Boxing

"pablo" <> wrote in message
news:bb6ub.10676$ om...
>

> Encyclopoedia Britannica. 2003.
>
>
> ...
> Adaptation
>
> Adaptation refers to the ability of cells to adjust to severe stresses and
> achieve altered states of equilibrium while preserving a healthy state. In
> the human body the large bulging muscles of an individual engaged in heavy
> labour are a good example of cellular adaptation. Because of the heavy
> demand for work from these muscles, each of the individual muscle cells
> within the labourer's arms and legs becomes larger (hypertrophic).

This seems to be saying that the individual cells increase in size, as Ken
Leja was saying.

This
> enlargement is caused by the formation of increased numbers of tiny fibres
> (myofilaments) that provide the contractile power of muscles. Thus, while
> the normal muscle cell might have 2,000 myofilaments, the hypertrophied
cell
> might have 4,000 myofilaments. ...

This seems to be giving the cause of the individual cell
enlargement/increase in size.

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 06:53:36 GMT, "The Sanity Cruzer"
<> enlightened us:

>"Kenneth Leja" <> wrote in message
>news: com...
>> "pablo" <> wrote in message
>news:<BiUtb.1243$ m>...
>> > You obviosuly can not comprehend what you quote, and the fact it relates
>> > excatly ZERO to the discussion and the silly claims you have made.
>> >
>> > How an article on the effect of aging can be interpreted to mean muscle
>> > cells can't be re-generrated in general is beyond me. This is very basic
>> > sh*t, and I am done enlightening the intellecutally lazy.
>> >
>> > Buy a hostinghostinghostinghostinging book.
>> >
>> > ...pablo
>>
>> Pablito, it doesn't matter how one loses muscle cells. It can be lost
>> thru aging, lack of exercise, or fasting. Anyway you lose it, you
>> cannot grow new muscle cells.
>
>You have come onto this forum and, IMO, showed a great deal of ignorance and
>now disrespect, to someone who IMO knows more about the body & exercise than
>anybody else on this newsgroup. IIRC, it is only the heart muscle which
>cannot regenerate new cells and heal itself. Your copying an article from
>some oddball source is hardly what I would consider to be authoritative. I
>am not saying there is any single source or theory on this subject, but I
>will take Pablo's comments and opinions over someone who suddently shows up
>and comes off as some flake.
>

[cross-posting removed]

TSC, who else used to call Pablo, "Pablito"? The answer may give a
clue to the arrogance and ignorance of its reply.

Regards,

////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-


Micro$oft Haiku Error Message #113

A crash reduces
Your expensive computer
To a simple stone.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Remove nospam to email me.

Steve

"SkippyPB" <> wrote in message
news:

> TSC, who else used to call Pablo, "Pablito"? The answer may give a
> clue to the arrogance and ignorance of its reply.

Evidently someone in my killfile. Andre? I know Pablo and Andre (in one
form or another) would duel each other from time to time.

"The Sanity Cruzer" <> wrote in message news:<Qf_tb.3573$ link.net>...
> "Kenneth Leja" <> wrote in message
> news: om...
> > "pablo" <> wrote in message
> news:<BiUtb.1243$ >...
> > > You obviosuly can not comprehend what you quote, and the fact it relates
> > > excatly ZERO to the discussion and the silly claims you have made.
> > >
> > > How an article on the effect of aging can be interpreted to mean muscle
> > > cells can't be re-generrated in general is beyond me. This is very basic
> > > sh*t, and I am done enlightening the intellecutally lazy.
> > >
> > > Buy a hostinghostinghostinghostinging book.
> > >
> > > ...pablo
> >
> > Pablito, it doesn't matter how one loses muscle cells. It can be lost
> > thru aging, lack of exercise, or fasting. Anyway you lose it, you
> > cannot grow new muscle cells.
>
> You have come onto this forum and, IMO, showed a great deal of ignorance and
> now disrespect, to someone who IMO knows more about the body & exercise than
> anybody else on this newsgroup. IIRC, it is only the heart muscle which
> cannot regenerate new cells and heal itself. Your copying an article from
> some oddball source is hardly what I would consider to be authoritative. I
> am not saying there is any single source or theory on this subject, but I
> will take Pablo's comments and opinions over someone who suddently shows up
> and comes off as some flake.

It's not an oddball source. I first found this info in medical books
in libaries. And, contrary to what you think, once brain cells are
dead they are dead for good as well. Of course, stem cell research
might change all this but brain cells or neurons, once destroyed, are
gone for good.

"Minum" <> wrote in message news:<>...
> "Kenneth Leja" <> wrote in message
> news: om...
>
> > Pablito, it doesn't matter how one loses muscle cells. It can be lost
> > thru aging, lack of exercise, or fasting. Anyway you lose it, you
> > cannot grow new muscle cells. Muscles grow bigger or smaller because
> > preexisting muscle cells expand or contract. Ever notice how your
> > muscles bulge right after a workout? Do you really think you've grown
> > new muscle cells?
>
> According to your post, we've already established that resistance training
> does not cause new cell growth. Why then would you hostinghostinghostingume that a lack of
> resistance training would cause the opposite? The studies you cite claim
> only that old age reduces cell count, not atrophy due to a sedentary
> lifestyle.

Because researchers said so, you gotta ask them. For example, brain
specialists will tell you that using your mind--solving crossword
puzzles, dealing with logic problems, etc--will help maintain neuron
levels
in your brain than an unchallenged brain, which will definitely lose
brain cells faster. And, once those cells are gone, they are gone for
good unless medical research can reverse this. So far some tests have
been mixed.. like injecting pig cells into brain of a damaged person.
It seems promising but not definitive. But stem cell research might
very well be able to restore damaged brains.

Apparently use of muscle not only expands muscle mhostinghostinghosting but sends
signals to the brain to maintain the cell level in that muscular
region.

THE ONLY CELLS THAT CANNOT BE REPLACED ARE NEURONS!!!

All the other cells in the body reproduce

This is basic knowledge...junior high school

--
Paulo
"Kenneth Leja" <> wrote in message
news: om...
> "The Sanity Cruzer" <> wrote in message
news:<Qf_tb.3573$ link.net>...
> > "Kenneth Leja" <> wrote in message
> > news: om...
> > > "pablo" <> wrote in message
> > news:<BiUtb.1243$ >...
> > > > You obviosuly can not comprehend what you quote, and the fact it
relates
> > > > excatly ZERO to the discussion and the silly claims you have made.
> > > >
> > > > How an article on the effect of aging can be interpreted to mean
muscle
> > > > cells can't be re-generrated in general is beyond me. This is very
basic
> > > > sh*t, and I am done enlightening the intellecutally lazy.
> > > >
> > > > Buy a hostinghostinghostinghostinging book.
> > > >
> > > > ...pablo
> > >
> > > Pablito, it doesn't matter how one loses muscle cells. It can be lost
> > > thru aging, lack of exercise, or fasting. Anyway you lose it, you
> > > cannot grow new muscle cells.
> >
> > You have come onto this forum and, IMO, showed a great deal of ignorance
and
> > now disrespect, to someone who IMO knows more about the body & exercise
than
> > anybody else on this newsgroup. IIRC, it is only the heart muscle which
> > cannot regenerate new cells and heal itself. Your copying an article
from
> > some oddball source is hardly what I would consider to be authoritative.
I
> > am not saying there is any single source or theory on this subject, but
I
> > will take Pablo's comments and opinions over someone who suddently shows
up
> > and comes off as some flake.
>
> It's not an oddball source. I first found this info in medical books
> in libaries. And, contrary to what you think, once brain cells are
> dead they are dead for good as well. Of course, stem cell research
> might change all this but brain cells or neurons, once destroyed, are
> gone for good.

"pablo" <> wrote in message news:<bb6ub.10676$ com>...
> "Kenneth Leja" <> wrote in message
> news: om...
> >
> > Pablito, it doesn't matter how one loses muscle cells. It can be lost
> > thru aging, lack of exercise, or fasting. Anyway you lose it, you
> > cannot grow new muscle cells.
>
> It's sad that you can't do a basic Internet search. This is incredible basic
> stuff. Here's something to help you stop looking like an ignorant idiot:
>
> Here'some basic stuff out of
>
> Encyclopoedia Britannica. 2003.
>
>
> ...
> Adaptation
>
> Adaptation refers to the ability of cells to adjust to severe stresses and
> achieve altered states of equilibrium while preserving a healthy state. In
> the human body the large bulging muscles of an individual engaged in heavy
> labour are a good example of cellular adaptation. Because of the heavy
> demand for work from these muscles, each of the individual muscle cells
> within the labourer's arms and legs becomes larger (hypertrophic). This
> enlargement is caused by the formation of increased numbers of tiny fibres
> (myofilaments) that provide the contractile power of muscles. Thus, while
> the normal muscle cell might have 2,000 myofilaments, the hypertrophied cell
> might have 4,000 myofilaments. ...
>
> A myofilament, by the way, is an array of "muscle cells" to the ignorant
> layman such as yourself. So yeah, you can grow a lot more of them. Anytime.
> But henceforth do your own goddamn searches on "adaptation" and
> "hypertrophy". Oh, you do grow the size of the "cells" as well, of course,
> but you *both* increase number and size when your muscles naturally adapt to
> higher regular workloads through hypertrophy aka growth.
>
> > I found this out because I did extensive research few years back when
> > I thought I'd try fasting and meditation. What I learned is that when
> > you fast your body breaks down muscle cells, not only for energy but
> > for nutriets, for PROTEINS that your body needs. Once your body burns
> > away your muscle cells, they are gone forever.
>
> You "research" was beyond pathetic. Do youself a favor and read a few basic
> articles on such matters before you spout about you ill-conceived notions in
> public.
>
> If you can't grow "muscle cells", get yourself treated by a doctor. It's a
> condition called "muscular dystrophy".
>
> Not only were you making an hostinghostinghosting of yourself by vomiting ignorance all over
> the internet, but also by being arrogant about that ignorance to boot.
>
> ...pablo

Why don't you stop trying to cover up your ignorance with insults and
tantrums?
You still haven't shown what I've stated already. You cannot grow new
muscle cells. The article you cited simply states that under duress
muscle cells expands, not that they grow new ones.

Expansion and creation are different things.
Imagine a hundred water balloons, each representing a blood cell. If
you lose 10 of them, you still have 90 that can be exercised and
maintained and can grow larger(let's say we add more water). That's
adaptation. But you cannot grow lost muscle cells. They are gone for
good, whether you lose them to aging, fasting, atrophying from
prolonged lack of use.

Any fitness expert--who's not trying to sell you nutritional
supplements--will tell you this basic fact.
After age of 21, the body produces smaller amounts of hormones that
maintains muscular structure. The only way to maintain muscle
level(amount of muscle cells) is to weightlift or use hormonal
injections(of which steroids are the worst example but there are
hormones derived from human sources that won't do harm but they cost
around 15,000 dollars a year).
Otherwise, you will lose 3% of you muscle cells per year and those can
never be regained.
Which is why someone who started weightlifting early on will be
stronger than someone who starts at age 35. The guy who starts at 35
will have, by then, lost a good deal of his muscle cells over the
years. No matter how hard he exercises he will not achieve the
strength he could have had he begun at 21.

"pablo" <> wrote in message news:<bb6ub.10676$ com>...
> "Kenneth Leja" <> wrote in message
> news: om...
> >
> > Pablito, it doesn't matter how one loses muscle cells. It can be lost
> > thru aging, lack of exercise, or fasting. Anyway you lose it, you
> > cannot grow new muscle cells.
>
> It's sad that you can't do a basic Internet search. This is incredible basic
> stuff. Here's something to help you stop looking like an ignorant idiot:
>
> Here'some basic stuff out of
>
> Encyclopoedia Britannica. 2003.
>
>
> ...
> Adaptation
>
> Adaptation refers to the ability of cells to adjust to severe stresses and
> achieve altered states of equilibrium while preserving a healthy state. In
> the human body the large bulging muscles of an individual engaged in heavy
> labour are a good example of cellular adaptation. Because of the heavy
> demand for work from these muscles, each of the individual muscle cells
> within the labourer's arms and legs becomes larger (hypertrophic). This
> enlargement is caused by the formation of increased numbers of tiny fibres
> (myofilaments) that provide the contractile power of muscles. Thus, while
> the normal muscle cell might have 2,000 myofilaments, the hypertrophied cell
> might have 4,000 myofilaments. ...
>
> A myofilament, by the way, is an array of "muscle cells" to the ignorant
> layman such as yourself. So yeah, you can grow a lot more of them. Anytime.
> But henceforth do your own goddamn searches on "adaptation" and
> "hypertrophy". Oh, you do grow the size of the "cells" as well, of course,
> but you *both* increase number and size when your muscles naturally adapt to
> higher regular workloads through hypertrophy aka growth.
>
>

From the article you cited, 'myofilament' is not an array of muscle
cells but fibers within cells. Article says 'normal muscle cell might
have 2000 myofilaments', suggesting that myofilament is within the
cell; and 'hypertrophied cell might have 4000 myofilaments'. What this
describes is what happens within the cell. It doesn't say 2000 cells
turned into 4000 cells. What it says is the fibers in the cell can
grow to expand the cell.

In other words, myofilaments are NOT cells.



Or consider this:



Muscle fiber is a muscle cell. Myofilaments are what's inside the
muscle cell. Even if their number would increase it would still be
within a muscle fiber(aka muscle cell).

Imagine a electrical wire. Let's think of it as a muscle fiber(aka
muscle cell). Within it are many copper wires; that is the
myofilament. Myofilament is the building blocks of cells, not the
cell itself.

Once a muscle fiber(or cell)is lost, it's lost for good, along with
all the myofilament that was inside it.

From the article:

"Skeletal muscles comprise about 40% of the mhostinghostinghosting of the average human
body and are formed of long multinucleate, cylindrical cells called
muscle fibers..."

"The plasma membrane of muscle fibers is known as the sarcolemma. Each
muscle is made up of bundles of these fibers, or cells..."

"Within the sarcolemma is the sarcoplasm, containing all the usual
subcellular elements plus long prominent myofibrils..."

The key term above is 'subcellular'. Myofibrils are subcellular, in
other words, part of the cell.

"Each sarcomere is composed of hundreds of filamentous protein
aggregates, each known as a myofilament..."

Conclusion. Myofilament is not a cell.

Being a real man is not only using insults and being macho but
admitting when you're wrong. Are you man enough to gracioulsy do that?

(Kenneth Leja) wrote in message news:< com>...
> wrote in message news:<>. ..
> > There is a belief being expressed, to the effect that one can increase
> > muscle 'mhostinghostinghosting' but not grow new muscle tissue, or 'cells'.
> >
> > 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.
>
> >
> > Aging presents a host of problems as damaged cells are replaced much
> > more slowly and there are a number of age related factors that can
> > short circuit the process entirely. Geriactrics is a different topic.
> > The inferences you are drawing from your little bit of research are
> > not supported by the information presented.
>
> Anyway you lose it, you cannot regain lost muscle cells. It's
> scientifically impossible.
>
> >
> > RJJ will replace the muscle mhostinghostinghosting lost. However, going up and down so
> > quickly buts a severe strain on the bod, particularly the heart liver
> > and kidneys.
>
> I'm sure he still has alot of muscle left. One can lose weight by
> losing muscle mhostinghostinghosting without losing muscle cells. Consider a water
> balloon as a muscle cell. When it's expanded with more water, it
> weighs more. When some water is let out, it weighs less.
> I suspect this is how Roy Jones lost much of the weight. He
> deemphasized weight training as well as losing some more fat. He also
> might have taken some diuretics that sucked excess water out of his
> body.
> If he lost muscle by fasting then he's stupid because he'll never
> regain lost muscle cells again. They are irreplaceable.
>
> >
> > To get a better understanding of the issue, check out on line medical
> > info regarding high protien low carb diets. Relative hostinghostinghostinghostingogies can be
> > made from this material.
> >
>
> No, one must not rely on such sources because they are trying to sell
> something. This high-protein diet scheme is a sham. Any real doctor
> will tell you that the average human body only needs 30-65 mg of
> protein a day. It doesn't matter whether you exercise or not, the
> amount of protein a person needs is about the same. A professional
> athlete who does extensive training will need just a little more but
> the general truth is you don't need EXTRA protein for purposes of
> exercise. It's just a health food industry trying to fool people.
> Human body will use on average only about 25-30 mg of protein a day.
> Any excess protein is sent down the digestive system into your colon.
> It remains unused.


Correction. I meant 30-65 gm, not mg.

"Kenneth Leja" <> wrote in message
news: om...
> "The Sanity Cruzer" <> wrote in message
news:<Qf_tb.3573$ link.net>...

> > IIRC, it is only the heart muscle which
> > cannot regenerate new cells and heal itself. Your copying an article
from
> > some oddball source is hardly what I would consider to be authoritative.
I
> > am not saying there is any single source or theory on this subject, but
I
> > will take Pablo's comments and opinions over someone who suddently shows
up
> > and comes off as some flake.
>
> It's not an oddball source. I first found this info in medical books
> in libaries. And, contrary to what you think, once brain cells are
> dead they are dead for good as well. Of course, stem cell research
> might change all this but brain cells or neurons, once destroyed, are
> gone for good.

I was referring to muscle cells in the body. That is what this discussion
is about, isn't it?