5 ms·

I'll assume that your goal when drinking a protein shake/gaining muscle is to gain muscle. It's generally believed that a state of anabolism is generally viewed

I'll assume that your goal when drinking a protein shake/gaining muscle is to gain muscle. It's generally believed that a state of anabolism is generally viewed as being antagonistic to the body; too much protein/growth is taxing. Yet, having muscle is important for aging, and also acts as a glucose sink thereby improving metabolism. A balance has to be achieved. > Or is this less important than the immediate-protein-shake crowd suggests? From what I've read, this may be not as important as originally thought. Overall, I believe the schedule that most holistically supports metabolism would be to exercise early and also eat early in the day. This would thereby keep the taxing metabolic activities aligned to your circadian clock, which expects a lot of early day stressors and fewer as the day progresses. This may be specifically true for protein which is especially metabolically taxing, so eating it early in the day is probably the time when it creates the most benefit at lowest risk. Of course, people have to do what works for their schedules and lifestyles.

TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
> exercise early and also eat early in the day This is slightly contrary to what I’ve learned from Rhonda Patrick. Exercise in the morning, sure, but while still fasting from overnight (black coffee or plain tea ok… does not break the fast). Eat after exercise so that your fast lasts longer. Also, cardio exercise blunts the hunger feeling in many people.
- girvo 4y ago
  This has been my schedule for my entire adult life, not because I read it, but simply because it felt the "best" for myself. I was never a big breakfast eater anyway, and I found fasted + black coffee exercise the best for myself personally in terms of energy, motivation and so on.
  - TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
    And I wish I knew this 30 years ago.
    - girvo 4y ago
      My girlfriend pretty consistently gives me grief about it, as it goes against what she's been taught/knew. But I've always felt better doing physical or mental effort fasted, at least for a few hours in the morning!
- thatcat 4y ago
  If your goal is muscle gain, you need some glucose available during the workout to maximize the weight you can lift.
- nikkwong 4y ago
  Yeah I'm not suggesting an order between the two. I think everything held constant, eating earlier is supposed to be better. I don't think there have been many studies where people stop eating at like, 10am, or something like that. That said, I think most studies that have shown benefit are those where people have like a 4-8 hour eating window from 6am-2pm, or are of that order. But is there a difference between having your day's large meal at 8am or 11am? Those are both pretty 'early', so it might not matter; I don't think we know. However, as the day winds on, more data comes to light which suggests that earlier is better.
  - TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
    > more data comes to light which suggests that earlier is better. I have not seen studies like that. All the ones I’ve seen have participants stop eating 3 hours (minimum) before sleep. For example, With an 8 hour eating window and 10:00 sleep, that means eating between 11:00-7:00 giving you a 16 hour fast.
    - nikkwong 4y ago
      Here is the study I am referring to [1]. As far as studies go, this one is fairly rigorous and of what I would consider to be high quality based on several factors related to the study design. This study in particular looked at early TR (6am-2pm) vs mid afternoon (1pm-8pm) TR vs no TR; and early TR had the greatest metabolic benefits by a long shot: > "Furthermore, eTRF (early TR), but not mTRF (mid-day TR), improved fasting glucose, reduced total body mass and adiposity, ameliorated inflammation, and increased gut microbial diversity. No serious adverse events were reported during the trial. In conclusion, eTRF showed greater benefits for insulin resistance and related metabolic parameters compared with mTRF" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8864028/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8864028/
      - losvedir 4y ago
        Wow, that's really interesting! I hadn't seen anything comparing when you could eat among different time-restricted diets before. Thanks for sharing.
- Hnrobert42 4y ago
  Here’s a piece of COMPLETELY anecdotal data, so do with it what you will. A friend with metabolic syndrome was struggling with weight despite intermittent fasting. She began to wear a continuous glucose monitor. She found that black coffee had the same effect as eating a donut, but if she added a boiled egg, the effect on her glucose was neutral. Now, I don’t know what effect all that has on other metabolic processes. I doubt the effect is universal. But it is interesting that the revived wisdom about black coffee being okay is not universally true.
  - bilsbie 4y ago
    There’s no glucose in black coffee though. I’m not sure how that’s possible. Wouldn’t the glucose have to come from somewhere?
    - veidr 4y ago
      Yes, it comes from elsewhere in your body. A continuous glucose monitor checks the level of glucose in your blood. Glucose can be stored in your body as glycogen (e.g. in the liver, or muscle tissue). Your pancreas produces glucagon, which influences the process of converting it back into glucose, released into your blood. That's generally accepted basic science, but from my own anecdotal friends/family experience, the pancreas also seems like a pretty buggy organ generally, prone to glitches both temporary (like perhaps in this coffee drinker) and chronic (type 1 diabetes), leading to undefined behavior, crashes, and even fatally bricking the system permanently. So this anecdote isn't particularly surprising to me. (Also, for those reasons, I would definitely wear a continuous glucose monitor myself if it wasn't so expensive and difficult to arrange when you don't actually have anything known to be wrong with your blood sugar levels. I predict that within a decade or two, they will be a fairly ubiquitous piece of human body instrumentation, like the sleep-tracking wristwatches and rings we have today.)
  - eru 4y ago
    That's pretty crazy. I wonder if placebo effects played a role? (Ie if you had pumped the liquid directly into her stomach, without telling her whether it's black coffee or some substitute, would the outcome still have been the same?)

TedDoesntTalk 4y ago

> exercise early and also eat early in the day This is slightly contrary to what I’ve learned from Rhonda Patrick. Exercise in the morning, sure, but while still fasting from overnight (black coffee or plain tea ok… does not break the fast). Eat after exercise so that your fast lasts longer. Also, cardio exercise blunts the hunger feeling in many people.

girvo 4y ago
This has been my schedule for my entire adult life, not because I read it, but simply because it felt the "best" for myself. I was never a big breakfast eater anyway, and I found fasted + black coffee exercise the best for myself personally in terms of energy, motivation and so on.
- TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
  And I wish I knew this 30 years ago.
  - girvo 4y ago
    My girlfriend pretty consistently gives me grief about it, as it goes against what she's been taught/knew. But I've always felt better doing physical or mental effort fasted, at least for a few hours in the morning!
thatcat 4y ago
If your goal is muscle gain, you need some glucose available during the workout to maximize the weight you can lift.
nikkwong 4y ago
Yeah I'm not suggesting an order between the two. I think everything held constant, eating earlier is supposed to be better. I don't think there have been many studies where people stop eating at like, 10am, or something like that. That said, I think most studies that have shown benefit are those where people have like a 4-8 hour eating window from 6am-2pm, or are of that order. But is there a difference between having your day's large meal at 8am or 11am? Those are both pretty 'early', so it might not matter; I don't think we know. However, as the day winds on, more data comes to light which suggests that earlier is better.
- TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
  > more data comes to light which suggests that earlier is better. I have not seen studies like that. All the ones I’ve seen have participants stop eating 3 hours (minimum) before sleep. For example, With an 8 hour eating window and 10:00 sleep, that means eating between 11:00-7:00 giving you a 16 hour fast.
  - nikkwong 4y ago
    Here is the study I am referring to [1]. As far as studies go, this one is fairly rigorous and of what I would consider to be high quality based on several factors related to the study design. This study in particular looked at early TR (6am-2pm) vs mid afternoon (1pm-8pm) TR vs no TR; and early TR had the greatest metabolic benefits by a long shot: > "Furthermore, eTRF (early TR), but not mTRF (mid-day TR), improved fasting glucose, reduced total body mass and adiposity, ameliorated inflammation, and increased gut microbial diversity. No serious adverse events were reported during the trial. In conclusion, eTRF showed greater benefits for insulin resistance and related metabolic parameters compared with mTRF" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8864028/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8864028/
    - losvedir 4y ago
      Wow, that's really interesting! I hadn't seen anything comparing when you could eat among different time-restricted diets before. Thanks for sharing.
Hnrobert42 4y ago
Here’s a piece of COMPLETELY anecdotal data, so do with it what you will. A friend with metabolic syndrome was struggling with weight despite intermittent fasting. She began to wear a continuous glucose monitor. She found that black coffee had the same effect as eating a donut, but if she added a boiled egg, the effect on her glucose was neutral. Now, I don’t know what effect all that has on other metabolic processes. I doubt the effect is universal. But it is interesting that the revived wisdom about black coffee being okay is not universally true.
- bilsbie 4y ago
  There’s no glucose in black coffee though. I’m not sure how that’s possible. Wouldn’t the glucose have to come from somewhere?
  - veidr 4y ago
    Yes, it comes from elsewhere in your body. A continuous glucose monitor checks the level of glucose in your blood. Glucose can be stored in your body as glycogen (e.g. in the liver, or muscle tissue). Your pancreas produces glucagon, which influences the process of converting it back into glucose, released into your blood. That's generally accepted basic science, but from my own anecdotal friends/family experience, the pancreas also seems like a pretty buggy organ generally, prone to glitches both temporary (like perhaps in this coffee drinker) and chronic (type 1 diabetes), leading to undefined behavior, crashes, and even fatally bricking the system permanently. So this anecdote isn't particularly surprising to me. (Also, for those reasons, I would definitely wear a continuous glucose monitor myself if it wasn't so expensive and difficult to arrange when you don't actually have anything known to be wrong with your blood sugar levels. I predict that within a decade or two, they will be a fairly ubiquitous piece of human body instrumentation, like the sleep-tracking wristwatches and rings we have today.)
- eru 4y ago
  That's pretty crazy. I wonder if placebo effects played a role? (Ie if you had pumped the liquid directly into her stomach, without telling her whether it's black coffee or some substitute, would the outcome still have been the same?)