Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - freezerburn

Pages: [1] 2
Exercise / Bodybuilding / Re: Active rest
« on: February 21, 2013, 06:17:40 am »
Genetics stay the same from birth to death. So thing based on genetics (like the lenght of a muscle) do not change from external influences. Epigenetic changes are seen in thing like behaviour not physical changes.That is the only way to train with weights. If a movement is not full range(from fully stretched to fully contracted) it is of only very limited value.

People tend to underestimate epigenetic change.  Constant stretching will add sarcomeres to the length of muscle fibres (at the musculotendinous junction).  True: Albert Beckels could not develop biceps shaped like those of Sergio Oliva -even if he wanted to, but the fact that you bodybuild and see results falls under what scientists call epigenetic variation.  You could also train in a manner that would make you look like a runner.  I have taken myself through various changes.  I have very significantly raised my VO2 max capacity to elite athlete standards (something some people say trained athletes can not really do) and I have also been a strong mutant overgrown beast incapable of running more than a couple of blocks.  We have the ability to turn on genes.  The correct stress will do....within genetic limitations ;)

Exercise / Bodybuilding / Re: Moving like a caveman?
« on: February 21, 2013, 06:00:30 am »
I remember running around as a kid always barefoot in the summers.  Maybe put our shoes on if we were going to ride our bikes.  I remembering running barefoot on our gravel driveway without an issue.  Damn if I can barely walk on gravel now without looking like I'm injured or something....

Primal Diet / Re: Raw chocolate pudding! or Mousse
« on: November 30, 2012, 02:22:26 am »
I agree, and I am not really trying to claim any benefits of chocolate -d

I really like and prefer the original recipe with papaya but finding organic papaya sucks where I live.  I find this choco desert does allow me to not remotely miss real mousse au chocolat.  Chocolate is my achilles -[

Hot Topics / Re: Only 1% of our operating system DNA is human
« on: November 29, 2012, 12:30:39 am »
This is quite funny to me as I was lecturing this very thing to my biology 11 class two days ago...wish I had this link!

Primal Diet / Re: Raw chocolate pudding! or Mousse
« on: November 28, 2012, 02:15:28 am »
How is this SAD, it is all raw?

Primal Diet / Raw chocolate pudding! or Mousse
« on: November 24, 2012, 06:06:01 am »
OK, here is a recipe I modified that was an AV custard:

Chocolate Mousse

3 eggs
3 T honey
2 T raw cocoa powder
4 T butter

Add contents to high power blender - and blend at highest speed until frothy.
Pour into small desert dishes and set in fridge for at least 4 hours.  Feel free to adjust to taste :)

The wrong forum here bud.  Raw testicles for you.  As much as you can eat :)

Really this should be a thread in another section (feel free moderators) but an interesting more recent article from Nature reads:

Gut microbial 'enterotypes' become less clear-cut
Communities of gut bacteria may form a spectrum rather than falling into distinct groups.

Ed Yong
21 March 2012

Article tools
rights and permissions
Each of us has trillions of bacteria in our guts. These communities vary greatly between individuals, but a paper published in Nature last year1 indicated that they fall into just three distinct types — enterotypes — defined by their bacterial composition (see ‘Gut study divides people into three types’). Each enterotype is characterized by relatively high levels of a single microbial genus: Bacteroides, Prevotella, or Ruminococcus, respectively.

But new data presented at the International Human Microbiome Congress in Paris yesterday suggest that the boundaries between the enterotypes may be fuzzier than the earlier work suggested.

The bacterial communities in your gut may not fall into one of three distinct groups.
Manimozhiyan Arumugam at the European Molecular Biology Laboratory in Heidelberg, Germany, an author on the original enterotype paper, revealed that the team has repeated the analysis with 663 Danish and Spanish adults, many more people than the original cohort of 39.

The results, as yet unpublished, show that a genus of archaea called Methanobrevibacter joins Ruminococcus as a defining microbe in the third enterotype. And the separation between this cluster and the Bacteroides-led enterotype is no longer as clear, although these two groups remain distinct from the Prevotella-driven one.

Breaking down the boundaries even further, Dan Knights, a computational biologist at the University of Colorado at Boulder, told the conference that discrete enterotypes may not exist at all. His team has sequenced the gut microbes of more than 1,200 adults and found a continuum of communities, from Bacteroides-driven ones at one end to Prevotella-driven ones at the other. His results have been submitted to PLoS Computational Biology.

Communities or gradients?
Related stories
Social network wants to sequence your gut
Enterotypes of the human gut microbiome
Gut study divides people into three types
More related stories
“Discrete clustering of gut microbial communities is a very strong claim. Unfortunately, there is a lack of strong evidence [for it],” says Knights. “There’s a gradient and the enterotypes are concentrated areas within that. It’s not discrete like a blood type.”

But most people in Knights’ study fall at the extreme ends of his gradient, defined by Bacteroides and Prevotella, respectively. “The boundaries may be blurred but the differences between the extremes are still there. They’re different ecosystems,” says Jeroen Raes, a co-author on the Nature paper, who is now at the research institute VIB in Ghent, Belgium.

Dusko Ehrlich, another author on the Nature paper, still firmly believes in the concept. “These guys convinced everyone that enterotypes are real after long and hard struggles. Now, we can debate how deep the divide is.”

Rob Knight from the University of Colorado in Boulder, who was involved in Knights’ study, says, “There’s this great diversity and we all agree that reducing that complexity and linking it to clinical traits is really important. The disagreement’s about what the actual structure is.”

This disagreement matters because enterotypes might eventually affect how we weigh a person’s risk of disease, or their response to different drugs. Last year, a study in Science found that the Bacteroides enterotype was associated with diets high in fat or protein, whereas the Prevotella enterotype was associated with a high-carbohydrate diet2. And at the conference Oluf Pedersen, a molecular geneticist from the Steno Diabetes Center in Gentofte, Denmark, presented data showing that obese and “metabolically unhealthy” people tend to have the Bacteroides enterotype.

Arumugam says, “Even if these groups aren’t discrete, if there’s biological meaning to the separation, I’m happy.”

The issue will only be resolved with larger studies that include more populations, such as South Americans and Africans. “We’re at a very early stage of exploration,” says Knight. “In early maps of the United States, we see California as an island separated from the mainland. Likewise, we’re starting to get outlines of how microbial communities are distributed, but we don’t have the equivalent of GPS where we can see everything.”

Raes also wants to understand whether our gut microbes change over time. If one enterotype can change into another, this may explain why some communities fall between them. “We need more longitudinal studies to see if enterotypes are more like enterostates,” he says.

Nature doi:10.1038/nature.2012.10276

That's mighty interesting Freezerburn.

How I got into diet in the first place was because a naturopath put me on a 3 week cleansing diet that changed my entire personality and life almost over night. Then another alternative doctor figured out that I had a very bad candida problem (why the diet worked like it did) from many years on broad-spectrum antibiotics as a child so I dosed myself massively with all sorts of different probiotics constantly for many years and I still love bacteria-rich foods. I worked very hard at rebuilding my gut flora. I ate foods to feed the flora and cut out foods I thought would hurt my flora.

The microbial community that lived in my gut was well-fed, reinforced, loved and deeply appreciated and I bet it did grow to be bacteria that would flourish with a plant-based diet. I wouldn't be surprised if that had something to do with my success.

If I ate simple sugars though it would mess things up so I'm wondering about that Type 1 category. Complex carbs were always fine but eating even a tiny bit of processed sugar would throw me for a big loop in my gut and my whole body, too much sweet fruit was always bad - a little here and there ok. With my present diet I eat berries as my main fruit/carb source (but have to be careful not to over-do even these - or I would like to eat nothing but berries and nuts all the time) and greens/veggies were a perfect fit always making me feel good. Animal foods for me (probably because my gut flora has been built up so many years for the above diet?)  are not my main food source and it feels very wrong when I attempt to make them so. They are important to be included - but they are not the bulk of my diet. It makes me wonder if it's simply because my gut community isn't of that enterotype or broader factors?

What is interesting is that the enterotype is not necessarily in fixed proportions and it is dynamic and can have many other bacterial groups in higher proportions.  Say you eat sucrose, then you will favor certain microbes.  Eat fruit higher in fructose, you would favor other microbes all present in that typical enterotype community. 

Really, I think this study is really just a gateway that might help us understand why some dietary changes are so beneficial.  This also sheds light on why various endemic peoples have experienced success of very different diets.  We are so quick to assume it is genetics or epigenetics, when in fact it may be a microbial answer.... or a combination of all of the above!!!

Freezerburn, can you offer any books, articles or links regarding the different gut ecosystems?

The info is quite new and is not in any books that I am aware of.  Do a search of "enterotypes" and you will have access to 'some' of the research.   You will mostly find abstracts and reviews of the scientific study that was done. 

An enterotype refers to a gut ecosystem that is characterized by very different microbial communities in the gut.   The three entertypes they found were Type I Bacteroides (found in diets high in protein and sat fat), Type II Prevotella (diets high in simple sugars and carbs - vegetarians and frugivores) and Type III Ruminococcus (diets high in sat fats and alcohol!).  To me this study is a great starting point and could prove very useful in understanding gut mediated disease....LOL most disease.

I never was anything like DR when vegan. I keep on wondering what the difference was?

I wonder if it's something about b12. I wonder if I was able to make my own or something. What I don't understand is how they can't recognize it in themselves or others that something is wrong.

When I started hanging out on a raw vegan forum I became flabbergasted at the denial. People would say things like I'm getting tingling down my arms, I'm depressed, I can't think straight, I'm not sleeping, I'm having trouble with this and that, my teeth are rotting etc. and still not question their diets.

The difference here is the questioning. I don't see people here experiencing negatives and going into denial about it and keep on doing what they are doing anyway. It's because for most here it doesn't seem to be a strong belief system running their actions and no guru pushing them forward into denial. It's experimenting and seeing what works best. That might have been the difference between me and them earlier too as that's how I've always approached diet. There were no gurus when I started experimenting with eating raw foods. I think all these gurus these days can be pretty detrimental and perhaps the most detrimental of all of them is DR imho. He teaches people to deny what their bodies tell them and push ahead in spite of it.

It is possible that the microflora in your gut were able to synthesize a moderate amount of B12.  There has been some pretty exciting work done on the different microbial ecosystems that establish in people with different diets.  Unfortunately the studies have not included individuals following a raw paleo diet, nor did they include studies of the Inuit.  But, the basic findings within the general population were that there are three typical ecosystems that seem to be established with fairly typical diets, where the diet leads to the ecosystem that gets established.  The balance in this ecosystem can be changed fairly quickly in response to a change in diet.  About 500 different species of microbes have been identified that function in the intestines.

Exercise / Bodybuilding / Re: strength increase = muscle increase?
« on: May 26, 2012, 12:11:32 pm »
If it works for you, it works for you.  I would say don't throw unassisted squats out the window though.  The smith is really not a lot different than doing a machine hack squat, which I have had much success with in my old days of huge ;)

Exercise / Bodybuilding / Re: diabetes and bodybuilding
« on: May 25, 2012, 11:31:45 pm »
Im type II brother burn!  I like that screen name! lol Ok thanks for the info and ill check your friend out,definetly will be an inspiration for me.Can i call you brother Burn?

I like it :)

There is much info about improving insulin sensitivity.  Take a look into leptin as well.  That you are on this forum makes me think you will find your way with much success.  This is my favorite lurk zone.

Exercise / Bodybuilding / Re: strength increase = muscle increase?
« on: May 25, 2012, 11:25:58 pm »
Limited range of motion during any type of exercise produces limetid range results. You only get stronger in the position you exercise and a narrow area arount that. Go for full range exercise for full range benefits. Focus on the position of maximum contraction, only there will you aver contract the largest possible number of fibers similtaniously.

Completely true. 

Furthermore, applying high forces in extreme ranges of motion increase the number of sarcomeres and stimulate the muscle fibers to GROW longer so they can generate greater forces at these extreme ranges...this has to do with how the actin and myosin filaments overlap (kind of like having more oars in the water).  Also, rate of contraction is important, if you move the weight too quickly with improper form, you end up using momentum to move past a weak spot.  Funny though, trying to move the weight at a maximal rate fires the most fibers.  This is why maximal loads are required so you can not generate enough momentum to coast past the weak range of motion.

Exercise / Bodybuilding / Re: diabetes and bodybuilding
« on: May 25, 2012, 03:56:07 am »
You never stated if you are type I or II.  I presume type II.  Both proper diet and exercise can reverse type II, not to the point where you can go back to eating shit but to the point where you will be asymptomatic and not at risk from crazy blood glucose levels.

Type I, insulin dependent is a greater challenge.  Some bodybuilders of the past have been very successful as diabetics also because of the way insulin is quite anabolic (and anticatabolic).  One of my friends is insulin dependent and was a very successful downhill mountainbike racer and is known as the godfather of freeriding - Wade Simmons.  Google him and check how unlimited he is.....

Exercise / Bodybuilding / Re: strength increase = muscle increase?
« on: May 25, 2012, 01:59:44 am »
Uh - oh. So it won't work for me as a woman?  ;)  ???  >D

After HIT you will be able to pee standing up and write your name ;)

Exercise / Bodybuilding / Re: strength increase = muscle increase?
« on: May 25, 2012, 12:44:41 am »

One of the things I've noticed about myself is that my body has always reacted so quickly to weight lifting and physical conditioning that if I go too fast I get freaked out by the changes in my body. I feel like a different person just working out for a few weeks straight - so I will have to get past that emotional barrier and make sure I go slow enough - that is - if things are like they used to be in that regard. I usually give up any workout routine because of boredom or because it works so fast and I change too quickly.

Building big muscles isn't important but fine if it happens. Strength, power are my main desires. Stamina I  have enough of.

Ha, it is funny how we often get scared by our own success!

One great thing about HIT is that you don't spend hours upon hours of useless time in the gym.  I strongly suggest you take up a circuit type or routine initially that focuses on form, range of motion and no rest between sets or exercises that trains the whole body.  This gives you lots of time for other fun activities or other types of training.

Really, you only need about one HIT workout a week.  It is not a breeze.  Most people buckle after their 4th exercise :O

Look up the Colorado experiment conducted by Arthur Jones  with Casey Viator - transformation in one month!  View with a modicum of skepticism...

When looking into various HIT routines, find one that you like and go for it.  It would be valuable to hove someone their to motivate you the first few times so you actually push yourself to your real limits. 

With regards to bone demineralization, a sound training regimen will stimulate hormonal mechanisms that will stimulate an increase in bone density. 

Good luck :)

Exercise / Bodybuilding / Re: strength increase = muscle increase?
« on: May 24, 2012, 11:31:35 pm »

I agree with that observation. However i's like to add to that that there are very few sports were weight is as much an issue as is often believed. Genectic freaks being far stronger than most people even at much less mucle mass dominate all sports. Seeing those leightweight genetically superior people win gold medals motivates people to not use weight training. This however is a imo a big mistake because the genetically gifted have even more to gain than the avarage joe. Imagine those already superior atletes taking there sport to a whole new level by means of proper exercise. I dont think we have seen the true limits of human ability in any sport and i think that all current doped records can be broken by genetically gifted, superior athletes using weight training properly without any chemicall aids.

Events where weight class is important is one thing to consider but also sports where agility prevails is another.  I am speaking from experience here.  I used to compete as a pro/elite cyclist in downhill mountain bike racing.  I was a top 10 ranked Canadian cyclist in the sport.  I was the biggest and strongest relatively in  my event.  I would start the season at near 200lbs (90kilos) and at my strongest (with a strong endurance base).  I was deadlifting around 500 lbs, benching over 300 and running a 10km race at 38minutes.  I was about mid pack in my results among my fellow competitors.  By the end of race season I was down around 180 lbs, a bit weaker, but had much more relative strength and power.  I wasn't lifting heavy but I would do sets of 60 repetitions of  225lb full squats.  The periodization of my training was very important as I would peak for the end of the year.

I find that you think that barbells made the kettlebells obsolete funny as they are a relatively new tool - not much more than 100 years old.  The first sanctioned kettlebell event was in 1986.  I have been training for about 30 years and have found benefits that barbells or machines simply can not provide.  I do not assert that they are the best way to train, but they are the best at some things, as are free weights for some movements, and well designed machines :)

I think you should give them a try.  Most trainees report a significant boost in their deadlift and an improved grip strength.  Youtube Valerey Fedorenko and see the rather humbling feats of athleticism.  (Although you won't find his build to your tastes ;)

PS don't over specialize on HIT ;)

Exercise / Bodybuilding / Re: strength increase = muscle increase?
« on: May 24, 2012, 04:32:28 am »
A well designed and properly executed hit program will produce great increases in strength, power, mass, flexibility and cardiovascular condition and metabolic condition. It is neither necessary not desirable to train those separate. In fact doing so will greatly reduce total overall results.

When training optimum for strength it is impossible to not greatly improve on all fronts. however very few people are willing to work as hard as is required. intensity is sacrificed and wrongly replaced by increased volumes of training. I've exercised with a lot of people and all of them without exception could do at least another for reps when they were absolutely convinced they reached momentary muscular failure. The body is desperately trying to prevent you working that hard. When and if you learn to overcome those barriers true exercise is possible and the results better than anything you ever thought possible.

I agree as long as the goal is size and strength.  For various types of sport, however this does not apply.  Sports where body weight is a concern, hypertrophy can be a detriment.  However for maximum strength, you are going to want as much size as possible.

Exercise / Bodybuilding / Re: strength increase = muscle increase?
« on: May 23, 2012, 11:58:53 pm »
Would you please give us examples of strength building exercises vs muscle building exercises --- or programs. Thanks.

First we must be defining strength the same way.  Strength is defined as the maximum force that one can generate.  It differs from power as speed is not really a component of brute strength.  Endurance is the number of time one can perform a movement sequentially.  Typical strength programs are low in reps (like 2-4), from  85 - 95% of one rep maximums and have a flat pyramid of repetitive sets done with long breaks.  These focus on the (CP)creatine phosphate pathways of energy and ATP battery, and do not tax the other systems such as the lactic acid anaerobic pathways. 

Power training often is very short in duration and also predominantly CP pathway but uses much lighter weight where speed is focused on.  Similarly long rests between sets.  Neuromuscular co-ordination is improved here and strength gains will occur.

Bodybuilding routines focus often on time under contraction with high loads or tension.  Theses programs train many systems.  Some such as HIT have far more benefits than your typical 3 day split, three exercises per body part, 5 sets per exercise paradigm.  A HIT program is often only one work out a week and is full body, every set to the max, reps ranging from 8 -20 per set, pretty much no rest between sets. It is old-school and not for pussies.

I am presently working with kettlebells and am loving them but they have more of an athletic mobility and muscular endurance component than a bodybuilding program.  I choose HIT for my regular routines.  Some people believe HIT is to hard year round, probably because it is so demanding and requires 100% effort every time you train. 

If you want to do complex routines that hit all of the systems, do power training first, then strength, then endurance last.  Often athletes will periodize their programs throughout the year and focus on strength for a period of time, then switch to a power focus, then maybe to a power endurance focus, and then lastly to an endurance focus, then reduce the training and peak for a particular event.

Hope you are confused enough :)

Primal Diet / Re: 100% Primal Diet Bodybuilding
« on: May 23, 2012, 05:16:03 am »
Ah, the old, very old nature vs nurture argument.  Both always apply.  Our absolute natural limits are determined by our DNA, but how do we define these limits?  Our DNA acts as a template of potential, the environment is the stimulus to realize this potential.  The environment includes everything from food, exercise, sleep, hormonal response and when all of these things take place.  These things can also affect when certain genes are turned on.  Maybe it will be discovered that pre-puberty exercise stimulus is important for particular types of development or physical endowment.  Is hyperplasia possible etc?

It is silly to think that we all have the same potential with regards to strength and size, but it is more silly to think that we can not all be bigger and stronger:)

Exercise / Bodybuilding / Re: strength increase = muscle increase?
« on: May 23, 2012, 02:40:11 am »
Almost all strength gains early on in training programs are neuromuscular, i.e. they have to do more with the training of firing motor units (groups of muscle fibers) than and increase in size of the muscle fibres.  BTW, a muscle fiber is the same as a muscle cell. 

After most neuromusclular adaptation takes place (within the first three months) then hypertrophy (cell size increase) takes place.  Various programs can focus on size, or strength.  A bodybuilding program will increase size faster but a strength program will increase strength faster. 

Truth: an individual focusing on strength will be stronger than one focusing on size after 6 months of training.  The strength trained athlete will still gain mass, but the mass will be associated with mostly contractile proteins (actin/myosin).  A bodybuilding focus causes cell size increases by increases in the contractile proteins as well as other proteins, increases in mytochondria, increases in other substances such as creatine and glycogen.


Do animals happen to eat high meat or only raw fresh one?

The most excited I have seen bears (polar and grizzly) has been over rotting whale carcasses.  Hell, they roll in the carcass.  I'm quite sure they are a tad more sensitive with regards to the types of bacteria growing on the meat. 

Primal Diet / Re: custard
« on: March 02, 2012, 12:10:55 am »
finally got my hands on some papayas and tried aajonuses custard recipe. This is the best thing I have tasted since going raw. 2 eggs, 4tbsp butter, quarter papaya, and 2 tbsp honey. I think it is actually the best thing i have tasted in my life.

And I just tried this with mango last night.  So good!

I see there being a bit more benefit with papaya and pineapple because of their proteolytic enzymes, but what a great recipe even with mango.

Primal Diet / Re: Longterm Primal dieters?
« on: February 23, 2012, 06:17:18 am »
What do you mean by cosmetic?

You know, not to be eaten;) LOL

Pages: [1] 2
SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk