On January 27 2012 08:38 Peanutbutter717 wrote: I read how you said cardio is not as important as lifting. How does this apply to beach volleyball where I do a lot of running in the sand and have to be able to not get fatigued? Is it possible to get that same, "I am able to run and jump X amount" with less cardio and more weight training.
I'm starting to lift again. And when I would lift alot and do less cardio and go play beach, I would be shorter of breath. If I did more cardio and less weight lifting, I would feel less fatigued.
Also another question: Some of my friends are taking prohormones and epibolin. They workout but they don't really monitor their diets. I've never seen them pull out a calorie counter or do anything of that sort. Is this healthy for them? Or are they trying to get too big too quick?
as eshlow said, do cardio if it helps (which apparently it does). doesnt mean that weightlifting wont do anything for you. squats and power cleans will improve your explosiveness and strength which is probably quite important in volleyball.
On January 27 2012 13:14 Raidern wrote: I've read in quite a few pages that we should eat protein together with a good source of carbs because the carbs supposedly help transfer protein to muscles. Is that correct? Has anyone else read anything like that? I couldn't find scientific studies to back it up. A quick research on google brought me this text: http://www.muscleandstrength.com/articles/carbohydrates-and-bodybuilding.html
Post workout?
Whole milk tends to do the better than skim milk
And choco milk tends to do as well as any type of post workout protein and carbohydrates supplementations
So you might as well just drink whole milk which is a good mix of carbs, protein, and some fat.
On January 27 2012 13:14 Raidern wrote: I've read in quite a few pages that we should eat protein together with a good source of carbs because the carbs supposedly help transfer protein to muscles. Is that correct? Has anyone else read anything like that? I couldn't find scientific studies to back it up. A quick research on google brought me this text: http://www.muscleandstrength.com/articles/carbohydrates-and-bodybuilding.html
Post workout?
Whole milk tends to do the better than skim milk
And choco milk tends to do as well as any type of post workout protein and carbohydrates supplementations
So you might as well just drink whole milk which is a good mix of carbs, protein, and some fat.
I normally drink whole milk throughout the day but especially post-workout. I normally add a protein powder along with it to supplement. Am I wasting my money or is there a particular powder that is not good? It seems to help,I know eating enough can be difficult for those of us trying to gain muscle mass and the protein shake is easy to add in.
On January 27 2012 13:14 Raidern wrote: I've read in quite a few pages that we should eat protein together with a good source of carbs because the carbs supposedly help transfer protein to muscles. Is that correct? Has anyone else read anything like that? I couldn't find scientific studies to back it up. A quick research on google brought me this text: http://www.muscleandstrength.com/articles/carbohydrates-and-bodybuilding.html
Post workout?
Whole milk tends to do the better than skim milk
And choco milk tends to do as well as any type of post workout protein and carbohydrates supplementations
So you might as well just drink whole milk which is a good mix of carbs, protein, and some fat.
I normally drink whole milk throughout the day but especially post-workout. I normally add a protein powder along with it to supplement. Am I wasting my money or is there a particular powder that is not good? It seems to help,I know eating enough can be difficult for those of us trying to gain muscle mass and the protein shake is easy to add in.
Oh man, some type of foods are causing me digestive problems. I'm sure at least about pasta, but yesterday only foods I think could cause it were bran flakes (wheat?) and banana. I ate some ground beef that might've been old though.
Going to a doctor (a general practitioner I think) is free for me due to work. Is it a huge trouble to get a diagnosis?
On January 31 2012 19:18 rEiGN~ wrote: Oh man, some type of foods are causing me digestive problems. I'm sure at least about pasta, but yesterday only foods I think could cause it were bran flakes (wheat?) and banana. I ate some ground beef that might've been old though.
Going to a doctor (a general practitioner I think) is free for me due to work. Is it a huge trouble to get a diagnosis?
You can ask if they can run a allergy/sensitivity test
back to north america, meaning time to take fish oil again...
I have a bottle that says per two pills: EPA -- 360 mg DHA - 240 mg O-3 - 600 mg
How many should I take each day?
I'm guessing at least four, but I really don't remember the #s for EPA and DHA anymore, and I'm fairly certain I should try to aim for at least 1000 omega-3?
On February 01 2012 01:01 vicariouscheese wrote: eshlow I know you've posted studies on grains effects somewhere in the forums, but they don't seem to be in the OP? would be useful
On February 01 2012 01:13 Cambium wrote: back to north america, meaning time to take fish oil again...
I have a bottle that says per two pills: EPA -- 360 mg DHA - 240 mg O-3 - 600 mg
How many should I take each day?
I'm guessing at least four, but I really don't remember the #s for EPA and DHA anymore, and I'm fairly certain I should try to aim for at least 1000 omega-3?
Depends on how healthy you're eating, i usually go for 1-2k epa/dha. I think there is a g/bw somewhere...
So I've been cooking my own food for a while, which means being 95% paleo.
I noticed that since I cut grains drinking beer fucks up my allergies (next day my nose is leaking, a lot of sneezing, etc., sometimes even some form of sinusitis) - no shit, its got a considerable amount of gluten, right?
Then I decided to stop the beer drinking (which I would still do in social occasions), and replaced it with distilled drinks, and I would be totally fine next day. Following this logic, I got some red wine bottles too, to drink at home (should be pretty healthy in small amounts). Problem is, I'm getting the same kind of allergy problem after drinking 1 or 2 glasses of wine. How could this be explained? Some kind of reaction to the fermentation process?
On February 01 2012 22:44 Tulius wrote: So I've been cooking my own food for a while, which means being 95% paleo.
I noticed that since I cut grains drinking beer fucks up my allergies (next day my nose is leaking, a lot of sneezing, etc., sometimes even some form of sinusitis) - no shit, its got a considerable amount of gluten, right?
Then I decided to stop the beer drinking (which I would still do in social occasions), and replaced it with distilled drinks, and I would be totally fine next day. Following this logic, I got some red wine bottles too, to drink at home (should be pretty healthy in small amounts). Problem is, I'm getting the same kind of allergy problem after drinking 1 or 2 glasses of wine. How could this be explained? Some kind of reaction to the fermentation process?
I've noticed this as well...i'm fucked the day after drinking a lot of beer but i can put back vodka all night and be fine the next day. Which sucks because rugby players always drink beers after games and at socials T_T
Conclusions We summarize our main findings from the literature regarding the role of dietary CHO restriction in cancer development and outcome.
(i) Most, if not all, tumor cells have a high demand on glucose compared to benign cells of the same tissue and conduct glycolysis even in the presence of oxygen (the Warburg effect). In addition, many cancer cells express insulin receptors (IRs) and show hyperactivation of the IGF1R-IR pathway. Evidence exists that chronically elevated blood glucose, insulin and IGF1 levels facilitate tumorigenesis and worsen the outcome in cancer patients.
(ii) The involvement of the glucose-insulin axis may also explain the association of the metabolic syndrome with an increased risk for several cancers. CHO restriction has already been shown to exert favorable effects in patients with the metabolic syndrome. Epidemiological and anthropological studies indicate that restricting dietary CHOs could be beneficial in decreasing cancer risk.
(iii) Many cancer patients, in particular those with advanced stages of the disease, exhibit altered whole-body metabolism marked by increased plasma levels of inflammatory molecules, impaired glycogen synthesis, increased proteolysis and increased fat utilization in muscle tissue, increased lipolysis in adipose tissue and increased gluconeogenesis by the liver. High fat, low CHO diets aim at accounting for these metabolic alterations. Studies conducted so far have shown that such diets are safe and likely beneficial, in particular for advanced stage cancer patients.
(iv) CHO restriction mimics the metabolic state of calorie restriction or – in the case of KDs – fasting. The beneficial effects of calorie restriction and fasting on cancer risk and progression are well established. CHO restriction thus opens the possibility to target the same underlying mechanisms without the side-effects of hunger and weight loss.
(v) Some laboratory studies indicate a direct anti-tumor potential of ketone bodies. During the past years, a multitude of mouse studies indeed proved anti-tumor effects of KDs for various tumor types, and a few case reports and pre-clinical studies obtained promising results in cancer patients as well. Several registered clinical trials are going to investigate the case for a KD as a supportive therapeutic option in oncology.
If you know anyone with cancer, please please please persuade them to eat ketogenic diet.
It can literally eradicate cancer in some cases, and at least help your body fight better against cancer thus increases survivability.
Cool story but how come people following the Dr.Mcdougall diet, basically a low fat-high carb vegan diet, are cured not only of cancer but of numerous other diseases?
Summary of protein requirement values for adults, including women during pregnancy and lactation The requirement indicated by the meta-analysis (6) (a median requirement of 105 mg nitrogen/kg per day or 0.66 g/kg per day of protein) can be accepted as the best estimate of a population average requirement for healthy adults. Although there is considerable uncertainty about the true between-individual 125 92-4-120935-6_CH07_125variability, the safe level was identified as the 97.5th percentile of the population distribution of requirement, i.e. 133 mg nitrogen/kg per day, or 0.83 g/kg per day protein. Thus 0.83 g/kg per day protein would be expected to meet the requirements of most (97.5%) of the healthy adult population. Because the distribution of requirements was log-normal, and thus skewed, direct calculation of a standard deviation was not possible. However, an approximate value was derived as half the difference between the estimated 16th and 84th percentiles (which would contain those individuals within one standard deviation of the mean for a normal distribution), yielding an apparent coefficient of variation of about 12%. This value was employed in the calculations of safe levels for protein and amino acids of children and adults when direct experimental evidence for their values was not available (sections 9 and 10). These values for average and safe intakes are about 10% higher than the value of 0.6 g proposed in the 1985 FAO/WHO/UNU report (8). While there are important questions about food intakes for older individuals, there is at present no firm evidence warranting different values for this population group. Similarly, there is as yet no justification for any differentiation between males and females. However, additional protein is recommended for pregnant women of 1, 9 and 31 g protein/day in the first, second and third trimesters, respectively, or additional food energy with a protein:energy ratio of 0.03, 0.12 and 0.23. For lactating women, an average of 19 g protein/day is required, falling to 12.5 g protein/day after 6 months.
Conclusions We summarize our main findings from the literature regarding the role of dietary CHO restriction in cancer development and outcome.
(i) Most, if not all, tumor cells have a high demand on glucose compared to benign cells of the same tissue and conduct glycolysis even in the presence of oxygen (the Warburg effect). In addition, many cancer cells express insulin receptors (IRs) and show hyperactivation of the IGF1R-IR pathway. Evidence exists that chronically elevated blood glucose, insulin and IGF1 levels facilitate tumorigenesis and worsen the outcome in cancer patients.
(ii) The involvement of the glucose-insulin axis may also explain the association of the metabolic syndrome with an increased risk for several cancers. CHO restriction has already been shown to exert favorable effects in patients with the metabolic syndrome. Epidemiological and anthropological studies indicate that restricting dietary CHOs could be beneficial in decreasing cancer risk.
(iii) Many cancer patients, in particular those with advanced stages of the disease, exhibit altered whole-body metabolism marked by increased plasma levels of inflammatory molecules, impaired glycogen synthesis, increased proteolysis and increased fat utilization in muscle tissue, increased lipolysis in adipose tissue and increased gluconeogenesis by the liver. High fat, low CHO diets aim at accounting for these metabolic alterations. Studies conducted so far have shown that such diets are safe and likely beneficial, in particular for advanced stage cancer patients.
(iv) CHO restriction mimics the metabolic state of calorie restriction or – in the case of KDs – fasting. The beneficial effects of calorie restriction and fasting on cancer risk and progression are well established. CHO restriction thus opens the possibility to target the same underlying mechanisms without the side-effects of hunger and weight loss.
(v) Some laboratory studies indicate a direct anti-tumor potential of ketone bodies. During the past years, a multitude of mouse studies indeed proved anti-tumor effects of KDs for various tumor types, and a few case reports and pre-clinical studies obtained promising results in cancer patients as well. Several registered clinical trials are going to investigate the case for a KD as a supportive therapeutic option in oncology.
If you know anyone with cancer, please please please persuade them to eat ketogenic diet.
It can literally eradicate cancer in some cases, and at least help your body fight better against cancer thus increases survivability.
Cool story but how come people following the Dr.Mcdougall diet, basically a low fat-high carb vegan diet, are cured not only of cancer but of numerous other diseases?
That link I posted to nutrition and metabolism is an actual scientific journal and they were summarizing research.
If you would like to provide some research to support your argument I would consider it.
Though, any diet that eliminates refined carbohydrates will have a positive effect on cancer although not as strongly as ketogenic from the literature.
Not sure where you are trying to go with the protein study either. The needs of athletic populations are higher than what is stated there.
EPT
