|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Google
Sponsor
|
 Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 7:46 pm Post subject: Advertisement |
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trigonometry1972@gmail.co
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:23 am Post subject: Re: reducing cytokines |
 |
|
What I will suggest is this, that the supplements
are not the problem nor are they a big solution.
The great unwashed masses eat diets high
in omega 6 fats and arachidonic acid in excess.
There essential fats acids but levels need are
really not that high. The standard diet leads
toward an excessively reactive inflammatory
response that in turn leads to premature
dysfunction, pathology, and death.
Moreover, the population is chronic insufficient
in a variety of vitamins such as vitamin D, K,
B-vitamins, and yes E as well. Especially
in the case of vitamin D leads to autoimmunity
problems and its related inflammation.
In a carefully set up diet, I think a fish
oil supplement might help, but and it is
a BiG BuTT this isn't true in the vast
majority of the population of big butts 
as they need to change their diets in
a big way. I'll suggest a supplement
of fish oil is to be preferred to eating
farmed fish.
counting the cost..........Trig |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Marshall Price
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 11:57 am Post subject: Re: Complete - Protein Calculations?? |
|
|
RF wrote:
| Quote: | Hi Experts :-)
I am a vegetarian and would like to be able to make an accurate
assessment of how much of a
particular food it takes to complement another and make a complete
protein. For example, how much wheat it takes
to complement peanut butter or certain beans.
USDA seems to know nothing and many web sites have nonsense on this
issue. I have been able to get an idea of how the
system works from the books: Diet for a Small Planet and Laurel's Kitchen.
It seems to me that, knowing the deficiencies in amino acids for every
food should make it possible to write a program
to do the calculations for matching pairs of foods.
Searches I have done have led me nowhere useful.
Has anyone any accurate information on this subject.
|
It can get very complicated, but in practice, it need not be. A few
rules of thumb I picked up long ago in college (IIRC):
(1) If you mind the lycine, leucine, tryptophan, and methionine, the
other amino acids "will take of themselves."
(2) Seeds, nuts, and grains are alike in being rich in tryptophan and
methionine. I coined a mnemonic: "Try me nuts."
(3) A self-explanatory mnemonic: "Legumes are Long in Leucine and Lycine."
(4) Peanuts are an exception to the rule. Though they're legumes,
their amino acid profile is more like that of nuts, so don't expect
grains (the bread in a sandwich) to complement them.
(5) Finally, the answer (!): The ratio you're looking for is cited
either as five to one or six to one, whether by dry weight or cooked.
That is, accompany each gram of beans with five or six grams of grains.
That's a practice arrived at independently (they say), among many
cultures worldwide. So...
--
Marshall Price of Miami
Known to Yahoo as d021317c |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Marshall Price
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 1:21 pm Post subject: Re: Compound in Onion Can Reduce Blood Pressure in Hypertens |
|
|
Dave wrote:
| Quote: | A ndew study shows that Quercitin, the compound most commonly
associated with onions, may reduce blood pressure by an average of
five millimitres of mercury.
This flavonol has not been studied for its anti-hypertension effects
in the past; this group found a daily 730 milligram supplement of
quercitin led to significant reductions in the blood pressure of 22
people with high blood pressure. While this is considered a smaller,
"pilot" scale trial, the news is good because this is just another
benefit for a flavonol that has already been discovered to be
extremely valuable in human consumption. As always, consult your
naturopath or holistic MD for the specifics of Quercitin in your own
personal regimen.
Hypertension is defined as having a systolic and diastolic blood
pressure (BP) greater than 140 and 90 mmHg, affects about 600 million
people worldwide and is associated with over seven million deaths. In
the USA, the hypertension numbers have recently been adjusted. A
person can be considered to be in "pre-hypertension" today with
numbers that were considered normal just a few years ago.
The randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study,
(the best way to manage experimental trials) adds to an ever-growing
body of reported health benefits for quercitin. The flavonol was
previously linked to reduced risk of certain cancers.
Building on science from animal studies reporting a potential
hypotensive (blood pressure lowering) role for the flavonol,
researchers from the University of Utah recruited 19 men and women
with pre-hypertension (average BP 137/86 mmHg) and 22 hypertensives
(average BP 148/96 mmHg). The subjects were randomly assigned to
receive a daily supplement of quercetin (730 mg) or placebo for 28
days.
Lead author Randi Edwards and co-workers report that the hypertensives
receiving the quercitin supplement experienced reductions in systolic
and diastolic BP of seven and five mmHg, respectively, compared to
placebo.
It is important to note that no BP changes were observed in the pre-
hypertensives as a result of these interventions.
"These data are the first to our knowledge to show that quercetin
supplementation reduces blood pressure in hypertensive subjects,"
stated the researchers.
Although no mechanism of action study was performed by the
researchers, they suggested that the flavonoid could limit the
production of angiotensin II, a molecule that constricts blood vessels
(vasoconstrictor) leading to an increase in blood pressure. Further
investigation would be required to confirm this speculation.
Dave
Full text article above extracted from http://shamvswham.blogspot.com/
|
As for the mechanism of action, it's long been known that
"Quercetin, by stabilizing membranes, exerting a potent antioxidant
effect, and inhibiting hyaluronidase, inhibits inflammatory processes
attributed to neutrophils activated. Membrane stabilization results in
prevention of mast cell and basophil degranulation and decreases
inflammation by inhibition of neutrophil lysosomal enzyme secretion and
leukotriene production." (/Clinical Guide to Nutrition and Dietary
Supplements in Disease Management/, p. 212, citing Thornhill SM, Kelly
AM: Natural treatment of perennial allergic rhinitis, /Altern Med Rev/
5:448-54, 2000.)
In other words, it's the histamine!
--
Marshall Price of Miami
Known to Yahoo as d021317c |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Marshall Price
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 2:22 pm Post subject: Re: More Spin From The Blogspot SPAMMER |
|
|
Dave wrote:
| Quote: | On Oct 29, 1:33 pm, Mark Thorson <nos...@sonic.net> wrote:
Dave wrote:
On Oct 28, 9:01 am, Mark Thorson <nos...@sonic.net> wrote:
Dave wrote:
On Oct 26, 8:48 am, Ron Peterson <r...@shell.core.com> wrote:
When someone is in the business of selling supplements, they need to
expect for other posters to become skeptical.
Good point, Ron. That's why my articles always report on research in
peer reviewed journals.
That's not true. Some of your "articles" have
rehashed press releases from HerbClip, which is
the unrefereed publication of a public relations
outfit for the herbal supplements industry.
Mark, you are so "anti-herb" that you don't even recognize the
journals in the field. I bring interesting information about all
manner of health advice to the table, and have even included HerbClip
on one occasion. The American Botanical Council is NOT a public
HerbClip is NOT a peer-reviewed journal, and it's
nothing like a peer-reviewed journal. It's just
advertising to promote the sales of herbal
supplements.
And you've used their material more than just once:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.nutrition/msg/ac42e918aac13117...
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.nutrition/msg/9a62670112f0012e...
Note that in the latter case, you don't specifically
say you are quoting HerbClip, but quote you used is
almost identical to this article/advertisment in HerbClip:
http://content.herbalgram.org/wholefoodsmarket/herbclip/shownewsartic...
relations outfit. in fact, I remember you saying the same things about
Phytomedicine, another top source of science about herbs. I think you
When did I say that? I did a Google search on my own
postings, and I didn't find it. Are you just blowing
smoke, again? Please provide a link to the specific
posting, as I did above.
are doing people on this newsgroup a great disservice by being so
closed minded. Yo post bad information like this about the ABC in the
hopes of doing what . . .? Discouraging people from being informed?
I certainly discourage people from being misinformed
by a industry mouthpiece like HerbClip, and liars like
you.
Just as an FYI for you, so you know for the future, the ABC is an
indepedent, non-profit. The "mouthpiece of the industry" that you
seem to be searching for is called the American Herbal Products
And yet, the ABC has lots of herbal industry executives
and consultants on their board of trustees and advisory
board. They cannot be trusted to tell the public the
whole truth about herbs.
Association. Now that we have that clear, let me post my information
about various healthcare approaches, and let readers decide for
themselves if it has value to them. They can inquire with their
doctors about herb/pharma interactions -- that's what doctors are for.
Speaking of which, you never responded to this comment
about your earlier posting, in which you said:
supplements derived from plants. As I mentioned in my article, which
should negate any of this infamous pharma tout's jabs, you need to
talk to your doctor about what you take and how it affects any drugs
you are prescribed.
That's not what you said in your original "article"
(actually, advertising masquerading as an article).
This is the only sentence in your original article
that says anything along those lines:
As always, consult your naturopath or holistic MD
for the specifics of Quercitin in your own
personal regimen.
Where in there do you say anything about effects
on drugs you are prescribed? NOWHERE! You had
a duty to warn, and you failed to warn!
You don't care who might get hurt by your CRAP
"articles". You only care about the money.
You only care about getting your share of the
multibillion dollar supplement market. It is
on this basis that I accurately characterize
your motives as lacking in common human decency.
You are amoral.
Hey Pharma Boy,
You are the single worst internet troll I've ever seen, bar none.
Keep up the good work supporting those pharmaceutical chemicals you
like to push.
Pharma Boy, you are a complete liar and you know it. You use alternate
personalities on usenet forums to promote your viewpoint and add
"stars" to your Google rating. Pharma Boy, you should be ashamed of
yourself. As you say, "you are amoral."
Dave
|
This is just getting funnier and funnier! :-)
But I must say, I'd buy a good medical textbook from a well-respected
publisher *before* seeing the doctor.
For the price of a single doctor's visit, you get a world of
information, and you'll know what your "naturopath or holistic MD" is
talking about. Not only that, but she'll appreciate it.
I used to think two hundred dollars was a lot to pay for a book, but
I've never regretted spending the money. (They can get awful darn
heavy, though!)
And if you can get it second-hand at the end of the semester, you'll
save a bundle. I bought a two-hundred-dollar textbook of internal
medicine for $30!
And you might be surprised. Medical schools are not only offering the
more orthodox courses nowadays, but also courses in all sorts of
"alternative" approaches: ayurvedic medicine, herbal medicine, Chinese
medicine, accupuncture, and so on. And they all use textbooks
remarkably full of citations and free of hogwash!
PS I'm not selling anything; I just love my books. :-)
--
Marshall Price of Miami
Known to Yahoo as d021317c |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Marshall Price
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 3:38 pm Post subject: Re: Coming soon: Anti-Microbial Food Coatings -- Is this a G |
|
|
Dave wrote:
| Quote: | I'm not sure how I feel about this news report which follows. A new,
edible film has been developed which in the near future may be applied
to meats, fruit and vegetables. The product will release anti-
microbials when nasty pathogens are present. While in one hand it
appears to be a potential solution for the food poisonings we hear so
much about in the press, I am also concerned that consuming anti-
microbial compounds may not be a good idea. Read the press release
which follows, and my editorial comments at the end.
From Newswise wire services:
Ready-to-eat meats are popular with consumers. But after the initial
food processing, they are also vulnerable to recontamination by
pathogenic bacteria. A solution turns out to be an application of an
antimicrobial-incorporated edible film coating that will fend off the
pathogens.
"We have used film coatings with raw and cooked ready-to-eat meat
products," said Navam Hettiarachchy, a food science professor in the
University of Arkansas System's Division of Agriculture who led the
research for the Food Safety Consortium. "We have also included red
meat in our studies as well. In all these products, we have observed a
protective effect of antimicrobial incorporated edible films against
the pathogens."
The researchers used a whey protein film coating as a vehicle for the
antimicrobials. The actual barrier to pathogens was provided by
various combinations of grape seed extract, nisin (a peptide, protein
fragment), malic acid and EDTA, which is a ring-forming compound of
metal ion known as a chelator.
The tests showed effective results in controlling the growth and
recontamination of Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella Typhimurium and
E. coli O157:H7 on ready-to-eat meat products. Hettiarachchy's team
tried different combinations of the antimicrobials and found some
variances in levels of effectiveness. For example, in experiments on
turkey frankfurters, a combination of nisin, malic acid and EDTA was
more effective against E. coli O157:H7 when grape seed extract was not
part of the mix than when it was included.
"In most of the cases we focused on the type of meat products,"
Hettiarachchy said. "The types of proteins, lipids and other
components will vary in each meat product. The protective effect is
based on the type of antimicrobials and the product matrix, and the
film acts as a vehicle to deliver antimicrobials." She said the film
containing antimicrobials was effective for reducing pathogens on raw
chicken, ready-to-eat chicken and red meat, and the degree of
effectiveness was dependent on the product.
The key to the workings of edible film on meat is the ability to
sustain the release of antimicrobials against the pathogens. The
antimicrobials are held in the film matrix by weak forces, not by
chemical bonding.
"The antimicrobials can be released immediately or the release can be
delayed from the film matrix based upon the affinity of antimicrobials
to various amino acids and others that are present in the film,"
Hettiarachchy said. "A greater affinity of antimicrobials to the film
matrix will facilitate sustained release of antimicrobials and will
extend the shelf life of the product."
Some industrial interest is already being shown in the edible film.
Hettiarachchy said there are prospects of its commercialization and
some companies are looking into its use for coating fruits, vegetables
and even flowers. [END]
My editorial comments: While I would love to see some progress in the
war against food contamination, I would resist any effort to have a
broad-based antimicrobial compound applied to my food. The contents of
that compound don't appear to be a natural part of our environment and
it wouldn't fit my lifestyle as a result. However, there is an
additional concern here . . . that is, too many products now have an
"anti-microbial" element to them, and the result has been huge armies
of antibiotic-resistant organisms that we now have to deal with.
Microbes learn fast, and they adapt to their environment at light
speed. If we allow anti-microbial films on our foods, we would in
effect be producing future strains of microbes that would be
potentially quite nasty. This idea of a film applied to our food is
really a bandaid; instead of developing better quality processes to
prevent contamination, companies seek to find a way to simply "spray
and go" to avoid the bugs.
Lastly, our bodies have many good types of bacteria at work in various
functions. These probiotic bacteria could vanish if the food we ate
contained anti-microbial films of the sort described above.
Dave
Full text article above extracted from http://shamvswham.blogspot.com/
|
In general, I agree with you, Dave, but one thing jumped out at me.
When you said
| Quote: | too many products now have an
"anti-microbial" element to them, and the result has been huge armies
of antibiotic-resistant organisms that we now have to deal with.
|
....you confused antimicrobial with antibiotic!
All plants have some sort of defense against predators, not only big
ones like you and me, but microscopic ones, too. Without defenses,
they'd soon be goners.
Let's consider the antimicrobials the article mentions -- malic acid,
nisin, grapeseed extract, and EDTA.
You'd have to stop eating apples to avoid malic acid; it's used in foods
and candy as a flavor enhancer (for its tartness), and I think it's been
considered as a dietary supplement. (I don't quite remember.)
Nisin is already added to cheeses and canned fruits and vegetables;
technically it is an antibiotic, but not like the ones doctors
prescribe. It's a polypeptide (though eight of its amino acid residues
are rare in nature -- but that in itself not uncommon; plants are full
of funny amino acids; we eat them all the time); it's been in use as a
preservative for a long time, is quite stable, and has been well
researched. We've all eaten plenty of it.
Grapeseed extract actually *is* a dietary supplement. In France, I met
a lady over a hundred years old who (temporarily) was living entirely on
white bread and grapes, for her health! (She joined us picking grapes
at the beginning of the season.) They never spit out the grape seeds in
France, though some people chew them up, and others swallow them.
Finally, EDTA is not only well researched (it's been around since the
1930s), but it's used in medicine (in rather hefty amounts,
intravenously and intramuscularly, as well as by mouth) to get heavy
metals like lead, mercury, and cadmium out of the body. It's excreted
unchanged in the urine. I had a doctor who said we'd all be at greater
risk of metal poisoning if it weren't for the EDTA we occasionally get
in fatty processed foods which come into contact with metals, such as
mayonnaise, oils, and cheeses.
So just because something's antimicrobial doesn't make it an antibiotic.
Quite common salts, acids, metals, bases -- lots of things, including
sweat, tears, and urine -- are antimicrobial.
I too was alarmed when I first came across that news story, but at
second glance, it's not as scary as it seems.
--
Marshall Price of Miami
Known to Yahoo as d021317c |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Marshall Price
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:10 pm Post subject: Re: The Sad Death of a Raw Food |
|
|
Dave wrote:
| Quote: | Something like 85% of the almonds in the world are grown in the USA,
in Northern California.
Most of us who read and write about health subjects have touched on
the health benefits of almonds. It's a great food -- but one that
changes very dramatically, from good to bad, when heated. As Dr. Oz,
Oprah's favorite physician has said, they should not be roasted
because that can change the chemical composition of the almond oil,
making it unhealthy. Heating almonds also destroys other beneficial
nutrients. For those who are on a raw food diet, healthy almonds have
been a staple.
But now, buying almonds in the USA means that you are getting, by law,
pasteurized almonds. That's right, the government has outlawed its
first raw food. Any almond shipped in the USA has to be pasteurized,
according to new regulations passed in September. This means that the
almonds you buy will be heat-treated, or else chemically treated with
propylene oxide (PPO) a chemical that was once an ingredient in race
car fuel. PPO has been found to cause tumors in rats, but for some
reason the FDA considers it safe for human consumption.
These kinds of "safe for human consumption" things always amaze me.
Are you going to purposely ingest a component of race car fuel? No
way . . .
What we are left with is "treated" almonds, whether it is
pasteurization by heat or chemicals. Not a good prospect for a
delicious taste treat that once had been known as a substantially
healthy product. The jury is not out . . . more research needs to be
done on just exactly has been done to our favorite nut. But it
certainly doesn't bode well for a big, California industry.
Dave
Full text article above extracted from http://shamvswham.blogspot.com/
|
I perused that article (at http://www.naturalnews.com/021776.html ), and
consider it very biased. The headline, "Food Scam: Almond Board of
California to falsely label pasteurized almonds as 'raw,'" tells what
they're upset about: contesting their definition of "raw."
The "raw foods community" goes too far, in my opinion, by considering
108 degrees Fahrenheit the upper limit for all "raw" foods. I have
almonds in my back yard that get hotter than that sometimes; it doesn't
affect them as far as I know.
They say, "Pasteurization...exposes foods to temperatures of *up to* 158
degrees for durations *up to* 30 minutes." (Emphasis mine.) I've been
in saunas at 230 degrees; 158 degrees for half an hour is no problem. I
always thought pasteurization was a *lot* hotter than 158.
They go on to say, "NaturalNews *does not know* the precise temperature
that will be used for pasteurizing almonds." So clearly, it's the fact
that 108 degrees will be exceeded ("without question") that has them
upset. They group almonds with limes and avocados, apparently convinced
that 108 degrees affects all food alike. The Almond Board of
California, they say, threatens to deprive them of "our basic rights of
life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
(I won't go on, but NaturalNews does. For them, this is war!)
As the article stands now, it doesn't mention propylene oxide (PPO), but
it's a tiny, three-carbon molecule (C3H6O). The passage above says "the
FDA considers it safe for human consumption." That's absurd! /The
Merck Index/ says, "Potential symptoms of overexposure are irritation of
the eyes, skin and respiratory system; blistering and burns." "This
substance is reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen." NIOSH
lists it as hazardous. After all, it /is/ a fumigant!
But its boiling point, at 34 deg C, is lower than ordinary body
temperature (37 deg C). If you *could* drink a glass of it (Shiver me
timbers!), it would evaporate halfway down your throat. That must be
why it was added to race car fuel: to make it more volatile. I suspect
the reason it was proposed for fumigating almonds (assuming it was) is
that it evaporates away quickly and thoroughly with minimal
aftereffects. (NaturalNews says it would prefer using ozone, but
ozone's oxidizing; PPO isn't.)
I doubt Mehmet Oz said what NaturalNews suggests he said; I don't think
108 degrees (warm for a bath; tepid for hand-washing) would freak him
out. What we usually eat is sweet almonds, but under "bitter almonds"
in the /Merck Index,/ I find "Caution: Cyanide poisoning from ingestion
of burnt bitter almonds has been reported" -- and sweet almonds are
closely related, from different varieties of the same species.
Perhaps what he had in mind was that roasting almonds carelessly in a
dry pan could burn them, causing risky chemical changes. My bottle of
sweet almond oil (imported from Italy) says, "Excellent in salad
dressings, this rich, subtle oil [both!] goes very well with baked fish.
It also enhances the flavor of cakes, cookies, and stir fries." It
must have a low smoke point.
--
Marshall Price of Miami
Known to Yahoo as d021317c |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 1:47 am Post subject: Re: Euglycemia --> Hunger |
|
|
Note the subjectline which is in response to the original post below,
cognitive lateral lurch:
| Quote: | The real terorists are bigots who are blinded to the medical
value of Dr. Chung's comments because of their hate of his religious
spiel. |
"You are appreciated, dear liaM..."
The real problem is that we people of faith and with an interest in
medical reality object to his pollution of religion and science.
As a lone ranger bible reader he invents his religion as he goes along
and in science he allows evidence to be driven by an agenda driven
ideology.
It is not that he expresses religious ideas, it is because he does not
deal in the truth.
God bless. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wes Groleau
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 1:12 am Post subject: Re: Euglycemia --> Hunger |
|
|
truth@is-best.com wrote:
| Quote: | The real problem is that we people of faith and with an interest in
medical reality object to his pollution of religion and science.
|
_This_ person of faith objects not only to his pollution of
diabetic newsgroups but also to how easily he gets folks
like you AND the person you responded to to help him do it.
--
Wes Groleau |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Prisoner at War
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 29, 2008 9:49 pm Post subject: Re: routines for a young lifter |
|
|
On Feb 29, 3:29 pm, Hobbes <khobman...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Common sense still roolz.
|
If there's anything the history of scientific experiment and research
demonstrates, it's that so-called "common sense" is an unreliable
indicator of physical truth.
| Quote: | If the forces generated by jumping and landing
(as in basketball) are much higher than the forces generated by
weightlifting than it becomes obvious that force generated is not a
factor in terms of potential growth impairment.
|
No, one does not disprove the other. There may be other factors
involved in height which adolescent weight-training affects
negatively.
| Quote: | If so - what is? The
reality is that smaller teenagers are more likely to be attracted to
weightlifting - because they want to be bigger and because they have
advantageous leverages.
|
Sure, that's certainly the case. But that does not prove that teenage
weight-training doesn't stunt height.
| Quote: | And they do know why muscles tire.
|
No they don't. Muscles stop contracting, but it ain't due to lack of
ATP in 'em, nor due to lactic acid build-up (indeed, lactic acid
concentrations decrease at a certain point during continuous
exercise).
| Quote: | "Stretching" is too general a term,
but they do know that static stretching prior to exercise doesn't reduce
injuries.
|
No stretching -- ballistic, dynamic, etc. -- has been found to be
beneficial. The point is, physiology and exercise science is at an
infant stage still.
| Quote: | As far as nutrition goes - there are good general guidelines,
but obviously there is some variation.
|
There is such great variation that it really makes no sense to claim
to know eternal truths.
| Quote: | Exercise science is a growing body of knowledge and its efficacy is
demonstrated by world records constantly being improved upon.
|
Correlation is not causation. Are we a more lawful society because we
have so many lawyers? Are the Chinese more technologically advanced
because they produce many more engineers?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hobbes
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 29, 2008 10:12 pm Post subject: Re: routines for a young lifter |
|
|
In article
<ed269997-88b3-48f2-8aca-029bc2318be6@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_war@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
No they don't. Muscles stop contracting, but it ain't due to lack of
ATP in 'em, nor due to lactic acid build-up (indeed, lactic acid
concentrations decrease at a certain point during continuous
exercise).
|
True, it certainly isn't ATP or lactic acid. There are about a dozen
factors (neural factors are obviously important), but the key
physiological factor is calcium leakage.
--
Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Marshall Price
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 8:17 pm Post subject: Re: To eat or not to eat... |
|
|
Stromata wrote:
| Quote: | N.X. Rodser wrote:
I am doing a science project involving the effects of various
exercises on pulse, sugar, mass, and isolated muscular exhaustion, for
which I performed all the treatments on an empty stomach. I found that
when my sugar levels were relatively low, I felt a bit weaker and less
able to operate at top performance. I am not diabetic, but eating
gives us energy and sugar defiantly plays a role in short term
strength. You also don't want a high sugar level, just an average one.
Another thing you may want to consider is compromising the two. Try
eating (for lack of a better phrase) a 'half breakfast' before working
out and then eat the other half afterwards.
Read Gary Taubes new book "Good Calories, Bad Calories". The primary
hypothesis that appears to be very strong is that carbs drive insulin which
drives calories to fat cells. Decrease your carb intake and your body fat
will decrease, provided calories stay reasonable and exercise is decent
volume.
|
Insulin also drives calories into muscle cells. More significant is the
fact that insulin prevents calories from leaving fat cells.
--
Marshall Price of Miami
Known to Yahoo as d021317c |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Marshall Price
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 9:15 pm Post subject: Re: Commercial Tanning Beds: An Overview |
|
|
Ron Peterson wrote:
| Quote: | On Feb 15, 4:10 pm, jeckyc...@yahoo.com.cn wrote:
Commercial tanning beds come in two basic formats.
Why risk skin cancer, vitamin D supplements are economical.
--
Ron
|
On the other hand, wouldn't it be nice to have skin that was naturally
impervious to sun damage? I don't know if there's a way to achieve that,
but I suspect that after early childhood, it's too late to do anything
about it.
--
Marshall Price of Miami
Known to Yahoo as d021317c |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cary Kittrell
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 8:16 pm Post subject: Re: � |
|
|
In article <fqhl8q$egs$01$1@news.t-online.com> Thorsten Schier <usenet@naturfoto-hamburg.de> writes:
| Quote: | @m34g2000hsc.googlegroups.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: news.t-online.com 1204574299 01 14876 v0wZO-F1Fy4rSnCz 080303 19:58:19
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@t-online.de
X-ID: V99-CqZOYeUvPymHiQTQ9D5+zlC1fCrPiiNaWW010hxxhrPYb+JBQi
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317)
X-Accept-Language: de-DE, de, en-us, en
In-Reply-To: <4ce7807c-f9bc-4a47-8754-869edcb73ceb@m34g2000hsc.googlegroups.com
Xref: news.arizona.edu sci.med.cardiology:132571 sci.med:104561 sci.med.nutrition:66878 misc.health.alternative:167222 sci.med.pathology:3708
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD schrieb:
Ron Peterson wrote:
drcee...@insightbb.com wrote:
Yep, Hindbede was correct. �The Danes, forced to become vegetarians
during WW1, were the only nation that was "immune" to the flu pandemic
of 1918-19.
Denmark had a 0.2% mortality rate compared to the US 0.3% rate with
central India having a 7.8% rate.
The folks in central India were likely less healthy because of having
more black fat:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/BlackFat
This is highly unlikely. To claim that the people in a then quite poor
country like India had more fat of any kind than those in affluent
countries like the USA or Denmark is really bizarre.
For this reason, it remains smarter to eat less, down to the right
amount...
http://HeartMDPhD.com/BeSmart
Ex falso quodlibet.
|
Hmmm...good point.
-- cary |
|
| 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
|
|
|
