Author Topic: Why TRAINING is MORE important than what you eat...  (Read 9413 times)

El_Spiko

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 495
  • The freaky-geeky
Re: Why TRAINING is MORE important than what you eat...
« Reply #25 on: October 04, 2006, 05:24:17 PM »
Why make them wait?

Here is what it is:

STRECHING WITH WEIGHTS! :o
LMFAO Alexxx, I bet you could sum up all of TA's thousands of posts in less than a paragraph. In fact, we could make a contest out of it and everyone could contribute their interpretation ;D

Oh yeah, the Nobel prize winners were announced this morning and I don't recall seeing TA's name on that list. Maybe it was just a typo?  ;D
I min/max my physique

The True Adonis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 50255
  • Fear is proof of a degenerate mind.
Re: Why TRAINING is MORE important than what you eat...
« Reply #26 on: October 04, 2006, 05:26:35 PM »
I feel as if I am giving out too much information before I present my research.

I had a lot of things typed up

El_Spiko

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 495
  • The freaky-geeky
Re: Why TRAINING is MORE important than what you eat...
« Reply #27 on: October 04, 2006, 05:29:04 PM »
I feel as if I am giving out too much information before I present my research.

I had a lot of things typed up
I'm still waiting on those formulas you supposedly have. I was wondering, how much Dragonball Z did you watch to come up with this? ::)
I min/max my physique

efirkey

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1067
Re: Why TRAINING is MORE important than what you eat...
« Reply #28 on: October 04, 2006, 05:41:52 PM »
couldn't you replicate different degrees of gravity by lifting heavier and lighter weights?  Let's say if gravity was twice as strong, then 50 pounds would feel like 100 pounds.  This would be tough on the ego.  If anything I want less gravity so that I could bench 1000 pounds.

Doublemonk

  • Getbig II
  • **
  • Posts: 82
  • Getbig!
Re: Why TRAINING is MORE important than what you eat...
« Reply #29 on: October 04, 2006, 06:08:42 PM »
I'm still waiting on those formulas you supposedly have. I was wondering, how much Dragonball Z did you watch to come up with this? ::)


hahahaha I had the same thought when reading this gravity suit bs.

El_Spiko

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 495
  • The freaky-geeky
Re: Why TRAINING is MORE important than what you eat...
« Reply #30 on: October 04, 2006, 06:14:08 PM »

hahahaha I had the same thought when reading this gravity suit bs.
I dunno maybe it's valid. I mean, have you checked TA's power levels? They're through the roof! And he hasn't even charged up yet! But is he strong enough to take on Freeza? Probably best for him to train in high gravity just in case ;D
I min/max my physique

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Why TRAINING is MORE important than what you eat...
« Reply #31 on: October 04, 2006, 06:48:53 PM »
Training really is the key to everything.  Some days I will eat well all day, punk out on the gym for 2 days, and look and feel like crap.  I do one brutal deadlift/chin workout and it's like i'm a new man.

tonight i did back, i was in the lockerroom, mixing some crystal lite with a liter of water, and there were two teenage kids in there getting ready for their workout.

Kid 1:  I'm ready to train man, you?
Kid 2:  hell yeah, dog.
Kid 1:  Did you take your celltech before you came?
Kid 2:  No, you?
Kid 1:  Of course, dick.  Shit.  Now we're gonna have a shitty workout becuase you won't be able to keep up.  It's like you don't even take this shit seriously-

The conversation ended as they caught sight of me looking over at them, mouth agape at the utter idiocy.  Awkward moment.  Kids suck lol...

RJB

  • Getbig II
  • **
  • Posts: 271
  • Everyone on the internets is rich.
Re: Why TRAINING is MORE important than what you eat...
« Reply #32 on: October 04, 2006, 06:54:49 PM »
You people are so mind-screwed by the bodybuilding media and nutty personal trainers. Here is what you need to do to get big and ripped:

1) Train hard
2) Eat clean

Everything else is B.S. If you want to look like the freak-nuggets at the Olympia, add some gear to the mix.
Ronnie looked like doodoo

Lion666

  • Competitors II
  • Getbig IV
  • *****
  • Posts: 1080
  • You gotta bring it to get it!
Re: Why TRAINING is MORE important than what you eat...
« Reply #33 on: October 04, 2006, 06:55:03 PM »
totally agree.  trainging is way more important for muscle building anyway.  you have to tear up the fiber for it to have the need to be rebuilt with the protein in food.  if diet were superior to lifting everyone would have a great build.  know plenty of people that train hard w/ poor dietary habits & good builds (w/ & w/o drugs) and a ton of people w/ great dietary habits and poor training w/ crap builds (w/ & w/o drugs again).  besides training hard is far more difficult than eating right.   ;)

SteelePegasus

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7829
  • Life, death, in between is getbig.com
Re: Why TRAINING is MORE important than what you eat...
« Reply #34 on: October 04, 2006, 07:06:29 PM »
Training really is the key to everything.  Some days I will eat well all day, punk out on the gym for 2 days, and look and feel like crap.  I do one brutal deadlift/chin workout and it's like i'm a new man.

tonight i did back, i was in the lockerroom, mixing some crystal lite with a liter of water, and there were two teenage kids in there getting ready for their workout.

Kid 1:  I'm ready to train man, you?
Kid 2:  hell yeah, dog.
Kid 1:  Did you take your celltech before you came?
Kid 2:  No, you?
Kid 1:  Of course, dick.  Shit.  Now we're gonna have a shitty workout becuase you won't be able to keep up.  It's like you don't even take this shit seriously-

The conversation ended as they caught sight of me looking over at them, mouth agape at the utter idiocy.  Awkward moment.  Kids suck lol...

I thought that with the baby on the way, house and business that you didn't have time to train and thus couldn't enter the mr getbig...interesting
Here comes the money shot

Stavios

  • Guest
Re: Why TRAINING is MORE important than what you eat...
« Reply #35 on: October 04, 2006, 07:11:07 PM »
it means 2-4 times the force of gravity it hink

so pretty much...i guess TA is trying to replicate something 5 times that of gravity to break down muscle fibers with less work...or osmething like that...lmao

 :-\

training with heavier weights shouldn't do the same thing ?  ???

 :)

WOOO

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18158
  • Fuck the mods
Re: Why TRAINING is MORE important than what you eat...
« Reply #36 on: October 04, 2006, 07:12:01 PM »
. CLOSED FOR RESEARCH .

spoken by the 150lb man....  :P

alexxx

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 10129
  • Don't hate..
Re: Why TRAINING is MORE important than what you eat...
« Reply #37 on: October 04, 2006, 08:11:24 PM »
LMFAO Alexxx, I bet you could sum up all of TA's thousands of posts in less than a paragraph. In fact, we could make a contest out of it and everyone could contribute their interpretation ;D

Oh yeah, the Nobel prize winners were announced this morning and I don't recall seeing TA's name on that list. Maybe it was just a typo?  ;D

Sum them up would mean that I actually read them.
just push some weight!

The True Adonis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 50255
  • Fear is proof of a degenerate mind.
Re: Why TRAINING is MORE important than what you eat...
« Reply #38 on: October 04, 2006, 08:13:00 PM »
I feel really bad about taking down all of the articles and what I was going to post, because a lot of you could benefit from some of NASA`s current research as well as my own.

I will put up a few things.

HowieW

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3785
  • Getbig!
Re: Why TRAINING is MORE important than what you eat...
« Reply #39 on: October 04, 2006, 08:13:11 PM »
I feel as if I am giving out too much information before I present my research.

I had a lot of things typed up

Ok so I don't eat, hmmmm, then I die eventually, makes sense THAT is less important.
Kelly Ryan married well!  Free Titus!

The True Adonis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 50255
  • Fear is proof of a degenerate mind.
Re: Why TRAINING is MORE important than what you eat...
« Reply #40 on: October 04, 2006, 08:14:13 PM »
Inside the Muscle Laboratories



Understand the science of muscle, and you'll find out your workout is all wrong
by Adam Campbell
 

Find More


 
"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.

 


To see a slide show of 5 exercises that work every muscle of your body, click here.

 


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.

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 perform 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.

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.

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. Sherrington'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 workout 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.

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 path — - ways, 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.

"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.

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?"


The True Adonis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 50255
  • Fear is proof of a degenerate mind.
Re: Why TRAINING is MORE important than what you eat...
« Reply #41 on: October 04, 2006, 08:16:08 PM »
Muscle Alterations and Atrophy
 
   
Home 
 
 Research Summary Research Areas 
 
 Team Highlights  Earth Benefits 
 
 Team Projects Education and Outreach 
   
  Current Projects Research Announcements 
   
 Previous Projects News and Public Outreach 
   
 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 
 

A program priority of NASA's Biomedical Research and Countermeasures Program is 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/hypergravity. Artificial gravity/hypergravity in a microgravity environment could be used as a novel method of performing resistance training under high loading conditions. 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 one g conditions;
Determine if squats performed under hypergravity conditions produce muscle adaptations similar to those seen using a squat resistance-training program under normal one g conditions, and;
Determine if a squat hypergravity resistance-training (SHRT) program is an effective countermeasure to simulated microgravity.
For the purposes of this project, we are focusing on SRT because squats recruit a broad spectrum of muscles in the leg and back, and are one of the classical exercises used by bodybuilders and athletes to hypertrophy muscles of the leg. Additionally, the so-called antigravity muscles of the leg are at the greatest risk for atrophy induced by microgravity. Furthermore, squats are a target exercise performed by astronauts on the International Space Station.

During the second year of funding, the primary focus was on four goals:

Continued evolution of the Space Cycle team;
Continuing modifications and instrumentation of the Space Cycle;
Integration of equipment for measuring foot forces, EMG and joint-angle IRB modifications, and;
The performance of two studies.
A considerable amount of time was spent addressing IRB issues. During the past year, 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 Gz.
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 n = 20; and female n = 16) performed squats under hypergravity conditions (1.5, 2.0, 2.5, and 3.0 Gz), 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 one Gz 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 Gz. However, two male and two female subjects were not able to perform squats at 3.0 Gz because the loading at this hypergravity condition exceeded their strength. The mean relative foot forces at the highest Gz (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 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 squat resistance exercise without becoming motion sick or experiencing illusory motion.

The objective of the second study is to determine if the Space Cycle can be used to generate loading conditions that approximate those seen while performing ten RM squats. A total of 30 subjects (15 male, 15 female) participated in this study, and we are currently analyzing the data at this time.

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 placing weights on a given body structure whereby a concentrated loading occurs on that particular structure.

Additionally, hypergravity may represent a unique modality for spinal cord-injured patients. 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 hope to explore this avenue of investigation in the coming years.

Finally, there may be vestibular aspects of Space Cycle activity that might be of benefit to patients who have balance problems.

 

El_Spiko

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 495
  • The freaky-geeky
Re: Why TRAINING is MORE important than what you eat...
« Reply #42 on: October 04, 2006, 08:22:24 PM »
TA, you've falsified or altered research articles you've posted before. There no point in your posting any of this since you have no credibility
I min/max my physique

The True Adonis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 50255
  • Fear is proof of a degenerate mind.
Re: Why TRAINING is MORE important than what you eat...
« Reply #43 on: October 04, 2006, 08:22:30 PM »
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.



The True Adonis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 50255
  • Fear is proof of a degenerate mind.
Re: Why TRAINING is MORE important than what you eat...
« Reply #44 on: October 04, 2006, 08:31:25 PM »
Exercise May Prevent Astronauts' Muscle Loss
 
Related Health News
 
 
 

WEDNESDAY, Aug. 25 (HealthDayNews) -- High-intensity resistance training may help astronauts maintain muscle strength and size during long space voyages, according to a new study.

The study, published in the Journal of Physiology, included 12 volunteers confined to their beds for 84 consecutive days in order to mimic the effects of living in a zero-gravity environment. Six of the volunteers did regular exercise sessions consisting of four sets of squats every third day. The other six volunteers did no exercises.

Those in the non-exercise group lost an average of 17 percent of leg muscle size and 40 percent of leg strength. The volunteers in the exercise group maintained their muscle size and strength.

"Resistance training is the most promising candidate for providing the proper stimulus to maintain muscle function while in space," Scott Trappe, director of the Human Performance Laboratory at Ball State University in Muncie, Ind., said in a prepared statement.

Previous research found that astronauts lose significant muscle mass and strength after just seven days in space. Those declines in muscle strength and mass continue over the duration of a space mission.

"Spaceflight is a unique environment that poses several physiological challenges to the human body. As the various space agencies around the world focus their attention on long duration stays on the International Space Station, implementation of effective exercise regimens is essential for the health and well-being of the crew members," Trappe said.

More information

The American Academy of Family Physicians offers advice about exercise
 

IFBBwannaB

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4538
  • BAN stick!
Re: Why TRAINING is MORE important than what you eat...
« Reply #45 on: October 04, 2006, 09:47:22 PM »
Why is this idiot posting articles about people who live in no gravity space station?

Does he claim to have a space station now  ???

The bottom line is,with all your shitty ideas you look like shit.And that alone throw your credibility right out the space station hatch.

onlyme

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19328
  • Don't Fuck With Bears
Re: Why TRAINING is MORE important than what you eat...
« Reply #46 on: October 04, 2006, 09:49:37 PM »
I have a question Adonis.  Are you obsessed with being a spaceman or something?  You tend to fill these threads up with gravity suits and astronauts training.  Seriously, do you work with NASA for your dayjob or just got your fill of too much Star Trek?

That is a sketch of the gravity suit.

beatmaster

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2819
  • Save a tree, eat a beaver
Re: Why TRAINING is MORE important than what you eat...
« Reply #47 on: October 04, 2006, 09:57:24 PM »

So all pro bodybuilders are wrong?
are you delusional?

The True Adonis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 50255
  • Fear is proof of a degenerate mind.
Re: Why TRAINING is MORE important than what you eat...
« Reply #48 on: October 04, 2006, 10:33:35 PM »
So all pro bodybuilders are wrong?

Most of them can`t even speak in public...ahahah

El_Spiko

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 495
  • The freaky-geeky
Re: Why TRAINING is MORE important than what you eat...
« Reply #49 on: October 05, 2006, 12:06:27 AM »
Most of them can`t even speak in public...ahahah
Yeah, I'd love to see you do that in your crown and Swaztika shirt  ;D It'd really "Wow!" them ::)
I min/max my physique