[quote]WTlifter wrote:
Heres a good one:
If you are trying to lose weight zero calorie Jello is good for you because it has no nutricinal value and it fills you up.
My mom trys to till me this all the time![/quote]
Definately not a good way to lose fat and keep muscle gains but my record is 14 8oz steaks at Ponderosa buffet and 2 of those little sugar-free jello packets make me feel like I’m gonna blow. Yo mama ain’t no fool but she might of raised one.
*How about since I’m muscular and cut I must “spend 4-5 hours a day” in the gym?
Yeah, I don’t have a job or a life.
*One that is still surprisingly popular around here is that steroids will make your dick shrink. I tell people that’s not the case all the time. Sometimes people look at me as if I’M the idiot.
*OR, everybody who gears up suffers from 'Roid Rage. Sometimes, a guy who’s already an asshole is just a larger, more aggressive asshole. But I know some people do act crazy.
*The more you sweat, the more fat is burned.
*Stretch BEFORE you exercise
*I’m young I don’t need to warm up.
I still hear people talking about spot reducing, and who think that diet doesn’t matter. One dude told me,“I don’t believe in diet.” Oh, yeah? Well those of us that do will always have one up on you.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
kellyc wrote:
Did anyone say “muscle memory” yet?
Hopefully not because muscle memory is very real.[/quote]
No it’s not. Muscles can come back faster if the individual knows more about diet and training or if he has better neural patterns and is able to stimulate the muscles more efficiently. The muscle physiology remains the same.
[quote]kellyc wrote:
Professor X wrote:
kellyc wrote:
Did anyone say “muscle memory” yet?
Hopefully not because muscle memory is very real.
No it’s not. Muscles can come back faster if the individual knows more about diet and training or if he has better neural patterns and is able to stimulate the muscles more efficiently. The muscle physiology remains the same.[/quote]
No, they come back because during detraining they lose primarily water, CP, ATP and glycogen stores rather quickly but the amount of contractile material only changes very little. Then
when you start again, the balloon fills up.
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
kellyc wrote:
Professor X wrote:
kellyc wrote:
Did anyone say “muscle memory” yet?
Hopefully not because muscle memory is very real.
No it’s not. Muscles can come back faster if the individual knows more about diet and training or if he has better neural patterns and is able to stimulate the muscles more efficiently. The muscle physiology remains the same.
No, they come back because during detraining they lose primarily water, CP, ATP and glycogen stores rather quickly but the amount of contractile material only changes very little. Then
when you start again, the balloon fills up.
[/quote]
Right. This is true for a short term lay-off, especially in the case of something like a broken arm. What I said above is true for a longer lay off. Neither one I would call “muscle memory”. I guess “muscle memory” needs to be defined.
[quote]kellyc wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
kellyc wrote:
Professor X wrote:
kellyc wrote:
Did anyone say “muscle memory” yet?
Hopefully not because muscle memory is very real.
No it’s not. Muscles can come back faster if the individual knows more about diet and training or if he has better neural patterns and is able to stimulate the muscles more efficiently. The muscle physiology remains the same.
No, they come back because during detraining they lose primarily water, CP, ATP and glycogen stores rather quickly but the amount of contractile material only changes very little. Then
when you start again, the balloon fills up.
Right. This is true for a short term lay-off, especially in the case of something like a broken arm. What I said above is true for a longer lay off. Neither one I would call “muscle memory”. I guess “muscle memory” needs to be defined.
[/quote]
It’s like when I go on a 15 day alcohol, party, dancing, sex, see, summer ranpage and shrink, then I return to the gym and in one week all is good as new.
[quote]redsox348984 wrote:
bench is bad for your shoulders, you should only go down to 90 degrees(like the most popular one at my gym)[/quote]
I think bench press is bad for your shoulders IF you only go down to 90 degress!
Although a few months ago, bench press WAS tearing my shoulder up, but I think it was the combination of that, playing my sport (volleyball) and not paying attention to prehab. Seated DB cleans are the shit!
[quote]kellyc wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
kellyc wrote:
Professor X wrote:
kellyc wrote:
Did anyone say “muscle memory” yet?
Hopefully not because muscle memory is very real.
No it’s not. Muscles can come back faster if the individual knows more about diet and training or if he has better neural patterns and is able to stimulate the muscles more efficiently. The muscle physiology remains the same.
No, they come back because during detraining they lose primarily water, CP, ATP and glycogen stores rather quickly but the amount of contractile material only changes very little. Then
when you start again, the balloon fills up.
Right. This is true for a short term lay-off, especially in the case of something like a broken arm. What I said above is true for a longer lay off. Neither one I would call “muscle memory”. I guess “muscle memory” needs to be defined.
[/quote]
The original post was not actually about building back muscle, it was whether or not burnout sets were good or bad after a heavy workout-some thinking that the muscle “remembers” the last load used-and that if you go light after heavy, you’ll mess up the response. I think that the muscle may respond differently if you finish with burnouts and it might mess up the strength producing response, but I am really not sure. I sometimes do burnouts and others stop with my heaviest set.
[quote]danew wrote:
Doing morning cardio fasted or not makes a fucking difference.
Lower level intensity aerobic exercise burns more fat than more intense exercise.[/quote]
Well, technically, you’re wrong. Low intensity cardio DOES burn more fat than high intensity cardio…DURING THE EXERCISE PERIOD. The peak in proportional substrate usage comes at about 63% HR.
Of course, I agree with the spirit of your post. I’m kinda being picky. Long term (multi-week) studies show either no significant difference in body comp. changes between low/high intensity, or they show that the high intensity cardio does better. No studies show that low intensity cardio burns more fat in the long term (that I’m aware of). However, some studies show that a person doing low intensity cardio loses more “weight” than high intensity exerciser. It’s just that it comes from muscle instead of fat.
Thank you Cosgrove…
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
kellyc wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
kellyc wrote:
Professor X wrote:
kellyc wrote:
Did anyone say “muscle memory” yet?
Hopefully not because muscle memory is very real.
No it’s not. Muscles can come back faster if the individual knows more about diet and training or if he has better neural patterns and is able to stimulate the muscles more efficiently. The muscle physiology remains the same.
No, they come back because during detraining they lose primarily water, CP, ATP and glycogen stores rather quickly but the amount of contractile material only changes very little. Then
when you start again, the balloon fills up.
Right. This is true for a short term lay-off, especially in the case of something like a broken arm. What I said above is true for a longer lay off. Neither one I would call “muscle memory”. I guess “muscle memory” needs to be defined.
The original post was not actually about building back muscle, it was whether or not burnout sets were good or bad after a heavy workout-some thinking that the muscle “remembers” the last load used-and that if you go light after heavy, you’ll mess up the response. I think that the muscle may respond differently if you finish with burnouts and it might mess up the strength producing response, but I am really not sure. I sometimes do burnouts and others stop with my heaviest set.
[/quote]
What are you talking about? I was the one who brought up the fallacy of muscle memory. I wasn’t talking about burnout sets I was talking about the idea that muscle will build back more quickly the second time after a long layoff.
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
steelwheels wrote:
A muscle fiber is made up of many myofibrils. These run the full length of the muscle from tendon to tendon. These myofibrils are split into 100’s of sarcomeres along its length. When the muscle contracts each of these sarcomeres shortens by the same amount depending upon the range of motion ie. a partial curl will only result in partially contracted sarcomeres, full curl, in fully contracted sarcomeres. It is known as the sliding filament model of muscle contraction.
I understand the model, but you see, I already showed that sarcomeres do not necessarily all contract by the same amount because there is nothing that requires that a myofibril is the same number of sarcomeres thick throughout its entire length. If satellite cells have been added more on one end than another, one end may have more contracting cells than another. A cell must contract 100% in terms of tension, and if fewer cells on one end and more cells on another all contract with 100% force, the ones on the fewer cell end will not shorten by the same percentage as the ones on the end with more cells. [/quote]
Unless I’m mistaken a myofibril is a series or chain of sarcomeres that run from end to end. Surely this means that a myofibril is just one sarcomere thick and IS therefore uniform.
Wheels
PS please make your posts easier to read, my poor brain can’t cope with them! 
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Well, technically, you’re wrong. Low intensity cardio DOES burn more fat than high intensity cardio…DURING THE EXERCISE PERIOD. The peak in proportional substrate usage comes at about 63% HR.
[/quote]
You’re talking about PERCENTAGE of calories from fat during exercise, this IS higher with low intensity, but its even higher during inactivity and highest during rest. TOTAL calories/minute from fat during exercise does go up with intensity.
Also remember that your ability to utilize fat during exercise increases as individuals become trained over time.
[quote]kellyc wrote:
What are you talking about? I was the one who brought up the fallacy of muscle memory. I wasn’t talking about burnout sets I was talking about the idea that muscle will build back more quickly the second time after a long layoff.
[/quote]
Sorry, Pookie wrote the following on page 1:
Another myth:
Muscles “remember” the last exercise performed and will adapt to that one. So you shouldn’t end your workouts with high rep sets… Riiight.
At the time of your first post, I had just written a response to this and thought that this was getting mixed in with “muscle memory”.
[quote]steelwheels wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
Unless I’m mistaken a myofibril is a series or chain of sarcomeres that run from end to end. Surely this means that a myofibril is just one sarcomere thick and IS therefore uniform.
[/quote]
Lets see:
Myofibrils are cylindrical organelles, found within muscle cells. They are bundles of filaments that run from one end of the cell to the other and are attached to the cell surface membrane at each end. The filaments of myofibrils, myofilaments, consist of 2 types, thick and thin. Thin filaments consist primarily of the protein, actin; thick filaments consist primarily of the protein, myosin; the protein complex composed of actin and myosin is sometimes referred to as “actomyosin.” In striated muscle, such as skeletal and cardiac muscle, the actin and myosin filaments each have a specific and constant length on the order of a few micrometers, far less than the length of the elongated muscle cell (a few millimeters in the case of human skeletal muscle cells). The filaments are organized into repeated subunits along the length of the myofibril. These subunits are called sarcomeres. The muscle cell is nearly filled with myofibrils running parallel to each other on the long axis of the cell.
--------------------END-----------
So you are right, and my terminology was off. It’s been 11-12 years since I studied this. Let me explain using the terms that I should have.
a) One myocyte contains many myofibrils which DO all run the entire length of the myocyte.
b) The myocyte itself does basically run the entire length of the muscle.
c) Therefore the number of myocytes must also be the same along the entire lengh of the cell.
What I was visualizing was the satellite cells being added around the myocyte. These do not run the entire length of the muscle, and I believe, have some contractile capacity. They would be like band aids sitting on top of the myocyte, but only running a short distance of the length of the entire muscle. I believe that satellite cells may be more commonly added near the insertion of a muscle with heavy loads in the more stretched position.
Sorry again. I was actually in grad school for kinesiology and still have my old textbooks, but I’ve been teaching chemistry for the last 9 years.
[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
Dave_ wrote:
Oh and btw, this DID expand my ribcage (I’ve been doing it recently, and I’m 19 for the record).
Before we even begin to discuss whether ribcage expansion is possible, perhaps you could share what led you to conclude that your ribcage expanded?
A tape measure isn’t going to cut it. As michael said above, a chest x-ray is about the only way you could accurately determine whether your ribcage expanded or not.
So unless you’ve got the x-rays handy, you might want to stop claiming that you’ve increased the size of your ribcage.[/quote]
Ok calm down - I don’t really mind whether you believe my crazy claim or not.
Yes, it may be all down to a spurt of muscle growth in that general area - but by my reckoning the growth occured too quickly to be JUST hypertrophy of the muscles.
Obviously I don’t have x-rays (and I believe the correct term is “radiograph”, you can’t really keep an actual x-ray handy) but seeing as the discussion came up, I thought I’d give my litte piece of anecdotal evidence.
Honestly thought, think about it logically, study the ribcage in a bit more depth than you have been doing so far - and you will (hopefully!) be able to see that it is quite possible, to at least some degree, for younger folk.
Take it easy
[quote]michael2507 wrote:
I’m interested in the topic, but, based on the information I have gathered on the issue, I don’t consider it worth the effort.[/quote]
Well that’s a shame - I don’t how old you are but hey you might not be young enough for it to work anyway. Peace.
Low reps build size & high reps ‘carve’ out the shape.
Anyone can get that big / strong all they have to do is take tons of steroids.
[quote]Dan McVicker wrote:
Holy crap! If I jack off (with good technique, of course) will it expand my penis?
Dan “Eagerly Awaiting an Answer” McVicker
[/quote]
No Dan, you need to expand your penis prior to jacking off!
[quote]Old Dax wrote:
Dan McVicker wrote:
Holy crap! If I jack off (with good technique, of course) will it expand my penis?
Dan “Eagerly Awaiting an Answer” McVicker
No Dan, you need to expand your penis prior to jacking off!
[/quote]
No no, you have to superset your wanking with taking a dump, both with breathing technique!
One of the bigger ones:
Using higher reps will make you “toned”