Stephen Diamond wrote:
>
> In article <3D650B74.6ECE@erols.com>, Droll Troll
> <physical@erols.com> wrote:
>
> > What people continually fail to realize is that low
> > BF% makes it very difficult for the body to sustain
> > muscle!! Very strong highly muscled people--but not
> > defined--also have quite unimpressive BF% stats.
>
> Which is the reason, may I suggest, that marathoners don't
> show a lot of hypertrophy--not that distance running
> doesn't cause the legs to hypertrophy. At least that's how
> it looks to me.
I hadn't looked at it that way, but it might could be.
In addition, of course, to the pure adaptive response:
When moving a limb repetitively for 26 mi, you don't
want it too big. Ditto w/ boxers. Altho definitely
muscular, they don't generally have huge arms--too
much mass to move quickly.
>
> I have often wondered why this seeming truth (regarding the
> relationship between muscle mass and body fat) is never
> mentioned, making me question whether it was truth. But how
> else to explain the fact that athletes' average weight
> varies as a function of event or activity.
Absolutely. Remember when Oprah hired this personal
trainer (and made him rich), and got down to 110 lbs?
Well, you too would get down to 110 lbs if you ran 75
miles/week. Or signed up for your local
concentration/work camp. It is PURELY a matter of
steady-state equilibrium--calories in vs. calories
out, plus whatever adaptive responses occur. Then,
Oprah got tired o dat crap, and what happenned? Uh,
does the number 205, as in pounds, ring a bell? I
actually bought her book detailing her saga--for a
dollar. I doubt whether she is going to print any
retractions or explain her 205. Which is what makes
the bowflex and other machines such utter bullshit (an
utter bullshit that Jimbo no doubt believes). Those
bodies, as someone else pointed out, are the result of
a CAREER in the gym--a *highly* shifted equilibrium.
Which is why football players, boxers, and baseball
player get fat off season and post-career: A *new*
equilibrium is established. Part and parcel of
equilibrium is diet as well, eating behaviors, and
many other things that are not immediately evident.
Which is the brilliance of the marketing hype and
fraud: By omitting the notion of equilibrium, the
American Pubic(tm) is led to believe they are the way
are simply because they lack the secret, the
technique, the magic equipment (for $39/mo, for half
of forever, at
24.99% annual interest), etc. No. They simply lack the TIME
to invest to effect that *extent* of a shift in steady
state equilibrium. Almost *anyone* can achieve 5% BF. But
at what price??
Nevertheless, One can get good bang for their exercise
buck if they "invest" it wisely and knowledgeably: to
the extent that the average Joe (you'nme) can actually
be *healthier*--but not fitter--than your average
champeen athlete, who quite push their bodies to the
max--like the Ferrari that has to be rebuilt every 500
miles. Toward this end, I have/am developing a system
whereby as little as 15 secs will deliver tremendous
bang for one's buck. I would never make the claim that
YOU TOO will get fit, have abs, ekc. ekc in just 15
SECONDS a day. But I *do* claim that a properly spent
15 seconds can be mighty good damage
control/maintenance--a force in the equilibrium
equation. What's the adage: the candle that burns
brite goes out quick, or sumpn? In that case, I
oughtta live forever!! Equilibrium roolz! Even tho it
is udder bullshit.
----------------------
Kristofer Hogg, ms, rd HoloBarre Rehab/Fitness/Stretching
Systems, Yonkers, NY
----------------------------------------------------------
----------
If you could
> have as much muscle without as great adiposity, why do
> tennis players average about 12% muscle, and not the 6% of a
> marathoner? Or the same for sprinters, who require more
> strength. The endurance-strength trade-off must determine
> the optimal body composition for each activity.
>
> Stephen Diamond
--