The Locker Room - 2012-08-07

« first day (524 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (4276 days later) »

2:16 AM

@KronoS I'd keep the running. If you want to add some swimming every other week I'd maybe drop a bike ride or one of the med. runs, but I wouldn't drop both med runs.

17 hours later…

user35386

7:00 PM

Why is this on-topic?

user35386

2

Q: Why can extreme athletes eat so many calories without health risk? (Or can they?)

Michael Phelps (the famed Olympic swimmer and many-time gold medalist) is one of the most fit people in the world, and most people would look at him and say that he is extremely healthy. However, he eats (all!) of this in one day: Breakfast: Three fried-egg sandwiches loaded with cheese, lett...

exercise calories health fat cholesterol

7:36 PM

It's asking whether exercise mitigates diet, which is a very interesting question at the intersection of fitness and nutrition. I think it's OK.

8:06 PM

Wow, lots of activity on the site, though most of it in the comments

I guess it goes to show what kind of questions they are if they do

user35386

8:46 PM

Hm... okay, i guess the whole story about Michael Phelps and phrasing it as asking about extreme athletes rather than themselves is what threw me off

user35386

I think their question can be said more simply in one line without the long back-story

9:25 PM

@Sancho One-liner questions, I hate those :P

9:53 PM

@IvoFlipse regarding this statement "Because there's huge difference in lung capacity between a marathon runner and a couch potato! " - MMmm...no. There is a difference in utilization, but lung capacity itself really can't be changed as far as I'm aware.

@JohnP I think it depends, a highly trained person would be able to inhale deeper, because he can extend his chest more and breath deeper (literally)

Ah, but that's not increasing capacity. That's increasing the proportion of what you are using of available capacity.

That's why I asked the question a week or two ago about studies that show actual increases in capacity, rather than an increase in utilization of what's available.

@JohnP If you imagine your lung as a cylinder, wouldn't increasing the radius and height increase the volume? I mean aren't your lungs just two big sacks?

If you can stretch that sack further, you get more volume

However, whether you can actually use that extra volume, whether you'll create more alveoli and whatnot, well I have no idea

@IvoFlipse - Ah, but you can't. You are limited by the ribcage and movement of the diaphragm.

I don't know why I keep saying "Ah," today :/

@JohnP That's my point, wouldn't a trained person have more powerful muscles that would extend the ribcage further?

The same probably goes for the diaphragm, though you're somewhat restricted by your abdomen

But beyond that, I think you're correct, you probably can't change it. So there's definitely a limit to it

10:01 PM

Mmm...I see what you are saying and to a bit yes, but that's technically not expanding it, it's just getting closer to your theoretical limit.

Which makes the case for giving EPO to people with a smaller volume

@JohnP If untrained people are nowhere near their theoretical limit, there's room for improvement :)

Yes on the EPO.

Though giving them IGF growth hormones is probably better/safer

And yes, I agree, but I have a personal gripe against the term "increasing lung capacity" rather than "increasing respiratory efficiency"

I can't tell if anyone ever died from having too many blood vessels

10:03 PM

No, as a matter of fact neovascularization is a very common side effect of exercise.

@JohnP Well on breathing tests, I do think you'll notice an improvement when someone gets changed. They'll simply more capable of taking deep breaths (compared to untrained people)

@IvoFlipse - That might be an interesting study. The body adapts to exercise by increasing the size/number of blood vessels to the affected muscles. That should (in theory) result in an increase in blood volume to fill them, which in turn should increase hematocrit counts, etc etc.

Hmm cancer seems to love it though, guess I shouldn't go inject myself just yet

At my university they did lots of studies on mice with IGF hormones

Insulin-like growth factor 1

Insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1), also called somatomedin C, is a protein that in humans is encoded by the IGF1 gene. IGF-1 has also been referred to as a "sulfation factor" and its effects were termed "nonsuppressible insulin-like activity" (NSILA) in the 1970s. IGF-1 is a hormone similar in molecular structure to insulin. It plays an important role in childhood growth and continues to have anabolic effects in adults. A synthetic analog of IGF-1, mecasermin is used for the treatment of growth failure. IGF-1 consists of 70 amino acids in a single chain with three intramolecular di...

I think there's even a gene treatment for humans, though athletes aren't supposed to get it

user35386

@IvoFlipse I think the backstory is irrelevant and distracting from what is actually being asked.

But its nearly untraceable

@Sancho Oh you're definitely right, it would just make the question more senseless

10:06 PM

bah. pro athletes are doing tons of stuff that is "nearly" untraceable.

user35386

@JohnP, Lung alveoli do regenerate after damage, so actual capacity can change.

alveoli don't increase capacity. They increase accessibility.

> A new threat has emerged from the promising therapeutic specialty of gene therapy: gene doping. A super mouse has been created using adenoviral vector to insert directly into muscle the IGF-1 gene [116]. These animals have 20–30% greater muscle mass and strength, live longer and recover more quickly from injuries with respect to controls.

user35386

if an alveoli is damaged/crushed/eaten-away, and not available to be filled with air, does that not take away from capacity

cenegenicsfoundation.org/library/library_files/…

@JohnP If you have space, but no alveoli to fill it, its dead space. You can't use it

If it would prevent me from getting injured, I'd take a shot of IGF right now

10:09 PM

@Sancho - I see what you are saying, and from that perspective yeah, you're increasing the capacity (function) of the lungs. My gripe is with the claim that you can increase the physical size capacity of the lungs, which is what all these "ergo" trainers are claiming.

@JohnP Let's first establish that we probably disagree with almost anything 'some trainer' says :)

Although I think they have proven in studies that the # of alveoli is fixed at birth, and you can change size but not number.

I'd have to go back and redig through them, it's been a while since I read any lung studies.

user35386

So, @JohnP, have you decided that lung capacity cannot be increased?

user35386

or learned that lung capacity cannot be increased?

user35386

(decided was a weird way to say it)

10:12 PM

I decided you can't increase physical capacity. Your bones will only allow a certain inflation.

user35386

So, the answer to your question "Is increasing lung capacity a misnomer?" is "Yes."

user35386

i notice you didn't get a good answer to that question yet

@Sancho All the good questions take a lot of work to answer correctly

Yeah, I still don't like how it's worded, but can't think of a better way.

Sigh, our frontpage is depressing me, still so much nutrition related stuff :(

user35386

10:16 PM

it started with the michael phelps question

Eh, I think it's a sign that nutrition is so poorly understood. Look at the argument I have going with michael (Small m) about 3500 calories = 1 lb.

I'm tempted to close it @Sancho, but I wonder if its just me disliking the question or if its really off-topic or argumentative :\

user35386

it's not worded to be about a problem that the user actually faces

It's borderline off topic, he's not really asking about anything related to himself.

I'd be ok with it being closed.

user35386

i read the Houston Texan's strength and conditioning player's manual today, and they include the 3500 calories = 1lb stuff. It doesn't at all try to show that it's more complicated than that

10:21 PM

@JohnP Well I believe there's a scientific way of converting calories into some form of consumable energy. However, we should use it as a guideline, not as a strict rule

user35386

and it's funny how it's written, it's written as if it was for 10 year olds that need hand-holding through their nutrition, practices, workouts, etc, rather than college athletes just drafted into the NFL.

@Sancho - Yes, it's accepted as canon in scientific studies and in textbooks. I know his math is wrong, I just haven't figured out where yet. Haven't really been interested enough to do that lately.

Practice is where theory fails

@JohnP I don't think the Math is wrong. They probably did some highly controlled tests to check what energy went in and out. But extrapolating those measurements to other people is where things get unreliable

Besides, you can have this great plan, but if someone doesn't stick with it (for legitimate reasons or not); it will fail

@IvoFlipse - possibly, but I was doing the math in a couple of studies and coming out with the 3500/1lb ratio, and he was doing something different in the same study to come out with different numbers. I just haven't gone back to redo his math.

You plan to burn 3500 kcal per week doing exercise, but then one week you have to work late and skip an exercise. Then you have a party and consume 1000 kcal more than anticipated. Those numbers only work out when you average them out over long periods

10:25 PM

But yes, it's possible that 3500 calorie deficits do different things in different people :D

@IvoFlipse - Agreed. The study I referenced, they were only losing about .5 a week on average, and on average their weekly deficit was 1750. It took all that into account. We just got different results out of our maths. :p

If only we had a larger community, we could try and crowdsource some statistics

Right now I'm having the opposite problem. I'm supposed to be eating 2750 a day, and I feel like I'm stuffing myself and only getting to 2k. blegh.

@JohnP Eat more calorie rich stuff?

Going to have to. Had two different sushi rolls for lunch, still feel bloated and that was only ~ 800 cals.

tasty tho.

Or sit on your ass more, that way you 'waste' less of your precious calories

Works for me :P

10:30 PM

hehehehe. I spent the last 8 weeks doing that, gained 8 lbs :(

Well that means you have 8 * 3500 kcal surplus you don't have to consume additionally ;P (just kidding)

at the rate I'm going, I'll burn through that in 2 weeks. In theory I'm -1360 cals for this week, not including today.

I'll lend you some of mine to burn then

So I can sit on my ass a couple hours more and get some work done

user35386

I found it interesting that the Houston Texan's tells their players not to lose more than 1lb any week.

Depends on where you're coming from I guess (600 lbs vs 200 lbs is a big difference), but else its probably more healthy not to crash yourself

Anyway time for bed

« first day (524 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (4276 days later) »

Transcript for

Aug '127

The Locker Room

General discussion for fitness.stackexchange.com

join this room
about this room

00:00

06:00

12:00

18:00

all times are UTC

site design / logo © 2024 Stack Exchange Inc; legal

mobile