From a new study published in the Journal of Nutrition, researchers found that consuming 28g of protein and 15g of carbs before bed helps you gain more muscle and get stronger
Nutrition | Mobile
Nutrition | Mobile
Anyone can eat 28g of protein before bed and get gains (assuming surplus and protein minimums are met)The control group got a calorie free placebo?
Don't like it.
Want a control group with equivalent calories and protein intake.
I haven't read the FT yet but a photo of the statistics table was posted in the ISSN group and it was 1.3g/kg for the control group and 1.9g/kg for the protein group.I'll pull the FT after finals today and see if calories were matched
Saw this too,I haven't read the FT yet but a photo of the statistics table was posted in the ISSN group and it was 1.3g/kg for the control group and 1.9g/kg for the protein group.
Do you know what the per kcal daily intake was? Looked like the 28g was an additional PRO intake but from what you posted the control group was within range so not sure if this difference alone would explain the difference in strength and muscle gain as the control group received adequate protein.I haven't read the FT yet but a photo of the statistics table was posted in the ISSN group and it was 1.3g/kg for the control group and 1.9g/kg for the protein group.
Well, in the reductionist land of IIFYM, where a calorie is a calorie and timing has no effect, this would seem to suggest otherwise.So calories were roughly the same, but one group got more protein. Yeah, this is dumb.
The question of timing is conflated with overall daily intake in this case. Going from 1.3g/kg to 1.9g/kg is a nearly 50% increase in daily protein intake within a range that's already been repeatedly substantiated to benefit from increase; I believe something around 1.9g/kg is the highest upper limit that's been shown to be beneficial, but going from 1.3 to 1.9 is huge.IIFYM logic would have predicted gains to have been equal because both groups had sufficient protein intake and equal kcals.
I feel percentage change is a poor way to look at this. It gives a false impression of there being a huge difference when in reality there isnt. Yea it's almost a 50% increase (around 46%) but what that increase really is, is just 28 extra grams. An extra 28g was the sole cause of the difference found here? Also 1.3g/kg is more than adequate intake and remember my comment here (the one you are quoting) is directed at IIFYM logic. And that logic dictates that if you are getting enough protein and calories (which 1.3 is considered enough) and enough calories (both groups had same calories) than there should be no change between groups. If a calorie is a calorie and all that matters is CI-CO then we should see no change, but we did. So it's either a measly 28g extra on top of already sufficient protein intake doubled CSA of the quads or the timing had an effect on it (or a combination of course)The question of timing is conflated with overall daily intake in this case. Going from 1.3g/kg to 1.9g/kg is a nearly 50% increase in daily protein intake within a range that's already been repeatedly substantiated to benefit from increase; I believe something around 1.9g/kg is the highest upper limit that's been shown to be beneficial, but going from 1.3 to 1.9 is huge.
I don't doubt that there could be something interesting here, but this study certainly doesn't seem to do much to explore it.
That's kind of how I view it.The question of timing is conflated with overall daily intake in this case. Going from 1.3g/kg to 1.9g/kg is a nearly 50% increase in daily protein intake within a range that's already been repeatedly substantiated to benefit from increase; I believe something around 1.9g/kg is the highest upper limit that's been shown to be beneficial, but going from 1.3 to 1.9 is huge.
I don't doubt that there could be something interesting here, but this study certainly doesn't seem to do much to explore it.
Protein intake and energy intake were matched, mostly (fluctuated between each group having a higher total kcal intake)In conclusion, protein intake close to resistance exercise workout may alter mRNA expression in a manner advantageous for muscle hypertrophy.
I agree with this and my research has been social sciences; not science, but I grasp the concepts here. That said, I haven't read anything beyond what has been posted here, but it would be interesting if any of this is/was covered in the discussion portion of the paper (e.g. acknowledging the disparity and explaining why it was done or what benefits it may have).There is this idea that some people have that there exist perfect papers when in reality no such papers exist. Furthermore, what they think a perfect paper is, is a paper that is usually the results of decades of previous research. They have no grasp of what preliminary research is or how research sometimes has to be not as inclusive because of funding or logistic issues. They fail to realize that sometimes research is done intentionally with gaps, such as a paper that is just probing to see if something is found than follow ups are done.
Yea, research of this nature is considered a soft science similar to social sciences. So expectations are a bit different than say a paper on cellular signalling.I agree with this and my research has been social sciences; not science, so I grasp the concepts here. That said, I haven't read anything beyond what has been posted here, but it would be interesting if any of this is/was covered in the discussion portion of the paper (e.g. acknowledging the disparity and explaining why it was done or what benefits it may have).
People are missing the point here by a mile.So was the group with the noncalorie placebo getting the same overall daily calories? If they were skipping that meal which is roughly 180 calories, then they were consuming less total calories for the whole study. Sounds shady to me
How is this study shady?All these studies are shady as 90% aren't related to everyday life
Interesting post, but I fail to see the relevance in this particular case.To paraphrase Schoenfeld, you can always tell who the people are who aren't involved in research by reading their critiques of research. They have no grasp of what preliminary research is or how research sometimes has to be not as inclusive because of funding or logistic issues.
I didn't mean protein match for this study, but the quote was about missed energy from one meal, but the shortfall in energy was made up to provide roughly standardized calories.Jiigzz protein wasn't excatly matched. The experimental group had slightly more protein (28g)
At least that is my impression from what bdcc posted earlier
Added for more discussionJiigzz protein wasn't excatly matched. The experimental group had slightly more protein (28g)
At least that is my impression from what bdcc posted earlier.
Also the hulumi paper above you linked to is not the same paper. Not sure of you got the papers mixed up or you shared that one with a different purpose (to add to discussion? )
That has a login screen. Need to download the pdf and upload to a hosting siteHeres the FT for the original text: http://m.jn.nutrition.org/content/early/2015/04/29/jn.114.208371.full.pdf
But I thought nothing mattered anymore? :think:https://db.tt/WcSfpwxP
So I looked at the protein intakes. The difference here is laughable.
The placebo group got 103 +/- 7 and the experimental group got 106 +/- 8
So CSA doubled and strength improved because the experimental group got a whopping 3 more grams of protein? Yea, this seems plausible. Timing played zero role here
Where did the 1.3 vs 1.9 figures come from (discussed above)? I cant read any of these attachments.So I looked at the protein intakes. The difference here is laughable.
The placebo group got 103 +/- 7 and the experimental group got 106 +/- 8
So CSA doubled and strength improved because the experimental group got a whopping 3 more grams of protein? Yea, this seems plausible. Timing played zero role here
This, why was the chart inaccurate?Where did the 1.3 vs 1.9 figures come from (discussed above)? I cant read any of these attachments.
Where did the 1.3 vs 1.9 figures come from (discussed above)? I cant read any of these attachments.
Nevermind, it looks like the total protein intake numbers didn't include the supplemental protein in it. So it is 1.3g/kg to 1.6g/kg change in intakeThis, why was the chart inaccurate?
It is an interesting concept. I also forget that working within a university grants me automatic access to a lot of papers :/Here is a paper from 2012 where the researchers gave the subjects protein or placebo prior to sleep and then did muscle biopsies in the morning and found the protein group experienced greater whole body protein retention while the placebo group experienced a slight loss
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22330017
This is online with what was found in the OP paper.
Just so Im clear, if I were 100kg and...Nevermind, it looks like the total protein intake numbers didn't include the supplemental protein in it. So it is 1.3g/kg to 1.6g/kg change in intake
The protein intake before supplementation was 1.3g/kg.bw for control and roughly 1.4g/kg.bw for the supplementation group.Just so Im clear, if I were 100kg and...
...in the placebo group, I would have a pro intake of 130gm/day
...in the experimental group, I would have a pro intake of 160gm/day PLUS an additional 27.5gm (supplemented prior to bed), so 187.5gm pro total /day
Correct?
Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
---|---|---|---|---|
Unanswered Protein before bed breaking fast? | Nutrition / Health | 3 | ||
Anabolism and catabolism - Do you think protein is necessary to have before bedtime? | Nutrition / Health | 13 | ||
Protein before bed | Nutrition / Health | 31 | ||
Protein bars before bed | Supplements | 17 | ||
Protein shake before bed | Supplements | 8 |