Category Archives: Nutrition

Are vegans getting enough protein?

Are vegetarians? Are fish-eaters?

Obviously there are individual differences within each group, so safe yourself the trouble of going down this line of thought thinking you are all that.

 

A newly-published cross-sectional analysis investigated the differences in plasma concentrations (mass spectrometry) and in intakes (food frequency questionnaire) of amino acids between 392 male meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans.
Results as follows:

Intakes of all 18 dietary amino acids differed by diet group; for the majority of these, intake was highest in meat-eaters followed by fish-eaters, then vegetarians and lowest in vegans (up to 47% lower than in meat-eaters).

 

All in all, concentrations differed between groups; each group was high in some amino acids and low in others. However, a pattern – as indicated in the quote – appeared, indicating that vegetarians and vegans, on the whole, might be consuming insufficient amounts of protein. Even though the long-term health of people on a plant-based diet is quite good and possible superior to comparable omnivores, it is wellknown that it can be difficult to consume sufficient amounts of all the different amino acids when on a vegetarian/vegan diet, so for the majority the results from this study should come as no surprise. It should, however, serve as a reminder that – unless you are eating meat on a regular basis – you should take steps to ensure that you are getting enough protein from other sources.

Low-carb or low-fat for weight loss?

 

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 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.

 

21192385_711640542356111_1699009319841034238_n

The “surprising” problem with calorie counting – part 2

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!

 

precision_nutrition_prob_with_calories_part_2_image

The “surprising” problem with calorie counting – part 1

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!

precision-nutrition-counting-calories-prob-INFO

Nutrition for injury recovery – infographic

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.

2015_07_Injury_Recovery_1_2

Infographic by Precision Nutrition.

Superfoods – the word that leads to empty wallets

 

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 & dataSnake-oil-Superfoods1

 

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.

Breakfast cereal consumption. – it´s not that bad!

Abstract:

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.

 

Williams, 2014