Recommended Creatine

"DZ" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Calorie-restricted mice perform better in tasks that involve reaction,
speed and have better endurance. The study corroborates on the earlier
finding that the combination of caloric restriction and free exercise
acts synergistically to increase muscle endurance and strength.

Free full text -
http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jpa/24/3/24_209/_article

From the study:
"In response to assigned tasks, the diet-restricted mice performed better in
all activities: they climbed out of obstacles faster, freed themselves
sooner from restraint by gummed tape, hung from a bar longer, and better
resisted slipping down a slope."

Most of the tests favor a lower body weight and/or smaller size, so I don't
think you can say calorie restriction can increase muscle strength.

Matthew

In article <[email hidden]>, "Matthew"

Quoted message said:

"DZ" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Calorie-restricted mice perform better in tasks that involve reaction,
speed and have better endurance. The study corroborates on the earlier
finding that the combination of caloric restriction and free exercise
acts synergistically to increase muscle endurance and strength.

Free full text -
http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jpa/24/3/24_209/_article

From the study:
"In response to assigned tasks, the diet-restricted mice performed better in
all activities: they climbed out of obstacles faster, freed themselves
sooner from restraint by gummed tape, hung from a bar longer, and better
resisted slipping down a slope."

Most of the tests favor a lower body weight and/or smaller size, so I don't
think you can say calorie restriction can increase muscle strength.

Relative strength is increased, judging by the results. It would be hard
to extrapolate to human success in sports.

--
Keith

Quoted message said:

First one is this guy - http://tinyurl.com/2qw6n and the

other one is me 🙂>

See if helps as you're sliding under that out-of-control taxi that's
hurtling at you at 85 mph.

DZ said:

Hobbes said:

Matthew said:

"DZ" wrote:
> Calorie-restricted mice perform better in tasks that involve
> reaction, speed and have better endurance. The study corroborates
> on the earlier finding that the combination of caloric restriction
> and free exercise acts synergistically to increase muscle
> endurance and strength.
>
> Free full text -
> http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jpa/24/3/24_209/_article

From the study:
"In response to assigned tasks, the diet-restricted mice performed
better in all activities: they climbed out of obstacles faster,
freed themselves sooner from restraint by gummed tape, hung from a
bar longer, and better resisted slipping down a slope."

Most of the tests favor a lower body weight and/or smaller size, so
I don't think you can say calorie restriction can increase muscle
strength.

Relative strength is increased, judging by the results. It would be
hard to extrapolate to human success in sports.

I remember two individuals posting to these groups who claimed ability
to do multiple muscle-ups. Both are on some sort of dietary
restriction. First one is this guy - http://tinyurl.com/2qw6n and the
other one is me 🙂

DZ

This topic is very much of interest to me. I train for health and
longjevity, not a huge body. I'm not really small at 5'10" and 189, 10% BF.
But I like my current size and don't have a desire to get any bigger. I'm
also 48. So I'm setting up to jump into my 50s. I'm thinking lean and on
the small side yet strong is the way to go. I do know that I feel better
when I'm lean. Also, from a MA background, I like the quickness I get from
being this way. IOW, I don't see myself jumping into PL anytime soon.

Please post more on this subject as it comes up in your reading. I find it
interesting.
--
-Larry

It can be dangerous to extrapolare to humans from mice...

"DZ" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Calorie-restricted mice perform better in tasks that involve reaction,
speed and have better endurance. The study corroborates on the earlier
finding that the combination of caloric restriction and free exercise
acts synergistically to increase muscle endurance and strength.

Free full text -
http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jpa/24/3/24_209/_article

steve common said:

DZ said:

Calorie-restricted mice perform better in tasks that involve reaction,
speed and have better endurance. The study corroborates on the earlier
finding that the combination of caloric restriction and free exercise
acts synergistically to increase muscle endurance and strength.

Could it be that the calorie restriction is stimulating adrenalin production
which in turn has some useful side-effects on reaction times etc, rather
than a real increase in muscle strength?

Why would you assume that?

FWIW, I was able to find one study which indicated that epinephrine
was catecholamine which changed *least* during calorie restriction and
refeeding.
--

JMW
http://www.rustyiron.net

JMW said:

Why would you assume that?

Not an assumption, more an idea looking for contradiction or confirmation,
hence the post formulated as a question.

It was just a cross between my vague recollection of something I'd read
about the role of adrenalin in both fat metabolism and reaction times (maybe
my last remaining, shriveled neuron is playing up on me :-) and a personal
experience of a keen sharpness during the second half of the Sand Marathon
(one week running in the Sahara desert, av 40km / day, with a 8kg backpack,
3kg of water and ~2400 calories/day)

Thanks for the help. I will go with the Cell-Tech.

"DZ" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Calorie-restricted mice perform better in tasks that involve reaction,
speed and have better endurance. The study corroborates on the earlier
finding that the combination of caloric restriction and free exercise
acts synergistically to increase muscle endurance and strength.

Free full text -
http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jpa/24/3/24_209/_article

"DZ" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Calorie-restricted mice perform better in tasks that involve reaction,
speed and have better endurance. The study corroborates on the earlier
finding that the combination of caloric restriction and free exercise
acts synergistically to increase muscle endurance and strength.

Free full text -
http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jpa/24/3/24_209/_article

What are you, a man or a mouse?

Dave

In article <[email hidden]>, DZ

Quoted message said:

Hobbes said:

Matthew said:

"DZ" wrote:
> Calorie-restricted mice perform better in tasks that involve reaction,
> speed and have better endurance. The study corroborates on the earlier
> finding that the combination of caloric restriction and free exercise
> acts synergistically to increase muscle endurance and strength.
>
> Free full text -
> http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jpa/24/3/24_209/_article

From the study:
"In response to assigned tasks, the diet-restricted mice performed

better in

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

all activities: they climbed out of obstacles faster, freed themselves
sooner from restraint by gummed tape, hung from a bar longer, and better
resisted slipping down a slope."

Most of the tests favor a lower body weight and/or smaller size, so I don't
think you can say calorie restriction can increase muscle strength.

Relative strength is increased, judging by the results. It would be hard
to extrapolate to human success in sports.

I remember two individuals posting to these groups who claimed ability
to do multiple muscle-ups. Both are on some sort of dietary
restriction. First one is this guy - http://tinyurl.com/2qw6n and the
other one is me 🙂

Which is a measure of relative strength. I meant it wasn't transferable to
sporting success because in sports where relative strength is important
(ie. weightlifting, wrestling, etc.) you'd be competing against other
athletes who also restrict calories.

--
Keith

"Sam" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

It can be dangerous to extrapolare to humans from mice...

But some of our races are run in circles or maze like trails and we do
eat cheese. Isn't that enough direct evidence? 🙂

-DF

I gotta agree. Although I prefer running on fuel instead of an empty
stomach, and I'm more comfortable, running on empty has produced my
best times. I figured I was just running faster to get home to the
food...

I gotta agree. Although I prefer running on fuel instead of an empty
stomach, and I'm more comfortable, running on empty has produced my
best times. I figured I was just running faster to get home to the
food...

DZ said:

That's the last thing I would think of and is a severe restriction on
the common meaning of extrapolation: the reason we can't extrapolate
is that in a real situation calorie restricted athletes wouldn't
directly compete with unrestricted. The broader meaning warrants
vigilance still we're more mice than we're not.

And our best-laid plans, gang aft agley, lea'e us nought but grief an'
pain.
--

JMW
http://www.rustyiron.net

DZ said:

Calorie-restricted mice perform better in tasks that involve reaction,
speed and have better endurance. The study corroborates on the earlier
finding that the combination of caloric restriction and free exercise
acts synergistically to increase muscle endurance and strength.

Free full text -
http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jpa/24/3/24_209/_article

I can jus' see 'em now, the wee little mieces in their uniforms with
thar tiny little helmets trying to get a first down!

--
spammage trappage: replace fishies_ with yahoo

I'm going to die rather sooner than I'd like. I tried to protect my
neighbours from crime, and became the victim of it. Complications in
hospital following this resulted in a serious illness. I now need a bone
marrow transplant. Many people around the world are waiting for a marrow
transplant, too. Please volunteer to be a marrow donor:
http://www.abmdr.org.au/
http://www.marrow.org/

In article <[email hidden]>, DZ

Quoted message said:

Hobbes said:

DZ said:

Hobbes <[email hidden]> wrote:
> "Matthew" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>> "DZ" wrote:
>> > Calorie-restricted mice perform better in tasks that involve reaction,
>> > speed and have better endurance. The study corroborates on the earlier
>> > finding that the combination of caloric restriction and free exercise
>> > acts synergistically to increase muscle endurance and strength.
>> >
>> > Free full text -
>> > http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jpa/24/3/24_209/_article
>>
>> From the study:
>> "In response to assigned tasks, the diet-restricted mice
>> performed better in all activities: they climbed out of
>> obstacles faster, freed themselves sooner from restraint by
>> gummed tape, hung from a bar longer, and better resisted
>> slipping down a slope."
>>
>> Most of the tests favor a lower body weight and/or smaller size,
>> so I don't think you can say calorie restriction can increase
>> muscle strength.
>
> Relative strength is increased, judging by the results. It would be hard
> to extrapolate to human success in sports.

I remember two individuals posting to these groups who claimed ability
to do multiple muscle-ups. Both are on some sort of dietary
restriction. First one is this guy - http://tinyurl.com/2qw6n and the
other one is me 🙂

Which is a measure of relative strength. I meant it wasn't transferable to
sporting success because in sports where relative strength is important
(ie. weightlifting, wrestling, etc.) you'd be competing against other
athletes who also restrict calories.

That's the last thing I would think of and is a severe restriction on
the common meaning of extrapolation: the reason we can't extrapolate
is that in a real situation calorie restricted athletes wouldn't
directly compete with unrestricted. The broader meaning warrants
vigilance still we're more mice than we're not.

I'd have to disagree. In the real world all weight class athletes and
athletes who require high levels of relative strength for sporting success
(ie. gymnastics) are calorie restricted to some degree. Obviously heavier
weight classes less than lighter, but I, for example, have to restrict
calories to maintain weight at 100 kgs for powerlifting and more so at 94
for olympic lifting. All freestyle wrestlers I know are calories
restricted. Gymnasts are certainly calorie restricted.

The problem is extrapolating what the mice demonstrated to 'sports'.
Simple tasks which require a minimum of motor skills hardly compare to
sport.

I realize I worded my response poorly and didn't indicate this. I wrote my
response in the midst of studying for two finals which I wrote today. I
was engaging more in free thought than clarity here.

--
Keith

In article <[email hidden]>, DZ

Quoted message said:

DZ said:

Hobbes said:

> > Relative strength is increased, judging by the results. It would be hard
> > to extrapolate to human success in sports.
>
> I remember two individuals posting to these groups who claimed ability
> to do multiple muscle-ups. Both are on some sort of dietary
> restriction. First one is this guy - http://tinyurl.com/2qw6n and the
> other one is me 🙂

Which is a measure of relative strength. I meant it wasn't transferable to
sporting success because in sports where relative strength is important
(ie. weightlifting, wrestling, etc.) you'd be competing against other
athletes who also restrict calories.

That's the last thing I would think of and is a severe restriction on
the common meaning of extrapolation:

(what follows gave my understanding of your extrapolation, not the
"common meaning"😉

Right. Which was screwed up from the get go cuz I was just letting my mind go.

--
Keith

DZ <[email hidden]> wrote in news:29727@
100423852.1141525898.23960.9517.24498:

Quoted message said:

DZ said:

Hugh Beyer said:

DZ wrote:
> I remember two individuals posting to these groups who claimed ability
> to do multiple muscle-ups. Both are on some sort of dietary
> restriction. First one is this guy - http://tinyurl.com/2qw6n and the
> other one is me 🙂
>

5'10", 170#, and 2000 cal/day? Damn, I'm CR and didn't even know it.

What's the difference between CR and "eating at maintenance"?

I see what you're saying but people on CR are eating at maintenance,
just at a lower weight. Maybe he's all muscle and really heavy
bones 🙂 He says he's practicing CR and there's no reason to doubt that.

err... read it "light bones" etc. I liked to emphasize lots of
metabolically active tissue.

I still don't get it. If he adds 500 cal/day he'll eventually stabilize at a
heavier weight and be doing CR at a heavier weight. If he drops 500/day,
he'll do CR at a lighter weight.

Since 170# at 5'10" doesn't seem particularly light to me, how is "CR"
defined this way different from "eating"?

Hugh

--
Experience keeps a dear school, but fools will attend no other.

DZ <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Hugh Beyer said:

DZ said:

DZ wrote:
> Hugh Beyer <[email hidden]> wrote:
>> DZ wrote:
>>> I remember two individuals posting to these groups who claimed
>>> ability to do multiple muscle-ups. Both are on some sort of

dietary

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>> restriction. First one is this guy - http://tinyurl.com/2qw6n and
>>> the other one is me 🙂
>>
>> 5'10", 170#, and 2000 cal/day? Damn, I'm CR and didn't even know

it.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>
>> What's the difference between CR and "eating at maintenance"?
>
> I see what you're saying but people on CR are eating at maintenance,
> just at a lower weight. Maybe he's all muscle and really heavy
> bones 🙂 He says he's practicing CR and there's no reason to doubt
> that.

err... read it "light bones" etc. I liked to emphasize lots of
metabolically active tissue.

I still don't get it. If he adds 500 cal/day he'll eventually

stabilize

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

at a heavier weight and be doing CR at a heavier weight. If he drops
500/day, he'll do CR at a lighter weight.

Since 170# at 5'10" doesn't seem particularly light to me, how is

"CR"

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

defined this way different from "eating"?

Then what is your definition of CR?

I suspect that a person on CR who is also resistance training will
stabilize at a heavier weight than his non-training identical twin on
CR.

BTW, when I stop resistance training e.g. when I'm away for a couple
of months, I do lose weight.

Yeah? You eat the same amount, do less work and *lose* weight. Uh-huh.

I *thought* CR meant eating significantly less than "normal"--enough less
that you'd be unable to maintain a "normal" BMI, be it muscle or fat--and
5'10" at 170# is well within any reasonable definition of normal.

If CR just means "don't eat enough to be fat" I think it's a lot of
hoopla
about nothing.

Hugh

--
Experience keeps a dear school, but fools will attend no other.