SuppVersity - Nutrition and Exercise Science for Everyone

Too lean for Pavlovian Conditioning. In today's "appetizing" installment of the short news, I have picked three of the latest publications from the scientific journal Appetite , of which I thought that they were newsworthy. In that, I cover the Pavlovian Conditioning of overweight individuals, the benefits of polydextrose on appetite control and the way product labels fool parents and children into buying unhealthy foods. I have to admit: It's not all practically applicable, but who knows maybe you can use it to smart-ass during the holidays. Or maybe you bake some polydextrose enhanced super-satiating cookies for your family, ha? More facts for your smart-ass sessions on the holidays ;-) Bugs Dictate What You Crave Sweeteners & Your Gut Foods, Not Ma- cros for the Gut Lactulose For Gut & Health Probiotics Don't Cut Body Fat The Macrobiotic MaPi2.0 Diet Hedonic food cue conditioning in the obese: You know the story about Pavl...

The kids who were the subjects in the study at hand didn't lift. They ran and cycled and still ended up in a positive nitrogen balance - thanks to post-workout protein supplementation. As a SuppVersity reader you are familiar with the results of previous studies investigating the effects of post-workout protein ingestion. Studies that revealed that it takes ~20-30g of whey protein to maximize acute protein synthesis in adults. In an upcoming issue of the Journal of Applied Physiology researchers from the Nestle Research Center are now about to publish what I believe is a unique study investigating the net protein balance (=synthesis minus breakdown) over 8h and 24h after the workout in response to the ingestion of different amounts of whey + casein (at a 1:4 ratio) immediately after a standardized running and cycling intervention (Moore. 2014) You can learn more about protein intake at the SuppVersity Protein Timing DOES Matter! 5x More Than the FDA Allows! ...

Frequent Meals Are a Good Thing For Young Kids But Not For Older Ones Who Will Self-Select Their Snacks My recently published article "Many Small Meals Suck! Especially For Diabetics. Human Study Shows 6 Small Meals Mess W/ Blood Sugar Control, Make You Hungry and Decrease The Metabolic Rate" ( read more ) has caused quite a stir in the comment section on the article page, as well as on Facebook. Obviously, we are not all the same, and I did never imply that one or another of the the extra-ordinary SuppVersity readers will thrive on a six+ meal a day regimen. What most people who freaked out totally forgot, though, is that said article was not about a study in which the subjects eat as much as they wanted. It was a study with restricted energy intake. What I really wanted to highlight is thus, that with any diet that delivers less nutrients than you would need in given time period, even a non-significantly higher decrease in basal energy expenditure in response to an...

Regular snack: No relative increase in protein intake, but an absolute increase in energy intake; protein snack / shake: No increase in absolute energy intake, but increase in rel. protein intake. I usually don't recommend snacking between the meals, but when it comes to nutritious science news snacks right from the "ahead of print" section of peer-reviewed scientific journals, I will make an exception. In other words, if you are interested in what exactly makes protein supplements so valuable as an addition to your regular diet, if you want to know how you may help your kids lose weight by being less not more restrictive. And if that's nothing your are interested in, 'cause you ain't got kids, and still believe protein was bad for your bones ( it's not! ) you may want to take a parting look at evidence that rice cannot be that bad as some people make it. Sounds good? Well, then I'd suggest you go ahead and "snack away" on today...

Tell me that's not you! (img. Geeks.Pirillo.com) While the risk of birth has decreased by 99% in the course of the 20th century, from approximately 850 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births in 1900 to 7.5 in 1982, it is - at least in the US - stagnating ever since (2002 data from the CDC; cf. Chang. 2002). This does not just mean that the Healthy People 2000 objective for maternal mortality of no more than 3.3 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births was not achieved during the twentieth century; it does also mean that your mother - irrespective of your and her age risked her life for you, the very moment you were born. And I am pretty sure that regardless of whether she's had the chance to do just that again, she'd be willing to sacrifice her life, if that would save yours. This alone would be worth cherishing what she has done and hopefully is and will be doing for you on at least one day of the year! Now, science is a pretty impersonal business and using questi...

Believe it or not a soon-to-be published study that was sponsored by a the German LBS and presented to the public two days ago found that 1 out of 20 German kids below the age of 14 thinks about having liposuction done (figures based on LBS Kinderbarometer. 2013). 5% that's the SuppVersity Figure of the Week and it's the percentage of German kids below the age of 14 years who are thinking about getting liposuction done. I am not sure, whether I should feel sorry or enraged... not about the kids obviously who probably feel miserably in their own skin, but for the parents, the food industry and the government with their "expert" advisers whispering into their left ear and the junk food industry lobbyists who are holding a megaphone to the politicians right ear and a razor-blade to their throat. I guess, I'll settle for both, feeling sorry for the kids and being mad at the adults. But enough of this let's get to some recent science news. Let's see....