Boxing

On 19 Nov 2003 19:59:59 -0800, (Kenneth Leja)
wrote:

>Lyle McDonald <> wrote in message
>> >
>> > Yes, even Time and Newsweek have reported this. But, for all practical
>> > purposes lost neurons are lost neurons.
>>
>> you do realize that you are entirely contradicting yourself, right?
>>
>> > Just as, yes, there have been cases of people who defeated cancer
>> > without any medical treatment. But, these are virtually miracles.
>> > While very close examination in extensive research has detected some
>> > slight evidence of regrowth of neurons, for all practical purposes, a
>> > damaged brain is a damaged brain unless stem cell research can
>> > actually develop ways to implant new cells or trigger some activity in
>> > the brain to regenerate lost neurons to any appreciable degree.
>> > So, your bit of info is simply academic for now. Your brain has
>> > billions and billions of neurons. A research showing that maybe a
>> > handful have been shown to regenerate doesn't change anything except
>> > for implications for future research and development.
>>
>> Err, it shows that your statement that neurons can't be regenerated is
>> completely false, is what it shows.
>>
>> Lyle
>
>I'll accept that new neurons and muscle cells can regenerate in
>miniscule amounts that are of no signficance whatsoever to health or
>well-being.
>
>It's like the case with Christopher Reeves, Superman. It's been long
>believed by neurologists that damaged nerve tissues leading to
>paralysis(as in the case of Reeves)is total and permanent and new
>nerve cells cannot be regenerated to connect the nerves from brain to
>rest of the body. However, there's some signs that a very few nerve
>cells do regenerate and that in some cases paraplegics do sense some
>tingling sensations in their bodies. But, this amount of regeneration
>is so insignificant that it's wiser to say it's virtually impossible
>to regenerate nerve connections.
>
>Whatever these findings may imply in future treatments is interesting,
>but, for all practical purposes and as of the present, they are no
>little use or significance.

You certainly are a fatalist, aren't you?

You have made up your mind in what you choose to believe, despite the
evidence to the contrary. However, 'use' and 'significance' are
relative. Apparently, you are expecting miracles?

In article < >,
Kenneth Leja <> wrote:
> wrote in message
>> You increase muscle mhostinghostinghosting by growing new cells. The 'cells' don't
>> swell to create 'muscle mhostinghostinghosting'. Only brain and nerve cells are lost
>> forever, in the sense it is being talked about here.
>
>This is to nutrition what astrology is to the stars.
> . . .
>If he lost muscle by fasting then he's stupid because he'll never
>regain lost muscle cells again. They are irreplaceable.

you dont lose muscle cells when you fast knucklehead. the muscle cells
will catabolize some of the protein in the myofibrils, but it won't
hostinghostinghostinghostinging kill the muscle cell. Can you imagine how stupid an
evolutionary trick that would be . . . go without food for a couple
days and when you are able to feed again, and regain your weight, you
can ONLY gain fat, not muscle, so you end up WEAKER (from carrying that
fat) than if you hadn't eaten at all. Then the other animals jump on
your weak hostinghostinghosting . . . and eat you. Good grief.


You do realize that if you sit on your hostinghostinghosting and don't exercise, your
muscles will behave EXACTLY the same as if you are fasting? That is,
catabolize the muscle. Exact same as fasting/dieting. So according to
your theories of muscles, if you sit on your hostinghostinghosting on a desk and your
muscles shrink from not being used you'll end up bedridden soon after
because your body ate up all those muscle cells that weren't being
used.

As far as I can tell in this group when you talk about the science of
nutrition and exercise it's not merely a wee bit of astrology, it's
wall-to-wall late-nite-tv-psychics-drunk-on-cheap-wine peering into
crystal balls and getting out the Ouija boards.

when you gain muscle mhostinghostinghosting your muscles get bigger. when you lose
muscle mhostinghostinghosting your muscles get smaller. Through your life you lose
muscle cells daily beginning at around age 20, because most of your
muscle cells (your skeletal muscles) don't reproduce.

The reality is when you diet or fast or do a ton of aerobics (go on a
calory deficit in any way) you generally lose BOTH muscle and fat.
When you consume more calories than you need, you generally gain BOTH
muscle and fat. Now as to the ratio of muscle to fat, that depends on
a good trainer, or steroids.

I think Jones' walking around weight is a lean 185 so he put on maybe 7
pounds of muscle and 3 pounds of fat to fight at heavy. He didn't give
himself enough time to get down to 175 so he was weak from drying out
the day before. My guess is he was in the sauna on the bicycle all day
drying out to make weight and that's what hurt him. You can't recover
from that in just a day. Or maybe he just crash dieted, but generally
when you crash diet you don't lose your endurance, you lose your power
(look at Bowe's last fight to see what I mean). When you dry out, you
keep your power but lose your endurance. At least that's my theory,
this I'm not real sure about, as it's mostly from personal experience,
not science.

--- edt

(Eric Taylor) wrote in message news:<257vb.5378$>...
> In article < >,
> Kenneth Leja <> wrote:
> > wrote in message
> >> You increase muscle mhostinghostinghosting by growing new cells. The 'cells' don't
> >> swell to create 'muscle mhostinghostinghosting'. Only brain and nerve cells are lost
> >> forever, in the sense it is being talked about here.
> >
> >This is to nutrition what astrology is to the stars.
> > . . .
> >If he lost muscle by fasting then he's stupid because he'll never
> >regain lost muscle cells again. They are irreplaceable.
>
> you dont lose muscle cells when you fast knucklehead. the muscle cells
> will catabolize some of the protein in the myofibrils, but it won't
> hostinghostinghostinghostinging kill the muscle cell.

Your body will eat up muscle cells if you fast long enough. Your body
has to consume something and it starts consuming itself.
I have a cat that went out and got lost for 10 days. When it came back
it was famished and lost alot of flesh. It began to eat regularly
again and he gained much of the weight back but some of the flesh
never returned, especially around the neck. The muscle around that
area had been consumed and lost for good.

If you don't believe me, try fasting for 30 days and see if you don't
suffer permanent muscle cell loss.

> Can you imagine how stupid an
> evolutionary trick that would be . . . go without food for a couple
> days and when you are able to feed again, and regain your weight, you
> can ONLY gain fat, not muscle, so you end up WEAKER (from carrying that
> fat) than if you hadn't eaten at all. Then the other animals jump on
> your weak hostinghostinghosting . . . and eat you. Good grief.

Which is why animals and primitive man had a very short lifespans. You
think when we were Oogs we lived long healthy lives? No, many starved
to death.
And, a few days fasting is no problem since the loss will be minimal
but if you fast for a long period--30-40 days--your body starts
consuming itself. It becomes its own flesh eating zombie. It eats
itself. I aint kidding. And that muscle part of you that's eaten up is
virtually gone for good because it's very hard to grow dead or lost
muscle cells. What you must rely on strengthening the remaining muscle
cells.

>
>
> You do realize that if you sit on your hostinghostinghosting and don't exercise, your
> muscles will behave EXACTLY the same as if you are fasting? That is,
> catabolize the muscle. Exact same as fasting/dieting. So according to
> your theories of muscles, if you sit on your hostinghostinghosting on a desk and your
> muscles shrink from not being used you'll end up bedridden soon after
> because your body ate up all those muscle cells that weren't being
> used.

No, that's not what I said. If you sit on your hostinghostinghosting, your muscle cells
will atrophy(reduce in size, not in number) though if you're past the
age of 21, you will undergo gradual loss of muscle cell if you don't
have a regular resistance training regimen.
Being lazy and fasting are different. When you're lazy but still eat,
your body is being supplied with calories and with nutrients such as
protein. If you don't eat, or fast, then your body needs fuel and
protein. It goes to fat for fuel and goes to muscle cells for fuel and
protein. Your body consumes itself. A few days of fasting will do
minimal harm but long fasting will certainly lead to permanent loss of
muscle cells. Some may grow back but it's very hard to regrow lost
muscle cells so why lose them in the first place?

>
> when you gain muscle mhostinghostinghosting your muscles get bigger. when you lose
> muscle mhostinghostinghosting your muscles get smaller. Through your life you lose
> muscle cells daily beginning at around age 20, because most of your
> muscle cells (your skeletal muscles) don't reproduce.

Which is my point. Lost muscle cells are lost for good.

>
> The reality is when you diet or fast or do a ton of aerobics (go on a
> calory deficit in any way) you generally lose BOTH muscle and fat.
> When you consume more calories than you need, you generally gain BOTH
> muscle and fat. Now as to the ratio of muscle to fat, that depends on
> a good trainer, or steroids.
>
> I think Jones' walking around weight is a lean 185 so he put on maybe 7
> pounds of muscle and 3 pounds of fat to fight at heavy. He didn't give
> himself enough time to get down to 175 so he was weak from drying out
> the day before. My guess is he was in the sauna on the bicycle all day
> drying out to make weight and that's what hurt him. You can't recover
> from that in just a day. Or maybe he just crash dieted, but generally
> when you crash diet you don't lose your endurance, you lose your power
> (look at Bowe's last fight to see what I mean). When you dry out, you
> keep your power but lose your endurance. At least that's my theory,
> this I'm not real sure about, as it's mostly from personal experience,
> not science.
>

That's probably true in the case of Jones.

'Twas Wed, 19 Nov 2003 02:53:07 GMT when all alt.sports.football.pro stood
in awe as Robert Phillips <> uttered:

>Better fire off an e-mail to Google, then; it has hundreds of hits for
>"encyclopoedia" and for "Encyclopoedia Britannica."
>Better yet, eliminate the middleman, and fire off e-mails to those
>hundreds of sites.

You'll find hits for "District of Colombia", "British Colombia" and by the
same token "Columbian Coffee" and "Bogota Columbia". That doesn't make
them right.

In the case at hand, Pablo was directing us to the Britannica site. I
seriously doubt he found "encyclopoedia" there.
--
RB |\ © Randall Bart
aa |/
nr |\ Please reply without spam I LOVE YOU 1-917-715-0831
dt ||\ They're Murdering Terri Schiavo
a |/ Multiple sclerosis:
l |\ DOT-HS-808-065 The Church Of The Unauthorized Truth:
l |/ MS^7=6/28/107 mailto:

"Elena Nakashima" <> wrote in message
news: om...
> (Eric Taylor) wrote in message
news:<257vb.5378$>...
> > In article < >,
> > Kenneth Leja <> wrote:
> > > wrote in message
> > >> You increase muscle mhostinghostinghosting by growing new cells. The 'cells' don't
> > >> swell to create 'muscle mhostinghostinghosting'. Only brain and nerve cells are lost
> > >> forever, in the sense it is being talked about here.
> > >
> > >This is to nutrition what astrology is to the stars.
> > > . . .
> > >If he lost muscle by fasting then he's stupid because he'll never
> > >regain lost muscle cells again. They are irreplaceable.
> >
> > you dont lose muscle cells when you fast knucklehead. the muscle cells
> > will catabolize some of the protein in the myofibrils, but it won't
> > hostinghostinghostinghostinging kill the muscle cell.
>
> Your body will eat up muscle cells if you fast long enough. Your body
> has to consume something and it starts consuming itself.
> I have a cat that went out and got lost for 10 days. When it came back
> it was famished and lost alot of flesh. It began to eat regularly
> again and he gained much of the weight back but some of the flesh
> never returned, especially around the neck. The muscle around that
> area had been consumed and lost for good.

Well . . . . there ya go. It's a done deal. No point in continuing this
thread after the case study of the cat is in.

"Wayne S. Hill" wrote:
>
> Lyle McDonald wrote:
>
> > Kenneth Leja wrote:
> >>
> >> Wrong again. Your body consumes muscle cells to release
> >> those proteins during fasting.
> >
> > What do you mean 'consumes muscle cells'.
> > What happens is that the protein that comprises actin and
> > myosin is degraded (by various proteases), producing amino
> > acids. Some of these (most notably alanine, and glutamine,
> > which is actually produced from the transaminatino of other
> > aminos) go to the liver to be converted to glucose (via
> > gluconeogenesis).
> >
> > This is a loss of protein, NOT a loss of cells.
> > Muscle is weird because the cells are these extended
> > myotubes.
>
> Dammit, Lyle, you had to go and spill the beans, didn't you?
> I think 90% of MFW was sitting here watching this idiotic
> discussion, knowing the right answer, letting the tension rise
> (didn't you notice the rising tension, fer chrissake?) and
> waiting for the other shoe to drop. And could you let it play
> out to its logical conclusion? NOOOOOOOO, you had to go and
> be mister blabbermouth.

As his recent posts have shown, my posts did nothing of the sort.

Stupid is as stupid does and he's plenty stupid.

Lyle

Lyle McDonald wrote:

> "Wayne S. Hill" wrote:
>> Lyle McDonald wrote:
>>
>> > This is a loss of protein, NOT a loss of cells.
>> > Muscle is weird because the cells are these extended
>> > myotubes.
>>
>> Dammit, Lyle, you had to go and spill the beans, didn't
>> you? I think 90% of MFW was sitting here watching this
>> idiotic discussion, knowing the right answer, letting the
>> tension rise (didn't you notice the rising tension, fer
>> chrissake?) and waiting for the other shoe to drop. And
>> could you let it play out to its logical conclusion?
>> NOOOOOOOO, you had to go and be mister blabbermouth.
>
> As his recent posts have shown, my posts did nothing of the
> sort.
>
> Stupid is as stupid does and he's plenty stupid.
>
> Lyle

True. Do I feel an IOM coming on?

--
-Wayne