| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
GURGLETROUSERS
Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Posts: 2643
|
 Posted: Sun Dec 08, 2013 11:54 am Post subject: |
 |
|
And don't forget those remarkable ballet dancers, both women and men Techno.
I'm sure they could learn a thing or two from those cranky modern book theories! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
wynsurfer
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
Posts: 940
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 08, 2013 12:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"How bad can a stack of pancakes drowning in syrup be?"
Plenty, especially for the cancer patient.
Such a meal spikes your blood sugar. The fructose is poorly absorbed , and is mainly metabolized by the liver which converts it to fat and causes fatty deposits in the liver. In this way HFCS is no different than alcohol, and is about as nourishing. Fatty liver disease is being seen in children now and obesity in 6 mo. old babies!
The sucrose is redilly absorbed and all this sugar which is now in our bloodstream stresses the pancreas causing it to produce insulin in an attempt to normalize blood sugar levels. Now we have lots of insulin in our bloodstream as well as lots of sugar.
And here's the real problem:
Insulin is the "key" that allows cancer cells to utilize the sugar to produce energy.
Be careful what you put in your body.
Garbage in garbage out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17748
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 08, 2013 2:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Remember two things. It is harder to give up rationalization than sex. And moderation in all things. Especially in moderation.
Too funny. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20935
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 08, 2013 4:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| techno900 wrote: | | I think Iso thrives on controversy and his posts and rebuttals are designed to perpetuate the dispute. |
If that were true, I'd start many more posts, as mac does endlessly. In fact, I simply love practical knowledge and its application and try to OFFER it to others with similar interests and applications. Sure, controversy wakes me right up, but saying it's an objective is flat out wrong. I debated for some time whether to review this book here after I collected those one-liners for my own benefit for the same reason I have not mentioned how high the jump was that blew up my knee: permanent critics would not believe it. What persuaded me to discuss Reynolds’ book here and relate it to BBS and PACE was plainly and simply the practical utility of all three books, as I've described. My timing was influenced by very recent posts from people asking about various aspects of conditioning. I hope to hell you guys’ whining and nitpicking hasn’t discouraged them from doing their own homework, maybe starting with these three books.
Your accusation of ulterior motives is out of line, is false, and indicates you've succumbed to the nattering nabobs whose primary purpose is uninformed isobashing. I wrongly assumed you were a better judge of character than that.
| techno900 wrote: | | where we believe he is off base, we try to open his eyes. |
That I appreciate if it's done in an adult manner and if it is of broader applicability than Michael Phelps' left second toe. No one from Arthur Jones to myself claims there are no exceptions to any rule, especially one-liners.
| techno900 wrote: | | much of what Iso says the "experts" say just doesn't pan out … world class athletes achieve their level of success because of tried and proven methods. ... it takes proof in the pool, the field, the court, the etc. before being adapted. |
It also takes an open mind. For someone to claim they know more than pro team physicians and trainers and exercise physiology PhDs who study, teach, and practice their trade in the field (and the court and the pool) for a career is just not inherently valid to me. Arnold was dethroned by BBers using new methods, and Bannister rocked the running world after training with new methods. “What may work for Iso” contributes only to my enthusiasm; it’s what works in both the lab and the field that matters, and that’s what I’m parroting.
| techno900 wrote: | | Some sports require a significant range of motion to achieve optimum efficiency. |
Have I and the experts Reynolds and I cite not said exactly that several times?
| techno900 wrote: | | Some swimmers have a range of motion where they can almost touch their arms together behind their back while keeping them horizontal to the ground. |
“Almost touch”? I can clasp my hands behind my back like that, and I've never even tried it before. Joe Biden has a phrase for that.
| techno900 wrote: | | it takes practice and a slow progression to make improvements without injury. |
The physiology professionals have demonstrated in and concluded from many studies IN RECENT YEARS that a 6% stretch tears tendons, “longer muscles” from ordinary static stretching are a sensation rather than reality, it would take months of stretching an hour every day to achieve even temporarily increased functional flexibility, and that longer lasting pathologically observable gains would require months of stretching several hours every day. Even if the many studies showing decreased performance and increased injury are wrong, how many people are going to do that?
I don’t care whether anyone stretches or BFFs or progresses beyond the step jibe; it’s their own choice. I just would like people from every walk of life to be aware of BOTH sides of the debates rather than limited to the myopic mantras so prevalent in this forum.
Last edited by isobars on Mon Dec 09, 2013 8:42 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20935
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 08, 2013 4:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| slinky wrote: | "How bad can a stack of pancakes drowning in syrup be?"
Plenty |
On a regular basis, you're exactly right. But to replenish glycogen stores in the liver between long sessions for conversion to useful energy, it's apparently a winner. Besides, recent research -- there's that term again -- shows that "even moderate regular exercise dramatically lowers the risk of a fatty liver".
Reeeeead the book. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
techno900
Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 4161
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 8:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well, I guess I walked into that one.
I will take your word for it regarding your motives in posting, but they do seem intentionally antagonistic, and you are not the only one on the forum that appears to be doing it.
| Quote: | | “Almost touch”? I can clasp my hands behind my back like that, and I've never even tried it before. Joe Biden has a phrase for that. |
While I have seen a few people who can do this, but it is pretty rare - remember, I am talking about straight arms, behind the back AT SHOULDER LEVEL hands touching, without bending at the waist.
Clearly there are conflicting opinions between "experts", but when you get down to the basics of athlete, coach and performance, your experts have a long road to hoe before they will get Phelps to change his training routine including stretching. It's hard to mess with what many would call perfection. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
U2U2U2
Joined: 06 Jul 2001
Posts: 5467
Location: Shipsterns Bluff, Tasmania. Colorado
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 12:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| slinky wrote: | "How bad can a stack of pancakes drowning in syrup be?"
Plenty, especially for the cancer patient.
Such a meal spikes your blood sugar. The fructose is poorly absorbed , and is mainly metabolized by the liver which converts it to fat and causes fatty deposits in the liver. In this way HFCS is no different than alcohol, and is about as nourishing. Fatty liver disease is being seen in children now and obesity in 6 mo. old babies!
The sucrose is redilly absorbed and all this sugar which is now in our bloodstream stresses the pancreas causing it to produce insulin in an attempt to normalize blood sugar levels. Now we have lots of insulin in our bloodstream as well as lots of sugar.
And here's the real problem:
Insulin is the "key" that allows cancer cells to utilize the sugar to produce energy.
Be careful what you put in your body.
Garbage in garbage out. |
the pancake discussion makes me smirk.
Eating anything to excise would most likely have some reaction, eat just peas and see how long it takes you have a Jolly Green Giant tint.
using a decent pancake mix, with eggs, milk , perhaps blue berries, and a natural syrup, ie MAPLE Syrup , and eating from time to time, in the grand scheme of things I think is one of life indulgences, much like cake.
_________________
K4 fins
4Boards....May the fours be with you
http://www.k4fins.com/fins.html
http://4boards.co.uk/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20935
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 2:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| techno900 wrote: | | I will take your word for it regarding your motives in posting, but they do seem intentionally antagonistic, |
I can't comprehend how it could possibly be considered antagonistic to offer extremely useful, old and new, widely and sometimes universally applicable, professionally generated and reviewed lab and field data and conclusions (got all that, Dan?) to anyone who wants to consider it (thus my topical question), then offer more of the same as support when it is challenged. I can fathom only three possible explanations:
1. Some people claim anything Fox News or isobars repeats to be inherently false, regardless of its source. That makes no sense.
2. Some people fear ideas new or contrary to their mindset (key word: set).
3. Some dismiss a whole body of knowledge just because they take exception to page 23, subsection 3A, line 17, word 6.
Their loss.
| techno900 wrote: | | and you are not the only one on the forum that appears to be doing it. |
OF COURSE NOT. Some of them boast about it, sort of like shouting, “I EAT KITTENS”. How many scores of times have I pointed that out? I could just turn tail and hide, but I prefer to trust that the intelligent adults can see the chasm between what I actually type and what the career isobashers CLAIM I type, and let the adults sort it out and the chips fall where they may. Score every time: adults 1, children 0.
| techno900 wrote: | | I am talking about straight arms, behind the back AT SHOULDER LEVEL hands touching, without bending at the waist. |
Not easy, but doable without pain. I overlay my hands, one palm covering the back of the other hand behind my back, straighten my elbows, raise 'em to about 70 degrees by myself (actively), then employ my wife or an object to (passively) raise them to 90 degrees. But that's of little use, interest, or application to the broader discussion of routine static stretching's general safety and utility, and it may even violate the Swim Science articles I cited. That degree of flexibility probably puts my shoulders at greater risk of injury because muscle limits should precede ligament limits so the former can help protect the latter. Some sports demand and some athletes accept that risk and the resulting carnage, but they and their trainers need to be aware of it.
| techno900 wrote: | | Clearly there are conflicting opinions between "experts", but when you get down to the basics of athlete, coach and performance, your experts have a long road to hoe before they will get Phelps to change his training routine including stretching. It's hard to mess with what many would call perfection. |
I have to wonder how many times genetic superiority gets defeated by comparable genes boosted by superior knowledge. I've cited three cases; I'd bet amateur, let alone career, sports fans and pros could name dozens, if not hundreds. One has to suspect knowledge is extremely important when one coach dominates an Olympic sport or shatters records with multiple individual athletes.
Reynolds’ book quotes several of her sources’ surprise at their research conclusions. i.e. They didn’t confirm their expectations; they overturned them, and learned in the process. Cooper must have been surprised, humbled, and dismayed to have to admit that his own personal invention and life’s work, aerobics, proved not only largely null and void but even counterproductive outside the realm of long distance endurance competition, but he learned and moved on. (Don’t even start, guys; that’s many chapters in many sources all by itself.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
swchandler
Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 10588
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 4:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
techno900 wrote:
"I will take your word for it regarding your motives in posting, but they do seem intentionally antagonistic, and you are not the only one on the forum that appears to be doing it."
isobars wrote:
"I can't comprehend how it could possibly be considered antagonistic to offer extremely useful, old and new, widely and sometimes universally applicable, professionally generated and reviewed lab and field data and conclusions (got all that, Dan?) to anyone who wants to consider it (thus my topical question), then offer more of the same as support when it is challenged. I can fathom only three possible explanations:
1. Some people claim anything Fox News or isobars repeats to be inherently false, regardless of its source. That makes no sense.
2. Some people fear ideas new or contrary to their mindset (key word: set).
3. Some dismiss a whole body of knowledge just because they take exception to page 23, subsection 3A, line 17, word 6.
Their loss."
Without a doubt, isobars is known for is his total lack of introspection and humility. When it comes down to it, he's at a loss to understand how his manner and style work against him.
Going back a few posts, isobars offered the following comments to techno900, yet he's still clueless why techno900 views his comments as intentionally antagonistic.
"Your accusation of ulterior motives is out of line, is false, and indicates you've succumbed to the nattering nabobs whose primary purpose is uninformed isobashing. I wrongly assumed you were a better judge of character than that."
I could go back further and pluck many more of isobars' antagonistic retorts towards others, but I think most folks here understand enough about isobars' style to know that I'm not simply making things up about him.
Moreover, I could again highlight the ever growing number of posts that isobars has made under this thread as evidence of his non-stop "born again" attitude. He just doesn't know when to back off. He's insisting on being exceedingly difficult and argumentative. That's not an exaggeration. He can't let one comment go by that might question his promotion here. He simply doesn't know when the glass is full, and that its time to stop pouring more in. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sailboarder
Joined: 10 Apr 2011
Posts: 656
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 4:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| isobars wrote: |
3. Some dismiss a whole body of knowledge just because they take exception to page 23, subsection 3A, line 17, word 6.
Their loss.
|
Iso, I think you err on this one. When given advice, everyone tries to judge whether it's good or bad advice. One way to do so is to compare part of the advice with things you already know. If you one agrees with 40%, is puzzled with 40% and knows the reminding 20% is total bullshit, the best on-the-spot decision is to dismiss the advice.
I think it's nice that you take the effort to share the knowledge you gather. I think it would be better to break down this info in sections, you would have a better impact with your readers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
|
|
Search
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Register
