Re: Physical training; was NT, weight gain, thyroid

[Guest guest]

Roman,

>I couldn't disagree more with what you said.

Noted and expected.

>I recently came across an article that said that muscle definition

>comes mostly from having little body fat

I could see how someone would come to that conclusion. It is

definitely harder to see muscle definition on a fat person. But, no,

that's not all there is.

>It is also a matter of having muscle tone (residual tension).

>Having this doesn't translate to strength.

Perhaps you are right. But it does translate to " readiness " to apply

strength--a shorter time between intention and action.

>Would you say that they guy on http://www.dragondoor.com/v102.html

>has a hulking, ape-like posture (keep in mind that he's tensing his

>muscles in the picture)?

He has an overdeveloped trapesius and a wide waist rather than

tapered (overdeveloped hip flexors), but not hulking. I note that he

also includes Tai Chi, Chi Gong, and other full body exercises in his

regimen which may account for (compensate for) what might otherwise

result in diminished flexibility. By the way, let me qualify:

Engaging in short burst intense weights can certainly have a place in

an overall well-rounded workout, and by no means am I trying to talk

you into quitting, but they shouldn't be used without other forms of

exercise that include long, prolonged stress, large sustained

movements, and long duration low intensity workouts.

Here's my idea of an optimum male physique:

http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~chenj/brucelee/brucelee.html

>Poor Heidi has been working out for nothing

How about we stick to you and me and let Heidi handle herself? I do

not know why you made this statement and in no way mean to attack

Heidi or anyone else. I'm not even interested in convincing you one

way or the other. You're entitled to work out any way you want. I

just want to express what works for me and those that I know.

Primarily, I want to recommend steps that counter what I see as all

these Joe Weider types at the now more than 6 gyms I go to regularly

(3 sets of 8 reps and in between just sitting around " recovering " , no

stretching, big pecs, trapesius, and biceps, wimpy little legs, no

ass).

>>Free weights tend to focus on isolated groups, whereas large

>>sweeping weight-bearing motions

>>increase muscle efficiency in a larger and more productive area.

>I don't know what you are picturing yourself, but this is not true.

>Try lifting a barbell from the floor to beyond your head and tell me

>if there's a muscle in your body that is not involved. And if you do

>it the way Pavel Tsatsouline recommends (tensing all your muscles

>while doing that), even your facial muscles will be working.

The key word is " tend " . We are of one mind when it comes to the wrist

curls. Most people, however, when they lift a barbell, do so in

steps. If the weight is too heavy to go from floor to above your head

without intermediate steps, then it is too heavy. Also, before

proceeding with an exercise like that, I'd highly recommend doing it

with low weight and many repetitions until your form is stellar

before attempting maximum 8 rep load...last. I also dispute that

doing only 8 reps at max load is better for overall conditioning than

doing say, 20 at a moderate load.

>Well, I am very good with those but need help to carry a 24 inch TV

>set for a short distance without getting injured. Talk about

>usefulness of exercises!

Then I suggest practicing carrying your TV for a longer distance,

i.e., a longer duration, walking a little slower, and working on form.

>I can move my arms very fast, but they don't have much power.

>Strength is built with resistance. Speed isn't a necessary condition

>for that.

Moving arms fast against resistance is what I'm talking about. Speed

with no resistance isn't strength.

>I have very, very strong abdominals, comparing to average people. I

>strengthened them with relatively infrequent, very short (just a few

>seconds a day once in a while), very high tension exercises, such as

>trying to maintain a right angle position (back is vertical, legs

>are horizontal, support with hands only -- the whole body is raised

>above the ground). I don't doubt that long, slow, and

>prolonged stress strengthens muscles too, but those exercises simply

>cannot compare with those I described in effectiveness and

>efficiency.

Sounds like a great exercise, but I contend that it would do more for

you if it was longer than a few seconds thereby forcing the diaphragm

into the mix. Also sounds like hip flexors are the primary muscles

used along with of course, your wrists. In short-burst abdominal

exercises, hip flexors start working first to the exclusion of

the " six pack " , which is not to say that hip flexors aren't great.

Try twisting your upper torso a little from side to side with your

legs going the opposite direction, slowly, while concentrating on

holding your stomach in and expanding your lungs minimally (stressing

the diaphragm).

How do you know that you have strong abdominals if you can only

sustain that position for a few seconds? What is an objective test of

strong abdominals? (I'm picturing someone stretched out face up

between two chairs, feet on one chair and head on the other, with an

anvil on his stomach.) Seems to me that abdominal failure is pretty

rare in an objective sense--whereas with abdominal strength? You can

set them and forget them. Someone with weak abdominals has poor

posture and low back and/or shoulder pain.

Bruce Lee would look around a room until he found the most muscular

guy and then do his " 1 inch punch " . The distance the guy would travel

from that punch from 1 inch away depended on the strength of the

abdominals of the " volunteer " . Some parlor trick.

in Berkeley

[Guest guest]

Idol wrote:

> Perhaps it's not efficient, but 20 minutes of aerobic exercise was a good

> deal less than one third as effective as 60 minutes, which would tend to

> contradict that lecturer's mitochondria theory, at least in my case.

No, it wouldn't. He didn't say that you don't spend energy while running or that

you wouldn't spend more if you ran longer. What he said was that it was the

wrong use of running (or whatever aerobic exercise you do). I think the keyword

here is efficiency, not effectiveness.

Roman

[Guest guest]

Roman-

>He didn't say that you don't spend energy while running or that you

>wouldn't spend more if you ran longer. What he said was that it was the

>wrong use of running (or whatever aerobic exercise you do). I think the

>keyword here is efficiency, not effectiveness.

One of us is misunderstanding the other. All else being equal, one might

expect 20 minutes of exercise to be 1/3 as effective as 60 minutes of the

same exercise. I found that it was less than 1/3 as effective, which means

that it's less efficient, no?

-

[Guest guest]

-

>Here's my idea of an optimum male physique:

>http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~chenj/brucelee/brucelee.html

Obviously Bruce Lee was a physical marvel, but isn't the general consensus

here that such an extremely lean physique is probably not healthy? We

never got to see what happened to Bruce Lee later in life, unfortunately,

not that a single individual is enough anyway.

-

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 6/11/03 10:52:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

Idol@... writes:

> I understand that, but if 20 minutes is supposed to accomplish the

> metabolic changes which result in greater fat burning all through the day

> and night, then 60 minutes should merely add 40 minutes of exertion to the

> fat loss, which means 20 minutes should be more than 1/3 as effective as 60

> minutes since both would presumably have the same overall metabolic effect.

>

Somone on the list has mentioned another theory about aerobic exercise and

metabolism, which is that *after* 20 minutes you start burning fat instead of

glycogen and this helps train your metabolism to burn fat for energy, kind of

like Atkins diet if I understand it correctly. So by this theory it would

explain why 60 minutes would be more than 3 times as effective as 20.

More likely you are right that weight training is more effective than either,

since muscle uses energy just to maintain itself.

chris

" To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are

to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and

servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. " --Theodore

Roosevelt

[Guest guest]

Idol wrote:

> One of us is misunderstanding the other.

Indeed.

>All else being equal, one might

> expect 20 minutes of exercise to be 1/3 as effective as 60 minutes of the

> same exercise. I found that it was less than 1/3 as effective, which means

> that it's less efficient, no?

But you are comparing 20 min with 60 min. If I understood him correctly, his

message was that using exercise for burning extra calories is not the best use

of exercise. I think his point was to use exercise to change your metabolism in

such a way that you will burn off your extra body fat during resting time.

Roman

[Guest guest]

Roman-

>But you are comparing 20 min with 60 min. If I understood him correctly,

>his message was that using exercise for burning extra calories is not the

>best use of exercise. I think his point was to use exercise to change your

>metabolism in such a way that you will burn off your extra body fat during

>resting time.

I understand that, but if 20 minutes is supposed to accomplish the

metabolic changes which result in greater fat burning all through the day

and night, then 60 minutes should merely add 40 minutes of exertion to the

fat loss, which means 20 minutes should be more than 1/3 as effective as 60

minutes since both would presumably have the same overall metabolic effect.

-

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>Somone on the list has mentioned another theory about aerobic exercise and

>metabolism, which is that *after* 20 minutes you start burning fat instead of

>glycogen

I think that someone was me! <g> That's the conventional wisdom as last I

heard it, anyway.

-

[Guest guest]

Idol wrote:

> I understand that, but if 20 minutes is supposed to accomplish the

> metabolic changes which result in greater fat burning all through the day

> and night, then 60 minutes should merely add 40 minutes of exertion to the

> fat loss, which means 20 minutes should be more than 1/3 as effective as 60

> minutes since both would presumably have the same overall metabolic effect.

You are right, and maybe he was wrong. I didn't like that guy anyway (he was

pro-carbs and anti-fat).

Roman

[Guest guest]

,

>Obviously Bruce Lee was a physical marvel, but isn't the general

>consensus here that such an extremely lean physique is probably not

>healthy? We never got to see what happened to Bruce Lee later in

>life, unfortunately,

>not that a single individual is enough anyway.

By " lean " do you mean minimal body fat, small but efficient muscle,

or both?

Since as far as I know Lee was never " overweight " , he obviously is no

standard for weight-loss training, however, I do believe he is a

standard for physical training--more power per muscle volume rather

than bulk. If that means a low level of body fat, fine, but, that can

easily be remedied by diet if one wants more fat.

Since I am trying to maintain and increase my own strength without

acquiring any more bulk, I prefer to adopt/adapt some of Lee's

training methods--even though I'm not a martial artist. Yes, I am one

of those small minority of women who did/does put on bulk, but I was

able to slow it down at least by abandoning the old standard--max

weight/low reps--that I had been engaging in for about 10 years--that

was actually invented by *body builders*, which I never wanted to be.

The tailoring bills were killing me. That was about 10 years ago. Now

I no longer increase my weights but instead increase my reps and work

on speed--granted there is some increase in load in my hanging and

swinging work simply because I weigh more now than then (for whatever

reason). Meanwhile I certainly have not decreased my strength but

rather have increased it and it is there when I need it, which is

rather frequently.

in Berkeley

[Guest guest]

,

This is the guy that advocates the the wide-stance squat, bench press, and

deadlift, right? The other day when I tried the squat for the first time I saw

on a bulletin board a page from an article (which was put up for the suggested

weight/rep chart according to max on the page) which, though it didn't have

the author's name on that page, I'm positive is the same guy, since it said

exactly what the article Roman linked said.

Don't know if it means it will work for you or me, but the trainer at my gym

said he put the chart up there because he started trying his routine and it

seemed to work great. And that's from the trainer-- who's probably tried a lot

of different methods.

chris

In a message dated 6/12/03 7:58:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

Idol@... writes:

> I just started Pavel Tstatsouline's book _Power To The People_, and while

> I've neither finished it nor begun to test it (nor yet scratched the

> surface of his larger body of work) he does make what seems so far to be a

> compelling argument, but I think there's a key point that Roman neglected

> to explain. He specifically advocates _not_ training to the point of

> muscle failure. So (and I'm sure this is a simplification; I only just got

> the book today, and I've only read a few chapters) his idea is that you

> figure out your 6RM... and then do 5 reps. Right away this separates his

> approach from those of the vast majority of low-rep advocates, including

> AFAIK all schools of HIT, even Super Slow. It also appears to make sense,

> and though I haven't tried it yet, it seems likely to square with my own

> experience that training to the point of failure and exhaustion is very

> destructive. (Obviously I'm a more dramatic example than most people would

> be, but still, it fits, at least provisionally.)

>

> He says that by _not_ training all the way to failure, you primarily

> increase the quality, density and strength of an existing muscle without

> doing much (if anything, depending on the individual and the individual

> training routine) to bulk it up. He does discuss how to build extra

> muscle, but I haven't gotten to that point in the book yet. I expect it

> involves a few more reps and perhaps training to muscle failure, at least

> at times, but I could be wrong.

" To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are

to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and

servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. " --Theodore

Roosevelt

[Guest guest]

-

>By " lean " do you mean minimal body fat, small but efficient muscle,

>or both?

Minimal body fat, or perhaps even just extremely minimal body fat. I don't

think any of Price's healthiest natives looked as lean as Bruce Lee or his

more muscular but equally lean counterparts in the bodybuilding world.

Efficient muscle is obviously desirable, though I don't know that I'd go so

far as to say small muscles are also desirable. A person with moderate

muscle bulk with very efficient muscles is going to be more powerful than a

wiry person with relatively little muscle bulk with equally efficient muscles.

>however, I do believe he is a

>standard for physical training--more power per muscle volume rather

>than bulk.

We are absolutely in agreement over the desirability of power over

bulk. Bodybuilding per se is a complete waste of time and colossally

wrong-headed in many, many ways.

However, it does seem likely that there's a genetic continuum of body

types. Some people naturally can look sort of like Bruce Lee, and other

people tend to be bulkier, and these types don't seem to depend only on

diet. Moreover, since there are different genetic body types, it seems

unwise to me to pick one type as the one true desirable body image. A

tall, broad guy who tends towards some bulk is never going to look like

Bruce Lee anymore than Bruce Lee could have ever attained a more bear-like

physique -- and note that I'm absolutely not talking about a bodybuilder

physique, in which for whatever exact complex of reasons bulk is attained

without a corresponding increase in actual functional strength. So it

seems to me your taste for the Bruce Lee type is just that -- taste, just

like one guy preferring svelte blondes and another lusting after voluptuous

redheads.

I just started Pavel Tstatsouline's book _Power To The People_, and while

I've neither finished it nor begun to test it (nor yet scratched the

surface of his larger body of work) he does make what seems so far to be a

compelling argument, but I think there's a key point that Roman neglected

to explain. He specifically advocates _not_ training to the point of

muscle failure. So (and I'm sure this is a simplification; I only just got

the book today, and I've only read a few chapters) his idea is that you

figure out your 6RM... and then do 5 reps. Right away this separates his

approach from those of the vast majority of low-rep advocates, including

AFAIK all schools of HIT, even Super Slow. It also appears to make sense,

and though I haven't tried it yet, it seems likely to square with my own

experience that training to the point of failure and exhaustion is very

destructive. (Obviously I'm a more dramatic example than most people would

be, but still, it fits, at least provisionally.)

He says that by _not_ training all the way to failure, you primarily

increase the quality, density and strength of an existing muscle without

doing much (if anything, depending on the individual and the individual

training routine) to bulk it up. He does discuss how to build extra

muscle, but I haven't gotten to that point in the book yet. I expect it

involves a few more reps and perhaps training to muscle failure, at least

at times, but I could be wrong.

>but I was

>able to slow it down at least by abandoning the old standard--max

>weight/low reps--that I had been engaging in for about 10 years--that

>was actually invented by *body builders*,

Again, I think it's important to distinguish between training to failure

and not training to failure. I haven't checked on Tstatsouline's

historical claims, but he points to many strong men (and strongmen) of the

past who had remarkable strength without anything like a modern

bodybuilder's physique and, according to Tstatsouline, employed many of the

principles he espouses, including doing few reps and _not_ training to

failure. Certainly we know that strength doesn't occur strictly in

proportion to the cross section of the muscle, as all those bodybuilders

who aren't half as powerful as you'd think they'd be prove, along with all

the lifting champs who've been surprisingly light in the bulk department.

>and work

>on speed

I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you moving the weight faster? What's

the purpose of that, if that's what you're doing? Super Slow is probably

wrong on several counts (most of all on diet, a point on which Ken Hutchins

is gallingly ignorant and wrongheaded, but also almost certainly on the

desirability of carefully isolating muscle groups, and I'm beginning to

think probably also on the theory of training to failure, at least until

the point at which the power of one's muscles has developed past the body's

metabolic ability to support them) but I think their argument in favor of

moving the weight very slowly, on a 10-count in each direction, is very,

very sound.

>Meanwhile I certainly have not decreased my strength but

>rather have increased it and it is there when I need it, which is

>rather frequently.

Since you mention this, I can't help but be curious: what prompts your

frequent need for what I take to be unusual strength, at least for a woman?

-

[Guest guest]

Quoting ChrisMasterjohn@...:

> This is the guy that advocates the the wide-stance squat, bench press,

> and deadlift, right?

I don't think so. Tsatsouline recommends the deadlift and side press, and

that's about it. The squat, deadlift, and bench press are the three

exercises used in competitive powerlifting, so you could be thinking of

just about any powerlifter.

--

Berg

bberg@...

[Guest guest]

Bellanger wrote:

> I doubt any weight trainer training 1-5 or even 10

> rep max would be able to ENHANCE their existing flexibilty. Maintain it

> mabee, and its a funtion of time as well.

During a workshop with Tsatsouline that I've attended, he showed a stretching

technique that he calls Relax into Stretching. I've witnessed several

bodybuilders there to improve their flexibility a lot, right away. I don't know

if that fits your definition of ENHANCEMENT. He has books on this topic too.

- http://www.dragondoor.com/b14.html

- http://www.dragondoor.com/b16.html

please take a look at Tsatsouline's pictures at the first link (scroll to

the end of the page) and tell me if he is flexible enough according to your

standards.

Roman

[Guest guest]

soynomore wrote:

>>Would you say that they guy on http://www.dragondoor.com/v102.html

>>has a hulking, ape-like posture (keep in mind that he's tensing his

>>muscles in the picture)?

>

> He has an overdeveloped trapesius and a wide waist rather than

> tapered (overdeveloped hip flexors), but not hulking.

According to your personal preferences?

> How about we stick to you and me and let Heidi handle herself? I do

> not know why you made this statement and in no way mean to attack

> Heidi or anyone else.

I mentioned Heidi because her experience contradicted your statements. I hope no

one here perceives expressing opposing views as attacks.

> Also, before proceeding with an exercise like that, I'd highly recommend doing

it

> with low weight and many repetitions until your form is stellar

> before attempting maximum 8 rep load

That is a good advice.

....last. I also dispute that

> doing only 8 reps at max load is better for overall conditioning than

> doing say, 20 at a moderate load.

Not sure about overall conditioning. We were talking about developing strength

quickly. Especially, while doing functional training.

>>Well, I am very good with those but need help to carry a 24 inch TV

>>set for a short distance without getting injured. Talk about

>>usefulness of exercises!

>

> Then I suggest practicing carrying your TV for a longer distance,

> i.e., a longer duration, walking a little slower, and working on form.

I don't find this very practical.

>>I have very, very strong abdominals, comparing to average people. I

>>strengthened them with relatively infrequent, very short (just a few

>>seconds a day once in a while), very high tension exercises, such as

>>trying to maintain a right angle position (back is vertical, legs

>>are horizontal, support with hands only -- the whole body is raised

>>above the ground). I don't doubt that long, slow, and

>>prolonged stress strengthens muscles too, but those exercises simply

>>cannot compare with those I described in effectiveness and

>>efficiency.

>

>

> Sounds like a great exercise, but I contend that it would do more for

> you if it was longer than a few seconds thereby forcing the diaphragm

> into the mix.

I would do it longer, but several seconds is all I can do.

>Also sounds like hip flexors are the primary muscles

> used along with of course, your wrists. In short-burst abdominal

> exercises, hip flexors start working first to the exclusion of

> the " six pack " , which is not to say that hip flexors aren't great.

If you try this exercise, you will see that the " six pack " is very much

involved. As a matter of fact, I find this area to be what is involved

primarily.

> How do you know that you have strong abdominals if you can only

> sustain that position for a few seconds?

I conclude that because most people can't even raise themselves from the ground

holding that position whereas I can hold it for several seconds and even rotate

myself, per your suggestion. There are other exercises that I can do and most

others I've talked to can't.

Roman

[Guest guest]

> >Obviously Bruce Lee was a physical marvel, but isn't the general

> >consensus here that such an extremely lean physique is probably not

> >healthy? We never got to see what happened to Bruce Lee later in

> >life, unfortunately,

> >not that a single individual is enough anyway.

I went to buy a bale of hay today, and instead of the usual young muscular

bucks loading my truck I got a skinny old guy with few teeth. I was amazed

when he smoothly swung 100 lbs of hay into the back of the truck like it

was nothing. I don't know that the guy was *healthy*, lack of teeth and

all, but he sure seemed to be stronger than the guys with the bulky muscles.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

Roman-

>I conclude that because most people can't even raise themselves from the

>ground holding that position whereas I can hold it for several seconds and

>even rotate myself, per your suggestion. There are other exercises that I

>can do and most others I've talked to can't.

Didn't you say you're unusually thin, though? That gives you an advantage

in that you have less weight to lift.

-

[Guest guest]

Heidi-

Oh, I wasn't endorsing bodybuilder muscles, I was just wondering whether

Bruce Lee had too little body fat for optimum health, at least in the long

term. But unfortunately because of his drug use we never got to find out.

>I went to buy a bale of hay today, and instead of the usual young muscular

>bucks loading my truck I got a skinny old guy with few teeth. I was amazed

>when he smoothly swung 100 lbs of hay into the back of the truck like it

>was nothing. I don't know that the guy was *healthy*, lack of teeth and

>all, but he sure seemed to be stronger than the guys with the bulky muscles.

-

[Guest guest]

Idol wrote:

> Roman-

>

>

>>I conclude that because most people can't even raise themselves from the

>>ground holding that position whereas I can hold it for several seconds and

>>even rotate myself, per your suggestion. There are other exercises that I

>>can do and most others I've talked to can't.

>

>

> Didn't you say you're unusually thin, though? That gives you an advantage

> in that you have less weight to lift.

I wouldn't say I am unusually thin. But anyway... here's another exercise where

body weight is less important. You are hanging off of a bar or whatever (by

holding it with your hands) and raising your legs. Many people would not be able

to raise their legs, and most wouldn't be able to hold them under an angle. I

can, though.

Roman

[Guest guest]

> > How about we stick to you and me and let Heidi handle herself? I do

> > not know why you made this statement and in no way mean to attack

> > Heidi or anyone else.

>

>I mentioned Heidi because her experience contradicted your statements. I

>hope no one here perceives expressing opposing views as attacks.

I didn't take either of your views as attacks, for what it is worth. BUT --

the minimal amount of exercise I do should not even be in the same

conversation as Pavel or any of the " real " exercise guys! If you are a

middle-age woman trying for some extra strength, just about any weight

works fairly well, unless you rip a ligament (as I did trying

stair-stepping! I don't recommend it). You two are clearly out of my

ballpark ...

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

--

>Oh, I wasn't endorsing bodybuilder muscles, I was just wondering whether

>Bruce Lee had too little body fat for optimum health, at least in the long

>term. But unfortunately because of his drug use we never got to find out.

It is an interesting question. I LIKE having a few more muscles, and ones

that work better at that. But those skinny, strong monkeys (as in, animal

monkeys) amaze me too. Monkeys don't have much fat at all, and seem to do

fine, and are amazingly strong. Walruses have lots of fat, and do fine too

(and they get fat on an all-fish diet!). I kind of think humans are

partially adapted to water and that is why the layer of fat tends to be there.

To add more fat-fuel to the fire -- as I've mentioned before -- where did

the artists get the idea to create FAT women for some of the first stone

carvings? Clearly women, at least, at least sometimes, got fat even in

Paleo times. Maybe it was such a rarity they felt the need to immortalize

it in stone ...

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

Heidi Schuppenhauer wrote:

>Clearly women, at least, at least sometimes, got fat even in

> Paleo times. Maybe it was such a rarity they felt the need to immortalize

> it in stone ...

Maybe they got fat during times of abundance of some sweet fruits that they were

unable to stop eating. And the stone

carvings could've been used as reminders to the women of what overeating does.

Just a thought...

Roman

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 6/12/03 11:40:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

bberg@... writes:

> I don't think so. Tsatsouline recommends the deadlift and side press, and

> that's about it. The squat, deadlift, and bench press are the three

> exercises used in competitive powerlifting, so you could be thinking of

> just about any powerlifter.

Right, that was Staley. Ooops.

chris

[Guest guest]

>I don't know that the guy was *healthy*, lack of teeth and all, but he

>sure seemed to be stronger than the guys with the bulky muscles.

Yeah it's interesting in the West we equate a healthy body with healthy

muscles. But muscles are just one of many organs in the body. In India

they focus on the internal organs such as liver and kidneys. Muscle size

is a genetic factor anyway, you can be very strong and have small muscles

as the toothless bailer shows. It's like the variability in height it's

just a genetic factor not everyone has the DNA to have big muscles. Price

focuses on teeth which may or may not be right but at least it's a better

metric than muscles for determaining health.

I used to eat low fat and body train thinking this was the road to good

health. I ended up injurying myself. My body builder trainer just recently

had a heart attack and almost died, he has been body building since the

1950s along side friends such as Arnold Schwartzenger who also recently

had heart problems. I knew there had to be a better way which is how I

found Price. I still exercise and lift occasonally but its the not the end

all in health.

--

[Guest guest]

>the stone carvings could've been used as reminders to the women of what

>overeating does.

In a culture where scarcity is the norm, fat is a sign of wealth and

abundance, a desireable trait. We envy and idealize, and idolize, that

which is scarce, what we desire. Barbie Doll is the biggest selling doll

in the USA.

--