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

..without a shadow of a doubt you gents need to get out more and get your jollies in a more 'sensible' way.Yes yes i know we all define things differently but all this rhetoric about FT/ST etc. Yaysus
This is verbage and bunkum and about as boring as it gets.
Go wander and get lost, in a good way that is.

I guess we must have missed the comments page so much that we are all on a binge... :)

Mr. Fugate,

Perhaps we should expand our discussion to how evidence is to be considered.

Firstly, take for example this observation - the Sun raises from the east travels across the sky and sets in the west. Repeats behaviour the next morning. It is not unreasonable for you to assert that the Sun circles the Earth. Furthermore, this has been observed in real life without fail for thousands of years. Surely we have a preponderance of evidence that this must be true. Is it really true? Does the Sun orbit the Earth? Are there alternative explanations? Are there strange exceptions that can not be explained by this theory?

Secondly, and this is a true story, there once was a time when the literate world believed that all swans were white. Millions and millions of white swans was seen. Again a preponderance of evidence. But how many white swans did you have to see to conclude that black swans do not exist? But just one black swan knocks the theory - and they did finally find them in Australia when the literate world got there.

Now back to FT-ST ratios. I dislike the idea of "genetic limits" because I do not think it is the full story. The present diameter of my wrist is a result of genetics - yes. But also a function of gene expression from the nature of my physical activities during my growth spurt as a teen, the nature of my diet as a teen, a nature of my diet today, the nature of climate I live in as a teen, the nature of my school workload as a teen... the list is long.

The size of my bones determines the robustness of my tendons and how prone to injury I am. How much weight I can carry with a good safety factor. You known - I can even alter the size of my wrist bones or any long bone, and its density - this is a scientific fact. But it is going to require a lot more effort, diet supplements and take even more time than it takes to shift ft-st ratios.
What is the limiting factor to the man with dainty wrists? Genetics? I doubt it. Hence, I say there are alternative explanations to your observations. I have contributed a few silly candidates, maybe you can add to the list.

Hence, we search on for the unifed theory of looking like Mr. Olympia...

EEEEgads.
For sure how we less than 'airy primates assuage our boredom !
Hilarious and feel concretely sure it will have improved the lives of all participants!
and of course i include myself in that equation.

Fong -

You seem to have missed the salient point from the Athletic Quickness website:

“Conversion between the two fast fiber types, 2a and 2x, is a natural consequence of training and detraining. But what about conversion between the slow and fast fibers types 1 and 2? Here the results have been somewhat murkier. Many experiments performed over the past couple of decades found NO EVIDENCE that slow fibers can be converted to fast, and vice versa. But in the early 1990s we did get an INDICATION that a rigorous exercise regimen could convert slow fibers to fast 2a fibers.” (emphases added)

They go on to discuss experiments from the late ‘80s and early ‘90s that “indicated” or “suggested” that conversion may be possible under certain and specific circumstances as you noted in detail. Still, the preponderance of evidence is that the FT/ST ratio cannot be changed or at least cannot be changed significantly for the average healthy individual. This does not mean (nor have I stated) that a genetically-determined low FT/ST ratio person cannot gain strength or quickness. However, I do believe that these gains will be limited and such an individual may even have difficulty, if the FT/ST ratio is especially low, maintaining muscle mass in the latter part of life.

Matt -

Here's a test that I understand is a good indicator of FT/ST ratios if you're in your normal weight range for your height: Wrap your middle finger and thumb around your wrist. If they do not touch, you probably have a large frame and a relatively high FT/ST ratio. If they just touch you are average and are probably about 50:50. If they overlap, you have a small frame and probably low FT/ST ratio and you're going to have limited muscle mass gains regardless of weight training.

I have observed situations like yours over and over again in real life. That's what got me thinking about this in the first place. Of course, one can always hand-pick data from academic studies to selectively prove anything, but you are probably right that any changes in FT/ST ratio are insignificant and likely genetically limited anyway. As I stated before, I think this is a huge and underappreciated factor in athletic training.

I would have to agree with Mr. Fugate on this one, though I only have my personal observations to support it. I think the genetic component is huge, and has been largely overlooked on this blog. Art's post, "Are You Mr. Olympia", should be an obvious tipoff that Art has some strong genetics on his side. I have been training for 15 years, using different methods including Evolutionary Fitness, and no one has ever mistaken me for a bodybuilder.

I do believe the earlier twins post shows the effectivness of training, but it also shows the power of genetics. If you had two twin Bill Gates, I don't think any type of training would turn one into a bodybuilder.

I also believe that those with lots of slow-twitch muscle should train DIFFERENTLY than those with lots of fast-twitch muscle. I am sure some fibers can switch type, though I doubt it's enough to make a difference (and it could have a gentic limit). For some evidence, I offer this non-scientific link that shows different types of training may be optimal:

http://healthy.net/scr/column.asp?lk=P12&Id=249

Dear Mr. Fugate,

The problem, not mine, is the noise introduced into this very high quality blog for casual readers whom do not have the sophistication to discern the quality of your assertions. Perhaps, you have misintrepreted of the readings found in the "athleticquickness" - I get the sense you never did finish reading in entirety the dense materials or perhaps it was your only source of understanding and hence the poorly written article may have thrown you off. A careful reading would show your assertions are clearly WRONG.

Mr. Fugate here are the specifics where you are WRONG:

Your cited source "athleticquickness.com" mentions at least 3 including:
- Studies that looked at the FT/ST ratio shifts of paralyzed individuals.
- via biopsy at pre & post intense training of the quads within 3 mth period.
- Karolinska Institute in Stockholm reporting a program of vigorous weight training and anaerobic exercise converts not only type 2x fibers to 2a but also type 1 fibers to 2a.

A visit to any university library would bring even more evidence and data points. Muscle plasticity is a ubiquitous concept. "Muscle plasticity" is well studied and not even very controversial. Hence, you can change your FT/ST ratios. It has been established that FT/ST ratios can move up and down. i.e. Type II/[FT] to Type I[ST] ratios can be changed and TypeIIa and 2x be increased and decrease.

It is fact that most of us have a fixed amount of gross muscle fiber that only decrease after mid-life baring a strange genetic variation. One, with a sophisticated understanding of muscle anatomy would not then conclude that it is NOT possible to change FT/ST ratios.

That would be like saying that since total brain cells decline after mid-life we must be ordain to contribute less intelligent output. Perhaps it is true for most people to have less intelligent output as life progresses - but it is not foreordain.

or to say that since people have a fixed number of muscles and the number of muscles can only decrease [due to accidents :)] - we therefore cannot get faster or stronger. Most people by observation and counter-examples, know this to be false.

Our bodies have complex mechanisms that can adapt - the loss of gross numbers of muscle fibers do not ordain much when you have other mechanisms that can contribute to quickness and strength.

This is my small stab at influencing the noise-signal ratio.

Dear Mr. Fong,

What on earth is your problem? I am just trying to engage in meaningful discussion and learn. Your vegetable farmer story is peer reviewed?

Many health, fitness, and bodybuilding resources on the web state the FT/ST ratio is static but I'm not saying that proves anything by itself. Do you have any 'proof' that they are not static? It seems reasonable to me that they are since new fibers cannot be produced by the body (scientific fact, please don't try to debate this one) that one type cannot be turned into another type either.

Dear Fugate,

Thank you. The point you were trying to make now seems much more concrete. For myself, I can best understand your view point from the prespective of potential FT/ST function. You are asserting that FT/ST ratios are fixed and this limits a person's relative maximum potential. A maximum that exists in relation to other human in the population. A maximum that exists perhaps only as a useful construct in our vanity.

I would like to point out, however, thankfully my paleo-ancestors had rather active lives and whatever the latent potential they left me with, I have much room to grow on my relative FT/ST functionality scale. Hence, in my humble opinion, the point is really moot for me, at this moment. Perhaps, there may come a day where my latent FT/ST ratio limits my gains. It would certainly be a joyous day. I look forward with bated breath.

Perhaps, you will soon meet my vegetable farmer, living without TV, as a counterexample to your bold hypothesis. My best wishes to your search for the rare but probable black swan in your quest to prove your theory on FT/ST stability.

To be fair to the other readers, I must point out that you have yet to offer evidence of long term stability of FT/ST ratios after intense deliberate training either in longtitudinal studies, meaningless yet refreshing anecdotal evidence or otherwise. I have perused the above-mentioned resources but came away disappointed because I must have missed the specific one that supports your hypothesis of FT/ST ratio stability even as an aside.

My best wishes on your travels to close the distance between bold assertion and peer reviewed evidence. We have been much entertained.

Cheers!

Fugate: Are you saying that we lose muscle -cells- as we age?
They may likely be difficult or impossible to replace,(if such is the case), at -any- age. But -mass-is a non-specific term; for example, it is increased by bodybuilders with supplements that merely hold water in the cells. Such mass is lost in days without the supplements, and replaced in hours. Many bodybuilding "pumping" techniques fill the muscle with non-contractile, gelatinous-filling of the cells. As far as fast and slow twitch, observation of the different athletes will answer the question: When the ultimate slow-twitch type athlete, a marathoner, trains with weights, he becomes a quite a bit more muscular version of himself. He still looks like a marathoner, and if 's trying to be Mr. Olympia, yes, he'll be disappointed, but the transfromatiuon, which has been achieved often, is meaningful to all observers.

Fong,

I don't think it will provide much entertainment, but my muscle mass loss hypothesis is simple: Humans lose muscle fibers as they age. No new ones can be produced. The only way you can gain mass then is to increase the size of the remaining fibres. ST can not be enlarged much, therefore the option of compensating for the loss of fibers by making the remaining ones bigger may not be enough to compensate for the loss.

Check the Athletic Quickness website http://www.athleticquickness.com/ for more details. Art has linked to it in the past.

The stories of the twins and the vegetable farmer are engaging, but unfortunately meaningless anecdotal stories. The twins could have had a moderate to high FT/ST ratio - one took advantage of it and one did not. Just because someone with a low FT/ST ratio cannot gain a lot of muscle mass does not mean that someone with a high FT/ST ratio will automatically be buff.

As to the farmer, yes Art has convinced me that inreasing strength, power, etc in midlife is possible. I just think that the person's FT/ST ratio has a lot to do with how successful such and endeavor can be.

Dear FUGATE,

I think it is reasonable to believe that ST/FT ratios are difficult(as in needs intense training) to vary in mid-life. It is, however, much different from saying it can not be done.

Do share with us the evidence you have collected to show ST/FT ratios are static and can not be changed at mid-life.

Art has shared with us some evidence that it can be changed. Recall the image of the genetic twins - one who took up long distance running and one who took up power events - like throwing.

You wrote: "Since we all lose muscle fibers over time and can compensate only by making our remaining fibers bigger, anyone with a high ST/FT ratio is almost certainly doomed to losing muscle mass as they age." Please clarify your point here with us. Why is one doomed to lose muscle mass? I think it would provide much entertaintment.

You also wrote: "It blows out of the water the claims of any person or organization that implies that an individual (without knowledge of that individual’s ST/FT ratio) can necessarily improve significantly strength, power, quickness, or muscle mass." You statement seems a tad over blown. I know of at least one vegetable farmer in a little village without TV - some distance from here who improved his strenght, power, quickness and muscle mass at mid-life after a long spade of illness. His method was vegetable farming. He did it by digging trenches and carrying heavy loads of biologicas recliamed by domestic animals to fertilize his crop of "Kang kong".

Thank you for your article on frozen shoulder.

I have a family history of type II diabetes and my father suffers from much stiffness as you have described. Your blogging has personally moved me to find out more about health and fitness, to move beyond what I read and see in the general culture - here in Singapore.

I look forward to buying your book.

I'm also glad comments are working again.

I wanted to post this on a recent post about muscle mass, since I think it’s hugely important to anyone who takes an interest in strength and conditioning.

Art, in your recent response to my email I wasn't sure what you meant when you wrote that "no one knows" and went on to discuss muscle adapability. I believe it's a fact that the ST/FT ratio cannot be changed.

The Athletic Quickness website, which you have linked in the past, says this:
“The average healthy adult has roughly equal numbers of slow and fast fibers in, say, the quadriceps muscle in the thigh. But as a species, humans show great variation in this regard; we have encountered people with a slow-fiber percentage as low as 19 percent and as high as 95 percent slow fibers could probably become an accomplished marathoner but would never get anywhere as a sprinter; the opposite would be true of a person with 19 percent slow fibers.”
As I say, I think the implications are huge. A few off the top of my head:

1. Anyone with a high proportion of slow twitch fibers will become disheartened and disillusioned since they will never build much muscle mass no matter how they eat or workout.

2. Since we all lose muscle fibers over time and can compensate only by making our remaining fibers bigger, anyone with a high ST/FT ratio is almost certainly doomed to losing muscle mass as they age.

3. It blows out of the water the claims of any person or organization that implies that an individual (without knowledge of that individual’s ST/FT ratio) can necessarily improve significantly strength, power, quickness, or muscle mass.

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: