Re: Morning workout best?

[Guest guest]

,

That was a great post. I've saved it for future reference and to help

persuade others.

Missed the last 800 posts or so. Glad to be back -- reading at least.

Ron

> >Where are you getting the information that aerobic

> >exercise isn't as good for us, as we have been told??

> >Even Mercola has suggested aerobic exercise for 90

> >min. (which I think is ridiculous), to lose weight. I

> >do know that it is very catabolic to the body.

>

> I don't have time right now to dig up a bunch of references,

> but here's the

> argument in a nutshell:

>

> There are basically two kinds of training effects: physiological and

> neurological (though obviously in a sense they're both physical

> changes). Strength training causes concrete physiological changes --

> muscle growth and improvements in muscle quality,

> essentially. And any

> kind of athletic activity, including weight lifting, will lead to

> neurological changes as your body learns how to perform the activity

> effectively and efficiently. But in general, that effect is

> extremely

[Guest guest]

> Pretty much the same here, except that I am eating low-carb.

> I can delay

> meals a _lot_ now if necessary without any of the crashing I used to

> experience.

>

Yes, yes. Me too. A far cry from the Zone days when it was time to eat NOW

or DIE.

Ron

[Guest guest]

,

Thank you so much for this information. You are such

an asset to this site. Mucho appreciation!

jafa

--- Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> Jafa-

>

> >Where are you getting the information that aerobic

> >exercise isn't as good for us, as we have been

> told??

> >Even Mercola has suggested aerobic exercise for 90

> >min. (which I think is ridiculous), to lose weight.

> I

> >do know that it is very catabolic to the body.

>

> I don't have time right now to dig up a bunch of

> references, but here's the

> argument in a nutshell:

>

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

On 10/20/05, RBJR <rbjr@...> wrote:

> > Pretty much the same here, except that I am eating low-carb.

> > I can delay

> > meals a _lot_ now if necessary without any of the crashing I used to

> > experience.

> >

>

> Yes, yes. Me too. A far cry from the Zone days when it was time to eat

> NOW

> or DIE.

Me three. This is more effective, IMO, than the WD in this respect.

I seem to have acquired super-human levels of indifference to being

able to eat. I've been substitue teaching, and most days I have no

lunch, and everyone's like, huh? No lunch? Then I go a couple more

hours, work out, then eat.

Chris

--

Statin Drugs Kill Your Brain

And Cause Transient Global Amnesia:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Statin-Drugs-Side-Effects.html

[Guest guest]

, I find that pull-ups are maybe 5% harder when done with pronated

wrists than when done with supinated wrists. It's pretty insignificant,

so I don't see what the big fuss is about unless you're talking about

doing pull-ups in a way I've never seen them done. I guess you were just

giving an example but still, I see either way as " proper " .

Tom

Idol wrote:

> Obviously I'm talking about genuine functional strength training, though,

> not drug-assisted bodybuilding or anything resembling or derived from it,

> and the difference can cause a lot of confusion. I was riding the subway

> with someone last night when some other passenger started showing off by

> doing pullups on one of the overhead handrails. I commented that he wasn't

> doing proper pullups because he was doing them curl style, and my friend

> asked what on earth I meant. I said that curl-style isn't a functionally

> useful way to do pullups, because in the real world you'd never find a

> situation in which you could climb something with your hands and arms in

> the curl position. He looked at me as if I was crazy and responded that

> people don't work out so they can _do_ things, they work out so they can

> build their biceps and look good!

[Guest guest]

Tom-

>, I find that pull-ups are maybe 5% harder when done with pronated

>wrists than when done with supinated wrists. It's pretty insignificant,

>so I don't see what the big fuss is about unless you're talking about

>doing pull-ups in a way I've never seen them done. I guess you were just

>giving an example but still, I see either way as " proper " .

I haven't actually tried them myself, but I've read some convincing

arguments that the difference is a big deal. If you're interested I'll try

to dig up the literature when I have time.

-

[Guest guest]

Sure, at your convenience.

Tom

Idol wrote:

> Tom-

>

>

>>, I find that pull-ups are maybe 5% harder when done with pronated

>>wrists than when done with supinated wrists. It's pretty insignificant,

>>so I don't see what the big fuss is about unless you're talking about

>>doing pull-ups in a way I've never seen them done. I guess you were just

>>giving an example but still, I see either way as " proper " .

>

>

> I haven't actually tried them myself, but I've read some convincing

> arguments that the difference is a big deal. If you're interested I'll try

> to dig up the literature when I have time.

>

>

>

>

> -

[Guest guest]

On 10/10/05, cbrown2008 <cbrown2008@...> wrote:

> I'll second that and raise you. No classes or gyms unless I know in

> advance what the other students' motivations are. Pretty much

> precludes drop-in places.

>

> Connie

Health clubs are pretty much meat markets. You will never get around

that. I'm not saying there aren't people there who are serious about

working out first and foremost, probably most of the people are, but

the cultural milieu of a club arises out of what was once known as

" physical culture " . So when you go into such an atmosphere you will be

judged no matter what you look like That is the nature of such an

atmosphere. People are going to glance at you whether you are fat,

skinny, or well muscled. I can't imagine it being any other way.

Both men and women find each other as decorous objects. I like that

actually. Its a motivator either way, to get in shape if I am out of

shape and an affirmation to stay in shape when I get there. They are

also geared to a middle of the road type of approach, which is only

going to contribute to that kind of atmosphere. Not much thinking or

technique involved in using the modern weight machines. You simply

place the pin on the weight you want and away you go. You simply can't

sell the hardcore gym concept to the masses, which is why Joe Weider

got rich and Bob Hoffman is just a footnote little known outside of

lifting circles (and probably not very well in those circles anymore

either).

Plus I just think the whole don't treat women as sex objects kind of

thinking is very misguided. But here is a better quote:

" ...one motif now permeating the entire movement is a strident

opposition to men treating women as " sex objects " This supposedly

demeaning, debasing, and exploitative treatment extends from

pornography to beauty contests, to advertisements of pretty models

using a product, all the way to wolf whistles and admiring glances at

girls in miniskirts. But surely the attack on women as " sex objects "

is simply an attack on sex, period, or rather, on hetero-sex.

These...are out to destroy the age old-custom--delighted in by normal

women the world over--of women dressing to attract men and succeeding

at this pleasant task. What a dull and dreary world these termagents

would impose on us! "

Personally I like the hard core gyms, which are few and far between.

You will know one when you walk in. No music. Very little in the way

of aerobic type stuff. No classes or very few. No minimum wage worker

hired off the street trying to act like an exercise expert. A few

machines. And lots of weights. Glorious weights, old style, new style,

rubber bumpers, grunting and groaning, and no fashionable workout gear

<g>

I used to belong to an old style Gold's gym that was like that. That

is not to say nice looking bodies wouldn't elicit comments from the

men _and_ women, but it is to say that most folks were there for

really working out. That Golds is long gone, replaced by the franchise

machine that now makes up Golds, which I don't have a problem with

except that it is not what I want. But clearly I am a minority.

The only " hardcore " gyms around today are the one's dedicated to

Olympic Lifting and they are very rare indeed.

--

" It is no crime to be ignorant of economics,

which is, after all, a specialized discipline

and one that most people consider to be a

'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible

to have a loud and vociferous opinion on

economic subjects while remaining in this

state of ignorance. "

-- Murray Rothbard

[Guest guest]

>

> " ...one motif now permeating the entire movement is a strident

> opposition to men treating women as " sex objects " This supposedly

> demeaning, debasing, and exploitative treatment extends from

> pornography to beauty contests, to advertisements of pretty models

> using a product, all the way to wolf whistles and admiring glances at

> girls in miniskirts. But surely the attack on women as " sex objects "

> is simply an attack on sex, period, or rather, on hetero-sex.

> These...are out to destroy the age old-custom--delighted in by normal

> women the world over--of women dressing to attract men and succeeding

> at this pleasant task. What a dull and dreary world these termagents

> would impose on us! "

>

That's crap. One can find woman attactive, = sex object in one sense, but

also find beauty contests to be demeaning to woman. I think that they are.

And now, Rita will play the violin in a skimpy bathing suit...give me a

fucking break. One can view the opposite sex as attractive and still view

and treat them with respect. And it is certainly in the nature of most

people to enjoy being found attractive, but I don't think that one should

assume that women therefore enjoy 'wolf whistles'. Absolute sexist crap.

And the notion that this is an attack on 'hetero -sex' LOL. Yeah, and we

have to ban same sex marriage to defend the institution of marriage...

[Guest guest]

On 5/28/06, Gene Schwartz <implode7@...> wrote:

>

> >

> > " ...one motif now permeating the entire movement is a strident

> > opposition to men treating women as " sex objects " This supposedly

> > demeaning, debasing, and exploitative treatment extends from

> > pornography to beauty contests, to advertisements of pretty models

> > using a product, all the way to wolf whistles and admiring glances at

> > girls in miniskirts. But surely the attack on women as " sex objects "

> > is simply an attack on sex, period, or rather, on hetero-sex.

> > These...are out to destroy the age old-custom--delighted in by normal

> > women the world over--of women dressing to attract men and succeeding

> > at this pleasant task. What a dull and dreary world these termagents

> > would impose on us! "

> >

>

> That's crap. One can find woman attactive, = sex object in one sense, but

> also find beauty contests to be demeaning to woman. I think that they are.

> And now, Rita will play the violin in a skimpy bathing suit...give me a

> fucking break. One can view the opposite sex as attractive and still view

> and treat them with respect. And it is certainly in the nature of most

> people to enjoy being found attractive, but I don't think that one should

> assume that women therefore enjoy 'wolf whistles'. Absolute sexist crap.

Perhaps. But the above quote was written with the idea in mind that

finding a women attractive PERIOD was sexist, be it wolf whistles or

whathaveyou. You conceded the basic point, so there you have it.

> And the notion that this is an attack on 'hetero -sex' LOL. Yeah, and we

> have to ban same sex marriage to defend the institution of marriage...

LOL! Well banning in the modern context almost always refers to the

state, and as far as I am concerned , the state should have absolutely

NOTHING to do with marriage. And there in also lies the dangers of

isolated quotes. The above came near the end of a fairly long chapter

defending his point. If I can find it online I will post it. But don't

hold your breath. I only get online once every few weeks these days.

--

You are a libertarian because " you're willing to tolerate anything

that's peaceful, and you practice the principle of live and let live –

opposing the initiation of force (violence) against anyone for any

purpose. "

The late Harry Browne

Why You Are A Libertarian

http://tinyurl.com/kha3m

[Guest guest]

> On 5/28/06, Gene Schwartz <implode7@...> wrote:

>>

>>>

>>> " ...one motif now permeating the entire movement is a strident

>>> opposition to men treating women as " sex objects " This supposedly

>>> demeaning, debasing, and exploitative treatment extends from

>>> pornography to beauty contests, to advertisements of pretty models

>>> using a product, all the way to wolf whistles and admiring glances at

>>> girls in miniskirts. But surely the attack on women as " sex objects "

>>> is simply an attack on sex, period, or rather, on hetero-sex.

>>> These...are out to destroy the age old-custom--delighted in by normal

>>> women the world over--of women dressing to attract men and succeeding

>>> at this pleasant task. What a dull and dreary world these termagents

>>> would impose on us! "

>>>

>>

>> That's crap. One can find woman attactive, = sex object in one sense, but

>> also find beauty contests to be demeaning to woman. I think that they are.

>> And now, Rita will play the violin in a skimpy bathing suit...give me a

>> fucking break. One can view the opposite sex as attractive and still view

>> and treat them with respect. And it is certainly in the nature of most

>> people to enjoy being found attractive, but I don't think that one should

>> assume that women therefore enjoy 'wolf whistles'. Absolute sexist crap.

>

> Perhaps. But the above quote was written with the idea in mind that

> finding a women attractive PERIOD was sexist, be it wolf whistles or

> whathaveyou. You conceded the basic point, so there you have it.

>

The notion that being attracted to another human being is bigoted in some

sense is obviously ludicrous. It is extremely different thing, however, than

valuing that human being totally on their physical attractiveness. I don't

see how I've conceded anything. That quote isn't about what you say it is

about.

[Guest guest]

Oh that's funny. I mentioned the motivations of other club members

and you jumped right to appearance... which is the last thing I

would watch out for. I'd be looking to see if the gym members cared

about quality of movement, or if they thought more was better, or

hard is always good, or injuries are inevitable, or if exercise

bulimia was praised, and what was the approach to continual

improvement, and what did they think improvement was in the first

place, and on and on. I took for granted a respectful culture -

leering and unwanted advances are legally actionable nowadays.

In CST land we are having a ton of fun with a model of working at

home most of the time and getting together for long sessions on

weekends. It would be great if there was a constant drop-in place

but so far, no.

Connie

> > I'll second that and raise you. No classes or gyms unless I

know in

> > advance what the other students' motivations are. Pretty much

> > precludes drop-in places.

> >

> > Connie

>

> Health clubs are pretty much meat markets. You will never get

around

> that. I'm not saying there aren't people there who are serious

about

> working out first and foremost, probably most of the people are,

but

> the cultural milieu of a club arises out of what was once known as

> " physical culture " . So when you go into such an atmosphere you

will be

> judged no matter what you look like That is the nature of such an

> atmosphere. People are going to glance at you whether you are fat,

> skinny, or well muscled. I can't imagine it being any other way.

>

[Guest guest]

Oh My God! Gene,thank you so much for saying

this. I was pounding fists and screaming

silently!!!

--- Gene Schwartz <implode7@...> wrote:

> That's crap. One can find woman attactive, =

> sex object in one sense, but

> also find beauty contests to be demeaning to

> woman. I think that they are.

> And now, Rita will play the violin in a skimpy

> bathing suit...give me a

> fucking break. One can view the opposite sex as

> attractive and still view

> and treat them with respect. And it is

> certainly in the nature of most

> people to enjoy being found attractive, but I

> don't think that one should

> assume that women therefore enjoy 'wolf

> whistles'. Absolute sexist crap.

>

> And the notion that this is an attack on

> 'hetero -sex' LOL. Yeah, and we

> have to ban same sex marriage to defend the

> institution of marriage...

>

>

>

Joy and Peace,

" What would the world be, once bereft

Of wet and of wildness? Let them be left,

O let them be left, wildness and wet;

Long live the weeds and the wilderness yet. "

From Inversnaid by Gerard Manley Hopkins

(1844–89)

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

On 5/29/06, Ballard <magdaverte@...> wrote:

> ...I was pounding fists and screaming

> silently!!!

That's hot.

Respectfully,

[Guest guest]

Oh, that turns me on...

> Oh My God! Gene,thank you so much for saying

> this. I was pounding fists and screaming

> silently!!!

>

> --- Gene Schwartz <implode7@...> wrote:

>> That's crap. One can find woman attactive, =

>> sex object in one sense, but

>> also find beauty contests to be demeaning to

>> woman. I think that they are.

>> And now, Rita will play the violin in a skimpy

>> bathing suit...give me a

>> fucking break. One can view the opposite sex as

>> attractive and still view

>> and treat them with respect. And it is

>> certainly in the nature of most

>> people to enjoy being found attractive, but I

>> don't think that one should

>> assume that women therefore enjoy 'wolf

>> whistles'. Absolute sexist crap.

>>

>> And the notion that this is an attack on

>> 'hetero -sex' LOL. Yeah, and we

>> have to ban same sex marriage to defend the

>> institution of marriage...

>>

>>

>>

>

>

> Joy and Peace,

>

[Guest guest]

Too funny.

--- Furbish <efurbish@...> wrote:

> That's hot.

>

> Respectfully,

>

>

Joy and Peace,

" What would the world be, once bereft

Of wet and of wildness? Let them be left,

O let them be left, wildness and wet;

Long live the weeds and the wilderness yet. "

From Inversnaid by Gerard Manley Hopkins

(1844–89)

__________________________________________________