In this article, I’ll cover the types of fiber, how they interact in your body, and how to consider fiber intake based on your goals.

Let’s dig in.

What is fiber?

Dietary fiber is a bit tricky to define because even academic sources describe it differently. At its core, fiber refers to the indigestible parts of plant-based foods.

A recent 2025 review pointed out that the most common classifications (soluble versus insoluble) is overly simplistic and doesn’t capture how different fiber types function in the body. Nor do they address that the health effects of fiber depend on characteristics like how well it holds water, whether it ferments slowly or quickly, and how it behaves structurally in your gut. So, it’s fair to say that the research, classifications, and benefits are still evolving.

Gut health, bacteria, and fiber types

For the most part, the things I’m discussing in this article (appetite, glycemic control, cholesterol, regularity, etc.) start with how fiber interacts with your gut microbiota. More specifically, they depend on what type of fiber you’re eating and how it behaves once it reaches your large intestine.

Everyone has a unique gut microbiome, so how your body responds to different fibers will vary. That said, we have a good idea that different fiber types tend to support different microbes.

For example:

• Inulin and pectin can increase levels of Faecalibacterium prausnitzii, which are linked to lower levels of gut inflammation.
• Resistant starch fuels Ruminococcus and Bacteroides, which are important for short-chain fatty acid (SCFA) production.
• Fructooligosaccharide (FOS) helps boost Bifidobacteria, which is often a sign of healthy gut microbial balance.

In short, if we don’t eat a lot of fiber, we will have less microbial diversity. With decreased diversity, we usually see impaired digestion, inflammation, and a higher chance of metabolic or GI issues. Good bacterial diversity means providing more chances for factors that affect things like fermentation, gut barrier integrity, and other signaling processes.

Therefore, while I’ll get into different fiber specifics (like how viscous fibers slow digestion or how others stimulate the gut lining), the first big lesson to take home is that a diverse fiber intake helps build a more resilient and capable gut microbiota, which sets the stage for a wide range of downstream benefits. With that in mind, I’ll do my best to point out a few useful differences between fiber types without veering into “fiber hacking” territory.

Fiber regarding cardiovascular health and glucose control

When it comes to lowering cholesterol, evidence suggests that certain viscous, gel-forming fibers (like psyllium or oat β-glucan) might be the best fibers due to their effects on bile acid. For a brief background, our liver makes bile acids from cholesterol, and these bile acids make their way to our intestines to aid fat digestion. Most of the time, these bile acids are recycled, but if we ingest certain viscous fibers, they can get trapped in our stool. To compensate, the liver pulls more cholesterol and makes more bile, which can lead to lower circulating cholesterol over time.

Again, only certain types of fiber have this effect. A 2017 study reviewed many fibers that failed to exhibit lowering effects, such as inulin or fructooligosaccharide. However, it found psyllium and oat β-glucan to be the most reactive. An older meta-analysis found that pectin and guar gum (alongside psyllium and oat β-glucan) also had lowering effects.

A systematic review and meta-analysis review from Ghavami et al looked at 181 randomized controlled trials with 14,505 participants and wanted to see how different soluble fiber supplementation affects lipid profile. It found that adding more soluble fiber lowered total cholesterol while also reducing other heart health markers. Additionally, it was a dose-response study and noted that not only the type of fiber matters but also that slightly increasing fiber doses improved results. It also noted that nonviscous fibers, like inulin and wheat dextrin, didn’t have much impact.

Moving from cholesterol, we can segue a bit into glycemic control because we are also looking at viscosity as a factor of ideal impact. Once hydrated, viscous fibers (like psyllium, barley, or oat β-glucan) form a gel-like substance that slows how quickly food moves through the digestive tract. This slows the breakdown and absorption of carbohydrates in the small intestine, which then lowers post-eating blood sugar spikes. That slower digestion can also allow more nutrients to reach the lower parts of the intestine, which can help with hormones that decrease appetite (which I’ll get into later).

As with cholesterol, nonviscous or lower viscous fibers seem more hit-and-miss (but not completely ineffective). So, overall it seems you will benefit more from higher viscosity fibers. That said, I want to state that for people with more normal/healthy glycemic control, these fibers won’t have as dramatic of an impact on blood sugar or this effect may be of less concern to you than its effect on appetite. The glycemic control effects will be more noticeable in people with pre-diabetes or type 2 diabetes where there is room for improvement.

A systematic review and meta-analysis by Lu et al looked at how different viscous soluble fibers (psyllium, guar gum, β-glucan, etc.) affected glucose and lipids in people with type 2 diabetes. They found that adding viscous fibers led to reductions in fasting blood glucose and HbA1c. Interventions longer than six weeks were associated with better outcomes. And while there isn’t a strict threshold, the data suggest that longer durations may yield more benefits.

Short take-home message? If your cholesterol and blood sugar are already in a healthy range, you probably don’t need to stress too much about targeting specific viscous fibers. General satiety strategies will likely get you most of the way there. But if you’re trying to improve your metabolic health, it’s certainly something to talk with the doc about. 

How fiber affects appetite and weight regulation

When it comes to weight management (especially if weight loss is the goal), the focus is usually on finding strategies that help increase satiety and reduce energy intake without us feeling constantly deprived. In that context, fiber might help, especially with appetite regulation.

One way fiber could be useful is by slowing down gastric emptying, which is basically how fast food leaves your stomach and enters the small intestine. More viscous fibers hold water, form gels, and sometimes bind to other nutrients, which can slow that process down. Ultimately, that just means food sticks around in your stomach longer, which might help you feel fuller between meals. 

A study by Yu et al found notable delays in gastric emptying both in people with type 2 diabetes and in healthy individuals after consuming a soluble fiber drink compared with a fiber-free control. Helping both populations is beneficial because it suggests that this effect isn’t just relevant for people with clinical conditions but that everyone might also see a satiety benefit. A review by Grundy et al also supports the overall benefit, though they note that not all fibers behave the same. 

Another possible appetite-related mechanism is the stimulation of satiety hormones like GLP-1 and PYY. When food moves more slowly through the gut, it increases the opportunity for these hormones to be released, potentially enhancing the feeling of fullness after a meal. That said, an increase in satiety hormones doesn’t guarantee someone will actually feel more full. As covered in our satiety article, what fullness or satiety is to one person can be very different from another and, at times, tricky to study. Fiber type, dosage, whole meal compositions, and even how someone personally defines or reports “feeling full” can complicate things.

Still, there’s a decent body of evidence showing that fiber (especially viscous soluble fiber) can support appetite regulation. And this can all lead to better weight regulation, even if you’re not trying to actively lose weight. For instance, a systematic review and meta-analysis from Huwiler et al tested whether supplementing with isolated soluble fibers could affect body weight and other metabolic markers without a purposeful Calorie restriction. The results showed that even though participants weren’t actively trying to decrease Calories, they saw small reductions in body weight and BMI. This was also similar to a review by Jovanovski et al a few years before.

Short take-home? Unlike the previous section, where benefits were mostly limited to those with clinical markers to improve, fiber intake (especially soluble, viscous types) may help with appetite and weight management even in generally healthy individuals.

Fiber intake and regularity

This is probably the part you expected when you clicked on an article about fiber. Regularity mostly comes down to two things: how often you go and what the stool looks like when you do. Frequency matters, but most people are more concerned with consistency of the stool. Ideally, you want something well formed and easy to pass. If stools are too loose or fall apart, that’s leaning toward diarrhea. If they’re hard, dry, or come out in small pieces, that’s leaning toward constipation.

We haven’t talked much about insoluble fiber yet, but it tends to come up more in the context of regularity. Insoluble fibers mostly do two things: they add bulk to stool by increasing its physical mass, and they mechanically stimulate the gut lining, which can boost mucosa secretion and movement. What they don’t do is hold water. So, if the goal is softer, easier-to-pass stools, you also need soluble fibers (especially the gel-forming kind but not so much fermentation) that help retain water and hold everything together. The combination of bulk from insoluble fiber and water retention from soluble fiber can come together to make for softer (but solid) stools. 

I should also note that water plays an important role here, and it’s often overlooked in fiber conversations. When the table above mentions whether a fiber “holds water,” that water has to come from either the fluid content of foods like fruits and vegetables or from what you drink. Without enough water, even the right fiber combination won’t work as well, and you might actually make things worse.

This is also setting aside more complicated digestive conditions, which I’m not covering here. For most healthy people, a little fiber variety goes a long way. You could make the case that regularity is possible without insoluble fiber, but much more difficult without the right kind of soluble fiber. Specifically, you’ll need mostly non-fermentable, gel-forming types if the goal is consistent, manageable stools (psyllium is the usual go-to for a reason). That said, the best long-term approach is still getting there through a varied whole-food diet, and let’s not forget all the yummy micronutrients that come along with it. 

Short take home? For generally healthy individuals, regularity doesn’t require anything fancy, just a little extra focus on gel-forming soluble types (and plenty of water to help it all work).

Fiber intake and practical considerations

The WHO suggests that adults aim for 25-30 grams daily, while the USDA recommends 14 grams per 1,000 Calories. So if you’re eating 2,000 Calories daily, that would mean around 28 grams of fiber. More recent data shows that average fiber intake among Europeans falls short of recommendations and that the average fiber intake among American adults is just 16 g/day. So, in general there’s certainly an issue with getting more adequate fiber intake and a need to be mindful and proactive. 

You’ve probably noticed that many of the more impressive results in fiber research come from studies using isolated viscous fiber supplements. That’s mostly a design issue because it’s much easier to study a specific dose of something like psyllium than to control for the variety and quantity of fiber in a mixed whole-food diet. Some studies have also pointed out that the effects seen with supplements don’t always translate to fiber from fruits or vegetables alone. So from a research standpoint, supplements make things clearer but from a real-world perspective, it can be a bit more complicated.

In the real world, while you can use supplement sources, more than likely (hopefully), you’ll get most of your fiber from fruits, vegetables, pulses, and seeds. Some research has shown improvements in gut microbiota even after just two weeks of increasing whole-food fiber intake. That said, the specific types and sources of fiber that work best can vary. For some people, a small amount of supplemental fiber makes a big difference; for others, it may not be necessary at all.

As with most things in nutrition, some self-experimentation is usually the best approach. Hopefully, by now, you have a clearer idea of what to look for and where fiber might help most in your situation. 

One more consideration when it comes to fiber sources is processing methods and your intended use. For example, a study on cereal β-glucan found that different processing methods can affect its viscosity. That matters, since viscosity is a key factor in how well these fibers help lower cholesterol. Similar findings have been reported in baked goods, so depending on your goal, it’s worth paying attention to how a fiber-containing product was made.

And finally, a common issue with fiber is trying to add too much too quickly. If you’ve been eating a low-fiber diet, it might be better to increase gradually rather than making a big jump all at once. For many people, there’s an initial adjustment period, and easing into a higher-fiber intake can help minimize the digestive discomfort.

Short take home? On average, most people are probably not getting enough fiber. Ideally, try to get it from whole foods as much as possible but if you are going to use fiber supplements, it’s probably best to use fibers that you add to room temperature water versus higher quantities of fiber food “products” if looking for ideal and “bang-for buck” gut benefits.

Take home 

Believe it or not, we didn’t dive into everything fiber intake can help with or affect positively (here, here, here, and here). I could have certainly made a fiber series, but hopefully I’ve made a good case for paying more attention to your fiber intake. To keep it simple, here are some basics:

• Fiber isn’t just one thing. Different types of fiber do different jobs.
• Not all fibers have the same benefits. That’s why it helps to eat a mix of fiber types.
• Viscous fibers — like psyllium or oat β-glucan — seem especially helpful for blood sugar, cholesterol, and weight management.
• Insoluble fiber helps with regularity but works best when paired with gel-forming soluble fiber.
• Getting fiber from whole foods like fruits, vegetables, pulses, and seeds is a great place to start. That said, if whole-food sources are limited, some people may benefit from supplements.
• If you’re increasing fiber, add it slowly and drink more water, this helps with possible negative side effects.
• You don’t need to overthink fiber. Just aim for variety and consistency. Most benefits come from regular intake over time.

The post Fiber: Types, Benefits, and the Importance of Variety appeared first on MacroFactor.

In a recent article, we explored whether protein timing — specific windows for protein intake — can impact your results. This time, we are exploring whether the way you spread your protein intake throughout the day matters. Does it matter if you eat all your protein in a small window, or should you space it out? And if spacing your protein out is key, does frequency also matter?

Let’s dig in.

What is protein distribution? 

Protein distribution refers to how you spread your protein intake throughout the day — whether that’s through meals, snacks, or shakes. The proposed goals of protein distribution are to optimize muscle protein synthesis, decrease muscle breakdown, and improve overall recovery. For example, researchers might examine whether evenly distributing protein across four meals leads to better muscle growth versus consuming most of your protein in the evening. Is there a difference? Do some people respond better to an “even” versus “skewed” distribution?

Example:

• Even Distribution: Eating 30g of protein at breakfast, lunch, and dinner.
• Skewed Distribution: Eating 10g of protein at breakfast, 20g at lunch, and 60g at dinner.

Why is it commonly believed that protein distribution matters?

When people argue for the importance of patterns in protein distribution they’ll usually rely on these concepts:

Protein meal limits
This suggests that there’s a limit to how much protein your body can use at once. For instance, it was once believed that the body only needed 20 grams of protein per meal, with anything beyond that amount being “wasteful.”

Revolving muscle protein synthesis
Eating protein across multiple meals may keep your body ready to build muscle by continually stimulating muscle protein synthesis.

Reducing muscle protein breakdown
Keeping a steady supply of amino acids could reduce the time your body spends in a catabolic state, potentially minimizing muscle loss.

There are also practical aspects to protein distribution, like its potential to influence appetite. However, these effects are very individual. In this article, my focus is less on those factors and more on whether protein distribution offers any metabolic benefits. 

With that, let’s dive into the most debated topic — protein meal limits.

Understanding protein meal limits

In the protein timing article, we referred to a study by Trommelen and colleagues, which will be pretty relevant here as well. The idea of a per-meal protein intake limit stems from research examining how different protein doses impact muscle protein synthesis (MPS). These studies typically measure MPS over a short time frame and observe that higher protein doses increase MPS to a point (at around 20-25g), but even higher doses don’t stimulate much (if any) additional MPS. So, the thought is that more protein means diminishing returns. Meaning, in this argument, there is no reason to eat large quantities of protein in one sitting because it’s likely to be wasted and not produce more notable effects than smaller doses. Makes sense, right?

However, what if it turned out that we weren’t measuring long enough?

This brings us to the study by Trommelen et al.

Trommelen’s study was a randomized controlled trial comparing three groups: one received no protein (0g), another received a moderate amount (25g), and the last received a large dose (100g) following resistance exercise. Participants completed a single resistance training session before ingesting their assigned protein dose. Researchers tracked a lot of different metabolic markers, such as muscle protein synthesis rates and plasma amino acid levels, over a 12-hour window. The results? Larger protein doses led to a sustained anabolic response, and there was no evidence of saturation in muscle protein incorporation during the 12-hour period.

In other words, the idea that per-meal protein benefits are maxed out at 20-25g of protein was most likely an erroneous conclusion due to methodological shortcomings of older studies. The main benefit of higher protein doses is that they cause a much more prolonged increase in MPS, but prior studies were unable to detect this effect since they only measured MPS for 2-4 hours following a meal.

Now, the Trommelen et al study wasn’t a protein distribution study, and they openly acknowledge that. That said, when you consider the common reasons people argue protein distribution matters, this study addresses many of those concerns. It reinforces the idea that what really matters is the total daily protein dose.

With that said, let’s look more directly at a few protein distribution studies to ensure we are covering the nuances of this.

How time-restricted feeding ties into protein distribution 

Time-restricted feeding involves intentionally limiting your eating to a specific window, typically 8-12 hours. During this window, you eat all your meals, and once it ends, fasting begins until the next meal. Some people naturally follow this pattern — for example, they might have coffee in the morning, delay their first meal for several hours, and finish eating for the day at an early dinner time. Others eat throughout the day, from morning until shortly before bedtime.

Protein distribution ties into time-restricted feeding because studies on eating within limited windows inherently affect how protein is distributed. By restricting eating to a shorter timeframe, protein intake shifts. To be clear, the distribution could also be skewed or even within these frames, but no matter what (be it in the morning or evening), there will be a larger space of time where food is not ingested.

A recent systematic review and meta-analysis by Ho et al examined the combined effects of time-restricted feeding (TRF) and resistance training (RT) on body composition and metabolic health in adults. The analysis included seven randomized controlled trials with a total of 164 participants. Study durations ranged from 4 weeks to 12 months, with most lasting around 8 weeks. Researchers compared an 8-hour eating window paired with resistance training to a habitual eating window. Protein intake was matched across groups, with most participants consuming at least 1.4g/kg/day.

The researchers found that the TRF + RT groups saw a reduction in fat mass but no loss in fat-free mass or muscle cross-sectional area. This indicates that TRF + RT works well enough to preserve muscle mass. Another TRF study excluded resistance training and found that while ad libitum eating also reduced fat mass, it resulted in modest decreases in lean body mass. I mention this to emphasize that while adequate protein intake is needed, resistance training is equally important for preserving lean body mass during fat loss.

Lastly, a study from Tinsley et al looked at the effects of TRF combined with resistance training on body composition in resistance-trained females (with at least a year of experience). This 8-week randomized controlled trial compared a 7.5-hour eating window to a habitual 13-hour eating window. Protein intake was matched between groups at 1.6 g/kg/day, and all participants followed a supervised training program. TRF has similar muscle and performance outcomes. 

If protein distribution had a major impact on muscle growth or maintenance, you’d expect TRF to have a serious negative impact on muscle growth or maintenance, since a time-restricted feeding pattern necessarily constrains your ability to distribute your protein intake evenly throughout the entire day. However, since TRF seems to lead to body composition outcomes that are comparable to feeding patterns with more even protein distribution, the TRF research provides pretty strong evidence to suggest that protein distribution isn’t that important, assuming that total protein intake is sufficient.

More on different styles of protein distribution 

Protein distribution and timing are distinct concepts, just as skewing distribution is different from time-restricted feeding (TRF). Therefore, I wanted to cover a little bit of that as well.

A study by Hudson et al focused on men and women engaging in resistance training while having a Calorie deficit. Both groups were in a pretty notable deficit and had their total protein intake matched, but their protein distribution differed:

• Even distribution: 30g of protein at breakfast, lunch, and dinner.
• Skewed distribution: 10g at breakfast, 20g at lunch, and 60g at dinner.

A commonly discussed study supporting the idea that even distribution enhances gaining lean tissue mass is a hypertrophy study from Yasuda et al. This 12-week study examined 26 young men with no recent training experience (at least a year). One group followed a more evenly distributed protein intake, while the other consumed a skewed intake that increased toward the end of the day.

The study found that the even distribution group gained more lean tissue mass than the skewed group. However, does something jump out at you about their setup in that table? 

If you’re thinking, “Total protein intake seems a bit low for hypertrophy,” you’re probably right. Current recommendations typically start at around 1.6 g/kg/day for optimal muscle growth. This raises the question: If overall protein intake in this study had been higher, would the results have been different?

In contrast, let’s look at this study by Taguchi et al that examined male collegiate rowers with higher protein intakes, averaging 2.6-2.7 g/kg/day, which is well above the recommended level for optimizing hypertrophy. Despite differences in meal frequency (three vs six meals per day), fat-free mass (FFM) gains were pretty similar.

When we look at this research in totality, we see some evidence suggesting that protein distribution may be more important when total protein intake is lower. For example, if you only consume 1g of protein per kilogram of body mass (well below the levels that have been found to maximize muscle growth or retention), there may be benefits to trying to distribute your protein intake more evenly throughout the day. However, if your overall protein intake is higher (at least 1.4-1.6 g/kg), protein distribution seems to have a much smaller impact on your body composition outcomes.

How does all this information play out practically?

In our article on protein timing, we discussed how factors like age, training experience, exercise intensity, and nutritional state influence how long your body remains sensitive to anabolic stimuli. Goals and lifestyle also play a role. Simply put, there’s a difference between what’s technically accurate in research and what’s realistic for daily life. 

Given the shorter feeding windows, you could argue that less frequent protein distribution or time-restricted feeding often aligns better with maintenance or Caloric restriction. However, that doesn’t mean you can’t make gains with time-restricted feeding — it’s just that smaller windows likely require more intentionality. Keeping protein intake and Calories high enough in a condensed timeframe can be challenging. 

I think this graphic from Trommelen et al sums up the assumptions versus the reality of distribution nicely.

So, practically speaking, if you’re working with smaller feeding windows and aiming to lose body fat, you might feel like you get more food or do a better job controlling snacking outside of meals. There’s something to be said that many TRF studies lead to decreased fat mass.On the other hand, gaining muscle could be more manageable with even an all-day distribution, especially if you have a high daily Calorie intake. For some, it’s simply too much food to fit into smaller eating windows or a distribution skewed heavily toward one meal. Larger individuals with higher total energy expenditure may find frequent and more even protein intake more practical for hitting their targets consistently. 

The point is, you don’t need to divide your protein into 4-6 meals to build or maintain muscle, but for some, this approach might simply work better. For certain individuals, protein distribution could be the difference between decent results and exceptional ones. However, from a mechanistic standpoint, we haven’t seen a definitive case for distribution making a major impact so far.

Conclusion 

Similarly to protein timing, we return again to the total daily dose of protein intake as the most important factor. However, this doesn’t negate the role of lifestyle or the practicality of timing and distributing protein throughout the day. Articles like this aren’t meant to dismiss the value of distribution within a daily eating routine but rather to alleviate overthinking about optimal protein distribution. 

If we wanted to err on the safe side, you could aim to spread protein across 3-4 meals a day and ensure you’re covered at bedtime (whether that’s with a larger dinner or a smaller pre-bed snack). I don’t think it’s a waste to eat a large amount of protein at once any more than it’s a waste to eat six smaller meals or four meals and two shakes or any other approach that works for you.

While total daily protein should be the top priority, I’d argue that practicality and sustainability should follow it. If it doesn’t fit into your daily life, it’s probably not going to happen.

Tl;dr: Total daily protein is the most important factor, but protein distribution can make a lot of practical sense depending on your goals and overall Calorie needs.

The post Do We Need to Worry About Protein Distribution?  appeared first on MacroFactor.

Protein timing has been debated for years in both research and fitness communities. The concept seems simple enough: If there are times when your body is primed to use protein (or at risk of muscle loss), then eating protein at these special times will maximize your results. But is that the case? What does current research say?

In this article, we’ll examine the arguments about protein timing, explore if the anabolic window exists (and how significant it might be), and determine whether the timing of protein intake matters. 

Let’s dig in!

What is protein timing?

Protein timing is allocating protein intake based on specific events or circumstances, such as around training sessions or before bedtime. The goal is to maximize muscle protein synthesis, be it post-workout or during sleep. It’s worth noting that protein timing can occur independently of distribution. For example, you might focus on timing protein for one part of the day without following a structured frequency or distribution schedule (a topic I’ll cover in a separate article).

Why do people think protein timing matters?

There is no shortage of research or conversation surrounding protein timing. You could argue that the two most popular and contested areas are in: 

Peri-workout nutrition and the anabolic window

This is the importance of meals (in this case specifically protein) timed around our workouts. It usually involves maximizing the “anabolic window” to optimize muscle protein synthesis and recovery.

Pre-sleep protein

The argument here is consuming protein before bed could elevate blood amino acid levels overnight. This could protect muscle mass and, in some cases, promote muscle gains during sleep.

The anabolic window and amino acid availability 

To understand if you should be concerned if protein timing matters, it’s best to (briefly) discuss the anabolic window and circulating amino acids.

To build muscle, you need circulating amino acids, which play a role in protein turnover. Protein turnover refers to the cycle of muscle protein synthesis — building new proteins to grow or repair muscle — and muscle protein breakdown, which “clears” old or damaged proteins. This leaves room for new muscle growth.

It has been debated whether we have a post-exercise “window” that presents an opportunity to maximize ingested protein for protein turnover (and specifically muscle protein synthesis). In the late 1990s and early 2000s, focus was put on nutrient timing (typically eating 60–90 minutes post-workout) as being crucial to recovery. Many studies contributed to the narratives (here, here, and here) that helped establish the idea of timing nutrition to maximize muscle protein synthesis (MPS) and reduce muscle breakdown. 

This all suggests that protein timing around workouts could be important and that you should take nutritional advantage of that window. The goal would be to limit muscle protein breakdown (MPB) and further support recovery and growth. 

An additional argument appeared regarding protein timing for sleep because, in this instance, we are facing a long period when we do not consume any food. During sleep, MPB can dominate in the absence of protein. The advice? Increase dietary protein intake before bed to improve recovery during sleep. 

Thus far, these are pretty logical arguments for examining protein timing. 

What does the research say on the topic?

First, let’s examine the “tiny window” aspect of the question and consider how long we have (and some of the factors involved). 

A recent systematic review and meta-analysis by Davies et al examined MPS and its response to resistance exercise in healthy adults. It pooled data from 79 controlled trials with 237 participants and factors in age, sex, training experience, and exercise parameters. Note that it isolated MPS to postexercise responsiveness alone, meaning no food or protein supplementation was involved.

The study found an increase in MPS following a single amount of resistance exercise, and in some cases, this elevation in MPS lasted for up to 48 hours. Now, there was a wide range. Additionally, training intensity and volume played a role. While there were heterogeneity issue, I like that you could extrapolate a broader insight when you look at individual studies. From this information, we can identify factors that could influence the duration of an individual’s anabolic window.

Individuals with potentially shorter anabolic windows versus individuals with potentially longer anabolic windows 

From that, in the shortest window (3 hours), there still seems to be an argument beyond the typical 60- to 90-minute range, even with a less-than-optimal setup. Once you move into recommended training and protein intakes, it increases.

In fed conditions, MPS is stimulated further with protein doses starting at around 20 grams per meal. This approach continues meal-to-meal, with recommendations suggesting spreading protein intake across as many meals as needed. The cycle continues until bedtime, only to restart the next day.

This leads us into pre-bedtime protein. With sleep, depending on your last meal, you’re potentially creating a situation where you’re decreasing the strength of an anabolic environment. Growth hormone is secreted in the early onset of sleep, and if protein intake is inadequate, repair and growth might be limited.

Depending on lifestyle and routine, someone who eats dinner around 6–7 p.m. and doesn’t consume anything else before bed could go 10+ hours without protein intake. You can argue that, depending on their total daily protein intake and distribution, this extended fasting period might impair recovery or muscle growth. Additionally, research studies have shown positive effects of pre-bedtime protein intake on recovery and muscle protein synthesis.

Based on what we’ve covered, it’s clear that age, training setup, nutritional state, and total daily protein intake all influence optimal muscle recovery and growth. It’d be a fair argument to say that without intentional timing — such as a pre-bed protein shake — you might leave results on the table.

Therefore, protein timing is really important, right?

Why protein timing is less important than you might think 

There is a fundamental issue that leads to the decreasing importance of protein timing: How much total protein you eat. 

If you’re eating enough protein in a day, the need to hit specific timing windows becomes significantly less important. 

This means we need to reframe the protein timing question to be more specific: Does timing offer additional benefits when total daily protein intake is already adequate? More distinctly, is there a tiny window (again, when total protein is adequate) that can maximize results? So, we aren’t just looking to see if eating your protein is what you need or if the time that you eat your protein matters.

Regarding the tiny anabolic window, a fair research examination would be to look at how much protein we can use at once. Because one could argue that eating a bunch of protein at once doesn’t matter if all that extra protein gets wasted, right? And if it gets wasted, we would still need to time our protein.

Luckily, we just did an article on maximum protein intake. In it, we looked at the study from Trommelen et al that showed that consuming up to 100 grams of protein in a single meal led to greater increases in muscle protein synthesis compared with a 25-gram dose. They also extended their measurements of muscle protein synthesis to 12 hours, whereas earlier studies looked at a 4-hour window. So, because they measured over a longer timeframe, they could see that higher protein doses kept MPS elevated for longer.

What does this mean for protein timing? 

Well, look at it like this: Is a post-workout protein shake as relevant if you still have protein in your system from earlier? Similarly, would pre-bedtime protein matter as much if you ate a late dinner loaded with protein? Probably not as much. 

When revisiting some of the earlier studies highlighting the need for peri-workout nutrition, it was common to utilize fasted training during testing. And when you train in a fasted state, protein breakdown is already elevated, and it’s fair to say that any amount of protein post-workout will positively contribute to MPS, recovery, etc. Therefore, we must separate unfed from fed to determine if that post-workout meal maximizes results.

Now remember, protein timing isn’t distribution. And while I understand the arguments on protein timing and “garage doors of opportunity,” when overall protein is high enough, we don’t see that timing is a factor. 

One recent study by Lak et al matched total daily protein but played with the timing windows. They pitted immediate protein before and after training time versus 3 hours before and after training time. When total daily protein was matched, they found no noticeable difference in results in body composition or muscle performance. Similar results of protein timing (when total protein intake was matched) were found here and here. 

Now for those who train fasted or with minimal pre-workout nutrition, getting protein as soon as you can is wise. I don’t want to imply that how you allot your protein doesn’t matter (again, I’ll get into that more in the next article). However, the question is about a unique window of growth opportunity, and that is something we aren’t really seeing. 

As for pre-bedtime protein, it’s a similar story. Studies often don’t control for timing outside of bedtime. This makes it difficult to isolate the results because you must ask, “Was it the timing, or did protein intake increase overall?” If the timing coincides with an increase in total protein, then we can’t determine if it was the higher protein intake or the timing of that protein intake. To really test whether timing matters, we’d need studies comparing pre-sleep protein to supplemental protein consumed earlier in the day. However, currently, all of the studies reporting benefits of pre-sleep protein intake don’t match for total daily protein intake — the groups consuming pre-sleep protein just consume 30-40 grams of additional protein compared with the control groups. This all means that having a larger volume of protein at dinner is likely just as effective as splitting intake between dinner and a pre-sleep snack.

Conclusion and practical takeaways

When we examined timing windows, we found that it was less about it being a special time to eat protein and more about us getting adequate protein throughout the day. This is a good thing because it highlights that the body does a better job of using all the protein we eat than we originally thought. And if we just eat enough protein, it appears we should be fine throughout the day.

If there are any advantages to certain timings, they are probably pretty small and hard to discern from just having a solid whole-day protein intake. Future research must continue matching total daily protein to determine if any advantage exists. 

In the meantime, there are some practical things we can take away from what we know now.

• From what we see, the anabolic window is much bigger than previously thought. Thankfully, the body doesn’t just “shut down” certain functions or waste protein once it hits a certain spot. 
• Even though a special advantage isn’t likely, it doesn’t mean that timing your protein from a practical point around your workout is a waste of time. If it makes sense for your eating and training setup (and it often does), that’s great.
• While pre-sleep protein intake may not provide a specific advantage, eating enough protein around bedtime (either in larger quantities at dinner or at a split) appears to be a good idea.
• It’s wise to consider your individual differences (age, meal distribution, training styles) and how they are likely to affect your protein allotment. 
• If fasting, you should make more consideration for post-workout protein. 
• Total daily protein will be the most important factor in the results, while its timing will be more influenced by practicality than by a specific advantage. 

The post Do We Need to Worry About Protein Timing?  appeared first on MacroFactor.

Table of contents

• Quick pep-talk for counting macros 
• What are macros?
  • Protein overview
  • Carbohydrate overview
  • Fat overview
• Why count macros?
  • Body composition goals
  • Performance goals
  • Developing better eating habits
• How do we set personalized macro goals & targets? 
  • Determining your TDEE
  • How should we determine our rate of gain or loss?
  • How should we determine how many of each macro to eat for performance or general health?
  • Quick recap: Macronutrients and TDEE
• Finding and tracking macronutrients  
  • Nutrition labels
  • Serving size 
  • Energy & macronutrient content 
  • Micronutrient information
  • Finding nutrition information with online databases
  • Using apps like MacroFactor
  • What are tips for searching for foods?
    • Label and barcode scanning 
    • Consider how or if it’s cooked 
    • Simplify searches
    • Use common food items first
  • Quick recap: Finding and tracking macronutrients
• Logging your macros
  • Journal or apps?
  • Best practices for measuring food intake 
  • Food scales 
    • Tips for using a food scale 
    • Get a quality food scale 
    • Understand the tare function 
  • Measuring cups and spoons 
  • A few more logging tips
• Common hurdles and questions with counting macros
  • How accurately do I need to log my macros?
  • Measuring foods raw vs. cooked
  • Partial logging 
  • Struggling with “unknowns” like restaurants or family dinners
  • Having a hard time eating less/eating more
• Conclusion

If you’ve ever tried to reach a health, performance, or body composition goal, you’ve probably tried some method of tracking your food or counting macros. Maybe you’ve cut carbs, avoided “unhealthy” foods, or just eyeballed portions. But if you’re reading this, it’s possible those methods didn’t deliver the results you were hoping to achieve.

The good news? Counting macros or more focused logging doesn’t have to be complicated or overwhelming. And it can be pretty rewarding when it ramps up your ability to achieve your goals. This article isn’t just about counting Calories or keeping tabs on your macros, it’s about learning how to log your food effectively. From reading nutrition labels to tips on using food scales, you’ll pick up the skills you need to track with confidence and get more results. Because ultimately, we are looking to achieve results. And no matter where you’re starting from, you’ll see how a little effort in logging can lead to big progress.

With that, let’s dig in!

Quick pep-talk for counting macros 

Before we dive into the details of counting macros, I want to start with a reminder: Like anything new, there’s an initial period of learning and effort to get comfortable with the process. Some people feel overwhelmed by logging or tracking food, much like budgeting their income or managing their time. The more attention we give to these tasks, the more they can start to feel like too much work.

My advice is to be patient with yourself and ease into it. If this all feels too much, but you’re determined to reach your goals, start small. For example, you could begin by logging rough Calorie estimates each day. It’s more important to focus on building the habit of tracking your food, even if your entries aren’t perfectly accurate yet.

You’ll see me say this throughout this article: Consistency beats perfection. Trying is always better than not trying. If this feels overwhelming, remember it’s okay to start simple.

What are macros?

Food contains macronutrients or “macros” – chemical structures that provide energy in the form of Calories. These macronutrients include carbohydrates, fats, and proteins. Each macro plays a role in supporting your health, performance, or body composition.

* Caloric amount per gram can vary a bit from food to food, but these are the currently accepted rounded numbers. 

It is important to understand that dietary macronutrient intake comes with Calories. These Calories contribute to your total daily energy consumption, and (as we will discuss more later) balancing your expenditure will be important to achieving your goals.

Protein overview

Dietary proteins are molecules made up of amino acids essential for many bodily functions, including muscle growth, hormone production, tissue repair, and genetic regulation. Proteins are built from 20 amino acids, with at least nine considered essential because your body can’t produce them, so you must ingest them in your diet. Each amino acid plays a unique role and falls into one of three categories: essential, non-essential, or conditionally essential.

Carbohydrate overview

When people think of carbohydrates, they often picture fun options like pasta or sweet candies. However, carbohydrates are found in many foods, including vegetables, fruits, and even dairy. They serve as the body’s primary energy source for cellular activity, especially during more intense exercise. Beyond energy, carbohydrates also support satiety, regulate blood glucose levels, and maintain gastrointestinal health.

Fat overview

Fats are a dense energy source, providing more than twice the Calories per gram compared to carbohydrates or proteins. They are essential for cell structure because every cell in your body is surrounded by a semipermeable lipid (fat) bilayer. This layer controls what enters and leaves the cell. Additionally, certain vitamins — like A, D, E, and K — require fat for absorption and storage, making dietary fat important for processing fat-soluble nutrients.

This might all seem dull and dry, but when you combine these elements, you create meals, recipes, and lasting memories. As you go through this learning process, take the time to explore your food and the variety within each category. For example, notice how much protein is in a lentil or the fiber content of a fatty avocado. The more you understand the complexity of your food, the better it can work for you.

Why count macros?

Different goals will require unique approaches to macronutrients and overall Calorie manipulation. Here’s a quick rundown of different goals and how counting macros can play a role in each one. 

Body composition goals

Generally speaking, these goals focus on building muscle or reducing fat. While individuals can attempt to do both of these goals at one time, usually people are centered on one goal. So, if you’re trying to lose body fat, you will want to focus on being in a Calorie deficit and allocate your macros to protect muscle or general health during the time of your goal. To gain muscle, you have to eat enough overall Calories and protein to support muscle growth and repair. 

Performance goals

Exercise-related goals can vary depending on the type of training you’re doing. For example, strength athletes can explore more fat-heavy diets and neglect higher carbohydrate intake since they aren’t as reliant on continuous glycogen energy. On the other hand, endurance runners might need to consider the role carbohydrates play in their macronutrient plan. This is in addition to ensuring they have the overall Calories to support their goals. 

Developing better eating habits

Performance and body composition aren’t the only reasons to consider counting macros. For instance, fiber intake is low in many countries, which can lead to poor health outcomes. Trying to eat foods with higher fiber content and tracking it consistently can help with gut health and overall well-being. Tracking macronutrients can provide a lot of insight into overall Calorie intake that can assist health from multiple angles. 

Overall, there are many reasons and incentives to embrace counting macros on even the most basic level to gain an advantage in everything from body composition to health. 

How do we set personalized macro goals & targets? 

Now that you understand why counting macros can support your goals, let’s discuss how many Calories and macronutrients you should eat daily to achieve them.

Note: If you’re using MacroFactor, the app will handle this for you. It walks you through a few questions about your goals and provides a macro program for what you need to eat. From there, you can log in and track everything directly in the app. That said, we still want you to understand the process behind these calculations, even if you’re not using the app.

Determining your TDEE

Your Total Daily Energy Expenditure (TDEE) is the number of Calories your body uses in a day to breathe, move, heal, think, and run your body.

Calorie targets are personalized based on your energy use and the rate at which you want to lose or gain weight. For a deeper dive, this article explains it in more detail. In summary, your daily energy expenditure comes from four main components:

• Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR): the energy your body needs to function at rest.
• Thermic Effect of Feeding (TEF): the Calories burned digesting and processing food.
• Exercise Activity Thermogenesis (EAT): the Calories burned during exercise.
• Non-Exercise Activity Thermogenesis (NEAT): the Calories burned through non-exercise activities like walking or fidgeting.

These factors determine how many Calories you burn daily, with each contributing a specific percentage to your total energy expenditure.

MacroFactor calculates your initial Calorie targets using details like age, weight, height, sex, and activity level. This starting point is then refined over time. As you log your weight and food intake, the app dynamically adjusts your targets to get closer to your actual energy needs. After about 3-4 weeks, it has a pretty good idea of what your expenditure is and the Calorie amount you’ll need to hit your goals. 

If you don’t have MacroFactor, you can use this calculator: MacroFactor BMR Calculator.

From there, you can multiply your BMR using these factors to obtain a rough estimate of the overall TDEE.

In this multiplier, general activity is kept separate from exercise activity. Keep that in mind if your activity outside of training is lower or higher. 

Let’s run through a quick example of using the MacroFactor correction factors.

Example: The BMR calculator provided you with a BMR of 1938. You’re moderately active and train three sessions a week. Your calculations would roughly be:

BMR × Moderate Activity  = 1938 × (1.4+0.1) = 2907

The estimated TDEE with calculations only and no dynamic algorithm adjustment for this person would be roughly 2907 Calories.

How should we determine our rate of gain or loss?

Once you have an estimate of your TDEE, you can use that to determine the rate of weight gain or loss you aim for, which should match your goals and lifestyle. Generally, slower rates are more sustainable and minimize risks like muscle loss during fat loss or unnecessary fat gain during bulking. 

If you’re using the MacroFactor app, you will get your assessment based on your information and the dynamic energy expenditure algorithm. However, if you don’t have the ability to use the app, you can use these calculators for more guidance. 

MacroFactor Cutting Calculator
MacroFactor Bulking Calculator

How should we determine how many of each macro to eat for performance or general health?

Some people focus on maintaining their weight, while others work on losing fat or building muscle. It’s pretty common to juggle performance or health goals alongside body composition changes. The important thing is to remember that TDEE will be your first step in determining your overall macronutrient intake. From there, you can look at each macronutrient and its relevance to your goals. 

The articles linked below discuss each macronutrient and what numbers are relevant per goal. For example, the recommendation for protein intake for bulking will differ from that of the general population that exercises lightly. Again, the app does all of this for you, but if you want to know more about the numbers, these articles are good reads. 

How much protein should I eat in a day?
How many carbohydrates should I eat in a day?
How much fat should I eat in a day?

Quick recap: Macronutrients and TDEE

You’ve already learned quite a lot of information. So far you’ve learned: 

• Macros include protein, carbs, and fats, each with specific functions and caloric values.
• If you want to achieve your goals, it’s important to tailor your macronutrient intake to achieve them.
• Your Total Daily Energy Expenditure (TDEE) determines Calorie needs and includes factors like BMR, TEF, EAT, and NEAT.
• No matter the goal, make sure to focus on adequate amounts of each macronutrient for your goals.
• The MacroFactor app provides all these personalized suggestions, but we want you to be able to understand it even without the app.  

Finding and tracking macronutrients  

Now that we’ve defined macronutrients and explained why tracking them can help you reach your goals, let’s move on to figuring out how to find the macronutrients in your food.

There are two main categories when shopping for food: items without labels (like fresh produce, pre-made meals, or fresh deli meats) and those with nutrition labels. The first step is identifying whether your food has a label or other information sources to guide you.

Nutrition labels

Note that nutrition labels can vary by location. For example, the UK uses a traffic light style that alerts customers if the food is high, medium, or low in fat, saturated fat, sugar, and salt. In Japan, labels usually list nutrition information per 100 grams instead of per serving. Japan also doesn’t have a “% Daily Value” figure. This section focuses on a US-based nutrition label style, but most concepts are similar.

Typically, nutrition labels are broken down into three main sections: 

Serving size 

Energy & macronutrient content 

Micronutrient information 

Serving size 

The serving size section of a nutrition label tells you two key things: how many servings are in the entire package and the specific serving size, including its weight. This information forms the basis for understanding that item’s total energy, macronutrient, and micronutrient values.

A pasta package might tell you it contains eight servings, each serving size listed as 2oz or 56g. From this, you can see the Calories, macronutrients, and micronutrients per serving, and by multiplying these values by the total number of servings (in this case, eight), you can calculate the totals for the entire package. Example:

• 8 x 200 Calories
• 8 x 1 g of Fat
• 8 x 42 g of Carbohydrates
• 8 x 7 g of Protein

The result would show you that the entire package contains: 

While there are easier ways to track macros than manually calculating totals like this, it’s still valuable to understand how the process works, even if you never dive into the math yourself. It’s also important to pay attention to serving sizes, not just the Calories or nutrient numbers, to get a clearer picture of what you’re actually eating. Paying attention to serving sizes can be illuminating, because the standard serving sizes for many foods might be much smaller than you expect. For example, the standard serving size for ice cream used to be half a cup (4fl oz, or 118ml). So, if you just ignore the serving size, you might think you’re having a reasonable 200-Calorie snack, when you’re really (inadvertently) having a 600-Calorie meal.

Energy & macronutrient content 

The serving size informs you about the energy and macronutrient content of the package. Now, let’s break down the key components to understand better what’s listed:

• Calories: This is the amount of energy you get from that serving.
• Total Fat: Includes all types of fats in the serving, such as saturated and unsaturated fats.
• Total Carbohydrates: This number represents all carbs and will include fiber and sugar totals.
• Protein: This lists the protein content per serving.

You might notice other items in this section, like sodium or cholesterol. While we won’t dive into these right now, it’s worth mentioning that they can provide helpful information for making decisions about your overall health. However, they’re not directly tied to counting macros.

Lastly, it’s important to know that nutrition labels aren’t always 100% accurate for various reasons. Companies can round and estimate within certain margins. But, don’t let that deter you – the net effect of this rounding is typically quite small. For example, a sandwich may list 400 Calories on the nutrition label, when it really has 411 Calories. These trivial differences won’t have a tangible impact on the overall accuracy and usefulness of your logging.

Micronutrient information 

The last section of the nutrition label is dedicated to covering the micronutrients in items – such as vitamins and minerals. While these aren’t directly relevant for macronutrient tracking, monitoring your intake of vitamins, minerals, and other nutrients is important for overall health and goals. MacroFactor makes tracking micronutrients easy, especially when logging common foods. I’ll dive into how to search for and track these micronutrients in a moment, but this article is good for micronutrients you might consider tracking. 

Finding nutrition information with online databases

When your food doesn’t come with a package providing serving sizes, Calories, or macronutrient details, you’ll need to look up this information in a database. One reliable option is the USDA FoodData Central database. It offers detailed information on a variety of whole foods, including both macronutrients and micronutrients.

For example, if you bought a couple of Fuji apples, you could type “Fuji apples” into the database. The search might return “Apples, fuji, with skin, raw.” From there, you’d see macronutrient details per portion weight, micronutrient information, and even details about where the apple samples were taken.

Using apps like MacroFactor

While many databases are available, one of the biggest challenges for most people is the lack of convenience or the ability to access and log the information quickly. While the USDA’s database is robust, it can be difficult to navigate. That’s where apps like MacroFactor come in.

With MacroFactor, you get comprehensive food data with international and regional support. With over 1.36 million verified entries, the database includes approximately 26,500 micronutrient-complete common foods sourced from trusted research institutions. A significant contribution comes from the NCC Food and Nutrient Database, a widely respected resource for its accuracy and detail in scientific research. The database also offers coverage for branded foods in regions such as the US, Canada, UK, Australia, Ireland, and New Zealand. 

Additionally, users can contribute to the database, and all new validated submissions are shared with Open Food Facts, a non-profit organization committed to providing free and accessible food information to the public.

What are tips for searching for foods?

Here are some tips and things to remember when searching for food to keep things as easy as possible.

Label and barcode scanning 

Tracking food doesn’t have to feel like endless manual searches. One of the simplest ways to log food is using MacroFactor’s barcode and label scanning feature.

Barcode scanning: Point your camera at the product’s barcode, and MacroFactor will instantly display its nutritional information. If the app doesn’t recognize the barcode, it will switch to label scanning and allow you to capture the nutrition information from the packaging.

Label scanning: Aim your camera at the nutrition label, and the app will populate the nutrition data into a mock label. From there you can log the food item, make adjustments, or add it as a custom food entry. Once saved, your custom foods can be reused so you don’t have to re-enter the same recipe or meal every time.

Tips for label scanning:

• Ensure good lighting and reduce glare from shiny labels.
• Adjust angles or distances to help the scanner capture the label cleanly.
• Avoid scanning on curved surfaces, as they can distort the text.

Consider how or if it’s cooked 

One of the most common pitfalls in food logging is not matching the food’s cooked (or uncooked) state to the database entry. For example, if you’re logging chicken breast and the Calories seem off, it’s probably because you chose a cooked entry instead of raw (or vice versa). Double-check the state of the food (raw or cooked) to ensure you’re logging accurately. You can also look for tips like “grilled,” “fried,” or “shredded” that imply the item has been cooked. Additionally, sometimes how a food is cooked can give insight into alteration to the energy value of the item. For example, fried food has more Calories and a presence of extra fat versus an item that is steamed.  When searching for uncooked foods, try different terms if your first search comes up empty (for example, if “raw” doesn’t return any results when searching for rice, try “uncooked” and “dry” as alternative descriptors). 

Simplify searches

When preparation doesn’t significantly alter macronutrient content, being less specific can save you time and effort. For example, when logging hard-boiled eggs, it’s better to focus on the egg size (e.g., large or medium) instead of searching for “hard-boiled egg.” The cooking method won’t significantly change the Calories or macronutrient values, so streamlining your search makes the process easier. However, for fried eggs, you would want to specify the cooking method (unless you’re already logging the fat separately) because frying an egg will affect its Calorie and macronutrient content.

Use common food items first

For MacroFactor users, start with “common” foods instead of branded entries. Common food entries are sourced from research-grade databases and offer more complete micronutrient profiles. These entries are especially helpful for logging whole foods like raw chicken breast, oats, or fresh produce. Branded entries are a reasonable fallback if you can’t find what you need in the common food database.

Quick recap: Finding and tracking macronutrients

• Food can be categorized as having labels (such as packaged goods) or no labels (such as fresh produce).
• Nutrition labels in the US provide details about serving sizes, Calories, macronutrient content, and micronutrient information. While helpful, these labels aren’t always 100% accurate.
• Online databases like USDA FoodData Central can provide detailed information on unlabeled foods.
• Apps like MacroFactor simplify the tracking process by providing a place to keep track of verified entries, international food data, and user contributions. 

Logging your macros

We are approaching the end of the article, and you have learned about macronutrients, how to read labels, and how to use searches or apps. Now, I will discuss the actual logging, including how to measure your meals and where to put the information. I will then end with some common questions and typical hiccups users face with their logging.  

Journal or apps?

Determine how you want to keep track of your daily nutrition. Ideally, you choose a convenient system to track as much food intake as possible to give yourself the best chance at achieving your results. Convenience is a big reason apps have become the most popular method of logging and counting macros since most people have smartphones on them throughout the day. With that said, there is nothing wrong with paper and pen, either. If the system works for you, use it. 

Because you’re on the MacroFactor website, I’m obviously going to discuss logging features that use the app. However, remember that most of these tips are useful regardless. 

Best practices for measuring food intake 

As I discussed with nutrition labels or research food in online databases, energy and macronutrient amounts are based on the item’s weight proportionate to its energy level. This will vary among not just types of macronutrients but different foods within those macronutrients. For example, a cup full of spinach will have a significantly different Calorie amount versus a cup of dry, uncooked rice. The “accuracy” of your food logs will mostly be made in this section. Because once you find the stats and technical data of an item, it’s now your job to measure it as best you can. However, don’t get stressed. Trying at all usually gets you pretty close. 

Food scales 

Most people should use a food scale at some point in their nutrition journey, even if only for a short time. Most food scales are digital, and various brands and options are available. For example, small, pocket-sized scales are often used for precise baking or fine gastronomy. However, most people opt for a basic countertop scale.

Let’s put this into practical context with an example.

Imagine your goal is to lose body fat. You already understand Calories, know you need more protein, and have been monitoring your food intake. But progress isn’t happening as quickly or easily as you expected. The first step is understanding your total daily energy expenditure (TDEE) and having a reliable estimate of how many Calories you burn each day and how many Calories you should aim for to reach your goals (something the MacroFactor algorithm can help with). Once you have those numbers, the challenge becomes putting it into practice and consistently hitting your daily targets.

If you can meet those targets by eyeballing portions or using tools like measuring cups and spoons, that’s great! You can continue logging and tracking in the app this way. But if you’re struggling to hit your goals or want to speed up your progress, a food scale can be a game-changer for achieving body composition, performance, or health goals.

It improves portion awareness.
When people start using a food scale, they often realize they’ve been underestimating or overestimating the Calories in certain foods. A scale helps you see the actual proportion of Calorie content to portion size.

It increases accuracy.
You don’t need to obsess over perfection, but weighing your food makes it easier to stay on track if you’re trying to reach your macro or Calorie targets. Even small adjustments can add up over time.

It builds consistency.
Learning the weight of common portions helps you develop a better sense of serving sizes. This makes it easier to estimate portions when you’re eating out or when a scale isn’t available. Think of it as creating a baseline for making more informed choices in the future.

Remember, you don’t have to use a scale forever. But it’s a great tool for understanding your nutrition intake on a different, eye-opening level. 

Tips for using a food scale 

Here are a few tips to help you get the most out of your food scale and integrate it into your routine.

Get a quality food scale 

A low-cost food scale will suffice for most people, especially if they prepare smaller portions. However, investing in a heavy-duty kitchen scale with a higher weight capacity is a smart choice if you cook for a family, meal prep, or portion food from larger batches. This is particularly important if you plan to weigh food directly in cookware or storage containers.

Look for models with at least a 22-pound capacity when shopping for a scale. If you’re cooking for larger families or handling big batches, consider scales with a 40-pound capacity to accommodate your needs.

Understand the tare function 

The tare function resets the scale to “zero” by removing the weight of the current item. This makes it easy to measure food using tools like measuring cups or to add ingredients directly to containers or plates without starting over. For example, if you’re measuring a cup of rice, you can place the empty cup on the scale, tare it to remove the cup’s weight, and then measure the rice. The same applies when adding food to a bowl, pot, skillet, or storage container. It’s a simple technique that can make food prep go a little faster. 

Example: “Zeroing” a cup or bowl to only measure the food item

1. Place an empty measuring cup on the scale.
2. Press the “tare” button to reset the scale to “zero,” accounting for the weight of the cup.
3. Scoop your dry, uncooked rice into the measuring cup. The scale will now display only the weight of the rice.
4. Record the weight of the rice.
5. To log the rice, search for “rice, uncooked” in the app and enter the weight and unit of measure shown on the scale.

Example: How to use reverse taring for accurate tracking — measuring oil from the bottle

1. Grab a bottle of oil (like olive oil) and place it on your food scale.
2. Press the “tare” button to reset the scale to “0,” accounting for the bottle’s weight.
3. Pour the desired amount of oil (e.g., for cooking eggs) and return the bottle to the scale.
4. The negative number displayed on the scale represents the amount of oil used. For example, if the scale shows “-7g,” you’ve used 7g of oil.
5. Log the oil in your tracking app by searching for it and entering the amount shown on the scale.

Example: Reverse measuring for other ingredients

This method isn’t just for oil. You can use it with any ingredient while cooking. For example:

• Making a cheesy omelet with salsa on the side?
  • Tare a bag of shredded cheese, pinch out what you need, and log the amount removed.
  • Tare a jar of salsa, pour out your serving, and log that amount as well.

Reverse measuring is especially useful for those who feel overwhelmed or restricted by the need to pre-measure everything before cooking. It’s a simple, flexible way to track ingredients without disrupting your flow in the kitchen.

Example of tracking a large recipe: Measuring vegetable soup using tare + total recipe weight

1. Gather all your soup ingredients.
2. Place your soup pot on the food scale and note the pot’s weight for reference.
3. Zero the scale with the pot on it (tare).
4. Add your first ingredient, record its weight, and then press tare to reset the scale to zero.
5. Repeat this process for each ingredient, logging the weight of each one as you go.
6. Cook your soup to completion.
7. After cooking, place the pot with the soup back on the scale. Subtract the pot’s empty weight to calculate the total weight of the finished soup. Enter this as the “total weight” in your recipe tracker.

To serve, place your bowl on the scale and zero it out. Ladle in your portion of soup, log the weight, and enjoy your meal! This method is simple and accurate, and it works well when you’re making a big batch and want to track servings without guesswork.

Example of portioning servings for meal prep

Let’s start off where our last example ended. You have a completed soup and know the total weight of the recipe. 

1. Start with your completed soup and the total weight of the recipe. For this example, let’s say the total serving weight is 3000g. 
2. Decide how many servings you want (e.g., six servings). Divide the total weight by the number of servings to calculate the weight of each portion. For this example, that would be 500g per serving. 
3. Place an empty meal prep container on the food scale and zero it out (tare).
4. Add soup to the container until it reaches the serving weight. For this example, that is 500g. 
5. Repeat for each container.
6. Refrigerate or freeze them for later.

You can also do this with individual items (such as keeping your protein and vegetables separate) or allotting pre-portioned amounts of food for the day like nuts, fruit, or peanut butter. 

Measuring cups and spoons 

If a scale isn’t available or affordable, measuring cups and utensils are a reliable alternative, especially if they’re used correctly. For liquids, clear, lined measuring cups work best, and measurements should be taken at eye level for accuracy. For dry ingredients, opaque measuring cups and spoons are ideal; just ensure they’re leveled off with a straight edge, such as the flat side of a knife, after filling.

Lastly, you can also use spoons and cups to help you better visualize food portions. What does a cup of cooked rice look like? An actual tablespoon of peanut butter? Have you poured 1tbsp of oil into a skillet? Added 1tbsp of mayo onto a sandwich? These types of things can help create a better Calorie reality. 

A few more logging tips

Log as you go
Whenever possible, log your food immediately after prepping or eating it. This reduces the chance of forgetting what you’ve eaten or partially logging your intake.

Don’t forget condiments and liquids
It’s a common habit to overlook liquid Calories, condiments, or alcohol. If it has Calories, make an effort to track it.

Don’t sweat the small stuff
At the end of the day, tracking isn’t about perfection — it’s about improving your consistency and understanding of your intake. If you find yourself stressing over every tiny detail, take a step back. The goal is to get better, not to burn yourself out.

Common hurdles and questions with counting macros

How accurately do I need to log my macros?

The most important thing when counting macros is to focus on consistency, not perfection. While we share many tips about using a food scale or understanding nutrition labels, it’s not about perfectly measuring every morsel. The truth is, if you stay consistent, you can make progress toward your goals, even if your logging isn’t 100% accurate.

That’s one of the great things about MacroFactor and its dynamic algorithm. Over time, it adjusts to reflect your patterns and provides intake targets that help you move toward your goals. However, it’s worth noting that these targets might not be perfectly accurate; they’re just based on what’s needed to drive progress.

For example, let’s say someone is trying to lose body fat but isn’t great at measuring their food intake or has some partial logging days that don’t paint a complete picture. This might lead MacroFactor to suggest a much lower energy expenditure than their actual expenditure. They might feel frustrated, thinking those lower Calories are all they’re “allowed.”

But here’s the interesting part: The numbers don’t need to be perfect to work. Even if their targets aren’t 100% accurate, they can still aim for them and make progress. The key is not to get too caught up in seeing the numbers as absolute truths but instead use them as tools to guide consistent action.

If desired, you can read more on this topic here regarding MacroFactor specifically. 

Measuring foods raw vs. cooked

You’re not alone if you’re confused about whether to weigh and log something raw or cooked. This is easily one of the most confusing topics for people new to counting macros. Here are a few simple tips to help you navigate it:

• The default for most nutrition databases is that foods are listed in their raw state unless explicitly labeled otherwise. And this makes sense if you think about it. If you search for an apple in common foods, you’ll see things like “Apple, fresh, with skin.”
• If you’re looking up something like “Chicken breast,” try to match the item to the state you’re working with. If you search for “chicken breast,” it comes up with “Chicken breast, Grilled, Boneless, Skinless,” and that item has been cooked because it says “Grilled” in the title. Otherwise, it would say “raw” or “uncooked.”
• Be consistent with how you log foods. Consistency is key when you decide to weigh and log foods raw or cooked. If you switch back and forth, you’ll have less accurate data that can mess with your macro tracking. Pick one approach and stick with it.
• Check the serving size listed. Sometimes, the database or packaging tells you whether the food is raw or cooked by the serving size listed, such as “4oz raw” or “3oz cooked.” If the serving size is unclear, look for another entry that matches the state of your food.
• Technically, weighing foods raw can be slightly more accurate. When you grill a burger or saute zucchini, the burger and vegetables may lose more or less total water weight when cooking than a standard “grilled hamburger” or “sauteed zucchini” entry in a food database. Similarly, steamed rice or boiled pasta may absorb more or less water than a standard “steamed rice” or “boiled pasta” entry in a food database. However, the difference in accuracy isn’t large enough to matter in most contexts. If it’s more convenient for you to weigh foods after you’ve already cooked them, that’s perfectly fine.
• When logging foods, remember that the weights listed in food databases typically refer to the edible portion of the item. For example, 100g of banana represents the weight without the peel, and 200g of pork ribs excludes the bones. 

Partial logging 

When you log part of the Calories you consume for the day but not all of them, we call that partial logging. For instance, let’s say you log breakfast and lunch in the MacroFactor app but skip logging your dinner. The app won’t know that your actual intake was 30-40% higher than what’s recorded. This gap can throw off the app’s energy expenditure calculations, affecting its Calorie and macro recommendations. 

The same can be said for simple paper journaling. If you calculate your intake needs based on your food entries and look back at your logs, you might think you ate 60% below your TDEE when, in reality, it was closer to 20%. This could lead you to believe something is wrong with your metabolism or that deficits don’t work.

So, if you find yourself in a partial logging position, these are the best ways to handle it. 

1. Good option: If tracking the day feels like a lost cause, you can clear everything you’ve logged so far and leave the day blank. MacroFactor’s algorithms will skip the untracked day when updating your expenditure and coaching recommendations. To keep your updates reliable, though, aim to log your intake at least six days a week.
2. Better: Instead of deleting the whole day, try using the ​quick edit​ feature to provide a rough estimate of your total Calorie intake. This can be a simple guess that covers all the meals you’ve eaten, even the ones that were tricky to log.
3. Best: If only one meal is causing trouble, focus on estimating just that. For instance, if the meal seems like it was around 1500 Calories, use the ​quick-add​ tool to log those Calories (and the approximate macronutrients, if you’d like). This keeps your records as close to accurate as possible with minimal effort.

Struggling with “unknowns” like restaurants or family dinners

Sometimes, estimating your food intake is unavoidable, but you can improve your accuracy by relying on a few simple strategies. 

1. When you can, order something easier to estimate. Estimating a steak or chicken breast with sides is generally easier than a pasta dish or a loaded salad. 
2. Look up the Calories online. Most fast-serve food places have macronutrient information online. Restaurants have fewer options at times, but you can also use similar items when the exact match isn’t available. For example, if you’re eating Pad Thai with chicken, choose an entry that resembles your meal. It might not be the exact thing, but it can get you close. 
3. Draw from previous logging experiences. Reflect on meals you’ve tracked before and use them as a guide. For example, thinking, “This steak looks about the same size as the 6-ounce portion I logged last week.” You can then use a MacroFactor feature like AI Describe to describe the meal visually: “6 ounces of steak, 1 cup of mashed potatoes, and 1.5 cups of green beans.” 
4. Explode the meal. MacroFactor has an explode feature that allows you to break up a recipe back into its individual items. It’s a pretty great recipe feature. However, let’s take this principle and do the same thing with the meal you’re eating. For this example, I’m going to use a turkey sandwich:
   
   Bread: 2 slices of whole-grain bread
   Turkey: 4 ounces of deli turkey
   Cheese: 1 slice of cheddar cheese
   Mayo: 1 tablespoon of mayonnaise
   Lettuce and Tomato: A handful of lettuce and two slices of tomato
   
   If possible, include this level of detail to improve accuracy. For example, searching “Turkey Sandwich” will give you a simplified entry with general macronutrient information, but it might not be the best reflection of what you actually ate. Logging each ingredient individually, such as the bread, turkey, and mayonnaise, will provide macronutrient stats that may closely reflect your actual sandwich (unless it’s a very small one with little to no mayonnaise).

Having a hard time eating less/eating more

Adhering to a program can be challenging for everyone. You might understand the Calories you need to hit or how to log them, but putting that knowledge into practice isn’t always easy. If you’re struggling with the application, here are two MacroFactor articles that provide detailed guidance on how to eat less or more, depending on your goals:

Tips for Hitting Lower Calorie and Macro Goals
Tips for Hitting Your Macros When Bulking

Conclusion

The goal of this article is to help people who are new to macro tracking or perhaps are doing a little troubleshooting on their tracking to improve their skills and habits. Whether you’re trying to improve your body composition or just your health, this will give you a better insight into macro tracking and some tips on how to make it easier. Ultimately, anything that makes hitting your nutrition goals easier should be the goal, be it a food scale you really like or an app that makes logging easier.

Counting macros might initially feel overwhelming, but it gets easier with time. Start small, focus on consistency, and remember that progress doesn’t require perfection. 

The post Counting Macros: How to Log Your Food and Track Your Calories appeared first on MacroFactor.

Multivitamins are a source of much debate. Some believe a basic multivitamin is the bare minimum needed to optimize health, while others argue it offers no real benefits and could even cause harm. With numerous studies and analyses on the topic, is there a middle ground? Should anyone take a multivitamin, and if so, what should they consider? This article provides a basic overview of the topic and explores our current knowledge.

Let’s dig in!

What is a multivitamin?

According to the NIH, a multivitamin is a supplement that includes at least three vitamins and minerals, but no herbs, hormones¹, or medications. For simplicity, this article focuses on multivitamin-mineral supplements (MVMs) that provide essential vitamins like A, D, and C, along with minerals such as calcium and zinc. 

As you can see from the definition, a multivitamin could contain all essential micronutrients or a sparse few. So, in the first important point of this article, multivitamins cover a very broad space in the supplement category. Beyond basic definitions, there’s no standard for what a multivitamin must include, and as you’ll learn, there are minimal guidelines and regulations for what qualifies as a multivitamin.

Limitation of specific study 

It’s also important to note that studies on multivitamins can be somewhat limited. This makes sense because, for example, if someone is dealing with an illness linked to a vitamin C deficiency, the logical approach would be to test outcomes using varying doses of vitamin C — not a multivitamin that happens to contain vitamin C. As a result, while some studies do examine multivitamin supplementation, the research can be “messy,” leading to less clear or direct conclusions.

Are people deficient in micronutrients?

Without diving too deeply into technical terms, US organizations assess whether we’re getting enough nutrients using a system of Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs). These guidelines help ensure people meet their nutritional needs while also not exceeding safe levels. Below are a few key terms commonly used in this system and their meanings:

Ideally, we should meet our micronutrient requirements through food intake. In developed countries, access to a wide variety of foods generally ensures that basic nutritional needs are met, as energy intake from food tends to scale with micronutrient intake. However, micronutrient intake can be more complicated in developing countries, and the need for fortified foods or supplements not only aids with optimization but also with actual livelihood. 

That said, nutrient deficiencies can still occur even in high-income countries with better energy intake. In Europe, for example, vitamin D deficiency is prevalent across many nations, though it varies from country to country. Denmark and Sweden have notably lower selenium levels compared to Finland. In the United States, over 25% of adults fail to meet the Estimated Average Requirement (EAR) for several vitamins and minerals, including vitamins A, D, E, calcium, and magnesium. Even identical food items can differ in nutrient content due to soil health and farming techniques.

In short, it is possible that a person with a more varied diet could fall short of certain micronutrients.  

If you’re concerned about nutrient deficiencies, I highly recommend tracking your micronutrient intake to see which ones you consistently meet. MacroFactor, for example, pulls data from high-quality sources like the USDA and NCCDB, providing detailed micronutrient information. For accurate tracking, focus on logging common foods rather than branded items. Below is a table highlighting nutrients that might need more attention and others that are likely less of a concern.

What would be the purpose of a multivitamin? 

One key point is that a multivitamin is not a medication. While there are cases where vitamin intake has resolved medical conditions, a multivitamin should not be treated as medicine.

Multivitamins (or specific vitamin and mineral supplementation) could potentially improve health outcomes when someone has a micronutrient deficiency that isn’t already being treated in a more targeted manner. However, using multivitamins to address diseases or conditions unrelated to vitamin deficiencies doesn’t seem as effective. This might explain why several studies, including this well-known one from JAMA, have shown that multivitamin use doesn’t necessarily contribute to living a longer life. That said, vitamin deficiency can be dangerous. 

This is where the distinction lies: “healthy adults” who take a multivitamin may not see much benefit, while others, particularly those with deficiencies, could experience notable improvements in quality of life or a reduction in illness. This also highlights the difference in nutritional needs between developed countries, where diets are generally more varied, and developing countries that rely on fortification and vitamin supplementation to address severe deficiencies.

For the average person eating a varied, healthy diet, multivitamins serve more as “nutrient insurance” (with caveats). They can assist in filling nutrient gaps but should not replace what your diet provides.

Do multivitamins work?

This is where the research becomes more abstract and harder to piece together. When we examine how individual supplements address specific deficiencies, strong evidence supports using a single micronutrient in supplement form (typically at the direction of a medical professional). However, the evidence becomes less clear when we look at multivitamins and their contribution to addressing specific (or even broader) issues. This is partly because multivitamins are not typically used to resolve a deficiency that would be better treated with a targeted micronutrient supplement. 

With this in mind, it raises reasonable questions about the purpose and effectiveness of multivitamins.

Can multivitamins affect micronutrient levels?

A study on multivitamin/multimineral supplementation in healthy older men found that, while the participants didn’t initially have major deficiencies, the supplement helped prevent the typical decline in several key vitamins associated with aging. Specifically, levels of vitamins B6, D, E, and beta-carotene increased as a result of multivitamin use.

Blood micronutrient concentrations at baseline and completion (final) of the supplementation period for participants assigned placebo and MV/MM

While MVM supplementation improved certain vitamin levels, it’s important to note that it did not affect all micronutrients uniformly, particularly minerals. Another study in older populations using MVM supplements found a similar pattern — some vitamin levels increased, but not all were impacted by the supplementation.

I’ll talk about this a little more in the section on bioavailability, but there are limitations on how certain micronutrients are absorbed from multivitamins (or supplements in general). Factors like how the multivitamin is taken, the digestive health of the individual, and the form of the micronutrient used by the manufacturer all influence the supplement’s effectiveness. From a study design perspective, there are many variables to consider — not just the multivitamin itself but also the specific forms of each micronutrient, their interactions, and other factors.

So, the short but complex answer is that while we can absorb nutrients from multivitamins, it may not be all of them, and the amounts of absorbed micronutrients can vary.

Can nutrient deficiency contribute to illness or disease risks? 

Sure. Iron deficiency can lead to anemia, and low B12 can cause neurological issues. However, the logical response to these issues is to take iron if you’re low on iron rather than relying on a multivitamin. The broader, more abstract question is whether taking a multivitamin could prevent, for example, someone who is borderline anemic from developing clinically low iron levels. It’s possible, but the answer isn’t clear, as there aren’t many studies specifically addressing this.

Can a multivitamin help decrease nutrient deficiency?

Technically, the answer is yes. But as you can see, there are many caveats, and I don’t think this is a clear-cut topic. 

For most people, including a quality multivitamin in your daily routine — alongside a well-rounded whole food diet and in reasonable dosages — could potentially be beneficial. That’s about as far as I’d go in endorsing multivitamin use, but I also think that means a lot. The specifics are more nuanced and, surprisingly, quite complex, making it difficult to determine how a multivitamin impacts your health. Ultimately, it comes down to making an informed decision about whether or not to take one and, if so, choosing a high-quality option.

I do think multivitamins could plausibly help optimize and supplement a whole-food diet. More specifically, I think a minimal and responsible multivitamin intake could help fill certain nutrient gaps, especially considering the variability in vitamin and mineral levels, seasonal changes in produce, or occasional suboptimal food choices.

That said, it’s important to recognize that the quality of your diet isn’t just about hitting your macro- and micronutrient targets. Even if multivitamins were flawless in every way, you’d still be better off aiming for a diet rich in diverse, whole foods, especially fruits and vegetables. Why? Because whole foods offer more than just vitamins and minerals. They provide fiber, phytonutrients, and other compounds that affect overall health — things you just don’t get from a pill. 

A balanced, varied diet will do a lot more for your long-term health than relying solely on supplements. This companion article makes good points on avoiding micronutrient reductionism, which is an oversimplified approach to defining a healthy diet solely by meeting specific micronutrient targets. It often neglects the broader health benefits of consuming a diverse range of whole foods.

So, will a multivitamin compensate for a consistently low-nutrient, low-fiber diet? No. But could it help cover micronutrient gaps when you do your best to include nutrient-dense foods? I think it’s worth a shot, just with caveats. 

What should someone look for (or avoid) when picking a multivitamin?

If you decide to take a multivitamin, there are a few factors to consider.

Bioavailability of oral vitamins

How well we absorb a micronutrient (especially from an oral supplement) depends on many factors. Our body’s ability to utilize what we consume is influenced by digestive health, other nutrients, and even the form the nutrient is consumed.

In general, the absorption of micronutrients depends largely on their interactions with other dietary components. Fat- and water-soluble vitamins may have their absorption enhanced or diminished based on how they interact with other vitamins and minerals. For example, vitamin E can enhance the uptake of vitamin A, but this combination can also slightly reduce the absorption of vitamin D. So, with combining nutrients, it’s not always straightforward.

Additionally, supplements often contain different forms of vitamins and minerals, which can vary in how well they are absorbed. For instance, magnesium oxide has relatively low absorption, while magnesium citrate is absorbed more efficiently. In cases like this, selecting the right form can make a difference in whether you benefit from the supplement.

While it would be overkill to list out every form of every micronutrient that may appear in multivitamins, these are some of the key nutrients to be on the lookout for (nutrients for which versions with poor bioavailability or poor efficacy are often used, when superior forms are available). If a multivitamin uses the lower-quality forms of most or all of these nutrients, that’s a decent indication that it’s a fairly low-quality multivitamin overall:

It can feel overwhelming to consider all the different micronutrients, their interactions, and the various absorbable forms. This is where choosing a vetted, high-quality multivitamin can help, as these products are more likely to include the best forms of each nutrient. Additionally, it’s ideal to take a multivitamin with a whole-food meal to enhance absorption potential.

Avoiding excessive intake

Using a multivitamin can carry the risk of exceeding recommended intake levels. While most micronutrients aren’t at risk of surpassing upper tolerance levels, some require caution. For example, men can easily consume too much iron. Vitamin A is another nutrient that can be overconsumed, even without supplements, making it important to monitor supplemental forms.

You can take too much of a micronutrient from supplements, so one of the best ways to avoid this is to choose reputable, responsible brands that take a reasonable approach to nutrient levels. While it’s fine for some micronutrients to exceed daily values, a red flag is when levels are significantly higher than recommended. More isn’t always better.

Lastly, MacroFactor has an excellent article detailing how to understand upper tolerance levels, which you can find here.

General supplement safety 

Depending on your country, rules and regulations around supplements can vary. In the U.S., while there is some regulation, oversight is relatively limited. Dietary supplements are governed by the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA). The FDA is responsible for ensuring supplements are safe, but only after products are already on the market. Manufacturers don’t need to prove their supplements are effective or safe before selling them.

In contrast, Europe has a few more pre-market safeguards. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) sets safe upper intake levels for vitamins and minerals, providing a more structured regulatory framework.

I recommend a combination of a few factors if electing to choose a multivitamin:

1. Choose multivitamins that have been independently tested to verify their product claims. Several organizations (NSF, USP, Labdoor and ConsumerLab) conduct tests or certify supplements to ensure that the ingredients and dosages listed match the actual product. Additionally, you can check if your product is NSF certified (the search is a little daunting but free). 
2. Select multivitamins that provide appropriate serving amounts of the listed vitamins and minerals. This can be tricky, as most supplements list their contents based on daily values, which may not always align with your specific needs.
3. Be cautious of additional ingredients in multivitamins that aren’t related to micronutrients. Some products may contain herbal ingredients or even drugs that aren’t immediately obvious, as the main label often focuses on the multivitamin claim. For example, it’s not uncommon for a multivitamin to include caffeine (a stimulant) or herbal ingredients like saw palmetto that in higher amounts can have pretty notable side effects.

Take home? A good multivitamin should contain only essential vitamins and minerals, come from a vetted and reputable organization, and provide reasonable, safe quantities of each ingredient.

Basic Recap

Multivitamins are probably unnecessary for most individuals with a varied diet that includes a balance of macro- and micronutrients. However, for those with less dietary variety or who are restricting certain macro- or micronutrients, in reasonable doses, multivitamins from an independently tested and reputable source could be helpful. They’re also a cheap and easy source of certain nutrients, especially if they include EPA/DHA.

TL;DR: I’m not shilling too hard for multivitamins, but I think they’re fine in small amounts as micronutrient insurance.

1. Other than vitamin D, which is technically a hormone ↩︎

The post Should You Take a Multivitamin? appeared first on MacroFactor.

This is the final piece in a three-part series examining the role of supplements in different areas:

• Performance
• Body composition
• General health

In this article, I’ll focus on supplements that support overall health and explore what that really means. The world of health supplements is often crowded with complex detox protocols and obscure herbal remedies that claim to address various ailments. But is it possible that the best solutions are the simple ones?

Let’s get into it.

What are health supplements? 

Previously, I’ve discussed supplements that support performance and body composition. For general health, supplements can be valuable additions that can complement your nutrition and exercise behavior you already have in place. These supplements won’t compensate for a diet lacking essential nutrients or a sedentary lifestyle but can be beneficial for bridging minor nutritional gaps. For instance, if you’re struggling to meet your daily protein, healthy fat, or fiber intake, these supplements could provide the support you need.

While I harp on the importance of maintaining a solid nutritional foundation, I acknowledge that society and lifestyle structures can throw curve balls. These supplements can be genuinely beneficial. However, they should complement and support a well-rounded diet. I believe they should be the additions, not the foundations.

General health shouldn’t be confused with healing or medication 

One short caveat: this article aims to educate about supplements for general health support and not for healing or medicinal purposes. What does that mean? For instance, if you are experiencing gastrointestinal issues and your doctor recommends taking a fiber supplement like Metamucil to address or manage a medical condition, that is beyond the scope of this discussion. This article focuses on maintaining general health, supporting nutritional guidelines, and potentially aiding in prevention — not treating or managing existing health conditions. For those purposes, consulting your physician is essential.

Top-tier supplements for general health 

In the previous articles (here and here), I categorized supplements into tiers to emphasize the strength of their effects or the amount of supporting research within their respective categories. However, I won’t be using that approach for this article. General health supplements involve a wide range of vitamins and minerals, each with their own research and significance. This makes tiering less practical, as there’s plenty to cover without trying to rank their effectiveness or the strength of evidence behind them.

Protein supplements 

It’s probably no surprise that protein is also the standout supplement in this category. If there’s one supplement I emphasize most for health when talking with family and friends outside the industry (who aren’t interested in the detailed research discussions), it’s protein.

Adequate protein intake is pretty important for maintaining muscle mass, supporting recovery, and boosting immune function. However, daily protein intake can vary widely depending on factors such as geographic location, income, and dietary habits, ranging from approximately 6.74 to 77.13 grams per day. Now, the lower end of this spectrum is typically found in developing countries with limited access to protein-rich foods. With that said, even in high-income countries, some individuals still do not meet their ideal daily protein intake.

Additionally, there is an argument for consuming more than the current protein recommendations (around 1.2-1.6g/kg, rather than the current recommendation of 0.8g/kg) for optimal health and muscle maintenance. So, for my first argument on the value of protein supplements: they can provide a quick and convenient source of 20g or more of quality protein per scoop. Ideally, whole-food sources should be the primary means of meeting protein needs. However, if it’s the difference between meeting protein intake goals through supplementation or falling short, I advocate for the use of protein supplements or fortified products (e.g., specialized yogurts or milk).

Why is easy protein access and use so important? 

For older adults, overall protein requirements tend to be higher. This isn’t just about achieving a certain look — it’s about practical factors like slowing muscle atrophy, preserving strength as you age, and aiding in recovery from injuries. Exercising? You need protein. Fighting off illness? You need protein. Recovering from a tear or injury? Protein.

I do want to point out that heavy protein supplement use could have drawbacks. Quality of product, allergies, and how the proteins interact with your gut microbiome are things to consider, and this also supports keeping protein supplementation limited. 

In short, there is no lack of evidence that hitting your daily protein intake is important for optimal health and functionality (here). However, when we consider health, it goes back to overall protein intake versus specific supplements with specific timing and dose. 

Fiber 

Dietary fiber intake has declined globally, and many fall short of the recommended daily intake. This trend is concerning given fiber’s essential role in gut health and its potential to reduce the risk of chronic diseases. To help bridge this gap, fiber supplements are often recommended for both treatment and preventive purposes, especially for those who struggle to meet their fiber needs through food sources alone.

As with protein, it’s ideal you’d obtain your fiber intake through whole foods. There are vitamins, minerals, and additional health benefits like polyphenols that support a healthy gut microbiome and contribute to overall nutrition. However, being realistic about economic and personal preference challenges, fiber supplements can serve as a practical solution to ensure adequate intake.

For benefits, one of the most well-supported benefits of adequate fiber intake is improved gut motility, aiding in regular bowel movements and stool frequency. Different types of fiber can impact gut motility and digestive comfort in varying ways. For instance, a meta-analysis examining fiber supplementation for constipation found that certain fibers outperformed others, with psyllium showing the most consistent results.

Fiber is also associated with supporting weight management and body composition, which can contribute positively to overall health outcomes. Some of these benefits stem partly from its ability to enhance satiety, making it easier to regulate Calorie intake, and its role in glycemic control. Similar to gut motility, the type of fiber consumed can affect the degree of these benefits, highlighting the importance of choosing the right type for your needs.

Overall, fiber’s wide range of potential positive benefits include improving cardiovascular risk markers, improving blood pressure, and aiding various populations (such as older adults and those with obesity). Although consuming the wrong types of fiber or excessive amounts can lead to gastrointestinal distress for some, fiber supplements are generally affordable and can be a practical option when whole-food sources are insufficient.

Omega-3 fatty acids 

These fatty acids originate from microalgae found in both freshwater and marine environments, either floating in the water or on the surface of sediments. Fish consume these algae (or other fish that have consumed it), and accumulate omega-3s in their bodies over time. When you take a fish oil supplement, you’re essentially consuming their stored source of omega-3s derived from algae. Alternatively, you can bypass the fish entirely and take an algae-based omega-3 supplement.

Omega-3s contain amounts of EPA (eicosapentaenoic acid) and DHA (docosahexaenoic acid) per serving. EPA/DHA are essential fatty acids, meaning the body cannot produce these essential fatty acids, which must be obtained through the diet. These fatty acids are generally only found in these omega-3 marine-based fatty acids. So, this means if you’re not eating fish or the algae the fish eat, you’re not really getting these sources of fatty acids in your diet.

Is that a problem? It can be. Low levels of EPA/DHA are not uncommon, especially for those living in landlocked areas with limited access to fresh marine food. While omega-3s can also be found in fortified foods, chia seeds, and flaxseeds, these sources primarily provide ALA (alpha-linolenic acid). The catch is that while the body can convert ALA into EPA and DHA, this process is inefficient and typically results in only a small supply. Therefore, marine food sources are needed to increase EPA and DHA levels. However, since many people don’t or can’t achieve sufficient intake through diet alone, supplementation becomes an option.

From a practical standpoint, research consistently shows that omega-3 supplementation is effective at raising EPA and DHA levels in the body, but depending on dosage, it can take weeks to months to reach full levels. From a health perspective, I take a pretty conservative view, focusing mainly on the benefits of getting our daily essential fatty acids. Omega-3s, specifically DHA and EPA, have been linked to cognitive benefits like improved memory and learning, with some evidence suggesting they may also help protect against neurodegenerative decline. 

Another benefit is inflammation decrease. An umbrella meta-analysis showed that omega-3 supplementation reduced levels associated with inflammation markers (such as CRP, IL-6, and TNF-α). Additionally, omega-3s have been shown to lower the risk of metabolic syndrome (MetS), a cluster of conditions tied to metabolic health risks.

In cardiovascular research, things get more mixed and controversial, particularly when considering the nuances of different types of cardiac events. For example, evidence suggests that omega-3 supplementation may be beneficial in reducing the risk of certain cardiovascular outcomes (such as myocardial infarction). However, the benefits depend on the type of omega-3 used and the specific health conditions of the individual. For example, caution is advised for individuals who have had a myocardial infarction, as omega-3s may elevate stroke risk or atrial fibrillation.

For general risk and safety, it’s best to aim for an intake of about 0.8-1.2g of combined EPA and DHA per day, which seems to deliver benefits but avoids more potentially negative side effects. These negative effects can range from having a bad aftertaste to a higher dose, increasing the ease of bleeding.
With that said, getting your required EPA/DHA covered (but probably leaving it at that) seems to have more positives than negatives. 

Creatine  

Creatine, typically lauded for its performance-enhancing effects, also offers health benefits beyond performance. Mechanistically, this makes sense, as creatine supports energy pathways and recovery, which could contribute to broader health advantages. For example, improving cellular energy production could support muscle function, cognitive health, and recovery processes, especially in adults or those with certain health conditions.

One of the more notable benefits of creatine is its role in preserving lean body mass. While this effect is most pronounced when combined with resistance training and physical activity, creatine has positively impacted lean body mass retention and growth, particularly in older adults. A meta-analysis from Forbes et al reviewed creatine’s impact and found increases in lean body mass and preservation in aging-related muscle preservation​. In a 2024 update, Forbes and Candow expanded on these findings and included a few new studies. Both studies found that creatine helped increase lean body mass when combined with resistance training. The latter study also found there could be a benefit to bone geometry, which is something that may help reduce fracture risk.

Beneficial effects on cognitive function and memory are pretty solid, even in healthy adults. A meta-analysis on memory in healthy adults found that creatine was beneficial to memory performance, and aging adults seem to respond better to supplementation. Another meta-analysis also found positive effects on memory and attention span (though not as impressive results on things like executive function).

There is a hint of creatine’s helpfulness in other areas, from bone health to neurodegeneration, but for now, holding on to lean body mass and helping cognitive function seem to have the strongest supportive evidence. 

Multi-vitamin / specific vitamins and minerals

To caveat, the main takeaway for this section is straightforward: the primary benefit of these supplements lies in addressing insufficient intake due to dietary or lifestyle factors. It’s important to avoid excessive or high doses of vitamins and minerals, as too much can be harmful. However, if you’re deficient, it’s generally in your best interest to correct that deficiency and reach adequate levels.

This article from MacroFactor discusses which micronutrients are worth monitoring and gives advice about which vitamins and minerals could have insufficient intake in the general population. However, as the article points out, there is a difference between insufficient and deficient. Large amounts of supplements are not needed to get to a sufficient level of intake. Depending on your dietary situation, it could be taking one specific mineral like magnesium or a daily multivitamin. 

Referring to that list, it’s clear that many vitamins and minerals fall into the “insufficient intake is common” category. To keep this concise, I’ll focus on a few examples that illustrate the nuance and are more likely to be needed as supplements, especially because they tend to be effective in supplement form. 

Magnesium 

Magnesium is vital for over 300 bodily processes, including muscle and nerve function, bone health, and energy production. For instance, one particular role it plays is as a cofactor in Vitamin D metabolism. So if you’re taking Vitamin D without adequate magnesium, it could not be as effective. This one interaction highlights the delicate balance between vitamins and minerals in the body, highlighting why varied whole foods sources are needed for meeting nutrient needs.

With that said, magnesium supplementation could support various health aspects, ranging from bone health and reducing inflammatory markers. While magnesium intake is generally safe, excessive amounts can lead to loose stools and gastrointestinal distress (note: one form of magnesium is commonly used in over-the-counter laxatives). Therefore, it’s wise to moderate your magnesium intake to avoid these side effects.

Vitamin D 

Vitamin D is particularly interesting because its levels are influenced by diet and sunlight exposure. Limited sunlight can lead to decreased vitamin D levels, an issue more prevalent for people living above latitudes of approximately 35-37 degrees north or south of the equator or for those who spend significant time indoors or have low skin exposure to the sun.

Considering the interaction between magnesium and factors like sun exposure, it’s clear that multiple variables can contribute to insufficient vitamin D levels. While some might hope for supplementation to prevent or address chronic diseases, the evidence doesn’t seem to be overwhelming thus far. The most consistent evidence supports using vitamin D supplements to prevent or correct deficiency or insufficiency, rather than as a treatment for most known chronic diseases.

That’s not to say there aren’t some intriguing possibilities for vitamin D supplementation. For instance, co-supplementing vitamin D may enhance the effects of whey protein in maintaining lean mass in older, potentially frail adults. However, most benefits are seen in areas you’d expect, such as bone health. Overall, while extra vitamin D intake isn’t likely to have miraculous effects, it can play an important role in preventing the consequences of deficiency or insufficiency.

Multivitamins & vitamin/mineral take-home

As seen with the examples of other vitamins and minerals, there are quite a few areas where insufficient intake could occur. Using a quality multivitamin is a straightforward way to address these potential gaps.

Multivitamins can be viewed as a tool to fill potential nutritional gaps when other best efforts are already in place. While they are unlikely to reverse specific health conditions, they could be helpful in reducing the risk of deficiencies that become more common with age. Multivitamins can also be especially useful for individuals with dietary restrictions (such as vegetarians or vegans), serving as a reliable means to cover essential nutrient needs. Essentially, they are more about ensuring baseline sufficiency rather than providing special health benefits.

Lastly, with all vitamins and minerals, it’s important to consider the form. As noted in the magnesium and vitamin D example, there can be a multitude of factors that help with bioavailability. With supplements, there aren’t natural compounds that can work together to increase absorption, so at the very least, make sure you focus on getting the best quality supplements and forms that aid absorption the best. 

Examples of higher or lower quality forms for supplements 

Recap 

The main takeaway from this article is that the focus should be on preventing nutrient insufficiency or deficiency rather than seeking an extraordinary advantage through supplementation. Whole foods remain the gold standard for nutrient intake (an obvious yet important point). However, if dietary choices consistently leave gaps in your nutrient intake, or if you believe a supplement like creatine could enhance your energy, then supplements can be genuinely beneficial. Use them minimally and thoughtfully while continuing to improve and balance your overall diet.

The post What are Good Supplements for Health?  appeared first on MacroFactor.

This is the second article in a three-part series that explores supplements and their value for:

• Performance
• Body composition
• General health

In this article, I focus on supplements that help improve body composition while also providing some context of what body composition means and, ultimately, what we should keep in mind when using supplements to improve it.

Let’s dig in!

A quick recap of the previous article 

In the first article, I covered what constitutes a supplement. I also mentioned all three of the top-tier supplements and made background and mechanistic statements about each that I think are worth reading, even if you only consider supplements for body composition. I recommend checking out that article for a complete understanding of how these supplements can interact and support your goals.

Body composition 

Generally speaking, when researchers examine body composition outcomes, the focus is primarily on increasing muscle mass or reducing fat mass. A focus on body composition is a bit more holistic than focusing on just weight, because two individuals with the same weight and height can have vastly different distributions of muscle and fat. So, don’t conflate supplements that improve body composition with supplements that promote weight loss. A loss of fat mass without a loss in muscle mass represents an improvement in body composition, but so does an increase in muscle mass without an increase in fat mass.

What can complicate these findings is that resistance training must be present to gain muscle in any notable way, and a Calorie deficit is required to lose a significant amount of body fat. Studies may look to see if using a supplement leads to a spontaneous decrease or increase in these factors, or they may combine it with other elements, such as training or dietary interventions, to assess if the supplement helps improve results. So, with body composition, there are quite a few moving parts, making looking at the details of the studies more important.

As one final complication, most studies investigating the impact of supplements on body composition assess changes in lean body mass (LBM) or fat-free mass (FFM) rather than muscle mass specifically. For various boring technical reasons, it’s far more challenging to assess whole-body muscle mass than whole-body fat-free mass or lean mass. Most of the time, changes in fat-free mass or lean body mass do reflect changes in muscle mass, but there can also be complications. Namely, water is included in fat-free or lean mass, so supplements that affect your tissues’ total hydration can affect your fat-free mass or lean mass more than they affect your actual muscle mass.

Top-tier supplements for body composition

Protein supplement

Protein supplementation can support body composition improvements through a few routes. The first and most obvious is by helping to increase lean body mass, particularly muscle mass. Note that muscle growth requires the presence of resistance training and an adequate Calorie intake, and not all studies assure this (or specifically try to ensure it). For instance, if a study on protein supplementation doesn’t show impressive results, it might be because resistance training wasn’t included. When resistance training is part of the equation, research shows that protein supplementation can support the growth of lean body mass and muscle mass.

Furthermore, protein supplements may also promote fat loss. For example, a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials found that whey protein supplementation led to significant reductions in BMI, as well as nominal (but nonsignificant) reductions in total fat mass.

Consistently, studies show that protein supplementation helps preserve or increase lean body mass across populations from women to older adults. This becomes especially important for older adults since there is a natural decrease in muscle protein synthesis with age. 

So, it’s probably no surprise that protein supplementation can help with gaining lean body mass. However, the results are more scattered when considering how well protein supplementation contributes to fat loss. Here are two things to keep in mind: First, protein is an energy-containing macronutrient – it still provides Calories. To lose body fat, we need to reduce overall Calories. Logically, adding extra Calories through protein supplementation while trying to achieve fat loss may not make a lot of sense, or at the very least, it could create complications in achieving that goal. However, protein intake also has a marked impact on appetite and satiety, such that higher protein intakes help to reduce carbohydrate and fat intake. The interplay of these two factors can help explain why adding Calories from protein supplements doesn’t always reduce body fat, but it also doesn’t tend to increase total energy intake or fat mass either. 

The other factor to consider is that when you’re in a Calorie deficit, the goal is to retain as much muscle mass as possible. You want to lose fat, not muscle or water weight. In this context, protein supplementation can help preserve muscle during weight loss, which is why the results around fat loss may seem modest. While protein supplements may not directly cause significant fat loss on their own, they play a critical role in ensuring that you’re losing mostly fat (not muscle) when you’re cutting Calories. So, while more significant fat loss due to protein supplementation is unlikely, it can still support the overall body composition goal.

Overall, the support for using protein supplementation is solid. As I said in the first article, this will come down to the presence of overall protein, which does not have to be in supplement form. If you already consume enough protein from whole food sources in your diet, adding a protein supplement probably won’t do much for you. Additionally, there are benefits to whole foods that are not found in supplements. However, if protein supplements help you hit your protein goals, they are great for gaining muscle or preserving lean mass during a deficit.

Creatine 

For body composition, creatine can affect multiple markers via a few pathways. The most notable and discussed benefit of creatine use is its ability to assist in lean body mass gains. This systematic review and meta-analysis of creatine supplementation combined with resistance training on body composition in adults under 50 found that those who supplemented with creatine saw a modest increase in LBM pretty evenly in trained and untrained subjects. 

Similarly, this GRADE-assessed systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of creatine supplementation also found modest gains in LBM utilizing a pretty standard dose and duration. The study found that a loading phase of 20g per day for 5-7 days, followed by a maintenance dose of 2-5g per day, could do the job for effective results. As mentioned in the earlier article, loading phases can sometimes lead to digestive discomfort, so if that’s a concern, you can still hit saturation levels, just a little slower. 

It’s important to note that increases in lean body mass with creatine supplementation may include changes in water retention. Creatine can draw in water, contributing to an initial rise in LBM. This factor is especially noted during more aggressive loading phases. However, some studies on creatine’s effects account for these changes, suggesting that while water retention is a factor, it’s not the sole explanation for LBM gains – creatine supplementation also increases more direct measures of muscle mass. The positive impact of creatine on LBM likely involves more than just short-term water or glycogen increases. This makes creatine a valid option for those aiming to enhance LBM, with possible benefits extending beyond just water retention.

Regarding decreases in fat mass, a meta-analysis from Forbes et al looked at 19 studies with 609 participants focusing on older adults supplementing with creatine (while engaging in resistance training). The study found the participants showed a small decrease in body fat percentage and fat mass, although the decrease in fat mass was not statistically significant. Desal et al also found decreases in body fat percentage and body fat mass.

What makes creatine’s potential to assist with fat mass loss more interesting is that, unlike protein supplements, creatine doesn’t add any Calories. This means there’s a greater possibility for creatine to contribute to fat loss without the complication of added energy intake. While the effects are modest, if you’re already following a Calorie deficit, creatine could serve as an aid, helping to preserve lean mass while supporting fat loss.

Caffeine

To give a quick reminder, caffeine is known for its stimulatory effects, primarily by blocking adenosine receptors, which help reduce feelings of fatigue and sleepiness. This leads us to the first point: caffeine could assist with body composition, particularly in reducing body fat. 

A systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis, which included 13 randomized controlled trials with 606 participants, suggests that caffeine consumption may contribute to reductions in weight, BMI, and body fat. The study also suggested that doubling caffeine intake led to more significant reductions. Mechanistically, the researchers noted that this effect is likely attributed to increased adenosine antagonism (which could increase energy expenditure).

When you think about fat loss in its simplest terms, the goal is to create a sustainable Calorie deficit. While Calorie deficits affect people differently, common side effects include lethargy and fatigue. Caffeine can be beneficial by reducing the extremity of fatigue during these energy-restricted periods. It’s also possible that caffeine intake could lead to spontaneous fat loss in some individuals, as increased energy might result in more energy expenditure. It’s important to note that not everyone will respond to caffeine this way, but this is the most intuitive way caffeine could help in a fat loss plan.

Other mechanistic properties of caffeine could also positively affect body composition. For example, some suggest that caffeine can stimulate the activity of brown adipose tissue (BAT), which could lead to an increase in energy expenditure. While an energy deficit would be needed to aid in any significant changes in body composition, caffeine could also have a small effect on fat mobilization. Lastly, it’s also possible that caffeine could give you enough energy to hit a training session when you might otherwise skip it, inadvertently providing an energy source to help you knock out some lifts.

Overall, caffeine could help your body composition in many ways, but the most common is providing Calorie-free energy during periods of reduced energy intake.

Mid-tier supplements for body composition

HMB 

HMB (beta-hydroxy-beta-methylbutyrate) is a compound derived from the amino acid leucine, which stimulates muscle growth. HMB is typically taken in powdered or capsule form, and most studies show that the ideal benefits will be around a 3g dose. Common forms include HMB-Ca and HMB-FA. While some research suggests the bioavailability of HMB-FA has an edge, other studies suggest their end effects seem comparable. Both are fine options, so let your budget and ease guide here. 

Now, let’s get into what HMB could do. 

From what we can see, HBM seems ideal for protecting against muscle damage. So, if you think of leucine as stimulating muscle protein synthesis, you can think of HMB as reducing muscle breakdown. Where would this be most relevant? If you’re new to lifting, getting back into lifting after a long period off, or lifting during a deficit where you’re more vulnerable to catabolic states, HMB could be something you consider.

For example, one of the populations most vulnerable to muscle degeneration is older and elderly individuals. A systematic review that examined HMB and body composition in elderly populations found that HMB supplementation works well for helping older adults hold onto muscle and strength, even if they’re bedridden or inactive. Studies examining varying populations and sexes found similar anti-catabolic effects and protection in untrained lifters. With that said, there would seem to be less impressive results when the individuals are trained or competitive athletes. 

One fair question when discussing HMB is whether you even need it if you’re already consuming enough protein or leucine (because HMB is a metabolite of leucine). Could you just rely on getting enough protein or taking leucine directly? The evidence isn’t entirely there yet, but there does seem to be something there with HMB as a muscle-wasting protectant. The good thing is that other than the smell and taste, side effects seem to be pretty minimal. 

Betaine 

Betaine is a “zwitterionic quaternary ammonium compound,” which is fancy chem speak for a compound that comes from sugar beets, though it can also be found in other foods such as spinach or seafood. Dosing typically starts around 2.5g, and studies haven’t shown notable side effects at this level. However, higher doses (above 9g) could potentially affect blood lipids, so it’s important to be mindful of dosage when supplementing.

From the first article, I discussed another beet-derived supplement, where the primary action mechanism is nitric oxide, improving blood flow and nutrient delivery. Betaine, however, works through different mechanisms for body composition. One possible pathway is that betaine may influence enzymes that break down fat. Betaine can also lower homocysteine, which can help kick start fat breakdown.

A meta-analysis by Gao et al found that betaine supplementation reduced total body fat and body fat percentage, though it had minimal effects on overall body weight or BMI. There were indications of increased lean mass as well. The analysis also noted that betaine supplementation resulted in greater fat reductions when combined with exercise. When viewed in the right context, these findings suggest that betaine holds promise for improving body composition.

With all this said, the evidence on betaine is still mixed. A meta-analysis by Ashtary-Larky et al found that its effects on body composition were not as impressive. So, we are still learning, but there is promise.

In the end, supplements should be viewed as aids to support your changes rather than as magical solutions for body composition changes. That’s a controversial take at times, but the reality is that supplements are most effective when they complement what you’re already doing. This is particularly true for body composition, where gaining muscle requires focused resistance training, and losing fat necessitates a Calorie deficit. Those core actions are going to matter the most.

TL;DR for body composition supplements

Achieving noticeable improvements in body composition ultimately depends on your goals and program set-ups, such as maintaining a consistent Calorie deficit for fat loss or adding resistance training for muscle gain. However, these supplements may help support or make achieving those goals easier.

• Protein supplements: Helpful for building muscle or maintaining lean mass, especially when meeting daily protein needs during a Calorie deficit.
• Creatine: Effective for increasing lean body mass and supporting energy during Calorie deficits.
• Caffeine: Can provide energy during times of restriction, supporting overall training performance.
• HMB: Beneficial for those new to training, returning after a break, or doing more aggressive cuts.
• Betaine: Could assist in fat breakdown, though a Calorie deficit is still needed for significant changes.

The post Good Supplements for Body Composition  appeared first on MacroFactor.

This is the first in a three-part series that explores supplements and their value for:

• Performance
• Body composition
• General health

In this article, we’ll focus on supplements with the strongest research backing for performance and discuss practical applications — all while keeping in mind the desire to keep negative side effects low.

Let’s dig in!

What defines a supplement?

Under the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) of 1994, a dietary supplement is a product designed to complement or augment your diet. It can contain one or more of the following ingredients:

• An amino acid
• An herb or other botanical
• A vitamin
• A mineral
• A dietary substance for use by people to supplement the diet by increasing the total dietary intake
• A concentrate, metabolite, constituent, extract, or combination of any of the above ingredients

Once an ingredient is classified as a dietary ingredient, it must comply with established DSHEA regulations (this includes proper labeling, ingredient listing, quantity, and intended use). However, the products themselves are not independently tested before reaching the market. Government agencies like the FDA and FTC oversee and regulate the products once they hit the shelves. They are responsible for determining whether a supplement contains banned substances, makes misleading claims, or is unsafe for consumption.

Understanding supplements for performance

In this article, I’m focusing on supplements that enhance physical performance; supplements that positively influence body composition or general health outcomes are a topic for another day.

Performance itself is also a broad category, encompassing not only the event itself (e.g., how well you run), but also recovery after these events. There is obviously some crossover with areas like muscle building that can enhance performance. However, muscle building also ties into body composition, which I’ll cover in the next article. For simplicity, this article will focus primarily on performance.

Understanding acute vs. chronic effects of supplements

When examining supplements, it’s important to distinguish between short-term and long-term effects. 

Simply put, acute effects occur quickly, often within minutes to hours of supplementation, making them ideal for situations where immediate results are needed. Chronic effects develop over days, weeks, or months, with changes occurring gradually.

It’s also important to note that short-term benefits don’t necessarily lead to long-term improvements. For example, caffeine might help you power through a workout, but evidence doesn’t yet suggest that it increases your long-term progress on its own. However, by combining strategies that boost short-term performance while supporting long-term goals, you can potentially achieve the best of both worlds.

Selection of supplements: Evidence and effects 

When evaluating performance supplements, the goal is to find a combination of strong evidence and notable results. Ideally the research should be solid, and the benefits should be clear, particularly in real-world training or performance settings. To keep things simple, I’ll break this down into two categories: top-tier and high mid-tier supplements.

Top-tier supplements that are good for performance

Protein powder

Among the supplements discussed in this article, protein and carbohydrate supplements make the most sense, but can be a bit tricky regarding research. Why? Protein and carbohydrate supplements are sources of macronutrients and calories. This distinction is important because these supplements are essentially food and energy sources. While this may seem obvious to most, some people view protein supplements without fully grasping this concept. 

Though protein supplements may contain additional ingredients, they are primarily a protein source — whether it’s whey, egg, soy, or another type — delivered in powder, ready-to-eat products, or shakes.

I’ve covered the importance of protein as an essential nutrient involved in nearly every function related to building and repair. If you’re unfamiliar with how much protein we need daily, this article provides a breakdown — but just to reiterate, protein is pretty important.

Ideally, the protein we consume comes from whole-food animal or plant sources, as these foods provide not just macronutrients but also valuable micronutrients and antioxidants. 

That said, research shows that protein supplements can be useful for ensuring adequate intake, both for lifestyle and health needs and for performance. Where the research gets a bit more nuanced, particularly for performance, is in the balance between acute and chronic effects related to performance and recovery and the role of supplementation versus simply meeting your total daily protein needs.

In a systematic review, meta-analysis, and metaregression of 49 randomized controlled trials, adding protein supplements increased muscle mass and strength in resistance-trained subjects. Specifically, protein supplementation improved participants’ one-repetition maximum (1RM) strength by an average of 2.49kg (about a 9% improvement). However, the study also noted that supplementation isn’t necessary if you’re already meeting your daily protein needs.

There are plenty of successful protein supplement studies (examples can be found here, here, and here) that highlight performance benefits. The more important question is whether you need supplements to meet your overall protein intake.

The simple take home? If supplements make it easier to hit your daily protein targets or meet your workout nutrition needs, they could be your most valuable supplement, and they have a great track record with helping performance. However, if you already consume enough protein from your diet, there’s no need to take a protein supplement.

Creatine

Creatine takes us into the realm of pure “supplement” territory. It’s widely regarded as the gold standard for performance supplements, with strong research-supported effects. It’s the go-to supplement for performance, and its popularity is well deserved.

Creatine is a compound made from three amino acids: arginine, glycine, and methionine. We naturally produce creatine in the body, so it’s present even without supplementation. However, your diet can influence how much creatine you get daily. For example, omnivores typically consume about 1–2 grams of creatine per day, while vegetarians may have lower creatine stores since it’s predominantly found in animal products. The exact amount also depends on the specific animal products included in an omnivorous diet.

There are two common approaches to creatine supplementation: loading and steady-state. The loading phase involves taking 20-25 grams per day for 5-7 days to quickly “saturate” the muscles with creatine. Afterward, a lower dose of 3-5 grams per day is maintained. Note, loading like this can lead to digestive discomfort, but some people are happy to hit their saturation level faster. The steady-state method skips the loading phase. Although it takes about a month to reach full saturation, many find it easier on the digestive system. Ultimately, the choice comes down to personal preference.

Creatine aids performance through several pathways, the most commonly discussed being its ability to increase phosphocreatine availability, which helps regenerate ATP, the body’s “energy currency.” Without diving too deeply into biochemistry, creatine essentially allows us to “spend more” energy during short, intense efforts, potentially leading to more reps or work within a training session.

There are other possible pathways in which creatine helps aid performance, such as reducing oxidative acidosis (which can be simplified as a burning feeling or weakness/fatigue during training). 

Strength-wise, we can see positives in both upper and lower limbs. There is also evidence for recovery from workouts. While I’ll cover more on muscle building in the body composition article, it is fair to say that preserving or increasing muscle mass can also be good for performance.

Now, I want to note that not everyone responds to creatine supplementation in the same way, and there are a few reasons for this. One of the most intuitive explanations is that some individuals are already “loaded” with creatine, meaning they naturally have higher creatine stores. People can have higher or lower muscle creatine levels before starting supplementation, and supplementation is most likely to benefit the people who are starting with low muscle creatine concentrations. 

Overall, creatine is a well-researched, safe, and widely tested supplement with minimal negative side effects. Some side effects, like digestive discomfort, can often be avoided by taking a slower approach to reaching full saturation. In the end, it’s a supplement worth considering.

Carbohydrate supplements

Carbohydrate supplements, like protein supplements, are sources of Calories. In a recent article, I explored the ideal carbohydrate intake levels for different styles of training.

When you consume carbohydrates, your body breaks them down into glucose, which fuels your training. Carbohydrates are particularly efficient because they produce more ATP per unit of oxygen in aerobic metabolism. When glucose isn’t circulating, your body taps into glycogen stores to fuel exercise. Consuming carbs before or during a workout helps maintain glycogen levels and circulating glucose, which keeps performance steadier during higher volume or longer training sessions.

A pretty large meta-analysis (45+ years, 96 studies, and 142 trials) examined the impact of carbohydrate solutions on exercise performance and found that the longer the exercise duration, the more effective carbohydrate supplementation became. Additionally, consuming carbohydrates during exercise was more beneficial than taking them beforehand, particularly for longer efforts.

While there’s no single protocol that all studies follow, popular carbohydrate sources include hydrogels and sports drinks. The meta-analysis included an assortment of sugar-type ratios, but the most common is a glucose-to-fructose ratio of 2:1.

It’s also worth noting that cyclists saw larger effects in similar studies than runners. However, your specific type of training and performance goals should influence how much attention you should give to carbohydrate supplementation. For example, strength lifters are less likely to rely on carbohydrate intake for performance, so they may not see as much benefit from carbohydrate supplementation.

Could you argue about where one draws the line between what’s food and what’s supplements? Sure. I’d argue that choosing supplements versus whole foods depends on context and need. In some situations, supplementation is more practical for performance, while whole foods may be a better fit in others. As always, context and individual needs are key.

Honorable mention: Caffeine 

Caffeine deserves an honorable mention because, while it’s classified as a natural drug and regulated differently than dietary supplements, it’s commonly found in performance supplements.

Caffeine is part of the methylxanthine family, a group of alkaloids known for their stimulatory effects. It primarily works by blocking adenosine receptors. While there are other possible contributors to caffeine’s impact on performance, blocking adenosine receptors seems to be the most significant factor. This can lead to reduced pain perception, stronger muscle contractions during anaerobic performance, and improved cognitive function during exercise.

Beyond adenosine receptors, caffeine might also enhance performance by increasing calcium release in muscle cells, aiding in muscle contraction. Some studies also suggest caffeine may boost nitric oxide and dopamine activity, further enhancing performance.

An umbrella review of 21 meta-analyses found that caffeine tends to have a larger impact on aerobic exercises than anaerobic ones, though it showed performance improvements across the board.

Most studies in this meta used decent doses, around 6mg per kilogram of body weight. The general range seems to be 3-6 mg/bw, with some studies showing little benefit for lower intakes and increasing risk of negative side effects at higher doses.

Let’s quickly break down how caffeine intake plays out in the real world. If we pick a moderate intake of 4mg per kilogram of body weight, here’s what that looks like:

For a 70kg (154lb) person, 70kg × 4 mg/kg = 280mg of caffeine.

In practical terms, that’s about 2-3 good-sized cups of coffee. This amount of caffeine might be too much (or too little) depending on your sensitivity to caffeine. For example, I’m highly sensitive to caffeine and need very little to see results. In contrast, others in the MacroFactor family (not naming names) could probably handle an IV drip of caffeine and still fall asleep easily.

Ultimately, caffeine is proven to enhance performance. I recommend experimenting with slow increases and trying different sources — whether it’s coffee, green tea, or caffeine in supplement powders — to find what works best for you.

High mid-tier, but perhaps smaller effects or more niche (smaller side effects)

As you can see, there is substantial support for the previously discussed supplements. In this next section, we’ll discuss supplements that fall into a few different buckets: 

• Supplements that seem to warrant more investigation
• Supplements that are not as powerful in effects, not as supported by the research, or both

But if you like supplements and are looking for relatively safe performance enhancement, you will find this section interesting as well.

Beta-alanine 

Beta-alanine is a non-essential amino acid, so we don’t technically need to obtain it through diet. Mechanistically, beta-alanine supplementation increases muscle carnosine concentrations (a dipeptide molecule found in high concentrations in muscle tissue). Increased carnosine levels enhance our muscle’s ability to buffer acids, particularly during high-intensity exercise. This reduction in acid buildup could delay muscle fatigue, allowing for longer and harder effort.

And if you’re thinking, why not just take the carnosine itself? You can, but there could be bioavailability and side effect issues. So, for ease, the thought is to use the precursor that can lead to increased saturation and performance over time. It’s worth noting that some people only take beta-alanine through pre-workout supplements rather than using it regularly. If that’s your approach, you’re probably not getting the benefit. However, chronic use of beta-alanine has been shown to reduce muscle fatigue during high-intensity exercise, making it more effective when taken consistently over time.

Research shows that muscle carnosine concentrations increase with the total cumulative dosage of beta-alanine you consume, with a cumulative dose of around 1500g being necessary to maximize muscle carnosine levels. So, if you only take the standard ~6g dose before your workouts, it’ll take ages for your muscles to reach maximal carnosine concentrations. However, if you take approximately 10g per day, every day, you’ll maximize your muscle carnosine concentrations much faster. 

A meta-analysis from Rezende et al found that beta-alanine succeeded overall at raising carnosine levels and that almost all individuals (99.3%) in the study responded to beta-alanine regardless of sex. Another meta-analysis found that supplementation with beta-alanine had a minor impact on performance during activities that fall between aerobic and anaerobic effort levels. Lastly, a study by Yamaguchi et al looked at increasing muscle carnosine with beta-alanine and then watched for depleting levels after supplementation ceased. They found that after stopping supplementation, levels returned to baseline by the 16-week mark. 

It’s safe to say that supplementing with beta-alanine can increase carnosine levels, which may lead to small but consistent performance benefits across various populations, especially during bouts of exertion lasting between 30 seconds and 10 minutes. So, beta-alanine probably won’t help endurance athletes that specialize in longer events, and it probably won’t improve your performance in heavy, low-rep sets of resistance exercise. Furthermore, it requires chronic dosing rather than intermittent, small pre-workout doses to be most effective. Beta-alanine also appears to be relatively safe with minimal side effects. Lastly, there is interest in trying to combine carnosine with anserine to decrease the unenjoyable side effects of carnosine alone. But for now, beta-alanine offers a simple and effective option.

Sodium bicarbonate

Following beta-alanine, sodium bicarbonate is another supplement that helps buffer pH levels and reduce exercise fatigue, though it works a bit differently. You might already be more familiar with sodium bicarbonate than you realize, as it’s commonly known as baking soda. 

Unlike beta-alanine, sodium bicarbonate acts acutely, meaning its effects are immediate. It raises pH levels in the blood or cellular fluids, neutralizing excess acid produced during exercise. The result is often a reduced fatigue, allowing you to extend your effort or squeeze out a few more reps.

A meta-analysis of 20 studies found that sodium bicarbonate improved muscular endurance. The typical dose across most studies was 0.3 grams per kilogram of body weight with the timing for intake ranging from 60 to 180 minutes before exercise. However, it’s important to note that the same research showed little impact on strength training, so as with other supplements, the type of training you’re doing should guide your use of sodium bicarbonate.

Something else to consider with sodium bicarbonate is that gastrointestinal distress can be far more common and an issue with more effective dosing. However, some of that can be avoided by ingesting multiple smaller doses for almost a day prior to your specific performance event (for example, using 0.1g/kg three times per day, instead of taking 0.3g/kg in a single dose). Note that GI distress does not happen to everyone, but it is common enough to warrant consideration.

So, it would appear that sodium bicarbonate can be good in a pinch to slightly increase muscle endurance for some individuals. Just take it slow, or you could be running to the bathroom.

Citrulline malate

Citrulline malate (CitMal) combines L-citrulline, a non-essential amino acid, and malic acid, typically in a 2:1 ratio. Malic acid might sound familiar if you’ve ever studied the Krebs cycle (how we release energy). From a performance perspective, CitMal is studied for its potential to boost nitric oxide levels, improve circulation, and reduce perceived exertion during exercise. While L-citrulline alone has shown potential for increasing blood flow, citrulline malate may offer additional benefits by reducing muscle fatigue and aiding recovery, thanks to malic acid’s role in energy production and reducing lactic acid buildup.

With CitMal, the evidence is promising, but the total body of evidence is still fairly small. Also, when looking at research, some studies don’t always differentiate between L-citrulline and CitMal. For example, this meta-analysis from Rhim et al allows for the inclusion of both and found a small but promising improvement in the perceived rate of exertion. Looking at only CitMal on strength endurance, Vårvik et al looked at eight studies and dosing roughly 40-60 minutes before training. They found CitMal had a modest improvement in strength endurance. In a recent 2024 study looking at short-duration, high-intensity performance, taking 8g of citrulline malate for three days reduced the drop in performance between repeated sprints.

There’s definitely potential with CitMal. It appears to have minimal side effects and mixes easily into drinks, making it convenient for most people. That said, it’s still early in the research, so while the initial findings are promising, more studies are needed to fully understand its long-term impact.

Beetroot juice

Boosting nitric oxide levels can also be achieved through a different pathway by adding beetroot juice to your supplement routine. Beetroot juice carries nitrate, which the body converts into nitric oxide after consumption.

From a benefit perspective, nitric oxide can widen blood vessels, increasing blood flow and oxygen supply to muscles. This could enhance muscle efficiency and potentially improve muscle contraction, providing decent evidence for boosting aerobic performance and endurance.

A systematic review of beetroot juice examined 23 studies, mostly involving trained athletes. The authors found promising effects for endurance athletes, with potential added benefits for high-altitude sports. This may be due to beetroot’s ability to convert to nitric oxide, which works more effectively when oxygen is limited — making it particularly useful in low-oxygen environments.

The typical amount of beetroot juice needed to improve performance is about 500 mL, which can provide approximately 6-8 mmol of nitrate. Nitric oxide levels tend to peak 2-3 hours after ingestion, so consuming beetroot juice 90 to 150 minutes before exercise is ideal.

Interestingly, beetroot juice can interact with other products. Caffeine, for example, might counteract some of its effects. Another less obvious interaction is that using mouthwash could reduce the effectiveness of beetroot juice by lowering the bacteria in your mouth needed to convert nitrate into nitrite (which is then converted to nitric oxide). Despite these nuances, beetroot juice generally has minimal side effects and is considered a well-tolerated, low-risk supplement.

Recap

Here’s a quick TL;DR summary for those seeking the basics on performance supplements.

Top-tier supplements with solid research and effects:

Protein supplements: Vital for recovery and muscle growth, especially when you can’t hit your daily protein target through food alone. While whole food should be the priority, supplement use can be beneficial to hit your targets or simplify intake.

Creatine: Creatine has been studied extensively and still yields notable performance results. It helps with high-intensity efforts and reduces muscle fatigue, making it a no-brainer if you’re training hard.

Carbohydrate supplements: Simple and effective fuel for various styles of training. Supplemental forms may make continuous energy easier and make sense, depending on your training style.  

Honorable mention: Caffeine: While not technically a supplement, it’s often used in supplement products to improve endurance and reduce perceived effort. 

High mid-tier supplements with strong promise:

Beta-alanine: It can help increase carnosine levels in the muscle and may help buffer acid buildup during intense exercise, which delays fatigue. 

Sodium bicarbonate: It can boost endurance by buffering pH levels, but if you take too much, you may experience stomach issues, so pacing is important with this one.

Citrulline Malate: It may improve blood flow and reduce fatigue. The research is promising but still early, and the effects might be more noticeable in specific types of training.

Beetroot juice: Boosts nitric oxide levels, improving endurance and possibly aerobic performance. It’s especially good for longer efforts, but the research is still growing. 

The post What Supplements Are Good for Performance?  appeared first on MacroFactor.

When it comes to carbohydrates, opinions can swing from one extreme to the other. Some claim you don’t need carbohydrates, while others promote complex pre-, intra-, and post-workout strategies for a 30-minute gym session. What does the research say about carbohydrate timing? The answer is more nuanced than you might expect. This article will help you understand how carbohydrates support your training and when to time them.

Let’s dig in.

A brief look at how carbohydrates can fuel training

Let’s start with how carbohydrates fuel exercise.

When you eat carbohydrates, they break down into glucose, which enters your bloodstream and can be used for energy during training. Carbohydrates are particularly efficient compared to fat (they yield more ATP per oxygen molecule during aerobic metabolism), and they provide a substrate for anaerobic metabolism as exercise intensity increases even further.

Your body stores carbohydrates as glycogen in your muscles and liver, which is an energy source during exercise. As glycogen stores deplete, performance tends to suffer. Consuming carbs before or during training can help maintain glycogen levels and sustain your ability to train. This is especially helpful when dealing with high-volume or prolonged training sessions. 

The main takeaway: Carbohydrate intake before and during exercise helps you make better use of stored glycogen and keeps performance from tanking –– especially when training volume is high.

Note that carbohydrate timing is somewhat individual. Some people may benefit from tweaking their intake around workouts. In contrast, others will see similar results by focusing on overall carbohydrate and Calorie intake. For longer or more intense training, intra-workout fueling can help you sustain performance more effectively.

These next few sections will cover a few details to help you make the best decision regarding your type of training and carbohydrate needs. 

Resistance training

Carbohydrate intake is less of a concern if your program involves lower volume, fewer sets, and long rest periods between lifts. This is especially true if your resistance program allows you to rest without much high-rep or cardio/conditioning work involved. So, the first thing to consider regarding carbohydrate timing is how much volume you’re getting in your training sessions (or if you’re throwing in conditioning or cardio within your sessions). 

A meta-analysis found that for most resistance sessions — particularly those with 10 or fewer sets per muscle group — carbs didn’t provide a noticeable boost to performance. However, when training volume increases above 10 working sets, the benefits of carbohydrate intake become more evident. In these cases, athletes could perform more reps and sustain higher total work output, especially when glycogen levels were low, or they were in a fasted state. This aligns with findings from keto studies during more strength-based sessions, suggesting that carbohydrates overall may not play as significant a role in low-to-moderate volume resistance training programs. 

In muscle building, it could get a little more nuanced. There’s an ongoing debate around training volume, set/rep ranges, and their interaction with glycogen stores. Higher set and rep ranges, or taking multiple sets to failure, can lead to greater glycogen depletion. So, the variability in depletion depends on factors like training intensity and exercise selection, which is why the evidence on carbohydrate timing is mixed.

A systematic review and meta-analysis on the effects of carbohydrate ingestion on resistance training performance found that carbohydrate intake enhances total training volume, particularly in sessions lasting longer than 45 minutes or following an 8-hour fast. This suggests consuming carbohydrates before longer resistance training sessions (e.g., 45+ minutes) could improve performance.

Lastly, studies indicate that consuming carbs within a 1-4 hour window before a workout — versus training in a fasted state — can offer advantages. Fun fact: Even consuming something as simple as a viscous placebo goo before a session can help enhance performance. So, we are still learning the depths of these details.

Ultimately, the takeaway is that while carb timing isn’t always essential for general resistance training, it becomes increasingly important when the training volume ramps up. For muscle-building athletes focusing on higher-volume sessions, paying attention to carbohydrate intake around the workout window could help support both performance and recovery.

Endurance

As stated, glycogen is a key fuel source for endurance performance, especially as exercise volume and intensity increase. Low-intensity sessions under 40 minutes likely don’t require additional carbohydrates. However, higher-intensity or longer sessions, where glycogen depletes more quickly or to a greater extent, benefit from carbohydrate intake. In other words, short, low-intensity workouts may not need extra carbs, but as intensity and duration increase, so does the need for fueling — ranging from 0g/hour for low-intensity sessions to up to 80g/hour for longer, race-pace endurance events.

A quick caveat: This article doesn’t delve into the wide variety of specific protocols of carbohydrate loading or training strategies leading up to events or races. While there is clear evidence that maintaining elevated glycogen levels can enhance performance, the focus here is on broader dietary considerations rather than prescribing exact strategies. For that, you’d really need to work with a dietetic advisor in that sport.

Regarding carbohydrate timing and amounts, Newell et al found that trained cyclists who consumed between 20-64g of carbohydrates per hour during a two-hour ride showed improved performance compared to those who consumed none. While higher intakes, like 64g/hour, provided marginal benefits, they also increased the risk of gastrointestinal discomfort.

Smith et al found that around 78g/hour of carbohydrates maximized performance benefits for endurance athletes, but going beyond that could lead to diminishing returns and digestive issues. Similarly, Podlogar et al showed that higher intakes, up to 120g/hour, increased carbohydrate oxidation but didn’t spare glycogen or result in significant performance gains compared to 90g/hour.

For more on optimizing performance, a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression found that glycogen depletion plays an important role in endurance performance, particularly during moderate to high-intensity exercise lasting over two hours. Carbohydrate intake was more beneficial in these longer efforts, with a greater impact seen in less-trained participants. Note this may be because more trained athletes are better adapted to storing glycogen and may rely more on fat for fuel during prolonged activity.

Take home? The longer or more intense your endurance training, the more important carbohydrate intake becomes. For most people, 30-60g of carbohydrates per hour should suffice during prolonged endurance efforts. Some individuals may tolerate up to 90g/hour but should monitor for gastrointestinal discomfort and diminishing returns.

Recap on carbohydrate recommendation for timing in a maintenance state during different training programs

Calorie restriction: Overall performance 

In an energy-restricted state, glycogen levels begin to deplete. While timing meals and carbohydrates around workouts can help replenish those stores, it may become harder to restore glycogen over time. Interestingly, short-term performance doesn’t seem to suffer too much. However, it’s important to note that early on, glycogen can be drawn from either the liver or muscles, but as you continue to rely on these stores, performance can eventually be affected, even if only intermittently.

As I already discussed with resistance training, at least in the short-term, energy restriction has fewer detrimental effects on performance. Regarding muscle gain, it’s widely accepted that overall caloric restriction negatively impacts muscle growth. However, even in older populations, resistance training can help offset muscle loss. So, while you’re not in the most optimal state for growth during caloric restriction, resistance training remains important for muscle preservation. 

But the question is: Would timing carbohydrates around workouts, even if it’s just to boost circulating plasma glucose, help during energy deficits?

It falls into the category of, “It might help, and it probably won’t hurt.” So it’s worth giving it a shot. Even in the previously discussed meta-analysis that framed carbohydrate timing as not being particularly important for resistance performance, the authors concluded that consuming carbs before a workout could boost available blood glucose and reduce the need to tap into depleted glycogen stores, which may support performance, especially in energy-restricted states.

For endurance athletes, performance can be more affected as energy intake becomes restricted over time. A mini-review on male endurance athletes found that long-term energy restriction led to worsened performance and decreased recovery. For female endurance athletes, reduced energy intake not only impacts performance but can also increase distress markers.

So what’s the take-home for carbohydrate timing and caloric restriction? Carbohydrate timing might be helpful when glycogen is low and your training shifts toward higher volume or endurance work. However, the overall energy deficit will have a more substantial effect over time, regardless of carbohydrate timing. 

Carbohydrate timing and sleep quality

Another factor to consider with carbohydrate timing is its potential effect on sleep. Evidence suggests that eating a large meal before bed can negatively impact sleep, mainly by causing digestive discomfort or leading to more frequent night awakenings. This really applies to any macronutrient, not just carbohydrates. It’s fairly intuitive — if you eat too much before lying down, you might fall asleep, but you’ll likely wake up during the night.

Carbohydrate timing throughout the day and evening becomes more nuanced. The dose and timing of carbohydrate intake can influence sleep quality, but the effects can vary. For example, a study by Yajima et al found that consuming a low-fiber, high-carbohydrate meal four hours before bedtime reduced slow-wave sleep (a phase important for recovery) and increased sleep latency (the time it takes to fall asleep). However, other studies have found conflicting results, showing the complexity of how carbohydrate intake can affect sleep.

A systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression on carbohydrates and sleep revealed a similarly complex relationship. It found that higher carbohydrate intake can prolong REM sleep, but this may come at the expense of reducing deep sleep (slow-wave sleep), which is important for physical recovery. On the other hand, lower carbohydrate intake tends to increase the amount of slow-wave sleep but reduces REM sleep. So, mixed.

It’s a bit of a trade-off: while higher carbohydrate intake might extend overall sleep duration in some cases, there’s also evidence that it could lead to more frequent awakenings and reduce overall sleep quality. While carbohydrates might enhance the amount of sleep you get, they could compromise how restful sleep is by impacting sleep efficiency. However, so could having too few.

Carbohydrates can affect sleep differently depending on the dose, timing, and even the specific sleep phase you’re trying to optimize. The presence of carbohydrates seems more net positive for sleep, but timing them a little earlier in the evening, mixed with a fibrous intake, would probably get you the best outcome. This way, you get the benefits of a diet with a solid presence of carbohydrates, but maybe not too much, too close to bed. 

Recap

Carbohydrate timing is unique to each person’s situation. Its importance depends on your training goals, overall diet, and what works best for your schedule. 

Key takeaways:

• Resistance training: Carbohydrate timing is less important, especially with lower volume and longer rest periods. Hitting your daily carbohydrate and Calorie targets is usually enough. However, carbohydrates may become more relevant when training volume increases. 
• Endurance training: Carb timing is more important here. Aim for 30-90g of carbohydrates per hour during longer sessions, with a daily floor target of around 6g/kg of body weight to maintain glycogen stores.
• Calorie restriction: In a Calorie deficit, timing carbohydrates around workouts can help maintain performance when glycogen levels are low, particularly for endurance athletes or during high-volume training. However, the overall energy deficit will ultimately have a greater impact.
• Sleep quality: Carbohydrates might increase total sleep duration, but they could also disrupt sleep. The right balance and intake timing might be earlier in the evening with fiber to maximize the benefits.

The post Do I Need to Worry About Carbohydrate Timing? appeared first on MacroFactor.

People are typically concerned about whether they are eating enough fiber. However, sometimes people get confused about whether fiber itself has calories. Nutrition labels can be confusing, and adding fiber into the mix can get more complicated. What exactly counts as fiber? Does it contribute to your daily Calorie intake? If it does contribute to Calories, how much? The reality is fairly nuanced, especially when considering the different fiber types and how they’re processed in the body.

In this article, we’ll break down the basics of fiber and answer whether it really impacts your Calorie count.

What is fiber, and why is it important in our diet? 

Let’s do a short primer on fiber before diving into the meat of the Calorie issue. 

Dietary fibers are not easily defined, and their definitions can vary depending on the source. At their core, dietary fibers are the indigestible parts of plant-based foods. These fibers come in various forms — like fruit and vegetable skins, shells, seeds, and granular textures — and interact with our digestive system in different ways.

Various organizations offer their own guidelines for fiber intake. The World Health Organization (WHO) advises that adults should aim for 25-30 grams of fiber daily. Meanwhile, the USDA recommends targeting 14 grams of fiber per 1000 Calories consumed. For example, if your daily intake is 2000 Calories, your fiber goal would be around 28 grams.

Typically, fibers are classified as soluble or insoluble.

So, dietary fiber isn’t just one thing; it’s a broad category that includes both non-digestible insoluble fibers like cellulose and lignin, and soluble fibers such as some hemicelluloses. Each type of fiber has its own unique structure, which influences how it’s digested. 

How do we gain usable energy from some dietary fibers?

A defining characteristic of fiber is that our bodies don’t produce the digestive enzymes that would be necessary to break fiber down. So, if our digestive tracts were totally on their own, we wouldn’t be able to digest and absorb fiber. This biological factor might lead you to conclude that fiber doesn’t have Calories. However, certain fibers (both insoluble and soluble fibers, but mostly soluble) go through a fermentation process where a fiber’s by-product has usable energy.

Let’s start by saying you’ve eaten something containing dietary fiber. That fiber goes through your stomach and small intestine (mostly) unchanged until it hits your colon. Your colon is home to a variety of bacteria that ferment certain fibers, breaking them down into short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs).

To keep it simple, two main factors will determine the amount of short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs) you’ll derive from the fiber you eat. 

1. Bacteria: Each person has different types of bacteria that interact differently with the fibers they eat to create SCFAs.
2. The type of fiber: Different fibers have variable levels of fermentation abilities (and they interact with bacteria in different ways). 

To give some context, partially hydrolyzed guar gum is a highly fermentable fiber that produces a lot of SCFAs when consumed. However, the amount of SCFAs it generates depends on the specific bacteria in your gut — like Bacteroides, Faecalibacterium, or Ruminococcus. If you have the right bacteria in your microbiome, you can break down these fibers more effectively and maximize SCFA production.

Several short-chain fatty acids exist, with acetate, butyrate, and propionate being the most commonly discussed in human metabolism. Each SCFA has a different energy value and follows a distinct metabolic path. For example, butyrate is primarily absorbed in the colon by colonocytes, while acetate and propionate travel to the liver and may be used for gluconeogenesis. SCFAs can also be synthesized into longer-chain fatty acids or stored in adipose tissue.

The result of all these steps? Your gut bacteria have taken something that didn’t initially provide energy (fiber) and transformed it into a source of usable energy through fermentation. It’s important to note that this process occurs mainly with soluble fibers, as most insoluble fibers undergo little to no fermentation.

So, to return to the article’s question: Does fiber have Calories? You can see why the answer is a bit yes and a bit no. 

How many Calories do you derive from these fermentation products?

A lot happens for our bodies to produce SCFAs that lead to usable energy. It’s important to note that this isn’t a direct gram-for-gram conversion. For example, 40g of fiber won’t result in 40g of SCFAs. The actual yield of usable energy depends on the type of fiber and the specific bacteria in your gut, leading to a range of energy values.

While the FDA averages fiber’s contribution at approximately 2 kcal per gram, the actual energy yield can vary depending on the type of fiber and its fermentability. For example, fructan fibers like fructooligosaccharides (here and here) range in caloric yield from 1 to 2.2 kcal per gram and guar gum yields between 1.6 and 1.9 kcal per gram. Fiber additives like polydextrose provide around 1 kcal per gram and corn fiber comes in at around 0.2 Calories per gram.

It’s also important to note that there’s debate surrounding the methods used to assess fiber’s energy availability and the complexity of measuring SCFAs and their metabolic pathways. Adding to this complexity is the distinction between “artificial” or additive fibers and naturally occurring fibers in whole foods. It’s plausible that some processed products have lower energy values than natural sources potentially due to a weaker fermentation and bacterial relationship in the gut.

Due to these factors, the Calorie yield from fiber can vary by food item and individual gut. For example, 1 gram of fermentable fiber might produce around 0.2 to 0.3 grams of butyric acid under optimal fermentation conditions. Since butyric acid has an average energy value of 6 kcal per gram, you would need roughly 3 to 5 grams of fermentable fiber and the right gut bacteria to generate roughly 1 gram of butyric acid, yielding approximately 6 kcal.

Do we typically track these fiber Calories?

From my experience in the industry and working with clients, I’ve found that those who track macronutrients or Calorie intake value accuracy. However, achieving that precision comes with challenges. Regarding the issue of fiber and Calorie tracking, there are a few important points to consider.

In the US, the FDA calculates the Calorie content of fiber based on its type and how your body processes it. Insoluble fiber is assumed to contribute 0 Calories per gram. For certain soluble fibers, the FDA assigns a value of 2 Calories per gram, though fibers like polydextrose are allowed a lower value of 1 Calorie per gram. On nutrition labels, fiber is listed under total carbohydrates but separated, as its Calorie impact depends on its classification and whether it is fermentable. Additionally, there are rounding rules: if a product contains less than 0.5 grams of dietary fiber per serving, the label rounds the value down to 0, which is how it will appear on the label.

These discrepancies can lead to confusion when reading labels for total carbohydrates. Say you have a high-fiber product that might list a certain number of grams of carbohydrates, but when you calculate the total Calories, it may seem like something is missing. This is because the fiber, while technically counted as a carbohydrate, doesn’t provide the full 4 kcal/g typically associated with carbs. It can get even more complicated depending on the type of fiber. 

The EU handles this differently. In the EU, fiber contributes to some calories but isn’t counted as a carbohydrate on nutrition labels. This reverse approach can create confusion for those comparing products between regions.

Considering all of this, you could argue that a very small amount of fermented SCFAs could be left on the table, but I’d also argue that this amount is likely very small and very unlikely to be consequential for most people. 

Do you need to be concerned about the Calories from fiber?

If you’re following a typical whole-food diet and consuming the recommended amount of fiber for general gut and digestive health, the Calories from fiber likely don’t need much attention. As discussed, different types of fiber have varying fermentation abilities. Most insoluble fibers produce little to no SCFAs through fermentation (though certain resistant starches can be an exception). A general rule of thumb is to count about 2 kcal per gram of fiber, mostly from soluble fiber. For most people, this amounts to no more than 20-40 extra Calories per day based on current evidence.

Where it gets more interesting is with the low-carb/food substitution crowd. If you’re regularly filling your meals with low-carb, high-fiber products (like keto tortillas or noodles), there’s a chance the actual Calorie count could be higher than expected. This depends on the type of fiber these products use and how they interact with your gut bacteria (and remember some additive fiber can perform more poorly). 

If we look at the extreme end — in which someone is consuming a very high-fiber diet — it’s possible to reach the 100+ Calorie range from fiber. So, it’s an interesting consideration, but unless you’re an outlier, I wouldn’t place too much emphasis on it.

Conclusion 

The creation of short-chain fatty acids from dietary fiber is complex from a biological perspective. While fiber technically doesn’t have Calories, it can provide some energy depending on the type of bacteria in your gut and the kind of fiber consumed. However, most people are actually low in dietary fiber and would benefit from increasing their intake. So, while fiber can contribute a small amount of Calories, it’s usually not enough to be a major concern.

The post Does Fiber Have Calories? appeared first on MacroFactor.