HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: laurie@tcom.stc.co.uk (Laurie Constantin)
Newsgroups: misc.fitness
Subject: Re: Weight Training
Date: 2 Sep 92 09:00:09 GMT
Organization: BNR Europe, New Southgate, London.

In article <1992Sep1.123408.334@sage.hnrc.tufts.edu> loszewski_im@sage.hnrc.tufts.edu writes:
>In article <1992Sep1.013620.13240@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>, mmb@po.CWRU.Edu (Melina M. Barreca) writes:
>> 
>> If you have put yourself on a 6 day schedule, and then find it almost
>> impossible to keep it up(schedule, folks, schedule), would doing two
>> days lifting hurt muscle growth, i.e. lifting both legs and upper body
>> on the same day.  I know you need to give your muscles time to grow
>> while you're lifting, but I am running into a problem with my schedule
>> (as well as the gym's hours) to keep lifting six days a week.  I 
>> combined two of my workouts Saturday because I couldn't lift Friday
>> and I felt fine.(It actually felt GREAT).
>
>I would not suggest this.  In order to really work your muscles, you should only
>work two major muscle groups per workout.  For example chest and back one day,
>shoulders, tri's, and bi's another day, and legs (quads, hams, glutes, calves)
>and maybe delts or traps if you don't do them on your back or shoulder day.
>This is mainly how I am training for my competition.  Before I started training
>I worked chest one day, legs another day, back another day, etc.  
>To do both lower and upper body workouts in the same day is too much, and you
>also won't be concentrating on what you are doing like you should be.
>I don't know what your objectives are in the gym.  If you are "bodybuilding", 
>then concentration is your most important tool in the gym.  You cannot 
>concentrate trying to jam everything in to a single workout like that.  If you
>are in the gym just as a recreational kind of thing, you still should not try to
>jam everything in unless you are doing only a few sets of each exercise.  You
>could hurt yourself very easily.
>

	My experiences with a 6 day schedule show that every individual is 
	different. Although many people may get good results from the above
	advice, many people don't. I was making very good progress on a four
	day split and automatically assumed I could make more progress on a
	six day routine. My progress stopped after just 3 weeks but I carried
	on for another 2 months thinking "more must be better". I even made
	negative progress (lost 10 pounds but same definition!) After returning
	to an extremely basic 4 day split again my progress has taken off from
	where I left off.

	You don't need to wade through megabytes of scientific garbage to work
	out what's happening - just keep a workout record and look back at
	it every now and then to see what worked for YOU and what didn't.


-- 
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Laurie Constantin,     | You can sail across the water, float across the sky.|
| <laurie@tcom.stc.co.uk>| Any road that you take will get you there,          |
| BNR Europe Ltd, UK     | if you only try.    - MJJ                           |
From: loszewski_im@sage.hnrc.tufts.edu
Newsgroups: misc.fitness
Subject: Re: MUSCLE by Samuel Fussell
Date: 2 Sep 92 16:09:37 GMT
Article-I.D.: sage.1992Sep2.110938.337
Organization: USDA HNRC at Tufts University

In article <135082@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV>, roberts@phoenix.ocf.llnl.gov (Don Roberts) writes:
> loszewski_im@sage.hnrc.tufts.edu writes:
> 
>>If anyone is interested, there is a good book that just came out in paperback
>>called Muscle by Samuel Fussell. [synopsis deleted...]
>>
>>I would highly recommend it.
>>
>>-Rob
> 
> I second Rob's recommendation. I read the book about a year ago when it
> came out in hardcover (and was just thumbing through it again last night).
> The reaction at the time from the muscle rags was, shall we say, unkind.
> Several characters in Fussell's narrative are "composites" based upon
> people he knew at the time he was bodybuilding. The reviewers in the
> muscle mags jumped all over this as "lies" and "exaggeration." While I
> agree that Fussell should have pointed out that not all the characters
> were factual, the basic gist of the story rings pretty true. Some critics
> have claimed that he got involved in bodybuilding with the intent of
> writing an expose. If true, then the pictures of him in competition form
> suggest he's one of the most dedicated investigative journalists on the
> planet.

I agree.  I don't believe that somebody with an ounce of intelligence would 
start juicing to that degree just to write a book.  I just finished the book 
this morning and found it to be very moving.  It made me think.  Some of his
viewpoints at the end of the book I share.  It made me rethink about my reasons
for wanting to go into competition.  Even though I would never go through all
the shit that he went through, I realized that some of my reasoning for pursuing
a competition is the same as his were.  This definately makes me think.

-Rob

> 
> -- Don
> --
>  Dr. Donald W. Roberts
>    University of California                                      Physicist
>    Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory         Recreational Bodybuilder
>    dwr@llnl.gov                                           Renaissance Dude
From: mshamim@BBN.COM (Mustafa Shamim)
Newsgroups: misc.fitness
Subject: Wanted Info on CC Ski Machines
Date: 25 Aug 92 16:54:16 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.l9kpdoINNlsk
Reply-To: mshamim@BBN.COM (Mustafa Shamim)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA
NNTP-Posting-Host: emfive.bbn.com


    I was interested in getting opinions on cross-country
    ski machines for workouts at home.  All suggestions for
    models under $500 will be greatly appreciated.  

    Also, is there an FAQ file on these machines?

    Thanks in advance

    Mustafa
arpa:	mshamim@bbn.com
uucp:	...!harvard!bbn!mshamim
From: jml@cs.bham.ac.uk (Jane Littlehales)
Newsgroups: misc.fitness
Subject: re step Reebok
Date: 1 Sep 92 17:25:39 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Birmingham Univ. UK

There are definately problems with joints, particulary knees from the repetative
nature of the stepping. Anyone with existing knee injuries shuld be careful and
follow what their body tells them. Its usually the next day that joints feel
stiff. I do a lot of aeriobic classes but find I cannot do more than one step
class a week without stiffness and aching.

One 20 min session shouldn't cause any problems but just be aware of the
possibility. The most common site of aches etc is the calves. This is due to not
stepping correctly - the foot must be full on the step with no heel overhang. I
have also heard that, unless very tall, you should never use more than 2 blocks,
however fit you are. Again, this is found to cause knee problems.

Incorrect posture can lead to backache. Drop a block if you feel tired.

To increase the intensity I use small handweights (1.5 lb each) but often only
one block. You need to make sure you know the moves and are fit enough before
experimenting wiht more than just stepping.

As an exercise Step gives a low inpact, high intensity workout but it is
repetative. I never breathe as hard as during an actual aerobic workout but do
sweat far more! I definately prefer doing it with handweights as it does tend to
be concentrating too much on the lower body for me otherwise.

You might find it a bit tiring on the brain at first! I found that you really do
need to concentrate on the moves (our advanced classes are highly choreographed)
which wasn't always easy after a hard day at work!

Enjoy your Stepping!

Jane
From: roberts@phoenix.ocf.llnl.gov (Don Roberts)
Newsgroups: misc.fitness
Subject: Re: MUSCLE by Samuel Fussell
Date: 1 Sep 92 21:36:26 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

loszewski_im@sage.hnrc.tufts.edu writes:

>If anyone is interested, there is a good book that just came out in paperback
>called Muscle by Samuel Fussell. [synopsis deleted...]
>
>I would highly recommend it.
>
>-Rob

I second Rob's recommendation. I read the book about a year ago when it
came out in hardcover (and was just thumbing through it again last night).
The reaction at the time from the muscle rags was, shall we say, unkind.
Several characters in Fussell's narrative are "composites" based upon
people he knew at the time he was bodybuilding. The reviewers in the
muscle mags jumped all over this as "lies" and "exaggeration." While I
agree that Fussell should have pointed out that not all the characters
were factual, the basic gist of the story rings pretty true. Some critics
have claimed that he got involved in bodybuilding with the intent of
writing an expose. If true, then the pictures of him in competition form
suggest he's one of the most dedicated investigative journalists on the
planet.

-- Don
--
 Dr. Donald W. Roberts
   University of California                                      Physicist
   Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory         Recreational Bodybuilder
   dwr@llnl.gov                                           Renaissance Dude
Newsgroups: misc.fitness
From: aa595@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dan Duvall)
Subject: Re: Fat Burner Pills
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 92 19:13:02 GMT


Dan Harkless says:

>My latest addition
>(starting this week) is that I'm skipping lunch so that I'll be taking in
>fewer calories.

No!!!!! Don't do it!!!!!!

Eat a virtually fat free lunch if you wish, but don't skip meals.
I'd even encourage you to eat EXTRA meals, like maybe 5 or 6 total
in one day... just don't include much fat in them at all.

Skipping meals makes your body think "gee-- must be a famine. I
better quit burning fat so quickly so I'll survive longer."
You'll actually lose weight more slowly if you skip lunch,
generally speaking.

Eat when you get hungry: just don't eat much fat. Eat tons of
complex carbos instead.

-- 
aa595@cleveland.freenet.edu  (Dan Dooovall)

Newsgroups: misc.fitness
From: DEHP@calvin.edu (Phil de Haan)
Subject: arnold, lats and TV
Organization: Calvin College
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 20:02:45 GMT


Did anyone catch the new show on ABC last night called, I think, "Going to 
Extremes."  It wasn't great, but one line in the show made me inclined to 
watch again.  A doctor (the show is about some medical school in the 
tropics) is looking at a recently shipped cadaver and says:  "Boy I haven't 
seen lats like that on a white guy since the young Arnold."  Hmmmm.


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
       Phil de Haan (DoD #0578) -- Calvin College, Home of the 1992
                   NCAA III men's basketball champions

   There is nothing more galling to angry people than the coolness
of those on whom they wish to vent their spleen . . . Alexander Dumas
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Newsgroups: misc.fitness
From: stark@dwovax.enet.dec.com (Todd I. Stark)
Subject: Neck training (was Re: Tips on gaining bulk in chest/shoulder areas?)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: 26 AUG 92 10:26:07    


acsiq@menudo.uh.edu writes...
>Also, are there any exercises for the neck?
>Thanks to all in advance
> 
	There's a leather harness that goes around your head and
is attached to chains, with a way to attach weight plates at the
other end.  It's sold for $15 or so at some sporting goods stores,
and you can use it in a variety of ways to isolate your neck.  I think
it works better than most neck-deck machines, in fact.

	Once you get some strength there, wrestler's bridging exercise
is a very effective neck developer.   Most athletes who require great
neck strength (such as wrestlers and boxers) do some form of it, and some
considered it a mandatory exercise, but it's probably way overkill if you've 
never done neck training before.

						kind regards,

						todd
Newsgroups: misc.fitness
From: control3@McRCIM.McGill.EDU (Mark Readman)
Subject: Re: step Reebok
Originator: control3@haley.mcrcim.mcgill.edu
Organization: McGill Research Centre for  Intelligent Machines
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 92 18:19:42 GMT


I have been doing step at McGill since Feb.
Its not as aerobic as a regular aerobics class but 
still a good workout. I have had no problems with
my knees but I only use one step. The format is 
10 min warmup, 35 min of step and then some other exercises
for 15 min. I like it. They also do a super step which
lasts for 90 min.
Mark.


-- 


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Readman                |  McGill Research Centre for Intelligent Machines
Newsgroups: misc.fitness
From: rpark@stam.QE.Bell.CA (Richard Park)
Subject: Re: Weight Training
Reply-To: rpark@stam.bell.ca
Organization: CER, Bell Canada
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 15:25:28 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.123408.334@sage.hnrc.tufts.edu>, loszewski_im@sage.hnrc.tufts.edu writes:
|> I would not suggest this.  In order to really work your muscles, you should only
|> work two major muscle groups per workout.  For example chest and back one day,

I have to disagree. You can work more than two major muscle parts per day and still
work your muscles just along as you give it time to rest. However, the longer the
workout, the more energy you are spending thus it may be hard to keep up the
intensity for a 2 day cycle compared to a 3 day cycle. Most people at my gym are
on a 3 day cycle. I am on a 2 day cycle but work out 5-6 times per week. The
reason why this works for me is that my muscles recover quite quickly and waiting
2 days seems to not benifit me in any way. I would have to say that this depends
on the individual in the # of body parts to workout in a day but most people do
do 2 major parts per day. It also depends on the number of sets/exercises you do
per body part.

|> shoulders, tri's, and bi's another day, and legs (quads, hams, glutes, calves)
|> and maybe delts or traps if you don't do them on your back or shoulder day.
|> This is mainly how I am training for my competition.  Before I started training
|> I worked chest one day, legs another day, back another day, etc.  
|> To do both lower and upper body workouts in the same day is too much, and you

While I was in University running track, I use to go to the weight room twice a
day, in the morning and in the evening. The reason for this was that if I split
the workout then I was able to keep up my energy/intensity much better. But it
was easy to do this since the gym was a minute away and I could go inbetween 
classes. Now that I am working, I am unable to do this.

|> also won't be concentrating on what you are doing like you should be.
|> I don't know what your objectives are in the gym.  If you are "bodybuilding", 
|> then concentration is your most important tool in the gym.  You cannot 
|> concentrate trying to jam everything in to a single workout like that.  If you
|> are in the gym just as a recreational kind of thing, you still should not try to
|> jam everything in unless you are doing only a few sets of each exercise.  You
|> could hurt yourself very easily.

True, but you can reduce this by doing the harder exercises like squats/ military
press, bench press at the beginning of your workout where you have better 
concentration and energy. But, energy tends to get zapped near the end of your
routine.
-- 
Richard Park	
Newsgroups: misc.fitness
From: pae@blackcat.stortek.com (Phil Earnhardt)
Subject: Re: Fitness thoughts
Organization: StorageTek, Louisville, CO
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 22:32:57 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.204409.2463@mcnc.org> ekp@mcnc.org (Edward Pavelchek) writes:
>In article <1992Aug30.010826.15707@stortek.com> pae@blackcat.stortek.com (Phil Earnhardt) writes:
>
>>1. Since the aerobic metabolic paths require the energy released by burning
>              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>   carbs at several steps, it certainly seems plausable that the aerobic
>>   pathways would get shut down when the muscle cell is going at an anerobic
>>   level of intensity. [...]
>>
>
>Could you please expand.  My readings of Lehninger, and the exercise
>physiologists, are not at all clear on this point.

It may be about time to drop this discussion into email...

My understanding is that certain steps in the Krebs cycle can only happen in
the presence of anerobically burning carbs. Was this incorrect?

>If anaerobic pathways shut down aerobic ones, then you should be able to
>sprint as fast in a nitrogen atmosphere. Correct? You really don't need
>even that, since you wouldn't be generating any CO2 to get rid of.
>Betcha it won't work for a 220.

I'll believe that the aerobic metabolic paths are not totally shut down. The
question asked in the follow-up was whether or not their output is decreased
at or above the anerobic threshold. Do you have any information on that?

>Although a warm-down does lower blood lactate levels faster than rest, the
>prevailing opinions, based on muscle biopsy, are that muscle soreness is not
>based on lactate accumulation.  Lactate does not accumulate in muscles at
>endurance levels, but is circulated.  One experiment of dual muscle biopsies
>and blood levels showed that muscle lacatate was elevated above blood lactate
>for 7 minutes after exercise (Astrand, p318), but was then slightly below
>blood lactate for most of the 40 more minutes to reach resting levels.  The
>graph appears to show about a 4 minute time constant for muscle -> blood
>lactate.

This sounds reasonable to me. My main question: was the research done on
atheletes or non-atheletes?

Ed, are you disagreeing with the overall thesis -- that unfit people getting
fit should generally stay below the anerobic threshold? In other words, are
you saying that my thesis is flawed or that my reasoning is incorrect?

--phil
From: clong@remus.rutgers.edu (Chris Long)
Newsgroups: misc.fitness
Subject: CTS
Date: 1 Sep 92 19:41:16 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

Could someone give me a brief description of the symptoms of CTS,
and ways to relieve these?  For example, what is the proper way
to use a keyboard?

I've noticed that my fingers seem to curl a lot when they are
relaxed; is this a symptom?
-- 
Chris Long, 265 Old York Rd., Bridgewater, NJ  08807-2618

"In a study of schoolboys, an educator discovered a correlation between size
 of feet and quality of handwriting.  The boys with the larger feet were,
 on the average, older."        Wallis & Roberts, _The Nature of Statistics_
From: budn@hpmwtd.sr.hp.com (Bud Noren)
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 21:09:18 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: Fitness Thoughts... and good stuff to eat!
Organization: HP Santa Rosa Site (NMD MTA MWTD)
Newsgroups: misc.fitness

mazur@inmet.camb.inmet.com (Beth Mazur) writes:

>Geez, you mean you haven't heard that people burn more fat exercising at
>a lower intensity?  When you start working out so hard that you are gasping,
>or unable to breath comfortably, you are at the anaerobic threshold.
>You are *not* burning fat if your muscle cells cannot get any oxygen.

This is something I've always had a problem with.  (Most of what Bailey
says seems to make sense to me - by that I mean his theories seem
to adequately explain by own observations about fitness.)  I can't 
understand why, with increased intensity level, the fat metabolism would
actually drop off in activity level.  When you go to anaerobic levels
you don't suddenly stop breathing and your muscles are not suddenly 
deprived of oxygen.  When you hit the anaerobic threshold and go beyond
it I don't see why the fat metabolism can't continue functioning 
at the maximum level allowed by your maximum O2 uptake.  Unless the
fat and glycogen metabolisms can only function independently of each
other, I don't see why the fat metabolism can't continue functioning
at any level of activity.  Only energy in excess of that provided
by the fat metabolism need come from glycogen.

Am I missing something obvious?

-Bud
Newsgroups: misc.fitness
From: ekp@mcnc.org (Edward Pavelchek)
Subject: Re: Re: Fitness Thoughts... and good stuff to eat!
Organization: Good place for a disclaimer
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 16:31:42 GMT

In article <16830078@hpmwgde2.sr.hp.com> budn@hpmwtd.sr.hp.com (Bud Noren) writes:
>This is something I've always had a problem with. 

>I can't 
>understand why, with increased intensity level, the fat metabolism would
>actually drop off in activity level.  When you go to anaerobic levels
>you don't suddenly stop breathing and your muscles are not suddenly 
>deprived of oxygen.  When you hit the anaerobic threshold and go beyond
>it I don't see why the fat metabolism can't continue functioning 
>at the maximum level allowed by your maximum O2 uptake.  Unless the

>Am I missing something obvious?

No, not anything obvious.  Although  the authorities all agree
that the fat metabolism rate does decrease nearing the anaerobic range,
it still is unclear if it fully shuts down.

There is an reason why this should happen, however.  If a mole of O2
is used to burn glucose, 6 moles of ATP molecules will be generated
aerobically. Another 0.3 moles will be generated anaerobically.
(ATP is the final form of chemical energy storage which directly powers
the muscles.)  If the mole of O2 is used to burn a fatty acid, only
~5.6 moles of ATP will result.  So the body has a clear incentive
to switch to glucose when the air gets thin.

*How* this happens is not clear.  There is some evidence that lactic
acid inhibits the use of fat, and some contradictory evidence.
A thought I have had is that the nervous system can select the use of 
Type I or II fibers, which have different fuel preferences.  This would
directly change the fat/glucose ratio.  Both types
of metabolism use the Krebs cycle.  If the mitochondria are busy, and a
Co-enzyme A delivers to the Krebs cycle, and then looks to pick up
another load, it could pick from fat or pyruvate.  If nearby Type II
fibers have flooded the muscle with lactic acid, then the pyruvate 
concentration will probably be very high, and the chance that a pyruvate
rather than a fatty acid will be the source of the next load into the
Krebs cycle is good.  This will have the effect of lowering, but not
totally eliminating the fat metabolism.

Since this thought is not inobvious to those in the field, some checks
of it must have been either refutatory or inconclusive.  This means I am
supposed to read Ahlborg, Scan J Clin Lab Ivest 36:193, and Fredholm,
Acta Physiol Scand 77(Suppl 330).
 
-- 
Ed Pavelchek   ekp@mcnc.org
But I make a profit of 3 1/4 cents an egg by selling them for 4 1/4
cents an egg to the people in Malta I buy them from for 7 cents an egg.
Of course, *I* don't make the profit.          Joseph Heller, Catcha 22
Newsgroups: misc.fitness