1. Have you installed the new JSF Mobile app? Check out all the details here.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. One account & one avatar for all of JSF. Unified login and profile. Forum alerts on the main site, and more. Check out the details here: Forum & main site unified account feature is live!
    Dismiss Notice

How do you know if you are doing to much weight training..

Discussion in 'Weight Training/Bulking' started by Monkey Boy, Jan 21, 2008.

  1. odin1642

    odin1642 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2007
    Messages:
    467
    Likes Received:
    0
    Going anectdotally by old guys I knew who lived a long time, into their 90s, they had all done a lot of cv work in their lives - certainly not cardio for aesthetics, more functional stuff like cycling and walking everywhere in the days before mass car ownership.


    That plus a good diet, lots of fresh produce in the days before processed food and instant meals. Meat consumption was a lot less back then too due to the amount of poverty in the UK between say 1920s and 1960s, it was only in the 1960s that the standard of living started to go up a lot, prior to that as much as half or more of the population were pretty much on or below the breadline so most couldn't afford to buy much meat. The lack of meat compared to today's vast consumption presumably lessened the cancer risk.

    I am not talking about that crazy calorie restriction thing, just saying I strongly suspect normal healthy eating and cv exercise are the best combination from the point of view of longevity and optimal long term health. Weights it seems will help orthopedically too but I strongly suspect a high protein diet will do nothing for your long term health, rather it's just an expedient to build muscle in the short term, it might and hopefully won't do any harm but it won't do you any good either.

    Nutritionists have been saying for decades after all that a balanced diet is fairly low in meat and protein, I don't think generally speaking that muscle building diets can be described as balanced diets as they're extremely high in protein.
     
  2. thegaminboy

    thegaminboy Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2007
    Messages:
    98
    Likes Received:
    0





    yeah, i've heard that a high consumption of meat increases your risk of cancer. that's why i'm not eating any meat for a month or two....just to see what happens lol.
     
  3. MannishBoy

    MannishBoy Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2005
    Messages:
    17,431
    Likes Received:
    20
    They also promote high carb, low fat and protein. Yeah, that works well. Just look at how many fat diabetics we have these days.
     
  4. odin1642

    odin1642 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2007
    Messages:
    467
    Likes Received:
    0

    I'm no expert on diabetes but I don't think that adds up. Main risk factor of diabetes is apparently obesity, which is of course usually caused by folk stuffing too much calories and junk down their throats.

    People don't get obese because they've followed long standing advice about healthy balanced diets from nutritionists, they get that way because they have ignored it.
     
  5. MannishBoy

    MannishBoy Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2005
    Messages:
    17,431
    Likes Received:
    20
    Following the advice to have a diet high in insulin spiking food doesn't have the potential to cause insulin sensitivity issues?

    And we are finding out more and more how healthy natural fats are.
     
  6. zenpharaohs

    zenpharaohs Elite Member
    Lifetime Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2005
    Messages:
    17,137
    Likes Received:
    14
    And to be sure - the effects of caloric restriction in humans are well predicted by those effects in the other species. So if you kept your humans in a padded cage isolated from disease and with exactly the correct exercise volume - then you would have a decent chance of getting those effects.

    Real life is not much like being confined in a sterile padded enclosure though.

    Now the other very important thing to understand about caloric restriction is that it has been recently convincingly been shown that the beneficial effects of caloric restriction are entirely confined to the way that caloric restriction affects insulin signalling in the brain. The leanness is NOT part of the package. You will get lean if you eat a low enough diet to get caloric restriction, but the leanness does not directly contribute to the longevity. They have shown this in experiments where they bred mice that disable this signalling in the brain, but have it normally in the rest of the body. When offered as much as they want to eat, these mice "overeat" and get grossly obese. But they have the same longevity increase as caloric restriction mice. And if you force this signalling to occur all the time in the brain of mice, then even if you restrict the calories, there is no longevity benefit. This conclusively demonstrates that the longevity benefit (also a lot of the type II diabetes, metabolic syndrome, etc. benefit) is not about getting rid of fat.

    Another important point is that since the important signalling is localized in the brain, then you want to be careful about interpreting studies which have been done in animals which do not really have brains (like C. elegans).

    So it is extremely important not to take the old idea that caloric restriction was extending life by increasing leanness seriously. It's probably dead wrong.

    Now this doesn't mean you should get really fat. What you have to do to get really fat is bad for you because you haven't disabled the insulin signalling in your brain. Plus, there are some circulatory problems that come along with it, as well as orthopedic risks. Being fat is only good from the Alzheimer's and infection point of view.

    So as far as I can see, you don't really want to stay really lean, just sort of lean. You want all the muscle you can get by natural means. And you want to maintain a high level of cardio fitness. Note that the high level of cardio fitness does not mean you have to have a low amount of fat or muscle. I am in excellent cardio shape and have a good deal of fat and muscle. As best as I can tell, I'm living right from a modern health point of view.

    It will all get much better if the bastards in big Pharma can come up with a nice clean way to control the insulin signalling in the brain - and they are looking for that right now. But there could be reasons why that is trickier than just shutting it off crudely as they did in mice. They didn't see any nasty side effects in mice, but mice are not like humans as far as lifestyle. Prolonging life only makes sense if you don't compromise the quality of life.
     
  7. zenpharaohs

    zenpharaohs Elite Member
    Lifetime Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2005
    Messages:
    17,137
    Likes Received:
    14
    A: Normal healthy eating and CV is not good enough if you want to live long because you absolutely need resistance exercise to avoid the various traps that come with sarcopenia. All you nave to do is see a few frail 80 something year olds who have fallen down and had a simple fracture. You go ask a doctor whether a broken leg is life threatening, and he will say that most broken legs are not life threatening. Then tell him the patient is an 83 year old man who is 5'7" and weighs 120 pounds. Different story.

    B: Nutritionists have been thinking really hard about the long term chemical effect of the diet. They have done very little thinking about the long term importance of muscle mass and supporting a program that can maintain it. They seem to think in terms of how a lot of people are already living - and so they reach for the calorie knob to try and control body fat. You show me a nutritionist who thinks that the first step in sorting out someone with a weight problem is to increase exercise tolerance and capacity? I'll show you a rare nutritionist. To some extent it's like a liver specialist my wife went to once. The doctor absolutely ruled out alcohol use for everyone. My wife asked "but I thought a small amount of alcohol was good for the heart?" The doctor said "I don't care about my patients' hearts! My patients all have perfect livers!" Even though my wife hardly ever drinks, she got a different liver specialist. When you are talking about humans, the lifestyle component means that the big picture is really big. It's very easy to get sucked into thinking that there is one small corner of the picture which controls the big picture.
     
  8. zenpharaohs

    zenpharaohs Elite Member
    Lifetime Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2005
    Messages:
    17,137
    Likes Received:
    14
    Nope. You can say that if you consider a population with a crappy exercise program.

    I happen to have a very low risk of type II diabetes, but I am very nearly obese (according to BMI). Now doctors have started to put the word out that BMI is not that good a predictor, that waist size is a much better predictor. (And it is). But still, those indicators actually focus on fat and only fat.

    Well if you are reading this here on JSF, then you are aware of people who have exercise programs quite sufficient to increase their HDL cholesterol by a large amount as well as drop their LDL cholesterol. What might not have sunk in yet is that you can control the blood chemistry much more quickly than you can strip fat off. A very obese person will have to take a long time to safely drop the fat, but long before that fat has come off, the blood chemistry gets into happy territory. A lot of the disease risk goes away.

    So why do the diabetes people always talk about obesity? Because most people's exercise programs are not even any exercise. And yeah, if you do that, overeating will kill you.

    But if you go to the gym and see a fat guy cranking away on the elliptical month after month? Don't assume that he's unsuccessful. He might even assume he's unsuccessful if he's trying to get lean. But as long as he's burning a lot of exercise Calories (and that's easier when you are heavy then when you are light) then that guy is very likely doing a lot more for his health than a lean guy who is polishing his biceps with curls or a woman who keeps smoking because she's afraid of the weight gain from quitting.

    Now today I'll see a guy in my gym who must be well over 350# and he goes on the elliptical and that's it. I have spoken to him before about lifting, but he has never tried it even though he's right there in the gym and ready to exercise. I guess it just doesn't sink in that when he goes up the stairs to the locker room that he's doing a leg workout that woud crush a lot of the guys in the gym who think much of themselves for being 13% body fat at 160#. I've never seen anyone in that gym do step ups with more than 135# other than me, so I assume that if we dropped the 190# bar on one of those lean guys and had them carry it up the stairs that might help everyone figure something out. Especially the fat guy who is reluctant to start lifting. But in both cases we are talking about people who are much more serious about exercise than many people in the general public.

    I would think that if you are reading this, you either already left the general public behind, or realize that you can do that. The sooner the better I say. But once you get an exercise program that separates you from the crowd, you have to remember that when you read about disease risk factors which have been determined for the general public.
     
  9. odin1642

    odin1642 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2007
    Messages:
    467
    Likes Received:
    0

    The fracture thing defo cos it's noticeable how many old people's demises are preceded by a fracture, a stay in hospital and they deteriorate and never come out of the hospital.

    Only thing that springs to mind here is osteoperosis and the whole link with dairy products - most weight trainers are using quite a lot of dairy products - milk, cottage cheese, protein shakes etc. So could this not be a risk for fractures ?
     
  10. philph

    philph Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2005
    Messages:
    1,244
    Likes Received:
    0
    My diabetes and obesity developed rapidly at the same time - they were more like co-factors of a single disease, or perhaps symptoms of a single disease, than a hierarchical pair that could be divided into cause and effect.

    I didn't eat a lot of what the average person thinks of as "junk food". What I did eat a lot of (as a fraction of my overall diet) was bread and cereals (usually whole grain) and processed carbs. Fat intake, I would guess, was average or lower than average, and was unusually low in animal fat but relatively high in vegetable fats. Protein intake was fairly low. My wife (who also developed diabetes) had a similar dietary background to me in many respects.

    After being diagnosed, the NHS dietician advised me to base every meal on carbs, to reduce fat intake further, and to keep protein intake low. The carbs of choice were pasta, rice, etc.

    I believed this advise for a year and tried to follow it, but during that time (despite taking up regular and committed exercise) my condition worsened.

    Eventually I learnt that the diet I had been taught to follow was not a remedy, but was itself a worsening of the diet that had caused disease to begin with. Once I educated myself to eat far more protein (especially of animal origin), far less vegetable fat and processed carbs, my condition improved at a spectacular rate.

    As my case illustrates, sometimes incorrect advice from nutritionists is an important factor, and ignoring it can sometimes be the single best health choice a person makes.

    Also, though my initial bad eating habits (before the disease developed) weren't yet the direct result of advice from a single trusted source, I was ignorant of the genuine ways I could drastically improve my future health, and the mis-education one gets from many sources only served to delay my eventual turnaround.

    In the end, the decisive factor is taking responsibility for your own health, and this gives you the power to find a solution even if it absolutely contradicts the education one gets from trusted sources.
     
  11. andysutils

    andysutils Active Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2007
    Messages:
    224
    Likes Received:
    0
    i know exactly what will happen: you wont get cancer lol, just kidding:tu: i hear that its a high intake of red meat in particular that is a higher cancer risk.

    wow philph, youve really started something here lol:lol:
     
  12. JoeSchmo

    JoeSchmo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2004
    Messages:
    4,018
    Likes Received:
    11
    Part of the theory also, is reduced metabolism = reduced free radicals and mitochondrial oxidative stress (which is associated with inflammation, atherosclerosis, physical damage to tissues, and even compromised integrity of the telomeres). Some studies show support for this (biopsy of muscle tissue shows reduced oxidative damage in calorically restricted monkeys relative to free-feeding controls).

    There are actually a number of different theories on the table -- I don't think they've convincingly narrowed it down to just insulin signaling in the brain. Either way though, you are correct in that leanness is irrelevant -- a lean ectomorph consuming 3000 calories per day would not, simply by virtue of being lean, obtain the same benefits of an equally lean, but calorically-restricted endomoprh. So yeah, "leanness" doesn't matter in this context.
     

Share This Page