Ah yes, the most asked question in all weight loss-groups known to man. The equivalent of to crossfit or not to crossfit, and the closest most nutrition people come to being part of a science-denying cult. For some reason, there is no middle way on this one; you´re either for or against, and if you are too smart/chickenshit not to choose, you are/know nothing.
Luckily, a newly published meta-analysis of 32 controlled feeding studies seems to have settled the case. This effectively means that, in 5-10 years, the majority of people in the fitness/nutrition industry will know and talk proudly about this.
In short, low-fat diets showed to elicit the greatest increases in fat loss.
Below is the abstract and a forest-plot of the included studies and their results.
Weight changes are accompanied by imbalances between calorie intake and expenditure. This fact is often misinterpreted to suggest that obesity is caused by gluttony and sloth and can be treated by simply advising people to eat less and move more. Rather various components of energy balance are dynamically interrelated and weight loss is resisted by counterbalancing physiological processes. While low-carbohydrate diets have been suggested to partially subvert these processes by increasing energy expenditure and promoting fat loss, our meta-analysis of 32 controlled feeding studies with isocaloric substitution of carbohydrate for fat found that both energy expenditure (26 kcal/d; P <.0001) and fat loss (16 g/d; P <.0001) were greater with lower fat diets. We review the components of energy balance and the mechanisms acting to resist weight loss in the context of static, settling point, and set-point models of body weight regulation, with the set-point model being most commensurate with current data.
As promised, here is part 2 of the nice little two-story infographic on calorie counting by Precision Nutrition.
Whereas the first one nicely illustrated 5 reasons as to why trying to count the calories that goes in is a waste of time, the one below shows why “calories out” also is close- to- impossible to determine somewhat precisely.
In short; you’re not your neighbour!
Another nice infographic by Precision Nutrition.
In short, you should know that you have absolutely no idea about how many calories you are really absorbing; mainly because of individuality, imprecise calorie-descriptions and food preparation. That is good news! If anything, it´s an argument to save you the never-ending trouble of counting and weighing your food.
Part 2 is a nice read as well!
Injury sucks. Pain sucks.
Maybe with the exception of your more-or-less significant other, injury and/or pain is probably the no. 1 reason as to why you have periods where you´re not doing what you enjoy and love. Below is another handy little infographic on which foods you should probably eat when/while injured. It´s basic “good food vs. bad food”, but the suggested supplements and doses might be of help.
Infographic by Precision Nutrition.
Nej, du spiser ikke for to.
Graviditet er ingen undskyldning for at spise flødeboller og blive større end nødvendigt.
Infographic by Precision Nutrition.
Folk putter hvad som helst i munden nu til dags. Nogle mere underlige ting end andre.
Oftest, skal der ikke mere til end en “ekspert” på tv eller noget så irriterende som en reklame, før x eller y er det nye superfood of the week!
Nedenstående infograf viser hvad der reelt er evidens for (samt i hvilken sammenhæng), og giver en idé om hvad man evt. kan vælge at bruge sine penge på, istedet for firkantede t-shirts med grimme by-henvisninger.
Interactive version & data
Lene skal selvfølgelig krediteres for linket, da hun er en haj med sin rødglødende iphone og endda har lært, at “Woman” ikke er en ok kildehenvisning.
There have been no comprehensive reviews of the relation of breakfast cereal consumption to nutrition and health. This systematic review of all articles on breakfast cereals to October 2013 in the Scopus and Medline databases identified 232 articles with outcomes related to nutrient intake, weight, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, hypertension, digestive health, dental and mental health, and cognition. Sufficient evidence was available to develop 21 summary evidence statements, ranked from A (can be trusted to guide practice) to D (weak and must be applied with caution).
Breakfast cereal consumption is associated with diets higher in vitamins and minerals and lower in fat (grade B) but is not associated with increased intakes of total energy or sodium (grade C) or risk of dental caries (grade B).
Most studies on the nutritional impact are cross-sectional, with very few intervention studies, so breakfast cereal consumption may be a marker of an overall healthy lifestyle. Oat-, barley-, or psyllium-based cereals can help lower cholesterol concentrations (grade A), and high-fiber, wheat-based cereals can improve bowel function (grade A).
Regular breakfast cereal consumption is associated with a lower body mass index and less risk of being overweight or obese (grade B). Presweetened breakfast cereals do not increase the risk of overweight and obesity in children (grade C).
Whole-grain or high-fiber breakfast cereals are associated with a lower risk of diabetes (grade B) and cardiovascular disease (grade C). There is emerging evidence of associations with feelings of greater well-being and a lower risk of hypertension (grade D), but more research is required.
Sweet! Mandag skal der spises endnu(!) mere chokolade end normalt.
Netto har åbent alle ugens dage, så der er ingen undskyldning for ikke at stock op!