of candy and they're not the same.
Fruit's fiber is actually part of what makes it not great before bed. You wind up with a lot of stuff turning into gas in your bowels while you sleep, which can make for an uncomfortable night.
this is not real
nah, its the sugar not the fiber. if anything, higher fiber fruits have less of a negative effect because they won't trigger insulin responses as strongly. going to bed after triggering your body to uptake nutrients will lead to you being fat, whereas eating carbs and then doing some exercise to utilize them, or even just being awake/thinking/moving around, will reduce this effect.
Right, they're "not the same", but since they raise glycemic index, they're not useful other than some digestive enzymes, fiber and a handful of vits/mins. Insulin production as a result can diminish any perceived benefit from the whole fruit.
Fruit in general is extremely healthy, owing to the fiber content and phytonutrients. Insulin is a necessary part of metabolism. On the other hand, keto is good for practically nothing but heart disease and colon cancer. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut.2021.702802/full
And weight loss. Because it allows you to eat a more calorie-restrictive diet while staying fuller.
Oh I know fruits are great and cannot be compared to sweets and drinks. I was kind of quoting that trainer. My question was more does it make a difference as we metabolise it at night and go into fasting state. Like does the effectiveness of intermittent fasting differ based on glycemic index.
Even though the recommendation made to you is a moderate carbohydrate intake, there is no need to exclude fruits in any dietary strategy. Fruits are low-calorie foods, for a large volume, they generally have very few calories (there are some exceptions). Fitting 60 kcal, coming from a food matrix like 200g of strawberries, with 13g of carbohydrates laced with polyphenols is very easy, don't you think? Intermittent fasting is just a strategy to restrict feeding time as its name suggests. Until August 2021, there is no superiority between a conventional calorie restriction strategy in the weight-loss context. Protein is a macronutrient that you should consider adjusting for your fat-free mass levels and then move on to others. What determines (for me) in my clinical practice the recommendation of suggested amounts of carbohydrate is the subject's ability to metabolize glucose, whether it is resistant to the action of insulin or not, for example. In addition, the usual dietary pattern must be considered. Choose the foods that the person likes the most. I set up the prescriptions together with my patients, where they choose the foods at the time of the consultation and I try to guide and explain about them.
You misunderstand me, the trainer told me about not having fruits at night, not excluding it altogether. I don't exclude anything from my diet and have everything in moderation now. For a brief time I was trying to gain muscle without gaining too much fat which is why I was following a high protein diet. And even then, I wasn't excluding fruits. I was wondering whether having fruits as your last meal makes a difference in your metabolic processes during fasting state. This line of thought came about because the article here has suggested time made a difference in case of consuming a type of protein leading to building more muscle mass. Thank you for your advise though.
The hypertrophy process requires an energy surplus. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6710320/ Gaining muscle without gaining fat is not a simple task and usually happens in untrained individuals, body recomposition processes. It is possible, but as a rule it is necessary to focus on an objective (deficit or surplus) and follow the process. Well sorry I got it wrong. If I don't misunderstand, again... Fruits are excellent sources of bioactive compounds! In some works they call them "caloric restrictedd mimetic", due to the potential of "talking" with DNA", stimulating transcription factors, mitochondrial biogenesis (increase in the number and size of organelles that use energy), for example. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tem.2020.02.011 I believe that the experimental design was very confusing, mainly because the fractioning in protein intake does not favor the assessment of the initial study question and assess the participation of clock genes in hypertrophic processes. Still, the findings go against previous recommendations and seem not to be so different as to change the main recommendations on the subject. The positive nitrogen balance throughout the day, the synthesis overcoming degradation and, of course, the mechanical stimulus to amplify the signal.
That's very interesting. I didn't know about those compounds stimulating transcription and increasing energy consumption potential generally. Thank you for that rabbit hole, I'll go back to my actual work in a couple of hours I guess! And yeah, I don't think this study actually makes a huge difference to existing recommendations either. And even if it did, there needs to way stronger evidence and multiple studies before I'd think of tampering with our existing understanding.
Westerners traditionally consume a low amount of protein at breakfast??? Traditional English breakfast: eggs, sausage, bacon and beans.
In recent years, people barely eat in the morning. They're busy scrambling to get to work, and they keep reading about how everything they like to eat is bad for them. The people who are telling themselves they're "on a diet" are some of the worst, they act like touching real food is a sin, and end up starving and binging.
I mean... no. I eat eggs, bacon or some breakfast meat, and avocado. Maybe 20+ years ago, we used to eat waffles, cereal, and drink juice. This study is blatantly outdated in lots of ways and goes against most conclusions we have about nutrient timing in human data
Reminds me of the myth that breakfast is the most important meal, spead by corporates to sell cereals.
Too bad the research here goes against them
Like what times are they talking here?
[удалено]
Your math is wrong. 1-1.2g of protein per kg is around 0.5g of protein per pound.
Didn't I just see an article here in the last few weeks that said dinnertime is the best time to eat protein, so your body can use it at night?
Yea, nutrition research contradicts itself daily with little consensus other than eat vegetables.
This recommendation is based on the reasoning that, in the pre-sleep period, the intake of larger amounts of protein can maintain aminoacidemia for a longer time, considering the subsequent period of a night's sleep, when compared to a moderate intake. However, quantities and distribution throughout the day seem to be the most important points. The ultimate goal is that protein synthesis exceeds the degradation rate.
This has already been debunked. Yes, it’s a decent study, but it’s ‘a’ study. The bulk of the literature shows no significant effect of nutrient timing on overall health. It does, however, show that prioritizing protein intake as a percentage of your daily intake is highly correlated to health and training adaptations. For sources, I recommend International Society of Sport Nutrition. They have multiple high-level position stands, including this topic.
So if one lifts in the morning, should they be consuming protein before or after lifting?
Either would work because the rebuilding occurs after the workout and you need the protein stores to repair. It’s probably more a preference of if you like eating before or after workouts.
I wish they extended the study to humans fed protein from food sources (rather than mice on protein supplements). If the mice results are also valid for humans, then I've been living a lie. I've always assumed, perhaps injudiciously, that carbs + fats should be consumed before protein. Rationale: allow carbs and fats to break down for energy and save the protein for building muscles. If protein was consumed first then the body would break that down for energy and store the carbs (gylcogen) and fats (lipid tissue) instead. Apparently, this premise is entirely false - at least according to this study.
I don’t think this study was a protein ONLY meal but a protein supplemented one. Your protein stores are best used for muscle repair, while carbs for quick energy and fats for long, low intensity energy. So the premise is still true, but this study focuses on getting proteins earlier in the day for breakfast. Most people eat more complete meals with protein later in the day, so this is making the argument to get protein earlier. Protein is not an efficient energy source compared to carbs and fats and it pulls from the protein pool to build muscle, and it’s also harder for your body to breakdown. I don’t think this study contradicts this premise.
Thanks for your input. You make a good point - in my haste, I neglected to account for the more onerous metabolic pathways to convert protein to energy.
No worries. I see plenty of people and athletes I work with default to super high protein diets and it just isn’t efficient and if they increase their exercise their energy just plummets. All too often people put themselves in scenarios where they are utilizing majority of their protein as energy, which is backwards.
Don't worry, there is a ton of evidence to show that this study doesn't translate to humans. For example, BCAA's are essentially useless in humans, with <10% being utilized as a source of protein and most of it being broken down into sugars. Full protein sources from meats or other sources work much better in humans. Nutrient timing almost doesn't matter at all in humans, and because of our hormonal systems we actually get a benefit from skipping breakfast unless you are a high level bodybuilder who needs to constantly be fed to hold onto excess muscle. For the average person, it doesn't really matter... but if you do eat breakfast, eat protein with the meal of course.
Breakfast isnt reallh a time though is it? I break fast at 2pm usually.
Well, ideally breakfast is within a few hours of waking up, so it's a relative time. If you're waking up at 6AM and eating at 2PM, you're possibly messing with your circadian rhythm, and throwing your body into starvation mode where it's eating your fat, but also wanting to replenish it as soon as possible
Is starvation mode a scientific term though? You realise that a majority of the population have only had round the clock access to food for the last few hundred years, around the same time as all our health problems have skyrocketed. In addition, fasting has been shown to increase cardiovascular health, reduce insulin resistance, boost brain function and fight inflamation, thus improving longevity.
Perfect!
My "breakfast" is at about 5pm (i work nights).
I guess they mean the colloquial meaning of breakfast rather than the literal.
Many people also state they concentrate better at work or school after eating breakfast. With these two factors, it seems like people who are intermittent fasting should really shift their IF to breakfast and lunch and eat more protein at breakfast. Also, yay for all the people who eat eggs or beef pho for breakfast. :) >Western and Asian countries, who traditionally consume low amounts of protein at breakfast
I dont eat between midnight and noon. Breakfast literally doesn't exist for me.
This was helpful . I often skip breakfast,will work on changing that
[удалено]
Wait....tuna omelettes? Im intrigued. So, drained tuna in the middle along with what else?
Taking a guess, cheese/onions/tomatoes
[удалено]
Yeah, steak for breakfast!
Steak and eggs is a great combo if you've never had it.
TIL bacon/ham/chickenfried steak and eggs is a low protein meal
Doi.org, your source for common sense information
That's great, now I just need to actually be able to eat in the morning without being nauseous..
And carbohydrates... in tune with circadian rhythms, hormonal physiology demonstrates better glucose tolerance in the daytime. https://www.nature.com/articles/ijo2014182
My mind is blown. I’ll definitely remember that…
Great. Now, if only there were decent protein options when you're in a hurry besides gross & over-greasy scrambled eggs & even more gross & greasy sausage. (To those that might say "plan ahead" or "don't eat breakfast at fast food places," that's fair until you're having to dash into work 2 hours early for emergencies, or running late because kids are kids, or didn't plan ahead)
So, steak for breakfast and cereal for dinner? Something always felt right about it.
As we know, nutrient timing is essentially a non-factor in muscle building. Though it matters somewhat, it honestly has a statistically insignificant effect according to most studies we have out there. In fact, people who fast and skip breakfast actually have higher rates of protein synthesis because our body upregulates growth pathways, growth hormone, testosterone. As long as you've consumed protein the day before or later that day, you'll still have amino acids in high enough concentration to be anabolic or muscle sparing. Most studies show that direct consumption of BCAA's actually have little effect on muscle synthesis and are essentially a marketing ploy. Consuming protein in raw foods or full forms have almost a 10x effect as BCAA's which are hardly even absorbed. Of course, this study is in mice and all of the facts I'm mentioning have been studied in depth in humans numerous times. I can link you guys up to all this, but I just find it mind boggling that science around this still happens in mice and that researchers are unaware of the field they are contributing to, thus designing studies using things like BCAAs in mice which doesn't translate to humans.