HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mazur@inmet.camb.inmet.com (Beth Mazur)
Subject: Re: Bailey & Butter Burning Revisited - Short Summary
Organization: Intermetrics Inc, Cambridge MA
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 18:34:55 GMT

In Fit or Fat, Bailey also agrees that a muscle at rest burns fat primarily,
although he claims that it is more in the 60-70% range, rather than
Ed's 90-something percent.

My own unscientific opinion is that the implication of FoF is that non-rest
activities (like walking or cleaning house) quickly become anaerobic for
the non-fit person, and that exercise is responsible for raising the
aerobic/anaerobic threshold -- making someone a "better butter burner."

Bailey says that this is because aerobic exercise increases the
fat burning enzymes.  Given that he discusses insulin resistance in his
chapter on set point theory, I suspect he also endorses the idea that
exercise helps decrease insulin resistance (according to the IR camp,
the obese are generally insulin-resistant, or more specifically, that 
their muscles resist blood glucose; the only real difference between
insulin-resistance and Type II diabetes is that the insulin-resistant
person can still use the insulin to store the glucose as fat).

If you buy this concept, it's not hard to visualize gross obesity as 
a glucose transport disorder where the body is only able to use a small 
percentage of the ingested carbos at any time, and stores the rest, and 
repeats this cycle perpetually.

The problem occurs when one assumes that all individuals are alike.  Just
because Lehninger states that a muscle at rest burns 95% fat doesn't
mean that Joe Couch Potato does.  On the other hand, Lehninger at least
has real science to back up his claim, and Fit or Fat, in the name
of being approachable by us lay people, doesn't (in the text anyways).

I've appreciated Ed's critique of FoF (what with skepticism being the
chastity of the intellect and all :-) and I almost picked up Lehninger
at the bookstore the other day (but settled for a 10-lb, $50 volume
on nutrition instead). 

I hope Ed finds a new feed wherever he winds up--it's not often we get
a disagreement on the net with as much light and as little heat.

Beth Mazur                   "...life is more than a vision.  The sweetest
mazur@inmet.inmet.com         part is acting after making a decision."
...!uunet!inmet!mazur                                  -- The Indigo Girls
Newsgroups: misc.fitness
From: dl@cockatoo.bellcore.com (Daniel Liebster)
Subject: Re: Clenbuterol Clarification
Reply-To: dl@thumper.bellcore.com
Organization: Packet Communications Research Group (Bellcore)
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 92 13:34:32 GMT

In article <15798@umd5.umd.edu>, silver@woodstock.umd.edu (Adam Silver) writes:
|> Maybe I should have said that Clenbuterol is more anti-catabolic than it is
|> anabolic.
|> 
|> 							-Adam
|> 

I beleive that the main effect of clenbuterol is fat depletion. There was an article
on this drug in the first Muscle Media 2000 magazine. When I get a chance I'll post
some of the relevant info. Their review was quite favorable and in way implied "better
get it now before the FDA gets wind of it!"

dan
.
 
Newsgroups: misc.fitness
From: poo@athena.mit.edu (Claude Poux)
Subject: Re: Are all doctors stupid ?
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 20:42:35 GMT

In article <c0dzrlk@rpi.edu> cecchinr@gehrig.cs.rpi.edu (Ron Cecchini) writes:
>In article <io80849@pro-haven.cts.com> shadow@pro-haven.cts.com (Blaine Hufnagle) writes:
>>In <1992Sep24.142446.6209@brtph560.bnr.ca>
>NOT!  Hell, my lean weight (a.k.a _no_ bodyfat) is almost
>>170, so you can't tell me that those tables are correct, unless they are
>>geared toward a sedentary person with less than 5% bodyfat, which is about as
>>hard to find as the Grand Unified Theory.

well, not to be sarcastic or anything, but there are tens of thousands of
sedentary people with 1% bodyfat in somalia.........  so the grand unified
theory quest is still the harder problem here......

>... so, you're only 40 pounds overweight then, right?  (sorry,
>couldn't resist!)
>
>Seriously though: YIKES!  210 at a height of 5'6'' ?!?  According to you,
>that would put you at about 20% bodyfat.  Must be the off-season, eh?
>
>[stuff deleted]
>
>Ron

blaine is a large one, yes........

seriously, though, it wouldn't hurt to see physicians who themselves are
bodybuilders, or sports physicians who see a lot of bodybuilders.  that
would solve the problem here.  my doctor is an athlete, and he's pretty
cool about these things.  it's a question of exposure, like most
everything else......

poo

p.s., i'll be posting about the mr./ms. america later this week.
From: shadow@pro-haven.cts.com (Blaine Hufnagle)
Newsgroups: misc.fitness
Subject: Re: Are all doctors stupid ?
Date: 26 Sep 92 03:14:31 GMT
Organization: ProLine [pro-haven] - Pariahs' Haven BBS, 409/693-8262, 9600-300

In <c0dzrlk@rpi.edu> cecchinr@gehrig.cs.rpi.edu (Ron Cecchini) writes:
% >170, so you can't tell me that those tables are correct, unless they are
% >geared toward a sedentary person with less than 5% bodyfat, which is about as
% >hard to find as the Grand Unified Theory.
% 
% .... so, you're only 40 pounds overweight then, right?  (sorry,
% couldn't resist!)

In the strictest sense, yes.  However, I'm not all that fat.
 
% Seriously though: YIKES!  210 at a height of 5'6'' ?!?  According to you,
% that would put you at about 20% bodyfat.  Must be the off-season, eh?

A little lower than 20 %, I think.  No such thing as off-season.  I've
carried this much bodyfat all my life.  I'm trying to take it off slowly, in
the hopes that slow removal will be permanent removal.


-blaine

-blaine   a.k.a. The Midnight Shadow    |  1979 Chevy Urban Assault Vehicle
Texas Aggie Bus Driver and proud of it! |  1982 Thomas Transit Liner bus
Another Bodybuilder from HELL!!         |  1982 Yamaha Vision   DoD #7192
        "Mine is not to wonder why, Mine is but to look and cry....."

From: budn@hpmwtd.sr.hp.com (Bud Noren)
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 16:59:21 GMT
Subject: Re: Aerobic Heart Rate Question
Organization: HP Santa Rosa Site (SRSD MWTD)
Newsgroups: misc.fitness

terry@jgaltstl.UUCP (terry linhardt) writes:

>It is my understanding that a body at rest or doing very moderate
>activity burns almost *all* fatty acids. As the intensity of
>exercise increases, the body starts burning carbohydrates in
>addition to fatty acids. At a high level of intensity, the body is
>burning almost all carbohydrates and almost zero fatty acids. 

First of all, I would say that the key word in your first sentence may
be 'almost' instead of 'all'.  Even if fatty acid use increases by just
a little bit, over a long period of time this will add up to a significant
loss of fat.  Secondly, while it is true that as exercise intensity 
increases, fat consumption decreases and glycogen consumption is favored,
this process of conversion from fat metabolism to glycogen is delayed
in more fit people.  Those who have trained regularly for a long time
will continue to use fat for energy further into the high intensity
regime.  Whether this preferential fat burning continues into the 
resting state is the issue of a lot of debate.

>So, the question is: what does a person gain by exercising as part
>of a weight control program? The person who is walking slowly is
>already burning almost all fatty acids for energy. What is gained
>by increasing the intensity up to ~75% to ~85% of maximum heart
>rate, which are the 'classical' recommendations?

By going past the fat burning stage repeatedly, your body will adapt 
to extend its fat burning capability during exercise.  My own experience
seems to confirm this.

While there is a lot of controversy on the net as to how overall fat loss
results from exercise, I don't think anyone would argue that it does
happen.  Taking a giant step backward away from arguments involving 
basal metabolic rates, mitochondria and ATP, I would argue that fat
loss follows from exercise as an adaptive response.  Whenever you stress
your body it will attempt to adapt to the stress.  Work muscles to 
exhaustion and they will adapt by becoming stronger.  Exercise aerobically
and the body undergoes a complex set of responses that result in getting
better at the exercise.  The heart walls get thicker, more capillaries
are developed in the muscles used, the type and amount of muscle tissue
will change, and apparently, fat is lost.  

For me, how the fat is lost, whether through appetite suppression, increases
in fat consumption during or not during exercise, etc, is a matter of
academic interest (although I have my own ideas about which are important).
My own experience with an annual cycle of practically no aerobic 
exercise during 3 or 4 winter months and intense workouts the rest of
the year have convinced me beyond any doubt that it does occur.

-Bud
Newsgroups: misc.fitness
From: richard@adpgate.UUCP ( ADP OPuS)
Newsgroups: misc.fitness
Subject: Best Price on LifeCycle??
Date: 6 Oct 92 23:04:40 GMT
Article-I.D.: outland.1617
Organization: ADP Dealer Services R&D, Portland, OR
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]


  I am interested in getting a Life Cycle; probably something
  along the lines of the 5500 or 5500R. Anyone have any advice on
  buying this mail order, and where the best deals are???

  Also, why choose a recumbant over upright (at $1000 higher
  price)!!! 
Newsgroups: misc.fitness
From: tomc@modcomp.uucp (Tom Cianflone)
Subject: Re: What muscles do Pull Ups build?
Organization: MODCOMP, an AEG company
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 19:46:44 GMT

DEHP@calvin.edu (Phil de Haan) writes:

>It's true that body weight is a factor in the ability to do pullups, but 
>only to a degree.  If one used to be able to do 25-30 pullups at one time 
>and now has trouble doing one or two something's wrong.  I'm not overly big 

	That's a big IF. Until recently getting into shape, I had
	NEVER been able to do a single pullup! Now, after a couple
	years worth of recreational (but regular) weight training, I
	can do a set of (on a good day) 10 pullups. The next set and
	I'm down to maybe 6-7. The third set and I'm doing negatives
	only after 2 reps. I'm 6-0, 182 lb.

>by any stretch of the imagination (6-0, 175), but I have no trouble doing 
>four or five sets of pullups, including a couple of sets with weight.  And I 
>do them once in a while with a guy who goes 6-2, 205.  My brother is 6-4, 
>215 and regularly does four or five sets of pullups.  Don't use body weight 
>as an excuse or reason not to do pullups.  IMHO there's no better lat and 
>back exercise.

	I agree about it being a quality exercise, but for whatever
	reason (body weight or just not being predisposed to having
	good upper body strength) it's not an exercise that everyone
	can do enough of to fully exhaust the lats. I followup my last
	set of pullups with a few sets of bentover rows or some other
	such lat exercise.
--
Regards, Tom Cianflone
<uunet!modcomp!tomc> -or- <tomc@modcomp.com>
Newsgroups: misc.fitness
From: doug@HQ.Ileaf.COM (Doug)
Subject: Re: Vanadyl Sulfate dosages...
Reply-To: doug@HQ.Ileaf.COM (Doug)
Organization: Interleaf, Inc.
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 12:08:49 GMT

In article <io80851@pro-haven.cts.com> shadow@pro-haven.cts.com (Blaine Hufnagle) writes:
> Well, after the flurry of discussion on Vanadyl Sulfate, I'm kinda thinking
> about trying some.  What I'm wondering, though, is what a good dosage is.  I
> looked at GNC today, and all they had was a small bottle of Vanadyl sulfate
> mixed with some magnesium and some chromium picolinate.  The dosage was 8 mg
> of VS and about 50 mcg of the magnesium and chromium.  The price was only
> $12.95, and was marketed by Strength Systems Limited.  (you know, the ones
> with the garish neon-green bottles)
> 
> Is it just me or does this seem like a rip-off?  Seems that the dosage needs
> to be higher, and the price needs to be higher, too, to be anywhere near
> effective.  Am I right or am I just being overly cautious?
> 
> -blaine
> 
> -blaine   a.k.a. The Midnight Shadow    |  1979 Chevy Urban Assault Vehicle
> Texas Aggie Bus Driver and proud of it! |  1982 Thomas Transit Liner bus
> Another Bodybuilder from HELL!!         |  1982 Yamaha Vision   DoD #7192
>         "Mine is not to wonder why, Mine is but to look and cry....."
> 

Don't buy it!!!!!!
reasons:
	1) Strength Systems Limited - have a past history of selling bogus
	    supplements! Just ask the FDA.

	2) Vanadyl Sulfate should be taken in pure form, ie no other ingredients.
	   Other additives make inhibit the effects of vanadyl rather than enhance
	   it.  Also this is a typical marketing game played by distributors who
	   are attempting to market crap. 


	3) There are ditributors with better reputation who sell pure vanadyl
	   sulfate, such as Ultimate Strength and KAL.	


	Here are recommended dosages of vanadyl sulfate according to SportPharma
	a distributor of vanadyl sulfate.

	up 10 120 lbs. 150mg
	120 - 150 lbs  225mg
	180lbs +       300mg



Newsgroups: misc.fitness
From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Newsgroups: misc.fitness
Subject: Re: Ephedrine and Caffeine
Date: 2 Oct 92 01:06:42 GMT
Article-I.D.: spdcc.1992Oct2.010642.22830
Distribution: na
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA

In article <1992Oct1.153758.16477@unocal.com> stgprao@st.unocal.COM (Richard Ottolini) writes:
>The bottom line is, using unatural doses of even natural substances might
>cause problems in the long term, especially in the case of caffeine where
>there is some suggestive evidence.

There is no evidence _at all_ that caffeine in doses such as you'd get
from a couple of cups of coffee a day causes any long term problems at
all.  It can aggravate insomnia and stomach acidity in some susceptible
individuals, but otherwise it seems pretty benign.  In the murky depths
of studies which look at coffee and not caffeine, you get all sorts of
uninterpretable noise, such as different effects of filtered vs.
percolated coffee, and decaffeinated coffee doesn't seem to be much
better than the high octane stuff, and different studies conflict with
each other.  It's a mess, and best ignored entirely until the situation
improves.

Which is not that I think that caffeine, taken in high doses as a performance
supplement alone or with other drugs, should be viewed as completely benign.
These kinds of regimens should be viewed for what they are--completely
uncontrolled experiments with unknown long term effects.  Some people
feel comfortable taking such unquantified risks, I guess.

-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
From: n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio)
Newsgroups: misc.fitness
Subject: Re: Steroids
Date: 6 Oct 92 15:49:20 GMT
Article-I.D.: henson.1992Oct6.154920.19404
Organization: Western Washington University

evans@cs.uwp.edu (Randy Evans) writes:

>Hi did any one out there recieve an ad from Mass Machine?  They are a mail
>order steroid company.  Myself and two others friends got one, and as 
>far as we can tell there is no other connection accept we all like to work-
>out.  Has anyone delt with them?  I myself think its a scam or perhaps some
>type of government sting operation.  

As these drugs are prescription only, it is obviously a scam.
Newsgroups: misc.fitness
From: kenny@stsci.edu
Subject: Re: Working out on weight machines while pregnant?
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 13:53:38 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.160436.25098@philabs.philips.com>, mgh@philabs.philips.com (Monisha Ghosh) writes:
> 
> The subject line says it all. What is the conventional wisdom on a light-to-
> moderate intensity workout on Nautilius type machines, especially for the
> upper body and legs - i.e. staying away from the abdomen - while pregnant?
> I've been doing a 30 minute Lifecycle workout followed by about 20 mins on
> the machines since before I bacame pregnant and have continued, although with
> lower weights than before (I'm 20 weeks pregnant now). My questions:
> 	- What are the possible risks to me and the baby?
> 	- Is it safe to continue at my present levels, or should I reduce
> 	  the intensity even if I don't feel strained?
> 	- At how many weeks is it advisable to stop the weights part of the
> 	  workout?
> 
> I have asked my doctor these questions, but being unfamiliar with the machines
> she could not be too specific other than to say that if it felt ok it probably
> was. The people at the gym weren't too knowledgeable either. I really like the
> weights part of the workout and would hate to give it up unless it was
> damaging to both me and the baby. By the way, I do not see too many pregnant
> women on the machines.
> 
> Any input would be really appreciated, especially from pregnant women!
> 
> Monisha


   According to the exercise section of my pregnancy reference book, light
weight lifting is fine.  It says to avoid any straining and heaving while
holding your breath type maneuvers.  It also mentions that you should avoid
any type of exercise where you lie flat on your back after the fourth month,
because the weight of the uterus could constrict some  major blood vessels.
I guess that means you shouldn't do any bench press type exercises.
   When I asked my doctor about exercising, he said I didn't have to change
anything, including sit-ups.  I'm also not as far along as you are, so I'm
sure that will change.  I currently use the universal machines at the gym,
plus some light hand weights.

Debbie
From: sgb2@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STEPHEN G. BUELL)
Newsgroups: misc.fitness
Subject: Vanadyl Sex?
Date: 2 Oct 92 21:40:56 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

As all netters know, there have been tons of questions about Vanadyl Sulfate
over the past week or so.  KAL inc.  suggests 9 mg. per day.  A guy who works
at the gym where I lift says he and a couple of other guys currently taking
Vanadyl Sulfate have all noticed a decrease in their sexual desires.  He
assured me he still could perform with his girlfriend but that he had a marked
decrease in interest and said the other two guys were experiencing a similar
decreased sexual appetite.  I told him I would post a message and hope for
some feedback.  Realizing that this may a little sensitive...please respond.
Thanks much.

Steve
-- 
************************************************************************
********                   STEPHEN G. BUELL                     ********
********            Chairman, Department of Finance             ********
********       441 Rauch Business Center #37   (758-3436)       ********
************************************************************************
From: webber@world.std.com (Robert D Webber)
Newsgroups: misc.fitness
Subject: Re: Ephedrine prices & suppliers, aka "Dymetadrine 25", etc.
Date: 27 Sep 92 17:39:53 GMT
Article-I.D.: world.Bv8zqI.J66
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

In article <4446@tivoli.UUCP> dfavor@logan.tivoli.com (David Favor) writes:
>you can also pick up generic (URL brand) at many parmacies for $3/100.

You have to wonder why, if you can get over the counter ephedrine so
cheap, anyone would bother smuggling it in from Mexico (see the 'efedrina'
thread).  Does the smuggled stuff just all end up being sold as "speed"
by those companies that make badly-pressed blotchy pink heart-shaped
pills, etc.?  Or is the Mexican ephedrine just cheaper because it's
manufactured offshore by facilities that don't have to prove that they
conform to FDA practices and procedures?

If that last, does it conform to any other standards?

I guess I can imagine somebody using ephedrine to cut cocaine since it
would at least deliver a "nose rush," but I find it hard to believe
that so much of it would go to that purpose.

Bob


-- 
Bob Webber, webber@world.std.com ===========================================
==========================================================  Laurie Anderson:
Our plan is to drop odd objects onto your country from the air.  And some
of these objects will be useful, and some of them will just be odd.
Newsgroups: misc.fitness
From: sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve Russell)
Subject: More Aerobic Questions:)
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 23:51:56 GMT

  Im really getting psyched about this newsgroup!  I've been getting a lot
of nice responses to my questions about aerobic exercise and I've been 
learning a whole lot.

  I still consider myself new to aerobic exercise.  Lately I have noticed
a new phenomena and I was wondering if experienced exercise junkies could
comment upon it.

  When I start my workouts I dont try to consciously increase my pace.  I
just let my body go as it feels.  I've started noticing that my body will
speed up dramatically all on its own and far more comphortably then if
I pushed myself.  I also feel a very strange and PLEASANT rythym that lasts
even after the workout and during the workout makes me feel as if I could
continue forever.

  This feeling, whatever is feels so instinctively "right" I've been thinking
about the worth of consciously trying to alter ones pace.  Im I just stoned
off my own endorphins or is this the PROPER TRAINING ZONE all the aerobic
gurus talk about?

  Also, I've noticed their are several editions of FIT OR FAT,BY BAILEY.
  Are any better then the other?  I've heard several misc.fit posters
 joke about handling the "physiology/biology" in the book.  I havent
had a lot of biology, one year in college tops.  I've found the new edition
to be written on a frustratingly low level even for a layperson.  Are the
other editions more techinical?

Thanks

STEve R

C
about giving consciously trying to pace m
A
From: mazur@inmet.camb.inmet.com (Beth Mazur)
Subject: Re: Optifast (Liquid diets)
Keywords: liquid diet body metabolism cold sex
Organization: Intermetrics Inc, Cambridge MA
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 22:48:19 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.210824.28157@inmet.camb.inmet.com> mazur@inmet.camb.inmet.com (Beth Mazur) writes:
>In article <1992Oct2.002223.1359@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> tjoa@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Richard Tjoa) writes:
>>I originally posted this to misc.consumers...
>>
>>I was wondering if anyone out there has had experiences with Optifast (or
>>the like) liquid diet plans.  More specifically, they say that while
>>on the plan, you will very likely feel cold, because your body temperature/
>>metabolism will be slowed down/reduced.
>
>I'm not sure that's the reason you'll feel cold.  But it is a common side
>effect.  Others include hair loss, sleeplessness, bad breath, frequent
>urination, and a propensity towards gall bladder problems (but I still
>have mine).

Crap...a technical writer and I missed a simple bad pronoun reference :-).

I never had any gall bladder problems on the fast; it's my gall bladder
that I still have...

Beth Mazur                   "...life is more than a vision.  The sweetest
mazur@inmet.inmet.com         part is acting after making a decision."
...!uunet!inmet!mazur                                  -- The Indigo Girls
Newsgroups: misc.fitness