Help On Sports Nutrition Supplements

Learn more about the various sports nutrition supplements to improve sporting performance

mediaimage
Have you wondered how your favorite athletes do their workout? Or what kind of exercises they perform,Help On Sports Nutrition Supplements Articles what kind of food they eat or how do they manage to relax under pressure situations? Probably you don’t care about all this because what matters for you is their performance in the sport. But it doesn’t mean that they don’t take care of themselves like we do.

In fact, athletes need to monitor their lifestyle very closely and keep their health conditions at par with their competitors; not just by eating right food items but also by consuming supplements.

Supplements are an integral part of athletes’ diet. It is required to have an enhancement of their endurance, and also to increase or, if not increase, at least maintain the appropriate muscle mass to be able to improve size and strength. One of the most important parts of any sports nutrition is protein supplements. Without these supplements, athletes would not be the way they are at present. However, contrary to what most people think, diets jam-packed with protein do not necessarily build up muscle strength.

Building up muscle strength would be the job of regular physical activity. So if you want those big muscles you have to do exercises, not necessarily at gyms but could be also at your residences, daily. The key factor here is regularity. What you can achieve with steady and regular exercises may not be possible with a high profile but an irregular one. Sports nutrition supplements need high levels of protein, which you can get from protein-rich foods. Enumerating all those food item will be a total waste of space in this article.

But to make you aware of the basics, here are a few of the foods that are rich in protein. There is fish, poultry and dairy products, and these are the foods you usually get your protein from because some sources of protein are high in fat and also in calories. So basically, you must take note of which sources are high in fat and which are not. Even though nutrition supplements are useful, there are many reasons because of which sports nutrition experts discourage use of such supplements. One of the reasons is that these supplements can put a strain on your liver and kidneys. Other reasons include high amounts of nitrogen in the nutrition supplement, which will only be excreted from your body as urea. But it is not as easy nor is as safe as it sounds because this said excretion often causes fluid imbalance, which leads to dehydration. Another problem with sports nutrition supplements that have high amounts of protein from animal sources is that there are higher risks of heart diseases due to the high fat intake associated with such nutrition. One more disadvantage of sports nutrition supplements is that there is a huge tendency that you will ingest amino acids that are capable of interfering with other amino acids, which results in a metabolic imbalance. Beware of sports nutrition supplements that have high amounts of amino aids because it can cause gout; diarrhea and stomach cramping that can rank from mild to severe pain. Even though sports nutrition supplements are being discouraged by sports nutrition experts, Bricker Labs, a sports nutrition supplement manufacturer, still does a lot of research, developments and marketing in this area. Bricker Labs has over thirty years to blame for their success in their provision of sports nutrition supplements. They do not apply to sports nutrition only too, but also to weight loss, diet, health and other nutritional aspects. It’s because of their experience in the field of sports nutrition and also because of their choice of perfectly safer ingredients in developing the nutrition that you would not like to consider any other manufacturer for your sports nutrition supplements. So what are the ingredients they use and how are they safer than those that other manufacturers use? They make us of the L-Carnitine, which is mainly used for weight loss, energy and also for having a healthy heart function; Colostrums, which gives your body a healthy immune system function and also gives your body an improved stamina and also for an easier recovery in almost all cases; Vandayl Sulfate, which is capable of growing your muscles and also has the ability to define your muscles; Protein, everyone knows what protein is for and that is for sports nutrition, and also for health and muscle growth.

Another component is called Creatine, which is used for sports nutrition and muscle growth but it also involves bodybuilding at this time; HCA or Garcinia Cambogia, are for losing weight and suppressing your appetite; and last but certainly not the least, Vitamin B-12, is for overall health and nutrition. All these ingredients mixed proportionately make the right sports nutrition. And an adequate dose of such nutrition gives the athlete required energy and muscle strength. Now you know what keeps an athlete going!

Article “tagged” as:

Brink’s Unified Theory of Nutrition For Weight Loss and Muscle Gain

When people hear the term Unified Theory, some times called the Grand Unified Theory, or even “Theory of Everything,” they probably think of it in terms of physics, where a Unified Theory, or single theory capable of defining the nature of the interrelationships among nuclear, electromagnetic, and gravitational forces, would reconcile seemingly incompatible aspects of various field theories to create a single comprehensive set of equations.

mediaimage
Such a theory could potentially unlock all the secrets of nature and the universe itself,Brink’s Unified Theory of Nutrition For Weight Loss and Muscle Gain Articles or as theoretical physicist Michio Katu, puts it “an equation an inch long that would allow us to read the mind of God.” That’s how important unified theories can be. However, unified theories don’t have to deal with such heady topics as physics or the nature of the universe itself, but can be applied to far more mundane topics, in this case nutrition.

Regardless of the topic, a unified theory, as sated above, seeks to explain seemingly incompatible aspects of various theories. In this article I attempt to unify seemingly incompatible or opposing views regarding nutrition, namely, what is probably the longest running debate in the nutritional sciences: calories vs. macro nutrients.

One school, I would say the ‘old school’ of nutrition, maintains weight loss or weight gain is all about calories, and “a calorie is a calorie,” no matter the source (e.g., carbs, fats, or proteins). They base their position on various lines of evidence to come to that conclusion.

The other school, I would call more the ‘new school’ of thought on the issue, would state that gaining or losing weight is really about where the calories come from (e.g., carbs, fats, and proteins), and that dictates weight loss or weight gain. Meaning, they feel, the “calorie is a calorie” mantra of the old school is wrong. They too come to this conclusion using various lines of evidence.

This has been an ongoing debate between people in the field of nutrition, biology, physiology, and many other disciplines, for decades. The result of which has led to conflicting advice and a great deal of confusion by the general public, not to mention many medical professionals and other groups.

Before I go any further, two key points that are essential to understand about any unified theory:

A good unified theory is simple, concise, and understandable even to lay people. However, underneath, or behind that theory, is often a great deal of information that can take up many volumes of books. So, for me to outline all the information I have used to come to these conclusions, would take a large book, if not several and is far beyond the scope of this article.

A unified theory is often proposed by some theorist before it can even be proven or fully supported by physical evidence. Over time, different lines of evidence, whether it be mathematical, physical, etc., supports the theory and thus solidifies that theory as being correct, or continued lines of evidence shows the theory needs to be revised or is simply incorrect. I feel there is now more than enough evidence at this point to give a unified theory of nutrition and continuing lines of evidence will continue (with some possible revisions) to solidify the theory as fact.
“A calorie is a calorie”

The old school of nutrition, which often includes most nutritionists, is a calorie is a calorie when it comes to gaining or losing weight. That weight loss or weight gain is strictly a matter of “calories in, calories out.” Translated, if you “burn” more calories than you take in, you will lose weight regardless of the calorie source and if you eat more calories than you burn off each day, you will gain weight, regardless of the calorie source.

This long held and accepted view of nutrition is based on the fact that protein and carbs contain approx 4 calories per gram and fat approximately 9 calories per gram and the source of those calories matters not. They base this on the many studies that finds if one reduces calories by X number each day, weight loss is the result and so it goes if you add X number of calories above what you use each day for gaining weight.

However, the “calories in calories out” mantra fails to take into account modern research that finds that fats, carbs, and proteins have very different effects on the metabolism via countless pathways, such as their effects on hormones (e.g., insulin, leptin, glucagon, etc), effects on hunger and appetite, thermic effects (heat production), effects on uncoupling proteins (UCPs), and 1000 other effects that could be mentioned.

Even worse, this school of thought fails to take into account the fact that even within a macro nutrient, they too can have different effects on metabolism. This school of thought ignores the ever mounting volume of studies that have found diets with different macro nutrient ratios with identical calorie intakes have different effects on body composition, cholesterol levels, oxidative stress, etc.

Translated, not only is the mantra “a calorie us a calorie” proven to be false, “all fats are created equal” or “protein is protein” is also incorrect. For example, we no know different fats (e.g. fish oils vs. saturated fats) have vastly different effects on metabolism and health in general, as we now know different carbohydrates have their own effects (e.g. high GI vs. low GI), as we know different proteins can have unique effects.

The “calories don’t matter” school of thought

This school of thought will typically tell you that if you eat large amounts of some particular macro nutrient in their magic ratios, calories don’t matter. For example, followers of ketogenic style diets that consist of high fat intakes and very low carbohydrate intakes (i.e., Atkins, etc.) often maintain calories don’t matter in such a diet.

Others maintain if you eat very high protein intakes with very low fat and carbohydrate intakes, calories don’t matter. Like the old school, this school fails to take into account the effects such diets have on various pathways and ignore the simple realities of human physiology, not to mention the laws of thermodynamics!

The reality is, although it’s clear different macro nutrients in different amounts and ratios have different effects on weight loss, fat loss, and other metabolic effects, calories do matter. They always have and they always will. The data, and real world experience of millions of dieters, is quite clear on that reality.

The truth behind such diets is that they are often quite good at suppressing appetite and thus the person simply ends up eating fewer calories and losing weight. Also, the weight loss from such diets is often from water vs. fat, at least in the first few weeks. That’s not to say people can’t experience meaningful weight loss with some of these diets, but the effect comes from a reduction in calories vs. any magical effects often claimed by proponents of such diets.

Weight loss vs. fat loss!

This is where we get into the crux of the true debate and why the two schools of thought are not actually as far apart from one another as they appear to the untrained eye. What has become abundantly clear from the studies performed and real world evidence is that to lose weight we need to use more calories than we take in (via reducing calorie intake and or increasing exercise), but we know different diets have different effects on the metabolism, appetite, body composition, and other physiological variables…

Brink’s Unified Theory of Nutrition

…Thus, this reality has led me to Brink’s Unified Theory of Nutrition which states:

“Total calories dictates how much weight a person gains or loses; macro nutrient ratios dictates what a person gains or loses”

This seemingly simple statement allows people to understand the differences between the two schools of thought. For example, studies often find that two groups of people put on the same calorie intakes but very different ratios of carbs, fats, and proteins will lose different amounts of bodyfat and or lean body mass (i.e., muscle, bone, etc.).

Some studies find for example people on a higher protein lower carb diet lose approximately the same amount of weight as another group on a high carb lower protein diet, but the group on the higher protein diet lost more actual fat and less lean body mass (muscle). Or, some studies using the same calorie intakes but different macro nutrient intakes often find the higher protein diet may lose less actual weight than the higher carb lower protein diets, but the actual fat loss is higher in the higher protein low carb diets. This effect has also been seen in some studies that compared high fat/low carb vs. high carb/low fat diets. The e