What's The Ideal Time Of Day To Eat Protein? Probably Not When You Think—Here's What Experts Say
"Hearst Magazines and Yahoo may earn commission or revenue on some items through these links."
Protein is a hot topic of conversation, especially when it comes to women as some experts say that they likely need to eat more protein than what they're currently consuming.
When it comes to protein timing, the hour of the day during which you consume protein doesn't matter, in and of itself, quite as much as how you distribute your intake throughout the day.
If you're like most Americans, you're probably getting the bulk of your protein at dinner. Women between the ages of 20 and 49 were found, on average, to consume about 42 percent of their daily protein at dinner and just 17 percent at breakfast, per a survey conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Agriculture Research Service.
What we should be aiming for instead is an equal distribution of protein throughout the day, say experts.$9.99 at amazon.com
'Research shows spreading out protein intake every three to four hours or so into moderate doses versus a lot at once is associated with more optimal muscle repair and for those who are looking for growth, more optimal growth too,' says Jones.
Indeed, evenly spreading protein consumption among meals, rather than skewing it towards dinner 'stimulated 24-hour muscle protein synthesis more effectively,' according to researchers at the University of Texas Medical Branch.
The body benefits could be due to the way our body metabolizes protein and its building block, amino acids. Whereas surplus carbohydrates are stored in the body as glycogen and surplus fat as body fat, amino acids aren't squirreled away as amino acids to be used later.
Rather, after our body has used what it can of the protein we eat at a meal—by supporting metabolism, producing hormones, maintaining bones and, yes, aiding muscle protein synthesis—it is then converted into either fat or glucose.
Research seems to indicate that around 20-25 grams of protein at one time is the upper limit that our body can use in muscle synthesis (though one study put the number closer to 30 grams). Essentially, anything in excess of 20-30 grams at a single meal may not make a huge difference as far as protein actions in the body go.
Another reason you may want to consider equal distribution throughout the day? You'll probably just get less hangry.
'People notice that when they start to emphasize protein at breakfast and they ensure that it's there at their snack too, they feel more satiated throughout the day,' Jones says. 'They're less likely to be distracted by hunger, they're less likely to have blood sugar spikes and crashes.'
So do I need to eat protein right after a workout?
Perhaps you've heard the term anabolic or metabolic window (they're often used interchangeably), which refers to the time period after a workout in which your muscles are repairing themselves and nutrition can play a role in aiding that process.
Depending on who you talk to, you may be told that time period is as brief as 15 minutes. Which would essentially mean you'd have to sip a protein shake while showering in order to get the timing just right.
Thankfully, research has led experts to widen this window considerably, to three or four hours (sometimes even five or six if you're really pushing it). But the experts WH spoke with agreed that within two hours is optimal.
'Don't go longer than two hours, and if you have big goals for gaining muscle and repairing muscle, get it closer to your workout, if you can,' says Jones.
As for the amount of protein, aim for 20-25 grams post-workout, recommends Tracy Anthony, PhD, a professor of nutritional sciences at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey.
What about -sweat protein? Should I be eating that?
If all of this talk about post-workout fueling has you wondering about pre-workout fueling, we have that answer too. If you're exercising for an hour or less, you probably don't need to worry about protein intake ahead of time and can simply focus on getting high-quality protein after, says Jones.
Want more protein inspiration? Join WH+ to get the high-protein meal prep manual for breakfast, lunch, dinner, and snack recipes.
However, if you're going for, say, a two-hour run or you tend to feel peckish if you don't eat before exercising, grab a carb-rich snack with a few grams of protein first.
'It will help a little bit with your energy levels and reducing the amount of muscle damage you're going to have go on there too,' Jones says.
You Might Also Like
Jennifer Garner Swears By This Retinol Eye Cream
These New Kicks Will Help You Smash Your Cross-Training Goals

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Newsweek
19 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Map Shows How Many Could Lose SNAP Benefits in Each State
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. More than 7 million Americans are at risk of losing some of their SNAP benefits under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Why It Matters The bill, which was passed by the House of Representatives in May and is now being considered in the Senate, proposes a slew of major changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). SNAP provides food assistance to more than 40 million Americans—12 percent of the overall population. The proposed reforms could impact millions by tightening eligibility, shifting program costs to states, and limiting future benefit increases. The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, a left-leaning think tank, said the passage of the bill would constitute "by far the largest cut to SNAP in history"—and millions could see a reduction or total loss of their benefits. What To Know Across all 50 states, 7.4 million are at risk of losing some of their benefits, the CBPP reports. Texas is the state where the most people stand to lose, with some 683,000 expected to face cuts. In 2024, some 3,193,000 people claimed food assistance in Texas, with around 21 percent of beneficiaries are likely to be impacted. In California, which has the highest number of SNAP claimants in the country, the CBPP predicts 645,000 will have their benefits reduced or lost—11 percent of the 5,380,000 recipients in the Golden State. The state with the least amount of people expected to have their benefits impacted by the GOP bill is Wyoming, where 7,000 are at risk. However, given that 29,000 people in the Equality State claim SNAP, this translates to nearly a quarter of all beneficiaries—24.1 percent. In New Mexico, the state with the highest proportion of SNAP recipients to its general population, 120,000 could lose some or all of their food assistance. Here, 26.5 percent (120,000) of 451,200 beneficiaries may be impacted. What People Are Saying The CBPP said in its May 28 report: "As a result of these cuts and other policies in the legislation—which are being used to pay partly for trillions in tax cuts skewed to the wealthy—millions of people would lose some or all of the food assistance they need to afford groceries, when many low-income households are struggling to afford the high cost of food and other basic needs." Jennifer Greenfield, associate professor at University of Denver who specializes in the intersection of health and wealth disparities, told Newsweek: "The proposed changes to the SNAP program would be a disaster for hungry families and for states. States across the country are already facing significant budget shortfalls, and off-loading the costs of running SNAP programs from the federal budget to state budgets will force states to choose between cutting spending on health care and education or reducing food access for their most vulnerable families." President Donald Trump, in a post on Truth Social, said the One Big Beautiful Bill Act will "make sure SNAP is focused on Americans ONLY!" What Happens Next The fate of the legislation moves to the GOP-controlled Senate this week, where potential changes to the House-approved bill will be considered.


Axios
26 minutes ago
- Axios
Seniors' marijuana use reaches new high
Older Americans are increasing their use of marijuana to a point where some geriatricians are warning about weed's attendant health risks. The big picture: U.S. marijuana use among those 65 and older surged nearly 46% from 2021 to 2023, according to new research in JAMA Internal Medicine. The rapid adoption of state marijuana laws and commercialization of cannabis helped drive much of the increase. But there also are changing social dynamics that make marijuana more acceptable for dealing with chronic pain, stress and other conditions. What they found: 7% of adults 65 and older said they'd used cannabis in the past month in 2023, per data from the federally administered National Survey on Drug Use and Health analyzed by researchers at University of California San Diego and NYU. That's an increase from 4.8% in 2021, and 5.2% in 2022. The increase was more pronounced among women, though the percentage of senior men using the substance was still higher than women in 2023. The most pronounced increase was among older adults with annual incomes over $75,000, who went from having the lowest use among income categories in 2021 (4.2%) to the highest in 2023 (9.1%). The fine print: The data doesn't distinguish between recreational and medical cannabis use, though increased prevalence was associated with several health conditions including hypertension, diabetes and COPD. Changes to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health in 2020 prevent direct year-to-year comparisons of the analysis published Monday to earlier periods, the study's authors wrote. Zoom out: Geriatricians say more research and better patient and clinician education on marijuana use is needed to identify risks, like the way it can interfere with other drugs. It can also impair the senses and cause accidents, an especially important consideration since U.S. cannabis has much more THC than it did decades ago. The findings show that better evidence is needed on the risks and benefits of marijuana use in older adults, three geriatricians wrote in an editor's note published in JAMA alongside the study.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Hiltzik: MAHA report's misrepresentations will harm public health and hit consumers' pocketbooks
Serious followers of healthcare policy in the U.S. didn't expect much good to emerge from its takeover by Donald Trump and his secretary of Health and Human Services, the anti-vaccine activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. But the agency and its leadership managed to live down to the worst expectations May 27, when HHS released a 73-page "assessment" of the health of America's children titled "The MAHA Report" (for "Make America Healthy Again"). A sloppier, more disingenuous government report would be hard to imagine. Whatever credibility the report might have had as a product of a federal agency was shattered by its obvious errors, misrepresentations and outright fabrications of source materials, some of it plainly the product of the authors' reliance on AI bots. I, and my co-authors, did not write that paper. Epidemiologist Katherine Keyes says a citation to her work by the MAHA report was fabricated At least seven sources cited in the report do not exist, as Emily Kennard and Margaret Manto of the journalism organization NOTUS uncovered. HHS hastily reissued the report with some of those citations removed, but without disclosing the changes — an extremely unkosher action in the research community. "I, and my co-authors, did not write that paper," epidemiologist Katherine M. Keyes of Columbia told me by email, referring to a citation to a purported paper about anxiety among American adolescents resulting from the COVID pandemic. "It does make me concerned given that citation practices are an important part of conducting and reporting rigorous science." Keyes said she has done research on the topic at hand: "I would be happy to send this information to the MAHA committee to correct the report, although I have not yet received information on where to reach them," she said. We'll go deeper into the fabrication fiasco in a moment. What's important is its context: concerted attacks by Kennedy and his associates on the fundamentals of public health in America. Those attacks have profound implications not only for Americans' health, but on pocketbook issues and the U.S. economy generally. HHS bowed toward the latter issue by asserting in the report that the health profile of American children poses "a threat to our nation's health, economy, and military readiness." Read more: Hiltzik: RFK Jr.'s plans for vaccine testing are highly unethical and a danger to your health. Here's why As it happens, the recent actions at HHS and its subagencies, the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, increase those threats. Take the agencies' May 20 decision to remove COVID boosters from the CDC's list of recommended vaccinations for healthy children and pregnant women. The decision opens the door for insurance companies to start charging full price for the shots, rather than covering them without copays as the law requires for preventive services. That could mean out-of-pocket charges of $100 or more each booster, which could itself discourage families from getting vaccinated. This is a reminder of how family economics affect health. The MAHA report attributes the rise in childhood obesity and diabetes in part to ultraprocessed foods, or UPFs. But it's silent on what experts call the "social determinants of disease," which are heavily related to economics. The report doesn't mention "food deserts," mostly low-income neighborhoods in which "children do not have access to anything other than UPFs, ... or the cost of fresh food vs. the hyperpalatable and cheap UPFs," observed the Delaware Academy of Medicine in its gloss on the report. And although the report mentions that safety net programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — SNAP, or food stamps, school lunch and breakfast programs, and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, or WIC, could play a role in promoting healthy eating, it doesn't mention that those programs face severe budget cuts from the Trump White House. Last month, HHS canceled nearly $800 million in grants to the pharmaceutical company Moderna for the development of a human vaccine against bird flu, part of a Biden administration effort to prepare for possible future pandemics, the potential social and economic impact of which should be self-evident, given our experience with COVID. Bird flu already has devastated the dairy and poultry industries in many regions and sickened dozens of farmworkers. Read more: Hiltzik: RFK Jr.'s views on autism show that anti-science myths are rampant at the agency he leads There was some hope in the research community that sound science might still live at HHS because some HHS appointees had scientific or medical credentials that Kennedy lacked. Those hopes get dashed on a regular basis. On Sunday, for instance, FDA Commissioner Marty Makary — a former professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins — was reduced to incoherence when CBS' "Face the Nation" moderator Margaret Brennan reminded him that on May 20 he co-authored a report in the New England Journal of Medicine that identified pregnancy as factor increasing the risk of "severe COVID-19" — warranting that pregnant women get the vaccine. "Yet seven days later," Brennan said, Makary joined with Kennedy in a video announcement recommending against giving pregnant women the booster. "So what changed in the seven days?" Makary argued that only 12% of pregnant women got the shot last year, "so people have serious concerns." What he didn't say was that those concerns have been ginned up by FDA critics — including Makary — and vaccine opponents, even though clinical trials involving tens of thousands of subjects have validated the recommendation that pregnant women get the vaccine. That brings us back to the MAHA report. Let's start with its core assertion — that "today's children are the sickest generation in American history." As soon as the report was issued, this trope was picked up uncritically by the news media, before the report's citation errors were discovered. But it's undoubtedly wrong, the product of cherry-picking official statistics and ignoring what they really say. An attack on childhood vaccination gets a subject heading all its own in this report, which asserts that the number of recommended vaccines for children by 1 year of age has increased from three in 1986 to 29 now, including vaccines for pregnant mothers. Read more: Hiltzik: Trump's appointment of anti-vaxxer RFK Jr. to his Cabinet has scientists fearing a catastrophe for public health Pediatrician Vincent Iannelli has ably punctured this claim, which he identifies as anti-vax "propaganda." The report reaches its count of 29 by including some vaccines given to children older than 1 year and double-counting shots such as the RSV vaccine, given to either the mother or the infant, not both. An honest count would be as few as 17, not all of which are injections. The report also counts combination vaccines such as MMR and TDaP as three shots rather than one. In pushing the "sickest generation" trope, the report glides over the heath threats faced by children — and adults — before vaccines were available for specific diseases. In the U.S., measles cases averaged more than 530,000 per year throughout the 20th century; as of 2023, the average was 47, according to the CDC. Mumps fell from more than 162,000 cases annually to 429 and rubella from nearly 48,000 to three. Whooping cough, or pertussis, fell from nearly 201,000 cases to 5,611. And polio, the fearsome nemesis of American families in the 1950s, from 16,300 to zero. One can trace the "sickness" of children in bygone generations through child mortality statistics. In 1900, the average life expectancy of a 1-year-old in the U.S. was about 56 years; that bespeaks a morbid population of infants. In 1950 it was still only about 70. Now it's 79. For all that the MAHA report purports to identify the leading health threats to America's kids — processed foods, environmental chemicals, vaccines — it totally ignores what we know to be the single biggest cause of childhood mortality in the U.S.: firearms. Read more: Hiltzik: Trump and RFK Jr. want to make the world safe again for polio and measles. You should be terrified The CDC has reported that in 2021, firearm injuries killed 2,571 children. That rate of 3.7 deaths per 100,000 children aged 17 and younger was an increase of 68% since 2000. The firearm death rate of 6.01 per 100,000 children aged 1-19 was 10 times the rate in Canada and 20 times the rates in France and Switzerland. Why the silence in the MAHA report? What does that say about how far you should trust the MAHA team at HHS? As for the multiple false citations in the report, they point to the sheer irresponsibility of a federal agency's outsourcing of research to AI. I asked HHS for an explanation of how these errors got into the MAHA report, but I received no reply. White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt, however, responded to a reporter's question about the fiasco by claiming there were "formatting issues" with the report. Her excuse made me laugh, because it was the same excuse offered by the big law firm Latham and Watkins when it was caught submitting AI fabrications to a judge as part of a legal filing, as I reported recently. In neither case did the excuses explain how "formatting issues," whatever that means, resulted in the fabrication of source citations. HHS attributes the report to a 14-member "Make America Healthy Again" commission, composed mostly of cabinet members and other officials with no responsibility for or expertise in public health, such as the secretaries of Housing and Urban Development, Education, Agriculture and Veterans Affairs and directors of White House budget and economic offices. Makary and Bhattacharya are on the panel. They lent their names and reputations to this product, much to their discredit. But it's unclear about who actually put pen to paper. Some of its language can be traced back to Kennedy's own words. The report's assertion that "today's children are the sickest generation in American history" was picked up and amplified by media coverage of the report's release, even though it's not supported by the facts. It is a verbatim echo of a claim Kennedy has made repeatedly, however, mostly as a plank in his anti-vaccination platform. It was part of the title of a book his anti-vaccine organization, Children's Health Defense, issued in 2018 ("The Sickest Generation"). The most frightening aspect of the MAHA report is that it's likely to be the blueprint for a comprehensive attack on public health; scarier in that news media and political leaders are citing it as though it has scientific value. It's so infected with falsehoods, misrepresentations and ideological blinkers that it will only subject the health of American children to the greatest risk they've faced in, yes, American history. Get the latest from Michael HiltzikCommentary on economics and more from a Pulitzer Prize me up. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.