PDA

View Full Version : Re: Lifting before breakfast?


Andrzej Rosa
September 24th 06, 04:41 PM
eponymous cowherd wrote:

>
> It's commonly said that you should eat several hours before
> weightlifting so as to have protein in your bloodstream to be used by
> the muscles for growth.

Growth occurs much later. During the training session you'll need some
energy to move weights, not proteins for "growth".

Simple carbs will do, IMHO.

> The way my scheduale is right now, it would be
> more convenient to lift early in the morning before I start work and
> then eat later.

Fine. Eat something sweet before workout if you feel hungry and/or your
energy is down without it. Eat real food after workout.

> Would I be losing much by doing this?

I do not think so.

--
Andrzej Rosa

Pete
September 24th 06, 04:58 PM
"Andrzej Rosa" > schreef:

> Simple carbs will do, IMHO.

>> The way my scheduale is right now, it would be
>> more convenient to lift early in the morning before I start work and
>> then eat later.

> Fine. Eat something sweet before workout if you feel hungry and/or your
> energy is down without it. Eat real food after workout.

>> Would I be losing much by doing this?

> I do not think so.

I agree with you...

HOWEVER,

We DO have certain facts about protein/amino acid consomption, during/pre
workout, together with simple carbs.

I am sure John can tell you more about this. Or give you a link.

----
Pete

Andrzej Rosa
September 24th 06, 05:57 PM
Pete wrote:

> "Andrzej Rosa" > schreef:
>
>> Simple carbs will do, IMHO.
>
>>> The way my scheduale is right now, it would be
>>> more convenient to lift early in the morning before I start work and
>>> then eat later.
>
>> Fine. Eat something sweet before workout if you feel hungry and/or your
>> energy is down without it. Eat real food after workout.
>
>>> Would I be losing much by doing this?
>
>> I do not think so.
>
> I agree with you...
>
> HOWEVER,
>
> We DO have certain facts about protein/amino acid consomption, during/pre
> workout, together with simple carbs.
>
> I am sure John can tell you more about this. Or give you a link.

You may be very right...

HOWEVER

Judging by the overall quality of science in this field I'd be surprised if
I was impressed by the results of those aforementioned studies. (I
remember reading somewhere that some study failed to confirm effectiveness
of steroids! ;-))

From my (however limited) personal experience it looks like it is often
better to eat some sweets before workout than work on an empty stomach, and
that would be it. Maybe some proteins help too, but then I'd be surprised
if anyone beside some "driving the edge" pros would see any difference.

In case I'm wrong on this, I'm wrong, but still refuse to give a damn. ;-)

P.S.
I'd take raw egg blended with sugar any day over some powder.

--
Andrzej Rosa

Curt James
September 24th 06, 06:38 PM
Andrzej Rosa wrote:
> Pete wrote:
> > "Andrzej Rosa" schreef:
[...]

> >> <snip> Eat something sweet before workout if you feel hungry and/or your
> >> energy is down without it. Eat real food after workout.
[...]

> > I agree with you...
> >
> > HOWEVER,
> >
> > We DO have certain facts about protein/amino acid consomption, during/pre
> > workout, together with simple carbs.
> >
> > I am sure John can tell you more about this. Or give you a link.
>
> You may be very right...
>
> HOWEVER
>
> Judging by the overall quality of science in this field I'd be surprised if
> I was impressed by the results of those aforementioned studies. (I
> remember reading somewhere that some study failed to confirm effectiveness
> of steroids! ;-))
>
> From my (however limited) personal experience it looks like it is often
> better to eat some sweets before workout than work on an empty stomach, and
> that would be it. Maybe some proteins help too, but then I'd be surprised
> if anyone beside some "driving the edge" pros would see any difference.
>
> In case I'm wrong on this, I'm wrong, but still refuse to give a damn. ;-)
>
> P.S.
> I'd take raw egg blended with sugar any day over some powder.

Googling _raw egg white and biotin_ offers a number of links which
offer text along these lines:

"... there is not enough biotin in an egg yolk to bind to all the
avidin present in the raw whites. He found that 5.7 grams of biotin are
required to neutralize all the avidin found in the raw whites of an
average-sized egg. There are only about 25 micrograms - or 25
millionths of a gram - of biotin in an average egg yolk.

This is obviously not nearly enough to do the job. For this very
reason, controlled diets of only raw egg whites lead to severe biotin
deficiency." From: http://www.mercola.com/2005/feb/9/raw_eggs.htm

Biotin?

"Biotin is used in cell growth, the production of fatty acids,
metabolism of fats, and amino acids. It plays a role in the Krebs
Cycle, which is the process in which energy is released from food.
Biotin not only assists in various metabolic chemical conversions, but
also helps with the transfer of carbon dioxide. Biotin is also helpful
in maintaining a steady blood sugar level." From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biotin

> Andrzej Rosa

The preceding two cents offered by way of example that, hey, you can't
win! ;o)

(But that doesn't mean I'm going to stop trying.)

--
Curt

Andrzej Rosa
September 24th 06, 06:53 PM
Curt James wrote:

> Andrzej Rosa wrote:
>> Pete wrote:
>> > "Andrzej Rosa" schreef:
[...]
>> P.S.
>> I'd take raw egg blended with sugar any day over some powder.
>
> Googling _raw egg white and biotin_ offers a number of links which
> offer text along these lines:
>
> "... there is not enough biotin in an egg yolk to bind to all the
> avidin present in the raw whites. He found that 5.7 grams of biotin are
> required to neutralize all the avidin found in the raw whites of an
> average-sized egg. There are only about 25 micrograms - or 25
> millionths of a gram - of biotin in an average egg yolk.
>
> This is obviously not nearly enough to do the job. For this very
> reason, controlled diets of only raw egg whites lead to severe biotin
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~
> deficiency." From: http://www.mercola.com/2005/feb/9/raw_eggs.htm
~~~~~~~~~~

Thanks for info. If I'll ever be crazy enough to go for a diet consisting
exclusively of raw eggs it will come handy.

> Biotin?
>
> "Biotin is used in cell growth, the production of fatty acids,
> metabolism of fats, and amino acids. It plays a role in the Krebs
> Cycle, which is the process in which energy is released from food.
> Biotin not only assists in various metabolic chemical conversions, but
> also helps with the transfer of carbon dioxide. Biotin is also helpful
> in maintaining a steady blood sugar level." From:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biotin
>
>> Andrzej Rosa
>
> The preceding two cents offered by way of example that, hey, you can't
> win! ;o)

I guess, I'll learn to live with it. ;-)

> (But that doesn't mean I'm going to stop trying.)

--
Andrzej Rosa

Curt James
September 24th 06, 07:11 PM
Andrzej Rosa wrote:
> Curt James wrote:
[...]

> > For this very reason, controlled diets of only raw egg
> > whites lead to severe biotin deficiency." From:
> > http://www.mercola.com/2005/feb/9/raw_eggs.htm
>
> Thanks for info. If I'll ever be crazy enough to go for a diet
> consisting exclusively of raw eggs it will come handy.

D'OH! Well, it does say that, doesn't it? ;o) Kudos!

[...]

> Andrzej Rosa

--
Curt

Pete
September 24th 06, 07:36 PM
"Andrzej Rosa" > schreef:

>>> Fine. Eat something sweet before workout if you feel hungry and/or your
>>> energy is down without it. Eat real food after workout.

>>>> Would I be losing much by doing this?

>>> I do not think so.

>> I agree with you...

>> HOWEVER,

>> We DO have certain facts about protein/amino acid consomption, during/pre
>> workout, together with simple carbs.

>> I am sure John can tell you more about this. Or give you a link.

> You may be very right...

> HOWEVER

> Judging by the overall quality of science in this field I'd be surprised
> if
> I was impressed by the results of those aforementioned studies. (I
> remember reading somewhere that some study failed to confirm effectiveness
> of steroids! ;-))

Oh! OH!!!

;-O

Well, i do like your style...

HOWEVER,

Nevermind.

> From my (however limited) personal experience it looks like it is often
> better to eat some sweets before workout than work on an empty stomach,
> and
> that would be it. Maybe some proteins help too, but then I'd be surprised
> if anyone beside some "driving the edge" pros would see any difference.

Well, its about short chain AAs (Whey) together with simple carbs, to create
an insuline spike.
Which might have an anabolic effect.

Wether or this helps in people using steroids, i am not quite sure though...

> In case I'm wrong on this, I'm wrong, but still refuse to give a damn.
;-)

> P.S.
> I'd take raw egg blended with sugar any day over some powder.

In the past, i blended raw eggs with bananas. Up to 12 a day.
Tasted great. And loved the results.

----
Pete

funkdys
September 24th 06, 08:29 PM
Pete wrote:
> "Andrzej Rosa" > schreef:
>
> >>> Fine. Eat something sweet before workout if you feel hungry and/or your
> >>> energy is down without it. Eat real food after workout.
>
<snip...>

> > P.S.
> > I'd take raw egg blended with sugar any day over some powder.
>
> In the past, i blended raw eggs with bananas. Up to 12 a day.
> Tasted great. And loved the results.
>

What sort of an impact did that have on your cholestrol? 12 eggs a day
seems a tad excessive to me... (not that I know much about the
subject... just wondering based on my gut reaction to the dietary
information on the box containing 12 pack of eggs!).


> ----
> Pete

Pete
September 24th 06, 09:28 PM
"funkdys" > schreef:

>> In the past, i blended raw eggs with bananas. Up to 12 a day.
>> Tasted great. And loved the results.

> What sort of an impact did that have on your cholestrol?

Cholesterol was LOW! Not kidding.

> 12 eggs a day seems a tad excessive to me...

Well, with 7 grams of protein each egg. Not THAT excessive.

> (not that I know much about the
> subject... just wondering based on my gut reaction to the dietary
> information on the box containing 12 pack of eggs!).

It seems that cholesterol consumption, and cholesterol levels, are 2
entirely different things.

----
Pete

Andrzej Rosa
September 24th 06, 11:09 PM
Pete wrote:

> "Andrzej Rosa" > schreef:
>
[...]
>> Judging by the overall quality of science in this field I'd be surprised
>> if I was impressed by the results of those aforementioned studies. (I
>> remember reading somewhere that some study failed to confirm
>> effectiveness of steroids! ;-))
>
> Oh! OH!!!
>
> ;-O
>
> Well, i do like your style...

And I like yours...

Your place or mine?

Well, scratch that. I wouldn't joke like that to any bodybuilder IRL. If
he takes an offer, I'm in trouble. If he takes an offense, I'm in serious
troubles, especially if Steve's theories about fluff are a little bit too
distant from reality. ;-)

>> From my (however limited) personal experience it looks like it is often
>> better to eat some sweets before workout than work on an empty stomach,
>> and that would be it. Maybe some proteins help too, but then I'd be
>> surprised if anyone beside some "driving the edge" pros would see any
>> difference.
>
> Well, its about short chain AAs (Whey) together with simple carbs, to
> create an insuline spike.

I did not read the studies, but AFAIR simple carbs without whey can create
an insuline spike just fine.

But it makes some sense that this spike might help. Simple carbs give
immediate energy surge during workout and later increase hunger, when you
eat real food post workout.

> Which might have an anabolic effect.
>
> Wether or this helps in people using steroids, i am not quite sure
> though...

No reason it should not, baring the fact that addition of whey to
pre-workout drink might turn out to be insubstantial.

>> P.S.
>> I'd take raw egg blended with sugar any day over some powder.
>
> In the past, i blended raw eggs with bananas. Up to 12 a day.
> Tasted great. And loved the results.

Good tip.

--
Andrzej Rosa

JMW
September 25th 06, 06:10 AM
Andrzej Rosa > wrote:

>Pete wrote:
>
>> "Andrzej Rosa" > schreef:
>>
>[...]
>>> Judging by the overall quality of science in this field I'd be surprised
>>> if I was impressed by the results of those aforementioned studies. (I
>>> remember reading somewhere that some study failed to confirm
>>> effectiveness of steroids! ;-))
>>
>> Oh! OH!!!
>>
>> ;-O
>>
>> Well, i do like your style...
>
>And I like yours...
>
>Your place or mine?
>
>Well, scratch that. I wouldn't joke like that to any bodybuilder IRL. If
>he takes an offer, I'm in trouble. If he takes an offense, I'm in serious
>troubles, especially if Steve's theories about fluff are a little bit too
>distant from reality. ;-)
>
>>> From my (however limited) personal experience it looks like it is often
>>> better to eat some sweets before workout than work on an empty stomach,
>>> and that would be it. Maybe some proteins help too, but then I'd be
>>> surprised if anyone beside some "driving the edge" pros would see any
>>> difference.
>>
>> Well, its about short chain AAs (Whey) together with simple carbs, to
>> create an insuline spike.
>
>I did not read the studies, but AFAIR simple carbs without whey can create
>an insuline spike just fine.
>
>But it makes some sense that this spike might help. Simple carbs give
>immediate energy surge during workout and later increase hunger, when you
>eat real food post workout.

"Energy surge" and hunger are not what it's about. Insulin signaling
of muscle protein synthesis is what it's about. And having a ready
availability of essential amino acids when that signaling occurs is
why the whey is important.

That's not my opinion. That's what's been found repeatedly in recent
studies.

Andrzej Rosa
September 25th 06, 03:23 PM
JMW wrote:

> Andrzej Rosa > wrote:
>
>>Pete wrote:
>>
>>> "Andrzej Rosa" > schreef:
>>>
[...]
>>> Well, its about short chain AAs (Whey) together with simple carbs, to
>>> create an insuline spike.
>>
>>I did not read the studies, but AFAIR simple carbs without whey can create
>>an insuline spike just fine.
>>
>>But it makes some sense that this spike might help. Simple carbs give
>>immediate energy surge during workout and later increase hunger, when you
>>eat real food post workout.
>
> "Energy surge" and hunger are not what it's about.

From my practical point of view it actually is what it's about. Simple
carbs give some immediate energy, which I needed for workout when I was
working out hungry, but they also give this "false hunger" which happens
later due to the insulin spike. If you eat real food post-workout it is
fine, thou.

> Insulin signaling of muscle protein synthesis is what it's about.

Funny thing, I read that insulin prevents muscle catabolism, and
that "little is known" about how it works in vivo...

> And having a ready
> availability of essential amino acids when that signaling occurs is
> why the whey is important.

Maybe. Is there some good long term study which compares measurable effects
of protein+carb drinks to simple carbs drinks taken pre-workout? If not,
we are discussing hypotheses.

> That's not my opinion. That's what's been found repeatedly in recent
> studies.

Any normal person should stop paying attention when a key word of "recent
research" or "latest study" appears.

--
Andrzej Rosa

funkdys
September 25th 06, 05:00 PM
Pete wrote:
> "funkdys" > schreef:
>
> >> In the past, i blended raw eggs with bananas. Up to 12 a day.
> >> Tasted great. And loved the results.
>
> > What sort of an impact did that have on your cholestrol?
>
> Cholesterol was LOW! Not kidding.
>
> > 12 eggs a day seems a tad excessive to me...
>
> Well, with 7 grams of protein each egg. Not THAT excessive.
>
> > (not that I know much about the
> > subject... just wondering based on my gut reaction to the dietary
> > information on the box containing 12 pack of eggs!).
>
> It seems that cholesterol consumption, and cholesterol levels, are 2
> entirely different things.

I learn something new every day on this forum. I've always equated the
two. Tried googling but didn't find much that addressed this subject
readily. Would you mind elaborating as to why the two are unrelated
(or not closely related for that matter)? Pointers to any resources
online would be fine as well. I've eliminated egg yolk from my diet
for cholestrol related concerns, but if that's unfounded I might add
them back in.

Thanks.

>
> ----
> Pete

Andrzej Rosa
September 25th 06, 11:06 PM
DZ wrote:

> Andrzej Rosa > wrote:
>> JMW wrote:
>>> And having a ready availability of essential amino acids when that
>>> signaling occurs is why the whey is important.
>>
>> Maybe. Is there some good long term study which compares measurable
>> effects
>> of protein+carb drinks to simple carbs drinks taken pre-workout? If not,
>> we are discussing hypotheses.
>>
>>> That's not my opinion. That's what's been found repeatedly in recent
>>> studies.
>>
>> Any normal person should stop paying attention when a key word of "recent
>> research" or "latest study" appears.
>
> Two nitpicks -
>
> (1) It was "found REPEATEDLY"

OK. I did not read ANY of those studies (but I can not, with clear
conscience, deny the fact I read some others). However, do you find the
average quality of collected data worth bothering?

> (2) What you say makes some sense if one only reads press releases,
> news summaries and the like.

I do not. Honestly! Almost never. Well, once in a blue moon does not
count, does it?

> Fat good, fat bad, fat good, fat bad, ... ad infinitum ad nauseum
>
> If one actually critically reads original research, then I strongly
> disagree. This not only puts the previous knowledge in perspective for
> you as a reader. You also have to give the benefit of the doubt to the
> researchers by assuming that they are familiar with what is known so
> far as well, and that they are very likely to discuss it as well.

All right. Give me a link.

However, whatever is in this link, I make a promise on public forum to be
very impressed in case they can convince me that they can prove any
measurable difference between two discussed here protocols. Namely, taking
preworkout drink consisting of simple carbs AND proteins as compared to
just eating simple carbs with post workout normal meal following both.

Yeah. In case they can convince me that they have some serious data I
promise to be impressed.

--
Andrzej Rosa

Andrzej Rosa
September 26th 06, 12:54 AM
DZ wrote:

> Andrzej Rosa > wrote:
>> I make a promise on public forum to be very impressed in case they
>> can convince me that they can prove any measurable difference
>> between two discussed here protocols. Namely, taking preworkout
>> drink consisting of simple carbs AND proteins as compared to just
>> eating simple carbs with post workout normal meal following both.
>
> Can they prove? Well, if you really want to go this route, then I will
> assert that there is no proof that smoking is causing cancer -

Because it is not _causing_ cancer. It's a factor which may or may not be
important, depending mostly on your genetics.

> http://home.nc.rr.com/netsink/FactorFlip1.pdf

But I like your link anyway. You are one bright fellow and I'd swap brains
with you any time, but I still refuse to go on a diet because some mice
seemed to last longer this way. ;-)

Going back to the original question, which AFAIR was if OP's gains would
suffer much if he trained on an empty stomach I still consider that "at
best not likely" is the right answer to it. Especially if he took care of
his possibly low energy levels during workout.

--
Andrzej Rosa

Andrzej Rosa
September 26th 06, 02:38 AM
DZ wrote:

> Andrzej Rosa > wrote:
>> DZ wrote:
>>> Can they prove? Well, if you really want to go this route, then I will
>>> assert that there is no proof that smoking is causing cancer -
>>
>> Because it is not _causing_ cancer. It's a factor which may or may not
>> be important, depending mostly on your genetics.
>
> A statement "smoking increases the risk of cancer" is not any easier
> to prove (but I do believe it increases the risk)
>
> For example, the carcinogenic deposits from heavy weed smoking seem to
> reduce the risk of lung cancer -
>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729_pf.html
>
> Sure, they have an explanation. Or maybe it's another "factor flip".

That is why I asked for data, not for a model explaining how this or that
may work in vivo. Without good data most models should be treated as
hypotheses.

>> Going back to the original question, which AFAIR was if OP's gains would
>> suffer much if he trained on an empty stomach I still consider that "at
>> best not likely" is the right answer to it. Especially if he took care
>> of his possibly low energy levels during workout.
>
> Well, I do work out on empty stomach, and I don't think it's a waste
> of time. It would probably be a good idea to eat right after that
> though. John posted all those abstracts here previously.

So what are we discussing here? Quality of science in general?

My main point was to rather leave science alone and do not jump to some
crazy beginner conclusions like eating 50g of protein per gram of vastus
medialis 15s after second rep of side lounges and simply KISS it.

--
Andrzej Rosa

JMW
September 26th 06, 04:20 AM
Andrzej Rosa > wrote:

>JMW wrote:
>
>> Andrzej Rosa > wrote:
>>
>>>Pete wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Andrzej Rosa" > schreef:
>>>>
>[...]
>>>> Well, its about short chain AAs (Whey) together with simple carbs, to
>>>> create an insuline spike.
>>>
>>>I did not read the studies, but AFAIR simple carbs without whey can create
>>>an insuline spike just fine.
>>>
>>>But it makes some sense that this spike might help. Simple carbs give
>>>immediate energy surge during workout and later increase hunger, when you
>>>eat real food post workout.
>>
>> "Energy surge" and hunger are not what it's about.
>
>From my practical point of view it actually is what it's about. Simple
>carbs give some immediate energy, which I needed for workout when I was
>working out hungry, but they also give this "false hunger" which happens
>later due to the insulin spike. If you eat real food post-workout it is
>fine, thou.
>
>> Insulin signaling of muscle protein synthesis is what it's about.
>
>Funny thing, I read that insulin prevents muscle catabolism, and
>that "little is known" about how it works in vivo...

The fact "little is known" by you does not mean that "little is known"
by those who actually study such things.

>> And having a ready
>> availability of essential amino acids when that signaling occurs is
>> why the whey is important.
>
>Maybe. Is there some good long term study which compares measurable effects
>of protein+carb drinks to simple carbs drinks taken pre-workout? If not,
>we are discussing hypotheses.

We are discussing an immediate affect on muscle protein synthesis that
has been confirmed by a number of different chemical analyses of
biopsied muscle tissue and urinary excretion. A long-term effect
would depend on scrupulous continuation of the protocol, along with
strict controls on dietary intake and training protocols of all test
subjects. Not likely.

>> That's not my opinion. That's what's been found repeatedly in recent
>> studies.
>
>Any normal person should stop paying attention when a key word of "recent
>research" or "latest study" appears.

I've posted numerous citations of such studies. Google for 'em,
Sparky.

And just to throw you a bone, here are some recent ones:

Bird SP, Tarpenning KM, Marino FE. Liquid carbohydrate/essential amino
acid ingestion during a short-term bout of resistance exercise
suppresses myofibrillar protein degradation. Metabolism. 2006
May;55(5):570-7.

Deldicque L, Theisen D, Francaux M. Regulation of mTOR by amino acids
and resistance exercise in skeletal muscle. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2005
May;94(1-2):1-10.

Your personal pontifications, based on the anecdotal evidence of your
own limited experience, may differ.

JMW
September 26th 06, 04:31 AM
Andrzej Rosa > wrote:

>DZ wrote:
>
>> Andrzej Rosa > wrote:
>>> DZ wrote:
>>>> Can they prove? Well, if you really want to go this route, then I will
>>>> assert that there is no proof that smoking is causing cancer -
>>>
>>> Because it is not _causing_ cancer. It's a factor which may or may not
>>> be important, depending mostly on your genetics.
>>
>> A statement "smoking increases the risk of cancer" is not any easier
>> to prove (but I do believe it increases the risk)
>>
>> For example, the carcinogenic deposits from heavy weed smoking seem to
>> reduce the risk of lung cancer -
>>
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729_pf.html
>>
>> Sure, they have an explanation. Or maybe it's another "factor flip".
>
>That is why I asked for data, not for a model explaining how this or that
>may work in vivo. Without good data most models should be treated as
>hypotheses.
>
>>> Going back to the original question, which AFAIR was if OP's gains would
>>> suffer much if he trained on an empty stomach I still consider that "at
>>> best not likely" is the right answer to it. Especially if he took care
>>> of his possibly low energy levels during workout.
>>
>> Well, I do work out on empty stomach, and I don't think it's a waste
>> of time. It would probably be a good idea to eat right after that
>> though. John posted all those abstracts here previously.
>
>So what are we discussing here? Quality of science in general?
>
>My main point was to rather leave science alone and do not jump to some
>crazy beginner conclusions like eating 50g of protein per gram of vastus
>medialis 15s after second rep of side lounges and simply KISS it.

In terms of Keeping It Stupidly Simple, just how damned hard is it to
throw two scoops of whey powder into a plastic drink bottle, put that
bottle and a carb drink into your gym bag, mix them at the gym, and
drink it, along with water, throughout your training session?

Do you need instructions on how to shake the drink bottle?

David Cohen
September 26th 06, 05:20 AM
"JMW" > wrote
> Andrzej Rosa > wrote:
>>DZ wrote:
>>> Andrzej Rosa > wrote:
>>>> DZ wrote:
>>>>> Can they prove? Well, if you really want to go this route, then I will
>>>>> assert that there is no proof that smoking is causing cancer -
>>>>
>>>> Because it is not _causing_ cancer. It's a factor which may or may not
>>>> be important, depending mostly on your genetics.
>>>
>>> A statement "smoking increases the risk of cancer" is not any easier
>>> to prove (but I do believe it increases the risk)
>>>
>>> For example, the carcinogenic deposits from heavy weed smoking seem to
>>> reduce the risk of lung cancer -
>>>
>>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729_pf.html
>>>
>>> Sure, they have an explanation. Or maybe it's another "factor flip".
>>
>>That is why I asked for data, not for a model explaining how this or that
>>may work in vivo. Without good data most models should be treated as
>>hypotheses.
>>
>>>> Going back to the original question, which AFAIR was if OP's gains
>>>> would
>>>> suffer much if he trained on an empty stomach I still consider that "at
>>>> best not likely" is the right answer to it. Especially if he took care
>>>> of his possibly low energy levels during workout.
>>>
>>> Well, I do work out on empty stomach, and I don't think it's a waste
>>> of time. It would probably be a good idea to eat right after that
>>> though. John posted all those abstracts here previously.
>>
>>So what are we discussing here? Quality of science in general?
>>
>>My main point was to rather leave science alone and do not jump to some
>>crazy beginner conclusions like eating 50g of protein per gram of vastus
>>medialis 15s after second rep of side lounges and simply KISS it.
>
> In terms of Keeping It Stupidly Simple, just how damned hard is it to
> throw two scoops of whey powder into a plastic drink bottle, put that
> bottle and a carb drink into your gym bag, mix them at the gym, and
> drink it, along with water, throughout your training session?
>
> Do you need instructions on how to shake the drink bottle?

Should be easier than keeping a little fat beagle from eating poop.

David

Andrzej Rosa
September 26th 06, 06:14 AM
Dnia 2006-09-26 JMW napisa│(a):
> Andrzej Rosa > wrote:
>
>>JMW wrote:
[...]
>>> Insulin signaling of muscle protein synthesis is what it's about.
>>
>>Funny thing, I read that insulin prevents muscle catabolism, and
>>that "little is known" about how it works in vivo...
>
> The fact "little is known" by you does not mean that "little is known"
> by those who actually study such things.

Oh, they know a lot. Problem is that to really understand such a
complicated system may be a task which requires even deeper knowledge.

>>> And having a ready
>>> availability of essential amino acids when that signaling occurs is
>>> why the whey is important.
>>
>>Maybe. Is there some good long term study which compares measurable effects
>>of protein+carb drinks to simple carbs drinks taken pre-workout? If not,
>>we are discussing hypotheses.
>
> We are discussing an immediate affect on muscle protein synthesis that
> has been confirmed by a number of different chemical analyses of
> biopsied muscle tissue and urinary excretion.

Muscles do not have to grow immediately.

> A long-term effect
> would depend on scrupulous continuation of the protocol, along with
> strict controls on dietary intake and training protocols of all test
> subjects. Not likely.

Bad luck.

>>> That's not my opinion. That's what's been found repeatedly in recent
>>> studies.
>>
>>Any normal person should stop paying attention when a key word of "recent
>>research" or "latest study" appears.
>
> I've posted numerous citations of such studies. Google for 'em,
> Sparky.
>
> And just to throw you a bone, here are some recent ones:

I hope that you carry some guns in this case, because discussion with
someone who is both rude and wrong turns me off.

> Bird SP, Tarpenning KM, Marino FE. Liquid carbohydrate/essential amino
> acid ingestion during a short-term bout of resistance exercise
> suppresses myofibrillar protein degradation. Metabolism. 2006
> May;55(5):570-7.

No luck this time. Acute hormonal levels seemed to favor simple carbs
over carbs+proteins and longish term effect and conclusions they drawn
looked slightly fishy, because they did not give numbers for just carbs
drink. Judging by P<0.1 final conclusion about synergy between carbs
and proteins looks a little far fetched, by it is hard to say without
reading the rest of an article.

If you have a link to a full text article by those guys on similar
topic I'd be glad to have a look.

> Deldicque L, Theisen D, Francaux M. Regulation of mTOR by amino acids
> and resistance exercise in skeletal muscle. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2005
> May;94(1-2):1-10.

Not relevant.

> Your personal pontifications, based on the anecdotal evidence of your
> own limited experience, may differ.

Did they?

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Andrzej Rosa
September 26th 06, 06:22 AM
Dnia 2006-09-26 JMW napisa│(a):
> Andrzej Rosa > wrote:
>
>>So what are we discussing here? Quality of science in general?
>>
>>My main point was to rather leave science alone and do not jump to some
>>crazy beginner conclusions like eating 50g of protein per gram of vastus
>>medialis 15s after second rep of side lounges and simply KISS it.
>
> In terms of Keeping It Stupidly Simple, just how damned hard is it to
> throw two scoops of whey powder into a plastic drink bottle, put that
> bottle and a carb drink into your gym bag, mix them at the gym, and
> drink it, along with water, throughout your training session?

Oh, you assume that someone already has both whey proteins and carb
drinks. I'd be glad to know how many 1000+ lb squatters fit into this
club.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

JMW
September 26th 06, 07:35 AM
Andrzej Rosa > wrote:
>Dnia 2006-09-26 JMW napisa│(a):
>> Andrzej Rosa > wrote:
>>>JMW wrote:
>[...]
>>>> Insulin signaling of muscle protein synthesis is what it's about.
>>>
>>>Funny thing, I read that insulin prevents muscle catabolism, and
>>>that "little is known" about how it works in vivo...
>>
>> The fact "little is known" by you does not mean that "little is known"
>> by those who actually study such things.
>
>Oh, they know a lot. Problem is that to really understand such a
>complicated system may be a task which requires even deeper knowledge.
>
>>>> And having a ready
>>>> availability of essential amino acids when that signaling occurs is
>>>> why the whey is important.
>>>
>>>Maybe. Is there some good long term study which compares measurable effects
>>>of protein+carb drinks to simple carbs drinks taken pre-workout? If not,
>>>we are discussing hypotheses.
>>
>> We are discussing an immediate affect on muscle protein synthesis that
>> has been confirmed by a number of different chemical analyses of
>> biopsied muscle tissue and urinary excretion.
>
>Muscles do not have to grow immediately.
>
>> A long-term effect
>> would depend on scrupulous continuation of the protocol, along with
>> strict controls on dietary intake and training protocols of all test
>> subjects. Not likely.
>
>Bad luck.
>
>>>> That's not my opinion. That's what's been found repeatedly in recent
>>>> studies.
>>>
>>>Any normal person should stop paying attention when a key word of "recent
>>>research" or "latest study" appears.
>>
>> I've posted numerous citations of such studies. Google for 'em,
>> Sparky.
>>
>> And just to throw you a bone, here are some recent ones:
>
>I hope that you carry some guns in this case, because discussion with
>someone who is both rude and wrong turns me off.

I'm rude. Such is the way of MFW. "Wrong" seems to be your fortÚ.

And I'm not here to turn you on. I really don't give a **** what you
like.

>> Bird SP, Tarpenning KM, Marino FE. Liquid carbohydrate/essential amino
>> acid ingestion during a short-term bout of resistance exercise
>> suppresses myofibrillar protein degradation. Metabolism. 2006
>> May;55(5):570-7.
>
>No luck this time. Acute hormonal levels seemed to favor simple carbs
>over carbs+proteins and longish term effect and conclusions they drawn
>looked slightly fishy, because they did not give numbers for just carbs
>drink.

"Both CHO and CHO + EAA consumption significantly increased insulin
concentration at 60, 75, and 90 minutes. It is noteworthy that insulin
appeared to still be increasing for the CHO + EAA group after this
time point." The numbers were equal at 75 minutes, and the CHO + EAA
group was still climbing at 90 minutes, while the CHO only group
started dropping. Serum glucose was at all times highest in the CHO +
EAA group, and 3-MH excretion dropped lowest in that group. Only the
reduction in cortisol was greater in the CHO group than in the CHO +
EAA group, and even those numbers were close. There ya go, Sparky!

Perhaps your luck will improve if you read more.

>Judging by P<0.1 final conclusion about synergy between carbs
>and proteins looks a little far fetched, by it is hard to say without
>reading the rest of an article.

I assume you can interpret AMA-style citations and dig it up on your
own.

>If you have a link to a full text article by those guys on similar
>topic I'd be glad to have a look.
>
>> Deldicque L, Theisen D, Francaux M. Regulation of mTOR by amino acids
>> and resistance exercise in skeletal muscle. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2005
>> May;94(1-2):1-10.
>
>Not relevant.

I see. So you find it irrelevant that the final sentence of the
conclusion in the foregoing article states: "It is, however, very
clear that AA (amino acid) ingestion before or immediately after
exercise is necessary to fully activate protein synthesis signalling
in muscle and therefore to accumulate muscle mass."

And what did you fail to understand about my earlier statement: "And
having a ready availability of essential amino acids when that
signaling occurs is why the whey is important"?

I guess I'm confused ... Are you stupid or just obstinate?

Andrzej Rosa
September 26th 06, 08:37 AM
Dnia 2006-09-26 JMW napisa│(a):
> Andrzej Rosa > wrote:
>>Dnia 2006-09-26 JMW napisa│(a):
>>> Andrzej Rosa > wrote:
>>>>JMW wrote:
[...]
>>I hope that you carry some guns in this case, because discussion with
>>someone who is both rude and wrong turns me off.
>
> I'm rude. Such is the way of MFW. "Wrong" seems to be your fortÚ.
>
> And I'm not here to turn you on. I really don't give a **** what you
> like.

You drop below what I find acceptable.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Charles
September 26th 06, 09:03 AM
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 02:35:57 -0400, JMW
> wrote:

>Andrzej Rosa > wrote:
>>Dnia 2006-09-26 JMW napisa│(a):
>>> Andrzej Rosa > wrote:
>>>>JMW wrote:
>>[...]
>>>>> Insulin signaling of muscle protein synthesis is what it's about.
>>>>
>>>>Funny thing, I read that insulin prevents muscle catabolism, and
>>>>that "little is known" about how it works in vivo...
>>>
>>> The fact "little is known" by you does not mean that "little is known"
>>> by those who actually study such things.
>>
>>Oh, they know a lot. Problem is that to really understand such a
>>complicated system may be a task which requires even deeper knowledge.
>>
>>>>> And having a ready
>>>>> availability of essential amino acids when that signaling occurs is
>>>>> why the whey is important.
>>>>
>>>>Maybe. Is there some good long term study which compares measurable effects
>>>>of protein+carb drinks to simple carbs drinks taken pre-workout? If not,
>>>>we are discussing hypotheses.
>>>
>>> We are discussing an immediate affect on muscle protein synthesis that
>>> has been confirmed by a number of different chemical analyses of
>>> biopsied muscle tissue and urinary excretion.
>>
>>Muscles do not have to grow immediately.
>>
>>> A long-term effect
>>> would depend on scrupulous continuation of the protocol, along with
>>> strict controls on dietary intake and training protocols of all test
>>> subjects. Not likely.
>>
>>Bad luck.
>>
>>>>> That's not my opinion. That's what's been found repeatedly in recent
>>>>> studies.
>>>>
>>>>Any normal person should stop paying attention when a key word of "recent
>>>>research" or "latest study" appears.
>>>
>>> I've posted numerous citations of such studies. Google for 'em,
>>> Sparky.
>>>
>>> And just to throw you a bone, here are some recent ones:
>>
>>I hope that you carry some guns in this case, because discussion with
>>someone who is both rude and wrong turns me off.
>
>I'm rude. Such is the way of MFW. "Wrong" seems to be your fortÚ.
>
>And I'm not here to turn you on. I really don't give a **** what you
>like.
>
>>> Bird SP, Tarpenning KM, Marino FE. Liquid carbohydrate/essential amino
>>> acid ingestion during a short-term bout of resistance exercise
>>> suppresses myofibrillar protein degradation. Metabolism. 2006
>>> May;55(5):570-7.
>>
>>No luck this time. Acute hormonal levels seemed to favor simple carbs
>>over carbs+proteins and longish term effect and conclusions they drawn
>>looked slightly fishy, because they did not give numbers for just carbs
>>drink.
>
>"Both CHO and CHO + EAA consumption significantly increased insulin
>concentration at 60, 75, and 90 minutes. It is noteworthy that insulin
>appeared to still be increasing for the CHO + EAA group after this
>time point." The numbers were equal at 75 minutes, and the CHO + EAA
>group was still climbing at 90 minutes, while the CHO only group
>started dropping. Serum glucose was at all times highest in the CHO +
>EAA group, and 3-MH excretion dropped lowest in that group. Only the
>reduction in cortisol was greater in the CHO group than in the CHO +
>EAA group, and even those numbers were close. There ya go, Sparky!
>
>Perhaps your luck will improve if you read more.
>
>>Judging by P<0.1 final conclusion about synergy between carbs
>>and proteins looks a little far fetched, by it is hard to say without
>>reading the rest of an article.
>
>I assume you can interpret AMA-style citations and dig it up on your
>own.
>
>>If you have a link to a full text article by those guys on similar
>>topic I'd be glad to have a look.
>>
>>> Deldicque L, Theisen D, Francaux M. Regulation of mTOR by amino acids
>>> and resistance exercise in skeletal muscle. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2005
>>> May;94(1-2):1-10.
>>
>>Not relevant.
>
>I see. So you find it irrelevant that the final sentence of the
>conclusion in the foregoing article states: "It is, however, very
>clear that AA (amino acid) ingestion before or immediately after
>exercise is necessary to fully activate protein synthesis signalling
>in muscle and therefore to accumulate muscle mass."
>
>And what did you fail to understand about my earlier statement: "And
>having a ready availability of essential amino acids when that
>signaling occurs is why the whey is important"?
>
>I guess I'm confused ... Are you stupid or just obstinate?

Do you see yet another challenge to your 'superior intelligence' John?
Is Andrzej Rosa another upstart claiming knowledge in matters of which
you are the resident expert?

No doubt you are basking in the warm afterglow of this latest example
of your own smug self-importance, which displays your laughable
assumed inclusion among some high intelligentsia.

Unfortunately, this overt display of mental masturbation is as lonely
as its sexual counterpart, and the matter in hand looms large only in
your own mind.

However, it is an insight into a troubled mind which ofttimes makes
amusing reading!

I just thought you ought to know that! ;o)

JMW
September 26th 06, 12:52 PM
Andrzej Rosa > wrote:
>Dnia 2006-09-26 JMW napisa│(a):
>> Andrzej Rosa > wrote:
>>>Dnia 2006-09-26 JMW napisa│(a):
>>>> Andrzej Rosa > wrote:
>>>>>JMW wrote:
>[...]
>>>I hope that you carry some guns in this case, because discussion with
>>>someone who is both rude and wrong turns me off.
>>
>> I'm rude. Such is the way of MFW. "Wrong" seems to be your fortÚ.
>>
>> And I'm not here to turn you on. I really don't give a **** what you
>> like.
>
>You drop below what I find acceptable.

Another member of the "polite is better than right" club.

May your ignorance be accordingly blissful.

Will Brink
September 26th 06, 02:26 PM
In article >, Andrzej Rosa
> wrote:

>
> Any normal person should stop paying attention when a key word of "recent
> research" or "latest study" appears.

You prefer old studies? no studies? A smart person will perk up when they
hear there is data to support something, and perhaps ask to see the study.

Will Brink
September 26th 06, 02:38 PM
In article >, Andrzej Rosa
> wrote:


>
> I hope that you carry some guns in this case,

He does.

> because discussion with
> someone who is both rude and wrong turns me off.

Then you have come to the wrong news group. He's right, you're wrong.
Don't let the screen door hit you in the ass on the way out. You have
supplied zero data to support your position. He has supplied data to
support his.

Charles
September 26th 06, 02:48 PM
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 09:38:17 -0400, (Will Brink)
wrote:

>In article >, Andrzej Rosa
> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> I hope that you carry some guns in this case,
>
>He does.
>
>> because discussion with
>> someone who is both rude and wrong turns me off.
>
>Then you have come to the wrong news group. He's right, you're wrong.
>Don't let the screen door hit you in the ass on the way out. You have
>supplied zero data to support your position. He has supplied data to
>support his.

Would someone please help Will here, he's got his head so far up
Williams' arse again that he can hardly breathe.

How about a snorkel Brinksy? ;o)

Andrzej Rosa
September 26th 06, 03:46 PM
Dnia 2006-09-26 Will Brink napisa│(a):
> In article >, Andrzej Rosa
> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> I hope that you carry some guns in this case,
>
> He does.

Lets summarise what he shown. Cortisol level increases if you work out
hungry. Big deal - you use available energy stores so something must
be broken down for fuel. Mixed carbs and proteins give longer insulin
level elevation - rather trivial, if you take into account that just
proteins give their peak slightly later. Looks easy to repeat by
simply taking second carb drink slightly later. Both things may
indicate something important going on or maybe not, which is not clear.

There is some more detail to it, but I've not seen full report, which
was not available freely on several search engines I checked, but just
from what was shown it does not look like a simple step from short term
endocrine activity to long term effects.

>> because discussion with
>> someone who is both rude and wrong turns me off.
>
> Then you have come to the wrong news group. He's right, you're wrong.

Where exactly was I wrong? If you can be bothered then show me an
exact quote which is obviously wrong.

> Don't let the screen door hit you in the ass on the way out. You have
> supplied zero data to support your position. He has supplied data to
> support his.

No, he did not. He supplied references and a little bit of summary.
It is not the same as data, like in "raw data".

BTW - what do you think about what Louie Simmons and his crew say about
protein drinks in general? Where they truly rule is heavyweight, so
I'd guess that they may know a little bit about hypertrophy. They
often say that eating "clean" when on juice is not good for building
muscle mass. They prefer junk food. They squat over 1000lb.

Quest to squat 1000 is just the kind of long term study I tend to pay
attention to. If they say that pop-tarts and cheese burgers work
better than whey (even on juice, when one hypothetically could use
loads of proteins) I'm tempted to believe them.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Andrzej Rosa
September 26th 06, 03:50 PM
Dnia 2006-09-26 Charles napisa│(a):
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 09:38:17 -0400, (Will Brink)
> wrote:
>
>>In article >, Andrzej Rosa
> wrote:
>>>
>>> I hope that you carry some guns in this case,
>>
>>He does.
>>
>>> because discussion with
>>> someone who is both rude and wrong turns me off.
>>
>>Then you have come to the wrong news group. He's right, you're wrong.
>>Don't let the screen door hit you in the ass on the way out. You have
>>supplied zero data to support your position. He has supplied data to
>>support his.
>
> Would someone please help Will here, he's got his head so far up
> Williams' arse again that he can hardly breathe.
>
> How about a snorkel Brinksy? ;o)

Why do you troll them, Charles? Makes absolutely no sense, form my
point of view. I like an exchange of ideas, as long as it is possible,
but I can't recall any situation when going blow for blow in name
calling and insults resulted in something resembling a discussion.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Andrzej Rosa
September 26th 06, 03:55 PM
Dnia 2006-09-26 Will Brink napisa│(a):
> In article >, Andrzej Rosa
> wrote:
>
>> Any normal person should stop paying attention when a key word of "recent
>> research" or "latest study" appears.
>
> You prefer old studies?

I prefer established knowledge.

> no studies?

For some it may be better choice. Depends how "jumpy" someone is while
drawing far fetched conclusions. Also often I'll go with experience
gained in the trenches over what seems to be implied by recent study.

> A smart person will perk up when they
> hear there is data to support something, and perhaps ask to see the study.

Thank you. I did ask.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Andrzej Rosa
September 26th 06, 04:02 PM
Dnia 2006-09-26 JMW napisa│(a):
> Andrzej Rosa > wrote:
>>Dnia 2006-09-26 JMW napisa│(a):
>>> Andrzej Rosa > wrote:
>>>>Dnia 2006-09-26 JMW napisa│(a):
>>>>> Andrzej Rosa > wrote:
>>>>>>JMW wrote:
>>[...]
>>>>I hope that you carry some guns in this case, because discussion with
>>>>someone who is both rude and wrong turns me off.
>>>
>>> I'm rude. Such is the way of MFW. "Wrong" seems to be your fortÚ.
>>>
>>> And I'm not here to turn you on. I really don't give a **** what you
>>> like.
>>
>>You drop below what I find acceptable.
>
> Another member of the "polite is better than right" club.

C'mon. You should understand, that being insulted is not preferred way of
spending time by the majority of population.

You should also understand, that if an interlocutor starts insults and
arguments ad personam even before any heated discussion took place
chances for any exchange of ideas are practically null.

So why bother?

> May your ignorance be accordingly blissful.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Charles
September 26th 06, 04:42 PM
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 14:50:49 +0000 (UTC), Andrzej Rosa
> wrote:

>Dnia 2006-09-26 Charles napisa│(a):
>> On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 09:38:17 -0400, (Will Brink)
>> wrote:
>>
>>>In article >, Andrzej Rosa
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I hope that you carry some guns in this case,
>>>
>>>He does.
>>>
>>>> because discussion with
>>>> someone who is both rude and wrong turns me off.
>>>
>>>Then you have come to the wrong news group. He's right, you're wrong.
>>>Don't let the screen door hit you in the ass on the way out. You have
>>>supplied zero data to support your position. He has supplied data to
>>>support his.
>>
>> Would someone please help Will here, he's got his head so far up
>> Williams' arse again that he can hardly breathe.
>>
>> How about a snorkel Brinksy? ;o)
>
>Why do you troll them, Charles?

Well in a nutshell old chap, it goes back many years and is largely
based on the fact that they both give me the ****s!

>Makes absolutely no sense, form my
>point of view. I like an exchange of ideas, as long as it is possible,
>but I can't recall any situation when going blow for blow in name
>calling and insults resulted in something resembling a discussion.

You are the voice of reason here and we have waited some time for your
arrival. I hope you continue to enjoy your "exchange of ideas" with
them.

However, they will never allow you to be as clever as they think they
are, and they will undoubtedly end up giving you the ****s too.

Remember where you heard it first!

HTH! ;o)

Andrzej Rosa
September 26th 06, 04:53 PM
Dnia 2006-09-26 Charles napisa│(a):
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 14:50:49 +0000 (UTC), Andrzej Rosa
> wrote:
>
>>Dnia 2006-09-26 Charles napisa│(a):
>>
>>Why do you troll them, Charles?
>
> Well in a nutshell old chap, it goes back many years and is largely
> based on the fact that they both give me the ****s!
>
>>Makes absolutely no sense, form my
>>point of view. I like an exchange of ideas, as long as it is possible,
>>but I can't recall any situation when going blow for blow in name
>>calling and insults resulted in something resembling a discussion.
>
> You are the voice of reason here and we have waited some time for your
> arrival. I hope you continue to enjoy your "exchange of ideas" with
> them.

I'm not "the one", I'm afraid. Most probably I'll get bored with
muscle talk within at best a month.

> However, they will never allow you to be as clever as they think they

Fair enough.

> are, and they will undoubtedly end up giving you the ****s too.
>
> Remember where you heard it first!
>
> HTH! ;o)

Some people treat Internet public forums like some sort of text based
FPS game. I can understand it (everybody got to vent off some time).
I just do not feel obliged to enjoy it.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Bill Eitner
September 26th 06, 05:05 PM
> I learn something new every day on this forum. I've always equated the
> two.

The relationship is not direct (linear).

> Tried googling but didn't find much that addressed this subject
> readily.

Try researching low-carb diets. Most all
of them include info on insulin, cholesterol,
and the relationship between them and what
one eats (macronutrient percentages/ratio).

> Would you mind elaborating as to why the two are unrelated
> (or not closely related for that matter)?

Dietary cholesterol and serum cholesterol are
not linearly related. It's more complicated
than that.

> Pointers to any resources
> online would be fine as well.

Again, you might want to try your local library
for diet books like Protein Power to start with.
Many of the sources noted in the books can be
found online.

> I've eliminated egg yolk from my diet
> for cholestrol related concerns, but if that's unfounded I might add
> them back in.

The way I understand it, if you're eating a lot
of carbohydrate you have to limit saturated fat
as there's a more linear relationship between
saturated fat and serum cholesterol levels when
carbohydrate is a major dietary constituent.
When dietary carbohydrate is limited, the
relationship between saturated fat, dietary
cholesterol and serum cholesterol decreases.
In an oversimplified nutshell, macronutrient
ratio modulates hormones that control cholesterol
production and the fate of dietary cholesterol
and saturated fat.

To test this I give blood every 8 weeks. That's
enough time for changes in dietary strategy to
have an effect on total serum cholesterol. I
make sure to fast for at least 12 hours beforehand
so that the cholesterol tests are consistent.
The idea is to give blood in order to get a few
free baseline test numbers based on current diet
and other variables. Then make one or more changes
and keep it/them up until the next time you give
blood. Compare the numbers, note the changes, and
do with that info what you will. In a years time
you'll have collected 6 sets of numbers and have
a fair idea of what works well in your particular
case.

> Thanks.

You're welcome. I hope this helps.
--

Charles
September 26th 06, 05:10 PM
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 15:53:44 +0000 (UTC), Andrzej Rosa
> wrote:

>Dnia 2006-09-26 Charles napisa│(a):
>> On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 14:50:49 +0000 (UTC), Andrzej Rosa
> wrote:
>>
>>>Dnia 2006-09-26 Charles napisa│(a):
>>>
>>>Why do you troll them, Charles?
>>
>> Well in a nutshell old chap, it goes back many years and is largely
>> based on the fact that they both give me the ****s!
>>
>>>Makes absolutely no sense, form my
>>>point of view. I like an exchange of ideas, as long as it is possible,
>>>but I can't recall any situation when going blow for blow in name
>>>calling and insults resulted in something resembling a discussion.
>>
>> You are the voice of reason here and we have waited some time for your
>> arrival. I hope you continue to enjoy your "exchange of ideas" with
>> them.
>
>I'm not "the one", I'm afraid. Most probably I'll get bored with
>muscle talk within at best a month.
>
>> However, they will never allow you to be as clever as they think they
>
>Fair enough.
>
>> are, and they will undoubtedly end up giving you the ****s too.
>>
>> Remember where you heard it first!
>>
>> HTH! ;o)
>
>Some people treat Internet public forums like some sort of text based
>FPS game. I can understand it (everybody got to vent off some time).
>I just do not feel obliged to enjoy it.

It has its compensations and doesn't take up an inordinate amount of
my time. I use it as a harmless distraction, mostly during the week,
when I want a break from what I am doing at work.

I used to do the Telegraph crossword, but when MFW is quiet or boring,
I now do the daily Sudoku.

Andrzej Rosa
September 26th 06, 05:42 PM
Dnia 2006-09-26 DZ napisa│(a):
> Andrzej Rosa > wrote:
>> Dnia 2006-09-26 Will Brink napisa│(a):
>>> Andrzej Rosa > wrote:
>>>> Any normal person should stop paying attention when a key word of
>>>> "recent research" or "latest study" appears.
>>>
>>> You prefer old studies?
>>
>> I prefer established knowledge.
>>
>>> no studies?
>>
>> For some it may be better choice. Depends how "jumpy" someone is while
>> drawing far fetched conclusions. Also often I'll go with experience
>> gained in the trenches over what seems to be implied by recent study.
>
> Science, applied variety anyway, come from many trenches, while you,
> or me, only saw a few. There might be a theorizing geek among the
> co-authors on a paper, but there will also be people who know a lot
> more about the trenches than any given athlete. It's just the way it
> works.

First, I'm not completely disregarding it and not just because there
might be a meat-head among researchers. Science works fine, just in
some cases where good data are hard to come by, it may take longer to
stabilise.

But you probably understand, that approach of someone who reached elite
status after many year of struggle would "speak bigger words" in view
of many, me included, than even perfectly performed acute study
extrapolated onto long term results? An athlete may not exactly know
what he did, but sure as hell he had to pay attention to what worked
and what was useless.

Like whey protein supplements for Westside guys seems to be, for
example.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Andrzej Rosa
September 26th 06, 05:50 PM
Dnia 2006-09-26 Charles napisa│(a):
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 15:53:44 +0000 (UTC), Andrzej Rosa
> wrote:
>
>>Dnia 2006-09-26 Charles napisa│(a):
>>> On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 14:50:49 +0000 (UTC), Andrzej Rosa
> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>Some people treat Internet public forums like some sort of text based
>>FPS game. I can understand it (everybody got to vent off some time).
>>I just do not feel obliged to enjoy it.
>
> It has its compensations and doesn't take up an inordinate amount of
> my time. I use it as a harmless distraction, mostly during the week,
> when I want a break from what I am doing at work.
>
> I used to do the Telegraph crossword, but when MFW is quiet or boring,
> I now do the daily Sudoku.

Wasn't thinking about you when I wrote it, but the fact is that it
applies, at least to a point.

I didn't sleep well today, so I may be a little vogue at times, but
normally I would not give you a lecture like that. Your life, your
past time, your choices. I meant that when a flak like that starts
falling too dense around me, I normally go somewhere else.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Charles
September 26th 06, 05:58 PM
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 16:50:35 +0000 (UTC), Andrzej Rosa
> wrote:

>Dnia 2006-09-26 Charles napisa│(a):
>> On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 15:53:44 +0000 (UTC), Andrzej Rosa
> wrote:
>>
>>>Dnia 2006-09-26 Charles napisa│(a):
>>>> On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 14:50:49 +0000 (UTC), Andrzej Rosa
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>>Some people treat Internet public forums like some sort of text based
>>>FPS game. I can understand it (everybody got to vent off some time).
>>>I just do not feel obliged to enjoy it.
>>
>> It has its compensations and doesn't take up an inordinate amount of
>> my time. I use it as a harmless distraction, mostly during the week,
>> when I want a break from what I am doing at work.
>>
>> I used to do the Telegraph crossword, but when MFW is quiet or boring,
>> I now do the daily Sudoku.
>
>Wasn't thinking about you when I wrote it, but the fact is that it
>applies, at least to a point.

I have no argument with that; it is a game which keeps me on my toes
and allows me to practice my touch-typing, which is now on a par with
most of the ladies in the Firm's typing pool.

>
>I didn't sleep well today, so I may be a little vogue at times, but
>normally I would not give you a lecture like that.

No offence taken; your question was quite valid given that you have no
idea of what has gone before between the people concerned.

>Your life, your
>past time, your choices.

As you say, MY choices.

>I meant that when a flak like that starts
>falling too dense around me, I normally go somewhere else.

Your choice; however, stick around, there are also some great people
here, some good snippets of information on a range of topics - and
also some great humour! ;o)

JMW
September 26th 06, 05:58 PM
Andrzej Rosa > wrote:
>Dnia 2006-09-26 Will Brink napisa│(a):
>> Andrzej Rosa > wrote:
>>>
>>> I hope that you carry some guns in this case,
>>
>> He does.
>
>Lets summarise what he shown. Cortisol level increases if you work out
>hungry. Big deal - you use available energy stores so something must
>be broken down for fuel. Mixed carbs and proteins give longer insulin
>level elevation - rather trivial, if you take into account that just
>proteins give their peak slightly later. Looks easy to repeat by
>simply taking second carb drink slightly later. Both things may
>indicate something important going on or maybe not, which is not clear.

It's not clear because you don't want it to be. You have preconceived
notions of how you want things to be. You seem to follow this theory
that calorie-loading high-carb foods is the end-all-be-all,
particularly for powerlifting, probably because that is what you like
to eat. I'm not surprised; there's at least one person in Lyle's
forum who seems to consider himself a sub-guru and who pontificates on
that same point. It doesn't make either of you correct, or accurate,
or even helpful. You are trying to reverse-engineer "this is what I
like" into "this is what you should do." I'm sure if you look hard
enough, you will find plenty of other asshats who are willing to join
in with you.

>There is some more detail to it, but I've not seen full report, which
>was not available freely on several search engines I checked, but just
>from what was shown it does not look like a simple step from short term
>endocrine activity to long term effects.

Short-term boosts in muscle protein synthesis from resistance training
plus amino acid consumption are retained over a 24-hour period with no
feedback effect in terms of protein breakdown.

Tipton KD, Borsheim E, Wolf SE, Sanford AP, Wolfe RR. Acute response
of net muscle protein balance reflects 24-h balance after exercise and
amino acid ingestion. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2003
Jan;284(1):E76-89.

>>> because discussion with
>>> someone who is both rude and wrong turns me off.
>>
>> Then you have come to the wrong news group. He's right, you're wrong.
>
>Where exactly was I wrong? If you can be bothered then show me an
>exact quote which is obviously wrong.
>
>> Don't let the screen door hit you in the ass on the way out. You have
>> supplied zero data to support your position. He has supplied data to
>> support his.
>
>No, he did not. He supplied references and a little bit of summary.
>It is not the same as data, like in "raw data".

You won't get raw data even in the literature, dumbass. Now you're
just being a whiny little bitch because others have done the research
and you haven't.

>BTW - what do you think about what Louie Simmons and his crew say about
>protein drinks in general? Where they truly rule is heavyweight, so
>I'd guess that they may know a little bit about hypertrophy. They
>often say that eating "clean" when on juice is not good for building
>muscle mass. They prefer junk food. They squat over 1000lb.

They also carry an enormous amount of fat and use heavy cycles of
anabolic steroids. Plus, they are genetically gifted to start with.
I seem to recall that you were a rank novice not so long ago.

>Quest to squat 1000 is just the kind of long term study I tend to pay
>attention to. If they say that pop-tarts and cheese burgers work
>better than whey (even on juice, when one hypothetically could use
>loads of proteins) I'm tempted to believe them.

Go with the folk wisdom, Sparky.

Will Brink
September 26th 06, 07:27 PM
In article >, Andrzej Rosa
> wrote:

>
> > Don't let the screen door hit you in the ass on the way out. You have
> > supplied zero data to support your position. He has supplied data to
> > support his.
>
> No, he did not. He supplied references

Exactly. That's called support for your position. It's up to you to go
pull the study if it interests you. Should he print it out and mail it to
you?

> and a little bit of summary.
> It is not the same as data,

It's a lot more then you supplied.

> like in "raw data".

Pull full studies for raw data then.


>
> BTW - what do you think about what Louie Simmons and his crew say about
> protein drinks in general?

Probably the same thing we say here: food is best but protein drinks have
their place, and timing is important.

> Where they truly rule is heavyweight, so
> I'd guess that they may know a little bit about hypertrophy.

No, they know a lot about training for strength. Hypertrophy is not their
focus per se.

> They
> often say that eating "clean" when on juice is not good for building
> muscle mass. They prefer junk food. They squat over 1000lb.

I would agree, and have eaten with many a high level athlete eating pizza
and burgers and apple pie. Lots of food and plenty of AAS = big strong
people.

>
> Quest to squat 1000 is just the kind of long term study I tend to pay
> attention to. If they say that pop-tarts and cheese burgers work
> better than whey (even on juice, when one hypothetically could use
> loads of proteins) I'm tempted to believe them.

They all have their place. There's many ways to skin cat, but one thing
is well supported: post workout, high GI carbs and fast proteins support
the post workout phase where there is a window that lasts about an hour
where one can optimize glycogen storage, protein synthesis, and other
effects desired by athletes. Dozens of studies support it. My late pal Dan
Duchaine used to have people take whey and eat Corn Flakes post workout,
which is one way to do it. I too would like to see a study that had one
group eat a regular meal post workout and one group do the high GI/fast
protein drink and track them for a long enough time to see if there are
really any differences in bodycomp, strength, etc, but such studies are
rare as they are expensive.

Will Brink
September 26th 06, 07:29 PM
In article >, Andrzej Rosa
> wrote:


>
> Why do you troll them, Charles? Makes absolutely no sense, form my
> point of view. I like an exchange of ideas, as long as it is possible,
> but I can't recall any situation when going blow for blow in name
> calling and insults resulted in something resembling a discussion.

Don't feed the trolls. He's just wants attention and that's his attempt to
get it. Sad really that an adult man would spend his time at such things,
but that's how some (sad) people are. He's one of those people and why God
designed the killfile option on news readers.

Will Brink
September 26th 06, 07:32 PM
In article >, Andrzej Rosa
> wrote:

> Dnia 2006-09-26 Will Brink napisa│(a):
> > In article >, Andrzej Rosa
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Any normal person should stop paying attention when a key word of "recent
> >> research" or "latest study" appears.
> >
> > You prefer old studies?
>
> I prefer established knowledge.

Based on what???? Wishful thinking? N = 1 observations? Objective research
is where established knowledge starts.

>
> > no studies?
>
> For some it may be better choice.

Wrong

> Depends how "jumpy" someone is while
> drawing far fetched conclusions. Also often I'll go with experience
> gained in the trenches over what seems to be implied by recent study.

They both have an important function.

Charles
September 26th 06, 08:01 PM
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 14:27:03 -0400, (Will Brink)
wrote:

>In article >, Andrzej Rosa
> wrote:
>
>>
>> > Don't let the screen door hit you in the ass on the way out. You have
>> > supplied zero data to support your position. He has supplied data to
>> > support his.
>>
>> No, he did not. He supplied references
>
>Exactly. That's called support for your position. It's up to you to go
>pull the study if it interests you. Should he print it out and mail it to
>you?

Well you normally print it out and post it in ****ing great reams
here, instead of just providing a link.

Double standards Brinksy?

Charles
September 26th 06, 08:04 PM
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 14:29:11 -0400, (Will Brink)
wrote:

>In article >, Andrzej Rosa
> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Why do you troll them, Charles? Makes absolutely no sense, form my
>> point of view. I like an exchange of ideas, as long as it is possible,
>> but I can't recall any situation when going blow for blow in name
>> calling and insults resulted in something resembling a discussion.
>
>Don't feed the trolls. He's just wants attention and that's his attempt to
>get it. Sad really that an adult man would spend his time at such things,
>but that's how some (sad) people are. He's one of those people and why God
>designed the killfile option on news readers.

Would you like me to post links to some of your past "trolls" little
Willy, and give reasons why I give you the odd kick in the crutch?

Double standards again little Willy!

Andrzej Rosa
September 26th 06, 08:11 PM
Dnia 2006-09-26 JMW napisa│(a):
> Andrzej Rosa > wrote:
>>Dnia 2006-09-26 Will Brink napisa│(a):
>>> Andrzej Rosa > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I hope that you carry some guns in this case,
>>>
>>> He does.
>>
>>Lets summarise what he shown. Cortisol level increases if you work out
>>hungry. Big deal - you use available energy stores so something must
>>be broken down for fuel. Mixed carbs and proteins give longer insulin
>>level elevation - rather trivial, if you take into account that just
>>proteins give their peak slightly later. Looks easy to repeat by
>>simply taking second carb drink slightly later. Both things may
>>indicate something important going on or maybe not, which is not clear.
>
> It's not clear because you don't want it to be.

Can't exclude. It's definitely easier and taster to eat real food when
you are hungry.

> You have preconceived
> notions of how you want things to be. You seem to follow this theory
> that calorie-loading high-carb foods is the end-all-be-all,
> particularly for powerlifting,

It would be hypothesis and hypotheses are tested, not followed. Anyway
I do not subscribe to it. I do not believe that 3000 calories of sugar
will yield similar results like 3000 calories of real food.

> probably because that is what you like to eat.

I do, but that is not an exact reason why I find eating food better
than powders.

> I'm not surprised; there's at least one person in Lyle's
> forum who seems to consider himself a sub-guru and who pontificates on
> that same point. It doesn't make either of you correct, or accurate,
> or even helpful. You are trying to reverse-engineer "this is what I
> like" into "this is what you should do." I'm sure if you look hard
> enough, you will find plenty of other asshats who are willing to join
> in with you.

Too much psychology and still you are attacking a person, not his
views. It would be considered low key in many situations and is surely
counterproductive. Shows nothing.

>>There is some more detail to it, but I've not seen full report, which
>>was not available freely on several search engines I checked, but just
>>from what was shown it does not look like a simple step from short term
>>endocrine activity to long term effects.
>
> Short-term boosts in muscle protein synthesis from resistance training
> plus amino acid consumption are retained over a 24-hour period with no
> feedback effect in terms of protein breakdown.
>
> Tipton KD, Borsheim E, Wolf SE, Sanford AP, Wolfe RR. Acute response
> of net muscle protein balance reflects 24-h balance after exercise and
> amino acid ingestion. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2003
> Jan;284(1):E76-89.

What exactly do you want to show here? That body is able to digest
protein drinks fast? Rather obvious. That studies should be
interpreted carefully? I thought it was my idea.

Because if you happen to think that this study shows a necessity of
drinking proteins taken pre-workout you are clearly mistaken. Even in
case of protein drinks peak absorption happened something like two
hours after workout with second smaller peak appearing during much
later meal. How do you conclude that actually exercise and not just
simple fact of taking a shake created increased concentrations of
proteins in intramuscular waters? It very much looks like
intramuscular and intravenous concentrations go hand to hand.

They lack a control group which took a shake but did not exercise for
you to show anything relevant to our topic.

And finally, why do you think that normal meal eaten post workout, like
in the case of OP, is wrong?

I'm not ditching all this timing concept, if you care to remember. I
was just sceptical if a study exist which could show measurable
difference in taking simple carbs pre-workout followed by a meal post
workout to similar protocol but including some proteins in pre-workout
shake.

>>> Don't let the screen door hit you in the ass on the way out. You have
>>> supplied zero data to support your position. He has supplied data to
>>> support his.
>>
>>No, he did not. He supplied references and a little bit of summary.
>>It is not the same as data, like in "raw data".
>
> You won't get raw data even in the literature,

Data like in raw data, which means here numbers, graphs and tables as
opposed to just an abstract.

> dumbass. Now you're
> just being a whiny little bitch because others have done the research
> and you haven't.

I'm afraid, you appear pathetic.

>>BTW - what do you think about what Louie Simmons and his crew say about
>>protein drinks in general? Where they truly rule is heavyweight, so
>>I'd guess that they may know a little bit about hypertrophy. They
>>often say that eating "clean" when on juice is not good for building
>>muscle mass. They prefer junk food. They squat over 1000lb.
>
> They also carry an enormous amount of fat

Because they do not eat whey protein? Silly guys. They could build so
much more of lean muscle by just gorging on a several shakes a day...

> and use heavy cycles of anabolic steroids.

So they should be able to metabolise even more proteins, no?

> Plus, they are genetically gifted to start with.

All of them in one gym? I try to visualise P-value of such a lucky
draw. ;-)

> I seem to recall that you were a rank novice not so long ago.

Like ten years ago when I first regularly trained. 6 years off in
total since then. ;-) I'm not one of the most dedicated, but now I'm
training regularly. Now I need it as opposed to just I like to.

>>Quest to squat 1000 is just the kind of long term study I tend to pay
>>attention to. If they say that pop-tarts and cheese burgers work
>>better than whey (even on juice, when one hypothetically could use
>>loads of proteins) I'm tempted to believe them.
>
> Go with the folk wisdom, Sparky.

I do not follow this diet. I'm not on roids, for example, so I'd just
grow fat. But it shows something anyway.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Andrzej Rosa
September 26th 06, 08:54 PM
Dnia 2006-09-26 Will Brink napisa│(a):
> In article >, Andrzej Rosa
> wrote:
>
>> No, he did not. He supplied references
>
> Exactly. That's called support for your position.

It was supposed to support his position, not my.

> It's up to you to go
> pull the study if it interests you. Should he print it out and mail it to
> you?

Hard to discuss invisible data.

>> and a little bit of summary.
>> It is not the same as data,
>
> It's a lot more then you supplied.

Do you remember what I wrote?

I wrote that I'd be surprised, if existed a study, which was able to show
any relevant and measurable difference between two pretty close
protocols.

Now I'm supposed to find there is none?

Sure, I did! It's all available in a baggage compartment on a nearby
railway station. It's up to John to pay a visit and have a look, if he
is interested. ;-)


>> like in "raw data".
>
> Pull full studies for raw data then.

Not available for free.

>> BTW - what do you think about what Louie Simmons and his crew say about
>> protein drinks in general?
>
> Probably the same thing we say here: food is best but protein drinks have
> their place, and timing is important.

Fine by me.

>> Where they truly rule is heavyweight, so
>> I'd guess that they may know a little bit about hypertrophy.
>
> No, they know a lot about training for strength. Hypertrophy is not their
> focus per se.

You do not become SHW without at least some of it. And once you are
SHW it is just about strength with no weight limits to observe, so
there I was heading.

>> They
>> often say that eating "clean" when on juice is not good for building
>> muscle mass. They prefer junk food. They squat over 1000lb.
>
> I would agree, and have eaten with many a high level athlete eating pizza
> and burgers and apple pie. Lots of food and plenty of AAS = big strong
> people.

So where do our positions differ, then?

>> Quest to squat 1000 is just the kind of long term study I tend to pay
>> attention to. If they say that pop-tarts and cheese burgers work
>> better than whey (even on juice, when one hypothetically could use
>> loads of proteins) I'm tempted to believe them.
>
> They all have their place. There's many ways to skin cat,

Sure. Louie based his approach on some science, after all.

> but one thing
> is well supported: post workout, high GI carbs and fast proteins support
> the post workout phase where there is a window that lasts about an hour
> where one can optimize glycogen storage, protein synthesis, and other
> effects desired by athletes.

Possible.

> Dozens of studies support it. My late pal Dan
> Duchaine used to have people take whey and eat Corn Flakes post workout,
> which is one way to do it.

The other is to eat blend of powdered milk, cottage cheese and real
milk with corn flakes. I used to do it something like 10 years ago!
Had no idea I was so cutting edge. ;-)

> I too would like to see a study that had one
> group eat a regular meal post workout and one group do the high GI/fast
> protein drink and track them for a long enough time to see if there are
> really any differences in bodycomp, strength, etc, but such studies are
> rare as they are expensive.

Fact.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Andrzej Rosa
September 26th 06, 09:48 PM
Dnia 2006-09-26 Will Brink napisa│(a):
> In article >, Andrzej Rosa
> wrote:
>
>> Dnia 2006-09-26 Will Brink napisa│(a):
>> > In article >, Andrzej Rosa
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Any normal person should stop paying attention when a key word of "recent
>> >> research" or "latest study" appears.
>> >
>> > You prefer old studies?
>>
>> I prefer established knowledge.
>
> Based on what???? Wishful thinking? N = 1 observations? Objective research
> is where established knowledge starts.

Sorta obvious.

>> > no studies?
>>
>> For some it may be better choice.
>
> Wrong

Depends on a person. Do you think that all those people who performed
endless hours of snail paced aerobics to be in a fat burning zone made
reasonable use of their time?

>> Depends how "jumpy" someone is while
>> drawing far fetched conclusions. Also often I'll go with experience
>> gained in the trenches over what seems to be implied by recent study.
>
> They both have an important function.

The more advanced a field of science, the more sophisticated
understanding they provide, the less important practical experience
becomes. Nobody asks a smith how to make steel anymore.

By admitting that _both_ sources of information are important you
actually admitted that this field of science is not very good yet.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Will Brink
September 26th 06, 10:15 PM
In article >, Andrzej Rosa
> wrote:

> Dnia 2006-09-26 Will Brink napisa│(a):
> > In article >, Andrzej Rosa
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Dnia 2006-09-26 Will Brink napisa│(a):
> >> > In article >, Andrzej Rosa
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Any normal person should stop paying attention when a key word of
"recent
> >> >> research" or "latest study" appears.
> >> >
> >> > You prefer old studies?
> >>
> >> I prefer established knowledge.
> >
> > Based on what???? Wishful thinking? N = 1 observations? Objective research
> > is where established knowledge starts.
>
> Sorta obvious.

Damn right.

>
> >> > no studies?
> >>
> >> For some it may be better choice.
> >
> > Wrong
>
> Depends on a person.

Wrong. The person has no effect here.

> Do you think that all those people who performed
> endless hours of snail paced aerobics to be in a fat burning zone made
> reasonable use of their time?

What on earth are you talking about? How does it relate to this conversation?


>
> >> Depends how "jumpy" someone is while
> >> drawing far fetched conclusions. Also often I'll go with experience
> >> gained in the trenches over what seems to be implied by recent study.
> >
> > They both have an important function.
>
> The more advanced a field of science, the more sophisticated
> understanding they provide, the less important practical experience
> becomes. Nobody asks a smith how to make steel anymore.
>
> By admitting that _both_ sources of information are important you
> actually admitted that this field of science is not very good yet.

That too would be wrong.

Will Brink
September 26th 06, 10:40 PM
In article >, Andrzej Rosa
> wrote:

> Dnia 2006-09-26 Will Brink napisa│(a):
> > In article >, Andrzej Rosa
> > wrote:
> >
> >> No, he did not. He supplied references
> >
> > Exactly. That's called support for your position.
>
> It was supposed to support his position, not my.
>
> > It's up to you to go
> > pull the study if it interests you. Should he print it out and mail it to
> > you?
>
> Hard to discuss invisible data.
>
> >> and a little bit of summary.
> >> It is not the same as data,
> >
> > It's a lot more then you supplied.
>
> Do you remember what I wrote?
>
> I wrote that I'd be surprised, if existed a study, which was able to show
> any relevant and measurable difference between two pretty close
> protocols.

And the citations and or abstracts were supplied that showed exactly that.

>
> Now I'm supposed to find there is none?

Now you're just being a dick.


>
> >> like in "raw data".
> >
> > Pull full studies for raw data then.
>
> Not available for free.

Go to a med library then. That's what i do.


> >> They
> >> often say that eating "clean" when on juice is not good for building
> >> muscle mass. They prefer junk food. They squat over 1000lb.
> >
> > I would agree, and have eaten with many a high level athlete eating pizza
> > and burgers and apple pie. Lots of food and plenty of AAS = big strong
> > people.
>
> So where do our positions differ, then?

Eh? I think the data supports the use of whey and some high GI carb pre
and post workout, and you don't, using essentially nothing to support your
position other then "that's how I feel about it" logic.


>
> >> Quest to squat 1000 is just the kind of long term study I tend to pay
> >> attention to. If they say that pop-tarts and cheese burgers work
> >> better than whey (even on juice, when one hypothetically could use
> >> loads of proteins) I'm tempted to believe them.
> >
> > They all have their place. There's many ways to skin cat,
>
> Sure. Louie based his approach on some science, after all.

I should hope so. The good coaches do.

>
> > but one thing
> > is well supported: post workout, high GI carbs and fast proteins support
> > the post workout phase where there is a window that lasts about an hour
> > where one can optimize glycogen storage, protein synthesis, and other
> > effects desired by athletes.
>
> Possible.

It's well established and generally supported by "real world" results you
are so fond of. Plenty of questions left to be answered, and it's no magic
bullet, and pizza and Anadrol is even more effective for strength and
bodycomp (health not included), but the bulk of the data is quite clear.
Due to whey being a 'fast' protein, it's very high BCAA content (leucine
being a major anabolic driver), and it's effects on GSH and immunity, make
it optimal at the right time.

Curt James
September 26th 06, 10:56 PM
John Williams wrote:
[...]

> I'm rude.

Is that how you picture yourself, Williams? As rude? That's a hoot.
Often immature. Some might call you childish, but I'd say that's far
too unfair to children. I've called you a colossal jerk, of course, but
rude? No.

[...]

> And I'm not here to turn you on.

Really? Because as much as you've played with my nipples...

http://www.rustyiron.net/curtinfl.jpg

[...]

> I guess I'm confused ...

Wouldn't surprise me.

> Are you stupid or just obstinate?

Williams, take your meds, you seem to be talking to yourself. ;o)

[...]

--
Curt

JMW
September 27th 06, 06:13 AM
DZ > wrote:
>Andrzej Rosa > wrote:
>> Will Brink wrote:
>>>> often I'll go with experience gained in the trenches over what
>>>> seems to be implied by recent study.
>>>
>>> They both have an important function.
>>
>> The more advanced a field of science, the more sophisticated
>> understanding they provide, the less important practical experience
>> becomes. Nobody asks a smith how to make steel anymore.
>>
>> By admitting that _both_ sources of information are important you
>> actually admitted that this field of science is not very good yet.
>
>Is science about black holes advanced, and is it good science? I
>suspect they know a lot less about these things than about protein
>timing. Maybe what you meant is that as long as we have science of any
>kind going on, the topic is not quite in "how to smelt kettlebells"
>category...

Why should he consider science when he can see from his own practical
experience that the earth is flat?

Andrzej Rosa
September 27th 06, 09:23 AM
Dnia 2006-09-26 DZ napisa│(a):
> Andrzej Rosa > wrote:
>> Will Brink wrote:
>>>> often I'll go with experience gained in the trenches over what
>>>> seems to be implied by recent study.
>>>
>>> They both have an important function.
>>
>> The more advanced a field of science, the more sophisticated
>> understanding they provide, the less important practical experience
>> becomes. Nobody asks a smith how to make steel anymore.
>>
>> By admitting that _both_ sources of information are important you
>> actually admitted that this field of science is not very good yet.
>
> Is science about black holes advanced, and is it good science?

I think so, to a point. I do not consider superstring theory to be a
stellar example of science but, well, It stands to reason as they have
a problem with collecting any relevant data.

But it is advanced none the less.

> I
> suspect they know a lot less about these things than about protein
> timing.

Yet it is not like a rank beginner, like me 10 years ago, is able to
come to the same conclusion as some expert by just following a reason.

Them black holes are much to complex for an outsider to do that.

> Maybe what you meant is that as long as we have science of any
> kind going on, the topic is not quite in "how to smelt kettlebells"
> category...

Well, yeah. But you got what I was saying anyway, I guess. As long as
a smith has anything important to say about smelting there exist a lack
in understanding of what is really going on.

It's an implication so do not reverse it. "Smithies" may now nothing
about black holes but it does not make a knowledge about them any
deeper.
--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Pete
September 27th 06, 11:40 AM
"Will Brink" > schreef:

> It's well established and generally supported by "real world" results you
> are so fond of. Plenty of questions left to be answered, and it's no magic
> bullet, and pizza and Anadrol is even more effective for strength and
> bodycomp (health not included), but the bulk of the data is quite clear.
> Due to whey being a 'fast' protein, it's very high BCAA content (leucine
> being a major anabolic driver), and it's effects on GSH and immunity, make
> it optimal at the right time.

Will, do think that for people who use a combination of AAS/Gh/insuline, it
matters if they get an insuline spike from Whey/simple carbs?

Like you mentioned a few times yourself, but i suspect that most regulars
here think you are joking...
I try to eat as clean as possible when "off", but on, i eat everything that
comes within sight.

And yes, that includes lots of pizzas and hamburgers. There is nothing wrong
with cheese and beef.
I just throw an extra multi vit/min tab when i get home...

----
Pete

Andrzej Rosa
September 27th 06, 11:46 AM
Dnia 2006-09-26 Will Brink napisa│(a):
> In article >, Andrzej Rosa
> wrote:
>
>> Dnia 2006-09-26 Will Brink napisa│(a):
>> > In article >, Andrzej Rosa
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> > no studies?
>> >>
>> >> For some it may be better choice.
>> >
>> > Wrong
>>
>> Depends on a person.
>
> Wrong. The person has no effect here.

Why, they make use of the info provided, don't they?

>> Do you think that all those people who performed
>> endless hours of snail paced aerobics to be in a fat burning zone made
>> reasonable use of their time?
>
> What on earth are you talking about? How does it relate to this conversation?

I thought you were asking if it makes sense for an average trainer to
_follow_ recent research, not if it makes sense to do the studies.

Generally speaking, of course it makes sense to do research in physiology. A
lot of sense.

>> > They both have an important function.
>>
>> The more advanced a field of science, the more sophisticated
>> understanding they provide, the less important practical experience
>> becomes. Nobody asks a smith how to make steel anymore.
>>
>> By admitting that _both_ sources of information are important you
>> actually admitted that this field of science is not very good yet.
>
> That too would be wrong.

So if I want bigger one handed snatch I should go to the library and
read some textbooks, like if I wanted to synthesise a steroid, for
example? I will find all the parameters of successful training program
outlined and no guess work needed?

I will tell you what I mean when I write about good understanding of some
field of knowledge. You take a person, run some obvious to everyone
involved tests on him, look in the library and see what exactly he
needs to reach specific goals simply by flipping some pages. You know
how much time it will get for him to reach some specific goal without
much margin for guess work and art of training. Where there is art
there is no science.

How much time it will get me to reach my semi short term goal of 50kg
in one handed snatch? After several months I'm at 40-somethish, around
half my bodyweight. Started at wobbly 25kg, but fast learning curve is
obviously over.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Andrzej Rosa
September 27th 06, 12:23 PM
Dnia 2006-09-26 Will Brink napisa│(a):
> In article >, Andrzej Rosa
> wrote:
>
>> Do you remember what I wrote?
>>
>> I wrote that I'd be surprised, if existed a study, which was able to show
>> any relevant and measurable difference between two pretty close
>> protocols.
>
> And the citations and or abstracts were supplied that showed exactly that.

Not really.

>> Now I'm supposed to find there is none?
>
> Now you're just being a dick.

No, I'm not. You are stretching the boundaries of logic, tough.

>> >> like in "raw data".
>> >
>> > Pull full studies for raw data then.
>>
>> Not available for free.
>
> Go to a med library then. That's what i do.

Or discard the possible grand influence of recent research on training
success of an individual. That's what I do and what many successful
trainers do.

>> > I would agree, and have eaten with many a high level athlete eating pizza
>> > and burgers and apple pie. Lots of food and plenty of AAS = big strong
>> > people.
>>
>> So where do our positions differ, then?
>
> Eh? I think the data supports the use of whey

Do data say that whey is better than food?

> and some high GI carb pre and post workout, and you don't,

Where? It was me who suggested eating something sweet pre-workout. I
assumed that post-workout meal will take care of the second part.

> using essentially nothing to support your
> position other then "that's how I feel about it" logic.

Well, yes. I never read a study on the topic, yet I was able to figure
out that a little bit of sugar will let me move some weight without
fainting, and I was also able to figure out that after hard work I'm
hungry as hell.

Rocket science, no ****. ;-)

>> > They all have their place. There's many ways to skin cat,
>>
>> Sure. Louie based his approach on some science, after all.
>
> I should hope so. The good coaches do.

True, but they are pros. They are in a position to be able to
distinguish between what works and what is irrelevant. Most of the
population though, I think should rather follow "what works for others
should also work for me" approach. They are not trying to beat world
records, after all, so newest bit of inspiration from latest research
is rarely worth an effort.

>> Possible.
>
> It's well established and generally supported by "real world" results you
> are so fond of. Plenty of questions left to be answered, and it's no magic
> bullet, and pizza and Anadrol is even more effective for strength and
> bodycomp (health not included), but the bulk of the data is quite clear.
> Due to whey being a 'fast' protein, it's very high BCAA content (leucine
> being a major anabolic driver), and it's effects on GSH and immunity, make
> it optimal at the right time.

Could be true, regarding whey. No magic bullet but a bullet none the
less seems OK.

I'd still prefer my cottage cheese blend. It was delicious and very
cheep too.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Will Brink
September 27th 06, 02:59 PM
In article >, "Pete"
> wrote:

> "Will Brink" > schreef:
>
> > It's well established and generally supported by "real world" results you
> > are so fond of. Plenty of questions left to be answered, and it's no magic
> > bullet, and pizza and Anadrol is even more effective for strength and
> > bodycomp (health not included), but the bulk of the data is quite clear.
> > Due to whey being a 'fast' protein, it's very high BCAA content (leucine
> > being a major anabolic driver), and it's effects on GSH and immunity, make
> > it optimal at the right time.
>
> Will, do think that for people who use a combination of AAS/Gh/insuline, it
> matters if they get an insuline spike from Whey/simple carbs?

Unknown as data does not exist. Is it possible people using all these
drugs are in such a hyper anabolic state that nutritional tricks like this
wont have any effects? Possible. People that use insulin generally eat or
drink a high GI meal right away anyway in an attempt to get more amino
acids and glycogen into the muscle, so they are still following along the
same lines as what we have been talking about here. It's also clear that
people with good genetics, who eat lots of food, and take AAS/GH/etc don't
need any supplement to gain lots of muscle. Is that the optimal way to go
about it? Probably not, but again, it's not like there is a study looking
at that.I will say, most people would be surprised to find out how few
supps their heroes actually use.

>
> Like you mentioned a few times yourself, but i suspect that most regulars
> here think you are joking...

About what?

> I try to eat as clean as possible when "off", but on, i eat everything that
> comes within sight.
>
> And yes, that includes lots of pizzas and hamburgers. There is nothing wrong
> with cheese and beef.

"Don't feel bad you ate that cheeseburger, feel bad you didn't eat three!"
- Dane Duchaine from USH1.

> I just throw an extra multi vit/min tab when i get home...

Its also possible people using AAS might require different supps then those not.

>
> ----
> Pete

Will Brink
September 27th 06, 03:12 PM
In article >, Andrzej Rosa
> wrote:

> Dnia 2006-09-26 Will Brink napisa│(a):
> > In article >, Andrzej Rosa
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Dnia 2006-09-26 Will Brink napisa│(a):
> >> > In article >, Andrzej Rosa
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> > no studies?
> >> >>
> >> >> For some it may be better choice.
> >> >
> >> > Wrong
> >>
> >> Depends on a person.
> >
> > Wrong. The person has no effect here.
>
> Why, they make use of the info provided, don't they?

Yes, and it has no effects on the info itself. No matter how they use it,
it does not change.

>
> >> Do you think that all those people who performed
> >> endless hours of snail paced aerobics to be in a fat burning zone made
> >> reasonable use of their time?
> >
> > What on earth are you talking about? How does it relate to this
conversation?
>
> I thought you were asking if it makes sense for an average trainer to
> _follow_ recent research, not if it makes sense to do the studies.

It's important for the average trainer to do his own research beyond the
hype and marketing crap put out. That's done by seeking out information
that is objective, and hopfully, based on some solid science. It's not
from finding the biggest guy in the gym and asking him how he got so big.


>
> Generally speaking, of course it makes sense to do research in physiology. A
> lot of sense.

Agreed.

>
> >> > They both have an important function.
> >>
> >> The more advanced a field of science, the more sophisticated
> >> understanding they provide, the less important practical experience
> >> becomes. Nobody asks a smith how to make steel anymore.
> >>
> >> By admitting that _both_ sources of information are important you
> >> actually admitted that this field of science is not very good yet.
> >
> > That too would be wrong.
>
> So if I want bigger one handed snatch I should go to the library and
> read some textbooks,

Depends, none of which supports your strange comments. There are some
great books out their written by some of the very best coaches. If you
don't happen to have access to one of them, a book can be of great value.

> like if I wanted to synthesise a steroid,

You think anyone but a trained chemist can do that? Where does he learn
how to do that? Where does the knowledge come from to do that? Science
texts, journals, etc. I have three years of chem (inorganic, organic, and
biochem) and I can't synthesize steroids.


>for
> example? I will find all the parameters of successful training program
> outlined and no guess work needed?

A book written by one of the better coaches is a good place to start if
you can't train with Simmon's. I still don't see what point it is you are
trying to make.

Pete
September 27th 06, 03:24 PM
"Will Brink" > schreef:

>> Like you mentioned a few times yourself, but i suspect that most regulars
>> here think you are joking...

> About what?

That you can grow on junk food.

>> I just throw an extra multi vit/min tab when i get home...

> Its also possible people using AAS might require different supps then
> those not.

Different types or different amounts?
I always throw in a multi tab with a "doesnt help/doesnt hurt" kinda
attitude.

When i grow fast, i double the amount.

----
Pete

Will Brink
September 27th 06, 03:31 PM
In article >, Andrzej Rosa
> wrote:

> Dnia 2006-09-26 Will Brink napisa│(a):
> > In article >, Andrzej Rosa
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Do you remember what I wrote?
> >>
> >> I wrote that I'd be surprised, if existed a study, which was able to show
> >> any relevant and measurable difference between two pretty close
> >> protocols.
> >
> > And the citations and or abstracts were supplied that showed exactly that.
>
> Not really.
>
> >> Now I'm supposed to find there is none?
> >
> > Now you're just being a dick.
>
> No, I'm not. You are stretching the boundaries of logic, tough.

Bull****. I have stretched no logic here.

>
> >> >> like in "raw data".
> >> >
> >> > Pull full studies for raw data then.
> >>
> >> Not available for free.
> >
> > Go to a med library then. That's what i do.
>
> Or discard the possible grand influence of recent research on training
> success of an individual. That's what I do and what many successful
> trainers do.

Wrong again. Now you are pulling things from your ass in some attempt to
backpeddle from your original statements. I know a whole bunch of the top
coaches, and guess what sparky, they are generally well read on what the
latest science says about what concerns them. They combine that info with
their experiences, and opinions, to get the best results for the people
they work with. That's how good coaches work. I will add however that the
science of training is way behind the science of nutrition and it's only
recently that some studies have been done that are relavent to bbers.


>
> >> > I would agree, and have eaten with many a high level athlete eating pizza
> >> > and burgers and apple pie. Lots of food and plenty of AAS = big strong
> >> > people.
> >>
> >> So where do our positions differ, then?
> >
> > Eh? I think the data supports the use of whey
>
> Do data say that whey is better than food?

In spiking AA levels post workout? Yes. For having a much higher BCAA
content known to be an anabolic driver? Yes. For improving GSH and
immunity? Yes. More research is clearly needed on your part as you are
now shooting blanks in an attempt to make a point,, but it's not working.

>
> > and some high GI carb pre and post workout, and you don't,
>
> Where? It was me who suggested eating something sweet pre-workout. I
> assumed that post-workout meal will take care of the second part.

And John simply told you that studies, a whole mess of them, have found
that high GI **PLUS** proteins has a superior effect then carbs alone. Got
it now? Do I have to repeat myself again?

>
> > using essentially nothing to support your
> > position other then "that's how I feel about it" logic.
>
> Well, yes. I never read a study on the topic,

That much is clear, which means you are in no position to debate the
merits or quality of the research or dismiss it as you have.

> yet I was able to figure
> out that a little bit of sugar will let me move some weight without
> fainting, and I was also able to figure out that after hard work I'm
> hungry as hell.

And now you have been told that adding some source of fast actine AA in
the form of whey is superior to your approach.

>
> Rocket science, no ****. ;-)
>
> >> > They all have their place. There's many ways to skin cat,
> >>
> >> Sure. Louie based his approach on some science, after all.
> >
> > I should hope so. The good coaches do.
>
> True, but they are pros. They are in a position to be able to
> distinguish between what works and what is irrelevant. Most of the
> population though, I think should rather follow "what works for others
> should also work for me" approach. They are not trying to beat world
> records, after all, so newest bit of inspiration from latest research
> is rarely worth an effort.

That made no sense at all. Logic is not your strong point friend.

>
> >> Possible.
> >
> > It's well established and generally supported by "real world" results you
> > are so fond of. Plenty of questions left to be answered, and it's no magic
> > bullet, and pizza and Anadrol is even more effective for strength and
> > bodycomp (health not included), but the bulk of the data is quite clear.
> > Due to whey being a 'fast' protein, it's very high BCAA content (leucine
> > being a major anabolic driver), and it's effects on GSH and immunity, make
> > it optimal at the right time.
>
> Could be true, regarding whey. No magic bullet but a bullet none the
> less seems OK.
>
> I'd still prefer my cottage cheese blend. It was delicious and very
> cheep too.

The hissing sound you hear is the point going over your head. If you want
to say "I dont ccare what the studies say, I dont think it matters what
protein I eat post workout" that's fine by me. If you want to continue
saying you dont think there is solid data that finds it does matter which
protein one eats, then you (drul roll) wrong.

Andrzej Rosa
September 27th 06, 04:12 PM
Dnia 2006-09-27 Will Brink napisa│(a):
> In article >, Andrzej Rosa
> wrote:
>
[...]
>> >> >> like in "raw data".
>> >> >
>> >> > Pull full studies for raw data then.
>> >>
>> >> Not available for free.
>> >
>> > Go to a med library then. That's what i do.
>>
>> Or discard the possible grand influence of recent research on training
>> success of an individual. That's what I do and what many successful
>> trainers do.
>
> Wrong again. Now you are pulling things from your ass in some attempt to
> backpeddle from your original statements.

Which was? Show me a quote you are referring to, because up to now you
put plenty of things in my mouths I never said .

[Edit: Actually, do not bother. Show me at least a reference to good studies
supporting your position. Otherwise I'll not respond to you.]

> I know a whole bunch of the top
> coaches, and guess what sparky, they are generally well read on what the
> latest science says about what concerns them. They combine that info with
> their experiences, and opinions, to get the best results for the people
> they work with. That's how good coaches work. I will add however that the
> science of training is way behind the science of nutrition and it's only
> recently that some studies have been done that are relavent to bbers.

So you support my statement after all? Nice to see.

>> >> So where do our positions differ, then?
>> >
>> > Eh? I think the data supports the use of whey
>>
>> Do data say that whey is better than food?
>
> In spiking AA levels post workout? Yes. For having a much higher BCAA
> content known to be an anabolic driver? Yes. For improving GSH and
> immunity? Yes. More research is clearly needed on your part as you are
> now shooting blanks in an attempt to make a point,, but it's not working.

What blanks? I asked you a question. I didn't make no point here.
You answered my question and now I more or less see at which point
current knowledge is. Which is a lot of extrapolation and assumptions
when it comes to predicting long term effects, or at least you put it
that way.

>> > and some high GI carb pre and post workout, and you don't,
>>
>> Where? It was me who suggested eating something sweet pre-workout. I
>> assumed that post-workout meal will take care of the second part.
>
> And John simply told you that studies, a whole mess of them, have found
> that high GI **PLUS** proteins has a superior effect then carbs alone. Got
> it now? Do I have to repeat myself again?

He did not show any research good enough to draw such a conclusion.
I'm tired with repeating myself too. Maybe it's time to call for EOD?

>> > using essentially nothing to support your
>> > position other then "that's how I feel about it" logic.
>>
>> Well, yes. I never read a study on the topic,
>
> That much is clear, which means you are in no position to debate the
> merits or quality of the research or dismiss it as you have.

At the time I read none. By now I read some stuff. I read some real
science too so maybe I can make a comparison after all? Try for
yourself and read some too. You'll see a difference, I hope.

>> yet I was able to figure
>> out that a little bit of sugar will let me move some weight without
>> fainting, and I was also able to figure out that after hard work I'm
>> hungry as hell.
>
> And now you have been told that adding some source of fast actine AA in
> the form of whey is superior to your approach.

I've been told but not shown. I refuse to be impressed till that
happens. I think I'll give up any discussion with both of you for a
while. Show me the data, then we'll talk again.

[...]
>> Could be true, regarding whey. No magic bullet but a bullet none the
>> less seems OK.
>>
>> I'd still prefer my cottage cheese blend. It was delicious and very
>> cheep too.
>
> The hissing sound you hear is the point going over your head. If you want
> to say "I dont ccare what the studies say, I dont think it matters what
> protein I eat post workout" that's fine by me. If you want to continue
> saying you dont think there is solid data that finds it does matter which
> protein one eats, then you (drul roll) wrong.

Show me a study and I'll change my mind.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Will Brink
September 27th 06, 04:24 PM
In article >, "Pete"
> wrote:

> "Will Brink" > schreef:
>
> >> Like you mentioned a few times yourself, but i suspect that most regulars
> >> here think you are joking...
>
> > About what?
>
> That you can grow on junk food.
>
> >> I just throw an extra multi vit/min tab when i get home...
>
> > Its also possible people using AAS might require different supps then
> > those not.
>
> Different types or different amounts?

Perhaps both.

> I always throw in a multi tab with a "doesnt help/doesnt hurt" kinda
> attitude.

Works for me.

>
> When i grow fast, i double the amount.

Not a bad idea. There may be a higher requirement and or an enhanced
ability to use more nutrients during periods of growth.

>
> ----
> Pete

Charles
September 27th 06, 04:28 PM
On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 15:12:06 +0000 (UTC), Andrzej Rosa
> wrote:

>Dnia 2006-09-27 Will Brink napisa│(a):
>> In article >, Andrzej Rosa
> wrote:
>>
>[...]
>>> >> >> like in "raw data".
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Pull full studies for raw data then.
>>> >>
>>> >> Not available for free.
>>> >
>>> > Go to a med library then. That's what i do.
>>>
>>> Or discard the possible grand influence of recent research on training
>>> success of an individual. That's what I do and what many successful
>>> trainers do.
>>
>> Wrong again. Now you are pulling things from your ass in some attempt to
>> backpeddle from your original statements.
>
>Which was? Show me a quote you are referring to, because up to now you
>put plenty of things in my mouths I never said .
>
>[Edit: Actually, do not bother. Show me at least a reference to good studies
>supporting your position. Otherwise I'll not respond to you.]
>
>> I know a whole bunch of the top
>> coaches, and guess what sparky, they are generally well read on what the
>> latest science says about what concerns them. They combine that info with
>> their experiences, and opinions, to get the best results for the people
>> they work with. That's how good coaches work. I will add however that the
>> science of training is way behind the science of nutrition and it's only
>> recently that some studies have been done that are relavent to bbers.
>
>So you support my statement after all? Nice to see.
>
>>> >> So where do our positions differ, then?
>>> >
>>> > Eh? I think the data supports the use of whey
>>>
>>> Do data say that whey is better than food?
>>
>> In spiking AA levels post workout? Yes. For having a much higher BCAA
>> content known to be an anabolic driver? Yes. For improving GSH and
>> immunity? Yes. More research is clearly needed on your part as you are
>> now shooting blanks in an attempt to make a point,, but it's not working.
>
>What blanks? I asked you a question. I didn't make no point here.
>You answered my question and now I more or less see at which point
>current knowledge is. Which is a lot of extrapolation and assumptions
>when it comes to predicting long term effects, or at least you put it
>that way.
>
>>> > and some high GI carb pre and post workout, and you don't,
>>>
>>> Where? It was me who suggested eating something sweet pre-workout. I
>>> assumed that post-workout meal will take care of the second part.
>>
>> And John simply told you that studies, a whole mess of them, have found
>> that high GI **PLUS** proteins has a superior effect then carbs alone. Got
>> it now? Do I have to repeat myself again?
>
>He did not show any research good enough to draw such a conclusion.
>I'm tired with repeating myself too. Maybe it's time to call for EOD?
>
>>> > using essentially nothing to support your
>>> > position other then "that's how I feel about it" logic.
>>>
>>> Well, yes. I never read a study on the topic,
>>
>> That much is clear, which means you are in no position to debate the
>> merits or quality of the research or dismiss it as you have.
>
>At the time I read none. By now I read some stuff. I read some real
>science too so maybe I can make a comparison after all? Try for
>yourself and read some too. You'll see a difference, I hope.
>
>>> yet I was able to figure
>>> out that a little bit of sugar will let me move some weight without
>>> fainting, and I was also able to figure out that after hard work I'm
>>> hungry as hell.
>>
>> And now you have been told that adding some source of fast actine AA in
>> the form of whey is superior to your approach.
>
>I've been told but not shown. I refuse to be impressed till that
>happens. I think I'll give up any discussion with both of you for a
>while.

I hate to say I told you so Andrzej - but I did tell you that they
would end up giving you the ****s.

Will Brink
September 27th 06, 04:40 PM
In article >, Andrzej Rosa
> wrote:

> Dnia 2006-09-27 Will Brink napisa│(a):
> > In article >, Andrzej Rosa
> > wrote:
> >
> [...]
> >> >> >> like in "raw data".
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Pull full studies for raw data then.
> >> >>
> >> >> Not available for free.
> >> >
> >> > Go to a med library then. That's what i do.
> >>
> >> Or discard the possible grand influence of recent research on training
> >> success of an individual. That's what I do and what many successful
> >> trainers do.
> >
> > Wrong again. Now you are pulling things from your ass in some attempt to
> > backpeddle from your original statements.
>
> Which was?

Do you think by making me repeat myself you will somehow come out ahead?


>Show me a quote you are referring to, because up to now you
> put plenty of things in my mouths I never said .

Wrong again. This is becoming a habit for you.

>
> [Edit: Actually, do not bother. Show me at least a reference to good studies
> supporting your position. Otherwise I'll not respond to you.]

It was already supplied for you. You're really backpeddling hard now and
it's not working.

>
> > I know a whole bunch of the top
> > coaches, and guess what sparky, they are generally well read on what the
> > latest science says about what concerns them. They combine that info with
> > their experiences, and opinions, to get the best results for the people
> > they work with. That's how good coaches work. I will add however that the
> > science of training is way behind the science of nutrition and it's only
> > recently that some studies have been done that are relavent to bbers.
>
> So you support my statement after all?

Nope.

> Nice to see.

Your reading skills suck if you think what I said above (nice snip job
BTW) supports your (incorrect) statements.

>
> >> >> So where do our positions differ, then?
> >> >
> >> > Eh? I think the data supports the use of whey
> >>
> >> Do data say that whey is better than food?
> >
> > In spiking AA levels post workout? Yes. For having a much higher BCAA
> > content known to be an anabolic driver? Yes. For improving GSH and
> > immunity? Yes. More research is clearly needed on your part as you are
> > now shooting blanks in an attempt to make a point,, but it's not working.
>
> What blanks? I asked you a question.

And it was answered like 10 times now. You just keep repeating yourself
and or backpeddling.

> I didn't make no point here.

You attempted to, and were shot down.

> You answered my question and now I more or less see at which point
> current knowledge is. Which is a lot of extrapolation and assumptions
> when it comes to predicting long term effects, or at least you put it
> that way.

Straw man attempts wont work. We all work on extrapolations to predict
long terms outcomes every day of our lives. We can only go one what we
have to work with, and we acctually have quite a bit to work with in this
area. That's not to say that long term studies using one strategy over
another in large populations exist, but they don't exist for all sorts of
things.

>
> >> > and some high GI carb pre and post workout, and you don't,
> >>
> >> Where? It was me who suggested eating something sweet pre-workout. I
> >> assumed that post-workout meal will take care of the second part.
> >
> > And John simply told you that studies, a whole mess of them, have found
> > that high GI **PLUS** proteins has a superior effect then carbs alone. Got
> > it now? Do I have to repeat myself again?
>
> He did not show any research good enough to draw such a conclusion.

Bull****. You're just trying to be a dick now. Wont repeat myself again.

> I'm tired with repeating myself too. Maybe it's time to call for EOD?
>
> >> > using essentially nothing to support your
> >> > position other then "that's how I feel about it" logic.
> >>
> >> Well, yes. I never read a study on the topic,
> >
> > That much is clear, which means you are in no position to debate the
> > merits or quality of the research or dismiss it as you have.
>
> At the time I read none. By now I read some stuff. I read some real
> science too so maybe I can make a comparison after all?

What "real science"? Where? By what authors? Published where?

> Try for
> yourself and read some too. You'll see a difference, I hope.

Your quickly going from being a dick to a real moron. I have read more
research on this topic in a day then you have in a life time. I have been
part of some studies and have been published in some journals as co
author. Again, supply your sources you cliam to have read or shut your pie
hole.

>
> >> yet I was able to figure
> >> out that a little bit of sugar will let me move some weight without
> >> fainting, and I was also able to figure out that after hard work I'm
> >> hungry as hell.
> >
> > And now you have been told that adding some source of fast actine AA in
> > the form of whey is superior to your approach.
>
> I've been told but not shown.

Then you are a blind man being a dick. You were shown.

> I refuse to be impressed till that
> happens. I think I'll give up any discussion with both of you for a
> while. Show me the data, then we'll talk again.

No, YOU show data supporting your position and or show whhere data already
supplied does not support what we have been saying.


>
> [...]
> >> Could be true, regarding whey. No magic bullet but a bullet none the
> >> less seems OK.
> >>
> >> I'd still prefer my cottage cheese blend. It was delicious and very
> >> cheep too.
> >
> > The hissing sound you hear is the point going over your head. If you want
> > to say "I dont ccare what the studies say, I dont think it matters what
> > protein I eat post workout" that's fine by me. If you want to continue
> > saying you dont think there is solid data that finds it does matter which
> > protein one eats, then you (drul roll) wrong.
>
> Show me a study and I'll change my mind.

You're an asshole.

Charles
September 27th 06, 05:05 PM
On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 11:40:09 -0400, (Will Brink)
wrote:

>In article >, Andrzej Rosa
> wrote:
>
>> Dnia 2006-09-27 Will Brink napisa│(a):
>> > In article >, Andrzej Rosa
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> [...]
>> >> >> >> like in "raw data".
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Pull full studies for raw data then.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Not available for free.
>> >> >
>> >> > Go to a med library then. That's what i do.
>> >>
>> >> Or discard the possible grand influence of recent research on training
>> >> success of an individual. That's what I do and what many successful
>> >> trainers do.
>> >
>> > Wrong again. Now you are pulling things from your ass in some attempt to
>> > backpeddle from your original statements.
>>
>> Which was?
>
>Do you think by making me repeat myself you will somehow come out ahead?
>
>
>>Show me a quote you are referring to, because up to now you
>> put plenty of things in my mouths I never said .
>
>Wrong again. This is becoming a habit for you.
>
>>
>> [Edit: Actually, do not bother. Show me at least a reference to good studies
>> supporting your position. Otherwise I'll not respond to you.]
>
>It was already supplied for you. You're really backpeddling hard now and
>it's not working.
>
>>
>> > I know a whole bunch of the top
>> > coaches, and guess what sparky, they are generally well read on what the
>> > latest science says about what concerns them. They combine that info with
>> > their experiences, and opinions, to get the best results for the people
>> > they work with. That's how good coaches work. I will add however that the
>> > science of training is way behind the science of nutrition and it's only
>> > recently that some studies have been done that are relavent to bbers.
>>
>> So you support my statement after all?
>
>Nope.
>
>> Nice to see.
>
>Your reading skills suck if you think what I said above (nice snip job
>BTW) supports your (incorrect) statements.
>
>>
>> >> >> So where do our positions differ, then?
>> >> >
>> >> > Eh? I think the data supports the use of whey
>> >>
>> >> Do data say that whey is better than food?
>> >
>> > In spiking AA levels post workout? Yes. For having a much higher BCAA
>> > content known to be an anabolic driver? Yes. For improving GSH and
>> > immunity? Yes. More research is clearly needed on your part as you are
>> > now shooting blanks in an attempt to make a point,, but it's not working.
>>
>> What blanks? I asked you a question.
>
>And it was answered like 10 times now. You just keep repeating yourself
>and or backpeddling.
>
>> I didn't make no point here.
>
>You attempted to, and were shot down.
>
>> You answered my question and now I more or less see at which point
>> current knowledge is. Which is a lot of extrapolation and assumptions
>> when it comes to predicting long term effects, or at least you put it
>> that way.
>
>Straw man attempts wont work. We all work on extrapolations to predict
>long terms outcomes every day of our lives. We can only go one what we
>have to work with, and we acctually have quite a bit to work with in this
>area. That's not to say that long term studies using one strategy over
>another in large populations exist, but they don't exist for all sorts of
>things.
>
>>
>> >> > and some high GI carb pre and post workout, and you don't,
>> >>
>> >> Where? It was me who suggested eating something sweet pre-workout. I
>> >> assumed that post-workout meal will take care of the second part.
>> >
>> > And John simply told you that studies, a whole mess of them, have found
>> > that high GI **PLUS** proteins has a superior effect then carbs alone. Got
>> > it now? Do I have to repeat myself again?
>>
>> He did not show any research good enough to draw such a conclusion.
>
>Bull****. You're just trying to be a dick now. Wont repeat myself again.
>
>> I'm tired with repeating myself too. Maybe it's time to call for EOD?
>>
>> >> > using essentially nothing to support your
>> >> > position other then "that's how I feel about it" logic.
>> >>
>> >> Well, yes. I never read a study on the topic,
>> >
>> > That much is clear, which means you are in no position to debate the
>> > merits or quality of the research or dismiss it as you have.
>>
>> At the time I read none. By now I read some stuff. I read some real
>> science too so maybe I can make a comparison after all?
>
>What "real science"? Where? By what authors? Published where?
>
>> Try for
>> yourself and read some too. You'll see a difference, I hope.
>
>Your quickly going from being a dick to a real moron. I have read more
>research on this topic in a day then you have in a life time. I have been
>part of some studies and have been published in some journals as co
>author. Again, supply your sources you cliam to have read or shut your pie
>hole.
>
>>
>> >> yet I was able to figure
>> >> out that a little bit of sugar will let me move some weight without
>> >> fainting, and I was also able to figure out that after hard work I'm
>> >> hungry as hell.
>> >
>> > And now you have been told that adding some source of fast actine AA in
>> > the form of whey is superior to your approach.
>>
>> I've been told but not shown.
>
>Then you are a blind man being a dick. You were shown.
>
>> I refuse to be impressed till that
>> happens. I think I'll give up any discussion with both of you for a
>> while. Show me the data, then we'll talk again.
>
>No, YOU show data supporting your position and or show whhere data already
>supplied does not support what we have been saying.
>
>
>>
>> [...]
>> >> Could be true, regarding whey. No magic bullet but a bullet none the
>> >> less seems OK.
>> >>
>> >> I'd still prefer my cottage cheese blend. It was delicious and very
>> >> cheep too.
>> >
>> > The hissing sound you hear is the point going over your head. If you want
>> > to say "I dont ccare what the studies say, I dont think it matters what
>> > protein I eat post workout" that's fine by me. If you want to continue
>> > saying you dont think there is solid data that finds it does matter which
>> > protein one eats, then you (drul roll) wrong.
>>
>> Show me a study and I'll change my mind.
>
>You're an asshole.

Note to Andrzej:

QED!

Charles
September 27th 06, 05:09 PM
On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 11:40:09 -0400, (Will Brink)
wrote:

>In article >, Andrzej Rosa
> wrote:
>
>> Dnia 2006-09-27 Will Brink napisa│(a):
>> > In article >, Andrzej Rosa
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> [...]
>> >> >> >> like in "raw data".
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Pull full studies for raw data then.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Not available for free.
>> >> >
>> >> > Go to a med library then. That's what i do.
>> >>
>> >> Or discard the possible grand influence of recent research on training
>> >> success of an individual. That's what I do and what many successful
>> >> trainers do.
>> >
>> > Wrong again. Now you are pulling things from your ass in some attempt to
>> > backpeddle from your original statements.
>>
>> Which was?
>
>Do you think by making me repeat myself you will somehow come out ahead?
>
>
>>Show me a quote you are referring to, because up to now you
>> put plenty of things in my mouths I never said .
>
>Wrong again. This is becoming a habit for you.
>
>>
>> [Edit: Actually, do not bother. Show me at least a reference to good studies
>> supporting your position. Otherwise I'll not respond to you.]
>
>It was already supplied for you. You're really backpeddling hard now and
>it's not working.

"backpeddling"?

>
>>
>> > I know a whole bunch of the top
>> > coaches, and guess what sparky, they are generally well read on what the
>> > latest science says about what concerns them. They combine that info with
>> > their experiences, and opinions, to get the best results for the people
>> > they work with. That's how good coaches work. I will add however that the
>> > science of training is way behind the science of nutrition and it's only
>> > recently that some studies have been done that are relavent to bbers.
>>
>> So you support my statement after all?
>
>Nope.
>
>> Nice to see.
>
>Your reading skills suck if you think what I said above (nice snip job
>BTW) supports your (incorrect) statements.
>
>>
>> >> >> So where do our positions differ, then?
>> >> >
>> >> > Eh? I think the data supports the use of whey
>> >>
>> >> Do data say that whey is better than food?
>> >
>> > In spiking AA levels post workout? Yes. For having a much higher BCAA
>> > content known to be an anabolic driver? Yes. For improving GSH and
>> > immunity? Yes. More research is clearly needed on your part as you are
>> > now shooting blanks in an attempt to make a point,, but it's not working.
>>
>> What blanks? I asked you a question.
>
>And it was answered like 10 times now. You just keep repeating yourself
>and or backpeddling.

That's backpedalling you illiterate half-wit!

HTH!

Andrzej Rosa
September 27th 06, 05:35 PM
Dnia 2006-09-27 Will Brink napisa│(a):
> In article >, Andrzej Rosa
> wrote:
>
[...]
>> >> Do you think that all those people who performed
>> >> endless hours of snail paced aerobics to be in a fat burning zone made
>> >> reasonable use of their time?
>> >
>> > What on earth are you talking about? How does it relate to this
>> > conversation?
>>
>> I thought you were asking if it makes sense for an average trainer to
>> _follow_ recent research, not if it makes sense to do the studies.
>
> It's important for the average trainer to do his own research beyond the
> hype and marketing crap put out. That's done by seeking out information
> that is objective, and hopfully, based on some solid science. It's not
> from finding the biggest guy in the gym and asking him how he got so big.

Existence of "crap put out" pretty much proves that the knowledge in
this field is not well established. Where was last time you heard that
some amateur chemist was lead astray by the "crap put out" by reading
popular chemistry publication? When was the last time you had to go to
the university library to do some amateur electronics? If I want to
calculate an average or correlate do I have to read "recent research"?

[...]
>> >> > They both have an important function.
>> >>
>> >> The more advanced a field of science, the more sophisticated
>> >> understanding they provide, the less important practical experience
>> >> becomes. Nobody asks a smith how to make steel anymore.
>> >>
>> >> By admitting that _both_ sources of information are important you
>> >> actually admitted that this field of science is not very good yet.
>> >
>> > That too would be wrong.
>>
>> So if I want bigger one handed snatch I should go to the library and
>> read some textbooks,
>
> Depends, none of which supports your strange comments. There are some
> great books out their written by some of the very best coaches. If you
> don't happen to have access to one of them, a book can be of great value.

There are some great books by top smithies about smelting kettlebells,
but we understand oh so much about science of kettlebell smelting!
Sure, we do!

>> like if I wanted to synthesise a steroid,
>
> You think anyone but a trained chemist can do that?

He can become a trained chemist by reading handbooks. No need to read
some book by top level kettlebell smelter.

> Where does he learn
> how to do that? Where does the knowledge come from to do that?

From textbooks, not from recent research. It is basic organic
chemistry, after all.

> Science texts, journals, etc.

Nope. No need for that. See the difference now?

> I have three years of chem (inorganic, organic, and
> biochem) and I can't synthesize steroids.

But you could if you wanted. It's all in textbooks after all.

>> for
>> example? I will find all the parameters of successful training program
>> outlined and no guess work needed?
>
> A book written by one of the better coaches is a good place to start if
> you can't train with Simmon's.

Exactly my approach.

> I still don't see what point it is you are trying to make.

I hope you did by now, because here I'm really finished with discussing
this topic.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Will Brink
September 27th 06, 05:56 PM
In article >, Andrzej Rosa
> wrote:

> Dnia 2006-09-27 Will Brink napisa│(a):
> > In article >, Andrzej Rosa
> > wrote:
> >
> [...]
> >> >> Do you think that all those people who performed
> >> >> endless hours of snail paced aerobics to be in a fat burning zone made
> >> >> reasonable use of their time?
> >> >
> >> > What on earth are you talking about? How does it relate to this
> >> > conversation?
> >>
> >> I thought you were asking if it makes sense for an average trainer to
> >> _follow_ recent research, not if it makes sense to do the studies.
> >
> > It's important for the average trainer to do his own research beyond the
> > hype and marketing crap put out. That's done by seeking out information
> > that is objective, and hopfully, based on some solid science. It's not
> > from finding the biggest guy in the gym and asking him how he got so big.
>
> Existence of "crap put out" pretty much proves that the knowledge in
> this field is not well established.

Your reading skills really suck or you are going out of your way to be ab
a-hole in this conversation. Take your pick. I was referring to
supplement companies and their marketing crap NOT what is put out by
researchers or their work. The two have nothing to do with each other.


> Where was last time you heard that
> some amateur chemist was lead astray by the "crap put out" by reading
> popular chemistry publication? When was the last time you had to go to
> the university library to do some amateur electronics? If I want to
> calculate an average or correlate do I have to read "recent research"?

f*&^ are you talking about? Be honest, what meds are you on? You seem to
drift in and out of making perfect sense to making statements that have
nothing at all to do with the conversation at hand.


> >>
> >> So if I want bigger one handed snatch I should go to the library and
> >> read some textbooks,
> >
> > Depends, none of which supports your strange comments. There are some
> > great books out their written by some of the very best coaches. If you
> > don't happen to have access to one of them, a book can be of great value.
>
> There are some great books by top smithies about smelting kettlebells,
> but we understand oh so much about science of kettlebell smelting!
> Sure, we do!
>
> >> like if I wanted to synthesise a steroid,
> >
> > You think anyone but a trained chemist can do that?
>
> He can become a trained chemist by reading handbooks. No need to read
> some book by top level kettlebell smelter.

That makes no sense (again)

>
> > Where does he learn
> > how to do that? Where does the knowledge come from to do that?
>
> From textbooks, not from recent research.

Text books are based on recent research you idiot! If not, they are
considered out of date and replaced. Depends on the area of science, but
some text books are out of date by the time they are published due to the
rapid knowledge gained by RECENT RESEARCH.

(Goofy comments snipped)

>
> I hope you did by now, because here I'm really finished with discussing
> this topic.

Thank God.

Andrzej Rosa
September 27th 06, 06:28 PM
Dnia 2006-09-27 Charles napisa│(a):
> On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 15:12:06 +0000 (UTC), Andrzej Rosa
> wrote:
>
>>I've been told but not shown. I refuse to be impressed till that
>>happens. I think I'll give up any discussion with both of you for a
>>while.
>
> I hate to say I told you so Andrzej - but I did tell you that they
> would end up giving you the ****s.

You were right, obviously. But for a while we did have a discussion,
Will was even able to show that he does understand something in this
field, JMW was not, they both do not have a lot of class (even
combined).

So be it. Not my problem.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Andrzej Rosa
September 27th 06, 07:27 PM
Dnia 2006-09-27 DZ napisa│(a):
> Andrzej Rosa > wrote:
>> Dnia 2006-09-26 DZ napisa│(a):
>>> Maybe what you meant is that as long as we have science of any
>>> kind going on, the topic is not quite in "how to smelt kettlebells"
>>> category...
>>
>> Well, yeah. But you got what I was saying anyway, I guess. As long as
>> a smith has anything important to say about smelting there exist a lack
>> in understanding of what is really going on.
>>
>> It's an implication so do not reverse it. "Smithies" may now nothing
>> about black holes but it does not make a knowledge about them any
>> deeper.
>
> So how you determine if a particular field of science is "advanced"?
> Surely not by the amount of unknown in the field, however you measure
> it.

Hard to give any straight rules, actually. One would be a level of
complexity. I may not be impressed with the results superstring theory
managed to achieve after all this time, but it is still good science,
IMVHO. Easy to smirk at it after all this years of unsuccessful
struggle but nobody knew it will be that way and they were ones of the
wisest people in the world.

But then you'd have this joke of a post-modernistic philosophy or
psychology which is complex with no apparent reason, so you'd get me
there.

Other one would be an ability to provide loads of established knowledge
which found it's way into a textbooks and handbooks, but then you might
say that there were textbooks on early physics (like what Aristotle
wrote) and I'd have to agree.

Both of them combined? Well, psychoanalysis would meet both criteria,
at least to a point, and I do not really consider it a science at all.

So actually I do not know. We need meta-science badly! ;-)

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Will Brink
September 27th 06, 07:47 PM
In article >, Andrzej Rosa
> wrote:

> Dnia 2006-09-27 Charles napisa│(a):
> > On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 15:12:06 +0000 (UTC), Andrzej Rosa
> > wrote:
> >
> >>I've been told but not shown. I refuse to be impressed till that
> >>happens. I think I'll give up any discussion with both of you for a
> >>while.
> >
> > I hate to say I told you so Andrzej - but I did tell you that they
> > would end up giving you the ****s.
>
> You were right, obviously. But for a while we did have a discussion,
> Will was even able to show that he does understand something in this
> field, JMW was not, they both do not have a lot of class (even
> combined).

It's typical and predictable you would side with MFW's known trolls (read
moron with no life) when you didn't like the responses you were getting.
Like I said, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. Or, you
could do as John/Charles/Curt/David did when they got their asses beat
down: turn into a troll.

Pete
September 27th 06, 07:51 PM
"Will Brink" > schreef:

> Text books are based on recent research you idiot!

Damn...

He DID manage to get you angry, Will!

What was it the 2 of you were talking about again. No, really, i cant
follow...

Textbooks should be based or researh, or NOT on research ?!?!?!

----
Pete

Pete
September 27th 06, 08:03 PM
"Will Brink" > schreef:

> It's typical and predictable you would side with MFW's known trolls (read
> moron with no life) when you didn't like the responses you were getting.
> Like I said, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. Or, you
> could do as John/Charles/Curt/David did when they got their asses beat
> down: turn into a troll.

Andre, you seem like a bright guy, and you decided to argue about nutrition
with Will...

Fine.

But dont get sucked into a stupid flame war by taking sides. Why?

Because its STUPID, thats why!

;-O

----
Pete

Andrzej Rosa
September 27th 06, 09:24 PM
Dnia 2006-09-27 Pete napisa│(a):
>
> Andre, you seem like a bright guy, and you decided to argue about nutrition
> with Will...
>
> Fine.
>
> But dont get sucked into a stupid flame war by taking sides. Why?
>
> Because its STUPID, thats why!
>
> ;-O

No worries. I never trolled anyone and I only once engaged in a flame
war. Still feel ashamed about it. ;-)

BTW - I like your "perfect woman". Maybe a little too much of a good
thing, but can't say it was not working it's magic...

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Charles
September 27th 06, 10:12 PM
On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 14:47:39 -0400, (Will Brink)
wrote:

>In article >, Andrzej Rosa
> wrote:
>
>> Dnia 2006-09-27 Charles napisa│(a):
>> > On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 15:12:06 +0000 (UTC), Andrzej Rosa
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >>I've been told but not shown. I refuse to be impressed till that
>> >>happens. I think I'll give up any discussion with both of you for a
>> >>while.
>> >
>> > I hate to say I told you so Andrzej - but I did tell you that they
>> > would end up giving you the ****s.
>>
>> You were right, obviously. But for a while we did have a discussion,
>> Will was even able to show that he does understand something in this
>> field, JMW was not, they both do not have a lot of class (even
>> combined).
>
>It's typical and predictable you would side with MFW's known trolls (read
>moron with no life)

Which in Brinkspeak means those people that can read him and his
bull**** like a book, and draw it to his attention each time he makes
a prick of himself - which is frequently.

>when you didn't like the responses you were getting.
>Like I said, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. Or, you
>could do as John/Charles/Curt/David did when they got their asses beat
>down:

That'll be the day Mr Man Boobs; the only way you can deal with those
that show you up for the spamming "trolling" spiteful little prick
that you are, is to call them "trolls" and then hide behind alleged
"killfiles", to make out you can't see what they are posting about you
and your many failings - which include murdering the English language.

>turn into a troll.

You have just been "trolling" and attempting to bully Andrzej;
unfortunately for you, you predictably showed yourself up in your true
colours, as I said you would, and have left him in no doubt what an
unpleasant little **** you really are.

QED

Charles
September 27th 06, 10:15 PM
On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 21:03:53 +0200, "Pete" >
wrote:

>"Will Brink" > schreef:
>
>> It's typical and predictable you would side with MFW's known trolls (read
>> moron with no life) when you didn't like the responses you were getting.
>> Like I said, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. Or, you
>> could do as John/Charles/Curt/David did when they got their asses beat
>> down: turn into a troll.
>
>Andre, you seem like a bright guy, and you decided to argue about nutrition
>with Will...
>
>Fine.
>
>But dont get sucked into a stupid flame war by taking sides. Why?
>
>Because its STUPID, thats why!
>

Unusually wise words Dutchman, following your recent spate of posts
which were 'far out' man.

I gather you have come down from whatever you were on? ;o)

Charles
September 27th 06, 10:19 PM
On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 20:24:54 +0000 (UTC), Andrzej Rosa
> wrote:

>Dnia 2006-09-27 Pete napisa│(a):
>>
>> Andre, you seem like a bright guy, and you decided to argue about nutrition
>> with Will...
>>
>> Fine.
>>
>> But dont get sucked into a stupid flame war by taking sides. Why?
>>
>> Because its STUPID, thats why!
>>
>> ;-O
>
>No worries. I never trolled anyone and I only once engaged in a flame
>war. Still feel ashamed about it. ;-)
>

You weren't "flaming" Andrzej, you were being "trolled" by a long-term
experienced MFW "troll", which I warned you would happen if you didn't
give in to his bull****.

You have done nothing wrong and should ignore the little **** in
future - or tell him to get ****ed!! ;o)

Andrzej Rosa
September 27th 06, 10:56 PM
Dnia 2006-09-27 Charles napisa│(a):
> On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 20:24:54 +0000 (UTC), Andrzej Rosa
> wrote:
>
>>Dnia 2006-09-27 Pete napisa│(a):
>>>
>>> Andre, you seem like a bright guy, and you decided to argue about nutrition
>>> with Will...
>>>
>>> Fine.
>>>
>>> But dont get sucked into a stupid flame war by taking sides. Why?
>>>
>>> Because its STUPID, thats why!
>>>
>>> ;-O
>>
>>No worries. I never trolled anyone and I only once engaged in a flame
>>war. Still feel ashamed about it. ;-)
>>
>
> You weren't "flaming" Andrzej, you were being "trolled" by a long-term
> experienced MFW "troll", which I warned you would happen if you didn't
> give in to his bull****.

I always felt the same, but it was a long time ago at parascientific
newsgroup.

Actually, then I really went full monty and my only consolation is that
I actually managed to _hurt_ the other guy. He was crying like a
post-cycle bodybuilder on soap opera!

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Will Brink
September 27th 06, 11:25 PM
In article >, "Pete"
> wrote:

> "Will Brink" > schreef:
>
> > Text books are based on recent research you idiot!
>
> Damn...
>
> He DID manage to get you angry, Will!

Ignorance has the effect on me some times.

>
> What was it the 2 of you were talking about again. No, really, i cant
> follow...
>
> Textbooks should be based or researh, or NOT on research ?!?!?!

Depends on the textbook! Aint much research in an English textbook...


>
> ----
> Pete

Charles
September 27th 06, 11:40 PM
On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 18:25:35 -0400, (Will Brink)
wrote:

>In article >, "Pete"
> wrote:
>
>> "Will Brink" > schreef:
>>
>> > Text books are based on recent research you idiot!
>>
>> Damn...
>>
>> He DID manage to get you angry, Will!
>
>Ignorance has the effect on me some times.

What's that little Willy, like in "backpeddling"?

>
>>
>> What was it the 2 of you were talking about again. No, really, i cant
>> follow...
>>
>> Textbooks should be based or researh, or NOT on research ?!?!?!
>
>Depends on the textbook! Aint much research in an English textbook...
>

Your ignorance and regular mangling of that great language makes quite
clear that you and research in English text books are complete
strangers...

Charles
September 27th 06, 11:43 PM
On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 21:56:03 +0000 (UTC), Andrzej Rosa
> wrote:

>Dnia 2006-09-27 Charles napisa│(a):
>> On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 20:24:54 +0000 (UTC), Andrzej Rosa
> wrote:
>>
>>>Dnia 2006-09-27 Pete napisa│(a):
>>>>
>>>> Andre, you seem like a bright guy, and you decided to argue about nutrition
>>>> with Will...
>>>>
>>>> Fine.
>>>>
>>>> But dont get sucked into a stupid flame war by taking sides. Why?
>>>>
>>>> Because its STUPID, thats why!
>>>>
>>>> ;-O
>>>
>>>No worries. I never trolled anyone and I only once engaged in a flame
>>>war. Still feel ashamed about it. ;-)
>>>
>>
>> You weren't "flaming" Andrzej, you were being "trolled" by a long-term
>> experienced MFW "troll", which I warned you would happen if you didn't
>> give in to his bull****.
>
>I always felt the same, but it was a long time ago at parascientific
>newsgroup.
>
>Actually, then I really went full monty and my only consolation is that
>I actually managed to _hurt_ the other guy. He was crying like a
>post-cycle bodybuilder on soap opera!

Which is just what little Willy Brink does when he gets a good kick in
the crutch for his rudeness.

Curt James
September 28th 06, 01:02 AM
Will Brink wrote:

> It's typical and predictable you would side with
> MFW's known trolls (read moron with no life) when
> you didn't like the responses you were getting.

Rather a "moron with no life" thAn such a braaaave, stalwart,
manboob-having individual such as yourself, Will Brink.

> Like I said, don't let the door hit you in the ass on
> the way out.

If they annoy you thEn (doubt you'll ever figure that one out) - for
that reason only - I hope they become regular patrons of MFW.

> Or, you could do as John/Charles/Curt/David did when
> they got their asses beat down:

Define "they got their asses beat down," Brink. My definition? Someone
who sets up a killfile, but then make reference to the individual
they've supposedly erased from their elf-like life. That's my
definition of someone who's suffered a beat down. But, hey, we all deal
with life as we see fit.

> turn into a troll.

A what?

--
Curt

Curt James
September 28th 06, 01:15 AM
Will Brink wrote:

re Andrzej Rosa

> I have read more research on this topic in a day then

THAN! Would you read the research re thEn versus thAn, huh? It's really
not that difficult to master.

> you have in a life time. I have been part of some studies
> and have been published in some journals as co author.

Ooooooh, Mr. Impressive speaks! So, any research on... manboobs?
Because, hey, what good is information if you don't put it to any
apparent use? Your physique would indicate that the so-called research
you've read has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with improving an
individual's appearance.

> You're an asshole.

Okay, short, tubby, and balding you may just be, however here - wrt
insight on what it means to be an asshole - you may have adequate
experience to make an informed and accurate assessment. No offense to
Andrzej, but some, I'm certain, would say Brink's an absolute subject
area expert in that arena.

--
Curt

JMW
September 28th 06, 05:03 AM
(Will Brink) wrote:
>
>The hissing sound you hear is the point going over your head. If you want
>to say "I dont ccare what the studies say, I dont think it matters what
>protein I eat post workout" that's fine by me. If you want to continue
>saying you dont think there is solid data that finds it does matter which
>protein one eats, then you (drul roll) wrong.

There is none so blind as he who will not see.

JMW
September 28th 06, 05:18 AM
Andrzej Rosa > wrote:

>Dnia 2006-09-27 Charles napisa│(a):
>> On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 15:12:06 +0000 (UTC), Andrzej Rosa
> wrote:
>>
>>>I've been told but not shown. I refuse to be impressed till that
>>>happens. I think I'll give up any discussion with both of you for a
>>>while.
>>
>> I hate to say I told you so Andrzej - but I did tell you that they
>> would end up giving you the ****s.
>
>You were right, obviously. But for a while we did have a discussion,
>Will was even able to show that he does understand something in this
>field, JMW was not, they both do not have a lot of class (even
>combined).

I recognize what you are, Andrzej. There is no need to further
explain what you refuse to accept. Will understands what I was
quoting and the conclusions that can be drawn from it.

You, on the other hand, appear to be in a manic phase, and there is
little sense in trying to reason with you. Hudson, as usual, is just
a troll trying to make trouble.

Charles
September 28th 06, 08:19 AM
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 00:03:31 -0400, JMW
> wrote:

(Will Brink) wrote:
>>
>>The hissing sound you hear is the point going over your head. If you want
>>to say "I dont ccare what the studies say, I dont think it matters what
>>protein I eat post workout" that's fine by me. If you want to continue
>>saying you dont think there is solid data that finds it does matter which
>>protein one eats, then you (drul roll) wrong.
>
>There is none so blind as he who will not see.


....and in the land of the blind the one-eyed man rules (he thinks)!
And also remember, even the smallest knob has only one eye...

Charles
September 28th 06, 08:24 AM
On 27 Sep 2006 17:02:26 -0700, "Curt James" >
wrote:

>Will Brink wrote:
>
>> It's typical and predictable you would side with
>> MFW's known trolls (read moron with no life) when
>> you didn't like the responses you were getting.
>
>Rather a "moron with no life" thAn such a braaaave, stalwart,
>manboob-having individual such as yourself, Will Brink.
>
>> Like I said, don't let the door hit you in the ass on
>> the way out.
>
>If they annoy you thEn (doubt you'll ever figure that one out) - for
>that reason only - I hope they become regular patrons of MFW.
>
>> Or, you could do as John/Charles/Curt/David did when
>> they got their asses beat down:
>
>Define "they got their asses beat down," Brink. My definition? Someone
>who sets up a killfile, but then make reference to the individual
>they've supposedly erased from their elf-like life. That's my
>definition of someone who's suffered a beat down. But, hey, we all deal
>with life as we see fit.
>
>> turn into a troll.
>
>A what?
>

Little Willy Brink is one of MFW's two serial "trolls". My advice Curt
is to warn him that if he doesn't mend his ways he will have to face
the consequences, and risk being allegedly consigned to all decent
peoples' "killfiles".

This will no doubt get him back on track!

HTH!

Charles
September 28th 06, 08:46 AM
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 00:18:27 -0400, JMW
> wrote:

>Andrzej Rosa > wrote:
>
>>Dnia 2006-09-27 Charles napisa│(a):
>>> On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 15:12:06 +0000 (UTC), Andrzej Rosa
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I've been told but not shown. I refuse to be impressed till that
>>>>happens. I think I'll give up any discussion with both of you for a
>>>>while.
>>>
>>> I hate to say I told you so Andrzej - but I did tell you that they
>>> would end up giving you the ****s.
>>
>>You were right, obviously. But for a while we did have a discussion,
>>Will was even able to show that he does understand something in this
>>field, JMW was not, they both do not have a lot of class (even
>>combined).
>
>I recognize what you are, Andrzej. There is no need to further
>explain what you refuse to accept. Will understands what I was
>quoting and the conclusions that can be drawn from it.

Which confirms that John Williams and Man Boobs Brink are in a little
world of their own, and speak the same patois of bull**** and
obfuscation.

>
>You, on the other hand, appear to be in a manic phase, and there is
>little sense in trying to reason with you. Hudson, as usual, is just
>a troll trying to make trouble.

Moi? Au contraire mon petit cochon!

Hudson is very much anti-"troll" and hates bullies and serial "trolls"
like John Williams with a passion. That is why he enjoys John
Williams' continuing hatred and resentment, as he knows he is
successfully preventing John Williams from continuing his former
overbearing control freak conduct.

Hudson also stopped John Williams once interminable "trolling", and
with other determined anti-"trolls", defeated John Williams' "Troll"
FAQ ruse, which was John Williams last attempt to regain his assumed
leadership of MFW!

We won't mention at this stage John Williams' disgusting private life
or his psychopathic stalking of those that opposed him!

Those that live by the sword John Williams...

Pete
September 28th 06, 09:31 AM
"Charles" > schreef:

>>Because its STUPID, thats why!

> Unusually wise words Dutchman, following your recent spate of posts
> which were 'far out' man.

> I gather you have come down from whatever you were on? ;o)

My insanity is "Au Naturel" and proud of it!

People... Say no to DRUGS !!!

----
Pete

JMW
September 28th 06, 09:46 AM
DZ > wrote:
>
>I would agrgue that in Andrzej's context, "advanced science"
>is a pair of words that doesn't really fit together. As an issue
>becomes known, it is no longer science in the second sense.

You mean like the increase in skeletal muscle protein synthesis from
carbohydrates plus amino acids over that of carbohydrates alone?

:)

Charles
September 28th 06, 10:11 AM
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 10:31:46 +0200, "Pete" >
wrote:

>"Charles" > schreef:
>
>>>Because its STUPID, thats why!
>
>> Unusually wise words Dutchman, following your recent spate of posts
>> which were 'far out' man.
>
>> I gather you have come down from whatever you were on? ;o)
>
>My insanity is "Au Naturel" and proud of it!

It is a very sane man who proudly proclaims he is nutty! ;o)

>
>People... Say no to DRUGS !!!
>

Physician heal thyself...

Andrzej Rosa
September 28th 06, 11:40 AM
Dnia 2006-09-28 DZ napisa│(a):
> Shute > wrote:
>> DZ wrote:
>> I would consider an advanced science one which builds on something
>> else. For instance someone discovers DNA. Then they figure out
>> what it all means. Then they map things out with the gnome project.
>> Perhaps one day they can create a computer model of what one looks
>> like from the DNA.

Contemporary chemistry is more or less at this stage. They even gave a
Nobel Prize for computer modelling program.

>> Each level builds on itself. I think of
>> something like electricity is a very advance filed of science. With
>> a less advanced science no one can really do anything with it yet.
>> They discovered it but haven't really figured out how to use and
>> harness it yet. And when someone tries they don't always get the
>> expected results.

You got what I meant, more or less. I don't know what happens with my
news server, but I haven't seen your post and got to dig it out.

> That would all be fine except that my question was in an entirely
> different context. You're talking about science as in a body of
> knowledge. But Andrzej was talking about science as in a method of
> poking the proverbial fluffy unknown.

I do not think that discussion went much in this direction. It was
more the case of discussing how much is already known "for sure".

Sure, I complained a little. Well. Maybe I shouldn't (not because I
think I was wrong, though).

> By his argument, a field with a
> lot of science going on is not quite yet in the category of kettlebell
> smelting or some such craftsmanship. So, I wasn't really asking a
> question. I would agrgue that in Andrzej's context, "advanced science"
> is a pair of words that doesn't really fit together. As an issue
> becomes known, it is no longer science in the second sense.

Not really. Physics is still a science, chemistry also. They probably
discovered most of important things already but the details, which still
remain to be discovered, still call for a scientific method.

What you seem to really mean, is the difference between interesting
field of science and a boring one. Where there is a lot to be done
there is fun and "real science" in the sense of possibility of doing
it. Where most of what's important was already discovered ages ago
there is no room for serious fun any more.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Will Brink
September 28th 06, 08:07 PM
In article >, JMW
> wrote:

> (Will Brink) wrote:
> >
> >The hissing sound you hear is the point going over your head. If you want
> >to say "I dont ccare what the studies say, I dont think it matters what
> >protein I eat post workout" that's fine by me. If you want to continue
> >saying you dont think there is solid data that finds it does matter which
> >protein one eats, then you (drul roll) wrong.
>
> There is none so blind as he who will not see.

It's the intellectual equivalent of putting his fingers in his ears and
yelling │la la la la la la la la▓