If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"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"? |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Are mouse sporting events on TV? It that mouse-soccer,
mouse-base ball, mouseing race? I GOT BUY TICKETS TO THAT! |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
DZ wrote: .............. we're more mice than we're not. That just works in so many ways. - bc |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes) | Eva Whitley | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 206 | May 23rd, 2004 04:45 PM |
You want PROOF - Here's Quackery Proof. | marengo | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 173 | April 17th, 2004 11:26 PM |
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret | Diarmid Logan | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 142 | February 14th, 2004 02:26 PM |
ATKINS DIET MAY REDUCE SEIZURES IN CHILDREN WITH EPILEPSY | Ken Kubos | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 0 | January 28th, 2004 04:53 PM |
Low carb diets | Weightwatchers | 245 | January 8th, 2004 11:15 PM |