Muscles stunt growth in height?

A person gained some nice muscle mass(85kg=170pounds, 175cm=5'9) by
bodybuilding between the age of 15.5 to 17. (8-15 reps to failure, no
$upplements).
Then, he stopped working-out and (high calorie intake) kept most of the
muscles, but he grew only 2cm=1 inch (now being 22yrs, 90kg, 5'10).
He was doing no sports afterwards and eating normally about 50-70g
proteins/day.
I suspect that the body has spent proteins on maintaining muscles
(which he didn't use) thus making him kind of malnutritioned.

So, does a body (less than 25yrs old) has a higher priority to spend
proteins(and similar) it gets on growing to the genetically
predetermined height, or rather on maintaining muscle mass which is not
really used as a person is not working-out anymore?

br.m@gmx.net ha scritto:

> A person gained some nice muscle mass(85kg=170pounds, 175cm=5'9) by
> bodybuilding between the age of 15.5 to 17. (8-15 reps to failure, no
> $upplements).
> Then, he stopped working-out and (high calorie intake) kept most of the
> muscles, but he grew only 2cm=1 inch (now being 22yrs, 90kg, 5'10).
> He was doing no sports afterwards and eating normally about 50-70g
> proteins/day.
> I suspect that the body has spent proteins on maintaining muscles
> (which he didn't use) thus making him kind of malnutritioned.
>
> So, does a body (less than 25yrs old) has a higher priority to spend
> proteins(and similar) it gets on growing to the genetically
> predetermined height, or rather on maintaining muscle mass which is not
> really used as a person is not working-out anymore?

No the amount of protein used to mantain muscle mass is very little so
it isn't possible that muscle mass maintenance "stole" proteins from
the growth process
Out of 70 grams of protein only about 6 grams would be needed to
maintain your mass

Davide

"Davide" <davideb_music@yahoo.it> schreef:

> No the amount of protein used to mantain muscle mass is very little so
> it isn't possible that muscle mass maintenance "stole" proteins from
> the growth process

What about massive ejaculations?

> Out of 70 grams of protein only about 6 grams would be needed to
> maintain your mass

Really?

----
Pete

"Pete" <phoutstra@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
news:456973fb$0$61249$dbd49001@news.wanadoo.nl...
> "Davide" <davideb_music@yahoo.it> schreef:
>
>> No the amount of protein used to mantain muscle mass is very little so
>> it isn't possible that muscle mass maintenance "stole" proteins from
>> the growth process
>
> What about massive ejaculations?

Proly not an issue today.
Today, our more socially-conscious yout' are more into recycling.

>
>> Out of 70 grams of protein only about 6 grams would be needed to
>> maintain your mass

He likely left off zeros: 700 grams, 60 grams.
70 grams is stupidly close to the RDA for protein.
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY

Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!

entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs



>
> Really?
>
> ----
> Pete
>
>

<br.m@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:1164533681.354599.15190@l39g2000cwd.googlegro ups.com...
>A person gained some nice muscle mass(85kg=170pounds, 175cm=5'9) by
> bodybuilding between the age of 15.5 to 17. (8-15 reps to failure, no
> $upplements).
> Then, he stopped working-out and (high calorie intake) kept most of the
> muscles, but he grew only 2cm=1 inch (now being 22yrs, 90kg, 5'10).
> He was doing no sports afterwards and eating normally about 50-70g
> proteins/day.
> I suspect that the body has spent proteins on maintaining muscles
> (which he didn't use) thus making him kind of malnutritioned.
>
> So, does a body (less than 25yrs old) has a higher priority to spend
> proteins(and similar) it gets on growing to the genetically
> predetermined height, or rather on maintaining muscle mass which is not
> really used as a person is not working-out anymore?
>

This is a very interesting and very important question, the whole notion of
weight lifting for kids.
I read somewhere a fairly cogent explanation from an endocrinologist-type,
who definitively argued against heavy weight lifting for pre-pubescent kids,
having to do with high chronic loads interfering with the epiphyseal (????)
bone joints req'd for growth. Somehow the loads signal these joints to
prematurely fix/harden, and growth is diminished. He explained how, wish I
had taken notes.
Thus, not a protein issue, from this standpoint.

A million Qs remain on this subject: How much is too much lifting? What
happens after pubescence?
Kids have a naturally higher strength-to-weight ratio, so how is "too much"
even evaluated for kids?
It's a very important Q also because there is some evidence, proly mostly
anecdotal, but perhaps some epidemiological stuff at this point, that
whilst an adult must always use it or lose it (a kind of Sissyphean hell
when you think about it), kids can actually alter their DNA permanently thru
activity, iow, *stay muscular forever*, in much the same way immune function
is affected by early exposure. And certainly other traits, as well.

Do heavy gymnastic regimens keep kids small?

While I tend to agree that the issue is not a diversion of protein, the
protein/calorie issue does have other suupport:
Asians raised in this country do seem to be demonstrably larger than their
countrymen. Lore or medical fact? Docs I've spoken to think it's valid,
and it seems to have quite the basis in animal studies.
I'm sure jmw/brinks will post a bevy of mis-understood abstracts, one way or
the other.

The question is dicey because there seems to be a real upside to training in
kids, but a bit of a downside as well, regarding growth--
**IF** growth is even really such as issue!
Some have argued that smaller is indeed better, from numerous
biomechanical/physiological viewpoints, as well as ecologically. I'll bet on
the following: shorter stature = fewer back problems.
Not to mention the whole longevity bidniss w/ long-term calorie restriction.

A writer recently observed that the world is not only sustainably
overpopulated by a factor of 10 or so, but we are also about twice as big as
we used to be as well, further exacerabating the ecological issues.
When y'all are dumpster-divin fer food, just think two words: Mal Thus.

Oh, oh, a *very* important feeding tip:
Whatever you do, do not *breast-feed* yer kids past puberty, otherwise they
turn out like jmw, brinks, and a number of Al Bundy worshippers around here.
Don't know if it's the protein, too many immunoglobulins'n'shit, lactose, or
what.... mebbe it's what happens when a teenager sees Mom get off
3x/day.....
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY

Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!

entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs




>

On Nov 26, 1:34 am, b...@gmx.net wrote:
> So, does a body (less than 25yrs old) has a higher priority to spend
> proteins(and similar) it gets on growing to the genetically
> predetermined height,

Most people reach their lifetime height in their mid teens (16 for
girls/18 for boys) when growth plates fuse.
When my daughters needed braces(at around 14yrs old), a test to see if
they had finished growing was to xray their wrists.
Peak bone mass is also reached in early teens, so proteins are not
contributing to your bones beyond this time.
Minerals, such as calcium are important to overall bone health
(density/loss) and lifting weights or any weight bearing exercises also
helps to prevent bone loss.

> or rather on maintaining muscle mass which is not really used as a person is not working-out anymore?

If you are not working out anymore (back to a couch potato), you will
lose (over time) any muscle you previously gained no matter how much
protein you eat. The use it or lose it syndrome. And of course, too
many calories and you just get fat.


joanne

Proctologically Violated©® ha scritto:

> <br.m@gmx.net> wrote in message
> news:1164533681.354599.15190@l39g2000cwd.googlegro ups.com...
> >A person gained some nice muscle mass(85kg=170pounds, 175cm=5'9) by
> > bodybuilding between the age of 15.5 to 17. (8-15 reps to failure, no
> > $upplements).
> > Then, he stopped working-out and (high calorie intake) kept most of the
> > muscles, but he grew only 2cm=1 inch (now being 22yrs, 90kg, 5'10).
> > He was doing no sports afterwards and eating normally about 50-70g
> > proteins/day.
> > I suspect that the body has spent proteins on maintaining muscles
> > (which he didn't use) thus making him kind of malnutritioned.
> >
> > So, does a body (less than 25yrs old) has a higher priority to spend
> > proteins(and similar) it gets on growing to the genetically
> > predetermined height, or rather on maintaining muscle mass which is not
> > really used as a person is not working-out anymore?
> >
>
> This is a very interesting and very important question, the whole notion of
> weight lifting for kids.
> I read somewhere a fairly cogent explanation from an endocrinologist-type,
> who definitively argued against heavy weight lifting for pre-pubescent kids,
> having to do with high chronic loads interfering with the epiphyseal (????)
> bone joints req'd for growth. Somehow the loads signal these joints to
> prematurely fix/harden, and growth is diminished. He explained how, wishI
> had taken notes.
> Thus, not a protein issue, from this standpoint.
>
> A million Qs remain on this subject: How much is too much lifting? What
> happens after pubescence?
> Kids have a naturally higher strength-to-weight ratio, so how is "too much"
> even evaluated for kids?
> It's a very important Q also because there is some evidence, proly mostly
> anecdotal, but perhaps some epidemiological stuff at this point, that
> whilst an adult must always use it or lose it (a kind of Sissyphean hell
> when you think about it), kids can actually alter their DNA permanently thru
> activity, iow, *stay muscular forever*, in much the same way immune function
> is affected by early exposure. And certainly other traits, as well.

Lifting weights doesn't cause the joint to prematurely fix
It's an hypothesis which isn't confirmed by real life data and is
ruined by many counterevidences

The most important one is this: according to the theory you explained
the relative weight load would signal the joint to fix sooner than they
should/were supposed to
Only that whatever activity that involves running and jumping exerts a
much greater weight load than weight lifting

How do you know when lifting is too much? When you can't lift it
The cartilage injuries are so unlikely because if a kid is going to be
injuried by a certain weight he or she isn't going to be able to lift
it in the first place

That's why there are no literature evidence of stunted growth from
weight lifting, even in kids as young as 6 years old. If there was then
a kid would have to sit still in order not to ruin his or her growth as
whatever kind of sport (except swimming) and playing and activity would
be more likely to stunt his or her growth than way lifting

Avery Faingenbaum is an authority in this field. He has reviewed the
literature and conducted researchers and has a weight lifting program
for kids 6 to 14.
According to Faingenbaum "resistance training" is vital for children
According to him sedentary kids who don't do chores and play in the
countriside as in the past needs it absolutely, but those few kids who
are involved in sport and competitive traning need it even more than
others as according to his researches, resistance training is the basis
to make other kinds of training safe and effective.

You can read more about the program here:
http://ride.0taxi.com/danny/skids.html

Anyway both the weight load hypothesis and the malnutrition by proteins
maintaning muscle mass don't explain a stunted growth or small growth
for the reasons explained: if lifting would stop growth then jumping,
running and playing would do it before weights can do it, if nothing
there are small evidences that resistance training at a young age may
stimulate bone growth and the amount of protein needed to maintain the
muscle mass would so small to have any impact on the amount of protein
used for growth

Well, let me first say, I hope you, and Avery, are right. And appreciate
the link and name.

You are right: the momentary impacts of running/jumping do dwarf those of
lifting.

But, altho I may have implied the problem lay in weight training being a
load-bearing exercise on the bone, that is indeed not the issue.
Altho your counter argument doesn't really hold either, because to compare
the jumps and bumps of child play w/ a rigorous weight training program is
not quite a level playing field. A better example would have been *marathon
training* for kids versus rigorous weight training.

Hypertrophy-inducing weight training is a biochemical issue, of hormones,
chemical signalling, de-repression of inhibitory proteins within the genome
(which is what keeps the couch potato from getting unnecessarily muscular),
etc.
It is *these* events that the endocrinologist was referring to, ito of child
development.
Not saying he's right, just that it made sense at the time.
And even if growth were compromised, that is not necessarily a bad thing.

But ultimately the Q is: How much?
Haven't read the link yet, but do you know offhand if they recommend heavy
lifting, to hypertrophy, as in BBing/powerlifting? For 100 lb 6th grader,
any recs for 1 RM in the various lifts? Or more rep-oriented?

If I were to guess, I would try to assess the work done on farms by kids,
and use that as a model for a resistance program. That, I believe, would be
a good bet, and a safe hedge.
I've seen some farm boys, who never lifted a weight in their life, and
goodgawd, 6+ foot tall supermen they were.
Charles Bronson was a coal miner, Bobby Orr, I believe, was a laboring kid,
and probably countless others are good examples of this.
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY

Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!

entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs

"Davide" <davideb_music@yahoo.it> wrote in message
news:1164567380.675500.318770@n67g2000cwd.googlegr oups.com...

Proctologically Violated©® ha scritto:

> <br.m@gmx.net> wrote in message
> news:1164533681.354599.15190@l39g2000cwd.googlegro ups.com...
> >A person gained some nice muscle mass(85kg=170pounds, 175cm=5'9) by
> > bodybuilding between the age of 15.5 to 17. (8-15 reps to failure, no
> > $upplements).
> > Then, he stopped working-out and (high calorie intake) kept most of the
> > muscles, but he grew only 2cm=1 inch (now being 22yrs, 90kg, 5'10).
> > He was doing no sports afterwards and eating normally about 50-70g
> > proteins/day.
> > I suspect that the body has spent proteins on maintaining muscles
> > (which he didn't use) thus making him kind of malnutritioned.
> >
> > So, does a body (less than 25yrs old) has a higher priority to spend
> > proteins(and similar) it gets on growing to the genetically
> > predetermined height, or rather on maintaining muscle mass which is not
> > really used as a person is not working-out anymore?
> >
>
> This is a very interesting and very important question, the whole notion
> of
> weight lifting for kids.
> I read somewhere a fairly cogent explanation from an endocrinologist-type,
> who definitively argued against heavy weight lifting for pre-pubescent
> kids,
> having to do with high chronic loads interfering with the epiphyseal
> (????)
> bone joints req'd for growth. Somehow the loads signal these joints to
> prematurely fix/harden, and growth is diminished. He explained how, wish
> I
> had taken notes.
> Thus, not a protein issue, from this standpoint.
>
> A million Qs remain on this subject: How much is too much lifting? What
> happens after pubescence?
> Kids have a naturally higher strength-to-weight ratio, so how is "too
> much"
> even evaluated for kids?
> It's a very important Q also because there is some evidence, proly mostly
> anecdotal, but perhaps some epidemiological stuff at this point, that
> whilst an adult must always use it or lose it (a kind of Sissyphean hell
> when you think about it), kids can actually alter their DNA permanently
> thru
> activity, iow, *stay muscular forever*, in much the same way immune
> function
> is affected by early exposure. And certainly other traits, as well.

Lifting weights doesn't cause the joint to prematurely fix
It's an hypothesis which isn't confirmed by real life data and is
ruined by many counterevidences

The most important one is this: according to the theory you explained
the relative weight load would signal the joint to fix sooner than they
should/were supposed to
Only that whatever activity that involves running and jumping exerts a
much greater weight load than weight lifting

How do you know when lifting is too much? When you can't lift it
The cartilage injuries are so unlikely because if a kid is going to be
injuried by a certain weight he or she isn't going to be able to lift
it in the first place

That's why there are no literature evidence of stunted growth from
weight lifting, even in kids as young as 6 years old. If there was then
a kid would have to sit still in order not to ruin his or her growth as
whatever kind of sport (except swimming) and playing and activity would
be more likely to stunt his or her growth than way lifting

Avery Faingenbaum is an authority in this field. He has reviewed the
literature and conducted researchers and has a weight lifting program
for kids 6 to 14.
According to Faingenbaum "resistance training" is vital for children
According to him sedentary kids who don't do chores and play in the
countriside as in the past needs it absolutely, but those few kids who
are involved in sport and competitive traning need it even more than
others as according to his researches, resistance training is the basis
to make other kinds of training safe and effective.

You can read more about the program here:
http://ride.0taxi.com/danny/skids.html

Anyway both the weight load hypothesis and the malnutrition by proteins
maintaning muscle mass don't explain a stunted growth or small growth
for the reasons explained: if lifting would stop growth then jumping,
running and playing would do it before weights can do it, if nothing
there are small evidences that resistance training at a young age may
stimulate bone growth and the amount of protein needed to maintain the
muscle mass would so small to have any impact on the amount of protein
used for growth

This reminds me of a joke I once heard about statistics."Statistics can
prove without a doubt , playing basketball makes one grow taller than
average". Having said that, I have always suspected short people have
an advantage in bodybuilding and strength ."Tall and thin" vs Short and
stocky.

Proctologically Violated©® wrote:
[...]

> <snip> ito of <snip>

<anal retentive proofreader>

Typically, I type "wrt to" and then notice it afterwards. BAH! That
drives me 'round the bend. ;o)

Uh, ito means in terms of, right?

</anal retentive proofreader>

[...]

> <snip> For 100 lb 6th grader, any recs for 1 RM
> in the various lifts? Or more rep-oriented?

Wouldn't 1 RM be highly individual? Just as with adults, some children
will be stronger while other children will be weaker, yes? How can
people make recs? Personally, I'd recommend more rep-oriented exercise
versus singles and doubles or any kind of max efforts for the 6th grade
set.

[...]

> I've seen some farm boys, who never lifted a
> weight in their life, and goodgawd, 6+ foot tall
> supermen they were.

That's true. Some children are little kids for a much too short period
of time.

> Charles Bronson was a coal miner,

Yeah, but he was also only 5-foot tall. Which probably supports the
"Muscles stunt growth" part of the Subject line.

(Googles)

Okay, The Washington Post offers that, "Charles Bronson was 5-7, not
5-11," according to a Men's Health magazine comparison of claimed
heights to actual heights. From:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...tall080399.htm


> Bobby Orr, I believe, was a laboring kid, and probably
> countless others are good examples of this.

While Bronson was Brink-sized, Bobby Orr could skate on Dutch ice and
not look out of place. And this height-related bit from
www.bobbyorr.com might be of interest:

"He was 5'6" and 135 pounds at 14. The next year, when he moved to an
Oshawa high school and played in the Ontario junior league, he was 5'9"
and 25 pounds heavier. By the time his junior career was over - when he
was all of 17 and a man playing with boys - he was a sturdy 6' and
almost 200 pounds. The phenomenon Boston fans had been reading about
since he was a freckle-faced kid with a brushcut was ready to enter the
professional game."

> Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY

--
Curt

Strength to weight ratio gets larger as you get smaller, across all species,
insects (fleas) being Da Bombs.

Small powerlifters clean and jerk *triple* their bodyweight--and they are
*small*.
Heavyweights can about eke out doubling of their bw, iirc.
There will probably be someone who will quadruple their bodyweight, and
they will undoubtedly be a midget. Some of these "triplers" also have
decidedly short arms!
This is why S/W intensive sports, like gymnastics, are selecting for younger
and younger athletes.

True story: we had a bit of champeen gymnast at an up-state school, rings,
pommel horse, etc.
He had only rudimentary legs, just enough to get him to the rings, etc. Talk
about turning negs into positives!
Selection, bruh, selection.
Darwin, and Malthus, rool.
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY

Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!

entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs

"Sid Bonfire" <jenvarin@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1164578448.203113.13920@45g2000cws.googlegrou ps.com...
>
>
>
> This reminds me of a joke I once heard about statistics."Statistics can
> prove without a doubt , playing basketball makes one grow taller than
> average". Having said that, I have always suspected short people have
> an advantage in bodybuilding and strength ."Tall and thin" vs Short and
> stocky.
>
>

["Followup-To:" header set to misc.fitness.weights.]
Dnia 2006-11-26 br.m@gmx.net napisa³(a):
> A person gained some nice muscle mass(85kg=170pounds, 175cm=5'9) by

85kg is 187 lbs. I weight that much and I'm skinny. "Nice muscle
mass" my posterior chain (well, I'm taller, but stil).

> bodybuilding between the age of 15.5 to 17. (8-15 reps to failure, no
> $upplements).
> Then, he stopped working-out and (high calorie intake) kept most of the
> muscles, but he grew only 2cm=1 inch

1"=2.5 cm. Approximately.

> (now being 22yrs, 90kg, 5'10).
> He was doing no sports afterwards and eating normally about 50-70g
> proteins/day.
> I suspect that the body has spent proteins on maintaining muscles
> (which he didn't use) thus making him kind of malnutritioned.

What?

> So, does a body (less than 25yrs old) has a higher priority to spend
> proteins(and similar) it gets on growing to the genetically
> predetermined height, or rather on maintaining muscle mass which is not
> really used as a person is not working-out anymore?

He got fatter so he maintained muscles even without working out. I
don't understand all the rest beside the fact that you obviously
confuse food with proteins. Proteins are not food. They are part of
food, but a part doesn't make a whole.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Military guys, vietnam vets, will tell you how the northern boys cried like
fukn babies, whilst the southern boys had a much easier time of
it--physically, at any rate.
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY

Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!

entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs

"Curt" <curtjames@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1164578253.017445.311330@f16g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
Proctologically Violated©® wrote:
[...]

> <snip> ito of <snip>

<anal retentive proofreader>

Typically, I type "wrt to" and then notice it afterwards. BAH! That
drives me 'round the bend. ;o)

Uh, ito means in terms of, right?

</anal retentive proofreader>

[...]

> <snip> For 100 lb 6th grader, any recs for 1 RM
> in the various lifts? Or more rep-oriented?

Wouldn't 1 RM be highly individual? Just as with adults, some children
will be stronger while other children will be weaker, yes? How can
people make recs? Personally, I'd recommend more rep-oriented exercise
versus singles and doubles or any kind of max efforts for the 6th grade
set.

[...]

> I've seen some farm boys, who never lifted a
> weight in their life, and goodgawd, 6+ foot tall
> supermen they were.

That's true. Some children are little kids for a much too short period
of time.

> Charles Bronson was a coal miner,

Yeah, but he was also only 5-foot tall. Which probably supports the
"Muscles stunt growth" part of the Subject line.

(Googles)

Okay, The Washington Post offers that, "Charles Bronson was 5-7, not
5-11," according to a Men's Health magazine comparison of claimed
heights to actual heights. From:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...tall080399.htm


> Bobby Orr, I believe, was a laboring kid, and probably
> countless others are good examples of this.

While Bronson was Brink-sized, Bobby Orr could skate on Dutch ice and
not look out of place. And this height-related bit from
www.bobbyorr.com might be of interest:

"He was 5'6" and 135 pounds at 14. The next year, when he moved to an
Oshawa high school and played in the Ontario junior league, he was 5'9"
and 25 pounds heavier. By the time his junior career was over - when he
was all of 17 and a man playing with boys - he was a sturdy 6' and
almost 200 pounds. The phenomenon Boston fans had been reading about
since he was a freckle-faced kid with a brushcut was ready to enter the
professional game."

> Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY

--
Curt

Proctologically Violated©® wrote:

> Military guys, vietnam vets, will tell you how
> the northern boys cried like fukn babies, whilst
> the southern boys had a much easier time of
> it--physically, at any rate.

> Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY

RE-R 1, but not a Vietnam Vet. A Northern boy who has cried like an
effing baby at least once or twice. Having a pretty easy time of it
with the exception of seeing through to the logical context
somethingsomething of your reply.

Iow, say again???

--
Curt

Dnia 2006-11-26 Andrzej Rosa napisa³(a):
> ["Followup-To:" header set to misc.fitness.weights.]
> Dnia 2006-11-26 br.m@gmx.net napisa³(a):
>
>> (now being 22yrs, 90kg, 5'10).
>> He was doing no sports afterwards and eating normally about 50-70g
>> proteins/day.
>> I suspect that the body has spent proteins on maintaining muscles
>> (which he didn't use) thus making him kind of malnutritioned.
>
> What?

OK, I got it now. At first I couldn't understand that 2cm "growth" in
hight is the problem (missed the topic, obviously).

IMO before we invent some big theory explaining how protein starving
stunned his growth I'd use some simpler options. Like mistake in
measurements, for example. My hight measurements differed by 3cm at
times, and nobody tried to explain how come I shrunk in between them.
It's easy to make mistake when someone doesn't "stretch" himself the
same way every time you take measurements. Bad posture (bench and
curls routine anyone?) could make standing straight problematic.
Besides, 1cm is actually a measurement error, so we need to explain
only the second centimeter.

Finally, if all this explanations fail, I'd see if the guy didn't do
much of spine loading. Heavy squats can compress spine a bit and one
can "gain" some hight by hanging off the bar, so change in spine loads
can also explain such a small difference.

>> So, does a body (less than 25yrs old) has a higher priority to spend
>> proteins(and similar) it gets on growing to the genetically
>> predetermined height, or rather on maintaining muscle mass which is not
>> really used as a person is not working-out anymore?

There i nothing wrong with normal diet. If we needed so much protein
to build muscles then juicers would need even more (much more
actually). Yet they make better gains eating junk.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Was just apropos of the whole child-exercise-conditioning thing.
More accurately, southern farm boys; which coulda been northern farm boys.
So I guess it's the farm.
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY

Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!

entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs

"Curt" <curtjames@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1164581201.430685.50960@h54g2000cwb.googlegro ups.com...
Proctologically Violated©® wrote:

> Military guys, vietnam vets, will tell you how
> the northern boys cried like fukn babies, whilst
> the southern boys had a much easier time of
> it--physically, at any rate.

> Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY

RE-R 1, but not a Vietnam Vet. A Northern boy who has cried like an
effing baby at least once or twice. Having a pretty easy time of it
with the exception of seeing through to the logical context
somethingsomething of your reply.

Iow, say again???

--
Curt

Andrzej Rosa wrote:
[...]

> 85kg is 187 lbs.

85 x 2 = 170
170 + 17 = 187

I love converting from kg to lbs. Other way 'round is to divide by 2.2,
of course. And there's always http://onlineconversion.com/ as well.

[...]

> 1"=2.5 cm. Approximately.

20" = 50 cm. (Well, closer to 51.) I remember that from some article or
book about Ahnuld. The author said that Schwarzenegger's arm was over
50 centimeters at the time.

I've really gotta create that Fulghum-based variation book or poster:

All I Really Need to Know I Learned in The Gym

http://www.amazon.com/Really-Need-Kn.../dp/0449908577


[...]

> Proteins are not food. They are part of
> food, but a part doesn't make a whole.

So if I only have a hubcap then I shouldn't brag about this fine car
I'm building? Somehow that doesn't seem fair.

> Andrzej Rosa 1127R

--
Curt

Proctologically Violated©® wrote:
> "Curt" wrote
> Proctologically Violated©® wrote:
>
> > Military guys, vietnam vets, will tell you how
> > the northern boys cried like fukn babies, whilst
> > the southern boys had a much easier time of
> > it--physically, at any rate.
[...]

> <snip> say again???

> Was just apropos

Apropos? First tautology and now apropos. Akeelah and the Newsgroup! I
love this place.

> of the whole child-exercise-conditioning thing.
> More accurately, southern farm boys; which
> coulda been northern farm boys. So I guess
> it's the farm.

Cool. )

Say, I noticed your ascii face has no nose. Could that be a
creatine-based side effect? I'll ask Doc Kreider the next time I see
him. (Yeah, which might be NEVER.) ;o)

> Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY

"Pete" <phoutstra@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
news:456973fb$0$61249$dbd49001@news.wanadoo.nl...
> "Davide" <davideb_music@yahoo.it> schreef:
>
>> No the amount of protein used to mantain muscle mass is very little so
>> it isn't possible that muscle mass maintenance "stole" proteins from
>> the growth process
>
> What about massive ejaculations?

Depends on how they are "stolen" ...hehe
>
>> Out of 70 grams of protein only about 6 grams would be needed to
>> maintain your mass
>
> Really?
>
> ----
> Pete
>

"Andrzej Rosa" <bakters@yahoo.com> schreef:

> There i nothing wrong with normal diet. If we needed so much protein
> to build muscles then juicers would need even more (much more
> actually). Yet they make better gains eating junk.

How do you know?

----
Pete

Proctologically Violated©® ha scritto:

> Well, let me first say, I hope you, and Avery, are right. And appreciate
> the link and name.
>
> You are right: the momentary impacts of running/jumping do dwarf those of
> lifting.
>
> But, altho I may have implied the problem lay in weight training being a
> load-bearing exercise on the bone, that is indeed not the issue.
> Altho your counter argument doesn't really hold either, because to compare
> the jumps and bumps of child play w/ a rigorous weight training program is
> not quite a level playing field. A better example would have been *marathon
> training* for kids versus rigorous weight training.

The weight a kid can lift for at least 5 times is always a less weight
load than jumping and running playfully and not vigorously

> Hypertrophy-inducing weight training is a biochemical issue, of hormones,
> chemical signalling, de-repression of inhibitory proteins within the genome
> (which is what keeps the couch potato from getting unnecessarily muscular),
> etc.
> It is *these* events that the endocrinologist was referring to, ito of child
> development.
> Not saying he's right, just that it made sense at the time.
> And even if growth were compromised, that is not necessarily a bad thing.

But muscle growth is rather an easy mechanism
Also very young children and infants build muscles all the time.
Muscles grow because of a stimulus, the more conditioned your muscles
are the bigger the stimulus needed to induce growth, the less
conditioned the smaller the stimulus need to be

For example an infant who learn to walk instead of crawling after
trying many times is actually providing a muscle growth stimulus.
Muscle growth is also a reason why the infant will be able to stop
crawling and will begin walking

Resitance training is fueled by ATP, phosphate creatine and glycogen,
the lactict threshold starting when only glycogen is beind used. This
raises growth hormones level a little. At the end of the workout the
cells are hungry for sugars. Cortisol is being produced and eating at
this moment will result in insulin output that will lower levels and
will allow glycosinthase enzymes to replenish the muscular glycogen
burned

The muscle growth happens only at night and only at rest when sleeping
What really happens is that a stimulus (lifting) done by a muscle
non-conditioned really injures the muscle. When the injured fibers of
the muscle will be repaired through a release of nitric oxide by the
muscle cells they will repair themselves stronger by either increasing
the amount of myofibrils or increasing the lenght of the fibers. This
is an adaptive response to the stimulus, if an X stimulus caused the
muscle to get injuried when repairing the muscle the fibers will
increase in order for the same stimulus not to be as injuring the next
time

The first thing the couch potato lacks to get muscular is an
injuring-stimulus
But this shows that muscle building is a simple mechanism of adaptation
to stimulus and happens everytime there's a physical stimulus small or
big and it happens in everyone from very young children to very old
people. It is safe and can't hinder growth or other processes as it is
intertwined with them and without muscular adaptation we would stop
growing in the first years of life and would stop existing very soon

> But ultimately the Q is: How much?
> Haven't read the link yet, but do you know offhand if they recommend heavy
> lifting, to hypertrophy, as in BBing/powerlifting? For 100 lb 6th grader,
> any recs for 1 RM in the various lifts? Or more rep-oriented?

Faigenmbaum doesn't suggest very few reps for an heavy load, but the
risks of injuring a bone are minimal, he doesn't because of the risk of
injuring the tendons, the muscle too much and to create excessive
fatigue. I'm pretty sure that Faigenbaum wouldn't suggest such kind of
training to older adults either. And it's not like either powerlifters
or professional bodybuilder are representative of health among the
population. He suggest for kids a weight which they can lift with
proper form for at least 6 times. This is actually a kind of training I
like myself.
I like the HST program. The program allows more muscle growth in less
time by focusing on avoiding central nervous system fatigue

> If I were to guess, I would try to assess the work done on farms by kids,
> and use that as a model for a resistance program. That, I believe, wouldbe
> a good bet, and a safe hedge.

Yes I agree. I think Faigenbaum is more moderate ... but I think it's
easier when you have to do with playing, chores and activity to find
your personal limit ... while it's harder when in a gym using standard
tools ... so it's good to make it more bearable

> I've seen some farm boys, who never lifted a weight in their life, and
> goodgawd, 6+ foot tall supermen they were.

Me too. I have both cousins living in a farm and living in city. The
city ones are moderately sedentary but the farm ones just sleep inside
but the rest of the day are always outside
The younger is 7 but has already a very visible eight-pack
One could say he has just a lower body fat mass but I have seen non-fat
skinny kids among the sedentary ones and I can easily tell my cousin
has not only less fat but clearly bigger muscles. You can tell
especially from the pectorals and the rib-cage so more developed
compared to average kids

> Charles Bronson was a coal miner, Bobby Orr, I believe, was a laboring kid,
> and probably countless others are good examples of this.
> --
> ------
> Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY
>
> Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
> Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.

This is brilliant

> Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
> to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
> The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!
>
> entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
> all d'numbuhs
>
> "Davide" <davideb_music@yahoo.it> wrote in message
> news:1164567380.675500.318770@n67g2000cwd.googlegr oups.com...
>
> Proctologically Violated©® ha scritto:
>
> > <br.m@gmx.net> wrote in message
> > news:1164533681.354599.15190@l39g2000cwd.googlegro ups.com...
> > >A person gained some nice muscle mass(85kg=170pounds, 175cm=5'9) by
> > > bodybuilding between the age of 15.5 to 17. (8-15 reps to failure, no
> > > $upplements).
> > > Then, he stopped working-out and (high calorie intake) kept most of the
> > > muscles, but he grew only 2cm=1 inch (now being 22yrs, 90kg, 5'10).
> > > He was doing no sports afterwards and eating normally about 50-70g
> > > proteins/day.
> > > I suspect that the body has spent proteins on maintaining muscles
> > > (which he didn't use) thus making him kind of malnutritioned.
> > >
> > > So, does a body (less than 25yrs old) has a higher priority to spend
> > > proteins(and similar) it gets on growing to the genetically
> > > predetermined height, or rather on maintaining muscle mass which is not
> > > really used as a person is not working-out anymore?
> > >
> >
> > This is a very interesting and very important question, the whole notion
> > of
> > weight lifting for kids.
> > I read somewhere a fairly cogent explanation from an endocrinologist-type,
> > who definitively argued against heavy weight lifting for pre-pubescent
> > kids,
> > having to do with high chronic loads interfering with the epiphyseal
> > (????)
> > bone joints req'd for growth. Somehow the loads signal these joints to
> > prematurely fix/harden, and growth is diminished. He explained how, wish
> > I
> > had taken notes.
> > Thus, not a protein issue, from this standpoint.
> >
> > A million Qs remain on this subject: How much is too much lifting? What
> > happens after pubescence?
> > Kids have a naturally higher strength-to-weight ratio, so how is "too
> > much"
> > even evaluated for kids?
> > It's a very important Q also because there is some evidence, proly mostly
> > anecdotal, but perhaps some epidemiological stuff at this point, that
> > whilst an adult must always use it or lose it (a kind of Sissyphean hell
> > when you think about it), kids can actually alter their DNA permanently
> > thru
> > activity, iow, *stay muscular forever*, in much the same way immune
> > function
> > is affected by early exposure. And certainly other traits, as well.
>
> Lifting weights doesn't cause the joint to prematurely fix
> It's an hypothesis which isn't confirmed by real life data and is
> ruined by many counterevidences
>
> The most important one is this: according to the theory you explained
> the relative weight load would signal the joint to fix sooner than they
> should/were supposed to
> Only that whatever activity that involves running and jumping exerts a
> much greater weight load than weight lifting
>
> How do you know when lifting is too much? When you can't lift it
> The cartilage injuries are so unlikely because if a kid is going to be
> injuried by a certain weight he or she isn't going to be able to lift
> it in the first place
>
> That's why there are no literature evidence of stunted growth from
> weight lifting, even in kids as young as 6 years old. If there was then
> a kid would have to sit still in order not to ruin his or her growth as
> whatever kind of sport (except swimming) and playing and activity would
> be more likely to stunt his or her growth than way lifting
>
> Avery Faingenbaum is an authority in this field. He has reviewed the
> literature and conducted researchers and has a weight lifting program
> for kids 6 to 14.
> According to Faingenbaum "resistance training" is vital for children
> According to him sedentary kids who don't do chores and play in the
> countriside as in the past needs it absolutely, but those few kids who
> are involved in sport and competitive traning need it even more than
> others as according to his researches, resistance training is the basis
> to make other kinds of training safe and effective.
>
> You can read more about the program here:
> http://ride.0taxi.com/danny/skids.html
>
> Anyway both the weight load hypothesis and the malnutrition by proteins
> maintaning muscle mass don't explain a stunted growth or small growth
> for the reasons explained: if lifting would stop growth then jumping,
> running and playing would do it before weights can do it, if nothing
> there are small evidences that resistance training at a young age may
> stimulate bone growth and the amount of protein needed to maintain the
> muscle mass would so small to have any impact on the amount of protein
> used for growth

Davide wrote:
[...]

http://goheavy.com/forums/olympic/in...mes/read/49235

--
Bully
Protein bars: http://www.proteinbars.co.uk

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't
matter, and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Dnia 2006-11-27 Pete napisa³(a):
> "Andrzej Rosa" <bakters@yahoo.com> schreef:
>
>> There i nothing wrong with normal diet. If we needed so much protein
>> to build muscles then juicers would need even more (much more
>> actually). Yet they make better gains eating junk.
>
> How do you know?

From Westside guys. BTW - have you seen pictures of Dave Tate recently?
He's at 6% bodyfat and he looks like a monster.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Andrzej Rosa wrote:
> Dnia 2006-11-27 Pete napisa³(a):
>> "Andrzej Rosa" <bakters@yahoo.com> schreef:
>>
>>> There i nothing wrong with normal diet. If we needed so much
>>> protein to build muscles then juicers would need even more (much
>>> more actually). Yet they make better gains eating junk.
>>
>> How do you know?
>
> From Westside guys. BTW - have you seen pictures of Dave Tate
> recently? He's at 6% bodyfat and he looks like a monster.

Steady on. Let's not get confused between 10% and 6%, unless you have seen
pictures that I haven't ?

--
Bully
Protein bars: http://www.proteinbars.co.uk

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't
matter, and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Dnia 2006-11-27 Bully napisa³(a):
> Andrzej Rosa wrote:
>> Dnia 2006-11-27 Pete napisa³(a):
>>> "Andrzej Rosa" <bakters@yahoo.com> schreef:
>>>
>>>> There i nothing wrong with normal diet. If we needed so much
>>>> protein to build muscles then juicers would need even more (much
>>>> more actually). Yet they make better gains eating junk.
>>>
>>> How do you know?
>>
>> From Westside guys. BTW - have you seen pictures of Dave Tate
>> recently? He's at 6% bodyfat and he looks like a monster.
>
> Steady on. Let's not get confused between 10% and 6%, unless you have seen
> pictures that I haven't ?

http://asp.elitefts.com/qa/default.a...=47567&tid=124
Here he writes about below 8%.

http://asp.elitefts.com/qa/default.a...=47568&tid=124

It looks like he is just in the middle between 10% and 6%. I don't
know from where I got this 6. Maybe somebody wrote that it's next
goal, or something? Anyway, he's lean and he's a monster.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Andrzej Rosa wrote:
> Dnia 2006-11-27 Bully napisa³(a):
>> Andrzej Rosa wrote:
>>> Dnia 2006-11-27 Pete napisa³(a):
>>>> "Andrzej Rosa" <bakters@yahoo.com> schreef:
>>>>
>>>>> There i nothing wrong with normal diet. If we needed so much
>>>>> protein to build muscles then juicers would need even more (much
>>>>> more actually). Yet they make better gains eating junk.
>>>>
>>>> How do you know?
>>>
>>> From Westside guys. BTW - have you seen pictures of Dave Tate
>>> recently? He's at 6% bodyfat and he looks like a monster.
>>
>> Steady on. Let's not get confused between 10% and 6%, unless you
>> have seen pictures that I haven't ?
>
> http://asp.elitefts.com/qa/default.a...=47567&tid=124
> Here he writes about below 8%.
>
> http://asp.elitefts.com/qa/default.a...=47568&tid=124
>
> It looks like he is just in the middle between 10% and 6%. I don't
> know from where I got this 6. Maybe somebody wrote that it's next
> goal, or something? Anyway, he's lean and he's a monster.

Agreed, he's looking totally awesome dude. My point was, however, that he's
not 6% !

--
Bully
Protein bars: http://www.proteinbars.co.uk

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't
matter, and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Cupla points.

Feigenbaum's rec of 6 RM lifts, and your agreement with me on patterning
weight use after manual "farm labor" are really quite different. 6 RM lifts
is quite a bit of lifting, probably making my endocrinologist source wince!
Heavy labor is still quite a bit different.
Also, altho muscle growth would appear to be "simple" (and I disagree w/
some of your details, but not an issue here), the bigger issue is *systemic
effects*.
For example, amenorrhea in women is, fwiu, common in competitive athletes.
That's a pretty amazing result.
My endocrinologist would say that analogous things can/would happen in kids
from excessive wt lifting.

Again, I think there is an important middle ground, and I would hope it
would be closer to Feigenbaum's stance than to the nay-sayers' stance.
If Feigenbaum were largely correct, and I hope he is, it would further widen
the already enormous chasm between what is and what should be, health
ed-wise. I think a strategy along these lines would likely revolutionize
health in America.
Ergo, we won't likely see such a strategy.
But we will likely see a generation obsessed w/ abs, yo-yo dieting their
asses off to get them.

Oh, glad you like my sig. Yes, it was pretty brilliant.
Actually, it is the *only* solution, and a long-shot solution at that.
If people only had a clue, that the corruption in Congress could have them
dumpster-diving for food in a cupla years....
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY

Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!

entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs

"Davide" <davideb_music@yahoo.it> wrote in message
news:1164628139.596478.89930@45g2000cws.googlegrou ps.com...

Proctologically Violated©® ha scritto:

> Well, let me first say, I hope you, and Avery, are right. And appreciate
> the link and name.
>
> You are right: the momentary impacts of running/jumping do dwarf those of
> lifting.
>
> But, altho I may have implied the problem lay in weight training being a
> load-bearing exercise on the bone, that is indeed not the issue.
> Altho your counter argument doesn't really hold either, because to compare
> the jumps and bumps of child play w/ a rigorous weight training program is
> not quite a level playing field. A better example would have been
> *marathon
> training* for kids versus rigorous weight training.

The weight a kid can lift for at least 5 times is always a less weight
load than jumping and running playfully and not vigorously

> Hypertrophy-inducing weight training is a biochemical issue, of hormones,
> chemical signalling, de-repression of inhibitory proteins within the
> genome
> (which is what keeps the couch potato from getting unnecessarily
> muscular),
> etc.
> It is *these* events that the endocrinologist was referring to, ito of
> child
> development.
> Not saying he's right, just that it made sense at the time.
> And even if growth were compromised, that is not necessarily a bad thing.

But muscle growth is rather an easy mechanism
Also very young children and