EPTlol.. 1-2 months. I guess they're hand writing each copy.
TL Health and Fitness Initiative 2010 - Page 132
| Forum Index > TL Community |
|
Energies
Australia3225 Posts
lol.. 1-2 months. I guess they're hand writing each copy. | ||
|
FyRe_DragOn
Canada2056 Posts
Whoops I calculated wrong there.. though you would have had a day after and before the squats on either side to recover. How tired are you at the end of the third day of soccer? You COULD do squats then.... but otherwise I wouldn't bother. HOw about after the soccer-fest is over? YOu could do Thur/Fri squats but that would be a bit weird. The 3 days in a row makes lifting pretty awkward. This may be the best option though DEPENDING on the intensity of the soccer. Lifting before Soccer isnt a problem, but lifting afterwards is. If I play after lifting I dont really notice a difference in my energy, but If i lift after playing, or even the day after, Its a lot harder. My main question is how to divide up the lifts per day though - like are there some I shouldnt do together because they both recruit the same muscles? Or are all the SS lifts different enough that this doesnt matter? I know it says to do only 1x Deadlift after squatting, are there other combinations that i should reduce or try to avoid? | ||
|
eshlow
United States5210 Posts
On September 19 2010 11:34 Energies wrote: To be a bit of a realist here, that sort of nutritional lifestyle is fantastic, but it's so damn expensive man.. there is a reason other than sugar addiction that people buy bread/rice/pasta/junk food. It's really cheap. My food bill every week is astronomical and all I buy is oats/green veggies/eggs/milk and half a farm of meat. I'll order the book though, always love to learn more. That's cause the government subsidizes.... corn and grains..... heh. Instead of sustainable farms with cattle, fruits, and vegetables.... But anyway, it's better to pay the price now instead of bad health at 40 and mounting medical bills. Unfortunate as that may sound. On September 19 2010 11:38 Lexpar wrote: Blood pressure wise I thought 120/80 was normal at rest, not in the danger zone. I myself am about 115/70. Is that okay? Above it is hypertensive. Anything at or below is "normal." Personally, if you eat well, sleep well, and exercise and you still have high blood pressure you probably don't need to worry about it too much unless you family has an extensive history of problems. On September 19 2010 11:52 FyRe_DragOn wrote: Lifting before Soccer isnt a problem, but lifting afterwards is. If I play after lifting I dont really notice a difference in my energy, but If i lift after playing, or even the day after, Its a lot harder. My main question is how to divide up the lifts per day though - like are there some I shouldnt do together because they both recruit the same muscles? Or are all the SS lifts different enough that this doesnt matter? I know it says to do only 1x Deadlift after squatting, are there other combinations that i should reduce or try to avoid? Nah, you're low enough volume the way it's planned now that it's fine. for example, If you were doing german volume training or something with 10x10 squats you probably dont need to do deadlifts after that. (Not that I recommend GVT for anyone but serious BBers or P/O lifters... too high a potential for overuse injuries). | ||
|
AeroGear
Canada652 Posts
I find it rather ironic that you mention health problems cropping up at the age of 40 while advocating the use of supplements and other "shortcut" products, and a diet rich in animal fats. | ||
|
RosaParksStoleMySeat
Japan926 Posts
Gary is a Journalist, not a biochemist, nor a nutritionist, nor a kinesiologist, Fallacy. If you want to attack his stance, attack his stance; not him. Gary happens to be a very well-known science journalist who has multiple publications. He read and comprehended a significant amount of literature on the subject, including much of what Dr. Atkins cited in his work. For your information, Darwin did his work with nothing more than a BS in a semi-relevant field. Fallacy of strawman. Taubes never states that the first law of thermodynamics is incorrect; he explains why the interpretation of it in modern dietary medicine is incorrect. Writing a book about his politcal stance about Low-Carb diets can just be as biased is how Michael Moore talks about the American Health system. What did you expect, he was even paid $700k to write that book too. Yet another fallacy. You are simply assuming that he was biased and only desired economic gain from this book, and that his points are therefore unreliable. Saying that his idea is nothing more than a political stance is actually pretty hilarious, considering the other side of this argument--the high carb people--are the ones publishing studies saying that HFCS is no worse than sucrose... studies funded by the Corn Farmers Coalition :\. Most of his points are inaccurate or include missing missing studies supporting his claims. If he claims that if carbrohydrates is the leading cause of weight gain, then he has to have some scientific proof about it. Wether or not you believe him or not, you always have to have a keen eye on things like these. His citations are often biased with no additional further cross-refrencing to other articles. There's still no direct correalation that insulin causes fat accumulation as much as eating fat will cause fat accumulation. It's still up to you if you or any inspiring person that want to jump in the deep end, and having to sacrifice your entire life not eating carbs. If you want to go for some ketonic diet where you can have a day of carbs, it's just better off spreading all that carbs that you would eat on that one day over the course of that week. You can believe in science or faith to achieve your weight loss. If they both end up at the same point at the end, then great, good job. Your milage may vary. Please read his book, and please go read something on the ketogenic diet if you want to attack either one. Citing a single critical review of his book and then stating "His work has been disproven!" is a pretty terrible way to argue. Any person standing against the masses will be attacked, just like Dr. Atkins was decades before him. I had to stop reading the Bray article at the third page, to be honest. He claims that Taubes never spoke about HDL/LDL cholesterol, which is simply untrue. As I sit here looking at my copy of the book, I can see where he clearly explains how foods rich in saturated fat slightly raise LDL cholesterol, and significantly increase HDL cholesterol. Taubes handled this point, but Bray seems to have overlooked it. You see, what everybody fails to explain when they promote a high-carbohydrate diet is why prehistoric humans were healthier than modern humans, yet had no carbohydrates. People will react to this by calling them largely active, they'll blame processed foods, or retarded vegetarians will try to claim that the prehistoric man was an herbivore. I am sure that the first two parts of these are true, but regardless of the fact that we survived off of bone marrow (an extremely fatty part of the animal), our dental structure was more solid, our bones were denser, and it is claimed that we were simply healthier overall. If you could explain to me why a high-fat low-carbohydrate diet would be detrimental to one's health, I would like to hear about it. | ||
|
eshlow
United States5210 Posts
On September 19 2010 14:00 AeroGear wrote: You're not gonna convince any endurance athletes that complex carbs (whole grains included) are bad for your health, nutrition and training. I find it rather ironic that you mention health problems cropping up at the age of 40 while advocating the use of supplements and other "shortcut" products, and a diet rich in animal fats. 1. Can you explain why endurance athletes have a higher prevalence of markers of CVD and myocardial infarction/damage than the sedentary population then? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18426850 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19332846 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20150567 If it's not the exercise -- which is supposed to be healthy -- then it you'd better be damn sure it's the diet that's a problem. What else could it be? I would contend that chronic cardio is a significant problem as well but that's another topic altogether. 2. Way to straw man. I ONLY recommend supplements as supplements -- SUPPLEMENT to what you should already be doing which is eating healthy, training, sleeping well. I have stated this multiple times in this thread AND in the OP. 3. any cursory look at the literature -- you know the actual science -- shows that in sufficient large sample sizes (>25,000 people) saturated fat shows no increased risk of CVD. For example, http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/ajcn.2009.29146v1 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20071648 I find it ironic that people want to criticize what I am saying based upon no actual evidence other than "hey, this is what I was told in nutrition class" or "this is what the government says" without looking at the evidence themselves. Why not take the time and actually do some epidemiological and biochemical research instead of spouting off the garbage that everyone tells you. If reduction of SFA actually worked you'd see results. But the current model is trash because not only DOESN'T it work it actually exacerbates the conditions you are trying to prevent. Frankly, I think it's pretty embarrassing to criticize with no actual arguments supported by actual evidence. But hey, you can do what you want. /rant off | ||
|
funkie
Venezuela9377 Posts
It makes me horny for the gym.  | ||
|
cz
United States3249 Posts
On September 20 2010 00:45 eshlow wrote: 1. Can you explain why endurance athletes have a higher prevalence of markers of CVD and myocardial infarction/damage than the sedentary population then? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18426850 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19332846 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20150567 If it's not the exercise -- which is supposed to be healthy -- then it you'd better be damn sure it's the diet that's a problem. What else could it be? I would contend that chronic cardio is a significant problem as well but that's another topic altogether. 2. Way to straw man. I ONLY recommend supplements as supplements -- SUPPLEMENT to what you should already be doing which is eating healthy, training, sleeping well. I have stated this multiple times in this thread AND in the OP. 3. any cursory look at the literature -- you know the actual science -- shows that in sufficient large sample sizes (>25,000 people) saturated fat shows no increased risk of CVD. For example, http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/ajcn.2009.29146v1 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20071648 I find it ironic that people want to criticize what I am saying based upon no actual evidence other than "hey, this is what I was told in nutrition class" or "this is what the government says" without looking at the evidence themselves. Why not take the time and actually do some epidemiological and biochemical research instead of spouting off the garbage that everyone tells you. If reduction of SFA actually worked you'd see results. But the current model is trash because not only DOESN'T it work it actually exacerbates the conditions you are trying to prevent. Frankly, I think it's pretty embarrassing to criticize with no actual arguments supported by actual evidence. But hey, you can do what you want. /rant off Nothing ironic there. They are either being lazy or being hypocritical, but it's not an ironic situation. | ||
|
AoN.DimSum
United States2983 Posts
I am learning a lot too.Next saturday, I have a small meet at my gym that my coach is holding. My tune up yesterday I did 80/100, which is decent since I was really tired. And i Just remember i need to register for usaw again. I keep forgetting... | ||
|
cz
United States3249 Posts
| ||
|
cz
United States3249 Posts
On September 19 2010 15:41 RosaParksStoleMySeat wrote: Fallacy. If you want to attack his stance, attack his stance; not him. Gary happens to be a very well-known science journalist who has multiple publications. He read and comprehended a significant amount of literature on the subject, including much of what Dr. Atkins cited in his work. For your information, Darwin did his work with nothing more than a BS in a semi-relevant field. Fallacy of strawman. Taubes never states that the first law of thermodynamics is incorrect; he explains why the interpretation of it in modern dietary medicine is incorrect. Yet another fallacy. You are simply assuming that he was biased and only desired economic gain from this book, and that his points are therefore unreliable. Saying that his idea is nothing more than a political stance is actually pretty hilarious, considering the other side of this argument--the high carb people--are the ones publishing studies saying that HFCS is no worse than sucrose... studies funded by the Corn Farmers Coalition :\. Please read his book, and please go read something on the ketogenic diet if you want to attack either one. Citing a single critical review of his book and then stating "His work has been disproven!" is a pretty terrible way to argue. Any person standing against the masses will be attacked, just like Dr. Atkins was decades before him. I had to stop reading the Bray article at the third page, to be honest. He claims that Taubes never spoke about HDL/LDL cholesterol, which is simply untrue. As I sit here looking at my copy of the book, I can see where he clearly explains how foods rich in saturated fat slightly raise LDL cholesterol, and significantly increase HDL cholesterol. Taubes handled this point, but Bray seems to have overlooked it. You see, what everybody fails to explain when they promote a high-carbohydrate diet is why prehistoric humans were healthier than modern humans, yet had no carbohydrates.People will react to this by calling them largely active, they'll blame processed foods, or retarded vegetarians will try to claim that the prehistoric man was an herbivore. I am sure that the first two parts of these are true, but regardless of the fact that we survived off of bone marrow (an extremely fatty part of the animal), our dental structure was more solid, our bones were denser, and it is claimed that we were simply healthier overall. If you could explain to me why a high-fat low-carbohydrate diet would be detrimental to one's health, I would like to hear about it. Prehistoric humans were healthier and had no carbohydrates? Care to substantiate either of those claims? | ||
|
Ilikestarcraft
Korea (South)17743 Posts
http://journeytoforever.org/farm_library/price/pricetoc.html And i don't think he meant no carbs. Just lower than the what must people eat. All the vegetables and fruit you eat are carbohydrates. When people say low carb they mean stuff like staying away from refined white flour, jam, fruit juices, sweets, processed foods which makes most of the excess carbs in our diets. Also if you're going to mention how the avg life span of hunter-gatherer's was rather short. Read this http://www.marksdailyapple.com/paleo-lifespan/ | ||
|
AoN.DimSum
United States2983 Posts
All of the A sessions. Just click on the weight class you want to see. The number is not in Chinese and the videos are usually split into snatch and clean and jerk. (womens go by 48,53,58,63,69,75,75+) (mens is 56,62,69,77,85,94,105,105+) Only up to 56 for men and 53 for women i think. I watched the some of the 56 men and 53 women. An impressive lifter I watched was Chen xiaoting of the 53 womens group. She was VERY VERY fast under the bar and had a nice save on her 2nd snatch. I only saw her snatches though. Senior and junior records got smashed in the 48 womens session so I have to watch that later. It will probably be the most interesting if you are deciding what to watch. :D Very hard to watch in the USA..  I wish I had eurosport. | ||
|
ShaLLoW[baY]
Canada12499 Posts
Sweet mother of god. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
| ||
|
decafchicken
United States20168 Posts
Back felt good all week so i picked up where i left off with squats two weeks ago...without much success got 10x225 8x300 6x325 4x350 4x380 and 1.5x405 (out of 4 ) I guess i need to come to terms with the fact that i wont be able to lift like i did during the summer while i'm in season :-/Bench max has gone up like at least 20 pounds in the last week, i did 10x115, 8x180,6,x195,4x210,2x225,2x240 and 12/10/10 for wide grip pullups. It just hit me how much stronger my legs have gotten when i realized my second warm up set was 300 pounds T_T. Need to eat a lot more, i feel like i'm getting smaller and i'm down to 195-200 Oh and we won our rugby game 36-0 (no scores for me ) 3-0 baby!edit: other random thoughts: How the hell can i get faster? I've got an all around pretty strong lower body and damn good sprinting form, and am the second fastest kid on my team; i just don't have that "oh fuck nobody's catching him" speed Also, how do olympic lifts compare with plyometrics for training explosive movement? I like doing hang clean and jerks a lot more than box jumps lol andddddd i got a free consultation at a chiro tomorrow yay maybe my back will stop sucking | ||
|
Miss_Cleo
United States406 Posts
| ||
|
ShaLLoW[baY]
Canada12499 Posts
On September 20 2010 05:31 AoN.DimSum wrote: World Weightlifting Championships started last Friday and will end next Friday I think. I found these links on goheavy, http://web.search.cctv.com/prosearch.php?query=举重&q=举重&charset=utf-8 All of the A sessions. Just click on the weight class you want to see. The number is not in Chinese and the videos are usually split into snatch and clean and jerk. (womens go by 48,53,58,63,69,75,75+) (mens is 56,62,69,77,85,94,105,105+) Only up to 56 for men and 53 for women i think. I watched the some of the 56 men and 53 women. An impressive lifter I watched was Chen xiaoting of the 53 womens group. She was VERY VERY fast under the bar and had a nice save on her 2nd snatch. I only saw her snatches though. Senior and junior records got smashed in the 48 womens session so I have to watch that later. It will probably be the most interesting if you are deciding what to watch. :D Very hard to watch in the USA.. I wish I had eurosport.At about the 28:40 mark in the 62 men's, Ding Jianjun pulls off a wicked save, from what little I know of olympic lifting :p | ||
|
earti
Canada36 Posts
On September 20 2010 00:45 eshlow wrote: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18426850 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19332846 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20150567 If it's not the exercise -- which is supposed to be healthy -- then it you'd better be damn sure it's the diet that's a problem. What else could it be? I would contend that chronic cardio is a significant problem as well but that's another topic altogether. Actaully, it IS exercise (just too much, or too intesnse) [1]. If Endurance athletes are not trained sufficiently to be able to run a full marathon, and when they DO run a full marathon (especially at a competive pace), their body isn't used to it, causing an athlete to collapse. Then again, in order to run a maraton (let's say 10k), their training has to be able to run that 10k at a competive pace.[2] I can grab a buddy who's out of shape and say "Hey, I'll race you to the end of that block" and I "jog" at the exact same pace as that person to the end of the block, who's the one that is going to collapse? You can apply that to any race but on a larger scale. Same applies to any competition which involves people to push themselves to the limit. Especially at longer distances, overtaining can also be a factor as they don't allow themselves to recover fully, when there are still elevated amounts of troponin T. As for diet, I cannot conclusively say that there is a direct relationship between a normal carbrohydrate diet and increased CV diease during a marathon. It's like saying your car broke down because you put in the wrong type of gas (there can be other reasons why), whereas there can be other factors involved that isn't correlated without scientific data. What I can say that it is possible to run a marathon on either a ketonic or a normal carbrohydrate diet and found no sigificance on their performance, despite the author's hypothesis about ketonic diet actaully dimishing their performace.[3] In a broader point of view, it's still calories in and calories out (first law of thermodynamics). Hence, you cannot blindly say that because Endurance Athletes are more prone to CV disease just by their normal carbrohydrate diet. Endurance athletes, when on a competeive stage, are pushing themselves more than their body can handle. Their diet is what is driving them to perfrom at such levels. If what they ate still makes you think that causes it, well, the proof is in the pudding. + Show Spoiler + [1] G Whyite, M Sheppard, K George, R Shave et al "Post-mortem evidence of idiopathic left ventricular hypertrophy and idiopathic interstitial myocardial fibrosis: is exercise the cause?" British Journal of Sports Medicine. London: Apr 2008. Vol. 42, Iss. 4; pg. 304 [2] Lior Tolkin, Beth Goldstein, David Rott. "Elevation of Cardiac Troponin T after Running Is Not Limited to Marathon Runners" Cardiology. Basel: Jan 2009. Vol. 112, Iss. 3; p. 188 [3] J Weibel, T Glonek. "Ketone production in ultra marathon runners " Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness. Turin: Dec 2007. Vol. 47, Iss. 4; p. 491 | ||
|
ShaLLoW[baY]
Canada12499 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b343/Apok4lypse/2010-09-19200529.jpg) This is as far as they'll rotate inwards. This obviously causes a problem because when I go to clean with my elbows up and the weight resting on my shoulder/clavicle area, it's completely impossible for me to actually get the bar down there. edit: the question. right. HOW DO I FIX? edit 2: to clarify,+ Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b343/Apok4lypse/Picture2.jpg) My wrists will bend no further back, which I suppose is a flexibility issue, but also won't rotate any more inwards. | ||
| ||
