Negative Calories - A Myth Or An Ideal Way To Lose Weight? | Steroids4U.eu

 Negative Calories - A Myth Or An Ideal Way To Lose Weight?

Have you heard about negative calories and a diet based on them? In this article, we will explain to you whether there are foods that require more energy to process than the food itself. Learn if eating only celery, tomatoes and other vegetables is a good way to lose weight.

Negative calories - what exactly is it?

Have you come across the term "negative calories"? It is possible that it has been associated with a “negative-calorie diet” or a “negative-calorie diet” (NCD). It is a dietary concept in which foods with a negative caloric effect are consumed. This means that the body needs more energy to process them than is found in these foods. This hypothesis assumes that intake of this diet will result in a caloric deficit, which sounds interesting to people who are trying to reduce body weight.

Thermal effect of food

The human body needs the energy it receives from food for all activities, but it also needs some energy to consume and process it. You may not have known, but some of the calories in food are used by the body to process food, and some burn in the form of heat. One of the terms that refers to this process is the thermal effect of food (TEF). However, you may also encounter names loosely translated as “diet-induced thermogenesis (DIT) or“ specific dynamic action ”(SDA).

The thermal effect of food varies according to its components, because the body needs a different amount of energy to process proteins, carbohydrates and fats. The diet based on proteins has the highest thermal effect of food (20 - 30%). This means that when you consume 100 calories of protein, approximately 20-30 calories are used to process them, so you only eat 70. With a traditional diet, the thermal effect represents about 10% of caloric intake. However, it depends on the composition of the diet, because a lunch with a predominance of proteins than fats has a different thermal effect. You can compare it in the table:

Calorie content per gram of nutrient Thermal effect of food

Protein 4 20 - 30%

Carbohydrates 4 5 - 10%

Fats 9 0 - 3%

In addition to the highest thermal effect, proteins also have several other benefits associated with weight loss.

However, in addition to the thermal effect of food, it must be remembered that only part of the total number of calories is used by the body as energy or for storage. Absorbed calories, such as fiber or partially indigestible food, should also be considered during absorption. We can express this, for example, by equation:

Total number of calories received - "excluded calories" - thermal effect of food = calories suitable for use

Are there negative calorie foods?

The idea of a diet in which you only eat foods with negative calories and lose weight is tempting. On the Internet you will find examples that are included in this type, often vegetables or fruits. One of them is, for example, celery, because it is made up mainly of water and fiber. But is it really possible to achieve "negative calories"?

We will probably disappoint you, because the idea of ​​negative calorie foods is a myth, a theoretical premise and perhaps a pious wish. This is confirmed by the skeptical attitude of several doctors and nutritionists. The main argument that confirms that explicitly "zero" calories do not exist is a scientific study performed on a lizard (Pogona vitticeps). For all articles, we use the results of research conducted only on people, but in this case we will make an exception. For exact results, a machine was used that measured the metabolic rate and energy required to digest celery. 33% of calories were used for digestion and 43% were excreted, which unfortunately does not represent 100%. The difference is 24% of calories from raw and diced celery. It follows that even though celery is mainly made of water and fiber, it does not "pass" through the digestive tract without some energy remaining in the body.

There is no scientific evidence for the existence of "zero-calorie" foods, but there are examples of such low calorie content that it could be called almost zero. Examples of zero-calorie foods from vegetables and fruits are those with a high water content. Here are some examples:

Water content Number of calories

Celery 95% 14 (in 100 g)

Tomato 94% 32 (in 180 g)

Carrots 88% 52 (in 130 g)

Grapefruit 92% 69 (in 230 g)

Watermelon 91% 46 (in 150 g)

Apple 86% 53 (in 110 g)

Celery, tomatoes or grapefruit are low in calories and contain from 7 to 30 calories per 100 grams. They are low in calories, but even though they are considered negative calorie foods, research does not confirm this. Due to the high content of fiber and water, a large amount of energy is not required for their processing. What does this mean? These foods are low in calories, but require less energy to process.

Some of the energy goes to digestion, then calories are eliminated, but you may have thought that energy is also needed to process food in the mouth. Now you may be saying that just chewing is the key to negative calories. Don't expect any holy grail to lose weight. According to research focused on energy consumption when chewing gum, you burn about 11 calories in 1 hour. If we took away the energy needed to digest and absorb celery and consider only the yellowing, you would need to "stir in those 100 g with 14 calories in your mouth" for about 76 minutes. [7]

Low calorie foods

Zero-calorie foods do not seem to exist, but we have some tips for low-calorie foods that are exceptional for their content. This chapter is a "compensation" for refuting the myth. We have divided them into categories in which everyone can find their favorites. [6] [7] [8] [9]

Fruit

Watermelon - only 46 calories in 152 grams of this sweet delicacy speaks for itself. In addition, you will also find vitamin C and other nutrients in it.

Raspberries - 64 calories in 125 g plus manganese and vitamin C.

Grapefruit - half a grapefruit weighs about 123 g and contains about 52 calories.

Orange - 1 whole orange contains about 60 calories and 2.3 g of fiber, which is also not harmful.

Strawberries - only 50 calories and 2.5 g of fiber will be taken in 1 cup of strawberries.

Vegetables

Celery - in 2 stalks of celery you will find only 13 calories, but up to 1.2 g of fiber.

Kel - in 20 g of kel you will find 7 calories and several vitamins and minerals.

Garlic - more has been described about the benefits of garlic, but it is also important for weight reduction, because 1 clove contains only 5 calories.

Beetroot - in the middle of the cup you will find 37 calories, but iron, fiber or other nutrients.

Tomato - a medium-sized tomato contains 25 calories and an additional 1.3 g of fiber.

Carrots - in 1 carrot you will find 30 calories and 2 g of fiber.

Meat, dairy products and others

Pork tenderloin - in an 85 g portion you will find 15 g of protein, but mainly only 91 calories and other nutrients.

Mushrooms - fans of mushrooms will certainly enjoy the information that 1 cup of mushrooms represents about 15 calories, but also vitamins and minerals.

Coffee and tea - drinks also have calories, except for coffee and tea. Tea contains 0 calories and a cup of coffee only 2 calories. In addition, both drinks are beneficial for other reasons.

Broth - vegetable, meat or seafood is not only tasty and healthy, it also has a low calorie content.

Eggs - Eggs have been described, but it is true that 1 approximately 6 g of egg contains 78 calories and other important nutrients.

Salmon - fish are a generally healthy type of meat, in an 85 g portion of salmon you will find vitamins, omega-3, 17 g of protein and only 121 calories.

Want to know more about the benefits of green tea and coffee? Read the articles - 8 positive effects of green tea for the health of athletes and Caffeine and how to make your training more effective.

There seems to be no negative calorie diet, which is perhaps a positive message under certain circumstances, as it could lead to too rapid a weight loss. Even if that were true, this vision of weight loss could be a loss of about 1 kg per day, the exact opposite of healthy weight loss.

The concept of a diet based on negative calories is based on consuming low-calorie food. With this diet, you do not have to worry about burning calories, because according to this theory, you lose weight without any further activity. However, according to the expert, this is not the right way, because a varied diet is needed to get all the necessary nutrients. In addition, no one would enjoy eating celery, tomatoes and carrots. Replacing a diet exclusively with a low-calorie meal is unhealthy and, moreover, uninteresting. And we haven't mentioned the yo-yo effect yet. Instead, it is certainly healthier and more interesting to replace high-calorie meals with them and mix them with nutritious meals for nutrient intake.

Scientists have not yet confirmed that there is food with negative calories. Even if it succeeds, a monotonous menu is really not good. However, there are low calorie foods that can be a healthier alternative. Anyway, we believe you have learned everything you need to know about this topic.

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

8 miraculous foods to lose weight. If you eat them, your fat loss will take on a new dimension | Steroids4U.eu

8 miraculous foods to lose weight. If you eat them, your fat loss will take on a new dimension

Surely you have come across various articles and infographics describing foods that are used for weight loss by their miraculous effects. Meals and foods that you must have in your diet in your diet and your fat loss will take on a new dimension. We won't stretch for a long time and we'll go straight to the eight miraculous foods that will make it poor.

1. They do not exist

2. None

3. Miraculous

4. Food

5. From

6. Which

7. Are

8. Fatloss

So now there are only about two groups of people. Those who smiled and said something in style: "Ugh, fortunately Fitclan once again hit the nail in the head." You have protein in me. The second group will not be so excited. They are exactly those who are looking for shortcuts and quick solutions. As we said once in our Instagram post - such a search for shortcuts always ends badly. Not only will people not reach their goal, but they will be even more angry than before they started. Fast diets, short-term experiments, detoxifying teas for weight loss, crazy advice from magazines, following trends and the like. They will kill years by looking for the right quick way to lose fat, and at the same time it would be enough to invest time, for example, in reading articles, studies and thinking. Yes, thinking. Nowadays, people are lazy to do that too.

Are they trying to sell you the best training? The best menus? A revolutionary pre-flight weekly plan to lose weight? They are liars. There is no quick fix. No magic pill. It's just you and you have to have a desire to achieve something. You have to work and no one will do it for you. Motivational bullshit? Perhaps. But when do some people realize that there are no quick fixes, but fat loss is about caloric deficit, patience, and hard work? You can have a coach with you, you can use our Online Coaching, but you have to work. We'll teach you what to do, like, why, when, you have a chance to ask endless questions 24 hours 7 days a week, we can hang out with you on Skype day in and day out… but we won't eat and eat for you. It's up to you. And if you realize that everyone can have the character they desire and everyone can lose fat, but the change doesn't come in 4 minutes, you may be another of those people who will reach their goal and the path may be winding, but you will have a smile on face.

Titles like this are created because they drive read, many people believe in them, and after discovering those magical foods, they think something will change. But nothing will change. If there's someone who believed our headline and thought they'd finally find 8 foods they had to eat to lose weight, congratulations. Really, no irony. If you read this, you probably already realize in this paragraph that your search for abbreviations, laziness and slander leads to a dead end. If you want to lose weight, you have to be in caloric deficit. That is the basis. Then you have to take in enough protein. Then determine a reasonable ratio of carbohydrates to fats. Ideally, you will incorporate exercise into your life. In all this, focus on at least 80% of the nutritionally valuable, least processed foods, do not forget about fiber and add the rest of the calories with whatever you like. We have articles about everything, we discuss each topic from different angles. Try it. Study the articles, write down the individual findings and come and try it. Look for shortcuts. Magic pills. None of this will work.

But what about foods with negative calories?

We can't forget about those after all! After all, according to some experts, there are certain foods that have negative calories and make us lose weight. A typical example is grep. I guess it's a classic "fairy tale" that anyone who tripped over the exercise knows. "Have a grapefruit, ideally grapefruit juice. He is more for weight loss and burns fats. " Another of the things that don't apply.

The theory of foods with negative calories probably originated due to the thermal effect of food (TEF). In simple terms, TEF represents the amount of energy needed to process the food itself after it has been consumed. This is a certain loss of energy consumed. Fats have the lowest TEF (1-3%), carbohydrates are somewhere in between (5-10%) and proteins have the highest TEF value (15-30%). TEF primarily affects the distribution of macronutrients in this meal and the total calories of the meal. However, the maximum of 30% is not 100%. It is foolish to lose weight from some foods because they are negative calorie foods.

If the logic and the property of TEF are not enough for you, we can safely look at the study, where the subjects consumed half of the grapefruit before each meal. Are you surprised that such research also exists? In any case, the conclusions of the research are that no differences in weight were found between the groups.

Fortunately, many of the foods labeled as magical with negative calories are low-calorie. The second advantage, many of them are also nutritionally valuable and our intake of micronutrients will certainly enrich, which is ultimately very beneficial in the diet and if we talk about fruit, it will help us with fiber intake and again - fiber is very important not only when losing weight. Foods with the label "for the poor", "miraculous", "with negative calories" are therefore not suitable for consumption, but the point is perhaps everyone understands. These are just extra foods and calories, and you can also gain grapefruit as long as it helps you to be in caloric excess because of it.

There are no foods to lose weight from, and there are no foods to gain weight from. This is one thing that will probably never die. The questions of whether * getting any food * is gaining weight and whether it is * getting any food * diet are really immortal, which is why the concept of IIFYM was created a few years ago, but some are still a bit spoiled, mainly because of the reasons in this article. In any case, now the roles of the two groups I mentioned at the beginning of the article are reversed a bit. The first group doesn't have that protein in me (maybe another time) and the second group finally smiles because they realize a lot of things. Perhaps. They need it.

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

3x about how to motivate yourself to exercise. How to train when the gym is closed and your training possibilities are minimized? | Steroids4U.eu

3x about how to motivate yourself to exercise. How to train when the gym is closed and your training possibilities are minimized?

Moving into training can be a problem. Korona measures allow us to have time, but often lacks taste ...

Training is an activity like any other. Whether you implement it or not, only you decide. How is it possible that someone is exercising and considers it a drug and cannot wait for further training? Someone is training (even the same training) and after the first series of hundra, that everything hurts? The answer is our own attitude, our decision. In this article, I will try to positively influence your decision.

The current measures (Korona) have given us a lot of time. Several people have written to me that they would train but do not have the "juice" to train at home or outdoors. They lack motivation.

At the beginning of this topic, it is important to answer the question of why people do not exercise or why they stop exercising. Yes, it's a clear, lack of motivation. But motivation also comes from something. Loss or lack of motivation for training is most often influenced by 3 factors. It is either one of these factors or a combination of them.

Motivation for training is most often influenced by the following factors: Frustration with the (in) results of training, Age - old age, and lack of time.

It may be another, but I suppose the vast majority of people will fall into one or more of these factors.

To answer the question from the introduction "How to motivate yourself to exercise?" I will briefly describe the reason and then how you can overcome it.

1.Frustation of (non) training results, resp. training without achieving results.

Nothing is more frustrating than when you decide to train, you expend energy, you try and the results don't come.

From the practice of a personal trainer, I can guarantee that the best motivation for further training are the results in the form of body shaping and improving fitness (including movement). Health comes second. Although it shouldn't be like that. In healthy people, health is a secondarily appreciated effect, if at all.

A fruitless exercise usually has several pitfalls.

Too little training

Too much training or insufficient regeneration,

Incorrect training procedure (program).

Solution or how to achieve training results.

There are two solutions. Again, it is necessary to apply one but often both. Adjustment of the training program and adjustment of the lifestyle (including adjustment of the diet).

The training program should be such that you especially enjoy it. And by enjoying you, you will achieve results. This is how both of my training books for beginners are set up. Start training with MOTION for Men and Start training with MOTION for Women.

It can also be the most advanced training plan / program. If, according to him, you will not enjoy training, sooner or later you will cough it up and thus give up the results. A properly set up training program should theoretically be set up professionally, regularly and effectively. In practice, however, it must also meet the aspect of simplicity and fun. I paid great attention to both levels, theoretical and practical, when creating my books for women, for men and in my online program Membership in MOTION (you will find all products in our eShop).

Choose a training program especially so that it entertains you. Everything else will come afterwards.

2. Age or old age. I'm old enough to start training.

People will say that they are simply training and taking care of their body is getting old.

I think that the older we are, the more we should take care of our body and the more we should reserve more space in our lives for our training. Why?

Because several studies that have looked at training seniors have shown that the body does not lose age because we grow older but more because we do not use it.

Yes, of course, rising age does not add to our fitness in the long run. But history (and the media) are full of people who have reached and cultivated their characters in fantastic condition despite old age.

In addition, the old rule "the older, the more reasonable" applies. In the end, an individual who trains for a long time and prudently always achieves a better form than a conceived young man without a pinch of balance. And this also applies taking into account that some people may have better genetic predispositions to sports, a better figure and the like.

Globally, this means that a long-term prudent trainer with both average and below-average genetic equipment defeats a genetically gifted sloppy who trains incorrectly and does not adapt to training in other areas of life. It is a situation that I can confirm again from the coach's practice.

This is also proved by my cooperation, which I can be proud of. And that is also the answer to the solution.

The solution or why age / old age is not an obstacle in body shaping in training.

Stanka is a 5-time grandmother (60) who, with the help of my book Start Training with MOVEMENT for Women, lost almost 20 kilograms. She maintains her line (even slimmer), has more energy than she was 20 years ago, is more mobile and feels great. I dedicated a separate article to Stank and her results - Training and results according to the book Start exercising with MOVEMENT for Women. Or how women in their 60s can easily shape their figure.

Janko is also a grandfather who started serious training due to a very poor health condition at the age of 61. Today (70) he owns a figure that can be envied even by men 30 years younger and his movement and strength skills are better than 50% of today's 30s (ie 40 years younger). I wrote a whole article about Janek a few years ago, because his "journey" is a real inspiration - The story of a man who started training at the age of 61 and today is not even 50 years old.

 These are just two examples, but in my practice since 2000, I have witnessed dozens of such inspirational stories. You can find a few more on my website in articles (stories) or in personal trainer references.

3. Lack of time for training.

In the current situation, many people have a little more time than is standard in non-corona measures. Whether you have time now or still, the situation is the same.

If you have time for training, keep it, if you do not have time for training, reserve it.

It is a misconception that training must be time consuming in order to deliver results. I assume you have already met, with 1 hour of training a day representing only 4% of your whole day.

I have some additional information for you that will further reduce this 4% and expand your options. This information is not just data from books but factual facts.

The solution or lack of time for training is relative.

You don't even need an hour. And not every day at all. For absolutely top training, 30-40 minutes are enough for you. You can divide these 30-40 minutes into several parts during the day.

Training resp. you do not achieve the results of training by the passage of time. You achieve the results of the training by stimulating the muscles. And the most effective stimulation is, among all the method-forming factors of training, intensity.

Intensity does not mean you have to do an hour of training in half the time. The intensity is very individual and you can achieve muscle stimulation after doing 2-3 series of exercises. Practicing 2-3 series even in the most difficult version means 5-10 minutes of exercise.

If you find this time repeatedly during the day, you have won. Even the most busy person in the world can really find 5-10 minutes.

If you do not know how to train and achieve results and the suggested options are not enough for you, I offer you individual training in the comfort of your home (online).

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

Vegetable, animal, low-calorie or fast proteins. What 5 factors will help us in choosing quality proteins? | Steroids4U.eu

Vegetable, animal, low-calorie or fast proteins. What 5 factors will help us in choosing quality proteins?

You already know a lot about proteins, as we have given a lot of space to this important macronutrient. But they deserve that space and you already know 4 factors that need to be aware of when they are higher, you also know about the well-known myth about the maximum amount of protein in food or their safety. Do you know everything, but also how to choose a quality source of protein?

But what exactly is that quality? In general, it means how well or poorly the body will use a given protein. It concerns how the essential amino acid profile (EAA) of a protein meets the requirements of the organism. Protein digestibility and the bioavailability of amino acids also play a role in this regard.

Amino acids are the building blocks of protein. Depending on which source of protein we use in our diet, we range from 18 to 22 different amino acids that occur in the human diet. These amino acids can be divided into essential (EAA) and non-essential (NEAA). There are 9 essentials (histidine, isoleucine, leucine, valine, lysine, threonine, phenylalanine, methionine and tryptophan) and must be ingested from food, while non-essentials (alanine, cysteine, glutamine, carnitine, tyrosine) the body can make itself. Skeletal muscle consists of a high proportion (approximately 50%) of EAA.

Although the most important amino acid in muscle protein stimulation is leucine, ingestion of essential amino acids (approximately 10 g) in free form or as part of a protein mixture (20-40 g) has been shown to be the maximal stimulus of muscle protein synthesis (MPS). Simply put, as part of protein consumption, we want them to include all EAAs.

Vegetable Vs. animal

Here we come to the first point, and that is the difference between animal and plant sources of protein. In general, animal proteins have a higher proportion (9% to 13%) of leucine, in contrast to vegetable proteins (6% to 8%). In addition, animal proteins contain all 9 essential amino acids, while most plant protein sources lack one or more EAAs. A clear exception may be quinoa (we'll talk about the little hook later). Proteins from animal sources are therefore of higher quality compared to proteins from plant sources, due to the higher content of essential amino acids. This fact can be (to some extent) compensated by the increased consumption of vegetable proteins or a suitable combination thereof. For example, the combination of red beans and rice contains complete EAA because rice lacks lysine and methionine beans. In combination with other quality sources, proteins from plant sources can provide not only proteins but also other important nutrients.

Digestibility of animal vs plant resources

In addition to the fact that plant resources are generally absent from complete EAA, there is also a difference in their digestibility. Most protein digestion takes place in the small intestine, where the protein is broken down into smaller amino acid chains by various protein-cleaving enzymes. Like most processes in the body, this one "costs" something, so the distribution is not 100%. Vegetable proteins have significantly lower digestibility (flakes - 86%, rice - 76%) than proteins of animal origin (94 - 97%), which is a practical recommendation that we use vegetable proteins, if for some reason the animal ones are absent in the diet, more per day.

Slow vs fast sources

Most people seem to associate slow proteins with casein and fast ones with whey. Both sources begin to appear in the bloodstream at about the same time, but whey has a higher overall response (amino acids rise higher in the blood) than casein, but casein maintains the level of these amino acids for a long time (even after 3-4 hours). This happens in the "fasting" state. An average large meal can be digested in 5-6 hours. Even after consuming "fast" proteins, there is no guarantee that they will still behave so "quickly" if there is still previous food in the small intestine. I dare say that most people do not train on an empty stomach, so we need to think about this fact. Research is primarily focused on comparing whey and casein, so much data is not available on other protein sources. Here, however, it should be borne in mind that when comparing protein (as a specific processed source of protein) and classical forms of protein, most of these sources are slow in nature. Namely, by-products in the protein source, such as fiber, fat, connective tissue, etc., can affect digestibility and the physiological response to essential amino acids.

In the words of Lyle McDonald - before and during training it will be better to consume "fast" protein and after training "slow", while he generally recommends a combination of whey (or soy isolate) and casein in other scenarios. Older exercisers may be an exception, as they will benefit more from the higher increase in amino acid levels provided by the rapidly absorbed protein.

Low calorie vs high calorie sources

Proteins are found in different foods with different fat contents, which ultimately determines their total caloric value. Both animal and plant sources can be quite caloric, which we should keep in mind when choosing them. For example, we would have to eat almost 3 pounds of potatoes to reach a content of 3 g of leucine, or half a pound of rice, in the case of 300 g of the quinoi mentioned, which would represent 1000 calories! In the case of animal sources such as beef, it is possible to find parts of it which contain 20 g of fat but also 4 g of the same weight. Similarly, fish (tuna vs salmon) can be used as a source of protein. For example, the proteins provided in 30 g of chicken breast are almost double one tablespoon of peanut butter, but the amount of calories in one tablespoon of peanut butter is twice as high as said 30 g of chicken breast.

Depending on the source of animal protein and a person's total energy expenditure, it is estimated that approximately 10% to 20% of total calories are needed to cover all EAAs from the diet. However, 25% to 45% of total calories are needed to cover all EAA requirements if the diet is limited exclusively to vegetable protein sources.

Nutritionally richer vs. less richer resources

Of course, protein sources should not only be selected on the basis of calories, but also in terms of other nutrients that are part of them. There are several important micronutrients that should weigh in deciding which source of protein to choose. Zinc, iron and B12 are important nutrients found in the largest and best absorbed amounts in food from animal sources. We will mention poorer red meat, chicken or seafood. People who limit their intake can easily be deficient in these micronutrients.

We can point to calcium. The most available source of calcium in the diet are dairy products, which also provide an excellent combination of slow and fast proteins. We should always consider carefully how we will handle our caloric budget and what we prefer to invest in it. For example, egg whites are a source of low-calorie protein, but whole eggs contain extremely high quality proteins and other very beneficial nutrients. Plant sources of protein also have their advantages, the fats in nuts are excellent and the fiber content of, for example, beans, peas, lentils is also important for health.

Final word

The aim was to point out that even when choosing protein sources, it is necessary to perceive the overall context, because while in one case a certain type of protein may be very suitable, in another it may not be so. In the case of a situation of insufficient calorie intake, insufficient protein intake, the importance of the quality of the consumed proteins increases considerably compared to the situation when proteins are consumed in sufficient quantities (more than 1.6 g / kg body weight) and not during caloric restriction.

In general, low-fat animal products tend to provide the best quality, highest digestibility and highest micronutrient content compared to foods of plant origin, but this does not mean that the consumption of plant proteins is unnecessary. However, it should be borne in mind that more calories will be associated with protein sources in plant form than in animal form. While older people should pay attention to higher doses of protein in individual meals, or consider including whey protein, the younger ones have a rather slow-absorbing protein, or at least a combination of fast and slow, which will yield the best results. If you should take only one, consume enough and different sources of protein so that your diet is varied and not monotonous.

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

Better fresh or frozen? The struggle between fruits and vegetables in relation to health and the amount of nutrients | Steroids4U.eu

Better fresh or frozen? The struggle between fruits and vegetables in relation to health and the amount of nutrients

Some unwritten rule says that we should always consume fruit and vegetables fresh. The reasons are different. Better taste compared to frozen or much more vitamins and minerals, so for us fresh vegetables along with fruits are much better. Today, we will focus primarily on the latter reason and find out what the differences are and whether frozen fruits & vegetables are really that bad.

The reason written above originated in people's minds from a logical point of view. After all, common sense tells us that what is fresh is simply fresh. More fresh, more vitamin, more mineral, healthier and more beneficial for the body. On the contrary, something frozen is associated with processed foods, the destruction of important nutrients and is supposed to be just a cheap alternative for lazy people, which is not very good for health. The theory may be nice, but not so in practice.

Processed = automatically bad and unhealthy?

Processed foods are not a killer. Although we generally recommend eating as little processed food as possible, this is mainly because people set this general rule to buy nutritionally valuable foods and maybe put oatmeal in their basket instead of cereals and have water instead of Pepsi with a lot of calories. Such recommendations often lead to increased intake of fruits and vegetables, fiber and other nutrients that are needed for optimal health. However, if something is processed, it does not mean that it is bad. Are quality yogurts bad? Not. Processed foods help with overall health, we can look at nutrition for older / pregnant women or infants, but also for ordinary people. Looking at the 2014 research, the authors say that fruits and vegetables - frozen or canned - can contribute more to an overall increase in micronutrients and vitamins (especially folate, potassium, magnesium, vitamin C, A, E) in Americans' diets. And that's what we want.

Of course, processed foods in general can lead to excessive calorie intake, which will contribute to weight gain, but it also depends on the degree of processing and we cannot look at the term "managed food" as something diabolical and unhealthy. There is:

1st stage, ie minimally processed food (washed and packaged fruits and vegetables, salads, roasted nuts, etc.)

Level 2 talks about preserving and improving nutrients (canned tuna, beans, tomatoes, frozen fruits or vegetables)

Grade 3 is in the form of meals and foods, where sweeteners, oils, spices, flavors are added, but it is not yet a ready-to-eat food (some packaged meals, tomato sauce, dressings, rice)

4th grade are just those ready-to-eat foods like cereals, cookies, fruit drinks, ice cream

Grade 5 consists of frozen things such as pizza or various semi-finished products, which are usually not absolutely nutritionally valuable

As you can see, not everything processed needs to be taken immediately as something terrible. But let's move on to fruit and vegetables.

Frozen vs. fresh

In the research, they compared fresh, fresh, but kept for a few days at home (in the research, it was specifically for 5 days in the refrigerator) and frozen vegetables + fruits. It was found that the content of beta-carotene (precursor to vitamin A) was higher in fresh broccoli compared to frozen (2020 μg vs. 940 μg), but in maize it was the opposite - frozen won (65.4 μg vs. 77, 2 μg) and frozen peas also won compared to fresh peas (957 μg vs. 1084 μg). Strawberries were relatively the same (21.2 μg vs. 20.7 μg) and you can see other foods in the table.

If we look at vitamin C, frozen broccoli beat the fresh peas, which were also stored at home for a few days, as well as peas and green beans. The favorite strawberries won in fresh form, but as you can see, the longer storage resulted in an even lower vitamin C content than the frozen strawberries. Interesting is the spinach, which clearly won in fresh form, but when folic acid was compared, spinach was best in frozen form.

However, it should be mentioned that the amount of nutrients also affects the freshness, transport of the food or place of storage. It makes a difference to tear fresh peas from the garden or buy them fresh when they lie on the shelf for several days after being transported tens of kilometers, etc. In this, science tells us that the greater the transport and the length of storage, the lower the quality of nutrients. But let's not forget the soil, season, weather, cultivation methods, harvesting and the like. All this can affect the amount of nutrients.

The authors of the study say that most comparisons for fruit and vegetables are not fundamentally different, although it should be noted that storage in the refrigerator for five days mostly led to a worse concentration of micronutrients. In short, however, they summarized that the results do not support the traditional dogma that fresh fruit is so much superior to frozen. These claims are supported by other research, which also says that any form of fruit or vegetables should be included in the diet. A beautiful sentence from one evidence-based article: "The most nutritious produce is the produce you will actually eat." So they're arguing that there were 2% more vitamin C, but 3% less vitamin A, and that frozen broccoli is better than fresh, but you'd better take spinach from the garden. As stated in the expert article above, even the worst form of fruit or vegetables will still produce a sufficiently high density of nutrients compared to other foods.

Fruits and vegetables are one of the most nutritionally valuable foods and each of us should have them on the diet. Research and practice tell us that although there are some differences between some types of vegetables or fruits in different forms of processing, in the end it has only a minimal effect on the value of micronutrients. Ideally, he will have fresh, frozen vegetables in the menu and the canned one. Focus more on how to get more vegetables and fruits into you. If you know that thanks to frozen vegetables and fruits you can take them much more than in the fresh state, then go for it. You definitely get quality nutrients, there are enough of them and you don't have to deny frozen and otherwise processed fruits or vegetables. On the contrary.

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

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

SUPER-SLOW REPEAT | Steroids4U.eu

SUPER-SLOW REPEAT

Now that we've closed ourselves in our home gym, basements and attics, where we practice all sorts of junk things that come to our hand, it is clear that we will soon hit the load limits. We must then proceed to techniques that, even with minimal or at least significantly less weight than we usually use, can still stimulate muscle fibers to grow. There are many of these techniques and I will focus on them in the coming days. At random, for example, a high number of reps, super-series, but also a completely different kind of exercise than you are used to. How about a workout full of super slow reps? Try training, which has successfully been practiced by our currently best Czech bodybuilder Lukáš Osladil.

Muscle and its fibers respond to four factors: task, time, distance and resistance. If the nerve command determines that the muscle will lift the weight along the appropriate mechanical path and at a given speed, certain combinations of motor units will perform this task. If you consciously slow down the speed of movement, another type of motor unit and fiber will enter work. In general, a slow pace stimulates more fibers, but at the expense of weight. With a fast and explosive movement, you lift a tremendous weight, slow down the movement to summarize more fibers and get better pumping. Try it yourself. Perform 10 reps at rocket pace and 10 reps in slow, controlled motion. You'll see your muscle burn as fast as Jan Hus in Constance.

First Mr. Olympia Larry Scott reported his experience of slow repetitions: “Although I reduced weight to one third of what I usually used, intensity increased eightfold because I slowed the pace… and intensity is one of the elements that increases growth hormone secretion. "

I don't know how he came to number eight, but the fact is that muscle tension gains a completely different, previously unsuspected dimension.

The theory says that the normal rate of repetition is considered to be a contraction ratio of 1: 2. If you lift the dumbbell in the positive (concentric) phase for 2 seconds, then the negative (eccentric) phase should last 4 seconds. If we add the time between the two phases, we can describe the rate of repetition with a numerical code, for example 2-1-4 seconds. In order to stimulate the hypertrophic response, it is necessary for the muscle to work for 25-60 seconds in tension (TT or duration of tension). A quick series of six reps does not meet this condition, a slow series of five reps in rhythm 5-1-4 yes. In slow movements you have to train with less weight and do less reps. Rhythm 4-1-4 corresponds to 6–7 repetitions, rhythm 6-1-4 falls within the range of 5–6 repetitions.

What happens if you consciously slow down the recurrence rate to 4 seconds up and 4 seconds down? First of all, your dazzling power will be over. To your great disappointment, you will be forced to reduce the burden to 70-80% of the previous value. Secondly, real advances in repetition or weight gains will become a thing of the past, and you will fight for each repetition for a week or two. Importantly, in training time terms, an improvement of 1 repetition is the same as an improvement of 2-3 reps at a faster pace. Specifically, 1 repetition will increase the duration of the tension by a full 9 seconds, which in 6–8 repetitions with the same weight means an increase of 12–16%. On the contrary, a huge advantage is the fact that with lower weights you will not need less warm-up series. Experienced bodybuilders who train with very high weights - say 200 kg in Benchpress and 300 kg in squat - need a lot of preparation runs that last longer than the actual training. For slow training, do a few reps with 60% target weight and 2-3 reps with 80% target weight. Needless to say, with such weights, the risk of injury is much lower than when using some huge loads.

I guarantee that during your first workouts you will feel that your muscles want to explode with a mixture of blood and lactic acid. In the exuberant imagination of some of you, certainly a disgusting idea, which for a bodybuilder is a feeling of paradise on earth. In addition to more pumping, you will also see how 70-80% of the usual repetition maximum eliminates any movement moment or cheating, and you will feel the trained muscle much better. Stressing the next day after training will be the same (if not greater) as you have been practicing before, faster and casually. What is absolutely unsurpassed is the fact that slow training will relieve the joints and tendons, overloaded with super-heavy weights and speed of movement. Even if you approach the values ​​of weights that previously caused musculoskeletal pain after months, you will not have trouble as your tendons will have much more room for weight adaptation, a training system and an increasing number of repetitions.

In rapid, often jerky movements, other muscle parts enter the action and the target muscle works against tension only a fraction of the duration of the series, while slow repetitions create a more thorough stimulus for muscle growth and strength. Maintaining a normal, natural range of motion and slow cadence will guarantee years of productive training and improvement without unnecessary, several-week pauses caused by injuries. Your flexibility will also improve. Fast and uncontrolled movements allow the use of excessive weights that cause the aforementioned pain and stiffness. Believe me, I know mine. Scratching in just a little more distant places on my body is usually quite a major problem. It cannot be said that prolonged joint pain and stiffness are the price of training, but it shows rather the wrong range of movement and insufficient stretching after and during training.

In the actual workout 2-3 sets of exercises and 1-3 exercises per muscle part. Decide for yourself whether you will exercise with dumbbells, on machines and pulleys, or combine both. Test rhythm 4-1-4 first and let your partner count the seconds out loud. You will be shocked at how long 4 seconds can last and how difficult it is to maintain tension two to four times longer than before. Squats with a barbell or Smith's machine with a weight for twelve normal reps will seem like an ancient torture torture. Go down for 4 seconds and get up for 4 seconds. Don't be afraid to lose weight, as the primary pace is 4 seconds. Fight for 6 indescribably painful reps. If you only do squats, hold on 4-5 sets. Then you can extend the time to 6-1-4 seconds and finally increase the weight of the dumbbell. And then do not be surprised that you may also throw a saber before you start applying for a wheelchair.

One super-slow repetition can also take a minute. Yes, you read correctly: 30 seconds down and 30 seconds up. But this is for the really tough masochists. This self-destructive nail of slow workout will exhaust your muscles like nothing else before or after. For example, you exercise with foot presses. After warming up you will push the weight up 30 seconds up and down for another 30 seconds ... Then lactic acid will burst out of your ears, the cleaning woman wipes it off and you run off the house.

We have celebrated bodybuilding leaders who owe their character to quick reps, and there are those who do their reps slowly as well. Bodybuilding is almost infinitely personified; where there are strong arguments for one method, the other breath will find evidence in favor of the apparent contradiction. You will always find someone who violates even the most respected principle and yet is successful.

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