PDA

View Full Version : more on sarcomere /fast twitch misunderstandings


Hal
November 21st 04, 05:11 AM
Okay I still dont quit get it.
I am wondering why sprinters are all bulked up, if that muscle
hypertrophy they sport is useless and sarcoplasmic as vusially
perceptable hypertrophy is touted to be. Is the muscles they have
useless? If so, why doesnt a sarcomere sprinter come in and kick their
ass because of less wind resistance and less fluid weight in the
fibres?

The cheetah is the fastest animal on earth (sprinting) and they are
not the most muscular, however, a full grown male chimpanzee is as
much as five times as strong as any human being alive and they top out
at 200lbs. I once saw a video slip of a chimp that lost all of its
hair and let me tell a new word needs to be made up because buff falls
far short of describing this animals musculature.

Anyways, could it be that the line between sarcomere and sarcoplasmic
is not so easily drawn and that there is considerable greay area?
If I want to proressively weight train and I am able to continually
increas my 6-10 rep max am I not gaining strength, but recruitment?

How many seconds should I be able to carry my max weight in the
farmers walk to promote true strength development?

Is it all so cut and dry? I want to be big but not inflated I want the
majority of my size to be functional, as I believe the chimps is. Yes
I am emulaTING a chimpanzee.

thanks for endarkening me about this all info apreciated

elzinator
November 21st 04, 02:34 PM
On 20 Nov 2004 21:11:26 -0800, Hal wrote:
>Okay I still dont quit get it.
>I am wondering why sprinters are all bulked up, if that muscle
>hypertrophy they sport is useless and sarcoplasmic as vusially
>perceptable hypertrophy is touted to be. Is the muscles they have
>useless? If so, why doesnt a sarcomere sprinter come in and kick their
>ass because of less wind resistance and less fluid weight in the
>fibres?

I don't think you know what you are talking about.
Sprinters have larger leg muscles because they have more and larger
(cross-section) fast-twitch fibers which they need for power. That's
what sprinting is: power.

>The cheetah is the fastest animal on earth (sprinting) and they are
>not the most muscular, however, a full grown male chimpanzee is as
>much as five times as strong as any human being alive and they top out
>at 200lbs. I once saw a video slip of a chimp that lost all of its
>hair and let me tell a new word needs to be made up because buff falls
>far short of describing this animals musculature.

Cheetah is biomechanically suited to sprint. Its more than just about
muscle fibers, it's also bone, connective tissue, size and how it's
all put together. Go to a zoo and evaluate their anatomy.

Non-human primates are also biomechanically suited for strength,
despite that they also have more lean body mass per area than humans.
Again, its a function of more than just muscle.

>Anyways, could it be that the line between sarcomere and sarcoplasmic
>is not so easily drawn and that there is considerable greay area?
>If I want to proressively weight train and I am able to continually
>increas my 6-10 rep max am I not gaining strength, but recruitment?
>
>How many seconds should I be able to carry my max weight in the
>farmers walk to promote true strength development?
>
>Is it all so cut and dry? I want to be big but not inflated I want the
>majority of my size to be functional, as I believe the chimps is. Yes
>I am emulaTING a chimpanzee.

Then use low reps rather than high reps. Low reps train specifically
for power and strength without the hypertrophy that results from the
higher rep regimens.

>thanks for endarkening me about this all info apreciated

Are you a troll, or what?


---------------
My give-a-**** meter is broken.

Lee Michaels
November 21st 04, 04:51 PM
"elzinator" > wrote
>
> Cheetah is biomechanically suited to sprint. Its more than just about
> muscle fibers, it's also bone, connective tissue, size and how it's
> all put together. Go to a zoo and evaluate their anatomy.
>

I saw a show on cheetahs the other day.

One interesting item was that cheetah's claws do not retract. They are out
there in the fully extended postion all the time. Makes for super traction
when running.

elzinator
November 21st 04, 05:21 PM
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 16:51:04 GMT, Lee Michaels wrote:
>
>"elzinator" > wrote
>>
>> Cheetah is biomechanically suited to sprint. Its more than just about
>> muscle fibers, it's also bone, connective tissue, size and how it's
>> all put together. Go to a zoo and evaluate their anatomy.
>>
>
>I saw a show on cheetahs the other day.
>
>One interesting item was that cheetah's claws do not retract. They are out
>there in the fully extended postion all the time. Makes for super traction
>when running.

"One difference is that cheetahs evolved much earlier than other large
cats, arising from a cat-like mammal that lived about 4 million years
ago. As a result, their bodies are different from lions, tigers, and
other great cats in many ways. Cheetah claws, for instance, don't
retract like a house cat's, in part because the cheetah needs the
extra traction during high-speed sprints. Similarly, cheetahs don't
growl. They hiss or give a bird-like chirp instead, because they lack
the vocal anatomy to roar.

The cheetah is indeed adapted for speed and power in many ways.
Most importantly, cheetah bodies are uniquely built for speed. Their
small heads offer little wind resistance, while their exceptionally
long legs allow them to take huge strides. During sprints, the cheetah
spine acts like a giant spring, storing energy that can be released in
explosive surges. And the cheetah's enlarged heart, lungs, and liver
help deliver bursts of oxygen and energy, while specially ridged foot
pads help provide traction, much like a car's tire. Such adaptations
"make cheetahs the elite race cars of the animal world," says Don
Person, a Dutch biologist who has studied cheetahs in East Africa.
'They are speed demons.' "
(from http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/cheetahs/fast.html )

also see:
http://www.bluelion.org/lowgraphiccheetah.htm

For a good discussion of leg anatomy (and function), see the site
below (click on Empowered Locomotion)

http://www.oricomtech.com/projects/leg-comp.htm

BTW, check this out (I wasn't sure if I should laugh or swear)

"When the cheetah anatomy is examined it can be seen that all its
bones and muscles have been designed in such a way as to produce a
sprinter capable of the same swift acceleration as the fastest motor
vehicles, and possessing perfect balance and maneuverability. In the
same way, everyone who looks at a racing car can clearly see that it
has been designed for speed. Nobody could possibly claim that this car
emerged as the result of natural processes. In the same way that the
car has a designer, so does the cheetah. Scientific findings show that
the design in living things is far more complicated than any man-made
design. This naturally confirms the fact of creation. There is no
doubt that God created the cheetah."

BWAAHAHAHAHHAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!! <cough, sputter, ahem, roll eyes and
sigh>

---------------
My give-a-**** meter is broken.

Lyle McDonald
November 21st 04, 05:35 PM
elzinator wrote:


> "When the cheetah anatomy is examined it can be seen that all its
> bones and muscles have been designed in such a way as to produce a
> sprinter capable of the same swift acceleration as the fastest motor
> vehicles, and possessing perfect balance and maneuverability. In the
> same way, everyone who looks at a racing car can clearly see that it
> has been designed for speed. Nobody could possibly claim that this car
> emerged as the result of natural processes. In the same way that the
> car has a designer, so does the cheetah. Scientific findings show that
> the design in living things is far more complicated than any man-made
> design. This naturally confirms the fact of creation. There is no
> doubt that God created the cheetah."
>
> BWAAHAHAHAHHAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!! <cough, sputter, ahem, roll eyes and
> sigh>

yeah, well ignoring that last bit of idiocy, the above analysis holds
for all animals, all of whom have evolved over millions/billions of
years to fulfill their niche as well as they can. This is what happens
when you impose specific selection pressures over a long enough time period.

Frogs are built to jump. Everything about their muscle fibers,
biomechanics, nervous system, etc is optimized to be able to jump once,
be good at it, recover and do it again.

Meaning that, clearly, cows have been optimized to make a tasty burger.

etc.

Lyle

Hal
November 21st 04, 06:08 PM
(Hal) wrote in message >...
> Okay I still dont quit get it.
> I am wondering why sprinters are all bulked up, if that muscle
> hypertrophy they sport is useless and sarcoplasmic as vusially
> perceptable hypertrophy is touted to be. Is the muscles they have
> useless? If so, why doesnt a sarcomere sprinter come in and kick their
> ass because of less wind resistance and less fluid weight in the
> fibres?
>
> The cheetah is the fastest animal on earth (sprinting) and they are
> not the most muscular, however, a full grown male chimpanzee is as
> much as five times as strong as any human being alive and they top out
> at 200lbs. I once saw a video slip of a chimp that lost all of its
> hair and let me tell a new word needs to be made up because buff falls
> far short of describing this animals musculature.
>
> Anyways, could it be that the line between sarcomere and sarcoplasmic
> is not so easily drawn and that there is considerable greay area?
> If I want to proressively weight train and I am able to continually
> increas my 6-10 rep max am I not gaining strength, but recruitment?
>
> How many seconds should I be able to carry my max weight in the
> farmers walk to promote true strength development?
>
> Is it all so cut and dry? I want to be big but not inflated I want the
> majority of my size to be functional, as I believe the chimps is. Yes
> I am emulaTING a chimpanzee.
>
> thanks for endarkening me about this all info apreciated

BTW by top out at 200lbs I mean their body weight

http://www.blackpineanimalpark.com/Animals/chimps.htm ...Colby the
chimp here seems to weight 160lbs and have the streingth of six adult
men.

Chimpanzee Flexing its Muscles
http://www.art.com/asp/sp.asp?PD=10114474&RFID=765667#

multiple sources tell me that due to greater density to weight ration
of Chimp musculoskeletal structure their strength is indeed 6-10 times
that of a human.

aj
November 21st 04, 06:26 PM
On 2004-11-21, Hal > wrote:
> (Hal) wrote in message >...
>> Okay I still dont quit get it.
>> I am wondering why sprinters are all bulked up, if that muscle
>> hypertrophy they sport is useless and sarcoplasmic as vusially
>> perceptable hypertrophy is touted to be. Is the muscles they have
>> useless? If so, why doesnt a sarcomere sprinter come in and kick their
>> ass because of less wind resistance and less fluid weight in the
>> fibres?
>>
>> The cheetah is the fastest animal on earth (sprinting) and they are
>> not the most muscular, however, a full grown male chimpanzee is as
>> much as five times as strong as any human being alive and they top out
>> at 200lbs. I once saw a video slip of a chimp that lost all of its
>> hair and let me tell a new word needs to be made up because buff falls
>> far short of describing this animals musculature.
>>
>> Anyways, could it be that the line between sarcomere and sarcoplasmic
>> is not so easily drawn and that there is considerable greay area?
>> If I want to proressively weight train and I am able to continually
>> increas my 6-10 rep max am I not gaining strength, but recruitment?
>>
>> How many seconds should I be able to carry my max weight in the
>> farmers walk to promote true strength development?
>>
>> Is it all so cut and dry? I want to be big but not inflated I want the
>> majority of my size to be functional, as I believe the chimps is. Yes
>> I am emulaTING a chimpanzee.
>>
>> thanks for endarkening me about this all info apreciated
>
> BTW by top out at 200lbs I mean their body weight
>
> http://www.blackpineanimalpark.com/Animals/chimps.htm ...Colby the
> chimp here seems to weight 160lbs and have the streingth of six adult
> men.
>
> Chimpanzee Flexing its Muscles
> http://www.art.com/asp/sp.asp?PD=10114474&RFID=765667#
>
> multiple sources tell me that due to greater density to weight ration
> of Chimp musculoskeletal structure their strength is indeed 6-10 times
> that of a human.

Does "the strength of 6 or 7 adult men" mean like "the strength of 2-3
mfw'ers"?

--
-aj

Hal
November 21st 04, 10:20 PM
elzinator > wrote in message >...
> On 20 Nov 2004 21:11:26 -0800, Hal wrote:
> >Okay I still dont quit get it.
> >I am wondering why sprinters are all bulked up, if that muscle
> >hypertrophy they sport is useless and sarcoplasmic as vusially
> >perceptable hypertrophy is touted to be. Is the muscles they have
> >useless? If so, why doesnt a sarcomere sprinter come in and kick their
> >ass because of less wind resistance and less fluid weight in the
> >fibres?
>
> I don't think you know what you are talking about.
> Sprinters have larger leg muscles because they have more and larger
> (cross-section) fast-twitch fibers which they need for power. That's
> what sprinting is: power.

Yhey have larger upper bodies as well. Ah but i DO know what Im
talking about. Sarcomere hypertrophy, the kind which is necessary for
increased POWER, is not supposed to result in visually perceptable
bulk, but sprinters are visually perceptable to be bulkified. If this
bulk is useless, then one with less bulk would obviously be winning
all the races (albeit by fractions of seconds) because of less wind
resistance and perhaps by having less fluid retention in the spaces
between muscle fibres, I.E. sarcoplasmic hypertrophy.

> >The cheetah is the fastest animal on earth (sprinting) and they are
> >not the most muscular, however, a full grown male chimpanzee is as
> >much as five times as strong as any human being alive and they top out
> >at 200lbs. I once saw a video slip of a chimp that lost all of its
> >hair and let me tell a new word needs to be made up because buff falls
> >far short of describing this animals musculature.
>
> Cheetah is biomechanically suited to sprint. Its more than just about
> muscle fibers, it's also bone, connective tissue, size and how it's
> all put together. Go to a zoo and evaluate their anatomy.

I'll buy that, but not before you haggle with me a bit.

> Non-human primates are also biomechanically suited for strength,
> despite that they also have more lean body mass per area than humans.
> Again, its a function of more than just muscle.

Agreed but muscle is part of it.

> >Anyways, could it be that the line between sarcomere and sarcoplasmic
> >is not so easily drawn and that there is considerable greay area?
> >If I want to proressively weight train and I am able to continually
> >increas my 6-10 rep max am I not gaining strength, but recruitment?
> >
> >How many seconds should I be able to carry my max weight in the
> >farmers walk to promote true strength development?
> >
> >Is it all so cut and dry? I want to be big but not inflated I want the
> >majority of my size to be functional, as I believe the chimps is. Yes
> >I am emulaTING a chimpanzee.
>
> Then use low reps rather than high reps. Low reps train specifically
> for power and strength without the hypertrophy that results from the
> higher rep regimens.

Power and strength withour hypertrophy, a contradiction considering
you referred to sprinter's legs as having more and larger fast twitch
muscle fibre in cross section in order to generate POWER, which sounds
like hypertrphy to me. Again I ask, anyone out there who doesnt buy
this cut and dry distinction between sarcomere and sarcoplasmis
hypertrphy?

> >thanks for endarkening me about this all info apreciated
>
> Are you a troll, or what?

Im what. Was a troll a few years ago but gave it up to persue method
acting.
>
>
> ---------------
> My give-a-**** meter is broken.

Lee Michaels
November 21st 04, 11:24 PM
"elzinator" wrote

> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 16:51:04 GMT, Lee Michaels wrote:
> >
> >"elzinator" > wrote
> >>
> >> Cheetah is biomechanically suited to sprint. Its more than just about
> >> muscle fibers, it's also bone, connective tissue, size and how it's
> >> all put together. Go to a zoo and evaluate their anatomy.
> >>
> >
> >I saw a show on cheetahs the other day.
> >
> >One interesting item was that cheetah's claws do not retract. They are
out
> >there in the fully extended postion all the time. Makes for super
traction
> >when running.
>
> "One difference is that cheetahs evolved much earlier than other large
> cats, arising from a cat-like mammal that lived about 4 million years
> ago. As a result, their bodies are different from lions, tigers, and
> other great cats in many ways. Cheetah claws, for instance, don't
> retract like a house cat's, in part because the cheetah needs the
> extra traction during high-speed sprints. Similarly, cheetahs don't
> growl. They hiss or give a bird-like chirp instead, because they lack
> the vocal anatomy to roar.
>
> The cheetah is indeed adapted for speed and power in many ways.
> Most importantly, cheetah bodies are uniquely built for speed. Their
> small heads offer little wind resistance, while their exceptionally
> long legs allow them to take huge strides. During sprints, the cheetah
> spine acts like a giant spring, storing energy that can be released in
> explosive surges. And the cheetah's enlarged heart, lungs, and liver
> help deliver bursts of oxygen and energy, while specially ridged foot
> pads help provide traction, much like a car's tire. Such adaptations
> "make cheetahs the elite race cars of the animal world," says Don
> Person, a Dutch biologist who has studied cheetahs in East Africa.
> 'They are speed demons.' "
> (from http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/cheetahs/fast.html )
>

On the same show I saw on cheetahs, there was some movies of them running.
They slowed it down so we could see it better.

Talk abouit giant steps. The rear legs clearly overtook the front legs when
running. I don't know the length of the stride, but it was clearly longer
than the body. Very impressive to see. They are sprinters, not endurance
animals. But for the duration of the sprint, pure poetry in motion.

elzinator
November 22nd 04, 12:17 AM
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 23:24:37 GMT, Lee Michaels wrote:
>
>"elzinator" wrote
>
>> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 16:51:04 GMT, Lee Michaels wrote:
>> >
>> >"elzinator" > wrote
>> >>
>> >> Cheetah is biomechanically suited to sprint. Its more than just about
>> >> muscle fibers, it's also bone, connective tissue, size and how it's
>> >> all put together. Go to a zoo and evaluate their anatomy.
>> >>
>> >
>> >I saw a show on cheetahs the other day.
>> >
>> >One interesting item was that cheetah's claws do not retract. They are
>out
>> >there in the fully extended postion all the time. Makes for super
>traction
>> >when running.
>>
>> "One difference is that cheetahs evolved much earlier than other large
>> cats, arising from a cat-like mammal that lived about 4 million years
>> ago. As a result, their bodies are different from lions, tigers, and
>> other great cats in many ways. Cheetah claws, for instance, don't
>> retract like a house cat's, in part because the cheetah needs the
>> extra traction during high-speed sprints. Similarly, cheetahs don't
>> growl. They hiss or give a bird-like chirp instead, because they lack
>> the vocal anatomy to roar.
>>
>> The cheetah is indeed adapted for speed and power in many ways.
>> Most importantly, cheetah bodies are uniquely built for speed. Their
>> small heads offer little wind resistance, while their exceptionally
>> long legs allow them to take huge strides. During sprints, the cheetah
>> spine acts like a giant spring, storing energy that can be released in
>> explosive surges. And the cheetah's enlarged heart, lungs, and liver
>> help deliver bursts of oxygen and energy, while specially ridged foot
>> pads help provide traction, much like a car's tire. Such adaptations
>> "make cheetahs the elite race cars of the animal world," says Don
>> Person, a Dutch biologist who has studied cheetahs in East Africa.
>> 'They are speed demons.' "
>> (from http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/cheetahs/fast.html )
>>
>
>On the same show I saw on cheetahs, there was some movies of them running.
>They slowed it down so we could see it better.
>
>Talk abouit giant steps. The rear legs clearly overtook the front legs when
>running. I don't know the length of the stride, but it was clearly longer
>than the body. Very impressive to see. They are sprinters, not endurance
>animals. But for the duration of the sprint, pure poetry in motion.

I can't recall exactly what information was on display with the
Cheetah siblings at the Fort Worth zoo, but ......
Wait, I found my notes! (yes, I am a true nerd):

- They can sprint up to and over 70 mph,
- pursue prey at a maximum speed up to ~550 yards, then their high
energy phosphates stores are depleted,
- very flexible spine, which allows them to increase forelimb
extension.

There was more information, but that is all I wrote down. If I recall,
they pick and choose their prey, waiting for the 'right' scenario
(probabilities of catch) because after they go all out (see above),
that's it for the day. If they don't catch the prey during that
attempt, they basically have to rest and wait until the next day for
another sprint, and they fill in with small game, such as birds and
rodents (less energy required to catch).

They are such majestic creatures. I want to have one on the ranch, but
I think Shadow would object.


---------------
My give-a-**** meter is broken.

Steve Freides
November 22nd 04, 12:18 AM
"Hal" > wrote in message
om...
> elzinator > wrote in message
> >...
>> On 20 Nov 2004 21:11:26 -0800, Hal wrote:
>> >Okay I still dont quit get it.
>> >I am wondering why sprinters are all bulked up, if that muscle
>> >hypertrophy they sport is useless and sarcoplasmic as vusially
>> >perceptable hypertrophy is touted to be. Is the muscles they have
>> >useless? If so, why doesnt a sarcomere sprinter come in and kick
>> >their
>> >ass because of less wind resistance and less fluid weight in the
>> >fibres?
>>
>> I don't think you know what you are talking about.
>> Sprinters have larger leg muscles because they have more and larger
>> (cross-section) fast-twitch fibers which they need for power. That's
>> what sprinting is: power.
>
> Yhey have larger upper bodies as well. Ah but i DO know what Im
> talking about. Sarcomere hypertrophy, the kind which is necessary for
> increased POWER, is not supposed to result in visually perceptable
> bulk, but sprinters are visually perceptable to be bulkified.

Huh? Bigger is bigger, last time I checked. What makes you think that
"real" muscle doesn't look like muscle?

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com


> If this
> bulk is useless, then one with less bulk would obviously be winning
> all the races (albeit by fractions of seconds) because of less wind
> resistance and perhaps by having less fluid retention in the spaces
> between muscle fibres, I.E. sarcoplasmic hypertrophy.
>
>> >The cheetah is the fastest animal on earth (sprinting) and they are
>> >not the most muscular, however, a full grown male chimpanzee is as
>> >much as five times as strong as any human being alive and they top
>> >out
>> >at 200lbs. I once saw a video slip of a chimp that lost all of its
>> >hair and let me tell a new word needs to be made up because buff
>> >falls
>> >far short of describing this animals musculature.
>>
>> Cheetah is biomechanically suited to sprint. Its more than just about
>> muscle fibers, it's also bone, connective tissue, size and how it's
>> all put together. Go to a zoo and evaluate their anatomy.
>
> I'll buy that, but not before you haggle with me a bit.
>
>> Non-human primates are also biomechanically suited for strength,
>> despite that they also have more lean body mass per area than humans.
>> Again, its a function of more than just muscle.
>
> Agreed but muscle is part of it.
>
>> >Anyways, could it be that the line between sarcomere and
>> >sarcoplasmic
>> >is not so easily drawn and that there is considerable greay area?
>> >If I want to proressively weight train and I am able to continually
>> >increas my 6-10 rep max am I not gaining strength, but recruitment?
>> >
>> >How many seconds should I be able to carry my max weight in the
>> >farmers walk to promote true strength development?
>> >
>> >Is it all so cut and dry? I want to be big but not inflated I want
>> >the
>> >majority of my size to be functional, as I believe the chimps is.
>> >Yes
>> >I am emulaTING a chimpanzee.
>>
>> Then use low reps rather than high reps. Low reps train specifically
>> for power and strength without the hypertrophy that results from the
>> higher rep regimens.
>
> Power and strength withour hypertrophy, a contradiction considering
> you referred to sprinter's legs as having more and larger fast twitch
> muscle fibre in cross section in order to generate POWER, which sounds
> like hypertrphy to me. Again I ask, anyone out there who doesnt buy
> this cut and dry distinction between sarcomere and sarcoplasmis
> hypertrphy?
>
>> >thanks for endarkening me about this all info apreciated
>>
>> Are you a troll, or what?
>
> Im what. Was a troll a few years ago but gave it up to persue method
> acting.
>>
>>
>> ---------------
>> My give-a-**** meter is broken.

elzinator
November 22nd 04, 12:33 AM
On 21 Nov 2004 14:20:40 -0800, Hal wrote:
>elzinator > wrote in message >...
>> On 20 Nov 2004 21:11:26 -0800, Hal wrote:
>> >Okay I still dont quit get it.
>> >I am wondering why sprinters are all bulked up, if that muscle
>> >hypertrophy they sport is useless and sarcoplasmic as vusially
>> >perceptable hypertrophy is touted to be. Is the muscles they have
>> >useless? If so, why doesnt a sarcomere sprinter come in and kick their
>> >ass because of less wind resistance and less fluid weight in the
>> >fibres?
>>
>> I don't think you know what you are talking about.
>> Sprinters have larger leg muscles because they have more and larger
>> (cross-section) fast-twitch fibers which they need for power. That's
>> what sprinting is: power.
>
>Yhey have larger upper bodies as well.

Not competitive sprinters (Lyle will correct me if I'm wrong). Except
for serving as balance and to swing the body to aid leg power, upper
body 'bulk' is a detriment: it's unnecessary weight that can hinder
speed.

>Ah but i DO know what Im
>talking about. Sarcomere hypertrophy, the kind which is necessary for
>increased POWER, is not supposed to result in visually perceptable
>bulk, but sprinters are visually perceptable to be bulkified.

Not necessarily. Increased cross-sectional area of fibers also
correlates with increased nucleus to cytoplasm ratio, increased
protein content, etc. Contractile protein content does not always
equally correlate with CSA, but it often does. Depends on fiber type,
etc.

>If this
>bulk is useless, then one with less bulk would obviously be winning
>all the races (albeit by fractions of seconds) because of less wind
>resistance and perhaps by having less fluid retention in the spaces
>between muscle fibres, I.E. sarcoplasmic hypertrophy.

'Bulk' as you call it is seldom 'useless.' Skeletal muscle is highly
plastic and adaptive. If it is useless, then it will disappear.


>> Non-human primates are also biomechanically suited for strength,
>> despite that they also have more lean body mass per area than humans.
>> Again, its a function of more than just muscle.
>
>Agreed but muscle is part of it.

I didn't deny that. I pointed out that it is only one component that
differentiates non-human from human primates in strength and movement.

>> >Anyways, could it be that the line between sarcomere and sarcoplasmic
>> >is not so easily drawn and that there is considerable greay area?
>> >If I want to proressively weight train and I am able to continually
>> >increas my 6-10 rep max am I not gaining strength, but recruitment?
>> >
>> >How many seconds should I be able to carry my max weight in the
>> >farmers walk to promote true strength development?
>> >
>> >Is it all so cut and dry? I want to be big but not inflated I want the
>> >majority of my size to be functional, as I believe the chimps is. Yes
>> >I am emulaTING a chimpanzee.
>>
>> Then use low reps rather than high reps. Low reps train specifically
>> for power and strength without the hypertrophy that results from the
>> higher rep regimens.
>
>Power and strength withour hypertrophy, a contradiction considering
>you referred to sprinter's legs as having more and larger fast twitch
>muscle fibre in cross section in order to generate POWER, which sounds
>like hypertrphy to me.

Of course hypertrophy of fast twitch muscle correlates with power and
strength (but not linearly). Hypertrophy of slow twitch does not. The
two rep regimens develop preference of one over the other. The other
component to consider is neuromuscular adaptations.

Sports-specific/activity-specific training will induce neural and
muscular adaptations to that activity.

>Again I ask, anyone out there who doesnt buy
>this cut and dry distinction between sarcomere and sarcoplasmis
>hypertrphy?
>
>> >thanks for endarkening me about this all info apreciated
>>
>> Are you a troll, or what?
>
>Im what. Was a troll a few years ago but gave it up to persue method
>acting.

Sounds the same to me.

---------------
My give-a-**** meter is broken.

November 22nd 04, 12:56 AM
On 21 Nov 2004 14:20:40 -0800, (Hal) wrote:

>elzinator > wrote in message >...
>> On 20 Nov 2004 21:11:26 -0800, Hal wrote:
>> >Okay I still dont quit get it.
>> >I am wondering why sprinters are all bulked up, if that muscle
>> >hypertrophy they sport is useless and sarcoplasmic as vusially
>> >perceptable hypertrophy is touted to be. Is the muscles they have
>> >useless? If so, why doesnt a sarcomere sprinter come in and kick their
>> >ass because of less wind resistance and less fluid weight in the
>> >fibres?
>>
>> I don't think you know what you are talking about.
>> Sprinters have larger leg muscles because they have more and larger
>> (cross-section) fast-twitch fibers which they need for power. That's
>> what sprinting is: power.
>
>Yhey have larger upper bodies as well. Ah but i DO know what Im
>talking about. Sarcomere hypertrophy, the kind which is necessary for
>increased POWER, is not supposed to result in visually perceptable
>bulk, but sprinters are visually perceptable to be bulkified. If this
>bulk is useless, then one with less bulk would obviously be winning
>all the races (albeit by fractions of seconds) because of less wind
>resistance and perhaps by having less fluid retention in the spaces
>between muscle fibres, I.E. sarcoplasmic hypertrophy.
<snip>

>Power and strength withour hypertrophy, a contradiction considering
>you referred to sprinter's legs as having more and larger fast twitch
>muscle fibre in cross section in order to generate POWER, which sounds
>like hypertrphy to me. Again I ask, anyone out there who doesnt buy
>this cut and dry distinction between sarcomere and sarcoplasmis
>hypertrphy?

You are saying that there isn't a cut-and-dry distinction between
sarcomere and sarcoplasmic hypertrophy because sprinters have visible
and strongly developed leg muscles? Do gymnasts also have visible and
strongly developed muscles? Are you saying that this can't be
obtained from sarcomere hypertrophy as distinct from sarcoplasmic
hypertrophy?

http://www.weighttrainersunited.com/hypertrophy.html

"The impressively large and muscular physiques of bodybuilders,
weightlifters, powerlifters and gymnasts may tend to create the
impression that their shape is due to the same sort of muscle
hypertrophy. Research by Russian scientists (Nikituk & Samoilov),
however, has shown that there are at least two different types of
muscle hypertrophy: sarcomere hypertrophy and sarcoplasmic
hypertrophy, the first one associated with growth of the contractile
components of the muscle fibers (the actin and myosin complex) and the
latter with growth of the structures supporting and surrounding the
contractile elements (the sarcoplasmic reticulum and sarcoplasm).

Sarcomere hypertrophy, maximally stimulated by Olympic weightlifting
style training, results in significant increases in strength, unlike
the sarcoplasmic variety, which is markedly increased by bodybuilding
style training. The former, therefore, is of greater relevance to the
weightlifter or any other athlete who needs functional hypertrophy for
improving sporting performance, with the latter form offering minimal
sporting benefits, unless sheer bulk is needed for superiority, as is
often the case in bodybuilding posing and sumo wrestling. Obviously,
then, one would be wary of relying largely on bodybuilding methods as
a form of supplementary training for other sports."

<snip>

"Increase in muscle diameter is due to enlargement of individual
muscle fibers by an increase in the number and size of individual
myofibrils (Goldspink), accompanied by an increase in the amount of
connective tissue (McDonagh & Davies). Moreover, sarcomere hypertrophy
is associated with an increase in the size and number of the
sarcomeres which comprise the myofibrils. These are added either in
parallel or in series with the existing myofibrils, although only
parallel growth contributes significantly to an increased ability to
increase muscle tension."

Dr. Mel C. Siff, Facts and Fallacies of Fitness, Denver, CO, 2000, pg.
25-26.

Lyle McDonald
November 22nd 04, 01:25 AM
elzinator wrote:
> On 21 Nov 2004 14:20:40 -0800, Hal wrote:
>
>>elzinator > wrote in message >...
>>
>>>On 20 Nov 2004 21:11:26 -0800, Hal wrote:
>>>
>>>>Okay I still dont quit get it.
>>>>I am wondering why sprinters are all bulked up, if that muscle
>>>>hypertrophy they sport is useless and sarcoplasmic as vusially
>>>>perceptable hypertrophy is touted to be. Is the muscles they have
>>>>useless? If so, why doesnt a sarcomere sprinter come in and kick their
>>>>ass because of less wind resistance and less fluid weight in the
>>>>fibres?
>>>
>>>I don't think you know what you are talking about.
>>>Sprinters have larger leg muscles because they have more and larger
>>>(cross-section) fast-twitch fibers which they need for power. That's
>>>what sprinting is: power.
>>
>>Yhey have larger upper bodies as well.
>
>
> Not competitive sprinters (Lyle will correct me if I'm wrong).

There have been a few exceptions (Carl Lewis comes to mind, one of hte
recent guys) but most track short sprinters (100-200m) are pretty big.
As the distance gets longer, the level of muscle mass decreases.

> Except
> for serving as balance and to swing the body to aid leg power, upper
> body 'bulk' is a detriment: it's unnecessary weight that can hinder
> speed.

We just discussed this and mass beyond a certain point is certainly a
hindrance. But upper body arm ddrive sets leg speed and I suspect that
sprinters tend to get bulky upper bodies more as a consequence of their
genetics, training and drug use than as an outright goal.

>
>
>>Ah but i DO know what Im
>>talking about. Sarcomere hypertrophy, the kind which is necessary for
>>increased POWER, is not supposed to result in visually perceptable
>>bulk, but sprinters are visually perceptable to be bulkified.
>
>
> Not necessarily. Increased cross-sectional area of fibers also
> correlates with increased nucleus to cytoplasm ratio, increased
> protein content, etc. Contractile protein content does not always
> equally correlate with CSA, but it often does. Depends on fiber type,
> etc.

yeah, I htink this is where Hal is going wrong: the idea that
myofibrillar hypertrophy didn't result in perceptible size increases.
That is simply wrong.

>
>>If this
>>bulk is useless, then one with less bulk would obviously be winning
>>all the races (albeit by fractions of seconds) because of less wind
>>resistance and perhaps by having less fluid retention in the spaces
>>between muscle fibres, I.E. sarcoplasmic hypertrophy.
>
>
> 'Bulk' as you call it is seldom 'useless.' Skeletal muscle is highly
> plastic and adaptive. If it is useless, then it will disappear.

And most athletes don't train for size to train for size (exceptoin
being situatiosn where too little muscle mass is hindering them), they
train for function and the body develops size as necessary (or not).


>>Power and strength withour hypertrophy, a contradiction considering
>>you referred to sprinter's legs as having more and larger fast twitch
>>muscle fibre in cross section in order to generate POWER, which sounds
>>like hypertrphy to me.
>
>
> Of course hypertrophy of fast twitch muscle correlates with power and
> strength (but not linearly).

hal is also forgetting about the nervous system which, as much as
anything else, determines strength and power output.

Lyle

Lyle McDonald
November 22nd 04, 01:28 AM
Steve Freides wrote:

> "Hal" > wrote in message
> om...
>
>>elzinator > wrote in message
>...
>>
>>>On 20 Nov 2004 21:11:26 -0800, Hal wrote:
>>>
>>>>Okay I still dont quit get it.
>>>>I am wondering why sprinters are all bulked up, if that muscle
>>>>hypertrophy they sport is useless and sarcoplasmic as vusially
>>>>perceptable hypertrophy is touted to be. Is the muscles they have
>>>>useless? If so, why doesnt a sarcomere sprinter come in and kick
>>>>their
>>>>ass because of less wind resistance and less fluid weight in the
>>>>fibres?
>>>
>>>I don't think you know what you are talking about.
>>>Sprinters have larger leg muscles because they have more and larger
>>>(cross-section) fast-twitch fibers which they need for power. That's
>>>what sprinting is: power.
>>
>>Yhey have larger upper bodies as well. Ah but i DO know what Im
>>talking about. Sarcomere hypertrophy, the kind which is necessary for
>>increased POWER, is not supposed to result in visually perceptable
>>bulk, but sprinters are visually perceptable to be bulkified.
>
>
> Huh? Bigger is bigger, last time I checked.

And you're a know-nothing idiot the last time I checked.
It is possible to be big and weak as well as small but strong and muscle
size is not muscle size.

I'm quite sure that Pavel has written about sarcoplasmic vs.
myofibrillar hypertrohy, in fact I know for a fact he talks about it in
Power to the People. Go read it again. It'll improve your ability to
pimp it here.

Lyle

aj
November 22nd 04, 01:54 AM
On 2004-11-22, elzinator > wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 23:24:37 GMT, Lee Michaels wrote:
>>
>>"elzinator" wrote
>>
>>> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 16:51:04 GMT, Lee Michaels wrote:
>>> >
>>> >"elzinator" > wrote
>>> >>
>>> >> Cheetah is biomechanically suited to sprint. Its more than just about
>>> >> muscle fibers, it's also bone, connective tissue, size and how it's
>>> >> all put together. Go to a zoo and evaluate their anatomy.
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >I saw a show on cheetahs the other day.
>>> >
>>> >One interesting item was that cheetah's claws do not retract. They are
>>out
>>> >there in the fully extended postion all the time. Makes for super
>>traction
>>> >when running.
>>>
>>> "One difference is that cheetahs evolved much earlier than other large
>>> cats, arising from a cat-like mammal that lived about 4 million years
>>> ago. As a result, their bodies are different from lions, tigers, and
>>> other great cats in many ways. Cheetah claws, for instance, don't
>>> retract like a house cat's, in part because the cheetah needs the
>>> extra traction during high-speed sprints. Similarly, cheetahs don't
>>> growl. They hiss or give a bird-like chirp instead, because they lack
>>> the vocal anatomy to roar.
>>>
>>> The cheetah is indeed adapted for speed and power in many ways.
>>> Most importantly, cheetah bodies are uniquely built for speed. Their
>>> small heads offer little wind resistance, while their exceptionally
>>> long legs allow them to take huge strides. During sprints, the cheetah
>>> spine acts like a giant spring, storing energy that can be released in
>>> explosive surges. And the cheetah's enlarged heart, lungs, and liver
>>> help deliver bursts of oxygen and energy, while specially ridged foot
>>> pads help provide traction, much like a car's tire. Such adaptations
>>> "make cheetahs the elite race cars of the animal world," says Don
>>> Person, a Dutch biologist who has studied cheetahs in East Africa.
>>> 'They are speed demons.' "
>>> (from http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/cheetahs/fast.html )
>>>
>>
>>On the same show I saw on cheetahs, there was some movies of them running.
>>They slowed it down so we could see it better.
>>
>>Talk abouit giant steps. The rear legs clearly overtook the front legs when
>>running. I don't know the length of the stride, but it was clearly longer
>>than the body. Very impressive to see. They are sprinters, not endurance
>>animals. But for the duration of the sprint, pure poetry in motion.
>
> I can't recall exactly what information was on display with the
> Cheetah siblings at the Fort Worth zoo, but ......
> Wait, I found my notes! (yes, I am a true nerd):
>
> - They can sprint up to and over 70 mph,
> - pursue prey at a maximum speed up to ~550 yards, then their high
> energy phosphates stores are depleted,
> - very flexible spine, which allows them to increase forelimb
> extension.
>
> There was more information, but that is all I wrote down. If I recall,
> they pick and choose their prey, waiting for the 'right' scenario
> (probabilities of catch) because after they go all out (see above),
> that's it for the day. If they don't catch the prey during that
> attempt, they basically have to rest and wait until the next day for
> another sprint, and they fill in with small game, such as birds and
> rodents (less energy required to catch).
>
> They are such majestic creatures. I want to have one on the ranch, but
> I think Shadow would object.
>
>
> ---------------
> My give-a-**** meter is broken.

There's a general rule of quadriped max speed that has to do with the
proportional distance from illiac crest to ribcage. Cheetahs have
the biggest distance of any animal. Mo spine flexion equals mo zip.

--
-aj

Steve Freides
November 22nd 04, 03:22 AM
"Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
...
> Steve Freides wrote:
>
>> "Hal" > wrote in message
>> om...
>>
>>>elzinator > wrote in message
>...
>>>
>>>>On 20 Nov 2004 21:11:26 -0800, Hal wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Okay I still dont quit get it.
>>>>>I am wondering why sprinters are all bulked up, if that muscle
>>>>>hypertrophy they sport is useless and sarcoplasmic as vusially
>>>>>perceptable hypertrophy is touted to be. Is the muscles they have
>>>>>useless? If so, why doesnt a sarcomere sprinter come in and kick
>>>>>their
>>>>>ass because of less wind resistance and less fluid weight in the
>>>>>fibres?
>>>>
>>>>I don't think you know what you are talking about.
>>>>Sprinters have larger leg muscles because they have more and larger
>>>>(cross-section) fast-twitch fibers which they need for power. That's
>>>>what sprinting is: power.
>>>
>>>Yhey have larger upper bodies as well. Ah but i DO know what Im
>>>talking about. Sarcomere hypertrophy, the kind which is necessary for
>>>increased POWER, is not supposed to result in visually perceptable
>>>bulk, but sprinters are visually perceptable to be bulkified.
>>
>>
>> Huh? Bigger is bigger, last time I checked.
>
> And you're a know-nothing idiot the last time I checked.
> It is possible to be big and weak as well as small but strong and
> muscle size is not muscle size.
>
> I'm quite sure that Pavel has written about sarcoplasmic vs.
> myofibrillar hypertrohy, in fact I know for a fact he talks about it
> in Power to the People. Go read it again. It'll improve your ability
> to pimp it here.

Bite me, skater boy.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com

Hal
November 22nd 04, 06:11 PM
wrote in message >...
> On 21 Nov 2004 14:20:40 -0800, (Hal) wrote:
>
> >elzinator > wrote in message >...
> >> On 20 Nov 2004 21:11:26 -0800, Hal wrote:
> >> >Okay I still dont quit get it.
> >> >I am wondering why sprinters are all bulked up, if that muscle
> >> >hypertrophy they sport is useless and sarcoplasmic as vusially
> >> >perceptable hypertrophy is touted to be. Is the muscles they have
> >> >useless? If so, why doesnt a sarcomere sprinter come in and kick their
> >> >ass because of less wind resistance and less fluid weight in the
> >> >fibres?
> >>
> >> I don't think you know what you are talking about.
> >> Sprinters have larger leg muscles because they have more and larger
> >> (cross-section) fast-twitch fibers which they need for power. That's
> >> what sprinting is: power.
> >
> >Yhey have larger upper bodies as well. Ah but i DO know what Im
> >talking about. Sarcomere hypertrophy, the kind which is necessary for
> >increased POWER, is not supposed to result in visually perceptable
> >bulk, but sprinters are visually perceptable to be bulkified. If this
> >bulk is useless, then one with less bulk would obviously be winning
> >all the races (albeit by fractions of seconds) because of less wind
> >resistance and perhaps by having less fluid retention in the spaces
> >between muscle fibres, I.E. sarcoplasmic hypertrophy.
> <snip>
>
> >Power and strength withour hypertrophy, a contradiction considering
> >you referred to sprinter's legs as having more and larger fast twitch
> >muscle fibre in cross section in order to generate POWER, which sounds
> >like hypertrphy to me. Again I ask, anyone out there who doesnt buy
> >this cut and dry distinction between sarcomere and sarcoplasmis
> >hypertrphy?
>
> You are saying that there isn't a cut-and-dry distinction between
> sarcomere and sarcoplasmic hypertrophy because sprinters have visible
> and strongly developed leg muscles? Do gymnasts also have visible and
> strongly developed muscles? Are you saying that this can't be
> obtained from sarcomere hypertrophy as distinct from sarcoplasmic
> hypertrophy?
>
> http://www.weighttrainersunited.com/hypertrophy.html
>
> "The impressively large and muscular physiques of bodybuilders,
> weightlifters, powerlifters and gymnasts may tend to create the
> impression that their shape is due to the same sort of muscle
> hypertrophy. Research by Russian scientists (Nikituk & Samoilov),
> however, has shown that there are at least two different types of
> muscle hypertrophy: sarcomere hypertrophy and sarcoplasmic
> hypertrophy, the first one associated with growth of the contractile
> components of the muscle fibers (the actin and myosin complex) and the
> latter with growth of the structures supporting and surrounding the
> contractile elements (the sarcoplasmic reticulum and sarcoplasm).
>
> Sarcomere hypertrophy, maximally stimulated by Olympic weightlifting
> style training, results in significant increases in strength, unlike
> the sarcoplasmic variety, which is markedly increased by bodybuilding
> style training. The former, therefore, is of greater relevance to the
> weightlifter or any other athlete who needs functional hypertrophy for
> improving sporting performance, with the latter form offering minimal
> sporting benefits, unless sheer bulk is needed for superiority, as is
> often the case in bodybuilding posing and sumo wrestling. Obviously,
> then, one would be wary of relying largely on bodybuilding methods as
> a form of supplementary training for other sports."
>
> <snip>
>

so what do you think...gymnasts, sarcomere or sarcoplasmic? They look
almost
like bodybuilders to me, but body built muscle isnt functional and
gymnast built muscle is...right?


> "Increase in muscle diameter is due to enlargement of individual
> muscle fibers by an increase in the number and size of individual
> myofibrils (Goldspink), accompanied by an increase in the amount of
> connective tissue (McDonagh & Davies). Moreover, sarcomere hypertrophy
> is associated with an increase in the size and number of the
> sarcomeres which comprise the myofibrils. These are added either in
> parallel or in series with the existing myofibrils, although only
> parallel growth contributes significantly to an increased ability to
> increase muscle tension."
>
> Dr. Mel C. Siff, Facts and Fallacies of Fitness, Denver, CO, 2000, pg.
> 25-26.

November 22nd 04, 11:12 PM
On 22 Nov 2004 10:11:20 -0800, (Hal) wrote:

wrote in message >...
>> On 21 Nov 2004 14:20:40 -0800, (Hal) wrote:
>>
>> >elzinator > wrote in message >...
>> >> On 20 Nov 2004 21:11:26 -0800, Hal wrote:
>> >> >Okay I still dont quit get it.
>> >> >I am wondering why sprinters are all bulked up, if that muscle
>> >> >hypertrophy they sport is useless and sarcoplasmic as vusially
>> >> >perceptable hypertrophy is touted to be. Is the muscles they have
>> >> >useless? If so, why doesnt a sarcomere sprinter come in and kick their
>> >> >ass because of less wind resistance and less fluid weight in the
>> >> >fibres?
>> >>
>> >> I don't think you know what you are talking about.
>> >> Sprinters have larger leg muscles because they have more and larger
>> >> (cross-section) fast-twitch fibers which they need for power. That's
>> >> what sprinting is: power.
>> >
>> >Yhey have larger upper bodies as well. Ah but i DO know what Im
>> >talking about. Sarcomere hypertrophy, the kind which is necessary for
>> >increased POWER, is not supposed to result in visually perceptable
>> >bulk, but sprinters are visually perceptable to be bulkified. If this
>> >bulk is useless, then one with less bulk would obviously be winning
>> >all the races (albeit by fractions of seconds) because of less wind
>> >resistance and perhaps by having less fluid retention in the spaces
>> >between muscle fibres, I.E. sarcoplasmic hypertrophy.
>> <snip>
>>
>> >Power and strength withour hypertrophy, a contradiction considering
>> >you referred to sprinter's legs as having more and larger fast twitch
>> >muscle fibre in cross section in order to generate POWER, which sounds
>> >like hypertrphy to me. Again I ask, anyone out there who doesnt buy
>> >this cut and dry distinction between sarcomere and sarcoplasmis
>> >hypertrphy?
>>
>> You are saying that there isn't a cut-and-dry distinction between
>> sarcomere and sarcoplasmic hypertrophy because sprinters have visible
>> and strongly developed leg muscles? Do gymnasts also have visible and
>> strongly developed muscles? Are you saying that this can't be
>> obtained from sarcomere hypertrophy as distinct from sarcoplasmic
>> hypertrophy?
>>
>> http://www.weighttrainersunited.com/hypertrophy.html
>>
>> "The impressively large and muscular physiques of bodybuilders,
>> weightlifters, powerlifters and gymnasts may tend to create the
>> impression that their shape is due to the same sort of muscle
>> hypertrophy. Research by Russian scientists (Nikituk & Samoilov),
>> however, has shown that there are at least two different types of
>> muscle hypertrophy: sarcomere hypertrophy and sarcoplasmic
>> hypertrophy, the first one associated with growth of the contractile
>> components of the muscle fibers (the actin and myosin complex) and the
>> latter with growth of the structures supporting and surrounding the
>> contractile elements (the sarcoplasmic reticulum and sarcoplasm).
>>
>> Sarcomere hypertrophy, maximally stimulated by Olympic weightlifting
>> style training, results in significant increases in strength, unlike
>> the sarcoplasmic variety, which is markedly increased by bodybuilding
>> style training. The former, therefore, is of greater relevance to the
>> weightlifter or any other athlete who needs functional hypertrophy for
>> improving sporting performance, with the latter form offering minimal
>> sporting benefits, unless sheer bulk is needed for superiority, as is
>> often the case in bodybuilding posing and sumo wrestling. Obviously,
>> then, one would be wary of relying largely on bodybuilding methods as
>> a form of supplementary training for other sports."
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>
>so what do you think...gymnasts, sarcomere or sarcoplasmic?

Sarcomere or myofibrillar hypertrophy

>They look almost like bodybuilders to me, but body built muscle isnt functional and
>gymnast built muscle is...right?

Body built muscle vs gymnast built muscle?

"Non-functional or sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is an increase in the
non-contractile elements of a muscle fiber. It's an increase in the
volume of the muscle cell fluid and occurs with a type of bodybuilding
training that emphasizes high repetitions. The goal is myofibrillar or
sarcomere hypertrophy which produces denser and stronger muscle, not
bloated and useless muscle (sarcoplasmic hypertrophy),

OTOH, as Chrisitan Thibaudeau points out in The Black Book of Training
Secrets, "bodybuilding training doesn't only stimulate non-functional
hypertrophy. All training methods lead to functional and
non-functional hypertrophy, but to various extents and in different
proportions. . .Controlled training may have a place in an athlete's
training, but only as an assistance method to the core of the
training. . . .it should be used to strengthen muscles which are
subject to injuries (shoulders, rotator cuffs,lower back, abdominals).
>
>
>> "Increase in muscle diameter is due to enlargement of individual
>> muscle fibers by an increase in the number and size of individual
>> myofibrils (Goldspink), accompanied by an increase in the amount of
>> connective tissue (McDonagh & Davies). Moreover, sarcomere hypertrophy
>> is associated with an increase in the size and number of the
>> sarcomeres which comprise the myofibrils. These are added either in
>> parallel or in series with the existing myofibrils, although only
>> parallel growth contributes significantly to an increased ability to
>> increase muscle tension."
>>
>> Dr. Mel C. Siff, Facts and Fallacies of Fitness, Denver, CO, 2000, pg.
>> 25-26.

Mistress Krista
November 28th 04, 04:56 PM
"elzinator" > wrote in message
...
> BTW, check this out (I wasn't sure if I should laugh or swear)
>
> "When the cheetah anatomy is examined it can be seen that all its
> bones and muscles have been designed in such a way as to produce a
> sprinter capable of the same swift acceleration as the fastest motor
> vehicles, and possessing perfect balance and maneuverability. In the
> same way, everyone who looks at a racing car can clearly see that it
> has been designed for speed. Nobody could possibly claim that this car
> emerged as the result of natural processes. In the same way that the
> car has a designer, so does the cheetah. Scientific findings show that
> the design in living things is far more complicated than any man-made
> design. This naturally confirms the fact of creation. There is no
> doubt that God created the cheetah."
>
> BWAAHAHAHAHHAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!! <cough, sputter, ahem, roll eyes and
> sigh>
>


This reminds me of a teacher I once had who asserted that God had to exist
because there were exactly twenty-four hours in a day.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/login.aspx?ci=14107

Eek.


Krista

--
http://www.stumptuous.com/weights.html
http://www.trans-health.com
mistresskrista at stumptuous dot com

Adam Fahy
November 28th 04, 07:19 PM
Mistress Krista wrote:

> This reminds me of a teacher I once had who asserted that God had to exist
> because there were exactly twenty-four hours in a day.

Quick retort: then why do we have daylight savings time?


-Adam

Will Brink
November 28th 04, 09:21 PM
In article <[email protected]>,
Adam Fahy > wrote:

> Mistress Krista wrote:
>
> > This reminds me of a teacher I once had who asserted that God had to exist
> > because there were exactly twenty-four hours in a day.
>
> Quick retort: then why do we have daylight savings time?

Now THAT is the work of the devil.duh

>
>
> -Adam

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Idie
November 29th 04, 12:55 AM
Usenet Posting > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 19:19:05 GMT, Adam Fahy >
> wrote:
>
> >Mistress Krista wrote:
> >
> >> This reminds me of a teacher I once had who asserted that God had to
exist
> >> because there were exactly twenty-four hours in a day.
> >
> >Quick retort: then why do we have daylight savings time?
> >
> >
> >-Adam
>
> And what about that leap-year thingy?
>

well the devil IS in the details

whit

>
> --
> The pain is pretty overwhelming, prolly
> comparable only to childbirth or kidney stones.
> --Brian L.

Steve Freides
November 29th 04, 02:28 AM
"Will Brink" > wrote in message
...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Adam Fahy > wrote:
>
>> Mistress Krista wrote:
>>
>> > This reminds me of a teacher I once had who asserted that God had
>> > to exist
>> > because there were exactly twenty-four hours in a day.
>>
>> Quick retort: then why do we have daylight savings time?
>
> Now THAT is the work of the devil.duh

Then I'm a devil worshipper - I'd like to have daylight savings time all
year long.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com

Lee Michaels
November 29th 04, 02:51 AM
"Steve Freides" > wrote
>
> Then I'm a devil worshipper - I'd like to have daylight savings time all
> year long.
>
That would certainly explain why you **** so many people off.