SuppVersity - Nutrition and Exercise Science for Everyone

If you google images for food radiation, you get an idea of the (misplaced) prejudices against killing bacteria with ionizing radiation instead of nutrient damaging heat or potentially health-threatening chemicals -- No wonder companies still avoid it. You may remember that I asked you to send in questions/research topics for the new SuppVersity Kitchen Science  series in my recent article about different frying methods . Well, until now, the response has been - to be honest - disappointing. The first of the readers' suggestions I am going to address is Boban's question whether the (meanwhile) common practice of food irradiation is (a) sensible and (b) safe. Now, I have to admit that the irradiation doesn't take place in the kitchen. I do, however, consider the act of grocery shopping part of "kitchen science"; after all, the choices you make in the super- or at the farmers' market will significantly affect the outcome of your "kitchen sessions"

"Hon, are you crazy? Don't check your Facebook or WhatsApp now, get the protein shake in, immediately" - After reading about the latest (unfortunately partly yet unpublished) research some trainers may actually say just that to their female clients if they don't gulp down their protein shakes immediately after their workout ;-) There's no question that the prevalent notion that "if you don't get those 30+ grams of whey protein in, within the first 30 minutes after your workouts, you've wasted your time in the gym" is absolutely bogus, the last months have seen the publication/announcement of a handful of studies that support the notion that nutrient timing does, after all, still matter for gains and recovery. As a SuppVersity  reader, you will know both: That the majority of hitherto published research "refute the commonly held belief that the timing of protein intake in and around a training session is critical to muscular adaptations

Physique athletes > sprinters > endurance athletes - That's probably the ranking of those athletes who benefit most from GH (ab-)use. Why? Well, its effects on body composition are attractive for BBs & Co, its potential ability to boost anaerobic performance for sprinters and its lack of effect on VO2max limits their use in marathoners to accelerated recovery. If you believe in the claims of the supplement industry, you probably expect extreme gains, significant fat loss and huge performance increases from a boost in natural GH production. Well, guess what: that's another of the lies the industry is based on. There's no "natural GH booster" that will increase the total amount of growth hormone your body produces on a daily basis (early studies also suggest that the effect wears off over time, even if you use the products only every 10 days | Isidori 1981). As reported previously in articles about combinations of various amino acids, some may - if t

Spot reduction has hitherto been considered a myth, a new 12-week study from Italy suggests otherwise. "The present data suggest that a training programme entailing localized explosive resistance exercise, prior to an endurance exercise bout, may target specifc adipose tissue sites eliciting localised fat mass loss in the upper and lower limbs," (di Palumbo 2017) that's the conclusion of a recent study by di Palumbo et al. The researchers from the University of Rome  base this assessment on observations in sixteen physically inactive women (age: 31±4; BMI: 27.5±2.1), who were randomly allocated to two groups that completed differently designed 12-week training programs. Learn more about alleged and true fat burner at the SuppVersity For Caffeine, Timing Matters! 45 Min or More? DMAA (Jack3D) - The Good, the Bad & the Evil How 'Harmless' are T2-Based Fat Burners, Really? DMHA a Legitimate DMAA Successor Fat Burners: Non-Stimulant, Non-E

"To eat or not to eat breakfast?" Unfortunately, the scientists geared their research pretty much to this question. Alright, you all have read my recent Facebook news post  about the reduced energy expenditure students reported in a hitherto unpublished paper. Those of you who have (rightly) pointed out that this was at best preliminary evidence (which is, by the way, exactly what I pointed out, as well), will now feel vindicated: Scientists from the German  University of Hohenheim  report that "when compared with the 3-meal control, 24-h energy expenditure was higher" with a meal-skipping regimen that had a lot of similarity to what many of you will practice and label "intermittent fasting". Learn more about fasting at the SuppVersity Don't Start Having Breakfast Now! "Lean Gains" Fast Works Fasting Better W/ 1 or 3 Meals? Fasting Works for Obese, Too!? IF + Resistance Training = WIN ADF Beats Ca-lorie Restriction