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

Bar Bounty Vs. melon. In some cases, we need to look at calories differently, and this view is also very important | Steroids4U.eu

Bar Bounty Vs. melon. In some cases, we need to look at calories differently, and this view is also very important

Calories. But it doesn't matter where I get them from. Well, it's not. Let's look at calories in terms of food volume. Example: Philomena diets, tries to get in shape for the summer, is in caloric deficiency, exercises and everything goes according to plan. He has been in deficit for some time, he also does not have calories to give away and he is already hungry here and there. So Philomena must also pay attention to what he is, because it can turn out that he is not careful about it, he enjoys something in the morning, he counts it in his macros, but during the day he finds out that he is as hungry as a pig. It can end up with binge eating, bad training, nervousness, great hunger and simply .. you don't want to be hungry!

So what should Philomena choose from these two foods? It's clear to you that melon. Filomila can be played by a big IIFYM fan, but it's not an art to fit 29 g of Bounty (the 1 little part in the picture) into macros, which he puts in his mouth for a maximum of twice. It is the art of being able to eat so that it is all optimal. If she puts in 140 kcal of that 28 gram bar, it will eat in about 4.23 seconds, and after she finishes, she won't even know she's consumed anything. However, if he eats 140 kcal from a melon, which he has almost half a kilo of in a bowl, his stomach fills up more, he will be more full and he will definitely not feel as hungry as when 140 kcal of some "stupidity" fits.

From the point of view of weight loss, it will probably not matter and since Filomé papa 85% of all-day calories from nutritionally valuable foods, he already has a full fiber intake, it may not matter if he consumes 140 kcal from bounty, melon, chocolate, ice cream. within weight / fat loss does not brake. However, since Filomen feels hungry more often, he cannot play YOLO IIFYM, because he needs to be honest with himself and be able to eat tactically. So pay attention to what you are eating and try to evaluate what suits you better and less. And this doesn't have to be just "unhealthy" vs. "Healthy" variant. We can also take potatoes vs. rice. You have to eat a lot of potatoes to get close to the amount of carbohydrates from rice (you fill your stomach more with the same amount of calories). And what to drink protein vs. to make a protein pudding or to make cottage cheese? Simply put, especially when dieting, you need to look at food other than just in terms of calories.

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

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