-->
Pages: 1

amt of time off before muscle loss


(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)



Posted by: bludevil

My wife and I just had a baby 3 weeks ago. As you may have guessed I haven't been getting a lot of sleep lately and I've been to tired to lift (not to mention no time to lift either). I was wondering how long can I lay off lifting before I start seeing a significant loss in strength and appearance. I know most of the appearance deal comes from diet but not lifting any must have some impact. I hope to get started back in a couple of weeks. I was just wondering how much strength should I expect to lose over that amt of time.


Posted by: Mikes1

Congrats for the new member of the family!!!
As for the rest i have no idea...


Posted by: Scotty the Body

Yes, congrats on that new baby blu, I think if you keep eating right, you shouldn't see any real significant difference in size, the break will do you some good and I think the biggest thing you'll probably notice is how sore you'll be the first week when you do come back.


Posted by: BjUaFyF

Actually ive read and correct me if im wrong here people ....Newly developed muscle begins to detiriorate after 72 hours of last workout.....am i wrong??


Posted by: Dr. Pain

Congrats!

Everyone "De-trains" at THEIR own rate....the good news, MUSCLE MEMORY....you get it back 3 times faster than someone who has never trained!


DP


Posted by: PowermanDL

What the heck is "muscle memory?" I really despise that term.

You'll probably see a decrease after 10 days. All be it a very small loss.


Posted by: animal56

I took a 9 day layoff 2 weeks ago. Ever since I've returned, I've made new personal records every session on every exercise. Some machines are maxed out know. Time to look for a different gym, y'think?


Posted by: animal56

P.S. Congrats Bludevil!


Posted by: Prince

Quote:
Originally posted by Training God
What the heck is "muscle memory?" I really despise that term.
the best way to describe this phenomenon is the baloon analogy.

the first time you blow up a baloon it's hard, but if you then deflate it and blow it up again it expands much easier. The same is true with muscle & fat cells, once they have been "inflated" it's that much easier to "re-inflate" them

I can already imagine the type of "scientific" crap you're gonna post Maki, but if nothing else I can attest to the validity of this phenomenon personally.


Posted by: Training God

I just hate the term. I think it's so misleading. Muscles do not own a memory.


Posted by: Prince

true, but you're taking the term "memory" too literally.

it's feasible to say that something can have the ability or capacity to return to or retain it's shape, that falls under the definition of memory as well.


Posted by: Training God

Quote:
Originally posted by Prince
it's feasible to say that something can have the ability or capacity to return to or retain it's shape, that falls under the definition of memory as well.
*** Memory: the ability to remember information, experiences and people

Remember: to be able to bring back (a piece of information) into your mind, or to keep (a piece of information) in your memory

Return: to come or go back to a previous place, subject, activity or condition

Retain: to keep or continue to have (something)


No it's not.

I am being technical because this term is very misleading.
"Mucle memory" has to do with contractile proteins (specific ones) that spring into play after a certain amount of deconditioning time.


Posted by: animal56

Quote:
Originally posted by Training God
I am being technical because this term is very misleading.
"Mucle memory" has to do with contractile proteins (specific ones) that spring into play after a certain amount of deconditioning time.
It's only misleading to someone who is new or unaccustomed to certain lingo used in bodybuilding and/or weighttraining.

People in "this" community, as well as the scientific/physics fields refer to it as Prince explains.

Your argument is relative to someone coming to a hockey game, and suggesting that they not use the term icing as a legitimate rule, as icing in the non-interested world means, "a sugary substance used to decorate sweets".

Cheers.


Posted by: Training God

Quote:
Originally posted by animal56


It's only misleading to someone who is new or unaccustomed to certain lingo used in bodybuilding and/or weighttraining.

People in "this" community, as well as the scientific/physics fields refer to it as Prince explains.

Your argument is relative to someone coming to a hockey game, and suggesting that they not use the term icing as a legitimate rule, as icing in the non-interested world means, "a sugary substance used to decorate sweets".

Cheers.
*** Just because a term is widely accepted does not mean it is correct. The same could be said with the term "contraction" when


Posted by: Training God

Quote:
Originally posted by animal56


It's only misleading to someone who is new or unaccustomed to certain lingo used in bodybuilding and/or weighttraining.

People in "this" community, as well as the scientific/physics fields refer to it as Prince explains.

Your argument is relative to someone coming to a hockey game, and suggesting that they not use the term icing as a legitimate rule, as icing in the non-interested world means, "a sugary substance used to decorate sweets".

Cheers.
*** Just because a term is widely accepted does not mean it is correct. The same could be said with the term "contraction" when referring to concentrics, eccentrics and isometrics. A proper term for them would be "action" not contraction.

Cheers.



Posted by: BjUaFyF

Jesus christ am I the only one having flash backs to old battle axe hag english teachers screaming....... scary


Posted by: bludevil

Thanks for all the congrats guys, and also for the reply's.
I've been doing 200 pushups and situps every other day just to try and stay in decent shape until I start the weights again (hopefully in 2 weeks). After a 3 week break doing 200 pushups made me pretty sore.


Posted by: Prince

Quote:
Originally posted by Training God


*** Memory: the ability to remember information, experiences and people

Remember: to be able to bring back (a piece of information) into your mind, or to keep (a piece of information) in your memory

Return: to come or go back to a previous place, subject, activity or condition

Retain: to keep or continue to have (something)


No it's not.

I am being technical because this term is very misleading.
"Mucle memory" has to do with contractile proteins (specific ones) that spring into play after a certain amount of deconditioning time.

you forgot one definition slick:

mem·o·ry
The capacity of a material, such as plastic or metal, to return to a previous shape after deformation.


Posted by: Scotty the Body




Posted by: TriZZle305

Quote:
Originally posted by Prince


the best way to describe this phenomenon is the baloon analogy.

the first time you blow up a baloon it's hard, but if you then deflate it and blow it up again it expands much easier. The same is true with muscle & fat cells, once they have been "inflated" it's that much easier to "re-inflate" them

I can already imagine the type of "scientific" crap you're gonna post Maki, but if nothing else I can attest to the validity of this phenomenon personally.
woo very good analogy

i think thats the best way to put it


Posted by: Training God

Quote:
Originally posted by Prince



you forgot one definition slick:

mem·o·ry
The capacity of a material, such as plastic or metal, to return to a previous shape after deformation.
*** Where did you find that definition?
I have found no such definition and would be interested what the source was?

Here is a medical definition of "memory."

memory
Complex mental function having four distinct phases: (1) memorizing or learning, (2) retention, (3) recall, and (4) recognition. Clinically, it is usually subdivided into immediate, recent, and remote memory.

You are aware that what most people refer to as muscle memory has to do with "motor learning" right?

Many times people get these two mixed up.


Posted by: Prince

oh, well if that's the "medical" definition it must be the only one, and the correct one.

I am not sure of your heritage or first language, maybe it's not English (I say that because I believe you're Asian). But in the English language the definition of words is a constant changing and evolving thing. New words and definitions are added to the "major" dictionary's every year.

Perhaps you're looking at an outdated source.


Posted by: Mudge

There is also Memory Metal, it is metal when heated will return to a shape that it was originally, so yes some of you are taking this to mean it implies it has a brain of its own, science may not always name things in a way that makes everyone happy but thats how it is.

So far as I know Jeff you are correct, what I've seen is that after 3 days in most people atrophy begins. I am on a 4 on 1 off and if I go any longer than that I start to lose muscle, and I lose QUICKLY. I last week took 2 days 'off' from watching my protein intake, I probably got down to 200-240, and didn't work out for those 2 days, and lost 1/4" on my arms. This may sound ridiculous to some of you but I lose muscle fast if I screw off, there is a certain amount that is easy for me to carry, but I've been beyond that point for awhile now.

I have from my own experiences believed in shorter gym visits but more frequent, I cannot do a 7 day program successfully at least at this point. I am starting to believe though (as some have said) that when you start lifting heavier weights you need more time off. Otherwise I would perhaps still be on a 3 on 1 off program, which is a bit harder for me to keep up with.


Posted by: Dr. Pain

Very short course: WTF........empirically look at athletes returning to "condition" after detraining. This is especially evident to almost every athlete who has ever taken a break. Muscle memory is and was not spoken as scientific jargon, it's real, it happens, (most of us have personal experience with it) and it's just two words that we use to explain it, like......."Muscle Mass"


Short Couse:

"Muscle Memory"

A Theoretical Concept Based on Athletes' Reports



It has been theorized that multi-nucleation might explain the longstanding anecdotal phenomenon most athletes call "muscle memory".

Muscle memory is recognized when someone who has had substantial muscular mass and then lost it due to injury or layoffs from training, returns to training and regains the majority of the mass in a much shorter time than was initially required to develop it.

What could be happening is that the specific muscle proteins in the muscle were cannibalized by the body for energy production during non-use. The muscle, however, retains a higher than average number of nuclei that the previous exercise stress caused the body to create.

When presented with exercise and proper nutrients, new protein synthesis can occur at an accelerated rate.


Medium Course:



MUSCLE MEMORY


by Paul Chek, MSS, HHP, NMT


Muscle memory, in my opinion is a neurophysiological function, which is activated by kinesthetic receptors in muscles and the joints they act upon. Many people have what are termed "muscle memories" while being Rolfed. Rolfing is a form of fascia manipulation, developed by Ida Rolf PhD. I have treated numerous trigger points in patients, which activated muscle memories. Patients often have dream-like flash backs and may even smell smells directly associated with an experience related to the muscle being worked on. For example, whip lash patients may smell smoke, or burning radiator fluid, a flashback from their accident.

Because the brain centers, endocrine system and proprioceptor/nociceptor systems are all linked in a cybernetic system, there are numerous possible explanations. I recall reading "Manual Medicine Diagnostics" by Dvorak and Dvorak, in which they spoke of EMG responses to a tug on the C4 joint capsule with surgical tweezers. Interestingly, there was EMG activity in many muscles from the neck and shoulders all the way to the hamstrings. I bring this point up because many muscles, such as the lumbar and cervical multifidus insert directly into facet joint capsules. Joint capsules are highly inervated with Type I,II,III and IV receptors, and others (this work was pionered by Barry Wike).

The communication between joint proprioceptors, spindle cells and other related sensory end organs all create the information necessary to develop motor engrams. These engrams are the coded patterns from which movements are tied together to create a complex movement. For example, have you ever noticed how you can get into your car at night and put the key right in the ignition, yet not even see the key hole? Try driving someone else's car and you will see that you have not developed "MUSCLE MEMORY." The brain has recorded the exact length of spindle cells in all associated muscles, pattern of activation by joint capsule proprioceptors, intra-joint pressure receptors, sensory feedback from related skin contacts, etc.

Another means of validating my theory is the clinical experience of altering spindle cell and golgi tendon organ function, or even skin stimulation. I don't have time to be overly detailed here, but I have performed spindle cell compression techniques on athletes then muscle tested them, and every time they were weakened. This is well explained by George Goodheart, a world famous Kinesiologist. Additionally, if you perform deep pressure massage to an athlete's leg musculature before a running event, 90% will complain of feeling weak, and often uncoordinated. I am quite sure this is because deep pressure in muscle changes the length of the spindle cell, alters the information associated with developed motor engrams and requires comparitor functions in the brain to adjust for discrepencies in the movement pattern. In otherwords, manipulating proprioceptive input of one form or another alters muscle memory and decreases efficiency of movement..

Paul Chek, MSS, HHP, NMT


Longer Course:


http://www.thinkmuscle.com/articles/...cle-memory.htm


Muscle Memory: Scientists May Have Unwittingly Uncovered Its Mystery

By Bryan Haycock, MS

Anyone who has lifted weights, on and off, for several years is familiar with the concept of "muscle memory". Muscle memory in this context refers to the observation that when a person begins lifting weights after a prolonged lay off, it is much easier to return to their previous levels of size and strength than it was to get there the first time around. Even when significant atrophy (muscle shrinking) has taken place during the layoff, previously hypertrophied muscle returns to its previous size more quickly than usual.

A recent study looking at fiber type conversions during muscle hypertrophy may have uncovered a possible mechanism for this phenomenon. For those of you not crazy about scientific lingo bear with me. Towards the end you will see what I’m getting at with this study. In this study the distribution of myosin heavy chain (MHC) isoforms, fiber type composition, and fiber size of the vastus lateralis muscle were analyzed in a group of adult sedentary men before and after 3 months of resistance training and then again, after 3 months of detraining. Following the period of resistance training, MHC IIX content decreased from just over 9% to 2.0%, with a corresponding increase in MHC IIA (42% to 49%). Following detraining the amount of MHC IIX reached values that were higher than before and during resistance training, over 17%! As expected, significant hypertrophy was observed for the type II fibers after resistance training, and even remained larger than baseline after 3 months of detraining.

Myosin heavy chain isoforms, or MHCs, refer to the types of contractile protein you see in a given muscle fiber. MHCs determine how the muscle fiber functions. MHCs are what make a fiber "fast twitch", "slow twitch", or something in-between. Certain MHCs are known to undergo a change in response to resistance exercise. In this case, fibers that contain MHC IIX are fibers that aren’t really sure what kind of fiber they are until they are called to action. Once recruited, they become MHC IIAs. So, fibers containg MHC IIX proteins serve as a reservoir of sorts for muscle hypertrophy because the can transform themselves into fibers containing MHC IIX which grow easily in response to training.

Like any great study, these researchers found what they expected as well as a little extra that they didn’t. I think this study caught my attention because it showed a long-term alteration in skeletal muscle following resistance training. It has been this long-term change that has been the focus of my own training philosophy, which incorporates what I call "strategic deconditioning". This study showed that resistance training decreases the amount of MHC IIX while reciprocally increasing MHC IIA content. This was expected and has previously observed with changes in fiber type after resistance training. What they didn’t expect was that detraining following heavy-load resistance training seems to cause what they refer to as an "overshoot" or doubling in the percentage of MHC IIX isoforms, significantly higher than that measured at baseline. What does this mean? It could mean that there are more fibers available for hypertrophy (growth) after a lay off from training than there are before you start training. This could very well explain the "muscle memory" effect many of us have experienced ourselves. It may also have implications for natural bodybuilders looking to overcome long-standing plateaus.

There are a few questions that this study did not answer. For instance, they waited until 3 months after they stopped training before they took final measurements. It would have been nice if they had taken measurements regularly so that the optimal period of detraining could be identified corresponding to peak MHC IIX levels. Because it takes 3-4 weeks for these contractile muscle proteins to turn over, it would take longer than one month and probably less time than 6 months (previous research). Still the optimal time remains to be elucidated.

Also, how would these guys respond to the same training regimen after the detraining period? Would their quads grow to their previous trained size, or even further? How long would it take? These questions, if answered, may add a new twist to typical training regimens. It may very well be that extended breaks from training may actually allow greater growth over a 12-month period than if training is uninterrupted. For serious athletes and bodybuilders, this would be important information and could significantly extend their competitive careers.


Posted by: TriZZle305

Training God if that doesnt give you enough sources to agree or understand why we use the term "Muscle Memory" then we should all just agree to disagree now


Posted by: The_Chicken_Daddy

Quote:
Originally posted by Prince
I am not sure of your heritage or first language, maybe it's not English (I say that because I believe you're Asian). But in the English language the definition of words is a constant changing and evolving thing. New words and definitions are added to the "major" dictionary's every year.
So true. You should see the state of some of the words they've added in the past 5 or so years. Ridiculous really.


Posted by: Training God

I would appreciate it if one of the mods would stop deleting my posts. I can not defend my stance if you do not allow me the chance to explain myself.

Just because some experts use the term does not mean that is what it should be called. Dr. Pain, if you had read my original post you would have seen that my quarrel was not with the idea but rather the term being used.


Posted by: Training God

Quote:
Originally posted by Mudge

So far as I know Jeff you are correct, what I've seen is that after 3 days in most people atrophy begins. I am on a 4 on 1 off and if I go any longer than that I start to lose muscle, and I lose QUICKLY. I last week took 2 days 'off' from watching my protein intake, I probably got down to 200-240, and didn't work out for those 2 days, and lost 1/4" on my arms. This may sound ridiculous to some of you but I lose muscle fast if I screw off, there is a certain amount that is easy for me to carry, but I've been beyond that point for awhile now.
*** I would beg to differ Mudge that in "most" people atrophy sets in after a couple days. Can you provide us with any phisiology, scientific results or emperical evidence that shows directly that it is actual muscle loss?
You do not lose muscle that quickly. Unless you are in an extreme catabolic state (and I do mean extreme). Just because you lose 1/4 of an inch of your arms doesn't mean it's muscle. Most times it's tissue swelling that has subsided. Just like a pump dissapears so does this "swelling."


Posted by: Mudge

Whoops, I meant to say 1/8".

Sorry, I am sure the data is online somewhere but I read it years ago, and have seen it stated in at least 2 places. As I believe I eluded to or mentioned, I am beginning to believe that as you work with heavier weights you need more days rest in between for safety, but I still am not using a 7 day program myself and don't know if I ever will.


Posted by: Dr. Pain

Quote:
Originally posted by Training God
I would appreciate it if one of the mods would stop deleting my posts. I can not defend my stance if you do not allow me the chance to explain myself.

Just because some experts use the term does not mean that is what it should be called. Dr. Pain, if you had read my original post you would have seen that my quarrel was not with the idea but rather the term being used.
Gee, I have trouble with the term "swelling", but alas, it's just a widely recognized term too!

No problems here, I'm just FYI!


DP


Posted by: Prince

Quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Pain
Gee, I have trouble with the term "swelling"...
DP
yeah, me too.


Posted by: BjUaFyF

Quote:
Originally posted by Training God


*** I would beg to differ Mudge that in "most" people atrophy sets in after a couple days. Can you provide us with any phisiology, scientific results or emperical evidence that shows directly that it is actual muscle loss?
You do not lose muscle that quickly. Unless you are in an extreme catabolic state (and I do mean extreme). Just because you lose 1/4 of an inch of your arms doesn't mean it's muscle. Most times it's tissue swelling that has subsided. Just like a pump dissapears so does this "swelling."

swelling caused by what??


Posted by: Training God

Quote:
Originally posted by BjUaFyF



swelling caused by what??
*** Caused by metabolic trauma (damage) to the muscle fibres (proteins).


Posted by: BjUaFyF

So muscle or muscle fiber is in a constant state of trauma? I was pretty sure that I understood muscle growth (in It's simplest form of course) to be caused by said trauma, damaged muscle fibers being replaced by new ones......I don't understand how our bodies can be in a constant state of swelling?


Posted by: Prince

I think that Training God has a problem with brain swelling.


Posted by: BjUaFyF

Quote:
Originally posted by Prince
I think that Training God has a problem with brain swelling.

LOL


Posted by: Training God

Quote:
Originally posted by BjUaFyF
So muscle or muscle fiber is in a constant state of trauma? I was pretty sure that I understood muscle growth (in It's simplest form of course) to be caused by said trauma, damaged muscle fibers being replaced by new ones......I don't understand how our bodies can be in a constant state of swelling?
*** Where did I say the body was in a constant state of "swelling?"


Posted by: BjUaFyF

Quote:
Originally posted by Training God


*** Where did I say the body was in a constant state of "swelling?"

It (to me) was implied when you told mudge that he was not losing muscle that quickly unless he was in an extreme catabolic state.Most times it's tissue swelling that has subsided. Just like a pump dissapears so does this "swelling." The reason I ask is I just found it odd that you would first ask mudge to " provide us with any phisiology, scientific results or emperical evidence that shows directly that it is actual muscle loss?' Like he was lying or did not understand what was happening to his own body and then make a vague statement like "Most times it's tissue swelling that has subsided. Just like a pump dissapears so does this "swelling." without offering any type of proof yourself. I have read several times that muscles begin to atrophy after a few days.....I just find it funny you ask for proof and then make unfounded statements without knowing/seeing body type, size, history.


Posted by: Training God

[quote]Originally posted by BjUaFyF



It (to me) was implied when you told mudge that he was not losing muscle that quickly unless he was in an extreme catabolic state.Most times it's tissue swelling that has subsided. Just like a pump dissapears so does this "swelling." The reason I ask is I just found it odd that you would first ask mudge to " provide us with any phisiology, scientific results or emperical evidence that shows directly that it is actual muscle loss?' Like he was lying or did not understand what was happening to his own body and then make a vague statement like "Most times it's tissue swelling that has subsided. Just like a pump dissapears so does this "swelling." without offering any type of proof yourself.

*** That does not answer the question I posed which was, "how do you know this?" Did he conduct some sort of testing or does he have a psychic conncetion with his muscles? We both know that both reasons are not true and that he was simply guessing.
Therefore his statement that it was muscle loss is wrong.

Do you want me to explain why it is not due to muscle loss because I would be more then happy to. The question though that will arise is, is it worth my time because it may be falling upon deaf ears?


I have read several times that muscles begin to atrophy after a few days.....I just find it funny you ask for proof and then make unfounded statements without knowing/seeing body type, size, history.

*** I need no such information as muscle loss is not something that simply ocurrs in a matter of a couple days. Unless of course, he is not eating. How do I know this? This simply stems from having a basic grasp of how the body works. Yes there are exceptions to every rule but in this case granted he is feeding himself properly and is resting adequately he is not losing any muscle.
May I remind you that my offer still stands if you must demand an explanation from me.

Good day friend.


Posted by: BjUaFyF

I find It amusing that you feel one would need a psycic link to their own bodys when you make blanket statements about other peoples bodys without having the slightest inkling as to who they are.

I don't for a fact know that Mudge did not conduct testing, and neither do you. The statement made about it not being muscle loss is your ego talking. I don't really want you to explain why it's not muscle loss, what I would like is the "phisiology, scientific results or emperical evidence that shows directly that it is'nt actual muscle loss?" as you required from Mudge.

I could sit here and explain for pages why I think the sky is blue, doesn't mean it's true.....I bet I could also find papers and articles to back me up, again doesn't mean it's true.

I need no such information as muscle loss is not something that simply ocurrs in a matter of a couple days

If you need no such information then might I ask why did you ask for it?


Yes there are exceptions to every rule but in this case granted he is feeding himself properly and is resting adequately he is not losing any muscle.

If there are exceptions to every rule then does this statement really make sense? No it's a contradiction in itself.

May I remind you that my offer still stands if you must demand an explanation from me.

I don't demand anything, haven't yet I am simply trying to understand where you are coming from, I have not been able to do so as of yet.


A good day to you too.


Posted by: Training God

[quote]Originally posted by BjUaFyF
I find It amusing that you feel one would need a psycic link to their own bodys when you make blanket statements about other peoples bodys without having the slightest inkling as to who they are.

*** It's one thing to be argumentative but it's another thing to be naive.

I don't for a fact know that Mudge did not conduct testing, and neither do you. The statement made about it not being muscle loss is your ego talking. I don't really want you to explain why it's not muscle loss, what I would like is the "phisiology, scientific results or emperical evidence that shows directly that it is'nt actual muscle loss?" as you required from Mudge.

*** I can guarantee you that he did not conduct any tests unless of course he has a 24 hour access card to a lab and knows how to conduct a muscle biopsy on himself?

Since you asked....

This study basically explains that after a bout of resistance training your body is in a catobolic state ( protein sysnthesis is low and muscle break down is high which means muscle loss). But, Mudge is eating properly so I'm assuming he is a consuming a postworkout shake so he wouldn't allow his body to fall into this state. But for arguments sake lets say he doesn't eat at all. Now, it has been shown that after several hours of this protein synthesis starts to increase and muscle break down falls. This is a good thing because after a period of time protein synthesis levels end up higher than muscle break down which means that there is muscle growth occuring.

The Time Course for Elevated Muscle Protein Synthesis Following Heavy Resistance Exercise. J. Duncan MacDougall, Martin J. Gibala, Mark A. Tarnopolsky, Jay R. MacDonald, Stephen A. Interisano, and Kevin E. Yarasheski .....480 |



I could sit here and explain for pages why I think the sky is blue, doesn't mean it's true.....I bet I could also find papers and articles to back me up, again doesn't mean it's true.

*** Ignorance is bliss and in your case you seem like your fine with this.


I need no such information as muscle loss is not something that simply ocurrs in a matter of a couple days

If you need no such information then might I ask why did you ask for it?

*** Simply because I am more then positive that it is not possible in his current state. This being said, I would like the impossible to be explained to me.

Yes there are exceptions to every rule but in this case granted he is feeding himself properly and is resting adequately he is not losing any muscle.

If there are exceptions to every rule then does this statement really make sense? No it's a contradiction in itself.

*** You are merely playing semantics with me now. If you have nothing to say but pick apart parts of my post that have very little feel to the overall post you are doing nothing more then wasting my time.

May I remind you that my offer still stands if you must demand an explanation from me.

I don't demand anything, haven't yet I am simply trying to understand where you are coming from, I have not been able to do so as of yet.

*** You are not so much as trying to understand me but hide behind your computer like a troll does under a bridge. Sneaky and deviating it believes itself to be crafty and smart..........


Posted by: BjUaFyF

LoL.

You Powermandl are a very funny individual. I have obviously gotten under your skin some since this last post was nothing but petty little digs, thats good though because you end up making yourself the fool instead of the person you're trying to insult.

I am not going to bother with much of a retort to the first few paragraphs because they are ignorant and I don't feel like smashing my head against a brick wall to dumb myself down to your level.

Let me just say that you have provided me with nothing but your own interpretaion of an article/study, which was not what I was really after. I would also like to say that one cannot "play semantics" although I'll give you an A for attempting to use some big words. One can argue semantics and one can discuss semantics one cannot play semantics, it's a word not a song, movie or game.

In closing and In regards to your last paragraph, in no way shape or form am I hiding behind anything (how long did it take for that little analogy i wonder, rather amusing). I notice you are in Canada, well sir so am I, let me know where you're at and maybe we can meet to discuss these comments/ideas further, at least PM me a phone number and we can discuss it further. As I said I am not trying to hide behind anything I merely want to understand the points you are trying to convey.

Although you didn't wish me a good day this time, I will wish you one still.


Posted by: Mudge

Quote:
Originally posted by Training God


*** I would beg to differ Mudge that in "most" people atrophy sets in after a couple days. Can you provide us with any phisiology, scientific results or emperical evidence that shows directly that it is actual muscle loss?
Do you have an opinion, or belief on how long it takes? I would believe it depends on the individual, and I wouldn't classify myself in the genetical top notch category.

I would wonder perhaps also, if it is due to the body sensing when there is extra time off between your normal schedule, who knows, as I do not know the testing method(s) used to "prove" that it occurs after 72 hours.

I believe in the bodies ability to adjust, and I would not doubt that the body can adjust in a matter of 3 days to begin to drop excess mass.


Posted by: Training God

[quote]Originally posted by BjUaFyF
LoL.

You Powermandl are a very funny individual. I have obviously gotten under your skin some since this last post was nothing but petty little digs, thats good though because you end up making yourself the fool instead of the person you're trying to insult.

*** Trust me you didn't even peel the surface of my skin friend.

I am not going to bother with much of a retort to the first few paragraphs because they are ignorant and I don't feel like smashing my head against a brick wall to dumb myself down to your level.

*** I applaud you.

Let me just say that you have provided me with nothing but your own interpretaion of an article/study, which was not what I was really after. I would also like to say that one cannot "play semantics" although I'll give you an A for attempting to use some big words. One can argue semantics and one can discuss semantics one cannot play semantics, it's a word not a song, movie or game.

*** Lol, of course you were going to disregard what I posted. I'm not suprised. I just dumbed it down for you so the big words wouldn't confuse you. I posted the reference so you might have at stab at it yourself.

"Semantics: The meaning or the interpretation of a word, sentence, or other language form: We're basically agreed; let's not quibble over semantics."

In other words I was saying don't try playing that game with me. Because you are choosing to be rather anal about parts of my post that have nothing to do with the original one.



In closing and In regards to your last paragraph, in no way shape or form am I hiding behind anything (how long did it take for that little analogy i wonder, rather amusing).

*** Just popped into my head. Trust me, I don't spend more then 10 minutes typing out posts here. Maybe at other boards but not here.

I notice you are in Canada, well sir so am I, let me know where you're at and maybe we can meet to discuss these comments/ideas further, at least PM me a phone number and we can discuss it further. As I said I am not trying to hide behind anything I merely want to understand the points you are trying to convey.

*** If you feel the need to discuss this over the phone you're more then welcome to and when and if you make it into town we can train together. I live in Vancouver. I don't see why you would resort to a personal call over the phone to discuss a matter that can be resolved right here? You just have to be willing to be open and not so thick headed, ok my friend?


Posted by: BjUaFyF

Thats all Im trying to say, Everybody is completely different, one cannot read an article and think to themselves"This applies to everyone in the entire world".


Posted by: BjUaFyF

I am extrmeley open to new ideas and I'm pretty sure i now know what you were trying to get across.....the problem I am having is the same problem you seem to be having with me I find you closed to anyones opinions but your own and very thickheaded when discussing them.

Anyhow all I want you to understand is that in my opinion it us unfair to demand evidence or proof of things without realizing that everyone is different not everyone reacts the same to excersise, supplements or lack of excercise.

Again In closing I have no problem in settling arguments/ debates/disputes in this forum all I was trying to get across is that (1) If you think I am hiding I am not and am certainly willing to discuss ideas face to face. (2) I was unsure where you were in Canada until now, so the phone call was a secondary idea to meeting face to face, as I do have a problem with flying to Toronto .


I will most definatley take you up on the prospect of training next time I am in the Big city and appreciate the offer.

Thats it and thats all I have to say on this topic.


Posted by: Training God

Quote:
Originally posted by Mudge


Do you have an opinion, or belief on how long it takes? I would believe it depends on the individual, and I wouldn't classify myself in the genetical top notch category.

I would wonder perhaps also, if it is due to the body sensing when there is extra time off between your normal schedule, who knows, as I do not know the testing method(s) used to "prove" that it occurs after 72 hours.

I believe in the bodies ability to adjust, and I would not doubt that the body can adjust in a matter of 3 days to begin to drop excess mass.
*** I was not in any way insulting you or your knowledge. I was just suprised to read that someone felt that muscle loss can happen in a matter of days if one does not work out.

Now, what I feel is an adequate length of time before muscle loss occurs is around 10-20 days. Maybe even up to a month.
You are correct when you said it depends on the individual. I don't think of myself as being at the top of the gene pool as do any or most of the trainers on this board.

The body is always changing and adapting to imposed demends we put on it in the gym and throughout our daily life. Granted we are eating muscle loss won't occur in most people until after our neural adaptations to strength gains dissapear. This usually takes more then aprox 10-20 days. This was taken from a study I looked over awhile back. But even then, this still doesn't take into account many of the other variables.

For example, what happens after a workout? Our bodies go through something called "supercompensation" where our body is weaker then grows stronger as a result of exercise (S.A.I.D. for a more in depth description you can do a search on here as I posted sometime ago on this). If the body is repairing damaged muscle proteins during this time how is it possible that muscle loss can occur as this stage can take more then just several days. Sure the trauma created from your workout which resulted in some tissue inflamation has subsided but that doesn't mean you've lost muscle. It means your body is recovering and growing stronger and hopefully bigger depending on what kind of stress was placed on your metabolic and your neaural system.

What about nutrition? If you are feeding the body the right amount of protein and enough calories to support growth how could you lose muscle after a short period of time?
After a workout, granted your training is on par you will create a hormonal explosion in the muscles and the body which will respond to the proper nutrients if you feed them it.

Lets not forget about sleep and it's indirect role it plays in recuperation which leads to a faster recovery time so you might be able to make frequent trips to the gym.

We can look at the types of contractions one might use in training and it's overall effect on the muscles. For example, eccentric training and it's positive role on protein synthesis and tissue damage postworkout.

Although muscle is a precious tissue that we strive so hard to build it is not that easy to lose unless you are under a great deal of stress, doing drugs, failing to eating or work out and not sleeping.


These are just a few variables which play a large role in determining what rate one might lose muscle at. And yes, this post took longer then 10 minutes.


Posted by: Training God

[quote]Originally posted by BjUaFyF
I am extrmeley open to new ideas and I'm pretty sure i now know what you were trying to get across.....the problem I am having is the same problem you seem to be having with me I find you closed to anyones opinions but your own and very thickheaded when discussing them.

*** Actually I'm not. I am more then open to all types of thinking.
Go Pro and Prince don't bother digging up the upper lower chest debate. I'm on your side now, well pretty much.
If you can dig up some posts that show this I would be more then happy to eat my words. Might I remind you the posts would have to show me refuting a valid point or idea that someone has posted.

Anyhow all I want you to understand is that in my opinion it us unfair to demand evidence or proof of things without realizing that everyone is different not everyone reacts the same to excersise, supplements or lack of excercise.

*** That I understand, but when it flies in the face of logic based upon science, scientific laws and emperical evidence I will open my fat mouth.

Again In closing I have no problem in settling arguments/ debates/disputes in this forum all I was trying to get across is that (1) If you think I am hiding I am not and am certainly willing to discuss ideas face to face. (2) I was unsure where you were in Canada until now, so the phone call was a secondary idea to meeting face to face, as I do have a problem with flying to Toronto .

*** I said this because you were picking on my words and trying to turn them around on me and attack me with them.
When you could have simply posted a rebutal to the topic at hand.


I will most definatley take you up on the prospect of training next time I am in the Big city and appreciate the offer.

*** Cool.


Posted by: BjUaFyF

*** Actually I'm not. I am more then open to all types of thinking.
Go Pro and Prince don't bother digging up the upper lower chest debate. I'm on your side now, well pretty much.
If you can dig up some posts that show this I would be more then happy to eat my words. Might I remind you the posts would have to show me refuting a valid point or idea that someone has posted.




lol, dude you are a lost cause , have a good day


Posted by: Mudge

FWIW, there is a powerlifter who says unlike other competitors, he will train a bodypart at LEAST every 8 days, or else he will lose strength. I can provide a link to the interview if needed.


Posted by: cornfed

Once again...I refer to my theory on liver memory

Seriously, It really depends on too many things to accurately predict in a general sense. Heck, my body has kept or lost different amounts for the same time off under the same conditions.


Posted by: BjUaFyF

Quote:
Originally posted by cornfed
Once again...I refer to my theory on liver memory

Seriously, It really depends on too many things to accurately predict in a general sense. Heck, my body has kept or lost different amounts for the same time off under the same conditions.

Liver memory? your liver remembers last weekend when you beat the hell out of it with a bottle of JD?? lol


Posted by: cornfed

Naw, bro, but I'll get you the link. It's a very plausible theory IMHO


Posted by: cornfed

http://www.ironmagazineforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10476&highlight=liver+m emory]


Posted by: BjUaFyF

ooops, I thought you were just kidding , Ill go take a look


Posted by: Scotty the Body

He is Jeff, he is.


Posted by: BjUaFyF

lol, My name is Jay and I can see that now


Posted by: Scotty the Body

Hehehe, jay, jef, neil, bob, whats the difference???

Just kidding, sorry bout that Jay.



(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)





vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.1.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37