Showing posts with label content. Show all posts
Showing posts with label content. Show all posts

Friday, April 29, 2016

Foods Not Macros Isoenergetic Breakfast With Identical Macronutrient Content More Satieting With Eggs vs Flakes Plus Omega 3 Microbiome Obesity Interactions

Eggs or Flakes? Not 30% vs. 25% protein! A brief reminder of the fact that the stuff you eat is still food.
I am not quite sure when or why this happened, but I know that more and more people are thinking in terms of "macros" instead of foods. What I do know, though, is that the recent publication of studies from the Pennington Biomedical Research Center at the Louisiana State University System (Bayham. 2014) and an ostensibly unrelated study that was conducted by researchers from the Alimentary Pharmabiotic Centre, Biosciences Institute in Cork and scientists working at the local university and the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine (Patterson. 2014) confirms - once again (!) - how futile this ignorant approach to nutrition actually is.

Eggs vs. cereals - not the best example, but...

In that, I am well aware that the "battle" between an egg- and a cereal-based breakfast in the Patterson study is not exactly a good model of whats currently going on in the health and fitness community. With cereals being labeled as "the devil" (its always nice to be "anti", isnt it?), no one would after all consider having ...
  • One-and-a-half cup of Special K® RTE cereal, 200 ml Silk® original soymilk, one slice of Natural Grain “Wheat n’ Fiber”® bread, 13 g of butter, and 10 g of sugar-free strawberry jam (CG)
... for breakfast. In view of the fact that the same can be said for the calorie- and mocronutrient matched "high quality protein" breakfast, i.e.
  • Two scrambled eggs, 120 mL skim milk, two slices of Holsum® thin white  bread, 5 g of butter, and 18 g of Smuckers® strawberry jam
... I still believe that the consequences of "breaking the fast" (learn why I am calling breakfast thus in "Breakfast or Breaking the Fast" | read more) with eggs vs. Special K are still relevant to the previously introduced context. And if you know that the acetylated form of ghrelin and PYY are "satiety hormones", it does not take a rocket scientists to interpret the data in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Level(s) of "satiety hormones" after the different breakfasts (Bayham. 2014)
What is difficult to tell, though, is whether the increased satiety after the egg breakfast would actually lead to a reduced intake at the subsequent meal.
  • On an individual basis, i.e. on just one of the two eating occasions, the higher levels of acetylated ghrelin and PYY did not suppress the 20 healthy overweight or obese subjects energy intake during the subsequent lunch
  • For day 1 and day 7, together, on the other hand, the 64kcal the egg eaters consumed less than the cereal eaters did reach statistical significance.
If we throw overboard all the things we (believe) we know about the fallacy of calorie counting, this would translate into a ~448kcal difference for one week and a whopping difference of 23,360kcal for a year, which should shed ~3.3kg of body fat a year.
7000kcal for 1kg of body fat? I know that this is a naive miscalculation, but it should suffice to demonstrate that the protein quality (remember the amount of protein in both breakfast conditions was identical) counts and two eggs (vs. Kellogs Special K) can make the difference between slow, but continuous weight gain on the one and weight stability (or more) on the other hand.
Whether or not similar concrete weight loss vs. gain effects can be achieved with different types of fat is nothing study #2 in todays science mash-up here at the SuppVersity could answer. What it can tell you though, is that protein and obviously carbohydrates, where even Mr. Average Joe thinks in terms of "low GI" = good and "high GI" = bad carbs, these days, is by no means the only food component, where unspecifically counting macros is not going to cut it (or get you cut, if thats what you want to achieve).

This is not just about fish oil

"Of course, the bad omega-6s" ... I know that this is what youre thinking right now, but lets be honest, isnt that a bit narrow-minded?  It sure is and still, the results Ellaine Petterson and her Irish and American colleagues present in their most recent paper demonstrate quite clearly that the ingestion of fish and flax seed oil has pretty unique effects that go beyond its ability to increase the tissue concentrations of DHA to levels way beyond what youd see in low fat or high fat diets with palm, olive or safflower oil powered high fat diets.
Increased lipid oxidation in athletes w/ low dose fish oil (Filaire. 2010)
The health benefits of omega-3s: The often-cited evidence of the benefits of high omega-3 levels in the cells is by far not so conclusive as the laypress and supplement producers would have it. Danthi et al. have shown only recently that fish consumption, but not the omega-3 content of your cells is a reliable predictor of cognitive performance in the elderly. Associations between heart health, mortality, etc. and cellular omega-3 levels could thus be mediated by the whole food source of those omega-3s, i.e. fish consumption, and not by their mere presence in the cells, as well.
In addition it lead to an increase in the relative abundance of bifidobacteria, a gut tenant that has been linked to all sorts of beneficial health effects, but has recently been outshadowed by various strains of lactobacilli (0.95% vs. more than 2% in all other groups), which - and this is an important information - were the lowest in the rodents who were kept on diets with 45% of the energy from fish and flaxseed oils.

Whether or not, the negative effects of fish oil on the lactobacillacea count in the guts of the lab animals is also partly responsible for the more or less disappointing effects the fish and flax seed diet had on the body composition (Figure 2) of the wild-type C57BL/6J male mice (21 d old) in the study at hand is questionable.
Figure 2: Body composition analysis at the end of the study (Patterson. 2014)
Its not impossible, though. A brief glance at the insulin levels and leptin levels in Figure 3 reveals that neither of them looks anyway close to what someone whos religiously taking his fish oil caps on a daily basis would be expecting. In the end, it is thus not really that surprising that only the palm oil diet group ended up with an inferior lean-to-fat mass ratio of 1.17 (vs. 1.33 in the omega-3 group).
Figure 3: Changes (%) in relevant metabolic markers in response to the different diets (Patterson. 2014)
The results of the study at hand, i.e. the effects on body composition (Figure 2), as well as blood glucose and lipid metabolism (Figure 3) are thus clearly not in line with the ubiquitously placated message that "fish oil is good for you" - a message, the indoctrinated average supplement junkie will still discern from the abstract of the study:
"[...] Ingestion of the HF-flaxseed/fish oil diet for 16 weeks led to significantly increased tissue concentrations of EPA, docosapentaenoic acid and DHA compared with ingestion of all the other diets (P< 0·05); furthermore, the diet significantly increased the intestinal population of Bifidobacterium at the genus level compared with the LF-high-maize starch diet (P< 0·05). These data indicate that both the quantity and quality of fat have an impact on host physiology with further downstream alterations to the intestinal microbiota population, with a HF diet supplemented with flaxseed/fish oil positively shaping the host microbial ecosystem." (Petterson. 2014).
Neither the "loss" of lactobacilli, nor the - if anything - negative effects of the high omega-3 diet on the lean-to-fat-mass ratio and the amount of insulin thats floating around in the rodents blood are mentioned in said abstract.


Fat = Diabetes - A FAT Mistake?
If you go take a look at the actual study data, we are thus left with the question, whether the purported benefits of having high amounts of omega-3 fatty acids in our cells (see red info box a couple of paragraphs above) are real enough (or really enough - whatever you prefer) to discard the fact that the study at hand would actually suggest that olive and not fish + flaxseed oil should be your go-to source of dietary fat on a high fat diet.

Moreover, if we abandon any paradigmatic believes, we would even have to concede that - within the current context, i.e. a rodent study and a diet with protein contents of only 19.2% (low fat) and 23% (high fat), the low fat mix of 1.25% of palm, 1.25% olive, 1.25% safflower oil, 0.625% fish and 0.625% flaxseed oil the rodents in the starch and sucrose groups received is superior to any of the high fat variants.

You may say that this is "rodent shit" (and it is, because this is what the scientists analyzed to access the SFCA metabolism of the mice) and a mere coincidence, but wouldnt you agree that this oil mix looks a little too much like the mixture youd get on a low-to-moderate fat diet with olive oil as a staple for everything, where you add oils, palm and safflower oil from processed foods on your cheat days and fish oil / omega-3s from your once or twice a week serving of salmon... ?
Enough of the speculations, though: What I actually wanted was to remind you of the fact that youre still eating food not proteins, carbohydrates and fats and that there are physiological performance-, health- and longevity related, as well as psychological downsides, I can only hint at in the info-box to the right, to any form of "as long as it fits my macros" ignorance.
References: 
  • Bayham, Brooke E., et al. "A Randomized Trial to Manipulate the Quality Instead of Quantity of Dietary Proteins to Influence the Markers of Satiety." Journal of Diabetes and its Complications (2014).
  • Filaire, Edith, et al. "Effect of 6 Weeks of n-3 fatty-acid supplementation on oxidative stress in Judo athletes." International journal of sport nutrition 20.6 (2010): 496.
  • Danthiir, Vanessa, et al. "Cognitive Performance in Older Adults Is Inversely Associated with Fish Consumption but Not Erythrocyte Membrane n–3 Fatty Acids." The Journal of nutrition (2014): jn-113.
  • Patterson, E., et al. "Impact of dietary fatty acids on metabolic activity and host intestinal microbiota composition in C57BL/6J mice." The British journal of nutrition (2014): 1-13.


Read more »

Monday, February 29, 2016

Study Puts Behind Beneficial Health Effects of Veggies! Is There No Correlation Between Antioxidant Content Beneficial Health Effects of Cucumber Lotus Rape!

Dont obsess about "optimal" antioxidant contents, just eat your veggies!
Over the past couple of weeks, ... no actually over the past years I have repeatedly written about the concept of (mito-)hormesis and its consequences for the well-established, but not necessarily accurate free radical theory of aging (and for some people everything else). ROS, i.e. reactive oxygen species, have been established as an important signalling molecule that is - among other things - heavily involved in the insulin sensitizing effects of exercise. "Inflammation" makes muscles grow and burns body fat and the "what doesnt kill me makes me strong" principle appears to reign everywhere you look.
You can learn more about the secrets of longevity at the SuppVersity

Are You Stressed Enough to Live Forever?

Suffocated Mitochondria Live Longer

Get Lean & Live Longer With I. Fasting

Can You add 9 Years to your Life W/ Glucosamine?

5+ Tips To Live To See Your Great Grand Children

Is a Latent Acidosis Killing You Softly?
That being said, the latest study from the Institute of Health and Environmental Medicine in Tianjin, China, opens another "anti-antioxidant" Box of Pandora. One that puts a huge questionmark behind the implications of hundreds of thousands of scientific studies, when it says in its title, already: "No correlation is found for vegetables between antioxidant capacity and potential benefits in improving antioxidant function in aged rats"

"Skin of Grape Tomatoes Contains Max. Amount of Antioxidants" - You can find this and dozens of other daily updated SuppVersity Science News on www.facebook.com/SuppVersity
This is a title that may in fact change the way we look at study results like those of a recent study by Valdez-Morales, et al. (2014) investigating the "best" = highest antioxidant tomato, the results of which you are about to find among the ~20/day SuppVersity Facebook News @ www.facebook.com/SuppVersity - dont forget to like it, or youll miss out on the latest science news!

If the results of the study can be confirmed by an independent team for vegetables other than lotus root, rape or cucumber and if there is an identical mismatch between the in-vivo anti-oxidant capacity and the potential benefits in improving antioxidant function in (aged) humans.

This would be big and highly consequential news for nutrition experts, scientists and average Joes and Janes like you and me. Why? Well,...
  • any ranking of "superfoods" that was based even partly on in vitro data derived with the good old ferric reducing antioxidant power (FRAP) assay would be invalid, ...
  • every scientist who has been following up on "promising" data from FRAP assays would have been wasting his time, ...
  • and you may have been eating all the wrong foods for years...
... hell no, as long as you ate your veggies over the past years, I wouldnt worry if you may have made a "suboptimal" selection (which would be different based on whatever new criteria you select).
Figure 1: FRAP value, vitamin C and vitamin E content and total amount phenolics in the powdered vegetables that were added to the rodent diets in the study at hand (Ji. 2014)
Honestly, Id hope that you didnt select your foods only based on the orthorexic principle of maximal antioxidant content, anyways. 

Never forget the three principles of veggie eating: Variety, seasonality, colorfulness

Against that background Id recommend you keep eating your lotus roots, if you like them, although, they have a significantly lower beneficial effect on SuperOxide Dismutase (SOD, a group of antioxidant enzymes) than rape and cucumber.
Figure 2: Serum markers of anti-oxidant status / oxidative damage after 6 weeks on the three experimental diets (Ji. 2014)
Moreover, if you look closely at the data in Figure 1+2, you will realize that lotus may suck at SOD and its ability to reduce hemolysis (the destruction of red blood cells), but will have the most profound beneficial effects on the levels of malondealdehyde (MDA), a marker of lipid oxidation, and the amount of plasma carbonyls, which have - just as in cellular regulation, aging, and disease (Levine. 2002). Just like their similarly radical cousins, carbonyls will thus play a dual role so that in the end, their reduction may not be beneficial in each and every case.
Figure 3: Blood mononuclear cell DNA damage expressed as total injury rate (%) and total tails low (% of all) in male Wistar rats on control and experimental diets (Ji. 2014)
The Take Away: Whatever the role of carbonyls, MDA & co may be and no matter what you believe which of the three tested vegetables may be the "best" one, if there is one definite message you can take home from todays SuppVersity article, its not to overly rely on the abstract data from chemical tests the reliability of which appears to be inversely proportional to their accuracy.

Trust your instincts and go for a broad variety of vegetables. Eat seasonal! Eat colorful! And most importantly eat plenty. Optimal or not, none of the vegetables in the study at hand would harm you - all of them would help you defy diabesity and slow the aging process as best mother nature allows.
Reference: 
  • Ji, Linlin, et al. "No correlation is found for vegetables between antioxidant capacity and potential benefits in improving antioxidant function in aged rats." Journal of Clinical Biochemistry and Nutrition 54.3 (2014): 198-203.
  • Levine, Rodney L. "Carbonyl modified proteins in cellular regulation, aging, and disease2, 3." Free Radical Biology and Medicine 32.9 (2002): 790-796.
  • Valdez-Morales, Maribel, et al. "Phenolic content, and antioxidant and antimutagenic activities in tomato peel and seeds, and tomato by-products." Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry (2014). Accepted Manuscript.


Read more »

Wednesday, February 17, 2016

Remove Unwanted Spots by Content Aware


Adobe Photoshop CS5 Content Aware Feature


All of you are familiar with Adobe Photoshop. Everybody knows Photoshop is a great tool to work with images. Its really helpful to edit image. The latest version of Photoshop is CS6. Today I am gonna write about an amazing option of Adobe Photoshop - Content Aware. Its a magical tool. With this tool, you can vanish unwanted spots or area from your photos just like a magician! 


System Requirement

Unfortunately content aware is a new feature of Photoshop. Its just added to the CS5 version. Even CS4 doesnt have this cool feature. But if youre using CS6 then you will get this option under the Edit menu. 


About Content Aware

As mentioned earlier, Content Aware is a new feature of photoshop. Photoshop version CS5 (or higher) users can enjoy it. With this tool you can remove unwanted spots or area from an image. 

Of course you can do this with the help of Clone Stamp Tool. But in this method you have to choose sample from one area and copy it to another. And sometimes it could be difficult and time consuming for you to fix the image properly. 

You may also think of Patch Tool. What do you do here? Select a particular portion of your image (thats need to be changed) and drag it to another portion. It also cant guarantee a better result. 

Only Content Aware can remove spots or area of an image and fill it intelligently. 


Lets Have a Look

Make sure youre using either Photoshop CS5 or later version. Now open a photo using Photoshop. Im gonna use the following image as sample. 


Sample Post Image


This image looks pretty good except the Sample Text at the corner. Suppose youve to remove that text from the image. Now you can use either Clone Stamp Tool or Patch Tool. But you should notice there is a gradient in behind the text. If you try to remove the text using Clone Stamp or Patch Tool, there is a chance to damage the gradient behind image. 

But you can automatically remove the text using Content Aware without affecting the gradient. 


Lets Try Content Aware

Save the above photo in your desktop. Then open it using Photoshop. 
  1. Select the text using Rectangular Marquee Tool. You can also use Lesso Tool if you want. 
  2. Go to the Edit Menu and Choose Fill. Or simply press Shift+F5 to go there. 
  3. Choose Contents > Use > Content-Aware. (Look at the image below)
  4. Hit OK and see the magic! 
Content Aware in the Fill option under Edit Menu

Note: You dont need to change any other option. But make sure that, Blending Mode is Normal. 


Ive got the following result after doing this.

Magenta Color Image



For better understanding, Ive used a much easier example. But this tool can be used even in tough situation too. This is a life saving tool when you need to work within a very short time. 


Limitations of Content Aware

Content-aware is really an smart tool. But in some critical situations, it may not work properly. So you have to be careful while selecting any spot or area. Make sure there is no sharp change beside your selected area. If there is a sudden change beside your selection, then this tool may not produce expected result. 


When Working with Multiple Spots

In the above example there was a single area/ spot. But if you need to remove multiple spots then you can select them at a time. Choose either Marquee or Lesso tool and select one spot. Then press and hold down the shift key and select other spots.

If you like to select the spots without pressing down the hold key then look the image below:

How to Select Multiple Area in Photoshop CS5

Look at the image above. Here you can see the Add to Selection button. After selecting one spot you can press this button. Now whatever you select, it will be automatically added to your selection. And you dont need to press and hold down the shift key. And always remember this option. It will be helpful in many other works too. 


You may like: 
  • Create Transparent Image by Photoshop
  • Working with Photoshop Layers



Stay with Marks PC Solution to get more interesting IT topics!




Read more »