Protein portion-size and dosing schedule (for maximizing muscle protein synthesis (MPS)) has seen a lot of research lately. It is said that enough protein must be in circulation to maximize MPS. This drives protein portions to be rather large, several times a day. But leucine seems to be the key trigger for mTOR activation and MPS. So, can I eat smaller protein “snacks”, instead of larger “meals”, by taking leucine at the same time, i.e., a taking a few grams of leucine to turn a small chicken drumstick into a small but effective MPS meal?
enough protein for MPS, while losing weight
PaulL
(Bacon is a many-splendoured thing)
#2
Try it, and see if it works. However, the human body is configured to get its branched-chain amino acids in food, rather than in supplement form, so you might get better results from just eating whole foods that contain them. Also be sure to get enough fat, to provide the energy for muscle growth.
Remember that the labile pool of amino acids has a limited capacity, so excess supplemented amino acids are likely to get dumped into the urine, which is not an effective use of your cash.
Also, Bikman emphasises that resistance training is essential for muscle growth and maintenance. He says that the amount of weight is not nearly as important as exercising to failure, so that 25-30 reps at a lower weight does as much good as 8-10 reps at a higher weight, provided that the muscles are sufficiently stressed.
P.S.–Bikman is also big on eating the fat that comes with our protein, so adding a lot of extra fat to meals is not really the point. Unless, of course, your supermarket refuses to sell you meat unless all the fat has been cut off first.
VirginiaEdie
(Edith)
#3
Is this a hypothetical question or something you want to try?
If it IS something you want to try, why would you want to? There are a lot of other important amino acids and micronutrients that come along with consuming the amount of protein your body requires. Cheating the system could leave you lacking in other nutrients you need for optimal health.
Jim_Fife
(Jim Fife)
#4
I’m not trying to make leucine spiking the mainstay of my diet. I eat a very healthy mix of foods in dinner meals which probably make protein available for many hours. What I am trying to do, by augmenting “a drumstick” with leucine, is simply reduce these extra protein doses from being meals to being snacks -fewer calories for the same MPS. And this is also something I would do for a day or so after heavy workouts, not a daily thing. But if I have to eat more meat (or whey), I’d like it to be calorically efficient. It’s hard to be not fat. I hope that seems less odd.
ctviggen
(Bob M)
#5
I’m following a guy on Threads who is eating 4,000 calories a day (carnivore, with dairy) and has lost weight so far. Now, he’s very well built and strong with very little fat. But it illustrates that the idea that if we eat X calories more per day, we’ll gain weight is likely wrong. For him, he’s likely very insulin sensitive, and his body is probably just increasing his calorie output. He’s also not exercising, so maybe he’s losing … something? Muscle mass? Hard to know.
But I see all the time that the thing that matters is calories, when that is not true.
If what you’re trying to do is eat fewer calories while maintaining muscle growth, maybe this will work? What about higher protein, leaner meats (lower fat)? That might do the same. I’ve seen plenty of studies where people eat lower calorie, higher protein and gain or at least preserve muscle mass. Like this for instance (VLCARB = very low carb):
PaulL
(Bacon is a many-splendoured thing)
#6
One factor to bear in mind is that we need the essential amino acids in the correct proportions, and that means our meals must have “complete” proteins. This is because the amount of amino acids we can absorb is limited by the amino acid we are eating in the least quantity. (This is known as the “short barrel stave” phenomenon, where the amount of water a barrel can hold is limited by the shortest stave.) So, for example, if we are short on lysine, say, then all the other amino acids are absorbed in proportion, and any excess is discarded. Peter Ballerstedt has a couple of very good lectures, in which he goes into this phenomenon in detail.
So I’m wondering if simply eating an abundant amount of high-qualtiy protein (the best example of which is beef) might not be the best strategy. Of course, it’s not nearly as sexy as taking a product.
ctviggen
(Bob M)
#7
Paul, might NOT be, or might be?
My wife and I have been doing Maria Emmerich’s low calorie and low fat, high protein diet. We use a lot of egg whites, chicken breast, etc. (There are some recipes that use chicken thighs and the like, including beef.) We had some lean beef, and I was like “Ah, now that’s meat!”. I think beef might be the best meat.
PaulL
(Bacon is a many-splendoured thing)
#8
Ya got me. That’s one of those quirky English idioms that doesn’t always work properly, sorry. It may depend on tone of voice.
But I could care less. 
Shinita
#9
Ruminant meat is pretty substantial for most of us 
For me, pork works too. But chicken? Not at all. Eggs aren’t so great either. I mean, eggs are awesome, I love and want and need them - but I need a proper red meat base on carnivore.
Even if it’s lean pork or deer or anything, it feels way more substantial than the fattiest chicken (for me and for many others I suppose) and it manages to satiate me.
Of course it’s individual, many people get satiated by mere eggs and chicken and short term satiation differs from long term satiation and I experienced that some items are bad at one and great at the other…
Sigh.
Did you see Crazy Al’s Word Crimes? It is a wonderful one 
My fav is when BOTH ways are correct, meaning the same thing… Does English has that? Hungarian do. The example, a Hungarian saying is about an eventually broken jug and it has the word “until” (just in Hungarian, of course) and we can end the sentence with the lack of the change before the changing point and the change itself and they are the same except one is negated… And the two versions mean exactly the same, we merely focus on different points of time where the jug has different states… I don’t think I normally use the one with focus on the happening, in this saying or elsewhere but both means the same.
(Why am I doing this? I doubt it’s properly clear… But I can’t resist when it’s about languages and their quirks.)
kib1
(KM)
#10
Unbelievably, “might it be that X” and “might it not be that X” mean exactly the same thing - that X is a possibility.
My head scratcher is how flammable and inflammable can both mean “able to catch on fire”.
PaulL
(Bacon is a many-splendoured thing)
#11
That one I know! It happened when I was a kid, (cough*cough) years ago.
“Inflammable” always meant “capable of catching fire,” but some officials were afraid that people would think the in- part meant “not.” So instead of improving the school system, they decided to cater for people’s presumed ignorance and invented the word “flammable.” 
The real question is why “fat chance” and “slim chance” both mean the same thing, lol!
(Not to mention Robert Heinlein’s favourite example of the perversity of English, “Though the tough cough plough him through.”)
kib1
(KM)
#12
Edging on the scatological, why on earth does “give a 
” mean one cares?
And why does one “take a ”?
These both imply that one’s is a precious commodity! I’ll take mine! and here, I’ll give you some of it too! Great!
ctviggen
(Bob M)
#13
Well, I had no idea that inflammable meant something could catch fire. To me, the “in” is a negative, not flammable. (Knowing that everything is flammable at some point.)
lfod14
#15
No, not how it works. Leucine is the trigger, but you still need enough protein to get the job done. You don’t need a ton of protein, around 30-40g is usually considered the optimal amount for MPS to kick in, and if you’re getting a good quality protein in, the leucine should be there naturally.
If you’re getting in the standard go-to of 1g/lb daily, you’ll be fine, and doesn’t have to be crazy high.
Getting in protein throughout the day is best for most and the easiest, but if you’re really trying to squeeze out every drop, have it pre/post workout, and if you’re not against a TKD type of mindset, spike your Insulin with the post workout protein to drive more of it in.
lfod14
#16
I’m adding that to the list of things stupid about the English language. I’m with you, -in always means the opposite. What’s the point of even having Flammable then? That’s got to be some leftover from another time or something.
Shinita
#17
This is easy. Because the first one is sarcastic.
Oh, that word is in everything, meaning almost everything, I don’t even try to find logic in it Sometimes it’s bad, something it’s of little value, sometimes it’s somewhat precious… Sometimes it’s not even physical…
I don’t get the sexual ones. Why “junk”? Isn’t it pretty valuable for most people…? 
Or is it some Christian thing and it’s why it’s doing the nasty even when without it our species would go extint very quickly but way before that, Very Serious Problems would emerge…? Some bigger respect for important things, people!
(My language had the same in the past, I still saw it in old fairy tales, calling female genitals “ugly” while illustrations always used a red tulip there Nipples are usually golden stars )
scaperdude
(B Creighton)
#18
The gist of your question is not quite clear to me. The new study which has hit the news seems to contraindicate the prior belief that small portions of protein throughout the day provided maximal protein synthesis. However, for the last 3 winters I have been doubling up on my workout nights after fasting all day. That is as my workout ended I drank a protein smoothie of about 50 gr of protein. Both whey and plant based. I used the plant based because I like the taste of the Orgain product, and I actually want the carbs. Last year I added leucine to it to boost the anabolic nature of the plant protein, but this year switched to BCAAs. I had better results this year, but not sure all the reasons why. I don’t think I worked out as long last winter. Anyway, after my smoothie I have a small break until dinner is done, and then I would have about a 1/2 pound of some kind of meat - salmon, shrimp, chicken, lamb, grass fed beef, etc. with a low carb vegetable… so maybe another 45 gr of protein. The Orgain provides about 25 gr of carbs, and then I get some more from the vegetables. Some carbs with the protein will push up insulin higher… which has the effect of boosting protein synthesis and mTOR. If you are trying to build muscle, this is what you want. I don’t think you really need to add luecine if your protein source is meat. Muscle meat already comes in the amino acid proportions best suited for muscle growth. Nor do I plan to keep protein this high throughout the year. I don’t usually supplement the smoothies when not working out. I probably eat just enough protein to maintain muscle mass.
It turns out this newest study shows about 50% more muscle protein synthesis over the next 12 hrs, if you eat 100 gr of protein vs 25. So, this study does show I was getting more muscle synthesis overnight while I slept by doubling up on my protein after my evening workout. Would that be as good as eating more protein right before going to bed? I don’t know, but I don’t think eating late allows optimal sleep. In short I don’t try to stimulate maximal protein synthesis throughout my week. I don’t believe that will be healthy on a long term basis, esp if not trying to build muscle. For instance methionine is a sulfur based amino acid, which can cause issues if a lot of it is hanging around. Nor do I believe it is healthy to have mTOR elevated all the time. My approach is to stimulate satellite cell division during IF which also holds down mTOR, only to spring mTOR up by strength training and eating lots of protein rather than say little bits throughout the day after a morning workout. My guess is my approach is going to give better mTOR response, and I know it gives better overall protein synthesis overnight than eating little bits throughout the day. I hope that answers your question.
Jim_Fife
(Jim Fife)
#19
Well, yes, I would eat high quality protein, like you said. I’m interpreting (maybe wrongly) that you can eat good useful protein but fail to boost MPS because there isn’t enough leucine in your blood to turn up muscle mTOR. That is, I thought once the leucine was added to the “drumstick” --or slice of roast beef --that a small-but-highly useable protein snack could be created.
VirginiaEdie
(Edith)
#20
I thought this was interesting.
From the Merriam-Webster dictionary:
Combustible and incombustible are opposites but flammable and inflammable are synonyms. Why? The in- of incombustible is a common prefix meaning “not,” but the in- of inflammable is a different prefix. Inflammable comes from Latin inflammare (“to inflame”), itself from in - (here meaning “in” or “into”) plus flammare (“to flame”). Flammable also comes from flammare . In the early 20th century, firefighters worried that people might think inflammable meant “not able to catch fire,” so they adopted flammable and nonflammable as official safety labels and encouraged their use to prevent confusion. In general use, flammable is now the preferred term for describing things that can catch fire, but inflammable is still occasionally used with that meaning as well.