Every facet of training, whether you’re a runner, triathlete, tennis player, crossfitter, or weekend warrior, depends on diet. As medical technology continues to increase the ability to test the different components of our blood, tissues, and muscles, new dietary trends will continue to evolve.

As an endurance athlete, I have relied on Nutrition timing during training and long events, but have recently 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 with just my daily regimen of vitamins and such. Usually he would be stocked with gels, electrolytes, and water, but this time he was only armed with the water sources on the field. I was surprised when we finished 12.5 miles and it felt good. I continued to be aware as I realized that even afterward, I didn’t feel the effects of this long term as I normally would.

It is true that I still benefit from my Ironman training last year, as I still maintain at least my long runs. However, I usually always prepared myself for races longer than 6 miles with what I thought was the 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 of all subsequent posts became Nutrition Timing.

Since then, there have been discoveries that some of those early studies had flaws or design weaknesses.

Interestingly, as more long-term data emerged, 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: subsequent 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 starved 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 avidly absorb glucose, either oxidizing it for fuel or more easily storing it as glycogen (instead of fat). And post-workout protein consumption increases protein synthesis.

In fact, one study even showed that waiting more 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 protein-carbohydrate drink the moment our workout was over.

Or, better yet, immediately before training.

The only problem: the research supporting this idea was short-term.

And just because we see positive effects in the short term (like in the next half hour) doesn’t mean that these effects will contribute to results in the long term (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 have been reinvestigated with new technology. To keep this post as short as possible, below are some other aspects of nutrition time that I have come across.