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 DeleteThis @yahoo.it> wrote in message
news:1164628139.596478.89930@45g2000cws.googlegroups.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 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, would
> be
> 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 DeleteThis @yahoo.it> wrote in message
> news:1164567380.675500.318770@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Proctologically Violated©® ha scritto:
>
> > <br.m DeleteThis @gmx.net> wrote in message
> > news:1164533681.354599.15190@l39g2000cwd.googlegroups.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 >> Stay informed about: Muscles stunt growth in height? 
FAQ
Search
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
