Topic: Fitness myths.

[DeanMorrison]

Here's a couple of common fitness misconceptions I think a lot of people have:

1. If it's painful, it's building muscle. In other words, what doesn't kill me makes me stronger. We're humans, not saiyans - gotta work out to be strong, not just beat ourselves up.

2. Sweating = weight loss. Hot yoga is a prime example of this. Just because you're overheating and overexerting yourself doesn't mean the pounds will miraculously melt away.

[Johnny Slick]

You have to learn to differentiate between different kinds of pain. Some of it means "you're doing something wrong and need to stop now", others, like what I'm feeling in my hams, glutes, and ABS right now, mean "what the hell did you make me do last night!?" and I know I need to lay off of them for a day or two... but that feeling you get when your muscles are beginning to fail, it's not really pain per se but it's uncomfortable and easy to mistake it actual pain if you're not used to the feeling.

[Fast Eddie B]

Not necessarily making my case, but this is from Wikipedia:

Excess consumption

When a high dietary protein intake is consumed, there is an increase in urea excretion, which suggests that amino acid oxidation is increased.[17] High levels of protein intake increase the activity of branched-chain ketoacid dehydrogenase.[17] As a result, oxidation is facilitated, and the amino group of the amino acid is excreted to the liver.[17] This process suggests that excess protein consumption results in protein oxidation and that the protein is excreted.[17] The body is unable to store excess protein.[17][22] Protein is digested into amino acids, which enter the bloodstream. Excess amino acids are converted to other usable molecules by the liver in a process called deamination. Deamination converts nitrogen from the amino acid into ammonia, which is converted by the liver into urea in the urea cycle. Excretion of urea is performed by the kidneys. These organs can normally cope with any extra workload, but, if kidney disease occurs, a decrease in protein will often be prescribed.[23] When there is excess protein intake, amino acids can be converted to glucose or ketones, in addition to being oxidized for fuel.[24] When food protein intake is periodically high or low, the body tries to keep protein levels at an equilibrium by using the “labile protein reserve", which serves as a short-term protein store to be used for emergencies or daily variations in protein intake.[4] However, that reserve is not utilized as longer-term storage for future needs.[4]

Many researchers have also found that excessive intake of protein increases calcium excretion in urine.[4] It has been thought that this occurs to maintain the pH imbalance from the oxidation of sulfur amino acids.[4] Also, it is inconclusive whether bone resorption contributes to bone loss and osteoporosis.[4] However, it is also found that a regular intake of calcium would be able to stabilize this loss.[4]

Another issue arising from overconsumption of protein is a higher risk of kidney stone formation from calcium in the renal circulatory system.[4] It has been found that high animal protein intake in healthy individuals increases the probability of forming kidney stones by 250 percent.[4]

[Plastique]

Not necessarily making my case, but this is from Wikipedia:

Excess consumption

When a high dietary protein intake is consumed, there is an increase in urea excretion, which suggests that amino acid oxidation is increased.[17] High levels of protein intake increase the activity of branched-chain ketoacid dehydrogenase.[17] As a result, oxidation is facilitated, and the amino group of the amino acid is excreted to the liver.[17] This process suggests that excess protein consumption results in protein oxidation and that the protein is excreted.[17] The body is unable to store excess protein.[17][22] Protein is digested into amino acids, which enter the bloodstream. Excess amino acids are converted to other usable molecules by the liver in a process called deamination. Deamination converts nitrogen from the amino acid into ammonia, which is converted by the liver into urea in the urea cycle. Excretion of urea is performed by the kidneys. These organs can normally cope with any extra workload, but, if kidney disease occurs, a decrease in protein will often be prescribed.[23] When there is excess protein intake, amino acids can be converted to glucose or ketones, in addition to being oxidized for fuel.[24] When food protein intake is periodically high or low, the body tries to keep protein levels at an equilibrium by using the “labile protein reserve", which serves as a short-term protein store to be used for emergencies or daily variations in protein intake.[4] However, that reserve is not utilized as longer-term storage for future needs.[4]

Many researchers have also found that excessive intake of protein increases calcium excretion in urine.[4] It has been thought that this occurs to maintain the pH imbalance from the oxidation of sulfur amino acids.[4] Also, it is inconclusive whether bone resorption contributes to bone loss and osteoporosis.[4] However, it is also found that a regular intake of calcium would be able to stabilize this loss.[4]

Another issue arising from overconsumption of protein is a higher risk of kidney stone formation from calcium in the renal circulatory system.[4] It has been found that high animal protein intake in healthy individuals increases the probability of forming kidney stones by 250 percent.[4]

It contradicts your case.

[karirafn]

Stretching has no impact on muscle soreness

Stretching before or after exercising does not confer protection from muscle soreness. Stretching before exercising does not seem to confer a practically useful reduction in the risk of injury, but the generality of this finding needs testing. Insufficient research has been done with which to determine the effects of stretching on sporting performance.

Effects of stretching before and after exercising on muscle soreness and risk of injury: systematic review

Tons of studies on the subject

Oral Glutamine Does NOTHING For Athletic Performance

A lot of people take Glutamine to minimize muscle catabolism. From what I gather from this thread (citing several studies) Glutamine does no such thing.

I'd also recommend the supplement science section of the bodybuilding.com forums. Especially the Best of Threads thread.

There's A LOT of bro science on those forums but the supplement science section is an oasis in the bro science desert

[GodSlayer]

Point is, it does not require large amounts of protein to build muscle. One should aim to get enough, of course, but if excessive amounts are taken, the excess (which will be most) is simple processed by the kidneys and excreted. At the least, wasting money. At the worst, stressing the kidneys.

The body is quite capable of using it for energy or depositing it as fat, it doesn't just get excreted!

people always say you can't trim down and bulk up at the same time. is that more likely to be the case if someone is taking excessive protein supplements (a similar effect to a 'massive gainer' shake)

With regard to diet, as long as you're covering minimum nutritional requirements (all the stuff the body can't manufacture itself, and needs for maintenance and building new tissue), trimming down and bulking up is just a matter of calories in versus calories out, man. Excessive protein supplementation is simply a matter of too many calories.

Incidentally, it's not impossible to add muscle and strip fat at the same time (especially for novices), it's just a lot more difficult.

with respect to the claim of protein being excreted, is protein, then, more expensive than other forms of calories?
I mean, you can buy 'protein' shakes, or protein shakes that also have lots of calories (same amount of protein)...if you body can either make use of or store as fat the protein, why would they not just make protein and fuckloads-of-protein shakes instead of whatever the add to a protein shake to give it even more calories without adding more protein? if the body metabolizes a larger amount of protein and stores it as fat as easily as any other source of calories, is it just that it's cheaper than including more calories in the form of protein? (horrendous sentence, but I think you'll understand)

[GodSlayer]

Stretching before exercising does not seem to confer a practically useful reduction in the risk of injury, but the generality of this finding needs testing..

Effects of stretching before and after exercising on muscle soreness and risk of injury: systematic review

I think the last thing I heard (might have been from UCSD's Physiology of Exercise podcast) was that 'warming up' before a workout is what you should do, not 'stretching'. e.g., lightly/slowly/moderately exercising merely the range of movement of the activity before going into it full force, rather than some routine of extending your limbs.

[Plastique]

Point is, it does not require large amounts of protein to build muscle. One should aim to get enough, of course, but if excessive amounts are taken, the excess (which will be most) is simple processed by the kidneys and excreted. At the least, wasting money. At the worst, stressing the kidneys.

The body is quite capable of using it for energy or depositing it as fat, it doesn't just get excreted!

people always say you can't trim down and bulk up at the same time. is that more likely to be the case if someone is taking excessive protein supplements (a similar effect to a 'massive gainer' shake)

With regard to diet, as long as you're covering minimum nutritional requirements (all the stuff the body can't manufacture itself, and needs for maintenance and building new tissue), trimming down and bulking up is just a matter of calories in versus calories out, man. Excessive protein supplementation is simply a matter of too many calories.

Incidentally, it's not impossible to add muscle and strip fat at the same time (especially for novices), it's just a lot more difficult.

with respect to the claim of protein being excreted, is protein, then, more expensive than other forms of calories?
I mean, you can buy 'protein' shakes, or protein shakes that also have lots of calories (same amount of protein)...if you body can either make use of or store as fat the protein, why would they not just make protein and fuckloads-of-protein shakes instead of whatever the add to a protein shake to give it even more calories without adding more protein? if the body metabolizes a larger amount of protein and stores it as fat as easily as any other source of calories, is it just that it's cheaper than including more calories in the form of protein? (horrendous sentence, but I think you'll understand)

Yeah, protein is definitely more expensive to make, especially the highest quality forms.

Personally I wouldn't touch "mass gainer" shakes; I much prefer to eat my calories. I think it's healthier, plus solid food is more fun to consume. The only legitimate candidates for those high calorie shakes (in my opinion) are people with insanely fast metabolisms who really struggle to eat enough to put on weight, so they'd have a shake or two in addition to solid food. Or maybe if you're a giant professional-sized body builder loaded up with drugs struggling to eat enough to put on further muscle. I've read of a few of those guys eating around 10000 calories a day.

Come to think of it, I rarely touch regular protein drinks, either. Nothing against them, but again I'd rather eat something.

[Fast Eddie B]

It contradicts your case.

Yes, it does.

Nice thing about being a skeptic is that one may actually enjoy being corrected - it's how one may learn and discard previously held misconceptions.

I think the key is that normally functioning kidneys can handle the extra load of excess protein. I recall that when I was taught it was thought to be a stressor and therefore to be avoided.

I stand corrected. But still would look skeptically at claims that large amounts of protein are helpful in building muscle.

I also recall that when I was being certified, the Atkins diet was being demonized, but that studies were just starting to come out indicating it wasn't leading to all the ill effects that we were being warned about. I still would not recommend it, but the human body seems very adept at handling a wide range of macronutrient ratios.

[Plastique]

I stand corrected. But still would look skeptically at claims that large amounts of protein are helpful in building muscle.

Yeah, I'd say you were doomed to failure if you were counting on forcing muscle growth by eating mountains of protein.

[James]

What about the effectiveness of Creatine?  I've read that creatine should be taken 30 min before working out to stimulate muscle growth, any truth to this or is it a waste of money. (though its very cheap in comparison to other suppliments)

[Plastique]

What about the effectiveness of Creatine?  I've read that creatine should be taken 30 min before working out to stimulate muscle growth, any truth to this or is it a waste of money. (though its very cheap in comparison to other suppliments)

I don't think creatine directly stimulates muscle growth, rather it gives you the ability to a do a bit more anaerobic work (few more reps on your sets or a a bit more weight type of thing), and adds a bit of water weight to the body. The hope is that this indirectly leads to more muscle, but I'm not sure whether this has ever been proven.

Also, it doesn't work for everyone (I for one am a non-responder).

In my opinion, if you're going to insist on using some type of supplement for your gym efforts (in general I don't think supplements are worthwhile), creatine is one of the only things worth getting, provided it works for you.

[James]

What about the effectiveness of Creatine?  I've read that creatine should be taken 30 min before working out to stimulate muscle growth, any truth to this or is it a waste of money. (though its very cheap in comparison to other suppliments)

I don't think creatine directly stimulates muscle growth, rather it gives you the ability to a do a bit more anaerobic work (few more reps on your sets or a a bit more weight type of thing), and adds a bit of water weight to the body. The hope is that this indirectly leads to more muscle, but I'm not sure whether this has ever been proven.

Also, it doesn't work for everyone (I for one am a non-responder).

In my opinion, if you're going to insist on using some type of supplement for your gym efforts (in general I don't think supplements are worthwhile), creatine is one of the only things worth getting, provided it works for you.

I thought it was worth a try due to the price, most all of the other "potions" were outrageously price but the creatine was on sale at under ten bucks and dosage was only a tablespoon before workouts.

Going back to the gym today and am going to take it regularly & see what happens

[jt512]

What about the effectiveness of Creatine?  I've read that creatine should be taken 30 min before working out to stimulate muscle growth, any truth to this or is it a waste of money. (though its very cheap in comparison to other suppliments)

I don't think creatine directly stimulates muscle growth, rather it gives you the ability to a do a bit more anaerobic work (few more reps on your sets or a a bit more weight type of thing), and adds a bit of water weight to the body. The hope is that this indirectly leads to more muscle, but I'm not sure whether this has ever been proven.

Also, it doesn't work for everyone (I for one am a non-responder).

In my opinion, if you're going to insist on using some type of supplement for your gym efforts (in general I don't think supplements are worthwhile), creatine is one of the only things worth getting, provided it works for you.

I thought it was worth a try due to the price, most all of the other "potions" were outrageously price but the creatine was on sale at under ten bucks and dosage was only a tablespoon before workouts.

Going back to the gym today and am going to take it regularly & see what happens

Unless something new has been discovered, there's no reason to take creatine before workouts, and you have to take it daily. 

Jay

[karirafn]

What about the effectiveness of Creatine?  I've read that creatine should be taken 30 min before working out to stimulate muscle growth, any truth to this or is it a waste of money. (though its very cheap in comparison to other suppliments)

I don't think creatine directly stimulates muscle growth, rather it gives you the ability to a do a bit more anaerobic work (few more reps on your sets or a a bit more weight type of thing), and adds a bit of water weight to the body. The hope is that this indirectly leads to more muscle, but I'm not sure whether this has ever been proven.

Also, it doesn't work for everyone (I for one am a non-responder).

In my opinion, if you're going to insist on using some type of supplement for your gym efforts (in general I don't think supplements are worthwhile), creatine is one of the only things worth getting, provided it works for you.

Your muscles run on a chemical called ATP, it's like fuel for them. Each muscle cell contains a certain amount of ATP floating around. When you perform anaerobic work, e.g. do a set of weight training, you use up ATP and eventually you'll run out.

ATP stands for adenosine triphosphate. The triphosphate part means that it contains 3 groups of phosphate (the P in ATP). When your muscles use ATP to perform work it releases one phosphate group and becomes ADP (adenosine diphosphate).

ATP -> ADP + P + Work

Your cells also contain a chemical called phosphocreatine (PCr) which contains one phosphate group. When ATP loses a phosphate group and becomes ADP the PCr releases its phosphate group and it's added to ADP restoring it to ATP.

ADP + PCr -> ATP + Some other stuff

You can look at ATP as the main gas tank of a car and the PCr as its secondary gas tank. Whenever the gas level in the main tank drops it gets refilled from the secondary tank.

Eventually you will run out of both ATP and PCr and you won't be able to do any more work, e.g. reps during weight training, without taking a break.

Now you will probably have already figured out that phosphocreatine is phosphate + creatine. For reasons I'm not gonna get into it's better to supplement with creatine than directly with PCr.

The theory behind creatine supplementation is that you're maximizing your muscle cells PCr level (filling the secondary fuel tank). If you add too much you will simply pee out the excess amount as creatinase. If your cells are saturated with PCr then you will always be able to do the maximum amount of reps your muscles can handle and this will, according to the theory, indirectly increase your performance in the long run as your body adapts to the increased load.

You can get creatine from meat and fish (could be more sources, don't remember). Your body even produces about 1 g of creatine per day. This means that if you eat enough meat (or other foods that give you creatine) you will saturate your cells with PCr so additional supplementation with creatine does nothing.

I have no idea what Plastique means with that he's a "non-responder" given how the system works.

A lot of creatine supplements I've seen say you should start with a "loading period" of 5 scoops per day for 5 days or similar. They say this only so that you will empty your container faster. Remember that you will just pee any excess creatine you take.

It doesn't really matter WHEN you take your supplement, as long as you do it every day. Your gas tank won't empty if your engine isn't running.

I'm no expert on the matter though. This information is mostly from an essay in basic biology I did in the Icelandic equivalent of high school almost 10 years ago. I would post it but it's in Icelandic and I doubt you could read it

I'm pretty sure jt512 will correct any errors I have made in my description