Vegan? Lie. Can't possibly get all essentials, deficiency is inevitable. 25:36, and I quote "I promote the ingestion, the use of essential multi-mineral multi-vitamins supplementation." Can we stop the pretense once and for all, please? Well, at least I don't have to advise the guy about that.
For the rest, some of it makes sense like the hormones for example but for lifting it's a bit different than he explains. It begins with hormones for growth, then the lifting itself, while it can stimulate growth does not actually cause it, this remains the domain of hormones. What lifting does in fact is improve strength on the neural side of strength, i.e. strength is neuro-muscular in nature. I've seen some small guys lift tremendous weight, there must be something more than just muscle size.
Basically it's practice. The more you repeat a motion, the more efficient you become at performing this motion. This translates into strength. This makes strength a skill, not merely a function of muscle size. There's several reasons, for example economy of motion so that the same size can produce greater force, or sequencing muscle fibers so that a better sequence can produce higher overall output for any given motion, etc. For example I've seen a comparison of large versus smaller rowers, where both produced pretty much the same output in spite of significant differences in muscle size, and that's all to do with muscle fiber sequencing, i.e. the larger guys' output was spread over a shorter time while the smaller guys' output was spread over a longer time producing the same overall output. I've seen one video where they compared kids to adults as they performed physical tasks. The kids' motions were jerky and unrefined, while the adults' motions were deliberate and more fluid. I've also seen another video comparing bad golfers to better ones. The difference is mostly in the application of force. The beginners apply this force somewhat randomly while the better ones applied it much more smoothly. Total force isn't that different, it's how this force is applied that makes all the difference.
Granted, larger muscles have a greater potential output, yet I've seen bulky guys walk just wrong. One might argue it's what's called muscle bound, but no, look at Tiger Woods, he's bulky yet the most successful golfer in history, some of it due to his significant flexibility no doubt, and he was quite successful as a skinny 18-19 year old. I mean, the guy can take the club all the way back and keep his left arm totally straight while his eyes are still fixed on the ball, yet produce so much speed.
On the other hand, without the hormones, practice is seriously limited in its ability to produce skill. Consider two men, one with normal testosterone, the other with below normal testosterone. The one with normal testosterone will be able to practice longer and harder to produce greater skill. Even if we purposely match practice time and load, there's going to be a difference for other reasons like recovery for example. In fact, even without any practice whatsoever, hormones alone cause growth whether we want to or not - kids grow because of growth hormone, or don't grow because of growth hormone deficiency.
He says free radicals are bad for some reason. Well, I'm sorry to break it to him, but free radicals is the reason for his muscles, i.e. oxidation. He's got lungs doesn't he? Well, I guess we're designed that way so we can fight our tendency to breathe in oxygen, cuz free radicals are so bad for us. Free radicals are essential for the immune system, specifically white blood cells that work on the principle of oxidation. Antioxidants basically shut the whole thing down.
Caloric restriction is a problem with growth. First Law, remember. If something is used somewhere, then it's not used elsewhere, then this elsewhere must do without, i.e. things slow down. Also, surplus is the only way to make sure to get enough of anything, cuz deficiency can't do that, nor can equilibrium cuz there's gonna be some waste inevitably. Efficiency can't grow enough to compensate for deficiency - cuz there's deficiency, i.e. it's just not there, zero, nada, can't make up stuff from nothing.
The idea of caloric restriction is a little special. If it's because it stimulates an increase in efficiency, we establish low efficiency to begin with. That makes no sense. There's also waste disposal efficiency, and this can only grow by having more waste, not less. Paradox, ya? Not really, it depends on the waste. If it's toxic waste, no amount is beneficial, it's gonna keep running down the body until it just shuts it down completely. If it's normal waste like carbon dioxide for example, then the more we produce, the greater our ability to dispose of it, cuz we're fully adapted to deal with carbon dioxide cuz we're fully adapted to deal with oxygen. So are we increasing waste, or just increasing the materials we use to produce waste, and incidentally to deal with waste? We use oxygen for everything, including to get rid of waste. Thus in this case, the more carbon dioxide we produce, the more oxygen we must have taken in, the greater our ability to dispose of carbon dioxide. This works for other things like ketones for example that on their own can deal with waste like advanced glycation end-products through a process called chaperone-mediated autophagy. Well, the by-products of this process is also waste, therefore the more of this particular waste we produce, the more ketones we must have produced to begin with, and this is all good.
Oh boy. Anybody else notice the symbols on his stick? I don't really want to go all tangent on this, but do some research on those two symbols (eye of Horus, and tree of life - the intertwined serpents), it's quite a deep rabbit hole.
Jebus, here I was just minding my own business and there it is, some guy with some crazy ideas about stuff, and I find all kinds of wrong with it, again. My lot in life, I guess.
Last edited by M Levac : Fri, Aug-26-16 at 01:55.
|