We'll explain the frequency of meals. How many servings a day should you eat in terms of weight loss or muscle gain? | Steroids4U.eu

We'll explain the frequency of meals. How many servings a day should you eat in terms of weight loss or muscle gain?

What is the usual answer to the question, how many times a day should we eat in connection with fitness and a healthy lifestyle? "At least 5-6 smaller meals a day." And the usual justification? Fewer meals several times a day will keep your metabolism at high speeds, you won't slow it down and it's just better. Today we will look at which of these is a complete bullshit, which is based on a true and relevant theory, what it makes sense to solve in practice, and you will find out how many of those dishes you should eat.

First of all, let's destroy the myth that fewer meals slow down your metabolism and you need to eat at least 6 servings a day to keep it fast enough and not cause harm in the form of poorer weight loss. The only ones supporting these claims are women's journals, broscience trainers and theories about blood sugar control. When we look at the data, we see that there is no kick-off of metabolism and no worse weight loss.

Frequency of meals - brief & biased

If we had to explain the issue of the frequency of meals very briefly and biasedly, we would say that the frequency of meals does not matter, it depends on the total caloric intake and macronutrients during the day. Basically, we are not lying, and this statement is true, but very one-sided and biased. We will not deal with partial studies and pick up details, let's look directly at meta-analyzes or the opinion of the Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition, in which you can read this issue in absolute detail, until you get a little overwhelmed by those researches.

If you don't want to worry, we've studied it for you and will tell you clear links to remember. The increased frequency of meals has no effect on better fat burning, resp. character composition. It also has no effect on the increase in diet-induced thermogenesis, total energy expenditure or resting metabolism. However, it can have a positive effect on a few health markers (eg cholesterol). It has also been shown that an increased frequency of eating can help drive away hunger, but we will return to this in the lines below.

… But I've heard the theory of the thermal effect!

Yes, perhaps the most well-known theory is that of the thermal effect of food (TEF, ie the amount of energy that is expended during digestion). Whenever you eat, your metabolic rate increases slightly due to digestion and absorption of nutrients. However, one critical part that people have ignored is that in this equation, TEF is directly proportional to calorie intake. Since you definitely love numbers, let's explain it like this:

Example - daily intake of 2100 calories and TEF is set to 10%. If you break your diet into six meals, TEF will look like this:

food: 350 x .10 = 35

food: 350 x .10 = 35

food: 350 x .10 = 35

food: 350 x .10 = 35

food: 350 x .10 = 35

food: 350 x .10 = 35

Calculate the numbers and you get a TEF of 210 calories. Now let's look at the same scenario, but divide the food into three portions.

food: 700 x .10 = 70

food: 700 x .10 = 70

food: 700 x .10 = 70

Count the numbers. How much did it cost you? But still 210 calories, as in the example above. Eating frequently will give your metabolism a small acceleration several times a day, while eating less times will lead to an acceleration less than a day. The end result is therefore identical and the total TEF is the same regardless of the frequency of meals.

Frequency of meals - briefly & objectively in terms of weight loss

You probably already know why we closed it biased at the beginning - we did not take into account a person's goals, ie weight loss or weight gain. Let's fix it now. So let's borrow the words of B. Schoenfeld from May 2018, who concluded this issue based on science clearly - in terms of fat loss, the frequency of meals does not matter, but the total calories. We did a complete analysis of this issue and we always found similar results, regardless of how many meals the subjects ate.

How you divide your meals has no effect on the amount of oxidized fat at the end of the day. Fat storage and fat burning is a process in which you save less and burn less with six small meals, you save more with three meals and you burn more. In the end, it simply doesn't matter how often you eat, as Brad Schoenfeld said from the available data. I will now return to the aforementioned demonstration that increased eating frequency can help drive away hunger, which is certainly a good diet, right? It should be added, however, that the conclusions were not the same for each individual. From the personal experience, but also the experience of our clients within Fitclan coaching, I know that it is highly individual. Some people prefer fewer larger meals, which will satisfy them and they are not hungry, another person prefers more smaller meals. This is an individual response that does not have a clear position.

Frequency of meals - briefly & objectively in terms of muscle gain

In this case, it is not so much the frequency of meals as such, but the frequency of protein consumption. We also know from our latest article on proteins that if we want to maximize muscle growth (really emphasize the word maximize), science tends to have a higher frequency of eating food (protein) than a low-frequency diet. What does this mean in practice? If your goal is to maximize muscle growth, you should take 3-5 protein portions during the day rather than 1-2 servings. For this purpose, it would therefore be very unfortunate to say the general view that the frequency of meals does not matter.

If you are on a diet, you do not have to box all-day food into 6-8 servings. You will not lose your metabolism quickly and more effectively. Conversely, if you are trying to maximize muscle growth, 1-2 servings a day may not be the most effective choice. Put the information from the article into practice, into your lifestyle and we believe that we have closed the issue of frequency of meals.

Steroids4U.eu | Online Steroid Shop - Buy Steroids - Cheap Steroids for sale

Acidification of the organism, pH and alkaline diet. Feeding people lies that can only be seen sourly | Steroids4U.eu

Acidification of the organism, pH and alkaline diet. Feeding people lies that can only be seen sourly

Basics and functioning of our body

The body regulates the pH and it's damn good at it. The pH of human blood is in the range of 7.35 - 7.45. If it was less (acidosis) or more (alkalosis), a serious problem arises that you would really notice before you had to pee on litmus paper and send this information to your trainer - an expert on the body.

If you eat something, acidic H + ions are formed. Fortunately, you're not dead, your body works, so it uses a bicarbonate buffer system. This "buffer" system in the blood, respectively. buffers (der Puffer - buffer, buffer) regulate the pH of the system to produce substances that are subject to metabolism. For example, increased or decreased carbon dioxide excretion is regulated by the lungs. Then you also have kidneys in your body, which, among other things, excrete acidic H + ions in the urine in exchange for basic bicarbonate, which is reabsorbed into the blood. Is acid urine a problem? No, it's a waste product of your body and has nothing to do with blood pH. Dealing with the pH of your urine is like dealing with the taste of your other waste product, but it's starting to get disgusting.

Someone will say that acidification is a real deal, because there is acidosis in the body. However, acidosis is only a short-term condition that can be balanced very quickly. If not, it is the result of serious disorders that can lead to death. How can acidosis occur? If the body cannot effectively get rid of excess hydrogen cations, which can be caused by either reduced breathing intensity or insufficient kidney function. Acid-base balance is regulated by your body. If it lasts longer, not even a cucumber or kohlrabi will help you to remove meat from the menu. Because if it lasts longer, it means that you are suffering from a more serious disorder. And no, this disorder does not result from not following the rules of an alkaline diet.

Alkaline diet

It is based on the theory that when certain foods are eaten, they are metabolized in the body to form base-forming or acid-forming residues (pH). When there is an excess of acidic food, there is an acidification of the blood, and this is said to affect our bones, organs, contribute to cancer, obesity and the like. Therefore, you have to wait for the litmus paper, which determines the pH. We put our hand into the fire, that it will be acidic, in which case the expert will set you an alkaline diet.

Are you missing something on the left side of the picture? Believe me, it's missing. Proponents "unintentionally" omitted nutritionally valuable foods such as dairy products, nuts, seafood or whole grains. Since there are a ton of fruits and vegetables on the right, the acidic environment / food on the left seems bad. In this way, it is very easy to influence the masses. However, be aware that there is nothing wrong with acids. They shape many building blocks for life. Yet we have amino acids, omega-3 fatty acids, or even DNA, which is nothing more than deoxyribonucleic acid. There are no foods that would significantly affect the pH of the body's internal environment. You eat, digest, then are absorbed and only then can they affect the pH of the human body.

The stomach contains hydrochloric acid and has a pH of about 1.35 - 3.5 (extremely acidic) and is subsequently neutralized by alkaline secretions of the pancreas. This process breaks down food into the basic ingredients, which are absorbed and could theoretically affect the pH. But they do not affect! Eating acid-forming foods does not affect blood pH.

In the stomach and small intestine, nutrients are broken down. Proteins for amino acids, carbohydrates for monosaccharides and fats for fatty acids and glycerol. Monosaccharides and fatty acids do not affect the pH, so even a food that combines these nutrients will not form an acid- or base-forming food. And what about proteins? Within amino acids, only aspartate and glutamate are acidic. Lysine, histidine and arginine are basic. Other? Neutral. However, no sources of protein are made up of only one amino acid, so the effect of proteins will be close to neutrality. So again - the internal environment of the body is not affected by any food.

Why does someone feel better on an alkaline diet? Maybe a placebo. Perhaps the usual replacement of an idiotic diet with one that is rich in quality nutrients, vitamins, minerals and fiber. However, an alkaline or acidic environment has nothing to do with your weight loss. You can't lose weight because you are stupid, you don't have enough nutritious food in your diet and you're in caloric excess.

I've heard that an alkaline diet helps with osteoporosis!

He could hear, but know it was a fabrication. Although the average IQ and basic knowledge of biochemical facts are enough for the topic of acidification of the organism, let's take a look at something. A meta-analysis covering 55 studies showed that the causal link between the acidic environment and osteoporosis is not substantiated and there is no evidence that an alkaline diet protects the health of our bones. So if you found the theory of balancing the pH with minerals that are released from the bones as real, refresh your face with ice water and know that the pH is balanced by blood buffers and subsequently the kidneys.

Cancer

Not. Although fans of the alkaline diet will tell the storytellers that an acidic environment creates cancer, don't believe it. It is cancer that creates an acidic environment, not the other way around. An acidic environment is the result of cancer, not its cause! If our internal environment is acidic (that is, acidosis occurs), it is caused by various metabolic disorders, whether cancer has developed. In fact, having an acidic internal environment is basically impossible because you would die. And again, if ordinary logical facts are not enough for you, take a look at the systematic analysis of the association between acidity, alkaline water and cancer. The findings say that although some vendors are promoting an alkaline diet or water, there is no research to support these ideas. Also, there is no evidence that they help treat cancer.

I know that for a person studying medicine, nutrition or a lover of biochemistry, this topic is clear and all the benefits of an alkaline diet are that one starts eating more fruits and vegetables, but it had to be said out loud. People like to jump on a train where the driver is an unsuccessful blogger or editor of a women's magazine without knowledge of nutrition.

Steroids4U.eu | Online Steroid Shop - Buy Steroids - Cheap Steroids for sale

Eating out in a restaurant and a caloric reality that you often don't want to perceive. Mc Donald may even be more calorically beneficial | Steroids4U.eu

Eating out in a restaurant and a caloric reality that you often don't want to perceive. Mc Donald may even be more calorically beneficial

We live fast and there is a change in our eating habits. The frequency of consumption of meals prepared outside the house is increasing worldwide. An ordinary American eats and drinks about one-third of his calories outside the house. Eating, especially in fast food establishments, is considered to be one of the factors in the rise of global obesity, although not all research confirms this. The main reason is simply excessive consumption of calories, which on the other hand are not used in any way. In other words, people have little movement. Almost everyone under the term fast food will usually imagine something nutritionally of minimal value, or if you want, unhealthy or high-calorie. But what about such "ordinary" food in a restaurant? Doesn't that also sabotage our efforts?

Recently, the survey has seen the light of day and provides really interesting data to think about. Its goal was to find out how many calories the most frequently eaten foods contain, whether in a restaurant or fast food. The data come from five selected countries and are compared with the USA. A total of 223 dishes were included from 111 randomly selected establishments in Brazil, China, Finland, Ghana and India. I would not even call the findings shocking, they simply confirm the cruel caloric reality that many of us still refuse to perceive. As much as 94% of meals from regular restaurants and 72% of fast food meals contained at least 600 calories per serving.

Interestingly, fast food contained 33% less energy than restaurant food. However, it should be noted here that its total weight was often lower, but the researchers were interested in one common portion. In terms of portion comparisons, fast food was "better" (880 kcal vs. 1166 kcal). The subject of a similar observational study was to examine the energy content of main courses served in restaurants in the United Kingdom and to compare their energy content with fast food. Such a normal course in the restaurant was on average 268 kcal more than in fast food. The total average of 13,000 meals was 977 kcal, but 47% of them contained more than 1000 kcal per serving and only 9% had less than 600 kcal!

This way of eating represents from 70 to 120% of a woman's daily (inactive) energy intake. Remember, we're talking about one meal. That is, without taking into account additional meals, drinks, snacks, appetizers or desserts in both surveys. Therefore, it is more than likely that many will consume even more calories to sit on. We have simply learned to prefer highly-concentrated versions of food, which of course the market responds to and we see the result.

Food establishments in general, and not just fast food restaurants, provide high-calorie meals. Think about how much unnecessary oil is used in the preparation of the meal. Because an identical portion can easily have 10 g less oil, and we are talking about exchanging a tablespoon for tea. Sometimes try to take two napkins, squeeze the grilled chicken steak and you will see how much oil you have left in them. You will probably be surprised. Of course, due to the higher palatability of the food (ie the overall palatability), other ingredients are added, which increases the overall caloric density of the food. Even some dishes (3%) from the survey in question climbed up to 2000 kcal per serving!

Consider the only difference between using 2 dcl of 1.5% milk vs. 2 dcl 10% cream in soup. You do not know? 100 vs. 272 kcal. The restaurant we eat in certainly plays a role. The researchers also pointed to this fact, because in China, for example, the same food had 1386 kcal in one roast, and 657 kcal in the other. Therefore, notice what you get on the plate and whether it shines like polished Christmas balls. If so, add + 15 g of oil to the myfitness stick. Be a tactician and prefer to overestimate the food calories rather than underestimate it. At least during the diet period. And don't think that the salad has no calories (the average came out somewhere around 300 kcal), if you put a dressing on it, then you are at even higher values ​​(eg KFC - 663 kcal, McDonald’s - 248 kcal, SUBWAY - 416 kcal).

Although researchers found a link between the weight of food and its energy content, the weight of food itself was a very inaccurate indicator of its energy content. Again, we can think about a high concentration of calories even with relatively small meals. If you look at the mentioned survey, you will see a nice graph right at the beginning, where you can click through it all. For example, fried meatballs from China at 270 grams reached over 1300 kcal, 230 g of Americana chicken pizza in India almost 700 kcal, a double quarter pounder with cheese (burger) and medium fries in America at a total weight of 360 g climbed to 1250 kcal .

If you're wondering how researchers have figured out exactly how many calories this or that food contains, check out the video below. Briefly, the dishes were mixed into a smooth puree, dried and then made into small tablets under pressure. These were then analyzed for gross energy content using the so-called calorimeter bombs. Energy density was calculated as gross energy per gram of food weight.

In an ideal world without social life and the influence of our surroundings on what we eat, we would be able to solve the problem of unnecessary excessive consumption more easily. We just won't eat outside. Of course, under the utopian assumption that at home it does not compensate for what we did not eat outside the house. In reality, it probably wouldn't work. Going out once in a while and giving yourself something even more caloric with the current form of some compensation within a given day - no problem. With daily consumption and several times a day? This is another song.

A possible solution would be in the form of mandatory indication of the calorific value of individual foods next to their name, as recommended by the latest (finally) FDA. It is more than clear to me that even this will not convince an ordinary person not to have his favorite fried steak with french fries and mayonnaise. However, it would give many a better overview and, together with a basic knowledge of calories, paved the way for more optimal food choices.

Of course, you can dine in the restaurant. We also wrote an article about it. But if you do not have the basics, practice and relevant experience in weighing and solving calories and macronutrients, eating in a restaurant can make you wrinkle your forehead and body fat. Frequent unnecessary portions and orders when we have lunch with others, or very overstated calories, which we would be able to cut in half with the same meal, just prepared at home. Not only is this a classic scenario that we often see. Next time, especially if you are a beginner and have no experience with tracking food, think carefully about how many calories you probably had.

Steroids4U.eu | Online Steroid Shop - Buy Steroids - Cheap Steroids for sale

A tale about the BCAA, but it doesn't have a happy ending. They can even limit muscle growth | Steroids4U.eu

A tale about the BCAA, but it doesn't have a happy ending. They can even limit muscle growth

Where there was, there was, behind the seven mountains and seven mines, where protein spilled and creatine poured, there were once one BCAA. The nutritional supplement, which has been said to help with regeneration, improves anabolism, muscle growth, immunity and should be taken by any exercise enthusiast. Béceáčeks felt like kings of supplements. Leucine has been proud of its most important role, as it can directly stimulate protein synthesis by activating the enzyme responsible for cell growth, mTOR. Isoleucine has been proudly under the wings of leucine because it improves glucose metabolism. And valine only with a small role, but still in the family of branched-chain amino acids (BCAA), so equally devoted and proud.

However, the royal scepter was wanted to be dominated by competitors whose esteemed names were Science, Fact and Reality. Let's start as you might not have imagined even at the worst nightmare. BCAAs can limit muscle growth, which is the complete opposite of what you expect from them.

https://www.steroids4u.eu

Research has found that when BCAAs are consumed alone, they actually reduce muscle protein synthesis and increase muscle breakdown. You do not want it. So if you are considering drinking BCAAs before fasting, just to protect your muscles, cough it up and buy a protein (complete amino spectrum) because you really don't need impaired amino acid absorption. Although this research is such a scarecrow, it has a logic and basis in other areas related to BCAAs. Many great meta-analyzes speak for themselves. BCAAs are really an unnecessary supplement if a person consumes enough protein during the day. They recommend not spending money on BCAAs, but rather consuming protein to get the full range of amino acids needed to maximize muscle development.

Let's look at the 2017 research. It turned out that BCAAs alone do not sufficiently stimulate myofibrial protein synthesis after exercise due to a lack of other amino acids. In conclusion, the authors add that consuming BCAA alone is not the optimal strategy for maximal stimulation of protein synthesis. A little easier to interpret: Forget about leucine, isoleucine and valine (BCAA) and in the vicinity of training you prefer to consume EAA (essential amino acids, such as protein). Perhaps you know that whey protein has a stronger anabolic effect than EAA or BCAA supplementation. Although BCAAs increase muscle protein synthesis compared to placebo (discussed below), this benefit is better across the full spectrum of essential amino acids.

You simply need the full spectrum of amino acids for efficient muscle protein synthesis. Just common sense must tell you that 3 amino acids alone will do nothing. They have no.

Example:

You have to realize that building muscle mass without all EAA is quite inefficient. Imagine you have an old crumbling house and you want to build a new one next to it. You can use some bricks from that old house, but you still need new material when building a new one, without which you won't build this house. The same situation is with the synthesis of new muscle fibers.

To sum it up in one sentence: BCAAs never overtake protein.

The literature does not show advantages of BCAA even in caloric restriction (diet). Interestingly, BCAAs successfully stimulate appetite in patients with anorexia, which has been confirmed in research many times. So taking BCAAs in your diet may not be a good idea. Even when examining body composition in fasting cardiac vs. for cardiac with BCAA, zero differences were found. BCAA supplementation has really poor results in studies not only in body composition, muscle damage, but also in athletic performance. There are also plenty of them in our menus. Quality proteins contain about 18-26% BCAAs. Beyond this, BCAA supplementation can add to calories and potentially prevent optimal amino acid utilization.

Okay. We know that anabolism and BCAA = no. What about other areas? If any research appeared that presented positive effects on muscle reduction or muscle damage, the researchers compared BCAAs with nothing and placebo, respectively. Just wow! It's like saying that water hydrates you compared to not drinking. If you have a portion of protein before and after training, you do not need BCAAs before, during or after training and will not help you in anything. No research supports their potential for optimal protein intake. Regeneration and protection of muscle mass are only better if the person does not have another sufficient source of complex proteins.

After all, it pays to buy whey protein and get one before training, not to mention that it has a much wider use and is cheaper. In this research, the BCAAs were addressed during training, and the results say what other studies do. Their consumption does not affect the muscles, performance or perception of pain, and we do not observe any benefits in terms of indicators of muscle damage.

If your total daily protein intake is optimized, BCAAs are a waste of money.

Do they have BCAAs calories?

Other marketing texts often say that they don't have calories, so you can eat / drink them on pounds (so you can quickly spend them and buy more). However, the reality is different. 10 g of BCAA with a typical ratio of 2: 1: 1 (leucine, isoleucine, valine) has 46.5 calories. If you've come across the fact that 0 calories were even listed not only in the marketing text but also on the BCAA packaging, it's because of legislation that individual amino acids without a combination of carbohydrates and fats don't have to be labeled "protein", so they can the company was allowed to tap zero for the calorific value.

And… but .. I have seen other research where BCAAs have been praised

We don't take that from you. We saw it too. Hand to fire - have you read the full-text of the study? All these studies had one hook, ie a real hook. For example, it examined the effect of dosing 52 g of BCAA daily for three weeks in wrestlers who were in caloric deficiency. This group, in contrast to the one that did not take BCAA, maintained more muscle mass and lost a little more fat compared to group no. 2. At first glance, great news, but the group taking BCAAs consumed only 80 g of protein, which is extremely low. Summa summarum, if you consume insufficient protein, BCAAs can help. But which athlete neglects protein and buys nutritional supplements instead?

Speaking of such studies, follow this one. An unpublished study by Jim Stoppani, CEO of Scivation, which produces the popular Xtend BCAA. All this in men, training for 2 years and consuming up to 2.2 - 2.4 g / kg of protein and of course, were in caloric excess. Wow! After such a study, I would probably go to an e-shop with nutritional supplements and shop. A few months later, the debate erupted and rightly so. First, it's an unpublished study, Jim Stoppani is a very good friend of all Scivation employees and a business owner, so can we take it as relevant? Even the smallest skeptic in the world will tell you no. Especially with the other meta-analyzes we have here.

When to think about buying a BCAA?

Placebo - the psyche has an incredible effect and the idea that you put "something" into yourself can be a decent boost for many people. You have a BCAA, you're sure they can help you. You read it on the label. In the e-shop with accessories. Do you believe it. Makasa. You are determined! A placebo is simply the best supplement of all.

Veganism - We should not miss the potential benefit. Leucine supplementation (or complete BCAA) could theoretically help fill in the missing amino spectrum.

Taste - many flavored BCAAs are really great in taste. How to refresh instead of water or "kill" the taste of some pre-workout substances? Okay. We are taking. But just because of the taste and at that price? Well, it's up to you.

Once again, in a nutshell. If we delve deeper into this issue, the benefits of BCAAs exist if one does not have enough protein. Otherwise, they are unnecessary. In the absence of sufficient relevant scientific evidence, but also in my experience or on the basis of analyzes of various areas of the literature, we can say that supplementing with BCAAs in a diet with sufficient protein intake is something like wasting money that can be clearly better invested. And don't worry, it's not an anti-BCAA campaign. Simply put, if the BCAAs were worth anything, we would consume and recommend them ourselves. If something changes in the literature or excellent new research emerges, know that we will let you know about it.

Steroids4U.eu | Online Steroid Shop - Buy Steroids - Cheap Steroids for sale

The one whose name must not be pronounced - aspartame and other artificial sweeteners | Steroids4U.eu

The one whose name must not be pronounced - aspartame and other artificial sweeteners

Today, let's move on to look at the tooth of other commonly used artificial sweeteners:

sucralose

aspartame

acesulfam K

saccharin

sodium cyclamate

# 1 SUCRALOSE OR FLAVDROPS & ZERO SYRUPY

There is probably no person who eats according to IIFYM and / or has already gone through a diet and does not know Flavdrops, intensely sweet drops without calories in a million variants. In most cases it is an aroma with sucralose (or stevia, which we wrote about in the previous article). However, sucralose is widely used in many other fitness products of the world - bars, protein, energy or pre-workout drinks, certainly not excluded.

What is sucralose?

Sucralose is essentially a molecule of classical sucrose chemically modified to enhance its sweetness. Well, the chemists who came up with this conditioner went for it and made it 600 times sweeter than sugar. Well, as is the case in every fairy tale about artificial sweeteners, nothing can be so simple and sucralose has its opponents. Why? In the case of sucralose, many thorns in the eye are the chemical change that has taken place, because instead of the classic hydroxyl (OH) molecules in sucrose, they have added chlorine molecules to the laboratory. Well, we probably shouldn't eat chlorine, everyone knows. And now comes the bulletproof logic:

Sucralose = chlorine additive = we die.

Like yeah, it probably makes sense and I understand. But so, table salt (NaCl) = chlorine substance = do we die? As always and for everything, the context and the amount of substance received are important.

Once sucralose enters the body, it remains stable - ie. those chlorine atoms will remain bound within the chemical structure of sucralose and chlorine itself will therefore not travel in the body. This means that as sucralose enters our body, it also goes away (or gets away from the body through the digestive system) and only 11-27% of our body absorbs and excreted with the urine. Sucralose is even stable even at high temperatures or acidic pH, so it is perfectly safe to bake or cook with it or to put lemon in sucralose-sweetened water. Maybe.

In addition, sucralose performs very well in sensory tests and does not have a bitter tail compared to some other sweeteners. This is one of the main reasons why sucralose is used so much.

So why is there so much fuss about sucralose? Isn't that unnecessary? Is a. Again, things are breaking out of context.

There are several dozen, if not hundreds, studies of sucralose toxicity, especially in rats and dogs, and none have shown negative effects even at enormous doses of sucralose, including in reproductive toxicity in men, women, neurotoxicity and the like. But that doesn't completely satisfy us, yes.

So let's look at the speed of the human study, when volunteers were given a dose of 1, 2.5, 5, 10 mg / kg body weight every 48 hours. Negative effects? No. This was followed by a follow-up study in which people were given doses of 125 mg daily for 3 weeks, 250 mg daily for 4 weeks and 500 mg daily for another 4 weeks. Observed negatives? No.

How much sucralose can I eat or drink a day?

The JECFA (Joint FAO / WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives, an international organization associating experts through the safety of food additives) set the ADI for sucralose at 15 mg / kg body weight per day. For a 60 kg person, it is 900 mg per day. However, after reviewing approximately 110 additional studies, the FDA re-evaluated and reduced the ADI to 5 mg / kg body weight per day, i.e. 300 mg sucralose per day. Unfortunately, I can't translate it into real life, because I couldn't find the amount of sucralose used, e.g. in proteins or other foods sweetened by this sweetener, however, according to James Krieger and his research review, the average daily consumption of sucralose is 1.1-1.6 mg / kg TH / day, which is 3 times lower than ADI.

# 2 ASPARTAM, ACESULFAM OR COLA ZERO

And here we are. For the one whose name we must not say. Aspartame! So much controversy over one substance…

Although aspartame is an artificial sweetener, it consists of three substances that occur naturally in the foods we commonly eat. These are two amino acids (phenylalanine and aspartic acid) plus methanol. If you have crossed your feet now and threatened to be blinded, I will reassure you right away: methanol is toxic, but only in high doses - which we will certainly not get from aspartame in normal consumption. Didn't I convince you? And what if I told you that methanol is naturally present in small doses and in fruits? And in some even in much higher doses than we can get from a drink sweetened with aspartame.

When we eat / drink food or drink with aspartame, our body breaks it down into these three substances. Aspartame as such will not enter our bloodstream.

Just to give you an idea, let's take a look at how many of these individual components we get into the body from a sweetened aspartame drink and another food / drink.

You can find it in an ordinary drink (355 ml) sweetened with aspartame in the amount of 170 mg, in a powdered drink (approx. 240 ml) it is 100 mg, a gelatin dessert (113 g) has about 80 mg, yogurt (230 g) about 124 mg of aspartame. and one mini-pack of "artificial sugar" that is poured into coffee or tea in America has about 35 mg of aspartame.

If you now decide to do quality research on aspartame and tap it into PubMed, you will get 1455 studies.

Before aspartame was approved for use as a sweetener in 1981, more than 100 clinical and toxicological studies have been carried out to confirm its safety. In addition, the range of subjects studied has been enormous - aspartame has been tested in children, adolescents, adults, obese, diabetes, nursing women or phenylketonurics. The rest of the 1300 studies that have been conducted since then have all shown that aspartame is safe for the body - some have emerged that pointed to possible problems, but after a deeper look into methodology, it may not even be true.

For example, like this well-known study from 1996, when a certain Mr. Olney noticed that the number of patients with brain tumors had increased in the United States since 1981, when aspartame was approved. However, I could compare his argument with a bit of exaggeration to this: in the summer of 2018, the Slovak population had a higher appetite for ice cream, because in 1998 the rolls became more expensive by 15 haliers. Also in the Fitclan Premium section, we recently addressed two studies from last year and the results? No proven negatives.

All well-conducted studies on toxicity or any adverse effects on the human body, behavior and the psyche refute any negative assumptions about aspartame. The only negative that is associated with aspartame and is truly supported by studies is the mild effect of aspartame on migraines in a low percentage of susceptible individuals.

And now a sensitive topic - cancer. An overview of all the evidence and reports available to date, including hundreds of studies, has come to the conclusion that: “Studies do not provide any evidence to support the association between aspartame and cancer - in any tissue. Aspartame, at least according to existing research, is safe as a sweetener at the current level in terms of consumption. ”

Aspartame and appetite?

It is said that artificial sweeteners (led by aspartame) send a signal to the brain after consuming them that we are eating sweet food, but if we do not take in any calories, the body will force us to overeat. Thus, in short, artificial sweeteners increase appetite.

In particular, I took this study to monitor satiety, the effect on blood insulin and food intake after consuming aspartame or the stevia of a sweetened beverage. Conclusion? In the short term, these sweeteners do not increase appetite and do not affect appetite. However, in my opinion it is also a strongly individual / placebo effect.

How much aspartame can I take per day?

The ADI set by JECFA and other organizations is 40 mg / kg / TH per day, FDA 50 mg / kg, which equates to an average of 18 330ml cans of aspartame-sweetened drink for our 60kg person. Every day for the rest of my life. Quite difficult to exceed, especially when the average European consumes 21.3 mg of aspartame per kg of body weight per day.

# 3 ACESULFAM-K, ACESULFAM'S BEST FRIEND

About acesulfame perhaps only briefly. Acesulfame is 200 times sweeter than sugar and, after reviewing more than 50 studies, was approved in 1983 as a food additive in 90 countries. He was then approved as a sweetener only in 2003. We will usually see it in conjunction with aspartame, less often with sucralose; in short, in the vast majority of cases with some other sweetener, for one simple reason - it has a bitter tail. However, it is heat resistant and does not degrade (it is stable).

The life of acesulfame in our body is short. After consuming acesulfame, our body completely absorbs it and then immediately excreted unchanged in the urine.

Dogs are the most susceptible to acesulfame-K and toxicological studies have shown that up to 900 mg / kg body weight / day for two years had no adverse effects. The rats were even 1500 mg / kg body weight / day. The vast majority point to the safety of acesulfame when taken at doses below ADI. There are dozens of studies on the effects of acesulfame on cancer, but those that have shown negative effects are not well done. The current opinion is: acesulfame-K does not affect the development of cancer.

How much acesulfame K can I receive per day?

For acesulfame, the ADI is 15 mg / kg / day, with the average consumption of this sweetener in beverages and foods being about 20% of the ADI. In the case of Coca-Cola Zero, for a 60kg person it would be about 22 pieces of 330ml cans every day until the end of life and would still be safe.

# 4 SACCHARINE & SODIUM CYCLAMATE

Let's put the last two Mohicans together.

The first artificial sweetener that both developed and used was saccharin. It was founded at the end of the 19th century. They reconciled it during the First World War! I think even the older pieces remember how (mostly mainly) diabetics harmonized their coffee with such small white tablets. Saccharin is about 300 times sweeter than sugar and is relatively poorly famous because of its metallic aftertaste. Therefore, over time, it began to mix with other sweeteners - especially sodium cyclamate, or then replace it with newer sweeteners without taste.

The FDA tried to ban saccharin in 1977 because some animal studies have shown that they cause cancer in rats (bladder cancer). Since then, several studies have been carried out on this subject, but none have shown human health risks at normal doses (ie below the ADI, which we will list later). However, there are studies that have shown a link between saccharin consumption and cancer. Saccharin is currently normally permitted for use in the food industry as a sweetener, but it is regulated - each package should indicate how much saccharin is present in the food / beverage.

How much saccharin can I take per day?

For saccharin, ADI is at 5 mg / kg body weight per day, and since this sweetener is rarely used, it is difficult to overcome this limit, but if - for a 60kg person, it would be about 20 pieces of 330ml cans.

Cyclamate was discovered as early as 1937 and was commonly used as a sweetener in the US in the 1950s and 1960s. Sodium cyclamate is “only” 30 times sweeter than traditional sugar, and like acesulfame, it must fit with its bitter aftertaste. However, it works very well synergistically with saccharin.

Cyclamate as such shows low toxicity, the problem occurs as soon as it enters the intestines - our intestinal bacteria transform it into cyclohexylamine, which is more toxic. However, not all cyclamate is converted to cyclohexylamine, reported to be only about 18.9% per day.

Research on this sweetener is therefore still ongoing and is not 100% clear, but the ADI is set at 11 mg / kg body weight per day. Here, however, it is similar to saccharin - nowadays it is used only a little.

So, sum up:

The vast majority of scientific evidence suggests that artificial / artificial sweeteners are completely safe when consumed in quantities below the established ADI.

There is poor evidence that aspartame may be associated with migraines in a low percentage of susceptible individuals, and there are questions about the quality of mouse studies in acesulfame K toxicity tests.

With cyclamate more cautiously, but due to the established ADI, we do not have to worry about negative effects in this respect.

And that's it. Feel free to get that Coke zero. Don't be afraid of artificial sweeteners in protein or in a bar. But just don't overdo it. Artificial sweeteners have been studied for some time now on all possible and impossible sides, and as of the current date, we can say (especially the newer ones) that they are definitely not bad.

Steroids4U.eu | Online Steroid Shop - Buy Steroids - Cheap Steroids for sale

Carnitine: A popular fat burner that should have been deposed from the throne long ago | Steroids4U.eu

Carnitine: A popular fat burner that should have been deposed from the throne long ago

Filomena wanted to lose weight. Filomena bought l-carnitine. The filomena threw up the money. It seems that the carnitine story isn't going to be very positive, is it? Let yourself be surprised. Today we are going to talk about perhaps the most famous fat burner, but it has one important role, but it is not fat burning. So what? Read on.

It is on the legendary throne of burners, but it is wrong. This is the verdict on l-carnitine, about which we begin a little school - the lessons and the basics. It is a compound produced by the body from lysine and methion. It may be acetylated (to form acetyl-1-carnitine, called ALCAR), and at the time it is something similar to classical l-carnitine, but it seems to cross the blood-brain barrier more efficiently. Its function is to transmit fatty acids across the mitochondrial membrane so that they can be oxidized and produce energy.

Carnitine is the Latin word caro, or meat. In chicken, however, it is not so much, dominated by sheep, lamb and beef. The body can absorb l-carnitine from the diet in an amount of about 75%. Of nutritional supplements approximately 5-10%. And you see the first problem here, right?

The boom around carnitine was due to common sense of peasant. It helps with oxidation of fatty acids. However, when I drink a liter of l-carnitine, I burn the fat as hard as the sun's skin at 40 ° C. Unfortunately, this is not true. Unfortunately, no research has confirmed this "peasant theory".

Here he was supplemented by overweight women in aerobic activity. No effects of l-carnitine on fat burning. Even if we look at an independent review on the topic of carnitine fat burning, we find that science does not (unfortunately) support this. Also in Louis Burke's Practical Sports Nutrition book, with many other references, we find that it falls to its knees in terms of fat burning and improving l-carnitine performance. Further investigation of supplements concluded that: “… not enough evidence to recommend carnitine for weight loss or to increase fat oxidation.” The same was true for research on l-carnitine supplementation in caloric deficit. Only on nutritional supplement sites and women's magazines you can find that it burns fats. Right next to an article on detox and a blood group diet. Eh ...

Here and there you read that it also helps in increasing performance. Again, it is only the mindless sentences of copywriters who are in charge of texts on nutritional supplements. In both older and newer research, it is clearly said that l-carnitine cannot move. Even the mix of seventeen investigations did not tell us the positive news. The body simply creates enough and by supplementing it, while increasing the plasma concentration of carnitine (by the way, even when the insulin helper is stimulated more), but not where fatty acid oxidation takes place. In this research, they gave people 4 grams of l-carnitine for three months, and its levels just didn't increase, so don't think you're going to be an exception.

When is l-carnitine supplemented?

# 1 To support the VPVO protocol, ie throwing money out the window.

# 2 If you have any congenital metabolic disorder, damaged liver, you're a hemodialysis patient, you have diabetes mellitus where l-carnitine can help in hyperglycemia and the like. However, 99% of l-carnitine users do not fall into any of these categories, so they only support the VPVO protocol.

# 3 If you want to improve sperm quality for some reason. While many of the data are mixed, a 3g dosage also seems to benefit from this.

# 4 If you have money to spare and you want to test the potential for improving recovery after the performance that some studies are talking about, and for the objectivity of the article, we are talking about it. Minor benefits, if any, are also associated with ALCAR (discussed in the introduction) in improving cognitive functions or in the treatment of Alzheimer and depression.

The recommended dosage is 2-4 g an hour before the procedure. Remember that more is not better. When you reach the saturation point, the additional amount of carnitine works as if you would let a stream of water into a full bottle, with the aim of having more water in it.

Thus, L-carnitine is a supplement that lives from the era of ancient times when farmer's wisdom said it must work. The theory sounds nice, marketing looks splendid, and so was (or still is?) L-carnitine on the throne of fat burners. However, it should have been deposed from it for a long time, since it serves mainly for massive earnings of companies with nutritional supplements.

Steroids4U.eu | Online Steroid Shop - Buy Steroids - Cheap Steroids for sale

Energy Flow: Which strategy is better for weight loss? | Steroids4U.eu

Energy Flow: Which strategy is better for weight loss?

The first question you might have thought after reading the title is probably what is the energy flow. Unfortunately, this term is not well known in the Czech Republic, but abroad it is called energy flux. It represents a combination of energy expenditure and energy income (TEI + TEE). This is the amount of total energy turnover while maintaining energy balance over a period of weeks to months. It can therefore be expressed in absolute numbers (such as TDEE) or relative (TDEE / REE). Of course, we have different calorie values ​​for different people that they need / have to take daily. Everything depends on their physical parameters and activity. Anyone who has lost weight in the past and wanted to maintain this weight had to make one of the following two alternatives

either - maintain energy balance with reduced body weight by combining lower daily energy intake with low daily energy expenditure (low energy flux)

or - to combine higher energy intake with higher energy expenditure (high energy flux)

Basically, there are two energy balance scenarios (maintenance). Because if expenditure were higher than income, one would lose weight and vice versa, if income was higher than expenditure, it would gain. Logically, therefore, it should not matter if we maintain maintenance using a low or high energy flux / flux approach. But as usual, reality is treacherous.

The study showed an interesting trend. The higher the energy flow, the lower the percentage of body fat after 3 years. 253 young people were included in the research (17-20 years old, two groups, one for girls and one for girls, the first for healthy body fat, the second for slightly higher fat). To avoid a paradoxical situation, anyone whose calorie intake was more than 33% different from its expenditure was discarded. After three years of observation, only the high-energy group showed a loss of 2.2% of body fat. Other groups, namely low energy flux, mid energy flux and out-of-balance, increased their body fat by 2.3%, 2.7% and 3.7%, respectively. These results were also consistent with the idea that homeostatic weight control is more efficient if energy balance is maintained at a high level of energy intake and expenditure. Obviously, moving more and eating more is better in the long run.

Although the extremely high level of physical activity may be limited by a compensatory reduction in energy expenditure (the constrain energy model discussed in another article), its slight increase in weight loss increases energy flow and promotes favorable physiological adaptation to maintain new weight, including better regulation of appetite. Similarly, observational or other studies have shown a significantly higher level of physical activity (higher energy flow) in people who retained weight compared to those who recovered it. For example, even in a recent experimental study, they found that high energy flow (using a treadmill for 3 days) leads to an acutely greater appetite control, while low energy flow resulted in the exact opposite, an energy surplus of 17.5% during eating and libitum, whatever your throat likes. Conversely, a reduction in physical activity did not result in a natural decrease in energy intake.

Thirdly, Rebecca Foright has elaborated an interesting research in her thesis where the (obese) participants in the low-energy group (2450 Kcal,> 3000 steps) were significantly more hungry and felt less satiated at the end of the day compared to high energy flow (3200 Kcal, 7500 steps + 500 actively burned Kcal). The average weight loss was almost identical with a target of 7%. This means that both approaches were equally effective, but one "hurt" more.

From the above we can conclude the following sentence:

Low-energy intake associated with low energy expenditure, ie low energy flux, predetermines fat gain and vice versa (1,2,3)

People who lose weight must restore their energy balance with their reduced body weight (set up new maintenance). Of course, this can be achieved with low but also high energy flows. However, a higher energy flow requires that we move more, do more sports, eventually gain some muscles, and thus improve our quality of life overall. Achieving high energy flux through physical activity is also associated with improved metabolic flexibility. It will also enable us to better manage the pitfalls of the modern world. Simply the more we eat and the energy we spend (movement, sport), the more likely we are to maintain a new weight. We have more calories available to better manage not only our hunger, but also social, emotional and casual eating. Our caloric flexibility increases, and overall adherence goes hand in hand. Anyone have a pizza? And as a bonus, appetite can be better regulated at higher calories and higher physical activity, which in turn favors high energy flow.

Steroids4U.eu | Online Steroid Shop - Buy Steroids - Cheap Steroids for sale

Proteins face many false claims. We discussed 7 myths | Steroids4U.eu

Proteins face many false claims. We discussed 7 myths

Not only carbohydrates and fats are macronutrients that are associated with many myths. Proteins are not lagging behind, on the contrary - we encounter quite a number of untrue claims, and therefore we will tell today what the reality is.

# 1 High protein intake will damage your kidneys!

Fortunately, this is not the case and even the theory on this is based on a very fragile basis. We suppose we eat a lot of protein, we still load the kidneys, and then they cough up on us, work less, and over time their health (and hence ours) will get worse and worse. However, there is no evidence to support this in healthy people. There are even long-term studies where there was no difference in renal function in the two-year study. One of the most important researchers on the topic of high-protein diet and its impact on health, Jose Antonio, also conducted several interesting studies.

The latter dealt with a protein intake of about 3 g / kg over four months. Furthermore, we have probably the most well-known research from 2016, which examined the effect of 2.5-3.3 g / kg of proteins in one year. And before discussing the results of all the studies, I will follow up on Jose's further research, where we talk about a two-year study of people eating more than 2.2 g / kg of protein. The conclusions are the same in all cases. No negative effects on blood lipids, kidneys or liver were found. And when we look at the more extreme cases, namely 4.4 g / kg, which is not only unnecessary in practice, but we can say that a very unreasonable amount, we see the same results. High protein intake is good for kidneys. The question is whether something would change in 10, 20 or 30 years of long research, but we do not expect that, so we have to start from what we know.

# 2 And they even damage your liver

We'll blow this out quite quickly, as most studies examining the effects on the kidneys have also shone on the liver. Conclusions? No negatives, similar to kidneys. However, some people think that amino acid metabolism, which has fingers in amino acid degradation (deamination), tired of the liver, and it eventually resolves its function. However, as we already know, this is not true, so the kidneys and liver are cool and will not give you KO even at higher protein intake.

# 3 High protein intake destroys bones

That doesn't sound comfortable at all, does it? The origin of this false statement originated in the theory of acid-ash hypothesis, which causes loss of bone tissue, respectively. bone damage. Many researches have long since confirmed that this is not the case, and indeed it is very likely that proteins have a positive effect on bones. We can mention the 6-month research from 2018, because it concerned trained women, which is a great sample, as women often have a problem with bone mineral density, which is often caused by long and extreme caloric restrictions (more in our article). The conclusions suggest that the high protein content did not have a negative effect on mineral density, either the lumbar bone or the whole body. Women consumed at least 2.2 g / kg of protein per body weight.

We can conclude by systematically analyzing sixteen RCT researches, respectively. Twenty cohorts, which suggests that a high-protein diet not only does not damage bone health, but can have protective effects on bone density of the lumbar spine.

https://www.steroids4u.eu

# 4 Proteins other than animal products do not count

Unfortunately, for some, protein is synonymous with meat. However, meat is certainly not the only source of protein, and from a health perspective, it would probably be better for us to combine proteins from different sources and moreover, not just animal ones. We have written a separate article about this, so be sure to study it for more details, but here we would just like to briefly point out that animal-derived proteins are better in terms of influencing muscle protein synthesis, but plant proteins should also have room in the menu. If you are one of the people who cannot take enough protein, if they do not have at least 200-300 g of meat every day, perhaps it is high time to think about the variability of your diet, respectively. your protein intake and include more other sources in your diet.

# 5 Proteins are just for men to have big muscles

At this point, I would like to recall what I wrote in Article 5 of the stereotypes and prejudices that women experience in exercise and healthy lifestyles. Proteins are not just for men, they are not just for muscles and are not overrated. Eating protein is not just about the fact that every gram of extra helps you build larger biceps. Not even close. They have a positive effect on bones, tissues, cartilage, skin, blood, saturation and appetite reduction, tissue repair, enzyme production, hormones. They are very important in gaining weight and weight loss. Let's discard the outdated media view that women are "bulky" (ie bulky, muscular) because of protein. And one more important fact. Only about 10% of the protein consumed will actually use your muscles to grow! The intestines and liver consume large amounts of protein (~ 50%) and the rest is released into the plasma.

# 6 In one meal, the body receives only 20-30 g of protein

I guess you already know that we had to discuss this on Fitclane in detail and you're right. Since muscle protein synthesis is not the only part of a protein jigsaw, there is virtually no upper limit for the overall anabolic response (ie not just in the muscles) to protein or amino acid intake in a single meal. If you have 80 g of protein in your meal, the body will not only accept the legendary 20 or 30 grams and the others will evaporate, disappearing in the black hole, in the toilet or elsewhere. It will simply take a long time for your body to absorb it. It is true that the maximization of muscle protein synthesis will probably be achieved somewhere in the middle of such a meal, but that does not mean that the rest will come out, but these are the details that we are discussing in this paper.

https://www.steroids4u.eu

# 7 The more protein, the more muscle

This is again a problem with some hardcore men. They think that the more protein they consume, the more muscle they will grow. Already from the fifth point, it seems a bit that this may not be true. Indeed, several studies show that this is not true, and optimal protein intake in active people is about 1.6-2.2 g / kg. In some scenarios it is worthwhile to eat more protein, although of course one has to pay attention to what this may mean in practice, because there are certain factors that we have written about here. However, research does not show a proportional trend between protein and muscle growth. If you live the idea that 4 g / kg of protein will build up more muscle mass than 2 g / kg, then this idea is wrong.

These are the most common myths about the proteins we encounter. You can see that some of them have been discussed in separate articles a long time ago, but thanks to this up-to-date and comprehensive summary, perhaps everyone will be clear on how the proteins are. Of course, we are talking about healthy people who have no kidney damage diagnosed by a doctor. In this case, protein intake and overall dietary access should be reviewed with it. As Lyle McDonald once said, many proteins without sufficient intake of vegetables, vitamin D or calcium may not be optimal in the long run. Lots of protein and all these factors under control? Super scenár!

Steroids4U.eu | Online Steroid Shop - Buy Steroids - Cheap Steroids for sale

Declared vs. real calories: imperfections in the calorie system | Steroids4U.eu

Declared vs. real calories: imperfections in the calorie system

For many of us, nutrition tables on food packaging are an important source of information about the content of individual ingredients, but also about the caloric and nutritional value of a given food. But have you ever wondered how such a table is made and how accurate it is? Is it possible to rely on the above figures?

Generally, the energy content of foods (their calorific value) is calculated by multiplying each one component that corresponds to the energy coefficients. The energy contained in the food can also be measured directly by means of a bomb calorimeter. This machine is able to measure the amount of energy released by the complete combustion of a food sample that fits into the machine. For example, researchers found that as much as 94% of meals from mainstream restaurants and 72% of fast food meals contain at least 600 calories per serving.

In reality, it works a little more complicated. Since man is not a machine, we are not as effective at burning food calories as the super machine in the picture. Due to incomplete digestion and thus imperfect absorption in the gastrointestinal tract, not all of the energy contained in a given food will enter the system to be used as energy. And here the first differences arise.

Before discussing the issue, we will clarify one important term that I will continue to use (often). These are called. Atwater factor / system. What is it? It is basically a system that every fitclan fan is sure to know. It is a general caloric expression of individual nutrients (macronutrients). For repetition, the energy values ​​are 4 kcal / g for protein, 9 kcal / g for fat, 4 kcal / g for carbohydrate and 7 kcal / g for alcohol. These figures are based on the production of food heat, literally when they are burned. Wilbur Olin Atwater, according to which this factor / system is named, also took into account the energy loss in feces in the energy expression. In other words, the energy that our body can actually “metabolize” (actually receive) is already reflected in these figures, albeit in the typical mixed diet of its time (that is, in the 20th century).

Later, Atwater was added. For example, carbohydrates in the form of monosaccharides = 3.75 kcal / g (i.e., 16 kJ / g) (Note 1 at the end of the article). Furthermore, energy values ​​for fiber of 2.0 kcal / g, organic acids of 3.0 kcal / g and polyols of 2.4 kcal / g were included. Finally, Merrill and Watt attempted to improve the system by refining the energy expression of the various types of nutrients (Note 2). For example, from 2.44 kcal / g for some plant proteins, or 3.46 kcal / g for flakes, to 4.36 kcal / g for egg protein. For vegetable fats from 8.37 kcal / g (eg from cereals, legumes, fruits or nuts) to 9.02 kcal / g for fats contained in eggs, meat. Furthermore, for carbohydrates in cocoa chocolate from 1.33 kcal / g to 4.16 kcal / g in white rice. In their book, they brought many concrete figures. But in the end we ended up on average with the common values ​​of 4/4/9 - Kcal / g.

As I have already outlined, the basic Atwater system does not take into account how absorption differs depending on the type of food and its processing or the person consuming it (which may otherwise absorb some specific ingredients). It also does not take into account the effect of food thermal effects (TEF) or energy expenditure (TEA). I have picked a few concrete examples to demonstrate the differences in calories, but before we look at the system that applies in our region.

Pursuant to Regulation (EC) No. 1169/2011 of 25 October 2011 on the provision of food information to consumers, we operate on the extended Atwater system. However, it does not distinguish between monosaccharides and polysaccharides (page 45), so their energy expression is identical. Data on caloric content of foods can be obtained in triplicate. By analyzing the food, calculating from known or actual average values ​​of the ingredients used (how many fats, carbohydrates, proteins, etc.), or taking data from relevant sources (eg national food databases). As a result, the same food may have three different values.

In addition, the Directive introduced an obligation to include nutrition information on the packaging of food (with certain exceptions). In the Slovak Republic this obligation is valid from 13.12.2016. The amount of fat, saturated fatty acids, carbohydrates, sugars, proteins and salt must be labeled. At the same time, it is only up to the manufacturer of the product to indicate on the packaging, for example, fiber or alcohol sugars (polyols), etc. This can lead to inaccuracies in foods with higher fiber content (alcohol sugars). In the caloric table, the carbohydrate content (under which these ingredients are included) is misrepresented, so the real calories are lower than those declared in the table. If the manufacturer uses a conversion based on the content of individual nutrients, he may round them to whole grams (eg 1,6 g = 2 g). It should be added, however, that although these are not some relevant numbers from the perspective of a single food, a number may already deviate.

However, there are also some guidelines for tolerances for nutrition labeling purposes. This means that, for each nutrient, a certain degree of inaccuracy is permitted for each nutrient, depending on its quantity in the food. Of course, this is logical because it is impossible for food to always contain exactly the same levels of nutrients. However, the content of these nutrients in food should not deviate significantly from the declared values ​​so that we (consumers) are not misled. For example, with a carbohydrate content of up to 10 g per 100 g of food, a tolerance of ± 2 g is permitted. Fats may have a deviation of up to 1.5 g for products up to 10 g per 100 g of product, with a content of from 10 g to 40 g / 100 g of product being already permitted 20% upwards. What does this mean in practice? A food product with a declared sugar content of 8,5 g shall be within the tolerances when checked, if the controllers measure a sugar content between 6,5 g and 11 g / 100 g.

Even for these inaccuracies, the calculation of energy values ​​should rather be considered as an alternative to direct measurement, but reality will not let go. We cannot ask that each food be individually tested in a bomb calorimeter for calorie content. Similarly, we cannot idealize the values ​​on the food packaging.

And now back to specific food categories. First we look at the nuts. According to commonly used calorie mathematics, a 28 g portion of walnuts has 185 calories, but the actually metabolizable energy at this amount is 146 calories. This is 21% less than the Atwater factor predicts. Almonds ended similarly. Their actual metabolisable energy content is 32% lower than the table data. For pistachios, this difference is 5% and for cashews 16%. In other words, the amount of nut energy available to the body for use or storage is lower than generally indicated on packaging. The following order applies: Almonds> Walnuts> Cashews> Pistachios. However, we are talking about raw nuts. Nuts processed in the form of butter, oil or flour lead to less excretion of fat in the stool than unprocessed nuts. This suggests that the intact structure of nuts inhibits the digestion and absorption of macronutrients therefrom (Note 1).

Interestingly, even a low-fat, high-fiber diet will have up to 11% less metabolizable energy. We are talking mainly about fruits, vegetables and cereals with high fiber content. Researchers from Korea looked at the differences between selected foods, using animals to test. They found that the differences can be significant. Korean dishes, consisting mainly of rice or pasta, had lower real values ​​than typical Western dishes. Pizza, hamburger and spaghetti had 8.8%, 2.4% and 10.9% higher metabolic energy, respectively, while the Korean ones - composed mostly of different types of barley, rice and pasta - moved from 4-17 % below the table values. Food processing can significantly alter the structure and composition of food, thereby affecting the digestion of macronutrients. Also, fermented foods are more available for absorption and therefore may be more caloric than their non-fermented counterparts.

Above you can see graphics showing three kinds of diets. It is a typical western diet, predominantly composed of processed and calorically concentrated foods. Mediterranean diet (see note 4) and vegan diet. We compare the three diets according to the following criteria:

General = Atwater calculation system how it works in the Czech Republic (EU)

Specific = Atwater system supplemented by Merrilla and Watt recommendations. It is therefore based on the digestibility coefficients of category-specific macrorutrients (eg 1 g of nut fat has 8.37 Kcal, but 1 g of egg fat has 9.02 Kcal, ie it has no fixed values ​​for macronutrients)

Modified = improved system that uses food specific macronutrient digestibility coefficients published in the scientific literature

It can be seen that the smallest deviations occurred in the western style of eating and the largest in the vegan style. What does it mean? Within a varied and balanced diet, caloric differences (real vs. declared) represent only a marginal problem. Myfitnesspal can tell us the truth. However, for individuals who adhere to a specific style of diet (vegans, carnivore), we may see more relevant deviations. This is true for a diet with a very high intake of fiber, whole grains or seeds, i. for meals based primarily on plants, which retain most of their natural intact structure (they are minimally processed). In such cases, it can be estimated that the actual metabolisable energy may be from 10-30% lower than the tabular (myfitnesspal) values. And vice versa. If you eat predominantly junkfood and various high-processed versions of meals, you will probably receive a little more calories than declared on the package and in calorie tables.

The final word

Today you could read that calories are not perfect. Uh, their energy expression for specific types of foods and nutrients is not perfect. But must it be? You might even have to worry about, oh, calories aren't like calories! It is, but it is not. Manufacturers make inaccuracies, we write inaccurately, there are individual differences between us. However, their relevance is on average low. The main point of getting an overview of your daily energy intake is not 100% knowledge of exact numbers. In addition, with a balanced diet, these inaccuracies are lost (averaged) in the daily total. Above all, we need to manage our calorie budget as a whole. To avoid eating much more / less than we need to achieve our goals. This is the main reason why everyone should have a more detailed overview of their calories for at least a certain period. It's like money, you have to learn their value first, then you can handle it economically.

Steroids4U.eu | Online Steroid Shop - Buy Steroids - Cheap Steroids for sale