Re: Left right asymmetry

Dnia Wed, 10 Oct 2007 o 19:45 GMT Prisoner at War napisa³(a):

Quoted message said:

Andrzej Rosa said:

That's the logic behind it, but I haven't seen "good enough" (subjective
term) data, which clearly supports the idea, that you really need to
digest your meal within milliseconds to have the best response possible.
If we rebuild our muscles for hours after the workout, why having a
spike of protein absorption directly following training would matter?

Because that's when muscles are most sensitive to insulin, which spike
is supposed to help propel the protein.

It's a matter of "efficiency" -- muscles are built hours after
properly intense exercise, but the first twenty to sixty minutes (I've
seen numbers all over the place) are supposed to be optimal times of
protein-utilization, when you get twice or thrice what you could get
later....

The way I see it is that either muscles are rebuild for days or the
window of opportunity is crucial. Both assumptions together don't make
sense to me.

But I was proved wrong before.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Regarding cortisone elevation, I doubt that you need specifically
proteins to stop it from happening.

It's not so much that proteins "stop" it from happening as "make up"
for it happening...

It does stop it. If you don't eat post workout something must be broken
for fuel, so your body secrets break-down hormone to do the job. It
doesn't mean, that you need a protein shake though. Proteins aren't
best of fuels, carbs are.

Quoted message said:

while cortisol and other catabolic hormones are
breaking down muscle, protein synthesis is building up muscle, and the
theory is that you come out ahead if you have a net protein gain....

Juicers don't support it, at least not much. If you need a lot of extra
protein for rebuilding, then people who train hardest and gain fastest
would need ungodly amounts of protein. Yet they don't. They gain best
by simply eating more.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Sugars probably would work just as
good (I think I've seen some studies on that, but it was long time ago),

The sugars help induce the insulin which propels the protein....

Quoted message said:

and normal meal in most cases would have at least some amount of
quickly digesting foods to deal with immediate needs.

Not as quick as liquid protein, is the claim.

I doubt that you need quick response in the first place. Insulin or
not.

[...]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Protein shakes are really mostly protein (unless stated otherwise), and
your body is able to absorb them well. Eating only shakes isn't best of
ideas, the same way as eating any other food source to the exclusion of
other sources. No single food is *that* complete.

We're only talking protein here; one could certainly eat nothing but
beef, tuna, etc., and get all one's protein needs.

That's what I'm talking about: if protein shakes really are full of
protein, then how come one couldn't simply live off of that -- as far
as one's protein needs are concerned....

The reason is "protein poisoning" aka "rabbit disease". (hint - Google
told me he likes to eat keywords ;-))

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

They are useful in that term, that you will digest them. But I doubt
that you either need shakes, or even need much of extra protein. Honestly,
if shakes were such a great way of delivering needed nutrients, you'd have
juicers praising their merits all the time, but experienced juicers
simply eat a lot.

If they "eat a lot," then that's "extra protein"....

Not when compared to a "clean diet". You can eat a ton of cottage
cheese and chicken breast, but it doesn't seem to work as well as eating
junk food.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

First timers often start eating clean, then say how
much better they would be if they didn't follow all this clean eating
nonsense.

Cleaning eating nonsense?? I don't know what you mean.

Clean eating. Egg whites, chicken breast, salads, fish oil, oatmeal or
whatever is somebody's idea of eating "clean".

Quoted message said:

I don't know any juicers either, so I don't know that they aren't into
protein shakes. Being druggies, I'd imagine they take all kinds of
stuff, so I'd be surprised if they didn't also do protein shakes.

Some do, sure enough. Pete here did mention that he used it too, but he
also wrote about plenty of fast foods. In such cases it's hard to tell
what works, shakes or fast foods, but there are some who eat mostly junk
and there are some who try to maintain "clean" diet when on, and it seem
that clean diet on juice simply doesn't work well.

If a diet rich in protein is inferior to a diet with much lower protein
content then it's hard to say why one would need so much extra proteins
even without juice.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

For me it looks like high protein "clean" diet is a good way to *control*
the amount of nutrients, not necessarily the best way of delivering
them.

Well, yeah, we were talking about delivery systems, namely, liquid
protein. Since liquids are more readily digested than solids, it
follows that liquified protein delivers protein faster than solidified
protein....

And why speed would matter, if your body can't rebuild itself fast
anyway?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Try it. I never did try them, but I used to blend cottage cheese with
some powdered milk, full milk and some sugar, which I ate with corn flakes
post-workout. I can't say much beyond that I simply liked it, but it
tasted pretty well.

Well, that sounds like a home-made protein shake, is all! Indeed,
there are recipes on the 'net for them....

It's rather a food shake than protein shake. It contains all
macronutrients, some fiber, and some micro-somethings probably too.
It's not a powdered placebo. ;-)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But if you want to speed up your gains, go with red meat. Also, stop
that jogging nonsense and start doing intervals and/or agility drills.
Jogging is purely catabolic.

Purely catabolic????

Yes!!!!!

Quoted message said:

Is that just another weightlifter's gym myth...

If facts can be myths, then yes.

Quoted message said:

like how English majors
tend not to like math, and vice-versa...I don't think it has to be the
case...I might make faster gains by not jogging, but jogging is fun
and aerobic health is important, too...

Do some intervals and check your heart rate. Besides, you don't have a
stroke while slowly jogging. You have a stroke while lifting something,
running after a bus, chasing a cat and in similar situations. Sudden
exertions, not slow and steady.

Quoted message said:

I don't see how it's purely
catabolic, or any more catabolic than weights...

That makes no sense at all. Google it, really.

Quoted message said:

I think one simply has
to recover properly -- nutrition and rest -- and it isn't about the
exercise....

I already wrote about sympathetic and parasympathetic response to excess
training (or lack of recovery). Sudden bursts of activity (sprinting,
running uphill, throwing, lifting) are different stimulus and stressor
than steady jog. They make use of different energy pathways (anaerobic
and aerobic) and your body reacts very differently to them.

Do you know that long distance runners have one of the highest injury
rates and often problems with lack of sex hormones?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Cottage cheese and granulated powdered milk will work fine, as long as
you digest milk well.

I actually use lactose-free milk with the protein shakes when I want a
thicker consistency and a creamier taste.

I blended mine into semi-liquid paste.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It would be nice to hear how it worked in your case. In real life
nobody bothers about isocaloric this or that, so if shakes work, nobody
cares why they do it.

Well, it's unfortunate people don't have much intellectual curiosity
about how things work, but I'll be sure to give my impressions then.
Already there have been a few sessions when I did not take as much
protein supplementation as others (I usually do pre, intra, and post,
but sometimes it's only been pre and post, or just post), and I have
not noticed a difference....

Strange. Assuming all those spikes in insulin and protein absorption,
you should start growing like hell... ;-)

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Dnia Wed, 10 Oct 2007 o 22:35 GMT Prisoner at War napisa³(a):

Quoted message said:

On Oct 10, 2:42 pm, Andrzej Rosa <[email hidden]> wrote:

[...]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It does stop it. If you don't eat post workout something must be broken
for fuel, so your body secrets break-down hormone to do the job. It
doesn't mean, that you need a protein shake though. Proteins aren't
best of fuels, carbs are.

We're not talking about "fuel" here -- your body can use fat stores,
if it gets to that point, particularly with aerobic exercises. Even
with weightlifting, I think protein is the last resort for the body.

A body can't convert fat into blood sugar but it can convert protein
into it. If your blood sugar level goes down, you'll break down some
proteins.

Quoted message said:

Protein is about repairing muscle damage and building new muscle.

Most is simply burned for calories. Only some is used for rebuilding
purposes, and if your diet is low on protein, like some vegan diets, it
may not be enough. Some extra protein in your diet is probably simply
needed, but it doesn't mean that shakes are mandatory.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Juicers don't support it, at least not much.

Again, I don't know about the druggies, but I would be surprised that
they weren't taking every [censored] under the sun, including protein
shakes, given that they're doing drugs.

It depends. Shakes are very cost inefficient food source, at the very
least.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If you need a lot of extra
protein for rebuilding, then people who train hardest and gain fastest
would need ungodly amounts of protein. Yet they don't. They gain best
by simply eating more.

They're eating protein!

But *not* superquick digesting, stopwatch controlled high tech powders.
They eat food, and often don't even bother themselves with protein at
all. And they gain very well this way.

[...]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Not when compared to a "clean diet". You can eat a ton of cottage
cheese and chicken breast, but it doesn't seem to work as well as eating
junk food.

"Work as well" for what?

For making gains when on juice. We had a discussion (well, bordering on
fight ;-)) with Will Brink here some time ago, and he fully supported this.

Quoted message said:

As for calories, well, interestingly enough, that book "Nutrient
Timing" does cite the fact, discovered back in the early 1900s, that
extra calories is what makes for strength gains, whether those
calories come from protein or carbs -- !

It still works in 2000s.

Quoted message said:

We emphasize protein today because we're not only looking to be
strong, but look "fit,"

So I don't discourage you from using shakes or whatever works for you.
I simply say that a lot of extra protein or shakes in particular aren't
strictly required to build this kind of physique.

Quoted message said:

according to current physique fashions, where
high carbs are much more likely to result in fat than high protein.

Sure, but is that because physiology, psychology or a matter of simple
convenience? Most readily available foods are high in carbs and low in
proteins, so if you restrict yourself to eating high protein foods you
first and foremost remove from your diet the most convenient food sources.

Chances are, you'll end up eating less. Do we need complex
physiological models which will explain why you loose fat that way?

Quoted message said:

But it seems that one can also gain strength and muscle mass from a
high-carb low-protein diet -- the point is to have a daily excess of
calories in conjunction with proper exercise.

Most people can't gain muscles fast enough to need much of excess of
calories. How much muscle you can gain per month? Two pounds? Probably
less than that. That amount of gained muscles per month will not
necessitate a calorie excess which you could somehow measure in real
life. In most cases we can't consciously control our calorie
expenditure accurately enough to tell the difference.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Clean eating. Egg whites, chicken breast, salads, fish oil, oatmeal or
whatever is somebody's idea of eating "clean".

And you're saying that people wind up saying how much better they
would have been without it after having tried it????

Yes. And I'm by no means alone with this observation. Will Brink
confirmed it and Dan Duchaine actively promoted this strategy of eating
among juicers.

[...]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If a diet rich in protein is inferior to a diet with much lower protein
content then it's hard to say why one would need so much extra proteins
even without juice.

It'd be "hard" to say because we don't know what "inferior" means.

To put it simple, if you eat "clean" (lean stuff, complex carbs, vegies)
and are on juice, you'll feel very hungry plenty of times. I read a
diary of a first time juicer, who used to eat a pound of cottage cheese
before bedtime and regularly woke up in the middle of the night due to
hunger.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And why speed would matter, if your body can't rebuild itself fast
anyway?

Huh?? That's precisely the claim, that the body builds most
efficiently ("fast"😉 during that post-workout window of opportunity,
when given the right nutrients.

This claim was not supported by any "good enough" data last time I
checked.

[...]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yes!!!!!

How is running "purely" catabolic?? It builds aerobic capacity,

You "build" this kind of capacity by shedding fat and muscles off
yourself.

Quoted message said:

not to mention leg strength and endurance.

It doesn't build that, until you were bedridden for a while.

Quoted message said:

All exercise involves catabolism, but I don't know what you mean by
"purely" catabolic running....

Pure endurance training isn't building anything (worth mentioning).
You shed all excess and that's how you get better.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If facts can be myths, then yes.

How is running purely catabolic? I know weightlifters have a
prejudice towards it, but that's no proof.

Running may be anabolic, but it won't be if by running you mean jogging.

[...]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Do you know that long distance runners have one of the highest injury
rates and often problems with lack of sex hormones?

High compared to whom, pro bodybuilders? Gymnasts? Usenet posters?

High compared to everybody (with possible exception of American football
players).

[...]
--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Andrzej Rosa said:

A body can't convert fat into blood sugar but it can convert protein
into it. If your blood sugar level goes down, you'll break down some
proteins.

Assuming that lowered blood sugar levels are an extreme (and not the
usual) case, that still sounds like "protein as a last resort" to me.

I don't know anything about blood sugar levels. Does intense exercise
necessarily mean drastically reduced blood sugar levels?

Quoted message said:

Most is simply burned for calories.

Well, I've read in "Nutrtient Timing" and some Iron Man magazine
article that protein is turned to as a last resort, typically after an
hour of aerobic/endurance-type exercises.

Quoted message said:

Only some is used for rebuilding
purposes, and if your diet is low on protein, like some vegan diets, it
may not be enough. Some extra protein in your diet is probably simply
needed, but it doesn't mean that shakes are mandatory.

I'm not discussing whether shakes are "mandatory," but whether they
"suffice" compared to real or whole foods.

The only reason I can see why protein shakes would not suffice is that
pure protein is not as "effective" as protein occurring naturally in
whole foods because of whole foods' "chemical context" (that is, all
the other stuff which may act in conjunction with protein in as-yet-
unknown ways). Otherwise, protein shakes should suffice for one's
daily protein needs and be substitutes equal to steak or shellfish.

Quoted message said:

It depends. Shakes are very cost inefficient food source, at the very
least.

Well, if they don't "work," or work "as well," then certainly they're
most cost-inefficient!

Quoted message said:

But *not* superquick digesting, stopwatch controlled high tech powders.

True, but we're talking protein here. You said you doubt extra
protein is needed.

Quoted message said:

They eat food, and often don't even bother themselves with protein at
all. And they gain very well this way.

Well, again, like I said in the previous post (though later than this
particular point that you're responding to), scientists have known
since the early 1900s that caloric intake is the biggest factor,
whether those calories come from protein or carbs.

Quoted message said:

For making gains when on juice. We had a discussion (well, bordering on
fight ;-)) with Will Brink here some time ago, and he fully supported this.

Eh?? Junk food when on drugs makes for more gains than good food when
on drugs???

Hehe...I suppose it's the combined effect of all those man-made
industrial chemicals!

Quoted message said:

It still works in 2000s.

Yes, but we emphasize protein because carbs, in a certain sense, are
more likely to pack on the pounds....

Quoted message said:

So I don't discourage you from using shakes or whatever works for you.
I simply say that a lot of extra protein or shakes in particular aren't
strictly required to build this kind of physique.

Yes, I'm agreeing with you. I'm only being a bit more nuanced, I
think, about such a generalization by pointing out that protein is
emphasized due to its generally better bodybuilding effects, so to
speak....

Quoted message said:

Sure, but is that because physiology, psychology or a matter of simple
convenience? Most readily available foods are high in carbs and low in
proteins, so if you restrict yourself to eating high protein foods you
first and foremost remove from your diet the most convenient food sources.

Chances are, you'll end up eating less. Do we need complex
physiological models which will explain why you loose fat that way?

That's one reason. Another may be that protein is more filling
somehow?? Research is important, even if it only turns out to confirm
our suspicions.

Quoted message said:

Most people can't gain muscles fast enough to need much of excess of
calories. How much muscle you can gain per month? Two pounds? Probably
less than that. That amount of gained muscles per month will not
necessitate a calorie excess which you could somehow measure in real
life. In most cases we can't consciously control our calorie
expenditure accurately enough to tell the difference.

That's why I wish they could really research this stuff. Everybody
seems to agree on excess calories, but the details have not yet been
worked out. How much, indeed? For myself, at 35 I think my body is
slowing down if not outright stopping any "growth" -- except of fat
stores -- so excess calories, while helping me get stronger, won't be
worth the cost (i.e., increased fat): I'd be a bit stronger for being
a lot fatter. (I'm not worried about fat, being at 15-20% bodyfat,
but I don't want to get any fatter, all the same, 'cause it ain't like
five years ago when it just melted off with a few days of bike-
riding. All I lose now is water weight, it seems.)

Quoted message said:

Yes. And I'm by no means alone with this observation. Will Brink
confirmed it and Dan Duchaine actively promoted this strategy of eating
among juicers.

Huh??? That's funny...so if someone's on steroids, they would do
better eating junk food than good food???? Wow, that's really
something! Reminds me of myself ten years ago, eating whatever I want
as much as I want and still being buff...my natural testosterone
really utilized the junk food, then???

Quoted message said:

To put it simple, if you eat "clean" (lean stuff, complex carbs, vegies)
and are on juice, you'll feel very hungry plenty of times. I read a
diary of a first time juicer, who used to eat a pound of cottage cheese
before bedtime and regularly woke up in the middle of the night due to
hunger.

Well, I think I feel often feel "hungry" or not fully satiated when I
eat clean, too. I'd think that goes for most folks who exercise hard,
drugged-up or not.

Quoted message said:

This claim was not supported by any "good enough" data last time I
checked.

You really should read "Nutrient Timing." I'd be curious as to your
opinion after reading their summary of experimental data.

Quoted message said:

You "build" this kind of capacity by shedding fat and muscles off
yourself.

Huh? Sure, less fat means the heart's working less hard, but working
less hard isn't the same as being cable of working harder....

Quoted message said:

It doesn't build that, until you were bedridden for a while.

Sure it does. Why can't many bodybuilders run for long distances? I
mean, they just can't seem to, in my limited experience. I think it's
a lot of prejudice (that is, a psychological matter more than
physical), but I also suspect that being good at squats doesn't help
with running for some reason.

Quoted message said:

Pure endurance training isn't building anything (worth mentioning).

I don't know what you mean. Being able to run longer and faster isn't
worth mentioning??? That's crazy.

Quoted message said:

You shed all excess and that's how you get better.

What? You mean you shed all fat and that's how one's better??

Quoted message said:

Running may be anabolic, but it won't be if by running you mean jogging.

Geez, what is it with you and semantics???

"Jogging" is a subset of "running"..."racing" is a subset of
"running"...and me "jogging" may be "running" or even "racing" to you
if you're not used to my pace...the point is that running, in all its
forms, is physical and even mental/emotional exercise, and builds
character as well as body, mind and body and soul. I really don't see
how you dismiss one or the other.

Quoted message said:

High compared to everybody (with possible exception of American football
players).

Everybody??? Are you kidding???

Sure they have "high" rates of injury compared to a population full of
couch potatoes and folks who get heart attacks climbing a few flights
of stairs....

Quoted message said:

[...]
--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Dnia Thu, 11 Oct 2007 o 17:32 GMT Prisoner at War napisa³(a):

Quoted message said:

Andrzej Rosa said:

A body can't convert fat into blood sugar but it can convert protein
into it. If your blood sugar level goes down, you'll break down some
proteins.

Assuming that lowered blood sugar levels are an extreme (and not the
usual) case, that still sounds like "protein as a last resort" to me.

Dietary protein isn't a last resort.

Quoted message said:

I don't know anything about blood sugar levels. Does intense exercise
necessarily mean drastically reduced blood sugar levels?

Of course not. It took about two hours of vigorous pedaling followed by
a fast to achieve glycogen depletion in a study I recently have seen.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Most is simply burned for calories.

Well, I've read in "Nutrtient Timing" and some Iron Man magazine
article that protein is turned to as a last resort, typically after an
hour of aerobic/endurance-type exercises.

They meant body protein, not dietary protein. Dietary protein is a
macronutrient, and is normally digested without making a fuss about it.

Quoted message said:

I'm not discussing whether shakes are "mandatory," but whether they
"suffice" compared to real or whole foods.

The only reason I can see why protein shakes would not suffice is that
pure protein is not as "effective" as protein occurring naturally in
whole foods because of whole foods' "chemical context" (that is, all
the other stuff which may act in conjunction with protein in as-yet-
unknown ways). Otherwise, protein shakes should suffice for one's
daily protein needs and be substitutes equal to steak or shellfish.

Sure. One such a "chemical context" nutrient turned out to be the
creatine. BTW - creatine supplementation actually works.

[...]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But *not* superquick digesting, stopwatch controlled high tech powders.

True, but we're talking protein here. You said you doubt extra
protein is needed.

I meant it literally, that is that I'm not sure if it's needed. And I'm
not sure, because I'm not entirely convinced by what I see and read.

But if you'd ask me what I suspect, I'd say that diet high in protein in
most cases would probably work better than diet low in protein. I
simply do not know which diets should be considered high in protein and
which low. For example often people say, that a gram of protein per
pound of bodyweight is good starting point. I would definitely call
this diet high in protein, with 1g/kg being moderate.

Anyway, scientists still debate if athletes need extra protein or not.
They aren't sure too.

[...]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

For making gains when on juice. We had a discussion (well, bordering on
fight ;-)) with Will Brink here some time ago, and he fully supported this.

Eh?? Junk food when on drugs makes for more gains than good food when
on drugs???

Yes.

Quoted message said:

Hehe...I suppose it's the combined effect of all those man-made
industrial chemicals!

Sure. We all suffer from too much man-made industrial chemicals and
lack of purely natural poisons.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It still works in 2000s.

Yes, but we emphasize protein because carbs, in a certain sense, are
more likely to pack on the pounds....

I just listened to an interview with a pro bodybuilder, who drank his post
workout drink mainly due to it's carb content. It's this guy:

http://www.t-nation.com/img/photos/07-097-feature/image014.jpg

BTW - the guy said he didn't do any cardio.
http://www.t-nation.com/readArticle.do?id=1610650&cr=

[...]

Quoted message said:

That's why I wish they could really research this stuff. Everybody
seems to agree on excess calories, but the details have not yet been
worked out. How much, indeed? For myself, at 35 I think my body is
slowing down if not outright stopping any "growth" -- except of fat
stores -- so excess calories, while helping me get stronger, won't be
worth the cost (i.e., increased fat): I'd be a bit stronger for being
a lot fatter. (I'm not worried about fat, being at 15-20% bodyfat,
but I don't want to get any fatter, all the same, 'cause it ain't like
five years ago when it just melted off with a few days of bike-
riding. All I lose now is water weight, it seems.)

I can't say, but it's not likely that you lose only water. More
probable that you lose fat, but can't see immediate results due to
higher fat percentage. Keep up "losing water" and you'll start seeing
those abs again.

Quoted message said:

Huh??? That's funny...so if someone's on steroids, they would do
better eating junk food than good food???? Wow, that's really
something! Reminds me of myself ten years ago, eating whatever I want
as much as I want and still being buff...my natural testosterone
really utilized the junk food, then???

That could be one reason, but commonly we slow down with age. We simply
spend less calories, so we gain weight. Muscle weight helps battling
this slowing down process. If you weight fat 200 lbs or lean 200 lbs
you'll need more or less the same amount of calories to get you through
your life, but lean 200 lbs looks and feels much better.

Quoted message said:

Well, I think I feel often feel "hungry" or not fully satiated when I
eat clean, too. I'd think that goes for most folks who exercise hard,
drugged-up or not.

In my "model" of what happens, that's the biggest advantage of clean
diet. It helps you in controlling the amount of calories ingested.

Quoted message said:

You really should read "Nutrient Timing." I'd be curious as to your
opinion after reading their summary of experimental data.

It's probably already outdated. I may look into research in my free
time, though.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You "build" this kind of capacity by shedding fat and muscles off
yourself.

Huh? Sure, less fat means the heart's working less hard, but working
less hard isn't the same as being cable of working harder....

You can't increase your cardio-respiratory system all that much, and
anaerobic training already provides you with significant stimulus in
that regard.

IOW - If you already train with weights and if you train "hard"
(panting, sweating, all that), then your lungs and heart have all the
reasons to become as efficient as they can be.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It doesn't build that, until you were bedridden for a while.

Sure it does. Why can't many bodybuilders run for long distances?

Because they weight 300 lbs while having lungs and heart of 140 lbs
runner?

Quoted message said:

I
mean, they just can't seem to, in my limited experience. I think it's
a lot of prejudice (that is, a psychological matter more than
physical), but I also suspect that being good at squats doesn't help
with running for some reason.

This reason is called oxygen.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Pure endurance training isn't building anything (worth mentioning).

I don't know what you mean. Being able to run longer and faster isn't
worth mentioning??? That's crazy.

Man, I told you to Google metabolism, anabolism and catabolism. I'm
getting tired by trying to use common terms, which you later
misinterpret.

And jogging still remains purely catabolic.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You shed all excess and that's how you get better.

What? You mean you shed all fat and that's how one's better??

Weight is weight, no matter if it looks good or bad.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Running may be anabolic, but it won't be if by running you mean jogging.

Geez, what is it with you and semantics???

Sprinting may be anabolic, jogging is catabolic. Which means, that if
you take up sprinting, you may very well end up with heavier muscles,
but if you take up jogging and end up with heavier _anything_, then you
started as someone incredibly sedentary.

Quoted message said:

"Jogging" is a subset of "running"..."racing" is a subset of
"running"...and me "jogging" may be "running" or even "racing" to you
if you're not used to my pace...the point is that running, in all its
forms, is physical and even mental/emotional exercise, and builds
character

Sure. Jogging is anabolic, because it builds character. Sure. It
makes all the sense in the world.

Quoted message said:

as well as body, mind and body and soul.

When it comes to body, jogging could build you a nice set of callouses,
but that's it.

Quoted message said:

I really don't see how you dismiss one or the other.

How could I? I should love all this character building plus callouses as
a bonus!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

High compared to everybody (with possible exception of American football
players).

Everybody??? Are you kidding???

A. Yes.
B. No.
C. Koala bear.

Take your pick.

Quoted message said:

Sure they have "high" rates of injury compared to a population full of
couch potatoes and folks who get heart attacks climbing a few flights
of stairs....

http://www.sportsinjurybulletin.com/archive/0123a-sport-injuries.htm
When injury rates are expressed per hour of activity, risk of injury can
be ranked by sport. Not surprisingly, such rankings show that sports
like rugby and lacrosse produce the most mayhem, with about 30 injuries
per 1000 hours of activity (rates above 5 per 1000 hours are considered
high). Basketball and squash are also problem producers, with around 14
injuries per 1000 hours. Running and high-intensity aerobic dance follow
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
fairly closely, with 11 injuries per 1000 hours (or about one per 100
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
hours).

[...]
1. Alpine skiing (8)
2. Rowing machine exercise (6)
3. Treadmill walking or jogging (6)
4. Tennis (5)
5. Dancing classes (5)
6. Resistance training with weight machines (4)
7. Resistance training with free weights (4)

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Andrzej Rosa said:

Dietary protein isn't a last resort.

Where did you hear that?

Quoted message said:

Of course not. It took about two hours of vigorous pedaling followed by
a fast to achieve glycogen depletion in a study I recently have seen.

So it would be unusual for blood sugars to be so lowered to the point
of resorting to proteins for energy?

Quoted message said:

They meant body protein, not dietary protein. Dietary protein is a
macronutrient, and is normally digested without making a fuss about it.

You're right...I was thinking of muscle protein whereas you were
continuing to speak of dietary protein, which is what we had started
talking about....

Quoted message said:

Sure. One such a "chemical context" nutrient turned out to be the
creatine. BTW - creatine supplementation actually works.

Oh, I'm taking that, too, and not sure whether it's helped much,
either -- though I noticed that I gained ten pounds within a week due
to water weight! I surmised it being water weight 'cause the next
week I went bike-riding for a whole day and lost ten pounds, which was
regained the next day with adequate hydration and resumption of normal
food intake.

I've actually missed taking creatine a few times, up to a whole week
straight once, with no appreciable loss in performance, so I'm not
sure what else it's good for other than pumping up muscles with
water...?? 'Cause I also seemed to have increased my arm measurements
by half an inch! Interestingly, that did not go away even though I'd
missed some intake of creatine....

Quoted message said:

I meant it literally, that is that I'm not sure if it's needed. And I'm
not sure, because I'm not entirely convinced by what I see and read.

I wonder...what would convince you? I read "Nutrtient Timing," and
was willing to give them protein shakes a try...I haven't noticed any
dramatic improvement, but I don't think they're claiming that,
necessarily...frankly, I'm not sure if there's a way to test for this
kind of thing...or else they would have conducted the perfect
experiment by now, right? To see whether increased protein intake
correlates, if not outright causes or help to cause, strength gains or
more mass or hypertrophy....

It seems that the only certain is that increased calories result in
some increase in strength.

Quoted message said:

But if you'd ask me what I suspect, I'd say that diet high in protein in
most cases would probably work better than diet low in protein. I
simply do not know which diets should be considered high in protein and
which low. For example often people say, that a gram of protein per
pound of bodyweight is good starting point. I would definitely call
this diet high in protein, with 1g/kg being moderate.

It's generally considered "high," yes. It's about what my intake is
-- most days has me taking over 200 grams (including anywhere between
50-200 from shakes, now).

Quoted message said:

Anyway, scientists still debate if athletes need extra protein or not.
They aren't sure too.

I didn't know this was still a matter for debate where strength
athletes are concerned. Heck, even the runners are now protein-
conscious!

Quoted message said:

Yes.

Well, considering that a lot of junk food is used to self-medicate
anxiety, I guess there's a certain "poetic" logic to the steroid-junk
food combination....

Quoted message said:

Sure. We all suffer from too much man-made industrial chemicals and
lack of purely natural poisons.

Gotta watch out for them industrial chemicals...you should be thankful
the European Union is a lot more sensible on that score.

Quoted message said:

I just listened to an interview with a pro bodybuilder, who drank his post
workout drink mainly due to it's carb content. It's this guy:

http://www.t-nation.com/img/photos/07-097-feature/image014.jpg

BTW - the guy said he didn't do any cardio.http://www.t-nation.com/readArticle.do?id=1610650&cr=

Nice ref.

I know that lots of pro bodybuilders shy from cardio, even claiming
never to do them, but to me that's an incomplete athlete. Heck, there
are athletes who never read, and bookworms who never exercise.
Incomplete human beings, in my estimation.

Quoted message said:

I can't say, but it's not likely that you lose only water. More
probable that you lose fat, but can't see immediate results due to
higher fat percentage. Keep up "losing water" and you'll start seeing
those abs again.

Well, I see half of 'em right now -- four-packs instead of the six I
had (or the eight as a kid)...I'm going to try that bulk-up/cut-down
split and see how that works out....

Quoted message said:

That could be one reason, but commonly we slow down with age. We simply
spend less calories, so we gain weight. Muscle weight helps battling
this slowing down process. If you weight fat 200 lbs or lean 200 lbs
you'll need more or less the same amount of calories to get you through
your life, but lean 200 lbs looks and feels much better.

I'm just curious: is there one good physical thing about aging?
Seriously, is there one good physical aspect to aging, or are the
physical aspects of aging unequivocally negative??

Quoted message said:

In my "model" of what happens, that's the biggest advantage of clean
diet. It helps you in controlling the amount of calories ingested.

Seems like you could control the amount of calories irregardless of
whether the food is good or junk....

Quoted message said:

It's probably already outdated. I may look into research in my free
time, though.

The book is copyright 2004, so yeah it's old now, but I can't imagine
the studies cited being totally wrong. Research design issues aside
-- sample size is typically small -- the conclusions all seem to point
to positive net protein gains when training includes protein
supplementation immediately after exercise.

Quoted message said:

You can't increase your cardio-respiratory system all that much, and
anaerobic training already provides you with significant stimulus in
that regard.

Really? You can't improve cardio-resp "all that much"??? What are
your standards??

Quoted message said:

IOW - If you already train with weights and if you train "hard"
(panting, sweating, all that), then your lungs and heart have all the
reasons to become as efficient as they can be.

Go for runs and sprints and they will have more reason to be more
efficient, stronger and healthier.

Quoted message said:

Because they weight 300 lbs while having lungs and heart of 140 lbs
runner?

No, the heart is like any muscle: it gets bigger with exercise and
recovery...weightlifters can't run for squat (pun intended) 'cause
they don't seem to run enough, if at all; hence, weightlifting, though
given to some cardio benefits, is not sufficient.

Quoted message said:

This reason is called oxygen.

Yep -- long-distance running is all about oxygen and fat utilization,
whereas weightlifting, though intense, have no great effect in those
areas.

Quoted message said:

Man, I told you to Google metabolism, anabolism and catabolism. I'm
getting tired by trying to use common terms, which you later
misinterpret.

I know what the terms mean.

I don't know what you mean.

You said pure endurance training doesn't build anything worth
mentioning.

I ask again: being able to run longer and faster isn't worth
mentioning???

Quoted message said:

And jogging still remains purely catabolic.

You keep saying that, but how come runners improve performance if it's
purely catabolic, if their muscles only ever break down and never
build back and become even stronger?

Quoted message said:

Weight is weight, no matter if it looks good or bad.

What? I'd rather have a pound of muscle than a pound of fat.

Quoted message said:

Sprinting may be anabolic, jogging is catabolic. Which means, that if
you take up sprinting, you may very well end up with heavier muscles,
but if you take up jogging and end up with heavier _anything_, then you
started as someone incredibly sedentary.

That's simply not true. I never do any calf work, and yet my calves
are seventeen inches -- just slightly smaller than my arms, which I
pump all the time! Genetics aside, I believe jogging to be their main
stimulus all these years.

Quoted message said:

Sure. Jogging is anabolic, because it builds character. Sure. It
makes all the sense in the world.

"Jogging" is a subset of "running"...you're mixing up your terms and
getting yourself all confused.

And jogging does build character, as does all exercise.

Quoted message said:

When it comes to body, jogging could build you a nice set of callouses,
but that's it.

Dude, wear some socks! Even with cotton ones, I've only got one
between two feet, whereas my hands and fingers have more.

Quoted message said:

How could I? I should love all this character building plus callouses as
a bonus!

You don't think there's something wrong with a person who can't really
run?

Quoted message said:

A. Yes.
B. No.
C. Koala bear.

Take your pick.

I take it you don't know.

Quoted message said:

http://www.sportsinjurybulletin.com/archive/0123a-sport-injuries.htm
When injury rates are expressed per hour of activity, risk of injury can
be ranked by sport. Not surprisingly, such rankings show that sports
like rugby and lacrosse produce the most mayhem, with about 30 injuries
per 1000 hours of activity (rates above 5 per 1000 hours are considered
high). Basketball and squash are also problem producers, with around 14
injuries per 1000 hours. Running and high-intensity aerobic dance follow
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
fairly closely, with 11 injuries per 1000 hours (or about one per 100
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
hours).

[...]
1. Alpine skiing (8)
2. Rowing machine exercise (6)
3. Treadmill walking or jogging (6)
4. Tennis (5)
5. Dancing classes (5)
6. Resistance training with weight machines (4)
7. Resistance training with free weights (4)

LOL!!!

And to think you were going on and on about alien math....

First of all, injuries expressed as a function of hours of activity is
less meaningful than you might think: after all, people spend hours
running, whereas most lifters spend barely half an hour actually
lifting! Secondly, much more people engage in running than in
lifting, so naturally your results will be skewed right there. Also,
the nature of the activity is so different in its physics and
biomechanics that to compare injury rates between them is like
comparing injury rates between riding a bike outside versus riding a
stationary bike indoors....

Quoted message said:

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R