Thought provoking interview. (Must see)

[CtA318]

Evolutionary Fitness

This interview goes against of many of our beleifs and I'd like to know what everyone thinks about it.

Personally I enjoyed reading his thoughts but I cant see how not eating puts you in an anabolic state and eating in a catabolic. To me it doesnt make much sense. Just want to know what others think on his views.

[Canadian_Bacon]

He seems to really overdo GH. The GH released via the mechanisms he mentioned arent going to result in all that much.

Starving yourself releases a good chunk of GH yet you dont see people argueing that this GH spike outweights the catabolic effect from lack of calories.

[gobbla]

IMO he's not right or wrong perse...reduced calories...intense excersise focused on compound explosive lifting with little rest...cardio based on short bursts (HIIT)...low and behold you have a lean, healthy, athletic body.

little statements like...

Look at joggers and distance runners. They aren't slender, they simply have no muscle mass. They're weak, they can't generate power, and in spite of their slender appearance, joggers aren't lean. The average body fat content of jogging club members was 22 percent in one study. Anything above 13% is deleterious.

piss me off...anyone that trains for a goal (inteligently) is going to be better at that goal (genetics aside) than someone that doesn't...duh.

a powerlifter is going to have more muscle mass and generate more power than a tri-athelete. that doesn't mean that the tri is less healthy or less lean than the powerlifter.

who's healthier...


or

[fitnessguy]

Went to Art De Vany's webpage and found this....anyone who makes comments like these needs to be ignored. This guy is a joke.

Lance
July 20, 2005 05:01 PM
Does anyone but me think that Lance Armstrong looks old for his brief 34 years of life? Do you guys?!?! What is his point????

He is on the verge of a historic victory and it is a tribute to his genes, his determination and the science behind him. Yet, he has a potentially troubled future ahead of him. For one thing, he will be too rich and too famous. And, he has sacrificed much to get where he is; a marriage and his family, and a serious bout with cancer. When he retires, he will be but 34 and his future cannot possibly be as dramatic and accomplished as his past. Bicycle racing doesn't have the historical tradition of golf, baseball, or boxing. Five years from now, he will not be remembered well. Only Babe Ruth, Joe Dimaggio, Ben Hogan, Jack Nicklaus, Tiger Woods, Joe Louis and Henry Johnson will be remembered for the ages. And that is because they are in sports that constantly remind you of their history.

Lance's resting pulse is 32, below any I have seen. Runners who have a low pulse rate are apt to black out at the slightest provocation. President Bush, whose pulse was about 42 when he was running, fainted when he choked on a corn chip. (He has quit running because of chronic knee problems, a common problem for these kinds of repetitive sports that permit too little recovery from wear and tear.] Even a momentary interuption of oxygen and blood flow is enough to make you black out when you have a very low pulse.

At a pulse rate as low as Armstrong's (and other distance athletes), blood flows slowly and the brain is vulnerable to ischemic damage (deprivation of blood flow and ROS damage) and then reperfusion injury when the blood flow surges (this is a potent source of ROS). [Check the archives if you don't know what ROS stands for. And look at the archives anyway because there is a lot of stuff in there that I often get questions about.] Armstrong had brain cancer, among other locations through his body. Alternating ischemia with reperfusion injury is an easy way to harm your brain. The blood flow surge from his resting pulse of 32 to his maximum pulse of 200 is enormous and a potent source of ischemic and reperfusion injury to the brain and other tissues.

Lance makes 600 watts at his VO2 max. I can easily make 600 watts, but it is beyond my VO2 max, meaning I am tapping into my anaerobic resources more than he is. Still, at twice his age I am easily able to generate power near his level for brief intervals NOTE: this is Lance's AEROBIC Threshold......what do you htink his watts are @ his maximum?! , which is all that is needed for an easy life in this energetically undemanding modern life.

I admire accomplishment, but the sacrifices made to get there interfere with a life that is satisfying. The window through which accomplishment is seen in sports is very narrow and much falls out of our view if we admire the image that is presented in the media (think OJ when you hear this).

Great accomplishment is not greatness. OK, Lance Armstrong is not great....just one of the greatest athletes the planet will ever see...we will probably never see another man accomplish such a feat ever again. In fact, it is often a wonkishness and insecurity that drives some to high athletic accomplishment, often to the detriment of their lives and of those around them. So, my hat is off to Lance, but is this any way to spend a life?

[UpNorth]

Everything he says is anecdotal, bah. I'll stick to the facts based on studies thank you very much. But, thanks CTA for pointing out the article -- It was an interesting read.

[Lou Schuler]

I think he says a lot of things that make sense, particularly about breaking up our regular patterns of eating; I always get leaner on vacations, when I eat three squares rather than 6 or 7 small meals and snacks.

I disagree with him about training in a fasted state. Fasting may increase growth hormone, but cortisol levels are also highest in the morning. Training with already high cortisol levels certainly will lead to increased protein breakdown, although that's not necessarily a bad thing, if your main goal is to reduce body fat and you're willing to sacrifice a little muscle mass to do it.

Now, the idea of working out while nauseated ... that's a bit extreme. It's hard to figure out how that fits into the idea of "evolutionary" fitness.

[RipStone]

John's Berardi's rebuttle(sp?)...

http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do...ydra?id=710609

[chris_f]

ummm... he talks about the life of our human progenators like it was a fucking cake walk! I mean, he mentions only being able to own what you could carry and such, but he makes it seems like this happy, healthy time...

But, our ancestors were healthy and fit and lean and strong right up into advanced age. They retained their insulin sensitivity right into old age because they were lean, active, and ate natural foods.

yet a few paragraphs up he says...

We modern humans live about three times longer than our wild ancestors (90 years versus about 31 for our ancestors).

so they were healthy through 31 years old? Big deal! So are we!!!

i agree our bodies weren't designed to do the modern stuff we do now, but we weren't super fit machines in ancient times either. We were puny, insignificant specks who survived because of our brains, not because of our physical fitness.

Look at Neandertals! Much stronger than humans, shorter, but more muscular and heavy and powerful. We entered their habitat and lived side by side with them for several thousand years, and they died out and we didn't. Our brains gave us an advantage!

[chris_f]

Did you guys read the comments to Berardi's retort? I love the asshole who thought that Venus figurines were Roman. haha... do a little research buddy!

For those of you who don't know, Venus figurines have nothing to do with the Roman goddess Venus. They're a name given to statues carved in paleolithic times portraying extremely overweight women. They're found in abundance, and they're meaning or significance is unknown.

[kuri]

Now that is a funny thread - a few interesting observations being overshadowed by the usual T-mag meatheads chiming in with their bullshit. I'm reminded once again why I never bother to post there.

[chris_f]

You know kuri, every now and then i wanna register just to post to some of the retarded responses there, and then i realize it'd be like MH all over again... i'd just get pissed off at how stupid everyone is and have only a few articulate and enlighted comrades to back me up!

[gobbla]

you look like you never worked out a day in your life...EAT MORE...ok, I'm done.

but...back to the article...if everyone did what this guy is suggesting we'd have a thinner, healthier population. but the reasoning behind what he suggests is right up to the point of bizzare.

I'm looking forward to Johnka's rebuttal!

[kuri]

shark - that's precisely why the cream of the crop gravitated towards this little haven of a forum. Thanks to JP in recruiting only the best to this place

I've never once ventured over to MH, and both you & Kaiser have reminded me today why not.

Now, back to the saga.

[Faraz421]

Chimming in on MH, i dont believe it was a bad place to start, atleast not for me. But it got worse, and repetitive, and after most of you guys gravitated towards JP, there really was no option. Plus, even with their 'new forums', JP's is above and beyond in its interface and dependability. MH sites still give me problems!

[Johnka]

I read this with great interest, obviously [img]smile.gif[/img]

I'll start by saying that I think it's great that De Vany is putting these issues out there, and I love it that so many people are interested.

While some of his ideas are provoking, there is quite a bit in there that I disagree with. The whole concept of hunter-gatherers being "intermittent and unpatterned" is certainly not substantiated in the archaeological record. Our success as a species (H. sapiens) was due partly because we developed logistical subsistence strategies, not opportunistic. In other words, we obsessively planned everything, from the movement of the band to coincide with migrational animals, to the time of day that was allocated to hunting and/or gathering.

It wasn't as if people just roamed around until they tripped over an antelope. The Paleolithic folks who lived an unpatterned life were Darwinian zeros.

There are many other statements in that article that I have issues with, but I don't want to seem like the typical fuddy-duddy academic. Or at least if I do address these issues, I'll put them into an article for discourse.

[Faraz421]

I think its safe to say Im the first to read Johnka's primary rebuttal. An award would be nice [img]smile.gif[/img]

[chris_f]

Originally posted by Faraz421:
I think its safe to say Im the first to read Johnka's primary rebuttal. An award would be nice [img]smile.gif[/img]

nah you're just the first to respond!


John - I'm an anthro major at URI, and i'd LOVE to hear the science and research!! can't wait to read about it!!

[jj]

He contradicts himself so many times. Like someone has already mentioned, shark I beli