Bulldrek v3.0

<evil voice>MOAHAHAHAH! DANCE PUPPETS! DANCE!</evil voice>

Cain wrote:

It's actually an increase in osmolarity. Creatine increases intracellular osmolarity. Increased intracellular osmolarity increases intracellular water. I wouldn't swear by it, but I believe that calling it "increased permeability" was an error and what they meant was that the tissue will now have increased perfusion, which should be true. More serum would spend more time in that tissue exchanging nutrients.

Okay, that makes sense. Still, how can you increase the rate of amine entry? I was under the impression that amino acids didn't enter cells very quickly, and proteins never entered at all.

When I was reading this...I thought Cain was talking about anime. Damn misreading. It will be horrible if they make anime movies of Cain and 32 slugging it out in the Magic School Bus while Mrs. Frizzle is trying to break it up. Did I say horrible? I meant funny. Sorry. My mental imagery is too strong to resist. Go ahead. Nothing to see here.

Flame, you are EVIL. I have to go to sleep with that picture in my head now.

and thus, I silenced the debate.

crone wrote:Flame, you are EVIL. I have to go to sleep with that picture in my head now.

It could be worse...how about 3278-Cain man love?

Yup, especiallly with Ms. Frizzle from Magic School Bus trying to break it up. On the trip inside human's body.

Cash wrote:It could be worse...how about 3278-Cain man love?

As long as Ms. Frizzle isn't doing commentary!

Can anyone comment on this?

The ACSM Weight Training Guidelines state more than one set may elicit slightly greater strength gains but additional improvement is relatively small (ACSM 1995). Studies demonstrating marginal improvements in strength with more sets typically use one exercise per muscle. Split programs performed by experienced weight trainers typically incorporate two or more exercises per muscle group. Fleck and Kramer's review of the literature suggest the optimal number of total sets are between 2 and 5 sets (Fleck & Kraemer, 1997). A second set seems understandable since a warm up set may allow greater intensity for the the following workout set (Shellock & Prentice, 1985).

Many scientific studies demonstrate one set is almost effective as multiple sets, if not just as effective in strength and muscle hypertrophy (Starkey, Pollock, et. al. 1996). These studies have been criticized for using untrained subjects. Hass et. al. (2000) compared the effects of one set verses three sets in experienced recreational weightlifters. Both groups significantly improved muscular fitness and body composition during the 13 week study. Interestingly, no significant differences were found between groups for any of the test variables; including muscular strength, muscular endurance, and body composition.

Basically, is this right, or is thiswebsite on crack? Minimal gains from increasing the number of sets? That doesn't sound right.

Not sure, but I'll give it a go.

Basically, what determines how much strength you gain is the addition of extra actin/myosin filaments. These are built up by an increase in anabolic steroids, namely testosterone. Supposedly, increased demand from the muscles will cause an increase in testosterone, which will result in more myofilaments being made.

The question then becomes, how much testosterone increase do you get from X amount of excercise? I would think it'd cap off fairly rapidly; testosterone tends to inhibit both the stimulating and tropic hormones that trigger its release. You *can* trigger a tesosterone spike, but it's kinda tricky to do so. So, yeah, since testosterone levels tend to remain steady, it makes sense that you can't really increase your supply by much-- and thus, you can't really increase testosterone demand, and your gains will occur fairly quickly.

The report kinda makes sense, insofar as intensity appears to increase testosterone demand more than endurance. An increase in endurance demands is likely to trigger other changes, which is why long-distance runners don't develop the muscle bulk or strength of powerlifters.

I have no idea what the fuck Cain just said, but I'd say it's because once you totally exhaust the muscle to the point of failure, you've already worked it to its limit and the body will try to build upon that next time no matter how many times you work it to that point. That's for strength gains building fast twitch fibre, though, not weight loss. Building muscle doesn't necessarily lose you fat. Your muscles will require more energy, so you may lose a bit, but if what you want to do is lose fat, then you'll have to jump around and run a lot.

Interesting results, though.

Boy, this article couldn't have come at a better time...

The first human with a "super strength" gene has been found and identified.

Short version, the boy's body blocks the production of a protein (myostatin) that limits muscle growth. The kid has muscles twice the size of other children his age and half the body fat. At the age of FIVE he's holding out 7 pounds straight-armed.

Gunny... remember that conversation I said about how we'll start seeing emerging mutations in genetic lines over the next few decades? Looks like I was right. Now, how long until they find the person in the world who is naturally imune to HIV...

crone wrote:Can anyone comment on this?

The ACSM Weight Training Guidelines state more than one set may elicit slightly greater strength gains but additional improvement is relatively small (ACSM 1995). Studies demonstrating marginal improvements in strength with more sets typically use one exercise per muscle. Split programs performed by experienced weight trainers typically incorporate two or more exercises per muscle group. Fleck and Kramer's review of the literature suggest the optimal number of total sets are between 2 and 5 sets (Fleck & Kraemer, 1997). A second set seems understandable since a warm up set may allow greater intensity for the the following workout set (Shellock & Prentice, 1985).

Many scientific studies demonstrate one set is almost effective as multiple sets, if not just as effective in strength and muscle hypertrophy (Starkey, Pollock, et. al. 1996). These studies have been criticized for using untrained subjects. Hass et. al. (2000) compared the effects of one set verses three sets in experienced recreational weightlifters. Both groups significantly improved muscular fitness and body composition during the 13 week study. Interestingly, no significant differences were found between groups for any of the test variables; including muscular strength, muscular endurance, and body composition.

Basically, is this right, or is thiswebsite on crack? Minimal gains from increasing the number of sets? That doesn't sound right.

Dear gods, this is a topic that has been debated endlessly over the years. They are still arguing on it but, in all truth, it depends on what you are looking to do.

If you are looking to focus on muscle toning and strength increases, doing only one set to failure is the way to go. I use either a 4-1-4 or 10-1-10 lift for my sets ranging in reps of 6 to 25 (depending on my lift*). As Elf said, once you work a muscle to failure, you are going to get the same strength gains (**) as doing multiple sets.

Doing multiple sets is better if you are looking to burn more fat and increase muscle mass. Once you work the muscle to failure and then do another set, youd body is going to kick in gear to build more muscle mass to ensure you don't rip something when you are doing the lifts. More muscle mass, more metabolism needed, more fat burned.

What's the best method?

My opinion is to do a one set workout focusing on all muscle groups until you plateau (that is, reach a point where you make no increases in weight lifted for a period of 2-3 weeks). Once you plateau, switch to a multiple set routine. This "shocks" the muscles out of the comfortable routine they were in and build more mass. Do this for about 3 weeks to a month. Then shift back to a one set workout to tone up the new muscle mass you just received. Repeat. (***)

(*) 4-1-4 and 10-1-10 refer to the time spent on a single rep. 4-1-4 is four seconds to extend, one second hold, and four seconds to bring the weight back to starting position. 10-1-10 is the same except you are doing 10 seconds on the extension and return.

(**) You may gow up in strength faster using multiple sets (the difference in speed is minor and negligible) but you will still plateau at the same strength.

(***) There will come a point where your body will not produce additional muscle mass because your body has reached it's limit of what it can safely maintain. Putting on more mass than your body can naturally handle can lead to serious injuries (muscle sheers, nerve damage, etc). Once you reach that maximum, you have to switch to another form of workout to continue to gain strength until you reach your physical maximum.

Daki wrote:What's the best method?

And there's no getting around this, in my opinion: there isn't one. There are tendencies within a population, but everyone's physiology, conditions, and goals are so unique that no single method can be said to be "best." It takes time to find what works for you. I bet Daki didn't adopt the 4-1-4 and 10-1-10 overnight.

3278 wrote:

Daki wrote:What's the best method?

And there's no getting around this, in my opinion: there isn't one. There are tendencies within a population, but everyone's physiology, conditions, and goals are so unique that no single method can be said to be "best." It takes time to find what works for you. I bet Daki didn't adopt the 4-1-4 and 10-1-10 overnight.

Sorry, I should have put a disclaimer on that. There /is/ no one best method for everyone.

And 32 is correct, it took me quite a while to settle on my current workout. I've been lifting regularly for 12 years and was a professional trainer. I tweaked my workout to it's current method (the DSW) about 3-4 years ago. And I still do tweak the details of it as my body continues to change.

Daki wrote:Now, how long until they find the person in the world who is naturally imune to HIV...

Like <a href=http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/SUA0 ... l>these</a> people? And <a href=http://signalplusnoise.com/archives/000 ... l>these</a> monkeys? Okay, so the monkeys were saved, by Science! but it's still on track.

Yep, just like that Elf. Thanks!

Since the topic have started to drift a bit into genes and such, when in the not so distant future when they have a better picture and cheap genetherapy available what will you get if anything ? ok so it probably won't be that soon or that cheap but still, lets play pretend here.

Way back at the middle of this conversation somewhere, we discussed that weight loss isn't as simple as, "Cut 3,500 calories, lose 1 pound," because of the calculus of body change and metabolism change. Well, quite delightfully, someone has actually done the calculus. You just check out this page, and, after approving a number of Java permissions, you can plug in the numbers and get a much more accurate* set of goals.

One statistic I found shocking: on average, Americans eat 5 meals a week outside the home. What the fuck?

*That said, this hasn't been confirmed experimentally, so that seems like the logical next step, but it does follow what we - Cain included! - discussed earlier in the thread.

3278 wrote:One statistic I found shocking: on average, Americans eat 5 meals a week outside the home. What the fuck?

On average, Americans hold jobs that require them to be out of the home, and thus not at home for lunch, five days a week?

Excellent point, but I think it's actually "meals prepared outside them home," meaning, "meals eaten out." Otherwise, none of the other statistics are possible.*

And keep in mind, that would still mean for every person like me, who doesn't eat out 5 days a week, that means there's some other dude out there eating out ten times a week.

*Edit: Oops! "What other statistics?" would be the logical next question, but I posted that shit to G+, as opposed to BD. My bad: this is what I'm talking about.

3278 wrote:And keep in mind, that would still mean for every person like me, who doesn't eat out 5 days a week, that means there's some other dude out there eating out ten times a week.

Or, more likely, 5 others who eat out 6 times a week.

I don't find 5 meals a week particularly unexpected.

That could mean, say, Breakfast: Coffee and Bagels / Donuts. How many people stop in for a Starbucks every morning and grab a pastry of some sort? *bam* 1 meal out most days.

Most of the people at work go out for lunch at least a few days a week, if not every day. I'm actually the odd one out for bringing in my own food on any sort of regular basis.

On weekends, it would be typical for social types to get at least one or two meals out as dinner as well.

And some people are known to eat more than 3 meals a day -- I could easily see some people doing meal -> movie/dancing/clubs -> meal in a single night out.

If that includes delivery / take-out as well, I could see it being even higher for multi-job parents that simply don't have the time or energy to cook almost ever.

Honestly, I'm shocked it's only 5 meals a week on average. I would have expected higher.

I eat out of my home a lot more than I "eat at a restaurant." I still probably eat at a restaurant too often, but I'm mostly good with that.

Anguirel wrote:That could mean, say, Breakfast: Coffee and Bagels / Donuts. How many people stop in for a Starbucks every morning and grab a pastry of some sort? *bam* 1 meal out most days.

Right, but that's completely fucked up. That's retarded as fuck. I mean, really.

Anguirel wrote:Most of the people at work go out for lunch at least a few days a week, if not every day.

And I find that utterly bewildering. And I speak as someone who used to eat our for 10+ meals a week, usually more like 15. It's dumb, and expensive, and makes you fat. Of course, if you have the money, and you eat reasonably, hey, no harm done, but that's not what happens, as a rule.

Anguirel wrote:On weekends, it would be typical for social types to get at least one or two meals out as dinner as well.

Yeah, we do this, but we do it in our house.

Anguirel wrote:If that includes delivery / take-out as well, I could see it being even higher for multi-job parents that simply don't have the time or energy to cook almost ever.

Well, these are the really fucked-up stupid fucking people who I'd like drug through the streets, of course. Who the fuck doesn't have time to fucking cook fucking food for their fucking children? Get a different fucking job, or a different fucking social life, you fucking asshat. Can't? Then be really fucking poor, but cook food for your fucking children: you'll save enough cooking at home rather than eating out to dump one of those fucking jobs. [Note: these statements are not rational. ]

There are definitely some people in a situation so shitty that there's literally no other choice but to have someone else cook their food, but those people are really fucking rare. Most people who don't cook for their children could do so, if they chose: they just choose not to. I've lost count of the parents [or other people, for that matter] who say to me, "Oh, I don't have time to cook for my kids." They tell me this on Facebook. While they're playing Farmville for an hour.

I'm just tired of hearing all these people say, "I'm too poor," or, "I'm too fat," and then you find out they eat McDonald's five fucking times a week, and feed that rancid shit to their children. It's totally their choice, and I believe powerfully in their right to make it, but I think it's pretty fucktarded to be broke and eating a Big Mac, or fat and hitting the drive-thru every afternoon. If you can do it and harm none, hey, then it's a great choice, but cooking is really easy, or at least it can be. It can be cheap, fast, easy, nutritious, good for family bonding, and absolutely delicious. I'm not saying anyone who ever eats out should be drawn and quarter-poundered, I'm saying eating out five times a week, on average, probably isn't as good an option as something else.

Yeah, it's pretty fucked up. If you choose your restaurant well, I don't think it's a terrible choice, as such things go, but it's always a little strange watching co-workers go out to buy a sandwich, and then complain while they eat it about how poor they are. Note: These people are also upset when I point out they could eat two week's worth of sandwiches for the same price if they just went to the grocery store right next to the sandwich shop instead. I even point out it would take less time to do, since they can store that stuff at work and instead of taking 20 minutes to g out and wait in line every day, they could just walk to the company kitchen and make it themselves. I have yet to sway any of them. I do not understand it, but I've come to accept that some people evidently enjoy being incredibly poor, stupid, and willfully ignorant.

It occurs to me that including take-out/delivery, I'd have probably rated up in the 5-times-a-week level for a significant chunk of... well, not the last few years, but between 3 and 6 years ago, since the company would regularly buy meals for the team while we were working overtime. During that period, I almost never went out on my own, but I guess I did "eat out of the home wirth restaurant food" a decent amount just because it was provided. I wish we'd just gotten some extra money to get our own food, but eh, not my decision.

FWIW, I'm about to go on a 21-28 meals/week outside the home schedule.
Just doing my part to skew the average.

paladin2019 wrote:FWIW, I'm about to go on a 21-28 meals/week outside the home schedule.
Just doing my part to skew the average.

Unless you're deployed in a restaurant, I don't think that counts.

From Operation: Market Garden to Operation: Joe's Grease Shack.