Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: The True Adonis on March 22, 2007, 01:44:59 PM
-
Why?
-
FFS, you could have just said "DNA", but you have to be more specific even though it serves you no other purpose but to make you look intelligent. ::)
That better sugar?
-
Why?
Because it's bodybuilding and you can't win without them!
Hope this helps!
-
I think that the main intent of that question is to antagonize someone and it would be more appropriate to ask that sort of question during an interview process while both parties are in the same room.
But I guess that is not the way things are done these days.
-
Because it's bodybuilding and you can't win without them!
Hope this helps!
I heard drugs are bad for your health ............
-
Why?
why do you laugh at another guy's haircut when you are one of the ugliest dude I have ever see ?
-
why do you laugh at another guy's haircut when you are the one of the ugliest dude I have ever see ?
why were you checking out the true adonis? epic not so hidden gayness. ;D
-
why were you checking out the true adonis? epic not so hidden gayness. ;D
I am confortable with my sexuality, thanks
-
Why?
APENIS, WHY DO YOU ADOCATE MCDONALDS AND SO MANY DIARRHEA CAUSING FOODS?
225 WAS NOT DEADLIFTED TODAY 112 TIMES!
-
I think that the main intent of that question is to antagonize someone and it would be more appropriate to ask that sort of question during an interview process while both parties are in the same room.
But I guess that is not the way things are done these days.
Yeah, it's a rhetorical, shit disturbing 'pay attention to me' kind of question that we hear far too often these days.
-
Why?
Maybe you want to elaborate on this statement/question...
Where exactly and how do I advocate drugs...SO MUCH?
-
Maybe you want to elaborate on this statement/question...
Where exactly and how do I advocate drugs...SO MUCH?
Milos, True Adonis claims that he is almost at the limit of how good a natural competitor can look.
what do you think about his claims and also, do you think this guy has the right to say that someone is ugly or has a shitty physique ( considering he has a face only a mother could love)
thanks
(http://www.flashrob.com/ta/MostMuscBig.jpg)
-
Maybe you want to elaborate on this statement/question...
Where exactly and how do I advocate drugs...SO MUCH?
It is obvious you do. You bring truth to the statement all drugs mishko. No one will grow curling pink fitness dumbells for 2373 reps.
-
It is obvious you do. You bring truth to the statement all drugs mishko. No one will grow curling pink fitness dumbells for 2373 reps.
Monster hurting truth here on getbig.
-
It is obvious you do. You bring truth to the statement all drugs mishko. No one will grow curling pink fitness dumbells for 2373 reps.
tell me when Milos said he was training this way EVERY workout ?
-
tell me when Milos said he was training this way EVERY workout ?
Merely an observation :D
-
Why?
Why do advocate lying like a bitch all the time. Why?
Why do you look like shit with NO muscle? Why?
Why do you claim to have a degree in Physics when in reality you never even went to college? Why?
Why do you claim to deadlift 225 lbs. for 112 reps in under 5 minutes? Why?
Why do you claim to bench 455? Why?
Why did you say you invented a gravity suit and worked with NASA? Why?
Why do you claim you have never taken steroids when you admitted you did for a short time? Why?
Why do you constantly say things to make it sound like you invented them when in reality you simply cut & paste shit? Why?
Why do you pretend to know so much when in reality all you do is spend countless hours on the internet copying articles that others spent thousand of hours researching? Why?
Why do you try to take credit for things others have done? Why?
Why are still still breathing air? Why?
Why are you still here? Why
-
Why do advocate lying like a bitch all the time. Why?
Why do you look like shit with NO muscle? Why?
Why do you claim to have a degree in Physics when in reality you never even went to college? Why?
Why do you claim to deadlift 225 lbs. for 112 reps in under 5 minutes? Why?
Why do you claim to bench 455? Why?
Why did you say you invented a gravity suit and worked with NASA? Why?
Why do you claim you have never taken steroids when you admitted you did for a short time? Why?
Why do you constantly say things to make it sound like you invented them when in reality you simply cut & paste shit? Why?
Why do you pretend to know so much when in reality all you do is spend countless hours on the internet copying articles that others spent thousand of hours researching? Why?
Why do you try to take credit for things others have done? Why?
Why are still still breathing air? Why?
Why are you still here? Why
Monster Adonis Obsession
-
Why do advocate lying like a bitch all the time. Why?
Why do you look like shit with NO muscle? Why?
Why do you claim to have a degree in Physics when in reality you never even went to college? Why?
Why do you claim to deadlift 225 lbs. for 112 reps in under 5 minutes? Why?
Why do you claim to bench 455? Why?
Why did you say you invented a gravity suit and worked with NASA? Why?
Why do you claim you have never taken steroids when you admitted you did for a short time? Why?
Why do you constantly say things to make it sound like you invented them when in reality you simply cut & paste shit? Why?
Why do you pretend to know so much when in reality all you do is spend countless hours on the internet copying articles that others spent thousand of hours researching? Why?
Why do you try to take credit for things others have done? Why?
Why are still still breathing air? Why?
Why are you still here? Why
Why did you get so fat?
-
Milos, True Adonis claims that he is almost at the limit of how good a natural competitor can look.
what do you think about his claims and also, do you think this guy has the right to say that someone is ugly or has a shitty physique ( considering he has a face only a mother could love)
thanks
(http://www.flashrob.com/ta/MostMuscBig.jpg)
thats not even good enough to be a fitness model!
-
It is obvious you do. You bring truth to the statement all drugs mishko. No one will grow curling pink fitness dumbells for 2373 reps.
Obvious?
Than you should have no problem pointing out how and where (and when) I advocate drugs so much...
On another hand - EVERYONE WILL GROW curling pink fitness dumbells for 2373 reps...and especially if I show them HOW... ;)
What is obvious is: I don't mind being attacked - as you guys see I respond to your questions and comments...
But, if you are going to make certain statement I would hope you should have a single fact to confirm what you claim...
-
hes a mad scientist with humans as his guinea pigs
all you can eat growth and insulin buffet
-
Obvious?
Than you should have no problem pointing out how and where (and when) I advocate drugs so much...
On another hand - EVERYONE WILL GROW curling pink fitness dumbells for 2373 reps...and especially if I show them HOW... ;)
What is obvious is: I don't mind being attacked - as you guys see I respond to your questions and comments...
But, if you are going to make certain statement I would hope you should have a single fact to confirm what you claim...
It only takes loads of steroids, insulin, gh and lasix.
-
It only takes loads of steroids, insulin, gh and lasix.
LASIX?
-
For some reason (I wonder why?) nobody answers my questions...while I always answer DIRECTLY what I am being asked...
Could that be a case of confidence...integrity.. .honesty...etc...
Some of us walk the walk...and some (of you) just keep on talking...Oh well...when you grow up - you'll know what is life all about...until than keep spreading that negative energy...(if you didn't realize - it just keeps coming back to it's originator...)
In the mean time I will continue being busy surrounding myself with POSITIVE people, things...and most importantly: THOUGHTS...
-
these kids are intimidated by you Milos, so they throw stones as a way to get your attention. They are really in awe and are looking for your approval or for a chink in your armour. If they find one they will use that as a reason for not trying.
-
Milos I respect you and all, but do you think everyone is so naive enough not to believe your athletes are some of the most juiced up in the IFBB. Since Hide and Silvio have joined your team they've gotten reputations for their huge guts. Granted you've improved their physiques, but at what cost? Taking years off their lives?
I'm not even going to comment on that monstrosity named Luke Wood. Luke's a nice guy, but I'd bet he couldn't even comit hari-kari with that huge gut of his which is what I'd do if I looked like him...
-
these kids are intimidated by you Milos, so they throw stones as a way to get your attention. They are really in awe and are looking for your approval or for a chink in your armour. If they find one they will use that as a reason for not trying.
You think ::)?
;D
-
I haven`t thrown a stone your way Milos. I think your training methods are VERY good.
I do think you should not advise people on drug usage. That is what you do? Correct?
-
I haven`t thrown a stone your way Milos. I think your training methods are VERY good.
I do think you should not advise people on drug usage. That is what you do? Correct?
talk about leading the witness ::)
-
Milos will never admit to anything because he knows the ATF is watching him like a hawk.
Milos is from a socialist country so he's probably evaded the KGB, so the ATF is nothing.
-
Milos will never admit to anything because he knows the ATF is watching him like a hawk.
Milos is from a socialist country so he's probably evaded the KGB, so the ATF is nothing.
you're still here? :-\
-
For some reason (I wonder why?) nobody answers my questions...while I always answer DIRECTLY what I am being asked...
Could that be a case of confidence...integrity.. .honesty...etc...
Some of us walk the walk...and some (of you) just keep on talking...Oh well...when you grow up - you'll know what is life all about...until than keep spreading that negative energy...(if you didn't realize - it just keeps coming back to it's originator...)
In the mean time I will continue being busy surrounding myself with POSITIVE people, things...and most importantly: THOUGHTS...
those are very wise words, thank you.
-
Milos I respect you and all, but do you think everyone is so naive enough not to believe your athletes are some of the most juiced up in the IFBB. Since Hide and Silvio have joined your team they've gotten reputations for their huge guts. Granted you've improved their physiques, but at what cost? Taking years off their lives?
I'm not even going to comment on that monstrosity named Luke Wood. Luke's a nice guy, but I'd bet he couldn't even comit hari-kari with that huge gut of his which is what I'd do if I looked like him...
You respect me at all...but you think that my athletes are some of the most juiced up in the IFBB?
I claim with 100% certainty that my athletes are some of the LEAST juiced up in the IFBB...and I always REDUCE pretty much everyone's "preparation program" - as with the rule "monkey see - monkey do" many people believe that pros are using gallons of juice - while reality is different.
Most of the IFBB pros use fraction of what average amateur competitors use...
I know as I talk to so many...
Many would claim how they know that Dorian did this, Ronnie did that and Jay is doing this and that...when in reality nobody has a clue.
You guys simply want to believe that if guy looks like Dorian he could not possibly achieve that with different approach to training, dieting, supplementation and a lifestyle - but CERTAINLY with drug abuse or some "secret" drug only available to selected few...
Three Olympia champions I just mentioned ALL use LESS than average competitor at the Orange County Muscle Classic...and you can take my word for it (off course you would not...but so be it...Like I care anyway...)
The truth is - many of you guys point fingers and AS IT GOES IN LIFE those who point fingers are usually guilty of exact thing they are pointing fingers for...
Just because they are not succeeding in their quest to become IFBB pros with twice (or more) amount of juice that Mr. Olympia champions are taking - they would like to accuse the champs of doing something OUT OF THIS WORLD...
Same goes for my athletes...
Just because all of them improve dramatically fast - everyone will immediately assume that JUICE is the reason...like these athletes never drinked juice before they've met me...
-
You respect me at all...but you think that my athletes are some of the most juiced up in the IFBB?
I claim with 100% certainty that my athletes are some of the LEAST juiced up in the IFBB...and I always REDUCE pretty much everyone's "preparation program" - as with the rule "monkey see - monkey do" many people believe that pros are using gallons of juice - while reality is different.
Most of the IFBB pros use fraction of what average amateur competitors use...
I know as I talk to so many...
Many would claim how they know that Dorian did this, Ronnie did that and Jay is doing this and that...when in reality nobody has a clue.
You guys simply want to believe that if guy looks like Dorian he could not possibly achieve that with different approach to training, dieting, supplementation and a lifestyle - but CERTAINLY with drug abuse or some "secret" drug only available to selected few...
Three Olympia champions I just mentioned ALL use LESS than average competitor at the Orange County Muscle Classic...and you can take my word for it (off course you would not...but so be it...Like I anyway...)
The truth is - many of you guys point fingers and AS IT GOES IN LIFE those who point fingers are usually guilty of exact thing they are pointing fingers for...
Just because they are not succeeding in their quest to become IFBB pros with twice (or more) amount of juice that Mr. Olympia champions are taking - they would like to accuse the champs of doing something OUT OF THIS WORLD...
Same goes for my athletes...
Just because all of them improve dramatically fast - everyone will immediately assume that JUICE is the reason...like these athletes never drinked juice before they've met me...
honest post Milos,got to admire that.
-
I haven`t thrown a stone your way Milos. I think your training methods are VERY good.
I do think you should not advise people on drug usage. That is what you do? Correct?
You haven't thrown a stone my way?
I think we have thread here that you started as: " Milos, why do you ADVOCATE DRUGS so much?"
Do you know a single drug that I suggested to someone?
Would it be OK if I start a thread: "True Adonis, why do you ADVOCATE CHILD PORNOGRAPHY so much?"
And ask you: That is what you do? Correct? I do think you should not advise people on child pornography...
-
I haven`t thrown a stone your way Milos. I think your training methods are VERY good.
I do think you should not advise people on drug usage. That is what you do? Correct?
[/quote
Why are you so ugly, clueless, jelous?
And most importantly why you here? What good do you contribute to this board? What good do you contribute to this world? AND WHY ARE YOU SO OBSESSED WITH DRUGS IN BODYBUILDING? Could it be because your genetics suck?
I think the real answer is you just a wannabe loser.
-
You haven't thrown a stone my way?
I think we have thread here that you started as: " Milos, why do you ADVOCATE DRUGS so much?"
Do you know a single drug that I suggested to someone?
Would it be OK if I start a thread: "True Adonis, why do you ADVOCATE CHILD PORNOGRAPHY so much?"
And ask you: That is what you do? Correct? I do think you should not advise people on child pornography...
damn Milos you're on a roll tonight.
-
damn Milos you're on a roll tonight.
I am on the roll all the time...Rolling, rolling, rolling....
-
Milos, your are a father figure to these guys. They are going to beat you up until they can't anymore. They just want to make sure you are for real. That you really like them, that you see them and wont abandon them. Too many fathers psychically abandon their kids. These guys want to know if your the real thing. I admire you for holding your ground. You must care about them on some level.
-
hey how about you give a little insight and help all us out, so what is it some pros take why not outline say how little one guy takes
-
the adonis crab most muscular shot page one,he posed it to the best of his strengths ,conditioning being the main thing,is it the angle r does he the longest legs ever,hip to knee he has long way to fill them up.adonis what ur leg workouts like.
-
You respect me at all...but you think that my athletes are some of the most juiced up in the IFBB?
I claim with 100% certainty that my athletes are some of the LEAST juiced up in the IFBB...and I always REDUCE pretty much everyone's "preparation program" - as with the rule "monkey see - monkey do" many people believe that pros are using gallons of juice - while reality is different.
Most of the IFBB pros use fraction of what average amateur competitors use...
I know as I talk to so many...
Many would claim how they know that Dorian did this, Ronnie did that and Jay is doing this and that...when in reality nobody has a clue.
You guys simply want to believe that if guy looks like Dorian he could not possibly achieve that with different approach to training, dieting, supplementation and a lifestyle - but CERTAINLY with drug abuse or some "secret" drug only available to selected few...
Three Olympia champions I just mentioned ALL use LESS than average competitor at the Orange County Muscle Classic...and you can take my word for it (off course you would not...but so be it...Like I care anyway...)
The truth is - many of you guys point fingers and AS IT GOES IN LIFE those who point fingers are usually guilty of exact thing they are pointing fingers for...
Just because they are not succeeding in their quest to become IFBB pros with twice (or more) amount of juice that Mr. Olympia champions are taking - they would like to accuse the champs of doing something OUT OF THIS WORLD...
Same goes for my athletes...
Just because all of them improve dramatically fast - everyone will immediately assume that JUICE is the reason...like these athletes never drinked juice before they've met me...
Great post Milos!
-
Why do advocate lying like a bitch all the time. Why?
Why do you look like shit with NO muscle? Why?
Why do you claim to have a degree in Physics when in reality you never even went to college? Why?
Why do you claim to deadlift 225 lbs. for 112 reps in under 5 minutes? Why?
Why do you claim to bench 455? Why?
Why did you say you invented a gravity suit and worked with NASA? Why?
Why do you claim you have never taken steroids when you admitted you did for a short time? Why?
Why do you constantly say things to make it sound like you invented them when in reality you simply cut & paste shit? Why?
Why do you pretend to know so much when in reality all you do is spend countless hours on the internet copying articles that others spent thousand of hours researching? Why?
Why do you try to take credit for things others have done? Why?
Why are still still breathing air? Why?
Why are you still here? Why
When & Where did Adonis admit to taking/using steroids?
-
Milos owns you 8)
-
ha ha , Milos evaded the KGB. ::)
In his crazy communist country steroids weren't illegal. Then again, no one probably used them because it's a well known fact that European males hate any kind of heterosexual activities, including weightlifting, so roids would be of no use in former Yugoslavia.
Hey Milos, my serbian co worker Vlado married a black chick. how do you feel about that?
-
Milos, your are a father figure to these guys. They are going to beat you up until they can't anymore. They just want to make sure you are for real. That you really like them, that you see them and wont abandon them. Too many fathers psychically abandon their kids. These guys want to know if your the real thing. I admire you for holding your ground. You must care about them on some level.
Off course I do...
I am not embarrassed to say: I LOVE PEOPLE IN GENERAL...
I love to see people succeed, I love to see them being happy...enjoy life...smiling...being productive...doing things that makes them happy with their friends and families...helping others...etc...etc...
Life is a beautiful thing and I realized long ago that being nice to everyone...next door neighboor as well as complete stranger on the street could bring numerous wonderful things to both of us in our lives...
Making friends and not the enemies is my motto and I live my life like this...
Off course many people do not want to accept friendly hand...and I cannot make everyone (or anyone) love me...But it does happen more often than not...
For example - I am writing right now on the thread that complete stranger (True Adonis) started - accusing me of many horrible things...
Do I jump on him and call him names?
Do I get in fight?
I don't believe in that.
However, I don't allow anyone simply saying things about me...and whenever my time permits - I do get involved in discussion.
I answer ALL the questions and I make myself available to answer attacks and accusations...
Do I have to do that? Certainly NOT...but I choose to...
I have nothing to hide...I am proud of myself and I mean well to everyone...
Off course - when I am attacked continuously I do have to give some (usually sarcastic) explanations and I point out numerous things that other people don't like to hear...
But I never say things people like hearing...I tell things they NEED to hear...so there you have it...
LOVE is power that should drive this world...and not hate...
Haters and negative people should realize that all that negativity, hate, attacks...etc lead to only more hate, negativity, counterattacks...and WHO NEEDS THAT?
And what is that good for?
Instead - helping others...LOVING your neighboor and perfect stranger on the street SHOULD be within all of us...Try it and you'll see - it doesn't hurt a bit...
It actually might even feel good...and whoever experience it WILL probably change forever.
Love - and you'll be loved...hate and - well...you can guess...
:-*
-
ha ha , Milos evaded the KGB. ::)
In his crazy communist country steroids weren't illegal. Then again, no one probably used them because it's a well known fact that European males hate any kind of heterosexual activities, including weightlifting, so roids would be of no use in former Yugoslavia.
Hey Milos, my serbian co worker Vlado married a black chick. how do you feel about that?
Vlado is probably very happy and lucky guy...I wish him well and hope to see him and his wife one of these days.
-
Milos, do you just advise on training or everything including nutrition?
I believe he advises on everything
i plan to book an appointment with him this year to discuss over the internet for an hour
it think its worth it 8)
-
Milos, do you just advise on training or everything including nutrition?
What do you think? ::)
BTW - have you seen my DVD (3 discs...one of those has 2 hours of nothing but NUTRITIONAL ADVICE)
-
I believe he advises on everything
i plan to book an appointment with him this year to discuss over the internet for an hour
it think its worth it 8)
What are you waiting for?
My fees are going up any day now... ;D
-
What are you waiting for?
My fees are going up any day now... ;D
AGAIN?? ;D
-
What are you waiting for?
My fees are going up any day now... ;D
exactly that, money !
I am moving out of my parents house plus competing this spring so I am a little short on the money !
but you will hear from me this summer for sure :)
-
the dvd's are great i like that part where the guy was too tired to contiue working out so u created that laying on the bench dumbell excersice very cool great dvd set overall
-
I've consulted with Milos on several occasions and believe that he is worth every dollar he charges and much more. It's my opinion that any athlete who is fortunate enough to train with Milos will learn more in a single session than ten sessions with some of the other so called weight training/nutrition experts out there. They don't call Milos "The Mind" for nothing.
-
Yes I have it. ;D I will review it eventually but it is like nine hours long. Not looking forward that much writing, but it needs to be done. :-\
Anyway, it an honest question. I'm not here to jump the bandwagon and give you flak. :-X Even gurus like Charles Glass who do know nutrition pretty well still choose to specialize in training only.
Nutrition is my specialty...
-
I admire your candidness Milos.
The people that you work with, would you say they take about the same amount of Steroids or do they all vary greatly?
Who in the IFBB do you think is simply, "ALL DRUGS"?
-
I will dig up Milos' DVD and see what he has to say about chest training. By the way, who cares if he is training his guys with light weights if it works to build muscle? ??? Why is everyone so caught up with strength? As for Milos putting his guys on a ton of shit, (a) we don't know that, (b) they are adults and ultimately make the decision for themselves, and (c) all bodybuilders use a ton of shit! Why center somebody out?
Milos has the correct idea regarding training.
-
Monster obsession with onlyme's Adonis obsession.
Monster obsession with Croaches obsession with onlyme's Adonis obsession!!!!!
-
I asked because I hear more people talking about your training principles than your nutrition principles. And by "nutrition" I meant "nutrition" (not gear). gordiano and I would still like to know why you are taking so much heat on here. ???
What did you do for Gustavo's last few days leading up to the Olympia (2005)? He was at his all time best there and I'm wondering what exactly was done differently than other times.
When I say nutrition I also mean nutrition...
Heat?
I feel no heat at all...After 4 degree burns this is really - nothing...
-
exactly more nutritional and training theories from you would be much appreciated. Its a shame these guys insist on firing off like that
-
I will dig up Milos' DVD and see what he has to say about chest training. By the way, who cares if he is training his guys with light weights if it works to build muscle? ??? Why is everyone so caught up with strength? As for Milos putting his guys on a ton of shit, (a) we don't know that, (b) they are adults and ultimately make the decision for themselves, and (c) all bodybuilders use a ton of shit! Why center somebody out?
Training light? ::)...You guys have no idea...
Heavy lifting in straight sets is cake walk...We do that when we are not so serious...Contest time - intensity is up and than - EVERYTHING GOES...Whatever someone thinks it is impossible - that's what I have my guys do - on regular bases...
It just happens that I post photos of lets say bench press with let's say 185lbs...and guys are laughing...
What they don't see is that before that bench my guys did cable crosses, dips, dbell flyes, incline press and bench was 5th exercise in the sequence of the giant set (with max 5 seconds rest between succeeding exercises)...so by the time they come to bench press - 185 pounds feels like 400...That's the "light weight" everyone is talking about...
-
hey Milos heres a pic of the squadfather .....woulld you still challenge him after seeing his pic?
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=136429.0;attach=152448;image)
-
Training light? ::)...You guys have no idea...
Heavy lifting in straight sets is cake walk...We do that when we are not so serious...Contest time - intensity is up and than - EVERYTHING GOES...Whatever someone thinks it is impossible - that's what I have my guys do - on regular bases...
It just happens that I post photos of lets say bench press with let's say 185lbs...and guys are laughing...
What they don't see is that before that bench my guys did cable crosses, dips, dbell flyes, incline press and bench was 5th exercise in the sequence of the giant set (with max 5 seconds rest between succeeding exercises)...so by the time they come to bench press - 185 pounds feels like 400...That's the "light weight" everyone is talking about...
Totally agree with you,"The Mind"Milos.
Bodybuilding is how you lift? not how much you lift !!
........................ ........................ ........................ .................
By the way ,hoping in the future we can invite Milos to come to Taiwan doing seminars!!
-
thats not even good enough to be a fitness model!
I almost forgot about how Abeles contacted some fitness gay agency, to get into modeling...
What was that all about?
-Hedge
-
Off course I do...
Life is a beautiful thing and I realized long ago that being nice to everyone...next door neighboor as well as complete stranger on the street could bring numerous wonderful things to both of us in our lives...
Making friends and not the enemies is my motto and I live my life like this...
Off course many people do not want to accept friendly hand...and I cannot make everyone (or anyone) love me...But it does happen more often than not...
Bwahahahaha!! Damn good joker you are!
-
I think there might be a language barrier here...or you think everyone is attacking you when in fact some of us are either neutral observers or on your side.
I watched a little of your DVD and immediately you mentioned the example of the two people who were bench pressing and one was lifting much more but had far worse chest development than the other one. The point I am making is that heavy weights are not conducive to bodybuilding as heavy weights are conducive to powerlifting. They serve a function to shape the physique, but heavy lifting is not a requirement - the goal of a bodybuilder is to build a body, not lift weights!
My point in mentioning light weights was to point out that heavy lifting shouldn't be evaluated anyway. Not to imply you always make your guys use light weights - but even IF you did, who gives a shit? ??? It's bodybuilding, not powerlifting.
Now try to remember I am a neutral observer here, not a troll here to give you shit, but I think you think everyone is against you on getbig. :)
Why would you think that I think everyone is against me on getbig?
Interestingly - most of you guys assume something like that...
For example - if everyone IS against me would it make sense for me to ever post anything?
I actually think that very few guys are against me...and those few make zero sense anyway...
-
Why would you think that I think everyone is against me on getbig?
Interestingly - most of you guys assume something like that...
For example - if everyone IS against me would it make sense for me to ever post anything?
I actually think that very few guys are against me...and those few make zero sense anyway...
Hahahaha! Maybe those of ifbb who suspend him make zero sense for him anyway also... ;D
-
milose, sve vise i vise imas ovih pacijenata!
-
You respect me at all...but you think that my athletes are some of the most juiced up in the IFBB?
I claim with 100% certainty that my athletes are some of the LEAST juiced up in the IFBB...and I always REDUCE pretty much everyone's "preparation program" - as with the rule "monkey see - monkey do" many people believe that pros are using gallons of juice - while reality is different.
Most of the IFBB pros use fraction of what average amateur competitors use...
I know as I talk to so many...
Many would claim how they know that Dorian did this, Ronnie did that and Jay is doing this and that...when in reality nobody has a clue.
You guys simply want to believe that if guy looks like Dorian he could not possibly achieve that with different approach to training, dieting, supplementation and a lifestyle - but CERTAINLY with drug abuse or some "secret" drug only available to selected few...
Three Olympia champions I just mentioned ALL use LESS than average competitor at the Orange County Muscle Classic...and you can take my word for it (off course you would not...but so be it...Like I care anyway...)
The truth is - many of you guys point fingers and AS IT GOES IN LIFE those who point fingers are usually guilty of exact thing they are pointing fingers for...
Just because they are not succeeding in their quest to become IFBB pros with twice (or more) amount of juice that Mr. Olympia champions are taking - they would like to accuse the champs of doing something OUT OF THIS WORLD...
Same goes for my athletes...
Just because all of them improve dramatically fast - everyone will immediately assume that JUICE is the reason...like these athletes never drinked juice before they've met me...
Ok Milos.... i DO have alot of respect for you, but what you said is not 100% true man. I can understand if you just did not comment on it... but of the 3 Mr. O competitors you mentioned.....there is one that i KNNOOWWWW uses a boatload of stuff and certainly uses more than any Orange County Classic bodybuilder. I know of people hes delt with, people hes consulted with, close friends of his, and an IV being intercepted by hotel security at a certain Olympia. You can speak for YOUR guys, but dont say something about another competitor that isnt true.....
-
LEAVE MILOS THE FUCK ALONE!
-
Nutrition is my specialty...
how much for advice? Pm me if you want
-
Also while we have your attention i am VERY curious about something. Dont take this as me being a smartass, i am ASKING in order to learn an aspect that i might not be so familiar and aware of.....
Why do you advocate giant sets and light weight with a squeeze more so than striving to inscrease the weights you use in each exercise? Endurance type exercises (as i understood) target muscle fibers with less growth capacity than explosive heavy movements, which as we all know target fast twitch fibers with the highest capacity for growth.
I do realize your workouts are HARDER (endurance and pain wise), but how are they more EFFECTIVE? You say heavy straight set workouts are the easy way out, but isnt that how 99% of bodybuilders have built their mass?
Please elaborate best you can
*** by the way.. i work in the office for Rich..we been teasing him about working out with you in 5 weeks, he wanted to prove he still got it and wrecked me on legs yesterday after i talked shit to him all day... wow big mistake on my part haha.... we cant wait to see the fit show!
-
milose, sve vise i vise imas ovih pacijenata!
calm down, Boris.
-
you don't even know his middle name, yet you accuse him of advocating drugs? You are losing any bit of Credibility you have.
-
how much for advice? Pm me if you want
350$ an hour
-
You respect me at all...but you think that my athletes are some of the most juiced up in the IFBB?
I claim with 100% certainty that my athletes are some of the LEAST juiced up in the IFBB...and I always REDUCE pretty much everyone's "preparation program" - as with the rule "monkey see - monkey do" many people believe that pros are using gallons of juice - while reality is different.
Most of the IFBB pros use fraction of what average amateur competitors use...
I know as I talk to so many...
Many would claim how they know that Dorian did this, Ronnie did that and Jay is doing this and that...when in reality nobody has a clue.
You guys simply want to believe that if guy looks like Dorian he could not possibly achieve that with different approach to training, dieting, supplementation and a lifestyle - but CERTAINLY with drug abuse or some "secret" drug only available to selected few...
Three Olympia champions I just mentioned ALL use LESS than average competitor at the Orange County Muscle Classic...and you can take my word for it (off course you would not...but so be it...Like I care anyway...)
The truth is - many of you guys point fingers and AS IT GOES IN LIFE those who point fingers are usually guilty of exact thing they are pointing fingers for...
Just because they are not succeeding in their quest to become IFBB pros with twice (or more) amount of juice that Mr. Olympia champions are taking - they would like to accuse the champs of doing something OUT OF THIS WORLD...
Same goes for my athletes...
Just because all of them improve dramatically fast - everyone will immediately assume that JUICE is the reason...like these athletes never drinked juice before they've met me...
You have previously said you ARE NOT PROUD of "popularizing" insulin use in bodybuilding. Remember the interview you did with Trevor? You GUARANTEED something like 20lbs more of stage ready weight by simply adding this drug in the competitors arsenal. That to me is in fact advocating drug use. You gave this drug the credit of creating bigger pros across the board. You didn't credit training or diet. This is ALL stuff you've said publicly.
If the pros and you yourself are so moderate how come you hooked yourself up to an IV before a show? All the Orange County competitors do more extreme stuff than this?
-
I live in OC, theres not that many competitors. more fagish surfer looking soccer guys with armband radios and six packs.
-
Monster obsession with onlyme's Adonis obsession.
;D
-
Because I said:
And you replied with:
Then I said:
And you said:
In both cases it should be obvious that I am either on your side or a neutral observer to this whole discussion and you replied as if I was against you judging by your tone (smilies) = ::)
Unless I'm missing something.
I must say AGAIN that somehow YOU GUYS get so easily hurt , insulted or thinking that I am "against you ::)"...that it really makes me think who I am dealing with...
Your comment in your last sentence: "you replied as I was against you..." and judging by my tone... ???
You have special feature to "play" my posts so you can hear my tone of voice?
Just analyze most of the threads I am involved in:
Someone usually has nothing better to do but START some kind of insulting thread with clear intentions to "get to me"...I know that "they" want my attention and anything that can go in category of "melting", owning...etc
Problem for them is the fact that I know very well what kind of intentions are behind those posts and and what is expected from me...
While I can easily ignore it - I choose to answer to the "charges" and I give them pleasure by getting in discussion - "defending" myself...and opportunity to let them point out all the negative things about me (well, if I have any - I certainly would think twice before I consider "being questioned"...This time I don't need to pull 5th amendment - like I had to when it was no joking matter...in the past...)
Now "defending myself" is not that in true sense of the word - I am simply answering to any and all attacks...most that are completely uncalled for - just in this instance (stranger that doesn't know me AT ALL wonders why do I advocate drugs so much? Assuming something JUST BECAUSE is one thing but accusing someone of something like this is not really a joking matter - as we all know that many of our friends DEA agents read this board and overwhelming and continuous threads about me and drugs brought a lot of negative things to my life... Just to reinforce what I said - at the end of my investigation I was charged with "conspiracy to poses for personal use"...which is equivalent to fashion model being charged to conspiracy to poses a makeup or a skin care product...equivalent to priest being charged to poses a bible or a cross...or highly heterosexual man being charged to conspiracy of thinking about going on a date with some girl...)
So, if you didn't know drugs are illegal and accusing someone of wrong doing is punishable by law...
On another hand - if I would have slightest security problem and have something to hide - I would have to fear what comes next...and probably would not bother answering at all...However - as you can see I answer every time.
I am more than confident about myself as a trainer, nutritionist, bodybuilder...and most importantly a PERSON...and NOTHING that I say or do could ever be even remotely embarrassing to me - so I welcome any kind of discussion.
So to answer your question - I was NOT annoyed by "light weight" comment - I stated as the matter of fact WHERE that confusion comes from...
I don't need to go into the pissing contest with any of those anonymous heroes as we all know that I challenged them 100 times over to come here and try to hang with me and my light weights...
I hope that answers YOUR personal concern IF I was thinking that you are against me...
To repeat - NOT AT ALL...and why would I?
Now - I still didn't get your explanation how and why I believe that everyone on getbig is against me... ;)
-
Milos stop dodging this question! ;D
What is your opinion on the 'SQUADFATHER' who constantly critizised your training methods?
-
Ok Milos.... i DO have alot of respect for you, but what you said is not 100% true man. I can understand if you just did not comment on it... but of the 3 Mr. O competitors you mentioned.....there is one that i KNNOOWWWW uses a boatload of stuff and certainly uses more than any Orange County Classic bodybuilder. I know of people hes delt with, people hes consulted with, close friends of his, and an IV being intercepted by hotel security at a certain Olympia. You can speak for YOUR guys, but dont say something about another competitor that isnt true.....
But off course you know...
Why don't you introduce yourself and say what you know than?
While I certainly DON'T KNOW EXACTLY what does guys do - I spoke to ALL of them and know pretty much everything they do... ;)
Stories that goes around are always from reliable ::) sources.
Dealers are notorious of "mentioning" how they supply the champs and HOW MUCH champs take ::)...
Off course they can tell ignorant amateurs what they really WANT to hear - champs take so much stuff and that's why they are so big...therefore you better take the same IF you want to be as big...Off course - you can get from me EXACT stuff that champs are using...but please don't tell everyone that I told you as ...you know how that goes...
PLEASE... ::)
-
LEAVE MILOS THE FUCK ALONE!
Don't worry ::)...As always I am having fun and I am choosing what I want to do...so therefore NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT.
However I appreciate your concern.
Now, if I don't get annoyed and bothered...why would you?
-
i think he can hold his own
See you 2moreO at 4?
-
Milos stop dodging this question! ;D
What is your opinion on the 'SQUADFATHER' who constantly critizised your training methods?
This is the guy Milos!
COMMENT!
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=136730.0;attach=152833;image)
-
My theory is that Milos is just the same as any other guru - each things differently here or there, but in general, competitive bodybuilding is competitive bodybuilding and encompasses the same body of requirements to perform (training, nutrition, and drugs).
TooPowerful4u - do you work for Gaspari Nutrition?
Your theory is wrong...I am much different than anyone else ::)
-
Also while we have your attention i am VERY curious about something. Dont take this as me being a smartass, i am ASKING in order to learn an aspect that i might not be so familiar and aware of.....
Why do you advocate giant sets and light weight with a squeeze more so than striving to inscrease the weights you use in each exercise? Endurance type exercises (as i understood) target muscle fibers with less growth capacity than explosive heavy movements, which as we all know target fast twitch fibers with the highest capacity for growth.
I do realize your workouts are HARDER (endurance and pain wise), but how are they more EFFECTIVE? You say heavy straight set workouts are the easy way out, but isnt that how 99% of bodybuilders have built their mass?
Please elaborate best you can
*** by the way.. i work in the office for Rich..we been teasing him about working out with you in 5 weeks, he wanted to prove he still got it and wrecked me on legs yesterday after i talked shit to him all day... wow big mistake on my part haha.... we cant wait to see the fit show!
You didn't get ONE thing right...
-
You have previously said you ARE NOT PROUD of "popularizing" insulin use in bodybuilding. Remember the interview you did with Trevor? You GUARANTEED something like 20lbs more of stage ready weight by simply adding this drug in the competitors arsenal. That to me is in fact advocating drug use. You gave this drug the credit of creating bigger pros across the board. You didn't credit training or diet. This is ALL stuff you've said publicly.
If the pros and you yourself are so moderate how come you hooked yourself up to an IV before a show? All the Orange County competitors do more extreme stuff than this?
And you are?
-
Milos why do you bother explaining yourself to these tinytits?
Now where was we...
The SQUADFATHER.
Discuss. ;D
-
You didn't get ONE thing right...
well that would be why i humbly asked and you declined to elaborate or offer any assistance? Never did i say your methods dont work, i just simply asked the reasoning for it in order to educate myself... everyone on this board is not out to get you or bash you i actually admired your physique, but i guess being polite or helpful is reserved for people who pay you money... il keep it in mind next time i try to learn something from someone thanx
-
Stop bothering Milos with your mindless drivel punk
-
Yup! Leaving at 3:30...so depending on traffic...
...maybe you can help bring my 48-50" (maybe 52" -- on a bad day) waist down a bit. ??? I wasn't thinking weightloss when visiting, but it might be a good idea.
I'd appreciate a pic of Garraeth puking on a pic of Mustafa ;D
-
well that would be why i humbly asked and you declined to elaborate or offer any assistance? Never did i say your methods dont work, i just simply asked the reasoning for it in order to educate myself... everyone on this board is not out to get you or bash you i actually admired your physique, but i guess being polite or helpful is reserved for people who pay you money... il keep it in mind next time i try to learn something from someone thanx
:'
:'( :'( :'( - I guess that is good choice - remember that.
I declined to elaborate?
If you wouldn't be so lazy you would push SEARCH button and possibly find my elaboration...but off course it is easier to ask and expect that I must answer to everyone...(regardless that I have 40 hours of work scheduled to be done in 24...And my getbig fans are my #1 priority due to their extreme politeness and patience?
And thank you for "I actually admired your physique...BUT... ::)"
My training theories are published and taped (free on FITSHOW...something I continuously do for fans - GIVING FREE advice...But, giving finger is not enough when people want a hand...and after giving hand - they wanted arm,,,and after arm - both arms...leg...and - YOU KNOW THE REST...)
I can do only so much...and I am doing absolutely the best that I can...I hope few will appreciate and those who don't - I have only one thing to say (or better show: :'( :'( :'()= too bad,so sad... ;)
-
OK - Garreth and Oven just walked in...I have to go...
-
OK - Garreth and Oven just walked in...I have to go...
hahaha Milos
has your gym got any tredmils? get that fat fuck sweating asap ;D
-
adonis is a fucking homo!!!!! what an idiot :-X
-
:'
:'( :'( :'( - I guess that is good choice - remember that.
I declined to elaborate?
If you wouldn't be so lazy you would push SEARCH button and possibly find my elaboration...but off course it is easier to ask and expect that I must answer to everyone...(regardless that I have 40 hours of work scheduled to be done in 24...And my getbig fans are my #1 priority due to their extreme politeness and patience?
And thank you for "I actually admired your physique...BUT... ::)"
My training theories are published and taped (free on FITSHOW...something I continuously do for fans - GIVING FREE advice...But, giving finger is not enough when people want a hand...and after giving hand - they wanted arm,,,and after arm - both arms...leg...and - YOU KNOW THE REST...)
I can do only so much...and I am doing absolutely the best that I can...I hope few will appreciate and those who don't - I have only one thing to say (or better show: :'( :'( :'()= too bad,so sad... ;)
finally, its about time you stop being so nice. ITs like when you see adult kids like in their 30's totally abusing their parents, still crying and looking for help.
Milos owns all you jealous cry babies.hahahah
-
So Gaerreth, how was your workout ?!
I did this Back Workout found at Milos's forum today, IT WAS GREAT ! Brutal pump, can't wait to see how sore I am tommorow !
GIANT SETS DAY:
1st rotation (giant sets): 4 exercises in this particular order:
1- Lat pulldowns
2- Dumbbell rows (leaning on the wall)
3- Low Pulley cable rows with V-bar (low - to the stomach)
4- Barbell rows (high - to the upper chest region)
We did 3 rotations (3 giant sets), 10 reps in each exercise!
SECOND GIANT SETS ROTATION:
4 exercises in this order:
1- Dumbbell pullovers with straight arms
2- Low pulley cable rows (Wide grip - pulling low - to the stomach)
3- High pulley cable pullovers
4 - Behind the neck wide grip pulldowns
10 reps each...Repeating three times (3 giant sets)
THIRD ROTATION:
This time choice of four exercises:
1- Standing bilateral dumbbell rows (close to the body/elbows as high as possible)
2- Super heavy (whole stack) low pulley cable rows
3- Assisted Pullups
4- "Special pulldowns to the front" - focusing on upper traps/small muscles in upper back region
Three giant sets, 10 reps in each exercise!
FOURTH ROTATION:
1- Smith Machine Rows
2- "Good mornings"
3- Dead Lifts
4- Barbell shrugs
Three giant sets, 10 reps in each exercise...
not for the pussies 8)
You should try it Matt C !
-
So Gaerreth, how was your workout ?!
I did this Back Workout found at Milos's forum today, IT WAS GREAT ! Brutal pump, can't wait to see how sore I am tommorow !
GIANT SETS DAY:
1st rotation (giant sets): 4 exercises in this particular order:
1- Lat pulldowns
2- Dumbbell rows (leaning on the wall)
3- Low Pulley cable rows with V-bar (low - to the stomach)
4- Barbell rows (high - to the upper chest region)
We did 3 rotations (3 giant sets), 10 reps in each exercise!
SECOND GIANT SETS ROTATION:
4 exercises in this order:
1- Dumbbell pullovers with straight arms
2- Low pulley cable rows (Wide grip - pulling low - to the stomach)
3- High pulley cable pullovers
4 - Behind the neck wide grip pulldowns
10 reps each...Repeating three times (3 giant sets)
THIRD ROTATION:
This time choice of four exercises:
1- Standing bilateral dumbbell rows (close to the body/elbows as high as possible)
2- Super heavy (whole stack) low pulley cable rows
3- Assisted Pullups
4- "Special pulldowns to the front" - focusing on upper traps/small muscles in upper back region
Three giant sets, 10 reps in each exercise!
FOURTH ROTATION:
1- Smith Machine Rows
2- "Good mornings"
3- Dead Lifts
4- Barbell shrugs
Three giant sets, 10 reps in each exercise...
not for the pussies 8)
You should try it Matt C !
Great post !
No b****t !!!
-
We were TOTALLY schooled -- for SIX hours. Damm. Awesome!
shut up
6 HOURS !!!!!!!!!!!!!???????????!!!!!!!!!
:o
you must be feeling it today :o :o :o 8)
-
I'm going to the gym in half an hour and I'm all fired up by looking at the training in Milos's forum !
I still can't believe you did a 6 hour workout, makes me feel like a pussy
thanks for the motivation 8)
-
Let's not insult anyone's intelligence here.
Training is the least important factor in bodybuilding. Is this clear to everyone?
Proper nutrition and gear usage (should you go that route) are both far, far more important than training.
I respect Milos and I think it's great that he is making a living doing what he loves, but do not think for a second that he has some magical training technique which will make you grow more than before.
Here is an analogy:
If you have a car and a mechanic says he has a great way to perform a tuneup, he may full well be telling you the truth - but if you don't have gas in the car you will not be able to drive - period.
In the analogy above, gas can be translated to mean nutrition/drugs.
I borderline resent any trainer who will say his training techniques are so much better than someone else's - because I know that those same trainers are selling their programs to people naive enough to believe it will make a significant difference - they will not.
Nutrition is the most important part of natural bodybuilding. If you are juiced, both nutrition and juice are the most important. Training is mildly significant in comparison. Remember that. Do not buy into the hype.
Meltdown ;D
When you are on the gear how you train dramatically changes your physique. Stop being a pussy and find out for yourself! What have you got to lose?
-
Let's not insult anyone's intelligence here.
Training is the least important factor in bodybuilding. Is this clear to everyone?
Proper nutrition and gear usage (should you go that route) are both far, far more important than training.
I respect Milos and I think it's great that he is making a living doing what he loves, but do not think for a second that he has some magical training technique which will make you grow more than before.
Here is an analogy:
If you have a car and a mechanic says he has a great way to perform a tuneup, he may full well be telling you the truth - but if you don't have gas in the car you will not be able to drive - period.
In the analogy above, gas can be translated to mean nutrition/drugs.
I borderline resent any trainer who will say his training techniques are so much better than someone else's - because I know that those same trainers are selling their programs to people naive enough to believe it will make a significant difference - they will not.
Nutrition is the most important part of natural bodybuilding. If you are juiced, both nutrition and juice are the most important. Training is mildly significant in comparison. Remember that. Do not buy into the hype.
stop being a pussy and try the workout Matt >:(
-
Matt you are incorrect.
TRAINING is THE MOST important thing.
If you were to take a bodybuilder and put him in a Zero-G enviroment, but let him use the same steroid stack and eat the same, he would still wither QUICKLY away.
Back on earth, Gravity is what enables muscle to not be lost. Once the muscle is built, it stays, if homeostasis in the body can be sustained/mantained. As a Natural, it is always sustained/mantained.
In a steroid user, it is not, unless the drugs are continuously employed.
Training IS THE MOST IMPORTANT thing. Without Training, you won`t get any results. You can eat however you like, if you never have touched a weight, eating won`t make a fuck bit of difference.
One can build muscle with just drugs and no Training though. But the one who trains on drugs will have MUCH better results.
Same with Naturals.
-
;D
People like Milos and Charles Glass may get a lot of people to believe that their training techniques are magic, but those of us who have been in the game for a while know it isn't the case. Think about the host of bodybuilders who have developed world class physiques through either training on their own, or through totally unorthodox methods:
- Ronnie Coleman
- Vince Taylor
- Johnny Fuller
- Serge Nubret
- Steve Michalik (certified lunatic...literally)
People constantly ask me what I do to be fit, and I always tell them "eat a healthy diet and exercise."
It really is that simple. The hardest part is consistency.
So cows who are injected hormones train in a specific way to gain those hundreds of pounds of muscle they gain? Pros would make literally 80% of the gains they make just by doing pushups and situps on the amount of juice they run. It's nutrition that is most important. Training helps of course, but it is not comparable to nutrition in terms of importance.
Who do you think would make better gains?
A. Someone doing Milos' workout and eating fruit loops for every meal.
B. Someone eating a perfect bodybuilding diet and just going to the gym regularly and training with intensity.
Discuss.
both matt, both ;)
I do everything right anyway 8)
-
Matt you have it ALL wrong.
You need to read up simple topics such as Thermodynamics, Gravity and Evolutionary Biology.
You will then learn why Animals have the muscle they do. How their muscles have developed over time, and about energy expenditure.
-
Week of March 10, 2007; Vol. 171, No. 10 , p. 147
Living Long on Less? Mouse and human cells respond to slim diets
Patrick L. Barry
Scientists have known since the 1930s that mice and other animals live 30 to 50 percent longer when placed on a diet that's low in calories yet nutritionally complete. The unanswered question has been whether calorie restriction has the same life-extending effect on people.
Direct proof of a payoff for human longevity would take decades. But scientists have now shown that people on a calorie-restricted diet experience many of the cellular changes reported in mouse studies.
"The experimental results [in mice] mirror the results we found," says Anthony E. Civitarese of the Pennington Biomedical Research Center in Baton Rouge, La. Whether those changes would extend a person's life remains uncertain, he notes.
As people get older, energy-converting organelles called mitochondria decrease in number and generate greater amounts of harmful by-products called free radicals. Many scientists hypothesize that DNA damage from these by-products can cause chronic diseases of old age such as cancer.
Civitarese and his colleagues randomly assigned 36 overweight people to one of three groups. The first group was instructed to follow a diet with 25 percent fewer calories than the individuals' initial energy expenditures. Each participant in the second group followed a diet with 12.5 percent fewer calories than he or she had initially expended, while exercising to burn another 12.5 percent. Both diets contained adequate nutrition. People in the third group ate a weight-maintenance diet, the researchers report in the March PLoS Medicine.
During the 6-month study, participants in both calorie-restricted groups showed a 20 to 35 percent increase in the number of mitochondria in their muscle cells and a 60 percent decrease in DNA damage. The mitochondria appeared to become more youthful and efficient.
People in the calorie-restricted groups also showed increased activity of several genes related to mitochondrial function. Scientists have long considered one of these genes, SIRT1, to be crucial for animals' responses to calorie restriction.
"Not only is it a good study, but it's the only kind that we can do" practically, comments David Sinclair of Harvard Medical School in Boston. Several companies, including one cofounded by Sinclair, are developing drugs to activate SIRT1.
"It's exciting to see SIRT1 in the middle of this," says Leonard Guarente of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a cofounder of a competing company. However, he says that interpretation of the results of the Baton Rouge study is limited because the participants were overweight, a condition that can accelerate tissue aging.
The researchers enrolled overweight people in part because they would be motivated to follow a strict diet, Civitarese says. His team is planning a test that will focus on people of normal body weight and last 2 years.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have a comment on this article that you would like considered for publication in Science News, send it to editors@sciencenews.org. Please include your name and location.
-
Fixed that one for ya. ;)
If you don't consume adequate calories, you cannot make gains. Bodybuilding is the breakdown and buildup of muscle tissue. There are many ways to break the tissue down, and only with sufficient calories can it be built back up.
Try driving a car withuot gas after giving your car a safety check at the mechanic. Let me know how far you get.
The amount of calories it takes is VERY few. Humans are not Cars, nor do they operate as such. You are truly Ignorant if you really think the two operate the same.
The TOP LIFETIME NATURALS now stay under 8 percent, most under 6 percent bodyfat. To do so, they have to take in around 2000-2500 calories or so.
Given that we eat everyday, food is not important as it is always available. When is the last time you didn`t eat for a few days?
-
Thanks for these revelations which are in complete opposition of every scientific fact and bit of anecdotal evidence we've ever seen. Who would have thought that everyone was wrong and you were the only one right? Certainly not me.
Opposed how?
Do you read ANY Scientific Studies? It is clear you do not.
Matt, you are really stupid sometimes.
Would you like to read NASA page on Nutiriton?
-
BIOMEDICAL RESULTS OF APOLLO
SECTION III
CHAPTER 6
NUTRITIONAL STUDIES
by
Paul C. Rambaut, Sc.D.
Malcolm C. Smith, Jr., D.V.M.
Harry O. Wheeler, Ph.D.
Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center
Introduction
The importance of nutrition in the adaptation of man to weightlessness was recognized long before the first Apollo flight. Nutrition remained a primary concern despite the fact that early projections of difficulties in swallowing, defecating, and urinating in weightlessness had proved unfounded. By the conclusion of the Gemini Program, space life scientists had noted several subtle changes with possible nutritional etiology.
Changes in musculoskeletal function appeared to be significant among these findings (Rambaut et al., 1973; Vogel et al., 1974). Prior to the first manned space flight, it had been suspected that the musculoskeletal system would be particularly susceptible to prolonged withdrawal of gravitational stress. Astronauts were subjected to a nullified gravitational field while they were confined in a vehicle in which mobility and physical activity were restricted. These conditions singly, or in combination, were expected to cause deterioration of bones and muscles.
The control studies by Deitrick, Whedon, and Shorr (1948) of the immobilization of four young, healthy men for as long as seven weeks clearly demonstrated that immobilization in body casts led to marked increases in urinary calcium. These levels more than doubled in five weeks and were accompanied by negative calcium balances as well as by related changes in nitrogen and phosphorus metabolism. In addition, a decrease in the mass and strength of the muscles of the lower extremities occurred, and deterioration in circulatory reflexes to gravity resulted within one week.
Other studies with immobilized subjects indicated that the clinical disorders most likely to be encountered during prolonged space flight are primarily a consequence of an imbalance between bone formation and resorption. As a result of these conditions, there is a loss of skeletal mass, which could eventually lead to hypercalcemia, hypercalciuria, osteoporosis, and possibly nephrolithiasis (Issekutz et al., 1966).
Since the most meticulous work has disclosed that the greatest loss of calcium during bed rest is a result of increased urinary excretion, studies in which only urine calcium was measured are pertinent. The total evidence indicates that a one to two percent per month loss of body calcium is a reasonable prediction for persons in a weightless environment (Hattner & McMillan, 1968).
With the advent of space flight, additional studies have been performed on the effects of simulated weightlessness on skeletal metabolism. Graybiel and co-workers (1961) found there was no increase in urinary calcium excretion after one week of almost continuous water immersion. Negative balances of small magnitude and changes in bone density of the calcaneus during bed rest are indicated by Vogt and co-workers (1965).
The role of simulated altitude in modifying the metabolic effect of bed rest has been investigated (Lynch et al., 1967). In a study of 22 healthy men, four weeks of bed rest at ground-level atmospheric pressure conditions resulted in expected increases in urinary and fecal calcium and in urinary nitrogen, phosphorus, sodium, and chloride. In similar metabolic studies performed with another 22 subjects at bed rest at simulated altitudes of 3000 and 3700 meters, urinary calcium losses were significantly less as the altitude increased (Lynch et al., 1967). Urinary losses of phosphorus, nitrogen, sodium, and chloride were less at a simulated altitude of 3700 meters than they were during bed rest studies at ground level. Results of these studies indicate that diminished atmospheric pressure, or perhaps a decreased partial pressure of oxygen or a change in pH, may have a preventive effect on mineral loss from the skeleton. Limited data available from inflight studies tend to support the use of immobilization as a terrestrial model to simulate alterations in calcium metabolism during space flight. During the 14-day Gemini 7 flight, loss of calcium occurred in one of the two astronauts, and the changes in phosphorus and nitrogen balance also indicated a loss of muscle mass (Lutwak et al., 1969; Reid et al., 1968).
As evidenced from bed rest studies lasting from 30 to 36 weeks, mineral losses are likely to continue unabated during prolonged space flight. In balance studies (Vogel & Friedman, 1970; Donaldson et al., 1970), calcium losses from the skeleton during bed rest averaged 0.5 percent of the total body calcium per month. In the same subjects, tenfold greater rates of localized loss from the central portion of the calcaneus were detected by gamma-ray-transmission scanning.
Inflight weight losses were experienced throughout Project Mercury, Gemini, and the Apollo missions. Such weight losses were attributed, in part, to losses in body water. Since weight was not regained completely in the 24-hour period immediately postflight, it was probable that tissue had also been lost. What part of these losses was brought about by insufficient caloric intakes was unknown.
Speculation on the theoretical energy requirements of man during space flight began before the United States Project Mercury and the Soviet Vostok flights. At one time, it had seemed logical to assume that activity in a weightless environment would require less energy than at one because work associated with counteracting the force of gravity would be eliminated. However, caloric requirements are affected by numerous variables including age, physical and mental activity, stress, body size and composition, together with relative humidity, radiation, pressure, and environmental temperature. During the Apollo missions, therefore, the question of inflight caloric requirements was explored in much greater depth.
Metabolic changes in addition to those associated with an inadequate intake of energy were also elucidated during the Gemini Program. The possibility remained that space flight conditions would exert exaggerated demands on the micronutrients and would thus lead to some marginal deficiency state. It is believed that Soviet nutritionists provided their crewmen with elevated quantities of water-soluble vitamins, and that they had observed increased destruction of the B vitamins under conditions of prolonged low frequency vibration of test subjects. These observations were not confirmed during the Gemini Program. However, because alterations were seen in red cell mass and plasma volume, the vitamin E content of the diet in the presence of the hyperoxic Gemini spacecraft atmosphere was questioned (Fischer et al., 1969).
The development of future space food systems necessitated an accurate knowledge of inflight human nutrition requirements. Food systems having minimum weight and minimum volume are required for space flight (Heidelbaugh et al., 1973). For this reason, the Apollo foods were generally dehydrated and formulated to occupy little volume. The nutritional consequence of these measures was a matter of continuing interest in the Apollo Program.
__________
- Now with Bureau of Food, Food and Drug Administration.
Approach
Food Analysis
With very few exceptions, all foods used during the Apollo Program were analyzed for nitrogen, fat, carbohydrate, crude fiber, calcium, phosphorus, iron, sodium, potassium, and magnesium content. Some composite Apollo menus were analyzed for water- and fat-soluble vitamins. It was not always feasible to analyze the same lot of food that was actually used during the mission, and the variation in analytical values from one lot to another and from one item to another must be considered when the intake data are reviewed.
Dietetics
The menus used by the Apollo astronauts were formulated from flight-qualified Apollo foods in combinations that complied with the personal preferences of the crewmen and that met the Recommended Daily Dietary Allowances (NAS, NRC, 1968). The menus were primarily composed of dehydrated foods that could be reconstituted before eating. The foods were consumed in a prearranged sequence but could be supplemented by a variety of additional items that were packaged in an individually accessible form.
Nutrient Intake Measurements
The quantity of individual nutrients consumed during all Apollo missions is presented in table 1 as a composite estimate derived from numerous measurements. The crewmen were provided with prepackaged meals that were normally consumed in a numbered sequence. Foods omitted or incompletely consumed were logged. During the Apollo 16 and 17 missions only, these deviations from programmed menus were reported to flight controllers in real time. Snack items consumed that were not in the programmed prepackaged menus were also recorded in the flight logs. On all Apollo flights, most food residue and unopened food packages were returned; the residue was weighed only to provide more precise information on inflight food consumption and to verify inflight logging procedures. For the Apollo 16 and 17 missions, nutrient intake information was obtained for 72 hours before flight and for approximately 48 hours after flight.
For the Apollo 17 mission, a five-day metabolic balance study was performed approximately two months before the mission by using the flight menus and collecting urine and fecal wastes. Low residue diets were generally used commencing three days before each Apollo flight in order to reduce fecal mass and frequency during the first few days of flight.
Fecal Measurements
Fecal samples were returned from all Apollo flights and analyzed for a variety of constituents either by nuclear activation analysis or by wet chemistry techniques.
Metabolic Balance
Analysis of blood obtained postflight on early Apollo missions, together with certain endocrinological and electrocardiographic changes in Apollo 15, made it desirable to measure urine volume and bring back samples of urine on Apollo 16. During this mission, it was also possible to continue to return fecal samples and to continue to measure nutrient intake. Sufficient data were therefore available to conduct a partial metabolic study.
For a more detailed metabolic balance study in conjunction with Apollo 17, accurate measurements of fluid intake and output were performed approximately two months before the mission. A five-day food compatibility/metabolic study was performed in which the three Apollo 17 prime and backup crewmembers consumed their flight foods, and metabolic collections were performed. The study was designed to obtain baseline data on the excretory levels of electrolytes and nitrogen in response to the Apollo 17 flight menus. The crewmembers consumed the flight menu foods for five complete days. During the last three days of this test, complete urine and fecal collections were made.
Beginning 64 hours before Apollo 17 lift-off and continuing throughout the mission until 44 hours following recovery, all food and fluid intake was measured. For the Lunar Module Pilot, these collections continued until suit donning; for the Commander and the Command Module Pilot, collection continued until approximately 12 hours before lift-off. All urine was collected, measured, sampled, and returned for analysis. Urine was collected before and after flight in 12-hour pools. Complete stool collections were performed.
All deviations from programmed food intake were logged and reported. All foods were consumed according to preset menus arranged in four-day cycles. Every food item used during the flight was derived from a lot of food that had been analyzed for the constituents to be measured. Inflight water consumption was measured by use of the Skylab beverage dispenser. During the preflight and postflight periods, conventional meals were prepared in duplicate for each astronaut. One duplicate of each meal was analyzed in addition to the residue from the other duplicates to measure intake and output.
Apollo 17 inflight urine samples were collected by means of a biomedical urine sampling system (BUSS). Each BUSS consisted of a large pooling bag, which could accommodate as much as four liters of urine collected during a day, and a sampling bag, which could accommodate as much as 120 cc. The BUSS was charged with 30 mg of lithium chloride. The lithium chloride concentration in the sample bag was used as a means of determining total urine volume. Each BUSS also contained boric acid to effect stabilization of certain organic constituents.
The inflight urine collection periods began with suit doffing at approximately 00:07:00 ground elapsed time (GET). The collection periods were the times between scheduled effluent dumps and were approximately 24 hours each. During undocked flight of the Command Module, urine was collected only from the Command Module Pilot. During periods in which the crewmen were suited, urine was collected in the urine collection and transfer assembly and subsequently dumped overboard without sampling. However, urine collected in the Commander and Command Module Pilot assemblies during the Command Module extravehicular activities (255:00:00 to 260:00:00 GET) was also returned. For the Apollo 17 mission, the periods during which urine was not collected are as follows:
Commander and Command Module Pilot - lift-off to suit doffing (00:00:00 to 00:07:00 GET)
Command Module Pilot - Lunar Module activation and lunar descent (108:00:00 to 114:30:00 GET)
Command Module Pilot - rendezvous (187:00:00 to 195:00:00 GET)
Commander and Lunar Module Pilot - Lunar Module activation, lunar descent, lunar surface operations and rendezvous (107:00:00 to 208:00:00 GET)
Urine collected from the Commander and the Command Module Pilot from rendezvous to the beginning of the first collection period after rendezvous (approximately 197:00:00 to 208:00:00 GET) was also dumped directly overboard.
Each BUSS was marked with the name of the crewmember and the ground elapsed time of collection. Following each collection period, the urine pool was thoroughly mixed before a sample was taken. The urine samples represented a 24-hour void and were subsequently analyzed for electrolytes, nitrogen, and creatine.
All fecal samples collected from each crewmember for the following periods were returned: beginning 64 hours before lift-off, during the mission, and for 44 hours after the flight. Inflight fecal samples were chemically preserved for storage in the spacecraft.
Body Volume Measurements
For the Apollo 16 crewmembers, a measurement of body volume was made by stereophotogrammetry, using a special computer program, three times before the flight and three times after the flight (Peterson & Herron, 1971). Body density was calculated from body volume and weight. Density was used to calculate the percentage of fat by means of the following formula.
(495/ body density) - 450 = percent fat
Changes in calculated lean body mass and total body fat were converted into caloric equivalents by means of standard values of 37.6 kJ/gm [where 1 Joule = .239 calorie] for fat and 16.7 kJ/gm for protein.
Total body water was measured by means of potassium-42 dilution (Johnson et al., 1974). Lean body mass was calculated as follows.
LBM = total body water/0.73
body weight - LBM = total body fat
-
Findings
The nutritional composition of the typical Apollo inflight diet is given in table 2. This diet, which is characteristically high in protein and carbohydrate and low in residue and fat, was not necessarily consumed by all astronauts in its entirety.
A typical Apollo diet was analyzed for vitamins, and results were compared with Recommended Daily Dietary Allowances (NAS, NRC, 1968). The data indicate the Apollo diet provided an excess of some vitamins (A, E, C, B12, B6, and riboflavin) and marginal amounts of others (nicotinate, pantothenate, thiamine, and folic acid).
The average intake of protein, fat, and carbohydrate for the Apollo 7 through 17 crewmen is given in table 3. Fiber intake measurements are given for the Apollo 12, 15, 16, and 17 missions.
The quantity of energy supplied by dehydrated food for the Apollo 15 to 17 missions is given in table 4. The average energy intake of each Apollo crewmember is given in table 5. These energy values were calculated from the composition of the food consumed. Average energy intakes expressed on the basis of body weight are given in table 6. For comparison, the average energy intake of selected Apollo crewmembers during a mission and on the ground is given in table 7.
The average intakes of calcium, phosphorus, sodium, and potassium for each Apollo crewman are given in table 8. Diets for the Apollo 16 and 17 missions were fortified with potassium gluconate. The contribution of supplementary potassium gluconate to the total intake for the Apollo 15, 16, and 17 crewmen is given in table 9.
Inflight fecal samples were analyzed for inorganic constituents using nuclear activation analyses and wet chemistry techniques. The findings were summarized by Brodzinsky and co-workers (1971). Inflight fecal samples were also analyzed for total fat, fatty acids, and conjugated and unconjugated bile acids (table 10 and table11). Data on fat absorption in flight (Apollo 16 and 17) are given in table 12.
Apollo 16 Metabolic Study
The input and output of various elements, particularly potassium, were carefully examined in the Apollo 16 balance study and a detailed assessment of energy metabolism was made (Johnson et at., 1974). The average daily inflight potassium intake for the Commander was 113.6 milliequivalents. During the mission, potassium was lost by the fecal route at a rate of approximately 6.4 mEq/day, whereas approximately 18.8 mEq/day were lost before the flight and 20.5 mEq/day after the flight. During the mission, absorbed potassium levels were 107.2 mEq, whereas preflight and postflight levels were 94.8 and 77.6 mEq, respectively. During the extravehicular and lunar surface periods, the Commander consumed a maximum of 152.4 mEq daily.
The average daily inflight potassium intake for the Lunar Module Pilot was 114.7 mEq, compared with an average daily preflight intake of 110.5 mEq and an average daily postflight intake of 97.5 mEq. During the preflight, inflight, and postflight phases, the average daily fecal losses were 33.5, 11.1, and 31.0 mEq, respectively. The absorbed daily potassium levels for preflight, inflight, and postflight phases were 77.0, 103.6, and 66.5 mEq, respectively. Although these levels were less than the recommended levels of 150 mEq per day, they were adequate for ground-based requirements. A peak level of 148 mEq per day was consumed by the Lunar Module Pilot during lunar surface activities.
For the Command Module Pilot, average daily preflight, inflight, and postflight dietary potassium intakes were 94.3, 79.9, and 82.4 mEq, respectively. Fecal samples for the same periods indicated that potassium levels were 27.6, 6.3, and 26.2 mEq, respectively. Available daily preflight, inflight, and postflight potassium levels were, therefore, 66.7, 73.6, and 56.2 mEq, respectively.
Input and output data on sodium, chloride, and calcium levels for the Apollo 16 crewmembers are summarized in table 13A, table 13B, table 13C, table 13D, and table 13E.
In the analysis of the balance study performed for the Apollo 17 mission, inflight metabolic data were compared with those obtained during the five-day control study conducted approximately two months prior to flight. Rigorous intake and output measurements were accomplished immediately before the flight and after the flight to detect gross changes; however, the duration of these periods was not sufficient to establish reliable metabolic baselines.
For the Apollo 17 Command Module Pilot, water consumption from all sources was considerably lower during the flight than during the control balance study (table 14). Inflight urine outputs were also proportionately lower for all three crewmembers than those established during the control study. When the conditions of temperature and humidity that prevailed during the flight are considered, it is estimated that in insensible water loss of 900 to 1200 cc/day occurred. This loss was equivalent to the preflight loss. Total body water measurements also did not support the tendency toward negative water balance (see Section III, Chapter 2, Clinical Biochemistry).
Based on numbers adjusted for equilibrium during the control phase and insensible losses, all three crewmembers were in negative calcium balance during the inflight period (table 14). The negative balance was particularly pronounced for the Command Module Pilot. For two of the crewmembers, the negative calcium balance persisted after the flight. All crewmembers had exhibited a pronounced positive balance during the five-day control period study possibly because the flight diets contained a higher calcium level than did the customary daily intake of these crewmembers (table 14). As can be expected from the negative calcium balance, phosphorus balance was generally negative during the flight.
All three crewmembers demonstrated a sustained negative nitrogen balance during the flight (table 14). Occasional negative nitrogen balances of small magnitude were also detected before the flight. Diminished nitrogen retention is supportive evidence for the general musculoskeletal deterioration note on previous flights and during ground-based hypokinetic simulations of flight-type conditions.
Sodium intakes during the flight were all less than 250 mEq/day. Intake and output measurements for sodium indicated positive balances for this element during the flight for all three crewmembers (table 14). However, sodium output in sweat was not measured and this route of excretion could have accounted for all the apparent "positive balance" and even have resulted in a slight negative balance for sodium. Sodium balance was positive during the flight for all three crewmembers (table 15) if insensible losses are neglected.
In compliance with previous recommendations based on observed inflight potassium deficits, inflight potassium intakes were maintained above normal ground-based intakes (73 to 97 mEq/day) (table 15). Potassium retention during the flight was significantly less than that established during the control study. A summary of overall metabolic balance for Apollo 17 crewmembers with all numbers adjusted to reflect equilibrium during the control period is presented in table 15.
Anthropometric Measurements
A summary of body weight changes based on the mean of the weights on 30, 15, and 5 days before lift-off compared to those obtained immediately after recovery is presented in table 16. The weight changes during the 24-hour period immediately following recovery are also given.
Body volume was measured before and after the Apollo 16 mission by stereophotogrammetry. An analysis of densitometric data is presented in table 17.
Discussion
Most of the Apollo crewmembers did not eat all the food available. Among the reasons for reduced appetite were decreased hunger, a feeling of fullness in the abdomen, nausea (Berry & Homick, 1973), and preoccupation with the critical mission tasks. Dislike of the food and inadequate rest during the mission were minor problems (Berry, 1970). The evidence suggests that either weightlessness or some other aspect of the mission environment caused the crewmen to restrict their food intake below quantities available and below quantities necessary to maintain body weight.
A reasonable estimate of the energy requirement during a flight can be obtained by correlating careful measurements of food intake with losses or gains in body tissue. The data reveal a mean energy intake of 7854 ± 1735 kJ/day for astronauts during the Apollo missions. If this intake is compared to the NAS, NBC Recommended Daily Dietary Allowance of about 12 000 kJ/day, it is apparent that an average energy deficit was incurred by each Apollo astronaut.
To quantitate the metabolic energy demands throughout the mission and to help define body composition changes, efforts were made during the Apollo 16 mission to control nutrient intake at a constant level throughout the preflight, inflight, and postflight periods. It was believed that stabilizing dietary intake would afford maximum opportunity for detecting body composition changes caused by adaptation to weightlessness.
The mean loss in body weight between the day of the preflight total body water determination and the day of recovery was 3.9 kg. Measurements of total body water loss by tritiated water dilution indicated a mean decrease of 1.77 liters.
When body water loss was converted into lean body mass lost, it was determined that the three crewmembers lost fat in addition to lean body mass because the lean body mass loss does not equal the recorded weight loss. The daily caloric expenditure of the Apollo 16 crewmen can be calculated from the known caloric value of metabolized fat (37.6 kJ/gm and of lean body mass (16.7 kJ/gm). For the three crewmembers, the mean daily caloric expenditure was 17 347 kJ.
Changes in total body potassium measured both by radioactive (potassium 42) dilution and by balance techniques did not reveal a significant loss of lean body mass, an indication that a fat and fluid loss occurred rather than a lean body mass loss. If only body fat were lost, the energy requirement for the three Apollo 16 crewmen would 21 556, 12 043, and 14 291 kJ/day, with a mean of 15 963 kJ (Johnson et al., 1970).
In an alternate method of summarizing the data, each crewman’s body mass loss was calculated from the differences between his mean body weight obtained 30, 15, and 5 days before flight and his weight immediately after flight.
Total body water lost was defined as the mass regained by each astronaut during the 24-hour period following recovery. In this instance, it was assumed that the mean weight loss that was not due to either water or protein loss was due to loss of fat. By this method, a larger loss in body fat was calculated to have occurred in all crewmembers.
Because of difficulties in controlling the respiratory cycle during body volume measurement (Peterson & Herron, 1971), the calculated changes in body composition included the effect of respiration as a random variable; thus, the data have too large a variance for calculation of individual changes in body fat.
During the Apollo 17 mission, a complete collection of urine and feces samples was added to a record of dietary intake so that metabolic balance measurements could be made. By using the results of this study, the energy balance of each crewmember during the Apollo 17 mission was estimated. Each crewmember decreased his intramission energy intake. During the mission, this intake decreased from a mean of 141.3 kJ/kg body weight to 109.1 kJ/kg and represented a 23 percent decrease in the caloric intake of the crewmen. This decrease would result in a net mean deficit in caloric intake of 30 129 kJ throughout the mission (Johnson et al., 1974).
The mean weight loss of the Apollo 17 crewmen was 3.3 kg. Nitrogen balance data reveal a loss of approximately 1 kg of protein, and the remaining loss can be attributed to fat. A mean caloric deficit of approximately 104 500 kJ is, therefore, assumed to have occurred (Johnson et al., 1974; Leach et al., 1974).
Body tissue losses were first calculated for each astronaut by averaging successive body weights obtained before the mission and subtracting the body weights measured 24 hours after recovery (Rambaut et al., 1973). It had been assumed that any decrease in body mass between the preflight weight and the weight recorded 24 hours after recovery represented water lost. An average of 1.5 kg weight was not renamed during this 24-hour period. If this loss was composed entirely of fat, it would represent an additional inflight expenditure of approximately 5643 kJ/day. Commencing with Apollo 16, food and fluid intake, urinary and fecal output, and total body water were measured for each crewman before, during and after the flight. From these measurements were derived estimates of protein loss, lean body mass, and total body fat. Body volume was estimated by stereophotogrammetry, and body density was calculated. From all these data, it became apparent that crewmembers had lost fat in addition to losing lean body mass.
Losses of musculoskeletal constituents (Rambaut et al., 1973; Vogel et al., 1974) and a variety of fluid and electrolyte anomalies have been detected by biochemical investigations associated with the Gemini, Apollo, Voskhod, and Soyuz flights. The electrolyte anomalies were particularly pronounced during the Apollo 15 mission and may have been associated with inflight cardiac arrhythmias and postflight changes in exercise performance and cardiovascular responses.
Certain therapeutic measures including the elevation of dietary potassium intake were partly responsible for the lack of significant metabolic disturbances following the Apollo 16 mission. Similar elevations in dietary potassium were effected for the Apollo 17 crewmembers.
The negative nitrogen and potassium balances that were observed during the Apollo 17 mission are indicative of a loss in the body mass.
Summary
Apollo nutrient intakes have been characteristically hypocaloric. Estimates of body composition changes from metabolic balance data, from preflight and postflight weights and volumes, and from total body water and potassium provide no evidence for diminished caloric requirements during a flight.
As observed during the Gemini Program and during periods of bed rest, measurements of bone density and metabolic balance confirm a tendency toward loss of skeletal tissue in weightlessness.
No evidence exists that any inflight metabolic anomaly, including hypokalemia, was induced by marginal or deficient nutrient intakes. In general, the Apollo crewmen were well nourished and exhibited normal gastroenterological functions, although appetite was somewhat diminished and the organoleptic response to food was somewhat modified during flight.
References
Berry, C.A.: Summary of Medical Experience in the Apollo 7 Through 11 Manned Space Flights. Aerospace Med., vol. 41, 1970, pp. 500-519.
Berry, C.A.; and Homick, G.L.: Findings of American Astronauts Bearing on the Issue of Artificial Gravity for Future Manned Space Vehicles. Aerospace Med., vol. 44, 1973, pp. 163-168.
Brodzinsky, R.L.; Rancitelli, L.A.; Huller, W.A.; and Dewey, L.S.: Calcium, Potassium and Iron Loss by Apollo 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 Astronauts. Aerospace Med., vol. 42, 1971, pp. 621-626.
Dietrick, J.E.; Whedon, G.D.; and Shorr, E.: Effects of Immobilization Upon Various Metabolic and Physiologic Functions of Normal Man. Am. J. of Med., vol. 4, no. 3, 1948.
Donaldson, C.L.; Hulley, S.D.; Vogel, J.M.; Hattner, R.S.; Bayers, J.H.; and McMillan, D.E.: Effect of Prolonged Bed Rest on Bone Mineral. Metabolism, vol. 19, 1970, pp. 1071-1084.
Fischer, C.L.; Johnson, P.C.; and Berry, C.A.: Red Blood Cell Mass and Plasma Volume Changes in Manned Space Flight. JAMA vol. 200, 1969, pp. 579-583.
Graybiel, A; and Clark, B.: Symptoms Resulting from Prolonged Immersion in Water: The Problem of Zero G Asthemia. Aerospace Med., vol. 32, 1961, pp. 181-196.
Hattner, R.S.; and McMillan, D.E.: The Influence of Weightlessness Upon the Skeleton. Aerospace Med., vol. 39, 1968, pp. 849-855.
Heidelbaugh, N.D.; Smith, M.C.; and Rambaut, P.C.: Food Safety in NASA Nutrition Programs. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assn., vol. 163, 1973, pp. 1065-1070.
Issekutz, B.; Blizzard, J.; and Birkhead, N.C.: Effect of Prolonged Bedrest on Urinary Calcium Output. J. Appl. Physiol., vol. 21, 1966, p. 1013.
Johnson, P.C.; Leach, C.S.; and Rambaut, P.C.: Estimates of Fluid and Energy Balances of Apollo 17. J. of Aerospace Med., vol. 44, 1970, pp. 1227-1230.
Johnson, P.C.; Rambaut, P.C.; and Leach, C.S.: Apollo 16 Bioenergetic Considerations. Nutrition and Metabolism, vol. 16, 1974, pp. 119-126.
Leach, C.S.; Rambaut, P.C.; and Johnson, P.C.: Adrenal Cortical Responses of the Apollo 17 Crewmembers. Aerospace Med., vol. 45, 1974, pp. 529-534.
Lutwak, L.; Whedon, G.D.; LaChance, P.A.; Reid, J.M.; and Lipscomb, H.S.: Mineral, Electrolyte, and Nitrogen Balance Studies of the Gemini VII 14-Day Orbital Space Flight. J. Clin. Endocrinol. and Metabolism, vol. 29, 1969, pp. 1140-1156.
Lynch, T.N.; Jensen, R.L.; Stevens, P.M.; Johnson, R.L.; and Lamb, L.E.: Metabolic Effects of Prolonged Bed Rest: Their Modification by Simulated Altitude. Aerospace Med., vol. 38, 1967, pp. 10-20.
NAS, NRC: Recommended Dietary Allowances. Seventh revised ed. National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, Food and Nutrition Board, Publication 1964 (Washington, D.C.), 1968.
Peterson, C.R.; and Herron, R.E.: Stereophotogrammetry Applied to Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. Sou. Med. J., vol. 64, 1971, pp. 281-284.
Rambaut, P.C.; Heidelbaugh, N.D.; and Smith, M.C.: Calcium and Phosphorus Mobilization in Man During Weightless Flight Activities. Report 25 (Research and Development Associates for Military Food and Packaging Systems, Inc.), 1973, pp. 1-7.
Rambaut, P.C.; Heidelbaugh, N.D.; Reid, J.M.; and Smith, M.C.: Caloric Balance During Simulated and Actual Space Flight. Aerospace Med., vol. 44, 1973, pp. 1264-1269.
Reid, J.M.; Lutwak, L.; and Whedon, G.D.: Dietary Control in the Metabolic Studies of the Gemini VII Space Flight. J. Am. Dietet., A., vol. 53, 1968, pp. 342-347.
Vogel, J.M.; and Friedman, R.J.: Mineral Content Changes in the Os Calcis, Ulna, and Radius Induced by Prolonged Bedrest. In: Bone Mineral Conference, CONF-700515, USAEC (Chicago), May 22-23, 1970, pp. 408-423.
Vogel, J.M.; Rambaut, P.C.; and Smith, M.C.: Bone Mineral Measurements from Apollo Experiment M-078. NASA TMX-58110, Jan. 1974.
Vogt, F.B.; Mack, P.B.; Beasley, W.G.; Spencer, W.A.; Cardus, D.; and Valbonna, C.: Effect of Bedrest on Various Parameters of Physiological Function. NASA CR-182, 1965.
-
Have you had lunch yet?" the rocket scientist asks as he straps me into the Space Cycle. I nod yes, but it wasn't an invitation; he wants to be well informed. You see, I'm about to be spun at 3 g's in a hypergravity exercise gym, a prototype designed for a Mars space station. For a visual, picture doing squats in a weight-room power rack, with one potentially catastrophic difference: The rack — and you — are swung horizontally around a steel pole at more than 40 revolutions per minute, sort of like a human tetherball. "You'll be fine," he says. "But whatever you do, don't look sideways." I don't need to ask why.
Vincent Caiozzo isn't a mad scientist. He's a professor of orthopedic surgery at the University of California at Irvine, who's been studying muscle for nearly 30 years. The NASA-funded Space Cycle represents the pinnacle of his lifelong research — and, I think, a great investment opportunity. "Exercising in the Space Cycle is like hanging a barbell on every atom of your body," he tells me. Clearly, it's infomercial gold.
Only, Caiozzo isn't concerned with helping men build bigger biceps — his research interest is far less marketable. Like that of almost all muscle scientists, its purpose is to find better ways to prevent the muscle loss that occurs with aging, cancer, spinal injuries, and, in the case of the Space Cycle, interplanetary travel.
But the lessons these researchers learn can still benefit those of us who want to look more buff at the beach. In fact, by using their findings to better understand the biology of muscle, you can build your body faster and more simply than ever. The trick, however, is knowing how to apply the hard science to your primary goal: building hard muscle.
Research Lab
Alwyn Cosgrove doesn't claim to be a muscle scientist. But, in a sense, he's become one by default. Since Cosgrove opened his gym, Results Fitness, in 2000, he's kept a detailed account of every single workout session that's been conducted there. "Clients pay for the fastest results," he says. "So to compete with the gym down the street, I had to find out what works best." And that meant collecting workout data on a large number of ordinary men who were using a variety of training methods.
Unlike commercial health clubs, Cosgrove's facility — located in Santa Clarita, California — offers only semiprivate training, meaning each workout is designed, monitored, and recorded by a member of the staff. Consider that in a typical week, it hosts 400 workouts, providing feedback on 20,800 sessions a year. To equal those numbers, a regular guy would have to work out every day for 57 years. In effect, that makes Cosgrove's gym a bona fide research laboratory and his gym-rat clients, it seems, human lab rats.
To explain his real-world findings, he's tried to bridge the academic research of men like Caiozzo with the practical application of exercises, sets, and repetitions. "A 19th-century English biologist named Thomas Huxley once said that 'science is nothing but organized common sense,' " says Cosgrove, "which is what training should be."
The end result of Cosgrove's human experiment is a muscle-building plan that's not just gym proven, it's supported by science. And because it shatters nearly 40 years of bodybuilding dogma, it will probably surprise you.
Muscle Science
The biology of muscle isn't, in fact, rocket science. At its most basic level is the SAID principle, an acronym for "specific adaptation to imposed demand." "When a muscle contracts against a large amount of resistance, it adapts by getting bigger and stronger," says Caiozzo. Likewise, if it's regularly forced to contract for long periods of time, it becomes more resistant to fatigue. These adaptations occur to reduce stress on the body, which is why you can per-form everyday functions — like walking up stairs or picking up a light object — with little effort.
Now let's apply the SAID principle to your workout. When you lift weights, you cause tiny tears in your muscle fibers. This accelerates a process called muscle-protein synthesis, which uses amino acids to repair and reinforce the fibers, making them resistant to future damage. And although this happens at a microscopic level, the effect becomes visible over time — in the form of bigger arms, broader shoulders, and a thicker chest.
Understanding this process provides you with a logical rationale for how often you should train your muscles. In multiple studies, researchers at the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston have reported that muscle-protein synthesis is elevated for up to 48 hours after a resistance-training session. So if you work out on Monday at 7 p.m., your body is in muscle-growth mode until Wednesday at 7 p.m. After 48 hours, though, the biological stimulus for your body to build new muscle returns to normal.
On paper, this supports Cosgrove's first assertion: "Performing total-body workouts three times a week is the most effective way to gain muscle." Unfortunately, that advice directly contradicts what most guys actually do. That's because almost everyone subscribes to a leftover from the Stay Hungry days of weight lifting: what Cosgrove calls "body-part training."
The idea is to divide the body into specific muscle groups, or body parts, and dedicate an entire session to working each individually. For example, you might perform exercises for your chest on Monday, your back on Tuesday, your shoulders on Wednesday, and so on. Even though you're training daily, each muscle group is targeted only once a week. So, in essence, those muscles grow for just 2 days out of every 7. With total-body workouts, though, you work each muscle more often. "When you train a muscle three times a week, it spends more total time growing," says Cosgrove.
Connections
Anatomically speaking, you can't isolate muscle groups in the first place — which is Cosgrove's other beef with body-part training. Imagine, for a moment, that you could strip the skin away from your muscles. You'd see clearly that they're interconnected, surrounding the body like a unified web. This is because all of your muscles are enclosed in a tough connective tissue called fascia. And since fascia attaches to bone and other muscles, it creates "functional" relationships between seemingly separate muscle groups.
"Even a small movement of your upper arm triggers a complicated network of muscles from your shoulder down to your hip," says Bill Hartman, P.T., C.S.C.S., a physical therapist in Indianapolis. Here's why: The latissimus dorsi (or lat), the largest muscle of the back, attaches to the upper-arm bone, shoulder blade, spine, and thoracolumbar fascia—a strong layer of connective tissue that attaches muscles to the spine and pelvis. The glutes, or rear hip muscles, attach to the pelvis. See the connections?
Don't misunderstand: There's no doubt you can emphasize a muscle group by choosing the appropriate exercise; just don't confuse targeting with isolating. To illustrate this point, Cosgrove uses the example of a popular exercise known as the bent-over row. If you subscribe to body-part training, it's a back exercise, since that's the area of your body it emphasizes. But, because of the interconnection between the muscles and connective tissues of the hips and back, your hamstrings and glutes are contracted for the entire exercise. So you're not only working your back, you're challenging your legs as well. And don't forget the involvement of your forearms and biceps in pulling the bar to your chest. "Separating your workouts by body parts is illogical," says Cosgrove. "You're not actually separating anything."
Also, since body-part training is generally performed intensely on consecutive days, it impedes the recovery process. "The nutrients your body needs to repair muscle damage from the previous day are allocated toward providing energy for your workout instead," says Jeff Volek, Ph.D., R.D., an exercise-and-nutrition researcher at the University of Connecticut. "Your muscles grow best when your body is resting, not working." This isn't an issue with Cosgrove's total-body recommendation, since there's a built-in recovery day after each session.
A New Prescription
Bodybuilders argue that total-body training doesn't allow you to work muscle groups hard enough. For instance, they claim that if a typical chest workout takes 30 minutes or more to complete, you'd have to spend hours in the gym to adequately train your entire body. "That's based on the assumption that a chest workout needs to take 30 minutes," says Cosgrove. He goes on to explain that a typical chest day might consist of three sets of four exercises, for a total of 12 sets every 7 days. But Cosgrove says you could do the same amount of work — 12 total sets — in the same time period by performing four sets 3 days a week. "I've found that training works like a prescription," says Cosgrove. "You wouldn't take an entire bottle of Advil on Monday to relieve pain all week; you'd take smaller doses at regular intervals."
A study at the University of Alabama supports this notion. The researchers had one group of men train each muscle group once a week for 3 months; another group performed the same number of total sets weekly but split them equally among three total-body workouts. The result? The men who worked each muscle more frequently gained 9 pounds of muscle — 5 more than those who trained each muscle only once a week.
But, to save even more time, Cosgrove employs another strategy: alternating sets. When possible, he pairs exercises that work opposite muscle groups and cuts the rest period between sets in half.
It's a concept based on the scientific work of Sir Charles Scott Sherrington, who won the Nobel Prize in 1932 for his contributions in physiology and neuroscience. Sherring-ton's law of reciprocal innervation states that "for every neural activation of a muscle, there is a corresponding inhibition of the opposing muscle." This means when you work your chest muscles, the opposite back muscles are forced to relax, thereby resting.
So, instead of waiting 2 minutes between sets of bench presses, you can perform one set of the bench press, rest for just 1 minute, and then do a bent-over row. After you finish, you'll rest again, then repeat the entire process until you complete all sets of both exercises. "In an average workout, this technique saves at least 8 to 10 minutes," says Cosgrove, "without sacrificing performance."
There's another piece to this puzzle, though. In analyzing thousands of work-out logs, Cosgrove developed a volume-threshold theory. "It seems that growth occurs once a muscle has been exposed to 90 to 120 seconds of total tension," he says.
For example, let's say it takes 5 seconds to complete one repetition. This means one set of eight repetitions would place your muscles under tension for 40 seconds. So, using Cosgrove's theory, you'd need to do only three sets — for a total of 120 seconds — to perform enough exercise to stimulate muscle growth. Likewise with four sets of five repetitions or two sets of 12 repetitions.
However, even Cosgrove admits that this is more theory than fact, primarily for one reason: Human studies simply haven't compared a wide variety of set and repetition ranges or even controlled for the duration of muscle tension. So there's simply no data to draw from. At least not until you look elsewhere in the animal kingdom.
Researching Muscle Growth
Some men simply gain muscle faster, easier, and to a greater degree than others, which is why we study rats," says Caiozzo. Compared with humans, rats are a much more homogeneous species, meaning there's little variation from one to another. This allows scientists to more accurately study the enzymes, metabolic pathways, and genes that regulate muscle growth.
Of course, actual lab rats aren't gym rats by nature. So, in 1992, Caiozzo developed a rat-size resistance-training apparatus — a device that looks like a high-tech leg-curl machine. However, since they couldn't simply ask a group of rats to lift weights, there was another step involved.
The researchers permanently implanted a stainless-steel wire in the gastrocnemius muscle of each rat's hind limb and ran the wire under the skin to the skull, where two small screws had been inserted using a handheld drill. By connecting a wire to the outside of the screws, the scientists were then able to stimulate the muscle manually with an electric current, causing it to contract with maximal force. This allowed them to mimic a human weight-lifting workout.
To test the device, the rats were "encouraged" to perform four sets of 10 repetitions, with each repetition lasting 2 seconds — a total tension time of 80 seconds. The result: The group didn't increase muscle size in an 8-week period. This meant that either the machine didn't work or the volume of exercise was too low. So the researchers tweaked the workout. When the contractions were increased to 4 seconds in duration, doubling the total tension time, the rats gained a significant amount of muscle mass — and in just 4 weeks, not 8.
Of course, this doesn't authoritatively validate Cosgrove's volume-threshold theory in humans, but it does provide a biological precedent that supports it. And it just may be that some of his data is simply ahead of its time.
Repetition Ranges
"Go heavy or go home" is a common saying among bodybuilders. But, while it's crucial that you use a weight that provides a challenging load, the mantra is flawed. That's because muscle fibers can grow in two ways. The first is when the myofibrils — the parts of the fiber that contain the contracting proteins — increase in number and density. This type of growth leads to strength gains and can be accomplished by using heavy weights that allow only one to seven repetitions.
The second type of growth, however, occurs when your muscles are forced to contract for longer periods of time. Typically, this means using lighter loads that allow you to complete 12 to 15 repetitions. This increases the number of energy-producing structures within the fiber. So you don't get significantly stronger, but you do get bigger.
Using a repetition range that falls between the two causes a combination of both types of growth, but each to a lesser degree. And that's why Cosgrove uses all three repetition ranges. For instance, he might prescribe five repetitions of each exercise on Monday, 15 on Wednesday, and 10 on Friday. "It not only leads to better growth but also helps keep you from hitting plateaus," he says.
And indeed, in a 2002 study, Arizona State University researchers discovered that men who alternated their repetition ranges in each of three weekly training sessions gained twice as much strength as men who didn't vary their repetitions. To Cosgrove, it's just another case of a logical approach generating a logical result.
Space Cycle
Being in the space cycle is a strange experience. Although my body is nearly parallel to the floor as I exercise, it feels as if I'm upright, and there's no sensation of spinning — provided, of course, that I don't violate the sideways rule. (Doing so, by the way, really sucks.) Caiozzo explains that the laws of physics prevent me from falling off, much as if I were on a roller coaster.
He invented the Space Cycle to help remedy one of NASA's biggest headaches. "Because of the lack of gravity, an astronaut's muscles waste away quickly," he says.
As a veteran of four space flights, Commander Bill McArthur knows this reality firsthand. When I spoke to him by phone in early February, he was living on the International Space Station, a 6-month tour of duty 120 miles above Earth's surface. To stress the physical impact of space travel, he shared this memory from his first mission: "When we landed, I bent over to give my wife a hug, and she had to catch me because the bending wasn't going to stop," he says. "That was after just 14 days." So, in his current detail, McArthur exercises nearly 2 hours a day—using a specially designed resistance-training machine called the IRED—just to try to maintain his muscle. Hardly a time-efficient solution.
Enter the Space Cycle. Because of its ingenious design, the rotating exercise gym creates artificial gravity, up to seven times the normal amount on Earth. Caiozzo believes this not only will prevent muscle loss in space but will stimulate growth—without the need for weights. And in just a few minutes a day, not hours. "There's no magic," he says. "It just capitalizes on what we already know about muscle growth."
Granted, most of us aren't worried about bulking up on Mars just yet. But the Space Cycle illustrates an important point: The most effective workout isn't necessarily the longest or the hardest; it's simply the smartest. And the nearly 18 hours a day every guy spends sitting on his keister while commuting, driving the desk, settling into the couch, and hitting the sack isn't a bad approximation of weightlessness. So you may have more in common with Commander McArthur than you think.
"Building muscle takes sweat, guts, and determination," says Cosgrove, who's always eager to help the couch-bound. "So why make it harder than it needs to be?"
Copyright © 2007 Rodale Inc. All rights reserved. Men's Health ® is a Registered Trademark of Rodale Inc. No reproduction, transmission or display is permitted without the written permissions of Rodale Inc.
-
Project Technical Summary
Industry Forum
About NSBRI
Search/Site Map
Research Area: Muscle Alterations and Atrophy
Principal Investigator: Vincent J. Caiozzo, Ph.D.
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Project Title: Hypergravity Resistance Training: Countermeasure to Microgravity
The space program would like to determine the potential usefulness of artificial gravity as a countermeasure, especially with respect to skeletal muscle atrophy and loss of muscle function. The current project is a proof-of-principle of a unique countermeasure technology referred to as the "Space Cycle. The Space Cycle is a human-powered centrifuge that can be used to generate various levels of artificial gravity/hypergravity. The novelty of artificial gravity/hypergravity resistance training is that each element of the body is loaded proportional to the local gravitational field, and under hypergravity conditions muscles like those of the leg can be made to work against very high loads (e.g., + 2 body weights) without the need for external weights.
The primary objective of this project is to use the Space Cycle to address the following general hypothesis: Artificial gravity can be used as a unique resistance training modality that acts as an effective countermeasure, preventing the loss of muscle mass and function that occurs due to microgravity. In addressing this issue, a logical sequence of experiments is proposed with the following objectives:
determine if squats performed under hypergravity conditions and without external weights can produce foot forces similar to those seen when performing squat resistance training (SRT) under normal Earth gravity conditions;
determine if squats performed under hypergravity conditions produce muscle adaptations similar to those seen using a SRT program under normal Earth gravity conditions; and
determine if squat hypergravity resistance training (SHRT) program is an effective countermeasure to simulated microgravity.
During the past two years, two studies were performed. The first study represents the initial step in testing the hypothesis that hypergravity can be used as a unique modality for resistance training, maintaining the health and function of skeletal muscle in microgravity.
The primary objectives of this study were:
to determine if subjects could perform squats under hypergravity conditions without developing motion sickness or illusory motion;
to measure foot forces while performing squats under hypergravity conditions; and
to determine the power required by the cyclist to produce 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, and 3.0 times Earths gravity. All studies were performed using a unique human-powered short-arm centrifuge, the Space Cycle.
One of the centrifuge arms of the Space Cycle had a gondola or cage-like configuration that allowed subjects to perform squats. Subjects (male = 20; and female = 16) performed squats under hypergravity conditions (1.5, 2.0, 2.5, and 3.0 times Earths gravity) and during these tests foot forces were monitored using the Pedar-X system. Foot forces measured under the hypergravity conditions were normalized to foot forces measured at Earths gravity, and these were referred to as relative foot forces (RFF). All of the subjects were able to perform the hypergravity squats without developing motion sickness, and illusory motion was minimized by having the subjects fix their sight on the leading edge of the base plate. All of the male and female subjects were able to perform squats at 1.5, 2.0, and 2.5 times Earths gravity. However, two male and two female subjects were not able to perform squats at 3.0 times Earths gravity because the loading at this hypergravity condition exceeded their strength. The mean RFF at the highest Earth gravity (i.e., 3.0) were 2.3 and 2.5 times greater than body weight for the male and female subjects, respectively. The work rate required to power the Space Cycle was a linear function of Gz, the amount of gravitational force going through the body when the cycle is spinning, and is well within the aerobic scope of most untrained individuals.
In conclusion, the findings of this study demonstrate that hypergravity can be used as an effective modality for loading skeletal muscle and that subjects can perform SRT without becoming motion sick or experiencing illusory motion. The data was published in Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine 78:2-8, 2007.
The objectives of the second study were to:
determine if hypergravity squats can produce foot forces similar to those measured while performing 10-repetition maximum (10-RM) squats under normal Earth gravity conditions, and
compare the integrated EMG (iEMG) and goniometry of selected muscles and joints, respectively between hypergravity and 10-RM squats of similar foot forces. Subjects completed (male = 8; female = 5) ten 10-RM squats (97 12 kg) and 10 hypergravity squats (3.2 0.3 times Earths gravity; range of 3-3.75 times Earths gravity) under similar average total foot force conditions (104% 10-RM) in the same visit.
Hypergravity squats were performed on a human-powered short-arm centrifuge. Foot forces were monitored using insole force sensors. Hip and knee flexion/extension, plantar/dorsi flexion, and EMG of the erector spinae, bicep femoris, rectus femoris and gastrocnemius were also monitored during the squats. There were no differences in average total foot forces, average duration per repetition, and iEMG and range of motion of the selected muscles and joints, respectively, between hypergravity and 10-RM squats except a 60% greater iEMG of the gastrocnemius muscles during hypergravity squats (P < 0.05). These results suggest that hypergravity squats are comparable to squats performed at Earths gravity and may represent an important countermeasure to microgravity. Collectively, we have performed a series of sequential studies that will culminate in two training studies this coming year. The goal of the project entering the fourth year is to compare resistance training on the Space Cycle with that of SRT at Earths gravity.
Earth-based Applications of Research Project
There are potentially several unique aspects of the Space Cycle that may have a direct benefit to Earth-based activities. Currently, it is unclear whether hypergravity may represent a unique loading mode that might enhance training and/or rehabilitation. The unique aspect of hypergravity is that each element is weighted in accordance to its specific gravitational field. In essence, this is like hanging a set of bar bells on every atom/molecule in the body. This distribution of load may be quite different than that of placing weights on a given body structure, whereby there is a concentrated loading on that particular structure. Additionally, hypergravity may represent a unique modality for patients with spinal cord injuries. It is well known that many of these individuals have a reduced orthostatic tolerance. Some have suggested that exposing such individuals to hypergravity may help in this regard. We are currently exploring this issue with Dr. James Hicks. Finally, there may be vestibular aspects of Space Cycle activity that might be of benefit to patients who have balance problems. From our work, we are planning to develop an NIH grant that will look at the use of hypergravity as a multisystem rehabilitation tool.
-
The Effects of Microgravity on Skeletal Muscle Contractile Properties
Principle Investigator: Prof. Dr. Paolo Cerretelli, Central Medical University, Geneva, Switzerland
Co-Investigators: Dr. Marco V. Narici, Institute of Advanced Biomedical Technologies - National Research Council, Milan, Italy
Dr. Bengt Kayser, Central Medical University, Geneva, Switzerland
Musculoskeletal results from previous missions indicate that microgravity conditions induce muscle atrophy. This experiment examines the contractile properties of the calf muscle group in the left leg to identify the effects of selective fiber atrophy on muscle function. The science team anticipates that atrophy will be greater in the soleus, because of its higher percentage of slow-twitch muscle fibers. Using the Percutaneous Electrical Muscle Stimulation (PEMS) device, an instrument that stimulates muscles electrically, the investigators can study muscle mechanics independently of voluntary control. In addition, the PEMS will apply electrical stimulation during maximum voluntary muscle contractions to determine the ability of the astronaut to activate the calf muscle at will. Torque (twitch) responses to the stimulations will be measured with the Torque Velocity Dynamometer. Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scans of the muscles before and after the mission will complement the PEMS and TVD data.
If the soleus muscle does exhibit greater atrophy than the gastrocnemius, the calf muscle group as a whole should need less time both to reach peak contraction levels and to relax fully. Investigators also expect that soleus atrophy will result in reduced maximum voluntary contraction and that the calf muscle group will tire faster as a result of atrophy of the fatigue-resistant slow-twitch fibers. Results of this experiment will be integrated with additional MRI, microscopic, hormonal, biochemical, and electromyogram data from the other musculoskeletal studies to develop a comprehensive description of the time course of early changes in muscle structure and function in space.
In preparation for the mission, each payload crewmember will undergo Magnetic Resonance Imaging to establish two preflight measurements of the calf muscle: cross-sectional area and volume. Ankle flexing activities will establish baseline measurements of torque, correlated to applied current. After the flight, the scans and performance protocols will be repeated.
During the mission, the PEMS will stimulate a crewmember¹s calf muscles to contract to determine a Supramaximal Current Intensity (SMCI), the intensity of stimulation at which there is no further increase in twitch torque. To assess the relationship between ankle angle and torquing force of muscles that extend the foot (plantar flexors), the ankle will be flexed at several different angles, a stimulus applied, and twitches measured. Muscle twitches also will be used to assess maximal voluntary contraction; while the crewmember contracts the calf muscles, two electrical stimuli at the SMCI level will be applied. If the voluntary contraction is below the maximum, the stimuli will excite those muscle fibers that are not activated voluntarily, producing an increase in force above that generated voluntarily. In another regimen, the force of the muscle will be measured while being stimulated at varying frequencies (the frequency-force relationship). Muscle atrophy is expected to produce a selective loss of force at specific frequencies. Finally, muscle fatigability will be evaluated with repeated stimulations. This protocol will show the consequences of selective slow-twitch muscle atrophy on the fatigue properties of the calf when it is made to contract beyond volitional control.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effects of Microgravity on the Biomechanical and Bioenergetic Characteristics of Human Skeletal Muscle
Principle Investigator: Dr. Pietro E. di Prampero, University of Udine, Udine, Italy
Co-Investigators: Dr. Jachen Denoth and Dr. Edgar Stüssi, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich, Switzerland
Dr. Carlo Capelli and Dr. Stefania Milesi, University of Udine, Italy
Dr. Jean-Françoise Marini, University of Aix-Marseille, France
A comprehensive understanding of skeletal muscle response to the space environment includes evaluation of the effects of microgravity on the relationships both between muscle length and the force it can generate and between force and muscle velocity during contraction. This experiment studies the maximal torque that subjects can exert voluntarily during either isometric or isokinetic contractions.
Studies on isolated muscles have shown that the maximal velocity with which a muscle can shorten is inversely related to the applied load. Investigators are interested in determining whether and to what extent this inverse relationship changes in microgravity. Also, since the force generated by the contractile component of the muscle is transmitted to the bone by elastic structures in series with the muscle, this experiment will analyze the relationship between muscle force and the length that the elastic structures stretch.
Using the TVD, each payload crewmember will exert a series of short maximal contractions with the flexors and extensors of the elbow and the plantar flexors of the ankle. These contractions will be performed at different joint angles and at various velocities of muscle eccentric and concentric contractions. To determine the role of neural input on the total force output of the muscles, electromyograms of contracting arm and calf muscles also will be collected. These activities will occur before, during, and after the mission, with the in-flight data being downlinked to the science team. Also, LMS findings will be complemented by the results of a bedrest study conducted at NASA/Ames Research Center before the mission.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Magnetic Resonance Imaging After Exposure to Microgravity
Principle Investigator: Dr. Adrian LeBlanc, The Methodist Hospital and Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
Co-Investigators: Dr. Linda Shackelford, NASA/Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas
Dr. Harlan Evans, Baylor College of Medicine and Krug Life Sciences, Houston, Texas
Dr. Chen Lin, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
Dr. Thomas Hedrick, The Methodist Hospital, Houston, Texas
Dr. M. Stewart West, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
After the 8-day flight of Spacelab-J in September of 1992, the crew showed evidence of significant atrophy in their calf, thigh, and lower back muscles. This ground-based experiment is designed to document comparable changes in the muscles of the LMS crew during the planned 16-day mission. Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging scans, the science team will quantify changes in the volume of individual muscles (soleus, gastrocnemius, quadriceps, hamstrings, adductors, intrinsic low back, and psoas) and will determine the degree and rate of recovery to their preflight states. The MRI scans may demonstrate, for instance, whether the predominantly slow-twitch soleus atrophies faster than the predominantly fast-twitch gastrocnemius. Muscle volume will be compared to muscle performance measurements gathered on orbit during other experiments. Dual photon X-ray absorptiometry, or DEXA, will be used to obtain total body and regional fat and lean tissue mass, which will complement the MRI data. In addition, DEXA will be used to monitor fluid redistribution after flight.
Investigators also will study changes in the cross-sectional areas of intervertebral discs in the lower back; if significant expansion of the disc area is evident, researchers may improve their understanding of the causes of back pain reported by many astronauts. This experiment also will determine any differences in the ratio of fat and water in spinal bone marrow during 2 weeks in space. These findings may indicate alterations in the ability of the bone marrow to produce new red blood cells.
Muscle and total body scans of crewmembers will be performed 30 and 15 days before launch. The scans will be repeated within 24 hours of the Shuttle¹s landing and between 40 and 72 hours, at 2 weeks, and between 4 and 5 weeks after the mission.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An Approach to Counteract Impairment of Musculoskeletal Function in Space
Principle Investigator: Dr. Per A. Tesch, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden
Co-Investigators: Dr. Hans E. Berg, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden
The study of changes in the performance of certain muscle groups is particularly beneficial to an understanding of the effects of orbital flight on muscles that usually bear weight and support the skeleton. This ground-based experiment identifies strength, power, and size changes in calf and thigh muscles occurring after extended exposure to weightlessness.
Before the mission, Magnetic Resonance Imaging scans of each crewmember¹s calf and thigh muscles will measure the cross- sectional areas. Using an inertia ergometer (one with a flywheel that produces resistance), each subject will establish individual values of force-velocity, joint angles, and joint angular velocity. Voluntary leg press exercises will define maximal force and power output for each subject. Electromyograms will determine the magnitude of neural drive to the muscles being exercised. These same procedures will be performed after the mission. By comparing the pre- and postflight data, investigators will help characterize changes in muscle performance in response to spaceflight. Specifically, the science team will study the force-velocity relationship of the knee extensor muscle group during concentric and eccentric actions. Also, they will seek to identify the mechanisms (e.g., muscle atrophy, decreased voluntary drive) responsible for impaired musculoskeletal function in response to orbital flight.
Last update: May 3, 1996 Contacts
-
Hey TA. I think nobody will read it. :-\
-
Musculoskeletal Experiments
Musculoskeletal Science
Effects of Weightlessness on Human Single Muscle Fiber Function
Relationship of Long-Term Electromyographic Activity & Hormonal Function to Muscle Atrophy & Performance
The Effects of Microgravity on Skeletal Muscle Contractile Properties
Effects of Microgravity on the Biomechanical & Bioenergetic Characteristics of Human Skeletal Muscle
Magnatic Resonance Imaging After Exposure to Microgravity
An Approach to Counteract Impairment of Musculoskeletal Function in Space
Bones and skeletal muscles provide humans with body structure and with the ability to move. The skeletal muscles, those that are attached to bones and make movement possible, are the focus of the LMS musculoskeletal investigations. These muscles consist of numerous elongated one-cell fibers that run for various lengths (often many centimeters) through the muscle. Some of these fibers, the slow-twitch muscle cells, generate force for prolonged, continuous activity; they are most active in resisting gravity and are important in maintaining posture. Other types of muscle cells, the fast-twitch fibers, produce force for rapid movement and exercise.
During spaceflight, the human body is no longer under gravity's influence, and the function of the musculoskeletal system changes in response to the altered demands imposed upon it. Because astronauts float within the orbiting spacecraft, their leg and back muscles are freed of the load-bearing stresses experienced on Earth as they support the weight of the body. Although the skeletal muscles continue to control and move the body, muscle fibers become smaller (atrophy) in the absence of gravity.
Since the early days of human spaceflight, the atrophy of skeletal muscles has been a recognized occurrence and the focus of scientific investigation. Studies on previous missions have documented a loss of muscle mass and a reduction in fiber size, as well as biochemical changes in muscles that oppose gravity. Significant atrophy of the skeletal muscles has been documented from NASA's Skylab program and Space Shuttle flights, as well as Russia¹s biosatellite Cosmos and Space Station Mir missions. From studies of rodents flown in space, researchers also have identified a fundamental shift in muscle energy sources (from fat to carbohydrates) in muscles that are composed predominantly of slow-twitch fibers. These muscles tend to atrophy more than those consisting primarily of fast-twitch fibers, and in some cases, the slow-twitch muscles even acquire the characteristics of fast-twitch muscles.
The adaptation of muscle and bone to weightlessness is an expected response to the microgravity environment, but the loss of muscle mass and changes in the ways muscles are used can become a disadvantage to astronauts upon return to Earth. Fortunately, these responses seem to be short-lived and reversible, but the effects of long-duration spaceflight on muscles and bones are not known. A comprehensive understanding of the changes in muscle structure and function in space and of the contributing physiological and cellular mechanisms is essential to the development of more effective countermeasures to these adaptations for both short- and long-duration missions. Also, this knowledge will contribute to our basic understanding of how muscles function on Earth.
Six LMS investigations (three sponsored by NASA and three by ESA) will continue the work of characterizing the effects of weightlessness on skeletal muscle function, performance, and biochemistry. Four of these studies have in-flight components, while two are conducted exclusively on the ground, before and after the mission. Each investigation concentrates on a different aspect of muscular adaptation; each also will generate information that enhances the findings of other experiments. For instance, some experiments test the right limbs; others, the left. Certain experiments investigate performance of the arms, while others study the legs. Investigations of the functional characteristics of whole muscles are complemented by those examining individual fibers from the same muscle, and the contractile properties of muscles are examined under different activation (voluntary or involuntary) regimens.
Of particular interest to LMS investigators are the muscles that move the ankle, knee, elbow, and wrist joints. Ankle extension is controlled primarily by two muscles in the lower leg, the soleus and the gastrocnemius, which form a muscle group commonly known as the calf. The soleus has a higher proportion of slow-twitch fibers than does the gastrocnemius, which has more fast-twitch muscle fibers. In the arm, the biceps flex and the triceps extend the elbow. These muscles, which are less critical in resisting gravity, usually consist of about equal percentages of slow- and fast-twitch fibers. Since the calf muscle group is an important anti-gravity muscle group, whereas the biceps of the arm are not, investigation of both allows comparison of the effects of weightlessness on weight- and non-weight-bearing muscle groups.
To investigate the specific questions of the LMS musculoskeletal scientists, the payload crewmembers will participate in comprehensive batteries of tests before, during, and after the mission to measure muscle performance, oxygen intake and utilization, muscle size and percentages of slow- and fast-twitch cells, and cellular characteristics. These results will be complemented by measures of the electrical responses of muscle tissue to controlled voluntary activation of muscles [electromyograms (EMGs)] and of electrical potentials produced by contractions of the heart [electrocardiograms (ECGs)]. The data gathered on LMS will provide a detailed picture of how and why the performance of the limb movements are affected by immediate and more prolonged exposure to microgravity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effects of Weightlessness on Human Single Muscle Fiber Function
Principle Investigator: Dr. Robert H. Fitts, Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Co-Investigator: DR. David L. Costill, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana
This experiment investigates the cellular causes of muscular atrophy and weakness in space. Investigators will establish the extent to which changes in cell function affect skeletal muscle function and performance, as well as the time course for any such changes. The results of assessing the work capacity of individual muscle fibers as well as intact muscle groups will contribute to a better understanding of microgravity-induced muscle atrophy and will help refine existing countermeasures against the deleterious effects of weightlessness on human muscle performance. An increased understanding of the cellular processes involved in muscle wasting also may be relevant to scientists concerned with the processes of aging.
Specifically, the science team will study the relation of oxygen consumption (VO2) to muscle function and performance. Oxygen uptake and energy expenditure are closely related. When slow-twitch muscles are exercised, they rely primarily on an aerobic process (one requiring oxygen) to extract the energy stored in carbohydrates, fats, and proteins. Fast-twitch fibers are more dependent on energy produced by the anaerobic breakdown of stores of glycogen. If a human's maximal oxygen uptake capacity declines in space, the slow-twitch muscles may not be as efficient because of their increased dependence on anaerobic energy sources.
The experiment has three components: cardiovascular exercise testing, leg muscle (right calf) testing, and muscle biopsy. In the cardiovascular exercise element, investigators will compare preflight, in-flight, and postflight measurements of each payload crewmember's capacity to take oxygen into the body (the maximum oxygen consumption) to determine any changes in uptake capacity.
Changes that occur in calf muscle size with inactivity. The white edge around each indicates fat, the gray is muscle and the white and black spot is bone.
Muscle testing will evaluate how well the right calf muscles contract and how long they can work before tiring. Finally, scientists will obtain biopsies of crewmembers' muscle tissue. Physiological and biochemical assays of single fibers isolated from the biopsies will disclose any changes that may have occurred at the cellular level.
Before the mission, each crewmember will exercise on the cycle ergometer, pedalling at various levels of resistance. The ergometer workloads, the revolutions per minute achieved, the amounts of carbon dioxide and oxygen in both inhaled and exhaled air during exercise, and the subject's heart rate will be used to calculate a preflight baseline maximum oxygen-uptake value. The baseline measurements of muscle performance (fatigability, comparison of muscle force to velocity, and maximal voluntary contractions) will be established with the Torque Velocity Dynamometer. Muscle fiber biopsies will be taken 45 days before launch and as soon as possible after landing.
During the flight and at selected times after the mission, each of the payload crewmembers will exercise on the ergometer at incremented workloads, exactly as was conducted preflight, until they reach maximal oxygen uptake. The in-flight test will be performed at the beginning, middle, and near the end of the mission. The results will provide the time course and extent of oxygen-uptake change resulting from adaptation to the microgravity environment. Using the Exercise Breathing Apparatus, each crewmember will breathe cabin air, while the expired air will be sampled and analyzed for oxygen and carbon dioxide in a gas analysis system. An electrocardiogram will record heart rate.
During the mission, each subject will test calf muscle performance using the Torque Velocity Dynamometer. With the ankle stabilized at a specific angle, the subject will perform three isometric contractions, the strongest of which will determine maximal voluntary contraction. To define muscle fatigability, the subject will execute repeated maximal contractions over a 45-second period. Muscle force compared to velocity will be characterized as the subject makes three isokinetic contractions at six distinct angular velocities. A comparison of the cellular studies with the whole muscle performance will allow the research team to determine the extent to which the microgravity-induced decline in performance can be attributed to specific changes within the muscles, as opposed to neural or cardiovascular factors.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Relationship of Long-Term Electromyographic Activity and Hormonal Function to Muscle Atrophy and Performance
Principle Investigator: Dr. V. Reggie Edgerton, University of California at Los Angeles, California
Co-Investigators: Dr. John Hodgson and Dr. Roland Roy, University of California at Los Angeles, California
Dr. Richard Grindeland and Dr. Malcolm Cohen, NASA/Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California
Degradation in skeletal muscle function associated with spaceflight may be caused, at least partially, by altered motor function. This experiment tests the hypothesis that the inactivity of muscles in space modifies a person's ability to control movement. It also tests the body¹s ability to secrete chemicals that can protect against muscle atrophy and weakness.
The experiment has four segments: a 24-hour EMG test, a torque-velocity/motor-control task, a fatigue test, and an endocrine response to exercise activity. The 24-hour EMG test will identify the subject¹s muscle activity levels during routine activity, measuring electrical impulses through 12 electrodes placed on 5 muscles on the right leg and arm. Once during each of three 24-hour tests, each payload crewmember will perform movements of the right leg and arm, using the Torque Velocity Dynamometer to determine levels and patterns of EMG activity at maximum and submaximum levels of effort. Also, in this second segment of the experiment, subjects test their ability to apply pressure by compressing a hand-grip dynamometer, a device that measures grip strength. These tests will provide information on the strategies of the nervous system to regulate controlled muscular activity and on how the microgravity environment modifies these neural strategies. The results also may reveal the importance of muscle use in the learning and forgetting of motor skills and may shed light on whether unstressed muscles and their neural networks compensate appropriately so that they regain the ability to move precisely or to maintain the appropriate postures in both Earth's gravity and a microgravity environment.
The effects of spaceflight on the fatigability of the ankle extensors (calf muscles) will be tested by having crewmembers perform a series of repetitive submaximal and then maximal isometric contractions. Both the torque of the ankle (force output) and the electrical activity (EMG) of the ankle extensors will be measured throughout the fatigue tests. These data will provide an indication of the relative importance of neural fatigue, as compared to muscular fatigue, helping to explain changes in motor performance and how the gravitational environment affects these responses.
The final component of this investigation is designed to test hormonal response to the fatigue test. The hormone of primary interest for this test is growth hormone, which will be measured from venous blood samples taken from the arm. The tests will be performed early in the mission and toward its end.
On-orbit results will be compared with pre- and postflight data to determine the effects of microgravity on the level of muscle activity, ability to control muscles, and capacity to secrete growth hormone. These findings may influence the development of effective measures to reduce in-flight muscle atrophy. In addition, the results of this investigation have implications for individuals who have limited muscular activity on Earth because of illness, aging, or injury. An understanding of the importance of muscle activity in maintaining muscle size and normal function will provide a basis for prescribing effective exercise for people recovering from long periods of immobility and other conditions associated with muscle atrophy.
-
Gravity and Growth – Size Matters for Life on Earth
Size and Embryonic Growth
The shapes and forms that life might take on planets other than Earth has been assumed, both by scientists and novelists, to be ruled by gravity. If rocky planets of greater mass than Earth exist, then the life evolving under the resulting high gravity would be predicted to be short and squat, an ecosystem of diminutive animals of high musculature scuttling under stubby shrubs. In contrast, a planet small in size but still able hold on to an atmosphere would be imagined to be the home of tall, gracile creatures bounding under 300 foot forest canopies.
The animals that live at Earth’s 1g vary in size from single cell protozoa to 100 foot blue whales. Their size and mass are adaptations to the environmental niche in which they live. For instance, large delicate creatures, such as the invertebrate giant squid require the buoyancy of water to support their weight. Large land animals require high bone and muscle mass to support their weight. Under 1g gravity and 1000 millibars atmospheric pressure animals can be small enough to support their own weight in the air with wings to glide or fly. Each species is of a genetically predetermined size and weight to suit their environmental niche. Although this can vary somewhat depending on levels of nutrition, it is vital for the individual to be within a reasonable tolerance of its correct size. A 4 ft tall water buffalo would fare poorly amongst the rest of the herd whereas a 4 ft flying squirrel would be a falling squirrel!
A four-foot water buffalo meets a four-foot flying squirrel.
The variations that exist in size within each species are usually due to food availability as the animal develops. Variability can also occur during growth of the embryo, but it is important that this is limited because correct size is important at birth. If the animal is too small then its likelihood of surviving is much reduced; if too big then both pup and mother may die if the pup cannot pass easily through the birth canal. There are several reasons however why it may be useful to alter embryonic growth. If food is scarce or there exists an environmental stressor, such as a predator or toxic agent, then it would temporarily be advantageous to have small pups. If the number of embryos is large then, similarly, a small litter is better. Embryonic growth can also be moderated by genetic factors, in particular the insulin-like growth factors, a signaling system that provides a mechanism for parental control of embryonic size through imprinting (http://www.informatics.jax.org/silver/5.5.shtml).
Changes in Growth under High Gravity Conditions
Initially, it may seem surprising that gravity is another factor that influences growth. Nevertheless many studies have shown that the growth rate of developing animals is slowed down when the pull of gravity is equivalent to double to that normally experienced. Such is the extent of this effect that rats bred under these conditions for three generations become progressively smaller. The growth inhibitory effects of gravity however are quite predictable given that size (or mass) is sensed via the judgment of weight and weight will rise with increasing gravity. It would be reasonable that, in compensation for the apparent increase in size, growth would slow down. Hoemeostasis is the maintenance of a constant internal condition, such as size. A homeostatic system is the mechanism by which this is maintained, and the systems that maintain the constant weight of the embryo are so far unknown. The effect could be at the organ level — for instance stretch receptors may be present in membranes that surround the embryo, which could detect an increasing pull as weight increased. Alternatively the effect could be at a cellular level. Although the way in which a single cell could detect an increase in its weight is not known, the suppressive effect of hypergravity on the growth of individual cells has been frequently reported and deformation of the internal skeleton (cytoskeleton) of the cell could provide a sensory system.
Experiments Showing the Effects of Hypergravity on Growth and Gene Expression
Our project investigates the genes involved in detecting and affecting these responses to increased gravity. A question at this point might be how gravity can be manipulated without travel to a larger planet or by breaking the laws of physics and using a gravity generator. The answer is to create conditions that mimic gravity using centrifugal force (http://lifesci.arc.nasa.gov/cgbr/home.html). We have used the 24-foot centrifuge situated at NASA-Ames in California (http://lifesci.arc.nasa.gov/cgbr/24_ft_cent.html) (see below) that allows caged, pregnant animals to be spun at an equivalent force of 2.0g for up to weeks at a time. This simulates high gravity (hypergravity) conditions.
The 24-foot centrifuge situated at NASA-Ames, California
Mice have a gestation period of 19 days and development of the nervous system starts from embryonic day 7. We centrifuged pregnant mice from embryonic day 4 up to day 14. We are using a series of techniques including gene array and Northern blotting to analyze changes in gene expression in the whole embryo and in the brain. Measuring gene expression tells us which genes are actively encoding proteins that can be used to change the cell’s behavior, e.g. from a growing to a non-growing state. We intend to identify genes that are altered in level of expression as part of the response to increased gravity anticipating that these will be either part of the initial sensing of hypergravity or components of the machinery to reduce growth rate.
We started our analysis at an early point of brain development, embryonic day 10 and compared embryos after 6 days of centrifugation to non-centrifuged controls. To provide an initial screen to identify which genes change as a result of 2g centrifugation we used the gene array technique (http://www.gene-chips.com/). Gene arrays can identify changes in expression of large numbers of genes in a single experiment. The level of gene activity is determined by measuring the amount of mRNA that is transcribed from a particular gene — mRNA is the intermediary between the gene and the protein that it encodes messenger RNA (mRNA)
We have screened for two types of genes — those that change in response to stress and those that are part of the cell cycle. Genes that respond to stress may be part of the means to detect hypergravity; genes of the cell cycle are those that allow the cell to divide and hence are necessary for growth of the organism.
The first striking result of these experiments is that very few genes change in their expression. This indicates that the effect of gravity is not a generalized stress such as occurs when food intake is limited leading to an overall reduction in protein synthesis. We find however a decrease in three genes involved in the cell cycle: CDK 5 decreasing by 165%, p15INK4b falling by 192% and Gadd45 dropping by a tremendous 1450%.
Gene array showing the expression of 62 genes
in embryonic day 10 embryos. Of these only three are
reduced in gene activity comparing centrifuged (right)
versus control (left); CDK5, p15INK4b and Gadd45a.
These results imply that there is significant change in cell growth in the centrifuged animals. This is reflected in a decrease in size in these embryos – at embryonic day 10 the control animals were 3.9 mm whereas the centrifuged embryos had only reached a length of 2.7 mm. It is clear then that centrifugation depresses the embryos rate of growth and reduces the activity of certain genes that influence the cell cycle. Could this suppression of growth extend to later periods of development and affect the birth of mature cells, such as neurons? Such a result had not been previously described but, given the general effects of centrifugation on growth, this was a possibility. In this case we determined the level of gene activation (the amount of mRNA transcribed from a particular gene) by Northern blotting
This type of experiment separates the mRNA by size driving the molecules with an electric current through the small pores of a gel, the small mRNAs moving fastest as a band, the large mRNAs moving slower. The mRNAs of interest are identified by labeled probes of complimentary sequence to the mRNA. The probes bind very tightly and specifically and the labeling means that they can be visualized. The figure below shows a Northern blot for NeuroD, a gene that is activated as neurons are born. The embryos were centrifuged for 8 days and gene expression in the brain measured at embryonic day 12 a time at which many neurons are born. In the centrifuged sample when compared to several different types of non-centrifuged controls, there is a large decrease in the activity of this gene. This implies that there is a decrease in the birth of new neurons.
Northern blot showing a decline in gene activity of the NeuroD gene in centrifuged animals (Exp, top panel) compared to control groups Cs,Cu and Cf (top panel). The lower panel shows that a control gene does not vary between the samples.
Conclusions So Far…
The purpose of this project is to understand how growth is regulated in the developing embryo under conditions of 2g hypergravity, conditions which deceive the embryo into sensing that it is twice its mass. The initial results indicate that several genes involved in regulating cell division are reduced during early development (embryonic day 10). At later developmental stages, a decline in the NeuroD gene necessary for neuronal birth suggests that there may also be a decline in the number of neurons generated in the brain. This approach will help to comprehend the normal mechanisms of growth homeostasis and also to understand how they may go wrong. Many birth abnormalities, including those that include mental retardation, involve changes in growth rate and size – whether of the embryo as a whole or limited to the central nervous system. These diseases include Down syndrome, Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, intrauterine growth restriction and deficiencies in iron, iodine or vitamin A. We expect that there will be some common pathways shared between these syndromes. The elucidation of genes involved in the regulation of embryonic size and mass will help to identify and characterize these pathways.
-
Hey TA. I think nobody will read it. :-\
Which is a shame.
This is how most of you guys remain ignorant and blindly follow myths. I see it everyday.
-
Which is a shame.
This is how most of you guys remain ignorant and blindly follow myths. I see it everyday.
You can suggest where you got this. Thats all.
You dont need to post all of them. :-\
-
Not everyone falls into this class - shades of grey.
Also, try to remember that not everyone who disagrees with you is necessarily wrong in the methods they used to formulate their conclusions. Even scientists disagree with each other at times. That is not to say they are ignorant or blindly following myths.
Scientific LAWS and FACTS are not capable of having an altering opinion.
-
You can suggest where you got this. Thats all.
You dont need to post all of them. :-\
Since I see most are ignorant, by posting these STUDIES outright, it weeds out the Matt C`s of the board, showing that they do nothing but parrot myth after myth without doing any research.
Hopefully, they will read and realize that the Scientific Community is a lot more correct than where the Matt C`s are used to getting their info from. (Uneducated Bodybuilders, Bodybuilding Magazines, Supplement Companies)
I am amazed that nobody does research in anything anymore.
-
You telling that to someone who has been studying math at the university level for six years.
Wow.
Human physiology may be an exact science, but humanity does not have the tools to treat it as such yet. As our volume of knowledge increases, no doubt we will.
And please STOP saying you are following science and logic. It offends me as somebody who actually does so, just as a lot of people are offended by posers.
I instant messaged you on a few juvenile matters in basic Science. You had NO CLUE about some very basic fundementals.
I was pretty suprised. I hope you are doing more to educate yourself.
-
I instant messaged you on a few juvenile matters in basic Science. You had NO CLUE about some very basic fundementals.
I was pretty suprised. I hope you are doing more to educate yourself.
Please give examples.
-
You telling that to someone who has been studying math at the university level for six years.
Wow.
Human physiology may be an exact science, but humanity does not have the tools to treat it as such yet. As our volume of knowledge increases, no doubt we will.
And please STOP saying you are following science and logic. It offends me as somebody who actually does so, just as a lot of people are offended by posers.
That statement makes Zero sense. Mammalian Physiology IS an EXACT Science and that includes humans as well. This isn`t 1752. We did map out the Human Genome. hahahahah
-
Please give examples.
The Force of Gravity and how it relates to animal size. Less Gravity over millions of years produces larger animals. More Gravity, smaller animals.
Transitionary fossils of Whales. Whales once being land mammals. Simple things like that.
-
If you say it long enough...and loud enough... ::)
Again, you are like a man in a straitjacket trying to convince the world that he is, in fact, the only one who is sane. Actually, you're more like a naturopathic doctor or Catholic priest trying to convince a person to go off their chemotherapy drugs because they have a better cure for their disease. How do they know...oh..."They just know."
:-X
This reminds me of that scene in "Wild Hogs" when things got really hairy when they run afoul of a group of real bikers who don't like couch potato posers who think black leather jackets and a cool logo patch are all it takes to be bikers.
I don't like posers and have no problem exposing you on the board for being one. You can't even prove that you have a B.S degree in Physics!
Do you have any idea how primitive some of our medical techniques are? Do you know how we would test for serotonin levels in the human brain? They scraping it off the spine of a cadaver! Does that sound advanced to you?
For Serotonin we actually use a little technique called Molecular Imaging. Hope this helps. :)
You are trying to argue against Science. Its not going to work.
-
If you say it long enough...and loud enough... ::)
Again, you are like a man in a straitjacket trying to convince the world that he is, in fact, the only one who is sane. Actually, you're more like a naturopathic doctor or Catholic priest trying to convince a person to go off their chemotherapy drugs because they have a better cure for their disease. How do they know...oh..."They just know."
:-X
This reminds me of that scene in "Wild Hogs" when things got really hairy when they run afoul of a group of real bikers who don't like couch potato posers who think black leather jackets and a cool logo patch are all it takes to be bikers.
I don't like posers and have no problem exposing you on the board for being one. You can't even prove that you have a B.S degree in Physics!
Do you have any idea how primitive some of our medical techniques are? Do you know how we would test for serotonin levels in the human brain? They scraping it off the spine of a cadaver! Does that sound advanced to you?
PET and SPET molecular imaging: focus on serotonin system.Moresco RM, Matarrese M, Fazio F.
IBFM-CNR, Department of Nuclear Medicine-University of Milan-Bicocca and Scientific Institute H San Raffaele, Milan, Italy. moresco.rosamaria@hsr.it
Emission tomography techniques and, in particular, positron emission tomography (PET) enable the in vivo study of several physiological and neurochemical variables in human subjects using methods originally developed for quantitative autoradiography. In particular, PET allows one to evaluate in human subjects: (a) the effect of specific neurochemical challenges on regional brain function at rest or under activation; (b) the activity of neurotransmitters and the regional expression of specific molecular targets during pathology including their modulation by drug treatment; (c) the kinetics of drug disposition and activity directly in the target organ. This is of primary interest in the field of biological psychiatry and in psychoactive drugs development, where it is particularly difficult to reproduce human diseases using animal models in view of the peculiarity of this field and the large heterogeneity of each psychiatric illness also inside the same clinical definition. The aim of this paper is to review the principal strategies and the main results of the use of PET or single photon emission tomography (SPET) molecular imaging for the in vivo study of serotonin receptors and the main results obtained from their application in the study of major depression.
PMID: 17017972 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Hope this helps ;)
-
Titre du document / Document title
Molecular imaging: New applications for biochemistry
Auteur(s) / Author(s)
MOUNTZ John D. ; HSU Hui-Chen ; QI WU ; LIU Hong-Gang ; ZHANG Huang-Ge ; MOUNTZ James M. ;
Résumé / Abstract
Molecular imaging can reveal in vivo analysis and quantification of biochemical reactions. To enable cell-surface imaging of receptors, novel ligands have been developed which can be radiolabeled or imaged by bioluminescence. Specific examples include somatostatin receptors, estrogen and progesterone receptors, receptors involved in adhesion and externalization of phosphatidyl serine as an indicator of apoptosis. Central nervous system imaging can be carried out using ligands for receptors including dopamine, serotonin and Gamma amino butyric acid (GABA). In addition, tumor and metabolic imaging can be carried out with the Na-K ATPase pump using the tracer thallium-201 for SPECT or F-18 FDG for PET imaging. Finally, novel receptors or endogenous metabolic pathways can be analyzed combining cell-gene therapy to create specific tracer targets in cells that can be studied by molecular imaging. The challenge of molecular imaging is to first identify key pathways that are unique for a specific disease processes, such as atherosclerosis, cancer, CNS disorders, immunologic and arthritis disorders and next to devise a high-affinity specific small molecular ligand that can be adapted to be a radiolabeled tracer to study this pathway. Advances in genomics and proteomics combine with new peptide-chernistry approaches should provide a large number of targets and tracers in the near future to achieve these imaging objectives.
Revue / Journal Title
Journal of cellular biochemistry. Supplement (J. cell. biochem., Suppl.) ISSN 0733-1959
Source / Source
2002, no39, pp. 162-171 [10 page(s) (article)]
Langue / Language
Anglais
Editeur / Publisher
Liss, New York, NY, ETATS-UNIS (1982) (Revue)
:)
Localisation / Location
INIST-CNRS, Cote INIST : 16565 S, 35400010390962.0210
Copyright 2006 INIST-CNRS. All rights reserved
Toute reproduction ou diffusion même partielle, par quelque procédé ou sur tout support que ce soit, ne pourra être faite sans l'accord préalable écrit de l'INIST-CNRS.
No part of these records may be reproduced of distributed, in any form or by any means, without the prior written permission of INIST-CNRS
-
So if training is so important, why do cows gain hundreds of pounds just being pumped steroids? Why do humans who take steroids and not do any resistance training at all gain more muscle than naturals who do?
You proved my point by stating another primitive technique.
And STOP saying you're advocating science. With two more years of university I WILL be a scientist in the most difficult science field there is and posers like yourself really offend me! If you were a little more humble about it, I could look the other way though.
Humans are not Cows.
Perhaps you missed this post. I will post it again:
Matt you are incorrect.
TRAINING is THE MOST important thing.
If you were to take a bodybuilder and put him in a Zero-G enviroment, but let him use the same steroid stack and eat the same, he would still wither QUICKLY away.
Back on earth, Gravity is what enables muscle to not be lost. Once the muscle is built, it stays, if homeostasis in the body can be sustained/mantained. As a Natural, it is always sustained/mantained.
In a steroid user, it is not, unless the drugs are continuously employed.
Training IS THE MOST IMPORTANT thing. Without Training, you won`t get any results. You can eat however you like, if you never have touched a weight, eating won`t make a fuck bit of difference.
One can build muscle with just drugs and no Training though. But the one who trains on drugs will have MUCH better results.
Same with Naturals.
-
So if training is so important, why do cows gain hundreds of pounds just being pumped steroids? Why do humans who take steroids and not do any resistance training at all gain more muscle than naturals who do?
You proved my point by stating another primitive technique.
And STOP saying you're advocating science. With two more years of university I WILL be a scientist in the most difficult science field there is and posers like yourself really offend me! If you were a little more humble about it, I could look the other way though.
hahha Molecular Imaging is Primitive? ::)
LOL. Do you want the history behind that too? hahahah
-
I dunno. I really enjoyed out time there. Both Owen and I learned a whole hell of a lot more than we would have from books, the internet or even videos.
So unless you actually go out and DO it, shut your trap.
Notice that Milos Training is RIGHT ON PAR with NASA training Protocols.
Milos Definitely knows about training.
-
I don't need to debate this with you since I have already proven myself to the entire board while you have not. My point was that you can't measure serotonin levels directly.
Spare me the history molecular imaging - you've already proven your skills in copy & paste.
Do you see the little paradoxical conundrum you drive yourself in? Many others do this as well.
If I, in my own words explain something, you will say I am making it up and that I am no authority.
If I use reliable sources from Renowned Scientists and Peer-Reviewed Journals, it becomes, "You just copy and paste".
You sir,
Are an idiot. Break free from ignorance. You will learn more.
-
I would hazard a guess that my IQ is higher than yours, so if I'm an idiot, what are you?
Do you disagree with my statement on hormones and cows?
You scored 128, or 129, right?
-
Do you see the little paradoxical conundrum you drive yourself in? Many others do this as well.
If I, in my own words explain something, you will say I am making it up and that I am no authority.
If I use reliable sources from Renowned Scientists and Peer-Reviewed Journals, it becomes, "You just copy and paste".
You sir,
Are an idiot. Break free from ignorance. You will learn more.
Why not just copy and paste from the 100+ pages you have written on the Adonis principals? You would have obviously cited everything you claim in these writings. Best of both worlds.
-
How do you remember that? ??? Good work. It was in that range yes, but that was when I was 17. I'm led to believe I would score slightly higher now.
You wrote it in some thread some time ago.
With some training (mostly to get into the logic behind the IQ testing systems) you would score well over 140, perhaps 150+. Make sure you do not take one of those phony internet tests, they are off by at least 1 SD. Do a real one, like the MENSA test. If you score a bit over 130, you can join.
-
Matt you are incorrect.
TRAINING is THE MOST important thing.
If you were to take a bodybuilder and put him in a Zero-G enviroment, but let him use the same steroid stack and eat the same, he would still wither QUICKLY away.
Back on earth, Gravity is what enables muscle to not be lost. Once the muscle is built, it stays, if homeostasis in the body can be sustained/mantained. As a Natural, it is always sustained/mantained.
In a steroid user, it is not, unless the drugs are continuously employed.
Training IS THE MOST IMPORTANT thing. Without Training, you won`t get any results. You can eat however you like, if you never have touched a weight, eating won`t make a fuck bit of difference.
One can build muscle with just drugs and no Training though. But the one who trains on drugs will have MUCH better results.
Same with Naturals.
Adonis, are you saying that a natural bodybuilder will not lose his muscle if he stops exercising. That just by living in a gravity environment a natural will keep all muscle gained from weight lifting?
-
Adonis, are you saying that a natural bodybuilder will not lose his muscle if he stops exercising. That just by living in a gravity environment a natural will keep all muscle gained from weight lifting?
Yes. The subject would have to be completely mobile though.
Cell Pathology will be the only thing that causes a major deterioration.
-
Adonis, are you saying that a natural bodybuilder will not lose his muscle if he stops exercising. That just by living in a gravity environment a natural will keep all muscle gained from weight lifting?
Adonis, are you saying that a natural bodybuilder will not lose his muscle if he stops exercising. That just by living in a gravity environment a natural will keep all muscle gained from weight lifting?
Yes. The subject would have to be completely mobile though.
Cell Pathology will be the only thing that causes a major deterioration.
So Abeles, how do you explain the difference in muscle mass between people of age 30 and age 60?
-Hedge
-
So Abeles, how do you explain the difference in muscle mass between people of age 30 and age 60?
-Hedge
Cell Pathology as I said.
-
Yes. The subject would have to be completely mobile though.
Cell Pathology will be the only thing that causes a major deterioration.
not getting it, you mean the subject would have to be always in motion?
also Adonis, getting back to basics. Can a person create more muscle cells or just enlarge the cell wall?
When people first started using hgh they said that it creates more muscle cells and that any gains would be permanent. Was there any truth to that?
-
Question for Adonis: If you are so brilliant, why do you still live at your parent's house
speak on this
-
Question for Adonis: If you are so brilliant, why do you still live at your parent's house
speak on this
He claims to live with Jezebelle.
-
He claims to live with Jezebelle.
are you saying jezebelle supports him?
-
Or, maybe it's as simple as he's just another dime-a-dozen pathological liar.
;D
-
;D
;D
(http://l.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/edu/ref/ga/s/1156.jpg)
-
;D
(http://l.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/edu/ref/ga/s/1156.jpg)
;D ;D ;D ;D
;D ;D ;D ;D
;D ;D ;D ;D
;D ;D ;D ;D
;D ;D ;D ;D
;D ;D ;D ;D
;D ;D ;D ;D
;D ;D ;D ;D
;D ;D ;D ;D
;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Question for Adonis: If you are so brilliant, why do you still live at your parent's house
speak on this
From what I know he doesn't live at his parents unless they moved into an $80,000 2 bed/bath condo. Now this could be his honey's condo. But I think his real last name is Mackey. Or its just a coincidence what I found out.
-
From what I know he doesn't live at his parents unless they moved into an $80,000 2 bed/bath condo. Now this could be his honey's condo. But I think his real last name is Mackey. Or its just a coincidence what I found out.
does the guys in your version has an ugly mud ?
if so, it must be him !
-
Milos tears Adonis a new ass and he resorts to pages and pages of copy/paste from google
epic trying to hide.
-
I love how TA is saying that he is right and virtually every expert in the industry, every health degree holder, and every scientist to work on the subject is wrong. We're all wrong! It's TA's holistic approach which is right of course and everyone else is wrong and always has been.
Not.
Absolutely correct! Unfortunately, what you're saying has nothing to do with science.
You are a fuckign idiot.
The Holistic Approach is YOUR approach.
You are the Moron who says you look better because you THINK you look better. ie. Your usage of Gaspari Products.
Please die soon, so you don`t get the luxury of passing your genetics to an offspring and also so you don`t get the benefit of teaching it a lie or a myth.
You really aren`t that bright.
-
I love how TA is saying that he is right and virtually every expert in the industry, every health degree holder, and every scientist to work on the subject is wrong. We're all wrong! It's TA's holistic approach which is right of course and everyone else is wrong and always has been.
Not.
Absolutely correct! Unfortunately, what you're saying has nothing to do with science.
I knew you would be too dumb to read the NASA articles.
-
You are calling me an idiot? I'm a minute away from a Masters degree in pure math and you don't even have any post secondary education.
That's a pretty strong argument.
-
TA, why are you such a fucking asshole?
-
I read the first one. So what? Scientists disagree on issues all the time.
You make it sound like human physiology is an exact science like math is, and while that IS true, we as human beings do not have the tools to discuss it like that. You speak as if we have it mapped out the same way we have calculus mapped out.
::)
You can`t ARGUE fundementals which you are trying to do.
Why don`t you read for a change. Educate yourself. I don`t find you that intelligent sorry. Bast is way more intelligent than you are.
-
::)
You can`t ARGUE fundementals which you are trying to do.
Why don`t you read for a change. Educate yourself. I don`t find you that intelligent sorry. Bast is way more intelligent than you are.
Have you posted your degree you said you had in Physics. I think you have been asked at least 100 times. You fail very badly in trying to act smarter than you are. By the way you misspelled fundamentals. Not very good for a guy pretending to be smart. And is your real last name Mackey. I think it is.
-
Have you posted your degree you said you had in Physics. I think you have been asked at least 100 times. You fail very badly in trying to act smarter than you are. By the way you misspelled fundamentals. Not very good for a guy pretending to be smart. And is your real last name Mackey. I think it is.
I am not obligated to do anything and the last thing I need is you people trying to harrass the people I work with.
And that is not my last name.
-
Matt,
How about you pose your questions to Layne Norton.
He made this comment the other day regarding diet,"What works for one person will Work for EVERYONE"
-
Two years ago this Adonis clown couldn't even type a sentence without typing a giant run on, nor could he use commas. Now he tries all too hard to come off as some sort of intellect making him seem like an even bigger dumbass than he already is.
Give up, fag. You have brutal short arms and you go out of your way to act as though you're some sort of gift to the world. In reality there are homeless people ripping colt 45s all day who are bigger and more ripped than you. ;) Shut up already.
-
Matt,
How about you pose your questions to Layne Norton.
He made this comment the other day regarding diet,"What works for one person will Work for EVERYONE"
Layne norton is not the be all end all of knowledge on bodybuilding
-
;D
I keep forgetting that we should all define intelligence as who agrees with us. I find you to be intelligent but I disagree with you on certain specific issues - not everything bodybuilding related, but a few things. Mainly your evaluation of the human machine being exactly the same amongst all people. It seems like you ignore genetic variation of any kind.
I actually define overall intelligence as a combination of both mental aptitude (IQ) and ability to relate well to others (EQ). That and the ability to be practical (e.g., decision making skills, time management skills, sound financial planning, etc). I strive to be balanced in my life, not a bookworm, and not somebody who is just the opposite of that either.
I'm working on this right now:
http://www.bodybuildingpro.com/battlefortheolympia2006dvdreview.html
It's going to take me about three days to review that DVD.
I will say you are above the Majority in intelligence here, but you do fail to comprehend facts.
You are human and I do apologize if I have been a bit harsh. You have been harsh in some respects. I think the best thing to do is learn from each other. Everyone has gifts and knowledge that next person does not and so forth.
-
Layne norton is not the be all end all of knowledge on bodybuilding
What I find interesting about Layne is that his intelligence has GREATLY evolved regarding Nutrition.
No longer does he subscribe to the nonsense myths and theories that he once did and that you people STILL DO.
You guys should really consider talking to him on various forums.
-
(http://christinejune.blogg.no/images/love_1159005288.png)
-
(http://christinejune.blogg.no/images/love_1159005288.png)
Call it what you will, I do feel sorry for being outright mean to people at times. I know they mean well and are trying. People all have different learning curves.
-
What I find interesting about Layne is that his intelligence has GREATLY evolved regarding Nutrition.
No longer does he subscribe to the nonsense myths and theories that he once did and that you people STILL DO.
You guys should really consider talking to him on various forums.
I do not agree with conventional bb diets either...... the protein requirements are crazy...... Ido however believe in eating healthy, not just reducing calories
-
I am not obligated to do anything and the last thing I need is you people trying to harrass the people I work with.
And that is not my last name.
Okay at least you admit you don't have one and you lied. Thats good enough, thanks.
-
I am not obligated to do anything and the last thing I need is you people trying to harrass the people I work with.
And that is not my last name.
haha what a loser ;D
-
I disagree with this post.
TA has long arms. ;D
I think you think that everyone is on your level, which they are not. You also assume that everyone is just blinded, which is also not true. Even if I am wrong, which I am willing to admit is a possibility, I am trying to learn, so you can't class me in the same category as people who aren't.
I do think religious people are Blinded. They HAVE to be. You cannot argue that the world is less than 10,000 years old, which over 50 percent of Americans think. I see an eerie parallel in just about every area with that fact.
You also have to wonder, what are these people doing? Of that over 50 percent figure, certainly alot have college degrees. Makes you wonder eh?
-
Call it what you will, I do feel sorry for being outright mean to people at times. I know they mean well and are trying. People all have different learning curves.
Debussey tought your response was mature and it had a special emotional component to it that you have not shown until now.
Debussey was moved.
:)
-
Okay at least you admit you don't have one and you lied. Thats good enough, thanks.
A few people have found my degrees.
you just happen to be an unlucky one. hahah
-
TA you ever do any lifegaurd duties?
you seem helpful, like a person who would save lives if he could.
-
A few people have found my degrees.
you just happen to be an unlucky one. hahah
Actually no one has ever seen proof you even went to college. Don't say there is because they would be the first one to post it. Face it, you don't have one. If you had one you would simply post it. Very simple any kindergarten kid good do it. But even they couldn't do something if they didn't have it. Thanks for being truthful and admitting you really don't have a degree. And now you have pluralized meaning you have more than one. Holy shit, what do you do print them out by the dozen.
-
did layne figure out how to feed his quads to grow past 14 inches?
also, this is the same layne who argued with bob chick on what the best weightlifting techniques are...for Bob!!
-
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=233400 (http://www.jdoqocy.com/click-1881271-10409943?url=http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=233400)
-
I want somebody to speak on this.
Speak.