Meal Timing: Does When You Eat Actually Matter for Muscle Growth?

Where Timing Sits in the Hierarchy

There is a version of this question that has a clean answer and a version that does not. The clean version is whether missing your post-workout shake by 90 minutes costs you muscle. It does not, and we have covered that teardown in full in the protein timing myth. The version worth 4,000 words is different: given that you have to eat your food at some point in the day, is there a better arrangement than the one you fell into by accident?

That question is about programming rather than panic. You are going to eat somewhere between two and six times today. Those meals will land somewhere relative to your training session, your sleep, and each other. Somebody has tested most of those arrangements, and the results are more interesting than either camp usually admits, because the short-term mechanistic evidence and the long-term outcome evidence point in noticeably different directions.

Before any of that, the hierarchy. If you are going to spend attention on nutrition, this is the order the evidence supports spending it in.

Everything below the third row is the subject of this article. Notice that everything below the third row is also, collectively, worth less than getting the first three right. That framing is the single most useful thing here, so it goes up front rather than buried in a conclusion.

What Replaced the Window

The 30-minute anabolic window died in stages, and the autopsy is worth one paragraph because of what it left behind.

Aragon and Schoenfeld's 2013 review pointed out that the original window studies had a design problem: most of them compared a protein supplement against a placebo without matching total daily protein between the groups. So the group that got the timed shake also got more protein overall, every day, for the length of the study. Schoenfeld and colleagues then ran the meta-analysis and found the apparent timing benefit shrank dramatically once total protein intake entered the model. Their own follow-up trial gave 21 resistance-trained men 25 g of protein either immediately before or immediately after training for ten weeks and found no meaningful difference in strength or size. A 2025 systematic review with meta-analysis by Casuso and Goossens pooled the trials that randomized people to protein before versus after every session for at least four weeks and concluded that timing does not importantly modify exercise-induced changes in lean body mass, with one odd leg press strength signal favoring pre-training intake that the authors themselves flagged as needing more work.

What replaced the window is a wider and much less dramatic picture. The muscle is sensitive to protein for many hours after a hard session, not for a half-hour sprint after the last set. Trommelen and colleagues tracked the response to 25 g versus 100 g of protein after resistance exercise and found the larger dose produced a greater and longer anabolic response, still running past the 12-hour mark, with no evidence of the upper limit the field had assumed. Amino acids from an unusually large meal did not get dumped into oxidation the way the old model predicted.

That result matters more for this article than it first appears. If the body can productively use 100 g in one sitting over a long tail, then the strict per-meal ceiling that motivated the whole distribution argument was overstated, and the case for rigid four-meal scheduling weakens on its own terms.

Protein Distribution: The Timing Variable With a Real Mechanism

Distribution is the part of nutrient timing with actual mechanistic support, so it deserves the strongest version of its own case before the counterevidence.

The mechanism is the refractory behavior of muscle protein synthesis. Feed a dose of protein and synthesis rises, peaks somewhere around 90 to 120 minutes, and then falls back toward baseline even when amino acids are still elevated in the blood. Keeping the tap open does not keep synthesis high. You need the signal to fall and then be restimulated, which implies discrete feedings rather than continuous trickling.

Areta and colleagues tested that directly in the Journal of Physiology. Trained men did a leg workout and then received 80 g of whey over the following 12 hours in one of three patterns: 8 servings of 10 g every 1.5 hours, 4 servings of 20 g every 3 hours, or 2 servings of 40 g every 6 hours. Total protein was identical. Myofibrillar protein synthesis over the 12-hour recovery period was highest in the 4-by-20 g condition. The frequent small doses were too small to fully trigger the response and the two large doses left long gaps with nothing happening.

Mamerow and colleagues asked the same question over a longer window and outside the exercise context. Eight healthy adults ate about 90 g of protein a day for seven days in two patterns, either split evenly across breakfast, lunch, and dinner at roughly 30 g each, or skewed the way most people actually eat, with about 10 g at breakfast, 15 g at lunch, and 65 g at dinner. Twenty-four-hour muscle protein synthesis was roughly 25 percent higher on the even pattern.

Schoenfeld and Aragon turned that body of work into the number most lifters have now heard: aim for about 0.4 g of protein per kilogram of body weight per meal across at least four meals, which conveniently also lands you at a daily total of roughly 1.6 g per kilogram. It is a clean recommendation with a plausible mechanism and two supporting acute trials behind it.

Then the Long-Term Trials Disagreed

Here is where an honest article has to slow down, because the acute story above is the one that gets repeated and the longer story below is the one that gets omitted.

Muscle protein synthesis measured over 12 or 24 hours is a proxy. It is a good proxy, and it is also the thing that keeps predicting outcomes that do not arrive. When researchers stop measuring synthesis rates and start measuring actual muscle over weeks and months, the distribution effect mostly disappears.

The cleanest test to date comes from the USDA Grand Forks Human Nutrition Research Center and was published in the Journal of Nutrition in 2024. Forty-three women with overweight or obesity were randomized to either even protein distribution across meals or a skewed pattern loading protein into dinner, during an eight-week controlled 20 percent energy restriction with all food provided, followed by an eight-week self-selected phase. That design removes the usual excuse that people did not comply. The result: no main effect of distribution pattern and no interaction on body weight, fat-free mass, fat mass, or body fat percentage. Everyone changed over time. Nobody changed differently because of how their protein was arranged.

The 2025 Casuso and Goossens meta-analysis reaches a compatible conclusion from a different angle. Across the trials that randomized training people to protein before or after every session for at least four weeks, lean body mass outcomes did not meaningfully differ.

And Trommelen's 100 g finding undercuts the theoretical urgency from the other side. If a single very large dose produces a prolonged response rather than a wasteful spike, then the person who eats two enormous protein meals is not throwing amino acids away. They are on a slower, longer curve.

There is one population where the distribution argument is stronger than any of this suggests, and it is not lifters. Older adults have a blunted response to protein, needing a larger per-meal dose to trigger the same synthesis, which makes a 10 g breakfast genuinely wasted in a way it is not for a 25-year-old. If you are advising a parent rather than yourself, distribution moves up the priority list.

What Distribution Looks Like at Your Body Weight

Rather than repeat the grams-per-kilogram formula, here is what it produces at real body weights. The per-meal figure is 0.4 g per kilogram. The daily range assumes the 1.6 to 2.2 g per kilogram band that the hypertrophy literature supports.

Two honest notes on this table. First, the per-meal column is a floor rather than a ceiling. Eating 60 g in a meal is fine and, per Trommelen, productive. Second, the feedings column says four to five because that is what makes the arithmetic comfortable, not because a fourth meal has been shown to build more muscle than a third. If three meals gets you to 180 g and you prefer three meals, take three meals. Which protein you use to hit those numbers matters more than how many pieces you cut them into.

The Pre-Workout Meal Is a Performance Decision

Most of the pre-workout nutrition argument gets framed anabolically, which is the wrong frame. The pre-workout meal earns its keep by making the session better, and a better session is what produces the adaptation. Judge it on how you lift, not on a synthesis curve.

Three things determine whether a pre-workout meal helps:

Fuel status. Aird, Davies, and Carson's systematic review and meta-analysis in the Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports compared fasted and fed exercise and found the fed state generally supports better performance, particularly as duration increases, while fasted exercise shifts substrate use toward fat during the bout. For a 50-minute lifting session in someone who ate normally the previous evening, that difference is small. For a 90-minute session at the end of a 16-hour fast, it is not.

Digestive comfort. This is the variable nobody publishes on and everybody experiences. A large mixed meal 30 minutes before heavy squats produces a worse session than the same meal two hours earlier, and the reason has nothing to do with amino acid availability. Protein and fat slow gastric emptying. The rule of thumb that survives contact with reality is one to three hours, with bigger and fattier meals pushed to the far end of that range.

Amino acid availability across the session. Protein eaten one to two hours before training is still being absorbed while you train and for hours after, which is the actual reason the pre versus post question keeps coming back null. Tipton's group made this point early, and it explains why Schoenfeld's ten-week pre versus post trial found nothing. Both groups had elevated amino acids during and after the session. They were the same intervention wearing different hats.

Carbohydrate Around Training and the Volume Threshold

Carbohydrate timing is where the endurance literature leaked into lifting and caused a decade of unnecessary powder sales. The correction comes from Henselmans and colleagues, who systematically reviewed 49 studies on carbohydrate intake and strength or resistance training performance in Nutrients in 2022.

Their finding is specific and useful. Acute carbohydrate supplementation did not improve performance in 13 studies and did improve it in six, and the six were mostly studies with fasted control groups or workouts exceeding 10 sets per muscle group. Sessions of 10 sets or fewer per muscle group generally deplete muscle glycogen by 40 percent or less, which is not enough to compromise neuromuscular performance. In other words, the typical hypertrophy session in a fed lifter does not run low on fuel, so adding fuel to it changes nothing.

The post-workout side has the same shape. The urgency of post-exercise carbohydrate comes from studies of endurance athletes with a short recovery window, and Parkin's group showed why that context is doing the work: when carbohydrate feeding after exhaustive exercise was delayed by two hours, glycogen at the 24-hour mark was no different from immediate feeding. Given a full day before the next session, the body catches up on its own.

So the honest summary is that the case for carbohydrate timing around lifting rests almost entirely on the last two rows of that table. If you train once a day with 24 hours before the next session, total daily carbohydrate is the variable and its schedule is a comfort preference. We go deeper on the intake question itself in the carbohydrate and performance guide.

What the Post-Workout Meal Is Actually For

Given everything above, what is the post-workout meal for? Three real jobs remain, none of them urgent.

It is one of your protein feedings. You need three or four of them. One of them may as well land after training, because you are already thinking about food and the habit is easy to keep. That is a scheduling convenience with a small distribution benefit attached.

It closes the gap if you trained fasted. This is the one situation where post-workout timing has a defensible claim. If you lifted after an overnight fast, you have been in a net negative protein balance for hours and the session added to the deficit. Eating soon afterward stops that, and the ISSN position stand on nutrient timing supports prioritizing intake in exactly this case. If you ate two hours before training, you are already covered.

It refills glycogen when the clock is short. Two sessions in one day, a competition with multiple attempts, a tournament. In those cases carbohydrate immediately afterward is doing real work, and adding protein to that carbohydrate speeds resynthesis when carbohydrate intake is below optimal, which the ISSN position stand notes as well.

What the post-workout meal is not for is rescuing a session. The catabolic emergency it was invented to prevent has never been demonstrated in a fed lifter.

The Pre-Sleep Meal, With Its Caveat Attached

Pre-sleep protein is the timing intervention with the best story and one of the weaker evidence bases, which is a combination worth knowing about.

The story: overnight is the longest fast most people run, and you spend it not eating while recovery processes continue. Res and colleagues gave 40 g of casein before sleep after an evening lifting session and measured roughly 22 percent higher overnight muscle protein synthesis with improved whole-body protein balance. Snijders and colleagues followed with a 12-week training study in which the pre-sleep group took about 27.5 g of casein with 15 g of carbohydrate nightly and gained more muscle and strength than placebo.

The caveat: in that 12-week trial the pre-sleep group also consumed more total daily protein than the control group, because the control drink was energy-free. That is the same confound that killed the original anabolic window literature, wearing a different outfit. Reis and colleagues' systematic review in the Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport said so explicitly, concluding that the positive findings need caution because total protein intake was uneven between groups. The trials that did equate total protein have generally found no significant advantage for the pre-sleep timing.

So a casein shake or a bowl of Greek yogurt before bed is a reasonable thing to do. It is an easy protein feeding at a time of day when appetite is usually cooperative, and it fits the distribution logic. It is not a separate anabolic mechanism, and if you already hit your protein by dinner, adding it on top is just more calories.

Meal Frequency and the Single-Study Problem

The claim that eating six times a day stokes your metabolism is dead and has been for years. The thermic effect of food scales with how much you eat, not with how many pieces you cut it into. Eating 2,800 calories across six meals and across three meals produces the same thermic cost.

The more interesting fact is what happened to the body composition evidence. Schoenfeld, Aragon, and Krieger's 2015 meta-analysis in Nutrition Reviews initially found that higher feeding frequency was associated with reductions in fat mass and body fat percentage and an increase in fat-free mass. Then their own sensitivity analysis showed the entire positive result was driven by a single study. Remove it and the effect vanishes. The authors said plainly that the findings should be interpreted with circumspection, which is an unusually honest thing for authors to do about their own headline.

What remains is the distribution point already covered. Frequency matters only insofar as it lets you get three or four adequate protein feedings in. Two meals makes that harder. Six makes each one smaller than it needs to be. Somewhere between three and five is the practical zone, and the choice inside that zone belongs to your schedule and appetite.

Time of Day and the Circadian Argument

The last timing claim standing is that calories eaten late are handled worse than calories eaten early. It sounds plausible, and there is real circadian biology under it, so it deserves a proper look rather than a dismissal.

Ruddick-Collins and colleagues ran the test carefully in Cell Metabolism in 2022. Thirty adults with overweight or obesity completed a crossover trial eating either a morning-loaded diet, with 45 percent of calories at breakfast, 35 at lunch and 20 at dinner, or an evening-loaded diet with those proportions reversed. Every meal was provided. Both diets were energy-matched at a deficit and each was run for four weeks.

The result had two halves. There was no difference in total daily energy expenditure, no difference in resting metabolic rate, and no difference in weight loss. The metabolic advantage claim failed. But participants reported significantly lower hunger on the morning-loaded diet, which the authors noted could translate into greater weight loss in the real world, where nobody is handing you your dinner.

That is a useful pair of findings. Late eating does not have a metabolic penalty. Front-loading may still help you, through appetite, if you are the kind of person who loses a cut at 9 p.m. in front of the pantry. If you are the kind of person who is not hungry until noon and eats happily at 10 p.m., forcing a big breakfast is solving someone else's problem. That is also the honest reason intermittent fasting works for the people it works for.

Three Worked Days

Here is the whole article converted into three actual days for an 85 kg lifter targeting 170 g of protein. Nothing below is optimal in a way the alternatives are not. Each one is just an arrangement that satisfies the constraints without requiring you to think about it again.

Three observations about those columns. The early morning lifter trains close to fasted and therefore has the clearest reason to eat soon after training, which is why their largest meal sits at 8:00. The after-work lifter has the easiest day in the whole article, because the natural meal pattern already produces four feedings and puts food two to three hours before the session. The lunchtime lifter has the only genuinely awkward constraint, which is that a full breakfast at 7:00 and training at 12:15 leaves a five-hour gap, hence the small low-fat meal at 10:30.

If those days look unremarkable, that is the point. A day built correctly around meal timing looks almost exactly like a day built without thinking about it, provided you were already eating protein at every meal. If your current day has 10 g of protein before 3 p.m., it will look different.

Who Actually Has a Reason to Care

Two-a-day athletes and anyone with a short turnaround. This is the strongest case in nutrient timing and it barely involves muscle growth. When the next session is six hours away rather than 24, carbohydrate immediately after the first one is doing measurable work.

People who train fasted by choice or by schedule. Post-session protein stops being optional bookkeeping and becomes the first protein of the day. That is a real difference, and it is the situation the ISSN position stand singles out.

Lifters with a small appetite and a large protein target. A 100 kg lifter chasing 200 g of protein on a cut has an arithmetic problem, and spreading the load across four or five feedings is the only comfortable solution. Here distribution is a logistics tool rather than an anabolic one.

Anyone on a GLP-1 medication. Appetite suppression makes hitting a protein target genuinely hard, and front-loading protein into the part of the day when you can actually eat is a practical necessity. We cover the broader picture in the GLP-1 guide.

Older lifters. The blunted per-meal response to protein is real and it makes an undersized breakfast genuinely wasteful rather than merely suboptimal.

Everyone else, which is most people reading this, should set three or four protein feedings, eat one to three hours before training, and spend the recovered attention on training volume and showing up consistently.

Common Mistakes

Optimizing distribution while missing the daily total. The most common version of this is someone with a beautiful four-meal protein schedule totaling 110 g at 90 kg of body weight. The schedule is irrelevant. The total is the problem.

Treating acute muscle protein synthesis data as an outcome. Synthesis rates over 12 hours predict long-term muscle imperfectly, and the 2024 controlled feeding trial is the clearest demonstration. When a supplement company cites a synthesis curve rather than a body composition result, that is the reason.

Adding a pre-sleep shake on top of an already adequate day and calling it timing. It is 150 extra calories and an extra 25 g of protein. It may help. It is not the timing doing it.

Eating a large meal 30 minutes before training and blaming the program. Heavy squats on a full stomach produce a bad session for mechanical reasons. Move the meal, not the exercise selection.

Carrying endurance carbohydrate protocols into hypertrophy training. The intra-workout carbohydrate drink is for people depleting glycogen over hours. Ten sets of chest does not qualify.

Letting timing rules push total intake down. A person who decides they cannot eat after 7 p.m., trains at 6 p.m., and consequently under-eats protein every day has traded a large variable for a small one. Any timing rule that costs you daily protein or calories is a net negative regardless of its rationale.

Rebuilding your whole day around a 25 percent synthesis difference. The Mamerow figure is real. It is also a 24-hour synthesis measurement in eight people, and the long-term trials did not find a matching body composition effect. Move your breakfast protein up. Do not restructure your life.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does the anabolic window exist at all?

There is a period of elevated sensitivity to protein after training, and it is measured in hours rather than minutes. The 30-minute version was an artifact of studies that did not match total daily protein between groups. Schoenfeld's ten-week trial comparing 25 g of protein immediately before versus immediately after training in trained men found no meaningful difference in strength or hypertrophy, and the 2025 meta-analysis of similar trials reached the same conclusion for lean body mass. If you ate within a couple of hours before training, the window question is already answered for you.

Is it bad to eat carbs at night?

No. The controlled test of this, Ruddick-Collins 2022 in Cell Metabolism, gave participants either 45 percent of their calories at breakfast or 45 percent at dinner for four weeks each at a matched deficit and found no difference in total energy expenditure, resting metabolic rate, or weight loss. What the morning-loaded pattern did produce was lower reported hunger. So late carbohydrate has no metabolic penalty, and front-loading may help you eat less if evening appetite is your failure point.

How many grams of protein per meal should I actually eat?

About 0.4 g per kilogram of body weight is the evidence-based floor, which is 32 g for an 80 kg lifter and 40 g for a 100 kg lifter. Treat that as a minimum rather than a cap. Trommelen's 2023 work showed 100 g in one sitting produced a larger and longer anabolic response than 25 g with no evidence of a wasteful ceiling, so a big meal is not a problem. The number exists to stop you eating 10 g breakfasts, not to stop you eating 60 g dinners.

Do I need a protein shake immediately after lifting?

Only if you trained fasted or you have another session within a few hours. Otherwise it is one convenient protein feeding among the three or four you need, and it could equally be a meal an hour later. The convenience is the actual argument for it, which is a fine argument. See the whey protein guide for what the shake itself is worth.

Does protein distribution matter if I do intermittent fasting?

It matters more, because a compressed window gives you fewer feedings to work with and makes each one carry more. The practical fix is the widest window that still solves whatever problem you started fasting to solve, with three protein feedings inside it rather than two. The full treatment is in the intermittent fasting guide, and the short version is that the daily protein total is where fasting protocols usually fail lifters.

Should I eat before a 6 a.m. training session?

If you can tolerate something small, a 20 to 30 g whey shake is a reasonable choice and the fed-state performance data mildly favors it. If eating that early makes you nauseous or costs you sleep, train fasted and eat well afterward. The one thing worth doing in that case is making the post-session meal your largest protein feeding of the day, since you have been fasted for ten hours and just trained.

The Bottom Line

Timing is real and small. The mechanism behind protein distribution is well supported, the acute data behind it is good, and the long-term outcome data mostly refuses to reproduce it. Both of those things are true and the honest position holds them together rather than picking the one that supports a product.

What survives contact with the evidence is a short list. Hit the daily protein total first, because nothing below it works without it. Split that total across three or four feedings of roughly 0.4 g per kilogram, because it is free and the acute evidence supports it. Eat one to three hours before training, sized so your stomach is not a variable. Train fasted if you prefer, and then eat afterward with some actual priority. Treat post-workout carbohydrate as urgent only when the next session is hours rather than a day away. Ignore meal frequency as an independent variable. And front-load calories if evening hunger is what ends your cuts, while knowing the benefit runs through appetite rather than metabolism.

That is the whole list. It fits on an index card, and every item on it is worth less than the thing it sits underneath, which is eating enough protein and enough total food to support the training you are actually doing. Timing is the last 5 percent. It only gets to be the last 5 percent once the first 95 exists.

References

1. Areta, J.L., Burke, L.M., Ross, M.L., Camera, D.M., West, D.W.D., Broad, E.M., et al. (2013). Timing and distribution of protein ingestion during prolonged recovery from resistance exercise alters myofibrillar protein synthesis. The Journal of Physiology, 591(9), 2319-2331. doi:10.1113/jphysiol.2012.244897
2. Mamerow, M.M., Mettler, J.A., English, K.L., Casperson, S.L., Arentson-Lantz, E., Sheffield-Moore, M., et al. (2014). Dietary protein distribution positively influences 24-h muscle protein synthesis in healthy adults. The Journal of Nutrition, 144(6), 876-880. doi:10.3945/jn.113.185280
3. Schoenfeld, B.J., & Aragon, A.A. (2018). How much protein can the body use in a single meal for muscle-building? Implications for daily protein distribution. Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition, 15, 10. doi:10.1186/s12970-018-0215-1
4. Trommelen, J., van Lieshout, G.A.A., Nyakayiru, J., Holwerda, A.M., Smeets, J.S.J., Hendriks, F.K., et al. (2023). The anabolic response to protein ingestion during recovery from exercise has no upper limit in magnitude and duration in vivo in humans. Cell Reports Medicine, 4(12), 101324. doi:10.1016/j.xcrm.2023.101324
5. De Leon, A., Roemmich, J.N., & Casperson, S.L. (2024). Daily dietary protein distribution does not influence changes in body composition during weight loss in women of reproductive years with overweight or obesity: a randomized controlled trial. The Journal of Nutrition, 154(4), 1347-1355. doi:10.1016/j.tjnut.2024.02.009
6. Casuso, R.A., & Goossens, L. (2025). Does protein ingestion timing affect exercise-induced adaptations? A systematic review with meta-analysis. Nutrients, 17(13), 2070. doi:10.3390/nu17132070
7. Aragon, A.A., & Schoenfeld, B.J. (2013). Nutrient timing revisited: is there a post-exercise anabolic window? Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition, 10, 5. doi:10.1186/1550-2783-10-5
8. Schoenfeld, B.J., Aragon, A.A., & Krieger, J.W. (2013). The effect of protein timing on muscle strength and hypertrophy: a meta-analysis. Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition, 10, 53. doi:10.1186/1550-2783-10-53
9. Schoenfeld, B.J., Aragon, A., Wilborn, C., Urbina, S.L., Hayward, S.E., & Krieger, J. (2017). Pre- versus post-exercise protein intake has similar effects on muscular adaptations. PeerJ, 5, e2825. doi:10.7717/peerj.2825
10. Kerksick, C.M., Arent, S., Schoenfeld, B.J., Stout, J.R., Campbell, B., Wilborn, C.D., et al. (2017). International Society of Sports Nutrition position stand: nutrient timing. Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition, 14, 33. doi:10.1186/s12970-017-0189-4
11. Henselmans, M., Bjornsen, T., Hedderman, R., & Varvik, F.T. (2022). The effect of carbohydrate intake on strength and resistance training performance: a systematic review. Nutrients, 14(4), 856. doi:10.3390/nu14040856
12. Parkin, J.A.M., Carey, M.F., Martin, I.K., Stojanovska, L., & Febbraio, M.A. (1997). Muscle glycogen storage following prolonged exercise: effect of timing of ingestion of high glycemic index food. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 29(2), 220-224. doi:10.1097/00005768-199702000-00009
13. Aird, T.P., Davies, R.W., & Carson, B.P. (2018). Effects of fasted vs fed-state exercise on performance and post-exercise metabolism: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports, 28(5), 1476-1493. doi:10.1111/sms.13054
14. Res, P.T., Groen, B., Pennings, B., Beelen, M., Wallis, G.A., Gijsen, A.P., et al. (2012). Protein ingestion before sleep improves postexercise overnight recovery. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 44(8), 1560-1569. doi:10.1249/MSS.0b013e31824cc363
15. Snijders, T., Res, P.T., Smeets, J.S.J., van Vliet, S., van Kranenburg, J., Maase, K., et al. (2015). Protein ingestion before sleep increases muscle mass and strength gains during prolonged resistance-type exercise training in healthy young men. The Journal of Nutrition, 145(6), 1178-1184. doi:10.3945/jn.114.208371
16. Reis, C.E.G., Loureiro, L.M.R., Roschel, H., & da Costa, T.H.M. (2021). Effects of pre-sleep protein consumption on muscle-related outcomes: a systematic review. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 24(2), 177-182. doi:10.1016/j.jsams.2020.07.016
17. Schoenfeld, B.J., Aragon, A.A., & Krieger, J.W. (2015). Effects of meal frequency on weight loss and body composition: a meta-analysis. Nutrition Reviews, 73(2), 69-82. doi:10.1093/nutrit/nuu017
18. Ruddick-Collins, L.C., Morgan, P.J., Fyfe, C.L., Filipe, J.A.N., Horgan, G.W., Westerterp, K.R., et al. (2022). Timing of daily calorie loading affects appetite and hunger responses without changes in energy metabolism in healthy subjects with obesity. Cell Metabolism, 34(10), 1472-1485. doi:10.1016/j.cmet.2022.08.001
19. Morton, R.W., Murphy, K.T., McKellar, S.R., Schoenfeld, B.J., Henselmans, M., Helms, E., et al. (2018). A systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression of the effect of protein supplementation on resistance training-induced gains in muscle mass and strength in healthy adults. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 52(6), 376-384. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2017-097608