Every facet of training, whether you’re a runner, triathlete, tennis player, crossfitter, or weekend warrior, depends on your diet. As medical technology continues to increase the ability to analyze different components of our blood, tissue, and muscle, the evolution of new dietary trends will continue.
As an endurance athlete, I have relied on Nutrition time during training and long events, but recently have been experimenting. The question I have: when does the timing of nutrition make sense and how?
I recently went for a 12 mile run with a friend and did it on my own with my daily regimen of vitamins and such. Usually it would be filled with gels, electrolytes, and water, but this time it was only armed with the water sources in the field. I was surprised when we finished 12.5 miles and it felt good. I continued to be mindful when I realized that, even afterward, I didn’t feel the effects of this long term as I normally would.
It is true that I am still benefiting from my Ironman training from last year, as I am still maintaining at least my long runs. However, I usually always prepped for 6+ mile races with what I thought was proper nutrition. Now I’m questioning that, especially after doing some more research.
Nutrient timing simply means eating specific nutrients (such as protein or carbohydrates)…in specific amounts…at specific times (such as before, during, or after exercise).
In the early 2000s, with the publication of Nutrient Timing: The Future of Sports Nutrition by Drs. John Ivy and Robert Portman, the trend for all subsequent publications became Nutrition Timing.
Since then, there have been discoveries that some of those early studies had design flaws or weaknesses.
Interestingly, as more long-term data became available, nutrient timing began to seem like a less universal solution. Sure, there were still strong indications that it could be useful and important in certain scenarios.
Unfortunately, very few people talk about the other side: later research, using similar protocols, failed to find the same effect. See what I mean about new technology dictating new results?
For example, most of us have heard that the holy grail of nutrient timing research has been something we call the post-workout “anabolic window of opportunity.”
The basic idea is that after exercise, especially within the first 30 to 45 minutes, our bodies are hungry for nutrients.
In theory, movement, especially intense movement like weight training or sprint intervals, turns our bodies into nutrient-processing powerhouses.
During this time, our muscles greedily absorb glucose, either oxidizing it for fuel or storing it more easily as glycogen (rather than fat). And protein consumption after training increases protein synthesis.
In fact, one study even showed that waiting longer than 45 minutes after exercise to eat would significantly diminish the benefits of training.
With these physiological details on people’s minds, it became gospel that we should consume a fast-digesting carbohydrate-protein drink by the time our workout was over.
Or, better yet, immediately before training.
The only problem: the research supporting this idea was short-term.
And the fact that we see positive effects in the short term (like in the next half hour) does not mean that these effects will contribute to long-term results (like in 3 months).
In fact, recent longer-term studies, as well as two incredibly comprehensive reviews, indicate that the “anabolic window of opportunity” is actually much larger than we used to believe.
It’s no longer like a one-inch cell phone screen that you practically have to squint to see. It is a huge LCD screen, similar to that of a smartphone.
This is just one of the areas that has been reinvestigated with new technology. To keep this post as short as possible, below are some other aspects of nutrition timing that I have come across.