Protein Every 3 Hours Is Optimal - AnabolicMinds.com
    • Protein Every 3 Hours Is Optimal


      From Ergo Log

      Bodybuilders and other athletes who do weight training a couple of times a week build up muscle best if they take a portion of protein every three hours during the day. Dividing the portions in this way works better than taking protein every hour and a half or every six hours. Researchers at Nestle write about it in Nutrition & Metabolism.

      Nutritionists need no convincing: strength athletes make faster progress if they consume more protein. There's less known however about the effect of different sorts of protein and the effects of the intervals at which the protein is ingested. Daniel Moore, a nutritionist at the Nestle Research Centre in Lausanne, Switzerland and at the University of Guelph in Canada, is interested in the latter subject.

      Moore performed experiments with 24 young men, all of whom did strength training 4-6 times a week. He got them to train their legs on a leg extension machine in his laboratory early in the morning before breakfast. After warming up with 5 sets at 60-70 percent of their 1RM, the men then performed 4 sets of 10 reps at 80 percent of their 1RM.

      In the 12 hours following the training the men were given 80 g whey isolate. The BOLUS group were given 2 portions of 40 g whey – so one portion every six hours.

      Another group, the INT group, were given a 20-g portion of whey every three hours, so they had four portions spread over the 12-hour period.

      Yet another group, the PULSE group, were given a 10-g portion of whey isolate every one and a half hours. So in the 12-hour period the PULSE group were given eight portions of protein.

      The synthesis of proteins in the leg muscle was higher the more the subjects spread out their protein intake. The same was true though for the breakdown of muscle protein too. In the end it was the athletes who had ingested a portion of protein every three hours who built up a little more muscle protein than the athletes in the other groups.









      The difference in net muscle increase between the three groups was subtle. The difference was not statistically significant, but then the study was also small. With a larger number of subjects there may well have been a significant difference. Moore believes that his results are therefore of interest to athletes.

      "Whole-body protein balance tended to be greatest with moderate 20g feedings every 3h, which may have implications for individuals aiming to enhance whole-body anabolism including lean body mass accrual with training", he writes. "Collectively, our data highlight that the acute pattern, and not only the total amount, of ingested protein should be considered when determining feeding strategies to alter whole-body protein metabolism."

      Moore's test subjects were young. There are indications that people react better to infrequent ingestion of large amounts of protein as they get older. So it may well be that the over fifties or over sixties who do weight training react better to the BOLUS intervals rather than the INT intervals.

      Source:
      Nutr Metab (Lond). 2012 Oct 16;9(1):91.

      Source: http://www.ergo-log.com/portion-of-p...-building.html
      Comments 22 Comments
      1. Celorza's Avatar
        Celorza -
        So for younger folk old preaching works best? Huh...fancy that.
      1. pyrobatt's Avatar
        pyrobatt -
        Originally Posted by Celorza View Post
        So for younger folk old preaching works best? Huh...fancy that.
        Relearn something every day ...
      1. dieseljay74's Avatar
        dieseljay74 -
        Originally Posted by pyrobatt View Post

        Relearn something every day ...
        Lol... Well said
      1. Rodja's Avatar
        Rodja -
        Anybody else notice the Nestlé part? Don't they own a supplement company these days?
      1. Celorza's Avatar
        Celorza -
        Originally Posted by Rodja View Post
        Anybody else notice the Nestlé part? Don't they own a supplement company these days?
        Fishy indeed.
      1. pyrobatt's Avatar
        pyrobatt -
        Originally Posted by Rodja View Post
        Anybody else notice the Nestlé part? Don't they own a supplement company these days?
        Even Pepsi is coming out with a protien drink LOL. Wouldn't put it past them.
      1. TexasGuy's Avatar
        TexasGuy -
        Boom. "But...but..."
      1. GrizzlyLB50's Avatar
        GrizzlyLB50 -
        The study doesn't indicate one should consume more protein, it just repeats what a lot of studies are demonstrating lately about the benefits to triggering muscle protein synthesis (2-3g Leucine has shown positive results) as many time as possible in the frame of a day. There seems to be about a 3 hour refractory period where you can't "re-trigger" MPS but as soon as you can, why wouldn't you? You can get 3g of Leucine from whole food protein easily if you eat foods containing 7-10% Leucine by volume etc.

        Whether Nestlé has a supplement brand or not your consumption of whole foods won't make much difference to them unless you drink 30oz of their chocolate milk to get 3g Leucine, or Ensure.
      1. tussmann's Avatar
        tussmann -
        This is non sense. You can fast 20 hours a day and still maintain all muscle mass. You can so the same with roughly a 14-16 hour fast with regards to muscle building.
      1. danieltx13's Avatar
        danieltx13 -
        Originally Posted by tussmann View Post
        This is non sense. You can fast 20 hours a day and still maintain all muscle mass. You can so the same with roughly a 14-16 hour fast with regards to muscle building.
        Agreed. Total nutrient intake for the day is more important than meal frequency or timing.

        I used to be on AM all the time but I rarely visit anymore. Ridiculous articles like this coming to my inbox are the main reason why.
      1. GrizzlyLB50's Avatar
        GrizzlyLB50 -
        Originally Posted by tussmann View Post
        This is non sense. You can fast 20 hours a day and still maintain all muscle mass. You can so the same with roughly a 14-16 hour fast with regards to muscle building.
        The article does not make a claim that it's the only way, just optimal. IF protocol is an optimal way to lose weight and maintain a great amount of your lean mass ( less blood glucose fluctuation ).

        Total protein intake can hold a high percentage of mass intact, there is some very minimal loss, or less efficient gain. Hitting the muscle protein synthesis threshold more frequently will induce more efficient growth.

        In the end both paths lead to similar destinations at different speeds. To each his own.
      1. TexasGuy's Avatar
        TexasGuy -
        Yeah, once again with this argument we are confusing optimal and doable and bunching panties in the process.
      1. virago88's Avatar
        virago88 -
        Stopped reading at "researchers at Nestle".
      1. trn450's Avatar
        trn450 -
        Originally Posted by virago88 View Post
        Stopped reading at "researchers at Nestle".
        Many, many studies are paid for by major corporate interests and performed at universities. I for one trust private corporations more than government, and they're the other major source of funds. You just have to pick your poison. Fact of life. Read critically, but don't ignore relevant knowledge.
      1. virago88's Avatar
        virago88 -
        Originally Posted by trn450 View Post

        Many, many studies are paid for by major corporate interests and performed at universities. I for one trust private corporations more than government, and they're the other major source of funds. You just have to pick your poison. Fact of life. Read critically, but don't ignore relevant knowledge.
        I worked briefly in a research project for a company (albeit a dog food company)
        and quickly learned the company was selective in the data it used and was in later research 'grants' was pushing for certain outcomes. University research is often more credible, however, like you said it is very important to read critically and to do further investigation.
      1. tussmann's Avatar
        tussmann -
        Originally Posted by virago88 View Post

        I worked briefly in a research project for a company (albeit a dog food company)
        and quickly learned the company was selective in the data it used and was in later research 'grants' was pushing for certain outcomes. University research is often more credible, however, like you said it is very important to read critically and to do further investigation.
        Thank you for sharing.
      1. trn450's Avatar
        trn450 -
        Originally Posted by virago88 View Post
        I worked briefly in a research project for a company (albeit a dog food company) and quickly learned the company was selective in the data it used and was in later research 'grants' was pushing for certain outcomes. University research is often more credible, however, like you said it is very important to read critically and to do further investigation.
        I don't doubt it one bit. I don't actually consider the source so much (unless they have either egregious or stellar reputations). In addition to reading critically, I try to ask myself what the benefit of pushing certain outcomes would be.
      1. Lutztenways's Avatar
        Lutztenways -
        Originally Posted by trn450 View Post
        Many, many studies are paid for by major corporate interests and performed at universities. I for one trust private corporations more than government, and they're the other major source of funds. You just have to pick your poison. Fact of life. Read critically, but don't ignore relevant knowledge.
        Why would you trust private corporations more than the govt? Explain to me what the govt has done to upset you and I'll explain to you how wealthy private interests and corporations have hijacked the govt in 99% of those cases.
      1. Lutztenways's Avatar
        Lutztenways -
        I wonder what the effect was on body composition and overall health? Since that is what most of us are really shooting for...not being giant masses of fat and muscle competing on worlds strongest man. Yet these studies get pushed by dieticians in the media on people like MY MOM. It pisses me off...

        LOL, also..."The difference in net muscle increase between the three groups was subtle. The difference was not statistically significant,..."
      1. trn450's Avatar
        trn450 -
        Originally Posted by Lutztenways View Post
        Why would you trust private corporations more than the govt? Explain to me what the govt has done to upset you and I'll explain to you how wealthy private interests and corporations have hijacked the govt in 99% of those cases.
        Oh, yes, the poor helpless government officials had no choice but to give in to these interests. o_0 It's true there is a disgusting relationship between several select ultra corporations and many (most) government officials, but you assume that the responsibility is all on one side and that's preposterous. What happened to accountability for government officials? Corporate interests only have as much power as our officials ALLOW them to purchase. When it comes down to it, I trust the government less because they have more intrinsic power and they have the intrinsic ability to act above the law. To top it off, they frequently abuse it. Major corporations' power waxes and wanes with political favor. The great irony is, people like you buy into the slight of hand the government plays where they put focus on major corporate interests. Corporate interests rise and fall continuously with their utility. The government continues to grow larger, more intrusive, and more abusive.

        Log in

        Log in