>>37398495
YES.

No, nutrition scheduling has no known effect on the effectiveness of workouts.

AFAIK, the only measured effect of any nutrition scheduling is slight brain function benefits to intermittent fasting, and that wasn't in the context of exercise science or even regarding necessarily athletic subjects.

>>37398495
>5'7"
>HURR MANLETS KILL YOURESELF

>>37398519
Potentiall correct, if contextualized
Otherwise, it's a pianoman-tier suggestion
>>37398533
It's true that pre and post workout shakes are meme.
Anyway, if you aim to get 90+ grams of protein /day, you've better to eat no more than 30 g/meal to maximize muscle protein synthesis.
This has been discussed and documented plenty of times.

It's extremely unlikely that you need more than 120 grams of proteins, no matter how much of a Arnold you believe to be. So, if you eat 1/3 of your broteins at breakfast, you don't actually need to introduce new meme meals.

>>37398576
The literature literally says to the contrary. There is no literature or source for the 30g often cited.

The number comes from using the time it takes for food to travel through the digestive tract and the rate at which the body can digest protein, but it ignores the many, many processes the body has to alter the time food stays in the digestive tract.

Effectively, the body can digest hundreds of grams of protein in one meal assuming there aren't other foods or medicines that promote bowel movements. There's no evidence to suggest an upper limit anywhere near even the daily intake.

>>37398630
>The literature literally says to the contrary. There is no literature or source for the 30g often cited.
>There's no evidence to suggest an upper limit
The literature says that ~30 grams /meal is the maximum for muscle synthesis.
As I wrote, it has been already discussed and documented plenty of times.
Ex multis:
>https://desustorage.org/fit/thread/36855131/#36855638
>https://desustorage.org/fit/thread/36855131/#36855638
Exceeding proteins per meal are surely digested and play an hormonal role, but not in muscle synthesis.
Whole body effect, disregarding muscle response? No upper limit, sure.

>>37398739
>No upper limit
well, the upper limit is protein toxicity, which is at ~180g/day

>>37398739
Your source literally says there is no limit in anabolic response in the context of a meal.

The point of the second article is that protein should remain below 25% of daily protein toxicity limit within the context of a meal to prevent protein toxicity.

Like I said, zero literature says there's a maximum digestable or usable limit to protein. Your source agrees.

>>37398739
also FYI protein toxicity is only a concern for those with kidney dysfunction

>>37399465
>FYI protein toxicity is only a concern for those with kidney dysfunction
well, no. The articles are pretty much well written if you read them.
>>37399433
>Your source literally says
Read better. That post and all the replies to that post. And possibly, the papers. In particular, the 2016 paper.
>no limit in anabolic
>https://desustorage.org/fit/thread/36855131/#q36856135
>This is whole-body data, not looking at muscle tissue specifically
The per-limit meal limit in MPS (muscle protein synthesis) has been documented in literature for over a decade.
This does NOT mean that it's a limit for your body to consume proteins. ~30 g is just the limit the body can use for MPS.
In the same way, another often cited review is
>http://www.precisionnutrition.com/protein-limit
Yes, there are other protein benefits. No, there is no advantage in taking more than 30g/meal as far as MPS is concerned.

>>37399564
>>https://desustorage.org/fit/thread/36855131/#q36856135
* https://desustorage.org/fit/thread/36855131/#36856135