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

[Guest guest]

Heidi-

>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.

I've always wondered why certain primates have muscles which are so much

stronger per unit size than ours (chimps come to mind) but are you sure

they're all that lean? Bruce Lee, frankly, looked like he'd been

overzealously liposuctioned. His appearance, at least to me, seemed to

border on the unnatural, though I'm certainly not suggesting he had any

artificial aid and I'm not even sure his body fat percentage was

unhealthily low. But anyway, he looked like skin on top of muscle with

virtually no fat in between, while Price's healthy natives were lean by

modern standards but not, I think, bodybuilder-lean or Bruce Lee-lean. I

don't know what the thresholds and the gradients are, but I do know that

too low a percentage of body fat can leave one prone to illness and injury.

>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 ...

Back then, before refined sugar and flour -- in fact before agriculture --

fat was probably a sign of plenty, abundance and wealth (however wealth

might have been measured then) and therefore of status. I'm also sure that

people then knew that if a woman got too thin, she couldn't conceive or

carry a baby to term, so fat would've seemed like a fertility blessing too,

and would doubtless have been exaggerated to convey divine wealth and

reproductive power.

-

[Guest guest]

>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

LOL! I love that -- not a theory I've heard espoused at all. One researcher

thought they might be sex objects, like an early version of Playboy, but

shoot, any guy who went to that much work to make a sex fetish would

probably have her come out more like Barbie or those dancing babes on the

temples in India.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

The stone carvings they found are considered to be religious art objects and

not a reminder of what " overeating does. " Reuben and other European artists

painted fatter women, too, because they thought they were beautiful. (I'ven

seen air brushed copies in modern art stores; no doubt because we hate fat

so much.)

Sorry but being fat is still considered a sign of good health and wealth to

this day in many parts of the world. They believe it to such a degree that

there is a part of Africa where women take dangerous drugs to make them

fatter (for beauty in this case). I don't remember which country. It was

in a magazine. You may not agree with it, and I'm sure the World Health

Organization is trying to change their minds, but there it is.

Robin

From: Roman <romeml@...>

Reply-

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

thyroid

Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 02:12:24 -0500

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

_________________________________________________________________

Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.

http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail

[Guest guest]

Robin-

>(I'ven

>seen air brushed copies in modern art stores; no doubt because we hate fat

>so much.)

EVERYONE gets airbrushed nowadays. It's absurd, but I doubt it has much if

anything to do with our attitudes towards fat people per se. (After all,

the airbrushed subjects aren't any thinner as a result.)

-

[Guest guest]

I meant that they airbrush famous paintings to make the women in them look

thinner. Obviously, the subjects are long dead. Modern people hate fat so

much they won't buy pictures of fat women even if they're by famous artists

like Reuben or Gaughin(did I spell that right?). That is certainly a

prejudice. It's got nothing to do with improving the health of the people

in the pictures. They just make the women look thinner to sell the

paintings. Obviously, the original artists thought they looked beautiful as

painted or they would have made them different.

Robin

From: Idol <Idol@...>

Reply-

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

thyroid

Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 14:31:31 -0400

Robin-

>(I'ven

>seen air brushed copies in modern art stores; no doubt because we hate fat

>so much.)

EVERYONE gets airbrushed nowadays. It's absurd, but I doubt it has much if

anything to do with our attitudes towards fat people per se. (After all,

the airbrushed subjects aren't any thinner as a result.)

-

_________________________________________________________________

STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*

http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

[Guest guest]

Robin-

>I meant that they airbrush famous paintings to make the women in them look

>thinner.

You mean they're actually recomposing the paintings? Wow, I didn't know

that. That's pretty pathetic.

-

[Guest guest]

,

>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.

I think we're using " powerful " in different ways. For me it is about

the *capability* and wherewithall to... accomplish what needs to be

done on a regular basis (cracking a coconut, opening a jar, walking

up a flight of stairs, etc.) as well as deal with big and small

*emergencies* such as falling into a raging river rapidly going out

to sea and having to pull myself out of it without a foothold on the

muddy bank or getting caught in a strong current while wearing a

bunch of gear and heading right toward a reef, being attacked and

having to defend oneself (done that), steering a sailboat in a storm

around rocks after no sleep in 24 hours (hubby handled the sails), or

simply catching something valuable--and heavy--before it lands--

including a person. The advantage of small strong muscles over large

is that with less weight holding you back you can jump higher and

move faster than a big ole gorilla and have more endurance whilst

running away if necessary.

>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.

I mostly agree with you. You make good points. However, I also

believe that we can shape ourselves the way we want within certain

constraints--but nobody knows exactly where they sit. There is some

element of *will* combined with the available physical building

blocks and input diet materials in the shaping of one's body.

Obviously, there's a place in this world for the whole gamut of body

types, whereas, while Roman holds up Pavel Tstatsouline as the ideal

male body type, I hold up Bruce Lee, what of it? Obviously, we have

different goals. I don't particularly want to build up my own hip

flexors, for example, because I value a small waist and lateral

flexibility.

>...you figure out your 6RM... and then do 5 reps

And the outcome is, whenever you want to do an activity that requires

an equal amount of effort, you can do it exactly 5 times...does that

mean if you encounter an emergency that requires you to move an

object that requires 1/4th the force you normally require for a rep

for 20 times that you'll be able to accomplish it? Or will you end up

with some nagging pain in the elbow, for example? Only experience

will tell. I'm using " you " in the objective sense. I don't mean to be

personal.

>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 ...

Like " powerful " , I think we are using the term, " strength " in

different ways, or perhaps with some overlap. If he's talking about

exhibition style strength--go to that platform there, take that

weight, and lift it over your head--which is the only way to measure

something like that in a competition, objectively, then I say, so

what? How many times a day is an ability like that useful? Whereas if

he is talking about a triathelon, where different kinds of " strength "

come into play including speed, then I think he is really on to

something.

>>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?

Yes. I do slow reps sometimes, and sometimes I do fast reps. The

purpose of doing it is simply because I want to be able to do it,

while still maintaining form, so that when one needs to perform

something with an equivalalent amount of force--but quickly--the

muscle's capability is assured, purely by practice. I mean, why wait

until the emergency arises? Be prepared is what I say, and practice

makes perfect in both the neural impulse that moves the particular

muscle in the particular direction and the muscle " memory " and

recovery rate.

The same goes for a really really long " set " , i.e., a long hike. You

can work on your hamstrings, quads, and calves every day in the gym,

but that won't necessarily guarantee a muscle capacity for

*sustained* exertion, even at a slow pace, plus there's the ankles to

worry about which many people neglect in the gym.

>but I think their argument in favor of moving the weight very

>slowly, on a 10-count in each direction, is very,

>very sound.

I agree. That's a very good thing to do. I do that more than half of

the time. I do one long set, and drive whoever is waiting for my

machine batty.

I believe I answered your last question by the way and I'm sure you

don't mean to sound like Henry Higgins but I can practically hear

whatshisname " singing " " Why Can't a Woman Be More Like a Man? " now.

By the way, another advantage of small muscles is the little bit of

advantage it buys when one is underestimated.

in Berkeley

[Guest guest]

>Bruce Lee, frankly, looked like he'd been

>overzealously liposuctioned. His appearance, at least to me, seemed to

>border on the unnatural, though I'm certainly not suggesting he had any

>artificial aid and I'm not even sure his body fat percentage was

>unhealthily low. But anyway, he looked like skin on top of muscle with

>virtually no fat in between, while Price's healthy natives were lean by

>modern standards but not, I think, bodybuilder-lean or Bruce Lee-lean. I

>don't know what the thresholds and the gradients are, but I do know that

>too low a percentage of body fat can leave one prone to illness and injury.

I tend to agree ... fat has all kinds of good functions, it is a shame to

get rid of it just for the sake of muscle definition.

> >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 ...

>

>Back then, before refined sugar and flour -- in fact before agriculture --

>fat was probably a sign of plenty, abundance and wealth (however wealth

>might have been measured then) and therefore of status. I'm also sure that

>people then knew that if a woman got too thin, she couldn't conceive or

>carry a baby to term, so fat would've seemed like a fertility blessing too,

>and would doubtless have been exaggerated to convey divine wealth and

>reproductive power.

I'd tend to agree, something like that ... the Hawaiians wanted their

rulers FAT and they worked at getting that way. Kind of like Sumo wrestlers

(Japanese aren't normally fat!). But when I think about how much WORK it is

to carve stone without metal tools ... if you were going to spend a few

months carving a rock, why would you (and lots of other guys all over

Europe) all choose to carve fat women? It would have to be a magical kind

of thing, or religious, I'd think, to go to that much work. But later in

Europe, magic was usually associated with males.

So at the very least, I'd have to say that those guys (I'm assuming it was

guys who did rock carving, which seems to be the case in most societies) at

the least had a lot of reverence for women.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

Robin Lillian wrote:

> The stone carvings they found are considered to be religious art objects and

> not a reminder of what " overeating does. "

I was joking, Robin.

Roman

[Guest guest]

OK. Sorry. You can't see people smiling on the Internet. Not unless

they draw it in, anyway.

Robin

From: Roman <romeml@...>

Reply-

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

thyroid

Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 17:27:07 -0500

Robin Lillian wrote:

> The stone carvings they found are considered to be religious art objects

and

> not a reminder of what " overeating does. "

I was joking, Robin.

Roman

_________________________________________________________________

The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*

http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

[Guest guest]

Robin Lillian wrote:

> OK. Sorry. You can't see people smiling on the Internet. Not unless

> they draw it in, anyway.

>

> Robin

That would be too simple

Roman