Hello all.
car insurance | payday loan | web directory | business directory | alprazolam | diazepam | fioricet | hydrocodone | vicodin | tramadol | xanax | valium | ultram | soma | carisoprodol | ambien | ativan | lorazepam | propecia | adipex | didrex | cialis | levitra | paxil | meridia | viagra | wellbutrin | clonazepam | xenical | prozac | butalbital | phentermine | buy vicodin | alprazolam | online pharmacy | tooth whitening | hydrocodone | buy fioricet | buy ultram | buy xanax | buy valium | buy paxil | buy meridia | buy carisoprodol | buy diazepam | buy tramadol | buy soma | buy phentermine | buy cialis | buy levitra | buy didrex | buy adipex | buy ativan | carisoprodol | flower online

Mr. De Vany,

reading about the "alactic" exercises prompted my thoughts about Superslow, have you looked into this?

The goal is to eliminate rebound and inertia while maintaining a constant time under load. Safe and efficient.

What are your observations on Superslow compared to Evolutionary Fitness with respect to FT development?

Thank you.

Spending time in the woods as a simulated hunter-gatherer gives much insight. Bear in mind that you are traveling with the clothes on your back and the few items that you value enough to carry, such as a flint knife, stone axe and fire making kit (some carried more, others less). Most hunter-gatherers practiced little or no storing of food.

There are hundreds of edible plants here in the Upper Midwest. Living on them requires the ability to locate, identify and prepare them. I am familiar with about 150 to 200 edible species.

Protein and fats are found concentrated in seeds and nuts. They are easy to identify and widespread. Most of these are only available in autumn. Anyone who has harvested wild nuts knows that many varieties require extensive processing, including husking, shelling and leaching of tannic acid. I have a black walnut tree in my yard, and it takes me ten hours to harvest and process one pound of finished product.

Another calorie dense form of plant food is the tuber. Typical examples here are Arrowhead and Ground Nut. Thousands of calories can be harvested in minutes with bare hands (Arrowhead) or a digging stick (Ground Nut). Tubers are best harvested late autumn through early spring.

Tap roots such as Parsnips and Burdock also offer calorie dense food with no more than a digging stick. A fifty calorie root takes a few minutes to get out. Tap roots are best in the spring.

Shoots, stalks, leaves, flowers and greens are available from early spring through late fall. The calories, however, are much less dense. An hour of picking might only yield a few hundred calories, and more bulk than you could carry.

Fruits such as grapes, raspberries, plums and cherries can be found easily. They are limited by a window of a few weeks when they are ripe in the fall. Ten minutes of picking wild plums can easily yield 5000 calories.

Edible wild plants are literally everywhere. I have counted about two dozen growing wild in my tiny yard. Vacant lots, ditches, parks and the countryside are literally bursting with food. One problem is that most foods are seasonal. This holds true in the tropics too. You have to be in the right place at the right time. Another problem is that humans face stiff competition for plant food with the local animal population. If you show up at the berry patch a day too late, it may be bare. Yet another problem is that it makes very little sense to spend 500 calories of work to harvest 250 calories of food. As hunter-gatherer, I am going to stick with the easy-to-harvest calorie-dense plants. The hundreds of other plants are useful for micronutrients, and might make a good nibble while I'm lounging around.

By way of comparison, you can set out a trap line with a dozen snares or deadfalls in a few hours. With skill and luck, such a trap line will yield meat almost daily. Once the traps are put out, they require only a quick daily check. There are mammals, birds and fish out year-round. Without doing any active hunting, a good trap line can yield tens of thousands of calories at a time. It also has the bonus of giving hides, bones, etc. It's also much easier to process an animal for protein and fats than it is to process nuts.

All of that said, it's easy to see why hunter-gatherers world-wide have included meat in their diet.

You have questioned jogger/aerobic excersize beliefs, why not Vegan?

Bill:

No need to defend yourself, it was your model that I questioned, not you, your beliefs, or practices.

I have seen many vegans make this comparative anatomy argument, so I pointed to its vaguely vegan nature.

Vegans, by the way, are welcome here and I would not question their practices or beliefs. I do doubt the effectiveness of their model of nutrition, but that is their business.

I would like you to expand, if you would, on your point 3. It would be very informative to know more about the limits of foraging for specific foods in the woods. There was a time when Euel Gibbons got a lot of press, and some of it made sense. But, the matter seemed over-hyped. Do you have any thoughts or experience on this that you would be willing to share with us?

In defense of myself:

1. I am not a vegan. My questions were not loaded. I am not looking for "absolute truth".

2. I am not an expert on chimpanzees, early hominids or anatomy. I am reading the comments of others with an open mind.

3. I have studied primitive skills and edible wild plants for a several years, and that has given some insight into hunter-gatherer life. Many plant experts that I have spoken to have said (BASED ON FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE) that it would be impossible to live on plants alone, with the exception of a few jungle habitats. Based on my own PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, living in the woods as a vegetarian would require constant foraging and eating. Living in the woods as a hunter-gatherer is far easier.

CJ: there is a difference between closed-chain and open chain exercises. Try the same experiment with, say, overhead presses or dead lifts. It will kill you.

Bill:

Don't wait too long as I don't plan to answer them, except in the book. The problem with your questions is that you are setting yourself up as an arbiter of the truth; if my answers don't satisfy your unspecified criteria, which appear to be vaguely vegan, then nothing follows. That is why I won't take the time to deal with them in any detail.

But here are a few comments: If you want to use chimps as a model of how to live your life or exercise and eat, then I wouldn't try to dissuade you. Do remember that chimps express a wild muscle gene that humans don't and they carry formidable weapons compared to unarmed humans.

They can tear apart a modern human but might have a pretty hard time doing it to a Paleolithic ancestor, who would have been a formidable adversary and, not incidentally, would be armed. Humans use technology, chimps carry their weapons in their mouth and in their claws.

Even non-cold adapted humans, such as Homo Erectus (the first hominid to have a modern human body), was taller and more massively built than most modern humans. The current generation of large Americans is just now approaching the size of Cro Magnon, who is largely my personal model.

Loren Cordain has shown that the present generation of young Americans are tall, but not muscular and tend to be near-sighted. Its the combination of simple carbs and protein in their diet that leads to over expression of IGF1 and other insulin-like growth factors. These affect, not only body size, but the shape of the eye.

If you want to do comparative studies of diet, activity, and human variation, then use human populations to do it. But, this then brings you into the myriad problems of modern epidemiological studies, which are in a pretty sorry state.

You might want to compare human populations with others that differ in diet and activity. One cute example that doesn't prove much is to compare the Dinka and Masaii with a tribe that lives close by (sorry, I forget their name). The Dinka and Masaii are tall and linear (a perfect adaptation to their hot climate); they have a high protein component in their diet. The other tribe lives on plantains, a high carb banana-like plant. They are short and round. It proves nothing, but it is instructive and more informative that chimp vs. human comparisons. Compare the plains indians to their agriculturalist contemporaries. For longevity, look at the Okinawans, who eat vegetables and sea food. Well, the list goes on.

Simon has dealt with the other issues very well I think.

I will do a post on the issue of mass; my position is not the one you characterize.

A general comment in all of this--diet and exercise: It may be prudent to look at peolithic past tendencies as having to "make do" to survive, based on what the environment offered--and developing intelligence levels of man, rather than being optimal for the organisms' (our) growth and development. Just because that's the way it was may not mean it the best way now for achievement of modern goals we have chosen.

..As this is an open forum felt like throwing a few things into the mix.
Hopefully useful.

The percentile difference between (much debated) us and pan paniscus (bonobos) is beyond huge vis how they live and how we live so to comparre the two can be helpful in some ways and totally contrary in others.
Read all the Yerkes, Savage-Rumbaugh, Hrdy,De Waal, Wrangham.Goodall,Ulenbrook etc stuff.
And thank the powers that be that we ain't as violent as ordinary chymps as about 30% of males get offed (deaded) by other males.

Ideal diet/environment..the !SAN in the kalahari used to eat huge amounts on mongongo nuts and yet meat , as i understand from all h-g cultures studied was always the most prized food source.
The folks up around this neck of the woods (Yukon , Alaska NW Territories ) in the WInter (8-9 months per year) live on nowt but protein and fat cos nothing grows up there (here) in that time.
I hope i'm right in saying this but protein and fat are the two absolute necessities for human survival...carbs are not. The Stefansson experiment in the early part of last cent. was only for one year but likely indicative of this.

I hope thats in some ways useful.

Art: I appreciate your rational approach to fitness, as opposed to the many emotional appeals that are out there-most with no grounding in real science.

Since I am seeking answers, not giving them, please consider my comments below as "topics for discussion" rather than my personal truths.

I think a little mass goes a long way. Why?

1. Humans are genetically and anatomically most similar to chimpanzees (about 98% by DNA comparison). We are both tropical primates.

2. Chimps are small (rarely over 70kg), but have the strength to literally tear a human apart. Their bodyfat is about 5% in the wild, so they are quite muscular.

3. Our gut has the same basics as the chimpanzees. It logically follows that we should be eating like them.

4. Chimps maintain their high level of strength on a diet of about 5% of calories from meat. Chimps get their exercise in the way that you advocate- they climb (strength), play (chaotic bursts) and occasionally fight. Their activity is sporadic, and they rest much of the time to preserve energy and stay cool. Extra mass would cause a need for more energy intake, and would impede cooling.

5. Of the hunter-gatherers that I have studied, none that live in the tropics carry around the large amount of muscle mass that you advocate. It seems as if you base much of your "Evolutionary Fitness" on cold-climate hunter gatherers.

6. Although almost all hunter-gathers studied eat more meat than chimps, I think that this is an adaptation to allow exploitation of new habitats rather than the ideal diet.

7. Whatever the proportions, I do agree that the vegetation/meat diet of the early human is far superior to the modern junk diet and the agricultural diet.

I look forward to your reply.

"Take an exercise with a weight that you can do, say, 10 reps on. Then use the same weight and see if you can do 10 reps, but one at a time setting the weight down for 5 to 10 seconds. You can't."

Hmmm. I have tried the 1/5s and have experience that seems to contradict this. I did an experiment just the other day with pullups. I did 25 1/5s (dismounting the bar between reps) but on a good day I can get maybe 10 consecutive pulls. Any ideas why this may be?

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: