In article , DZ
wrote:

DZ wrote:
Hobbes wrote:
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" wrote in message
...
Sam 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/...4_209/_article

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

And even more dangerous not to.
We wouldn't have biology or medicine to speak of.

DZ

Animal models are a fine place to begin, but one needs to accept the
limitations involved as well. Nothing against basic science but sometimes
when it comes to application in humans, things are not so clear.

Also, is escaping from tape a "sport"?

DZ wrote in
:

Hobbes wrote:
"Matthew" 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/...4_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

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"?

Hugh



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

Are mouse sporting events on TV? It that mouse-soccer,
mouse-base ball, mouseing race?
I GOT BUY TICKETS TO THAT!

DZ wrote in news:29727@
100423852.1141525898.23960.9517.24498:

DZ wrote:
Hugh Beyer 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
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 wrote:


.............. we're more mice than we're not.

That just works in so many ways.

- bc

DZ wrote in
:

Hugh Beyer wrote:
DZ wrote:
DZ wrote:
Hugh Beyer 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
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"?

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.