Author Topic: Episode #265  (Read 5603 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline alanog

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 33
  • alanog
    • the renegade
Re: Episode #265
« Reply #60 on: Aug 17, 2010, 05:53:29 AM »
Re the lighter weights for muscle buiding. In my GCSE PE course we're told that training at 90% of your 1repetition maximum (1RM) for 3 reps helps to build maximal strength, training at 70% of 1RM for 2 sets of 10 reps builds dynamic strength, and training at 50% of 1RM for 3 sets of 15 reps build muscular endurance.

My woo-ometer is going crazy... can you please define "maximal strength", "dynamic strength" and "muscular endurance."
I'm just relaying what I'm being taught in school here for me to pass my exams. Maximal strength is basically your 1RM, so you so this type of training for sports like weightlifting. Dynamic strength is exerting force at speed for sports such as boxing. Muscular endurance is the ability for muscles to repeatedly contract for long periods without tiring.


Hadn't heard this before. The basic rule I have always used was high weight/low number reps builds muscle mass (ie bulkup) where as low weight and high number of reps built muscle endurance. 
Muscle failure I have heard defined as "unable to contine the same action with the same load."   For example I cannot bench press 100lbs anymore is muscle failure.

I thought the same thing. I think this the study is saying the bulkup thing is wrong, or is it saying something else about the buildup of proteins?
http://cityrenegade.blogspot.com/
"You are neither right nor wrong because the crowd disagrees with you. You are right because your data and reasoning are correct"- Benjamin Graham

Offline alanog

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 33
  • alanog
    • the renegade
Re: Episode #265
« Reply #61 on: Aug 17, 2010, 05:59:39 AM »
Re the lighter weights for muscle buiding. In my GCSE PE course we're told that training at 90% of your 1repetition maximum (1RM) for 3 reps helps to build maximal strength, training at 70% of 1RM for 2 sets of 10 reps builds dynamic strength, and training at 50% of 1RM for 3 sets of 15 reps build muscular endurance.
My woo-ometer is going crazy... can you please define "maximal strength", "dynamic strength" and "muscular endurance."

And while we are at it, how about some advice on modest exercise for ordinary folks who simply want to remain healthy, and have no desire to develop muscles like the Governator?

I believe the exercise guidelines say something about regularly engaging in aerobic exercise that increases your heart rate. I can't remember the exact figures, but they don't reccomend anything like going to the gym and lifting weights. Things like 20 minutes of power walking, jogging etc. will do just fine. I know this is a bit vague, and the weightlifting stuff was more aimed at people using weight training to improve strength at particular sports.
http://cityrenegade.blogspot.com/
"You are neither right nor wrong because the crowd disagrees with you. You are right because your data and reasoning are correct"- Benjamin Graham

Offline Kwisatz Haderach

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 10099
Re: Episode #265
« Reply #62 on: Aug 17, 2010, 06:58:58 AM »
Re the lighter weights for muscle buiding. In my GCSE PE course we're told that training at 90% of your 1repetition maximum (1RM) for 3 reps helps to build maximal strength, training at 70% of 1RM for 2 sets of 10 reps builds dynamic strength, and training at 50% of 1RM for 3 sets of 15 reps build muscular endurance.

My woo-ometer is going crazy... can you please define "maximal strength", "dynamic strength" and "muscular endurance."
I'm just relaying what I'm being taught in school here for me to pass my exams. Maximal strength is basically your 1RM, so you so this type of training for sports like weightlifting. Dynamic strength is exerting force at speed for sports such as boxing. Muscular endurance is the ability for muscles to repeatedly contract for long periods without tiring.

Given the discussion of exercise science during science or fiction, do you suspect that "what you were taught in school" was based on science, or on gym folklore? 

Offline alanog

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 33
  • alanog
    • the renegade
Re: Episode #265
« Reply #63 on: Aug 17, 2010, 07:17:53 AM »
Re the lighter weights for muscle buiding. In my GCSE PE course we're told that training at 90% of your 1repetition maximum (1RM) for 3 reps helps to build maximal strength, training at 70% of 1RM for 2 sets of 10 reps builds dynamic strength, and training at 50% of 1RM for 3 sets of 15 reps build muscular endurance.

My woo-ometer is going crazy... can you please define "maximal strength", "dynamic strength" and "muscular endurance."
I'm just relaying what I'm being taught in school here for me to pass my exams. Maximal strength is basically your 1RM, so you so this type of training for sports like weightlifting. Dynamic strength is exerting force at speed for sports such as boxing. Muscular endurance is the ability for muscles to repeatedly contract for long periods without tiring.

Given the discussion of exercise science during science or fiction, do you suspect that "what you were taught in school" was based on science, or on gym folklore? 
I would obviously hope that our curriculum wasn't based on anecdotal evidence from some gym instructors, although the story does seem to suggest that this area hasn't been that thoroughly researched. Like I said before as well though, I don't think what I'm being taught contradicts the new study, and I do think that what is taught is somewhat intuitive and common sensical (more reps makes you better at endurance, higher weights makes you stronger).
http://cityrenegade.blogspot.com/
"You are neither right nor wrong because the crowd disagrees with you. You are right because your data and reasoning are correct"- Benjamin Graham

Offline Kwisatz Haderach

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 10099
Re: Episode #265
« Reply #64 on: Aug 17, 2010, 07:51:40 AM »
Re the lighter weights for muscle buiding. In my GCSE PE course we're told that training at 90% of your 1repetition maximum (1RM) for 3 reps helps to build maximal strength, training at 70% of 1RM for 2 sets of 10 reps builds dynamic strength, and training at 50% of 1RM for 3 sets of 15 reps build muscular endurance.

My woo-ometer is going crazy... can you please define "maximal strength", "dynamic strength" and "muscular endurance."
I'm just relaying what I'm being taught in school here for me to pass my exams. Maximal strength is basically your 1RM, so you so this type of training for sports like weightlifting. Dynamic strength is exerting force at speed for sports such as boxing. Muscular endurance is the ability for muscles to repeatedly contract for long periods without tiring.

Given the discussion of exercise science during science or fiction, do you suspect that "what you were taught in school" was based on science, or on gym folklore? 
I would obviously hope that our curriculum wasn't based on anecdotal evidence from some gym instructors, although the story does seem to suggest that this area hasn't been that thoroughly researched. Like I said before as well though, I don't think what I'm being taught contradicts the new study, and I do think that what is taught is somewhat intuitive and common sensical (more reps makes you better at endurance, higher weights makes you stronger).

So folklore, then.  ;)

Offline mtnmann

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 10
Re: Episode #265
« Reply #65 on: Aug 17, 2010, 09:04:57 AM »
Steve - thanks for the reply.    I should defer to your expertise, but my issue is that I have seen explicit articles linking Blood thinners with hemorrhagic stroke...I had done some research when my mother died earlier this year from bleeding in the brain and I came across a number of articles about the relationship between Warfarin and higher incidence of hemorrhagic stroke. 

Could the issue be that hemorrhagic stroke is not considered a true "stroke" by professionals?  Anyway, I  have to admit the best support I found is 3 years old and I didn't seem the follow-ups:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10641-anticlotting-drug-linked-to-far-higher-stroke-rate.html

Anti-clotting drug linked to far higher stroke rate

11:12 09 January 2007 by Roxanne Khamsi
A dramatic rise in the number of hemorrhagic strokes in the US during the 1990s may be linked to increased use of the anti-clotting drug warfarin.

A new study estimates the rate of such strokes increased fivefold across the decade, a period in which the distribution of warfarin also soared. Researchers say that the findings should make doctors more cautious about prescribing the medication to those elderly patients at high risk of hemorrhagic stroke.

Patients suffering from an irregular heart rhythm, also known as atrial fibrillation, commonly receive warfarin to prevent the formation of blood clots. This is because clots can sometimes form when blood is not pumped normally out of the heart and lingers there too long, explains Matthew Flaherty at the University of Cincinnati in Ohio, US.

Such clots can cause disability or death if they travel to the brain and block blood flow - an event called an ischemic stroke.

However, excessive thinning of the blood by drugs such as warfarin can also increase the likelihood of blood vessels leaking. When this happens in the brain, the bleeding is referred to as a hemorrhagic stroke. Each year approximately 67,000 people in the US experience this type of stroke.

Journal reference: Neurology (vol 68, p 116)

Offline virus

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 108
Re: Episode #265
« Reply #66 on: Aug 17, 2010, 07:35:09 PM »
Oh my poor brain.  I'm a nerd with a gym membership and I've been lifting heavy 3x per week for 3 months.  I've been dying to find research that investigates the quality of different workload patterns, but I'm afraid the study Steve found doesn't shed a lot more light on the matter.  Here's an MD blogger who seems pretty skeptical and has the same concerns I do about the study:

http://evidencebasedfitness.blogspot.com/2010/08/if-youre-going-to-claim-to-improve.html

TL;DR: The study was conducted to look for protein synthesis markers, but there's no way to extrapolate what that really means in terms for improved performance.  For example, a more efficient workout that requires more recovery time might NOT be the most efficient workout for strength gaining over the course of a training program.

What I think this study might suggest is that for the average person who is exercising for general fitness and bone health once or twice per week, it would be hard to argue against light workouts that are safer and easy to control.  For tough looking people and athletes, I don't think this study provides actionable intelligence.

Offline kaigiteki

  • Brand New
  • Posts: 1
Bermuda Triangle mistery "solved"
« Reply #67 on: Aug 17, 2010, 08:42:23 PM »
I might be wrong but I think the researchers didn't deserve your comments. Instead, I think it's a case of bad media reporting.

Help me here, I think this news started here:
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/august062010/bermuda-triangle-ta.php and if you look for the paper cited in the article you'll find this one from September,2003: http://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.1582187 , with no references to the bermuda triangle (an online copy of the paper is here http://physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/fluids/may_ajp_71_842_03.pdf ). As far as I can tell it's just about laboratory experiments and numerical simulations, nothing about solving the Bermuda Triangle mistery.

My guess is that, this was taken by some ... "bermuda triangle mistery  researchers" and distorted it just a "little" to solve a mistery that doesn't exist  and this was taken by some journalist as a real research.

Why seven years later? Maybe because of this? http://www.salem-news.com/articles/august102010/aym-terrence.php

Again, I might be wrong, probably missing some part of this story. So please let me know what you think

Regards
KaigiTeki






Offline ratsacre

  • Brand New
  • Posts: 2
Re: Episode #265
« Reply #68 on: Aug 18, 2010, 06:35:15 AM »
Dear Steve and the Rogues,

Thank you for doing the interview with Rhys.  I went and visited his blog and left a message of support and thanks there.

How awesome is this kid?!?  My nine and ten year olds were horrified that someone could get away with telling someone to drink bleach as a serious 'treatment' while Rhys is the one that gets banned for calling out the BS.

We had just been to see a play about critical thinking, and the podcast was the icing on the cake, to demonstrate how it's never too early to be a critical thinker.

(Mind you, I have a long way to go with my logical fallacies.  The trouble is I know what's 'wrong' with an argument, but I am never quick enough to 'match' the name.)

I've never posted here before, despite being a long, long time listener.  Thank you for everything you do guys, you've rocked my world, (and even helped me get one of the coolest jobs I've ever had!)

We are lucky enough to be in the middle of National Science Week here in Australia, just a shame that TAM Australia cannot be a major part of it.  Maybe next year...

Offline UKver2.0

  • Brand New
  • Posts: 4
Re: Episode #265
« Reply #69 on: Aug 18, 2010, 01:41:22 PM »
Considering the fact that all Bob has to do to win the SoF bet is agree with Jay just once in the next two shows, maybe he should have to go before Jay.

Or perhaps the rogues could give their answers without the benefit of hearing each others comments. I've always wanted to see how that would affect their answers.

Online Chew

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 10237
  • Let's gut it!
Re: Bermuda Triangle mistery "solved"
« Reply #70 on: Aug 18, 2010, 02:10:20 PM »
My guess is that, this was taken by some ... "bermuda triangle mistery  researchers" and distorted it just a "little" to solve a mistery that doesn't exist...

Unlikely. The last thing the Bermuda Triangle mystery researchers want is for this to be solved.
"It is difficult to say what truth is, but sometimes it is easy to recognize falsehood." -Albert Einstein

Offline Kwisatz Haderach

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 10099
Re: Episode #265
« Reply #71 on: Aug 18, 2010, 04:55:18 PM »
Steve -

You made an off-hand remark something like "Most of the people who you think invented things didn't invent the things you thought they invented" -- or something like that.  Could you give some examples of people who didn't invent the things we thought they invented?  Or things that were invented by people who were not the people who we thought invented them?

Offline Trinoc

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4435
  • Dumb, in a pocket, and proud of it.
Re: Episode #265
« Reply #72 on: Aug 18, 2010, 05:49:33 PM »
You made an off-hand remark something like "Most of the people who you think invented things didn't invent the things you thought they invented" -- or something like that.  Could you give some examples of people who didn't invent the things we thought they invented?  Or things that were invented by people who were not the people who we thought invented them?

OK, I'm not Steve but ... I'll open with: Telephone; Light bulb; Electric power; Radio.
Do people who say "First World Problems" really think the only concern of people in developing countries is where the next bowl of rice is coming from?

Offline Jono

  • Brand New
  • Posts: 1
Re: Episode #265
« Reply #73 on: Aug 19, 2010, 01:31:22 AM »
Is the WTN the haunted sofa from a couple of years ago?

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/weird/1963178/Our-sofa-is-haunted.html


Offline Kwisatz Haderach

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 10099
Re: Episode #265
« Reply #74 on: Aug 19, 2010, 02:13:06 AM »
You made an off-hand remark something like "Most of the people who you think invented things didn't invent the things you thought they invented" -- or something like that.  Could you give some examples of people who didn't invent the things we thought they invented?  Or things that were invented by people who were not the people who we thought invented them?

OK, I'm not Steve but ... I'll open with: Telephone; Light bulb; Electric power; Radio.

Perhaps I was not clear in my question.  I'm not just looking for a list of inventions, I am also interested in who "we thought" invented them and who actually invented them, and perhaps a discussion about why it has been popularly misattributed.

 

personate-rain