Delayed Morning Coffee: Does It Work?

The Caffeine Delay Protocol

Some experts say to delay your morning coffee by 60-90 minutes. Here’s why.

What’s better than morning coffee? Well, morning sex. But still, morning coffee is pretty darn good. But many smart folks say your early morning caffeine infusion might not be optimal or even healthy. They say to delay caffeine intake by 60-90 minutes. Why? Let’s get into it.

The Delayed Caffeine Effect

Here’s the gist of the delayed-caffeine proponents’ argument:

Caffeine interacts, and possibly interferes, with your body's natural processes, particularly the hormone cortisol and your sleep-wake cycle. When you wake up, your body naturally produces cortisol to help you feel alert. This is part of your circadian rhythm, often called the Cortisol Awakening Response or CAR, which peaks roughly 30-60 minutes after you get out of bed. Drinking coffee immediately might interfere with this natural boost.

Caffeine works by blocking adenosine receptors in your brain. Adenosine is a chemical that builds up during the day and promotes sleepiness. If you consume caffeine while cortisol levels are already high, it may not add much to your alertness and could even reduce the efficiency of caffeine later when you need it more.

By waiting 60-90 minutes, you allow cortisol to do its job naturally, and then caffeine can kick in when adenosine starts to creep up and cortisol begins to decline – typically mid-morning. This timing could make caffeine more effective at keeping you alert and avoid overloading your system when it’s already primed to be awake. Some experts also argue this approach might prevent a tolerance buildup to caffeine over time, though the evidence is mixed.

In short, if you slam coffee right after waking, you’re piling caffeine’s cortisol-boosting effect on top of an already high natural level. Some argue this could desensitize your system over time, making caffeine less effective when adenosine creeps up later (mid-morning, say 9:30-11:00 AM).

Delayed caffeine intake, the proponents say, has these benefits:

  • Maximizes natural alertness: Lets cortisol peak naturally, enhancing your body’s built-in wake-up boost.
  • Boosts caffeine effectiveness: Times it with rising adenosine levels, making it more potent when you need it.
  • Prevents tolerance: Avoids overloading cortisol, potentially reducing caffeine desensitization.
  • Smoother energy curve: May dodge mid-day crashes by aligning caffeine with your circadian dip, not peak.
  • Supports adrenal health: Reduces strain on the HPA axis by not stacking caffeine on high cortisol.

But Is All That True?

It makes sense, but no big studies back up the idea. Some studies show that a wake-up cup of coffee doesn’t significantly disrupt cortisol or long-term energy levels for everyone. It can depend on individual differences, like how sensitive you are to caffeine or how well you slept.

One study showed that while regular caffeine users lose the morning cortisol spike, they still get elevated cortisol later in the day (after a 1:00 PM dose). This suggests the HPA axis adapts, and the “don’t drink caffeine early” advice might matter more for occasional users or those sensitive to caffeine.

A 2024 study claimed delaying caffeine 90 minutes showed no benefit over immediate intake for some, hinting individual metabolism (like CYP1A2 gene variations affecting caffeine breakdown) plays a role. Fast metabolizers might not need to wait, while slow ones could overstimulate cortisol early.

How to Use This Info

The delayed caffeine theory makes sense, so give it a shot and see if it works for you. Proponents say you could notice “smoother” energy and fewer crashes within 3-7 days as your body adjusts to not stacking caffeine on cortisol peaks. Reduced caffeine tolerance or adrenal “stress” could take 2-4 weeks to register. Claims about sustained benefits – like better circadian alignment or HPA axis health – are speculative and might take months to notice.

Many say to switch to decaf to keep your morning routine happy, but lifters and athletes should focus instead on hydration and protein. Here’s something some of us have been trying: morning MAG-10 (Buy at Amazon).

Upon waking, your body’s been in a fasted state, potentially breaking down muscle protein for energy (catabolism) if glycogen stores are low. The rapid delivery of amino acids – especially BCAAs like leucine – could kickstart muscle protein synthesis (MPS) and halt overnight catabolism. Mag-10 has you covered there with casein hydrolysate.

Upon waking, glycogen stores (especially in the liver) are usually depleted from overnight fasting. HBCD (the primary super-carb in Mag-10) replenishes stores rapidly without the blood sugar spike-and-crash of simpler carbs.

Buy Biotest at Amazon

Just mix one serving into 16 to 18 ounces of water. You’ll be rapidly rehydrated, halt any possible catabolism, kickstart MPS, and replenish glycogen quickly. Then, enjoy your coffee or pre-workout stimulant 60-90 minutes later.

2 Likes

I have read that when taking creatine and caffeine together, the caffeine inhibits absorption of creatine. Rather, they should be taken at least an hour apart.
Any truth to this?

There’s no strong scientific evidence that caffeine directly inhibits the absorption of creatine in the body. Some confusion arises from older studies suggesting caffeine might counteract creatine’s performance benefits. For example, a 1996 study found that caffeine could reduce the ergogenic effects of creatine during high-intensity exercise. However, this is likely due to caffeine’s diuretic effect or its interference with creatine’s role in muscle relaxation, not a direct impact on absorption. More recent research, including a 2011 review in the Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition, indicates that combining caffeine and creatine doesn’t significantly impair creatine uptake or storage in muscles.

All that said, taking creatine after training is probably the ideal time. Info HERE.

2 Likes

@Chris_Shugart My favorite morning ritual of all time was taking 2 caps of MD6 (especially the Nor-e version, but the E-sinica version was great too), a spoonful or two of Methoxy-7, and then switching between Ribose C and good ol’ mono and then a scoop of two of low carb grow post. The point is, I’d feel the effects right away in the morning, and I was always up a few pounds in weight. For some reason, Ribose C worked way better for me than the mono. Man, those were the days… I really miss the old Biotest days.

@Chris_Shugart Good article BTW, but honestly, this feels like some Huberman pseudoscience nonsense to me… I just wish he’d disappear already.

I think he’s a fan of the protocol, but it doesn’t seem to apply to most folks. Some of those guys adopt every trendy “biohack” out there it seems. I’m a fan of tinkering around, but it annoys me when someone adopts a dozen of these biohacks without first taking care of the big stuff, like losing the gut with boring ol’ diet and training.

I am just annoyed with Huberman’s certainty when he says things. Everything he said about sleep, regarding apigenin, inositol, probably others, I heard and thought, awesome, I have finally found the fix for waking up in the middle of the night. Nope, not for me.

But yeah, tinkering is required and if gives me an idea that’s valuable.

Counterintuitively I read this article and have decided to try drinking coffee as soon as I wake up.

3 Likes

Yeah, it chaps my ass that someone with as thin a credential as “professor of neurobiology at Stanford School of Medicine” is blabbing this bullshit all over the airwaves. I have to roll my eyes when he interviews these “experts” who’ve been doing research at places like Harvard and Johns Hopkins for decades. Like, where do you get off, Stacy Sims? Just because you’ve spent your entire career studying the differences in male and female athletes, you think you can tell me that carnivore and fasting are poor dietary strategies for me? Idiot.

I was going to listen to the recent Richard Schwartz Huberman interview, as he’s SUPPOSEDLY a giant leading force in my industry, but then I thought, what has HE got to say that I should bother listening to?? I can go to Psychology Today and get just as much information about mental health, written by people no one’s ever heard of. Which makes them seem a lot more authentic! Plus they phrase things very simply, so I don’t have to strain.

I mean, really. What can possibly be your beef with someone sharing information they hope will be useful? Why are you reading here? Is @Chris_Shugart to be trusted, but Huberman is not? Isn’t it the same (unless we get into the nitty-gritty of credentials and access to original research by wandering down the hall to where the experiments are actually being done)?

I trust Chris to lay things out for me in an organized and thoughtful manner. He (presumably) reads the research and articles and filters it all though his experience and biases, then shares his thoughts. Because Huberman et al are all up in my ears and because I am also inclined to read research papers in areas of interest, my trust of Chris’ work is increased, because I’ve encountered some of the information under discussion elsewhere and happen to share many of his biases. I trust Chris not because he’s posting these articles on a bodybuilding site hosted by a supplement company, which supplements are being sold as part of the article we’re discussing, but because I’ve determined for myself that TN is not pushing supps via pseudoscience.

Can you better explain yourself?

(The article above is not by-lined, so it may not even be Chris. But TN and its writers have passed my sniff test.)

2 Likes

He’s a charlatan but this one makes sense

Can you explain why you think this? I don’t see it at all. For your consideration (48-49 years old, carrying 72 lb rock 1.5 miles up a mountain):

Carrying rocks doesn’t really mean anything… a lot of his content is just whack and factually incorrect.

But if he motivates you then good.

I carried an M2 broken into its 3 components and combat load 25 miles up and down hills… not really a big deal, imo… but if someone can motivate you then I can see the utility.

My point is not that carrying rocks is superhuman or that there aren’t posters here who can do better, but rather that he has put his money where his mouth is, so to speak, and is fairly exceptional for an almost-fifty-year-old, presumably as a result of his many “protocols.”

Where his content overlaps with my own expertise, there have been a couple of instances where I’ve done a head-tilt or thought he was off slightly, but I think if you do a deep dive into any topic of interest you’re going to find contradictory information. That doesn’t make someone a charlatan. It makes them human and fallible. He’s quick to say that he’s a professor: “I profess things.” On the whole, though, he’s been reliably correct in his discussions about my field.

I take what I want and leave the rest, as I do with this site and everything else. I drink my coffee first thing and always have. That’s when I like it and I don’t feel I lag in the afternoons unless I’m bored, which is not a coffee issue. I don’t get sun in my eyes first thing, it’s not convenient most times of year where I live, and also I’m busy drinking coffee and posting here.

In fact, I probably don’t do MOST of what he suggests is optimal, because I’m funny that way. But I like hearing him discuss it, just as I don’t agree with a lot of what you and the others here say, but like to read the discussions about it. Where TN and Huberman converge, I take note. And then either ignore it or don’t.

You still haven’t explained “charlatan.”

1 Like

Um… yes i did.

Again… A lot of his content is factually incorrect. Like Dr Mike. And plenty of other iNfLuEnCeRs. And they know they’re incorrect but are too vested in their “content” to admit they’re wrong.

Oh, this was your explanation? Haha, okay, then. Got it.

1 Like

Yes… factually incorrect information being pushed is not concerning to you. Got it.

1 Like

You’re factually incorrect all the time, and I don’t think of you as a charlatan. Too, my long history with you suggests that “factually incorrect” to you means “not in agreement with my own thinking.”

However, that doesn’t discount you as a potential source of information. It just makes your information less solid and valuable to me. Maybe I’ll double-check it against other sources before accepting or acting on it, maybe I’ll just ignore it altogether because it’s not worth the effort.

My world isn’t black and white, I can manage shades of gray. I don’t need Huberman - or you, or @Chris_Shugart, or my husband - to be right all the time for them to have credibility with me. I just need them to be largely credible (credentials, experience, success in whatever realm) and to make every effort to provide information that’s solid.

We call this open-mindedness. We also call it “my responsibility to substantiate information I’m planning to act upon to my possible detriment.”

I don’t know who Dr. Mike is. Writing “iNfLuEnCeRs” makes you sound silly. One of us lacks perceptiveness, and it’s not me.

1 Like

I’ve noticed that waiting an hour or so after waking to drink coffee is somewhat helpful.

What’s more helpful for me is I started taking creatine in the morning shortly after wakening. I seem much more focused at work and deal with work-related stress much easier than before.

Lol… oh the irony

Ironic that I called you silly, even though I’m female and you’re male and only females know who Dr. Mike is, which makes them the silly ones and not you?

Okay, then.

Face palm…not what I meant.