Basic Principles of Training – The Definitive Guide

[Mary]

This is a very good guide (http://www.finertia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=93) for everyone who's interested in weight training. It clears out a lot of the myths.

[chatbox]

So, we never quite managed to find out what sort of guy you like. Do you prefer the really pumped up type? Well defined/tone type? Or isn't there any preferences?

Let us know...and we (single, straight, male RFDers) will start working out with an aim. :cheesygri

[bigredlemon]

#4 is fishy...

there's a lot of evidence that strength training boosts the levels of androgens in your body, and hence accelerates the closing of the plates. Hard training also limits the availability of fuel for height growth as alot of it is moved towards building/maintaining muscles.

[Mary]

Really? I would love to see the researches if you don't mind finding for me :) I always like to look into the scientific studies. As for the hard training robbing the body the fuel to support growth, I think that soley depends upon how well the trainee's diet is. If one doesn't have a good diet during puberty, one could very likely to hinder the growth process, and that's even with any training. Provided there's enough nutrients and calories to maintain a positive nitrogen retention environment, the body can do its job very efficiently. But yes, I seriously would like to look more into the adrogen-related issue on stunting growth, so if you could name a few sources that I could look into, I would really appreciate it :)

[trini]

Well chatty remember that satisfaction is an art not an appearance,so you might get the chicas with a hot body but if you cant handle the ride word will get around soon enough and all that work will be for nothing.
Bruce lee was a great specimen just so you know.
good to see you trying to assist/market a "healthier" lifestyle to these ladies mary.

[Mary]

So, we never quite managed to find out what sort of guy you like. Do you prefer the really pumped up type? Well defined/tone type? Or isn't there any preferences?

Let us know...and we (single, straight, male RFDers) will start working out with an aim. :cheesygri

I personally am not too into the really big guys (200 lbs+); just athletic and toned would be good.

[x21hx]

Thanks..that was a nice lengthy read...I guess I have to go do more free weights...hmm...i didn't know that about muscle shaping...i guess i should hit the bike more to see more definition...

[Mary]

Getting definition is to master the combination of the followings:

*Proper weight and cardio training
*Good diet
*Adequate amount of "quality" sleep (not just sleep, so sleep in not overrated)
:razz:

[findingnemoscar]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you can probably achieve better results if having a toned body is your goal, by concentrating more on your diet than anything else. I for one am not a fan of cardio training for fat burning purposes. I would rather spend my training time doing High Intensity Interval Training then cardio to burn fat. A few years ago, when I was really really into weight training, I read everytihng I could get my hands on from scientific journals even to muscle rags. If I have time, I'll try to do a search on some articles I have read that give a really good case for HIIT where the research wasn't sponsored by a supplements company :). Even without the scientific data, one merely has to observe two of the more prominent athletes in modern sports doing the same thing but using different training methods - the sprinter and the long distance runner.

[bdckr]

#4 is fishy...

there's a lot of evidence that strength training boosts the levels of androgens in your body, and hence accelerates the closing of the plates. Hard training also limits the availability of fuel for height growth as alot of it is moved towards building/maintaining muscles.


Here are a couple of reasonably reputable (http://www.physsportsmed.com/issues/2003/0903/benjamin.htm) sources (http://www.acsm.org/health+fitness/pdf/currentcomments/stretrai122602.pdf) that disagree.

Excess androgens can both accelerate bone growth (taller earlier) and cause premature epiphyseal plate closure (shorter final height). On the balance, excess androgens may result in short stature. However, weightlifting has not been shown increase androgen levels to the point where this would happen. If weightlifting could increase androgens to such a significant degree, there wouldn't be such a market for anabolic steroids among weightlifters.

Ditto Mary's comments about "availability of fuel".

[Mary]

Thanks bdckr, for taking the time to find the source :)

[ptxpress]

I read this the other day on the site in your sig, Mary...there's a TON of useful info on there. The only problem is, every so called "guide" I read recommends different things...

Overall, I guess it's a function of trial + error.

[bdckr]

I read this the other day on the site in your sig, Mary...there's a TON of useful info on there. The only problem is, every so called "guide" I read recommends different things...

Overall, I guess it's a function of trial + error.

Yeah, there are a lot of different people saying different things.

You can avoid problems, though by arming yourself with some really basic, well-established knowledge -- when we're talking about working out, (surface) anatomy and physiology are the most important.

Then read as much as you can. Always keep in mind how reputable a source is. Make sure that it jives with the information that you already know to be true. Judge it by how consistent and reasonable it sounds. And be prepared to re-evaluate what you already "know" to be true in light of newer information that not only (1) explains something to be right, but also (2) explains why what you thought was right might be wrong.

That way, when you come upon new information, you already have a context for understanding it based on what you already know. Take it with a grain of salt if someone is trying to sell you something or has a vested interest. Does it make sense? See if it fits in with what you already know. If it doesn't, decide what makes more sense and fits in with everything else that you've learned in your reading or experience.

And above all, try to go as far back as you can to the original source of information. You'll find that people's reading comprehension skills aren't always the greatest or that people are willing to skew their interpretation of a study to fit their own agenda.

If you do this, you'll find that most reputable sources actually agree on a lot of things.

In some cases though, information is actually new, and as it develops, everyone learns. But a lot of it is old and has just been misinterpreted and perpetuated like a bad "broken telephone" (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Telephone%20(game)) game.




Edit: An example of this would be weightlifting causing increased androgens which in turn caused premature closure of the growth plates of bones, most importantly the long bones of the body, resulting in stunted growth.

On the face of it, that makes some sense since we know that significant amounts of androgen can cause an accelerated growth rate initially but a decreased final height in children.

However, most concerns in related to growth and weightlifting had more to do with actual physical trauma/damage to the epiphyseal/growth plates than hormonal effects.

And if you think even more carefully, if weightlifting can cause such a big surge in androgens in children, why would bodybuilders take steroid supplements? Shouldn't they have a huge amount of androgens in their body anyways? So something doesn't make sense.

So a quick google, carefully refining your terms of reference, will give you two reputable sources, "The Physician and Sports Medicine" and "The American College of Sports Medicine" that both agree on what was apparently a controversial topic. Now these may be "sound-alike" organizations trying to make you believe they're something that they're not, but neither is trying to sell you anything, and neither seems to have a particular reason to recommend weightlifting over any other exercise. And they address the historical concerns about weightlifting and trauma to growth plates.

[Mary]

Very well said, bdckr.

[bigredlemon]

Here are a couple of reasonably reputable (http://www.physsportsmed.com/issues/2003/0903/benjamin.htm) sources (http://www.acsm.org/health+fitness/pdf/currentcomments/stretrai122602.pdf) that disagree.

Excess androgens can both accelerate bone growth (taller earlier) and cause premature epiphyseal plate closure (shorter final height). On the balance, excess androgens may result in short stature. However, weightlifting has not been shown increase androgen levels to the point where this would happen. If weightlifting could increase androgens to such a significant degree, there wouldn't be such a market for anabolic steroids among weightlifters.

Ditto Mary's comments about "availability of fuel".
the problem being all those tests were done on people with high calorie diets in which lack of nutrition is not a problem. According to the sources you posted, groups with high metabolism or reasonable caloric intake are correlated with decreased height. So weightlifting would reduce the final height depending on the person.

(none of the links you posted even say high isn't negatively effected... they only say weightlifting does not appear to cause injury, and it's only when the person is following a "safe" workout program with adequate nutrition... something I doubt many non-serious lifters meet. The stress of a rigourous lifting program and poor dieting has been shown to reduce height growth--teens that are pulled away from such a condition usually experience a growth spurt of several inches within a few months of the change, proof that being in that biologically stressful sittuation was inhibiting growth.)

[bigredlemon]

And if you think even more carefully, if weightlifting can cause such a big surge in androgens in children, why would bodybuilders take steroid supplements? Shouldn't they have a huge amount of androgens in their body anyways? So something doesn't make sense.

Are you suggesting that weightlifting doesn't cause an increase in andros because competitive bodybuilders inject them?

I think you're forgetting the fact that BBers are always looking for the extra edge, and won't turn down more of a good thing
;)


a quick google on weightlifting + height shows a ton of bodybuilding sites declaring it a myth with laughable support. This includes parading inconclusive studies as "proof." A few sites even cite arnold schwarz and lou ferringo's above average height as proof. (it's especially laughable since both are known to have started taking significant steroids in their earlier teens.)

[bigredlemon]

Bone growth slowed during periods of intensive exercise
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15328065



Caloric restriction reduces final height
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15238923



Height growth reduced during intense exercise, and will catchup during breaks. But for people that continues to exercise, they never regain their growth.
http://www.physsportsmed.com/issues/2002/10_02/daly.htm
(This includes a review of recent literature. Although none of them suggest a short period of exercise will permanent reduce growth, none of them suggest exercise does not reduce height growth either. In fact, they all found a reduction in height growth... the only question is how permanent is the defecit depending on how long you exercise without taking a break.)



Where the growth defecit is not permanent, it takes up to 8 years to catch up from ending exercise.
http://www.current-reports.com/article.cfm?PubID=SR03-3-2-06&Type=Article&KeyWords=


there's quite a body of evidence to suggest that weight lifting WILL stunt growth under non-ideal situations, and not impossible as the guide suggests. In fact even under ideal situations, growth is hindered at least in the short run (if you consider 8 years short) and possibly forever.

I don't see why it's so difficult to understand. You body may be limited in the amount of growth it can handle. Every bit of energy spent building and maintaining muscles is a bit that is lost to height growth. This might not be noticable in USA where most children are eating so much that they'd be obese if they didn't lift. Vigourous exercise easily adds an extra 5-700 kcal in expenditure, and few people are taking the time to accurately up their carb and protein intake as well as the amount of sleep to compensate for the drain on their body. There's a reason people are taller now than a few decades ago: better nutrition. Strenuous exercise takes away from that.

[bdckr]

Alright, love a good scrap.

Long story short: quoting from prestigious journals doesn't help your argument if they actually agree with me. You originally said that you thought weightlifting could affect growth because hormones are affected. Proving that nutrition is important (duh) doesn't actually prove your point. And if you quote sources that back up my point, well...

Long story long:


the problem being all those tests were done on people with high calorie diets in which lack of nutrition is not a problem. According to the sources you posted, groups with high metabolism or reasonable caloric intake are correlated with decreased height. So weightlifting would reduce the final height depending on the person.

(none of the links you posted even say high isn't negatively effected... they only say weightlifting does not appear to cause injury, and it's only when the person is following a "safe" workout program with adequate nutrition... something I doubt many non-serious lifters meet. The stress of a rigourous lifting program and poor dieting has been shown to reduce height growth--teens that are pulled away from such a condition usually experience a growth spurt of several inches within a few months of the change, proof that being in that biologically stressful sittuation was inhibiting growth.)

Did you even read my sources? They were a summary article (http://www.physsportsmed.com/issues/2003/0903/benjamin.htm) and a position paper by the American College of Sports Medicine. (http://www.acsm.org/health+fitness/pdf/currentcomments/stretrai122602.pdf)

The first referenced many articles, most of which were not available on-line (abstracts that don't document the selection criteria for subjects don't count), and the second is a position paper. That means it doesn't actually mention anybody or tell you how much people were eating or whether they picked their nose with their left hand. It just tells you what the American College of Sports Medicine recommends. It's not a study. You may want to read it again.


Bone growth slowed during periods of intensive exercise
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15328065


The article you quoted actually is titled:
The influence of intensive physical exercise on bone acquisition in adolescent elite female and male artistic gymnasts.
and it says:
"Physical exercise enhances bone acquisition during adolescence."
"Bone age compared with chronological age was delayed by 2 yr for females (n = 120) and 1 yr for males (n = 68)."

This abstract (not full article) you quoted mentions nothing about height. What it is talking about is that bone age is delayed. They also saw that bone mineral density was less than that expected for the age, but in keeping with bone age. Bone age is the appearance of bone under x-ray. If someone is short for their age but the right height for their bone age, that's OK. When someone is being investigated for short stature, one of the tests that is done is an x-ray for bone age. If height correlates well it's not a problem, and those kids are expected to reach their full growth potential.

Also nothing to do with weightlifting.

No comment in the abstract about the possible bias due to the preoccupation in female gymastics with the right physique and associated eating disorders (http://www.vanderbilt.edu/AnS/psychology/health_psychology/gymnasts.htm).

So what does this article tell us? In a small group of gymnasts, their bone density was less than expected with chronological age, but correlated well with bone age. That means they were expected to reach their full potential adult height. Just a little later.


Caloric restriction reduces final height
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15238923

The title says it all:
"Decreased final height of children with growth deceleration secondary to poor weight gain during late childhood."

Just because you're quoting an abstract from the Journal of Pediatrics doesn't actually prove your point. If you'd read the abstract, you would know that it says, "a relatively minor but prolonged caloric restriction" can lead to "reduced final heights."

So if you eat less than your body needs for a long time, you will be shorter than average.

Again nothing to do with weightlifting. If you're going to make that argument, you may as well say that being on the computer too long can cause you to be shorter. I mean, kids will sometimes forget to eat when they're on the computer, right? So "Case studies of children spending prolonged time in front of the computer and with caloric restriction resulting in short stature."



Height growth reduced during intense exercise, and will catchup during breaks. But for people that continues to exercise, they never regain their growth.
http://www.physsportsmed.com/issues/2002/10_02/daly.htm
(This includes a review of recent literature. Although none of them suggest a short period of exercise will permanent reduce growth, none of them suggest exercise does not reduce height growth either. In fact, they all found a reduction in height growth... the only question is how permanent is the defecit depending on how long you exercise without taking a break.)

Again, another article that doesn't really make your point.


Short stature and delayed maturation in some young athletes may reflect sport-specific selection practices, but some evidence suggests that prolonged, intensive physical training combined with insufficient energy intake may reduce growth and delay maturation. Other concerns include poor dietary habits, increased physical loading and repetitive trauma to open epiphyses, and psychological and emotional stress.

There's that darn nutrition thing again. So basically, if you don't eat enough, and you do other things, you may mature later and you may end up shorter than you could be. But what's this "increased physical loading and repetitive trauma to open epiphyses"?

If you actually read the article, it says:

Elite young athletes undertake training programs of progressive intensity at an early age and eventually compete at the national and international level in sports such as gymnastics, swimming, soccer, tennis, and dancing during their teenage years.1 For instance, talented young female gymnasts often commence training at age 5 or 6 and train more than 20 to 30 hours per week year-round throughout childhood and adolescence.2 Young tennis players may spend up to 6 hours per day in court play and practice, and some adolescent runners train up to 80 miles per week for marathons.3

So, gymnastics, swimming, soccer, tennis, dancing, tennis, and running. Of course, no mention of weightlifting. And again, those darn epiphyses.

So why does everyone talk about epiphyses? Because that's where growth in the long bones come from, and that's where height comes from, and that's why people stop getting taller when epiphyses close.

If anything, some people (http://staff.washington.edu/griffin/kids_weights.txt) believe that the forces involved in those other activities can be a greater stress on the epiphyses than weightlifting.

As I've said before, the concern about weightlifting was a result of case (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=2927961&dopt=Abstract) reports (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=2147541&dopt=Abstract) of athletes damaging their epiphyseal plates prior to closure and prior to reaching full growth. Their long bones were unable to continue growing in the expected manner, and they were short.

And here's an article (http://www.physsportsmed.com/issues/2003/0903/benjamin.htm) from the same source as above that summarizes the historical concerns regarding weightlifting and debunks them as having been poor studies.


(damn these letter count limits..)

[bdckr]

Where the growth defecit is not permanent, it takes up to 8 years to catch up from ending exercise.
http://www.current-reports.com/article.cfm?PubID=SR03-3-2-06&Type=Article&KeyWords=


there's quite a body of evidence to suggest that weight lifting WILL stunt growth under non-ideal situations, and not impossible as the guide suggests. In fact even under ideal situations, growth is hindered at least in the short run (if you consider 8 years short) and possibly forever.

I don't see why it's so difficult to understand. You body may be limited in the amount of growth it can handle. Every bit of energy spent building and maintaining muscles is a bit that is lost to height growth. This might not be noticable in USA where most children are eating so much that they'd be obese if they didn't lift. Vigourous exercise easily adds an extra 5-700 kcal in expenditure, and few people are taking the time to accurately up their carb and protein intake as well as the amount of sleep to compensate for the drain on their body. There's a reason people are taller now than a few decades ago: better nutrition. Strenuous exercise takes away from that.

Again, from your article:

In a review of 35 papers published between 1966 and 2000 on growth and gymnastics, Caine et al. [5**] concluded that although the literature suggests attenuated growth during training with periods of catch-up after training cessation, there was no demonstrated cause and effect relationship between gymnastics training and growth inhibition in young female athletes. Conflicting evidence, co-founding factors, and a lack of longitudinal studies and dietary contributions to growth delay were cited as reasons for the inconclusive results [5**].

A recent Danish study of 184 boys and girls (74 prepubertal) ages 9 to 13 training up to 18 hours per week and participating in national-level sports for their age (swimming, tennis, team handball, and gymnastics) revealed no significant effects of sport training on prepubertal growth when comparing body mass index (BMI) and height standard deviations at ages 2 to 4 and 9 to 13 [12]. Later pubertal growth and growth velocity over time however, were not studied [12]. Georgopoulos at al. [13, 14] reported that although a deterioration of growth potential was seen in elite artistic gymnasts, rhythmic gymnasts preserved their growth potential and even exceeded their genetic potential during catch-up growth.

Normal prepubertal growth in girls occurs in the legs, whereas the pubertal growth spurt is primarily truncal [15]. In a study of 5- to 15-year-old gymnasts, Bass et al. [15] showed a 1.3- 0.1-year growth delay along with reduced sitting height detected after 2 years of training that worsened as the duration of training increased. Although this truncal shortening suggests pubertal delay, reversal of this shortening was seen during the catch-up growth of retired gymnasts studied 8 years after cessation of training. Catch-up growth varied according to age at retirement [15]. Further studies will be useful in helping to sort out the true cause and effect relationship between intense training and growth delay in elite young athletes.

Again gymnastics, swimming, tennis, and team handball. And the gymnasts reached their full adult height. Just later. And weightlifting is listed where...?

Ahh... Here it is under the title:
Is Weight Training Harmful for Young Athletes?

It basically concludes that if done right, weightlifting is in fact beneficial.

And there's that darn nutrition again.

Look, bigredlemon, if you'd originally said, "I think nutrition is important," I would have heartily agreed with you and that would have been that.

Instead, you said:

#4 is fishy...

there's a lot of evidence that strength training boosts the levels of androgens in your body, and hence accelerates the closing of the plates. Hard training also limits the availability of fuel for height growth as alot of it is moved towards building/maintaining muscles.

So, you started off talking about hormones closing the growth plates. Then you proved that nutrition is important. "Look, look, I've shown that nutrition is important. Ha! See?" Duh..

You may as well have told me that weightlifting causes blindness, and then showed me case studies where weightlifting combined with a stick in the eye causes blindness. Of course weightlifting plus poor nutrition would cause growth retardation. Poor nutrition alone (as you've so ably shown (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...t_uids=15238923)) causes growth retardation.

My original mistake was responding to your concerns about "#4" assuming that some understanding of the underlying physiology and history was already present. That's why I focused on damage to the epiphyseal plates which were the physiological and historical reasons why people were concerned about weightlifting in people who had yet to reach full adult height. I obviously overestimated the audience.

edit: to highlight relevant points in article

[bdckr]

Almost forgot to address this:

a quick google on weightlifting + height shows a ton of bodybuilding sites declaring it a myth with laughable support. This includes parading inconclusive studies as "proof." A few sites even cite arnold schwarz and lou ferringo's above average height as proof. (it's especially laughable since both are known to have started taking significant steroids in their earlier teens.)

So basically you're contradicting your original point. You were concerned that a burst of androgens (from weightlifting)

... accelerates the closing of the plates. Hard training also limits the availability of fuel for height growth as alot of it is moved towards building/maintaining muscles.

Now you're giving me two examples who, by your claim (which of course I can't substantiate), took steroids before their growth plates close. A better argument would have been to say that they were both known to have started bodybuilding and taking steroids after reaching their full adult growth, not before ("earlier teens").

On the one hand you say androgens stunt growth ("accelerates the closing of the plates"). On the other hand, you show me examples where testosterone didn't. Don't know if the second point is true, but you've just made your own good argument against it and contradicted yourself.

[bigredlemon]

Alright, love a good scrap.

Long story short: quoting from prestigious journals doesn't help your argument if they actually agree with me. You originally said that you thought weightlifting could affect growth because hormones are affected. Proving that nutrition is important (duh) doesn't actually prove your point. And if you quote sources that back up my point, well...

actually it does prove my point. Since inadequate nutrition = less growth, and weightlifting significantly boosts nutrition requirements, therefore lifting poorly DOES result in less growth all things equal. (Its unfair to compare someone eating more poorly vs. someone eating better)



Long story long:

Did you even read my sources? They were a summary article (http://www.physsportsmed.com/issues/2003/0903/benjamin.htm) and a position paper by the American College of Sports Medicine. (http://www.acsm.org/health+fitness/pdf/currentcomments/stretrai122602.pdf)

Yes. I did a search for height and noticed that it was not mentioned once.



The first referenced many articles, most of which were not available on-line (abstracts that don't document the selection criteria for subjects don't count), and the second is a position paper. That means it doesn't actually mention anybody or tell you how much people were eating or whether they picked their nose with their left hand. It just tells you what the American College of Sports Medicine recommends. It's not a study. You may want to read it again.

then why don't you quote for me the relevant sections here?



The article you quoted actually is titled:
The influence of intensive physical exercise on bone acquisition in adolescent elite female and male artistic gymnasts.
and it says:
"Physical exercise enhances bone acquisition during adolescence."
"Bone age compared with chronological age was delayed by 2 yr for females (n = 120) and 1 yr for males (n = 68)."

This abstract (not full article) you quoted mentions nothing about height. What it is talking about is that bone age is delayed. They also saw that bone mineral density was less than that expected for the age, but in keeping with bone age. Bone age is the appearance of bone under x-ray. If someone is short for their age but the right height for their bone age, that's OK. When someone is being investigated for short stature, one of the tests that is done is an x-ray for bone age. If height correlates well it's not a problem, and those kids are expected to reach their full growth potential.

Also nothing to do with weightlifting.

As you alluded to, bone density is correlated with height. Reduced bone density caused by exercise suggests a link with reduced height. While the study does not specifically target weightlifting, it does target physical exercise. They both involve placing a physical load on the body, resulting in higher nutrient requirements.




No comment in the abstract about the possible bias due to the preoccupation in female gymastics with the right physique and associated eating disorders (http://www.vanderbilt.edu/AnS/psychology/health_psychology/gymnasts.htm).

So what does this article tell us? In a small group of gymnasts, their bone density was less than expected with chronological age, but correlated well with bone age. That means they were expected to reach their full potential adult height. Just a little later.

where does it say they were expected to reach their full potential adult height?



The title says it all:
"Decreased final height of children with growth deceleration secondary to poor weight gain during late childhood."

Just because you're quoting an abstract from the Journal of Pediatrics doesn't actually prove your point. If you'd read the abstract, you would know that it says, "a relatively minor but prolonged caloric restriction" can lead to "reduced final heights."

So if you eat less than your body needs for a long time, you will be shorter than average.

which would happen during prolonged exercise without adequate changes in a person's diet. So what you say is misleading. Eating less will make you shorter. But so will just eating the same amount. And even eating more can reduce your final height if you aren't eating much more calories and protein.



Again nothing to do with weightlifting. If you're going to make that argument, you may as well say that being on the computer too long can cause you to be shorter. I mean, kids will sometimes forget to eat when they're on the computer, right? So "Case studies of children spending prolonged time in front of the computer and with caloric restriction resulting in short stature."

It has everything to do with weighlifting. See above.

If you are waiting for a study called "children lifting 5 exercises at 3 sets of 8 reps of 30 of 60% 1 rep max everyday for 5 years and height growth", you would be waiting for a long time.






Again, another article that doesn't really make your point.

There's that darn nutrition thing again. So basically, if you don't eat enough, and you do other things, you may mature later and you may end up shorter than you could be.

so you are agreeing that #4 is wrong then?



But what's this "increased physical loading and repetitive trauma to open epiphyses"?

If you actually read the article, it says:


So, gymnastics, swimming, soccer, tennis, dancing, tennis, and running. Of course, no mention of weightlifting. And again, those darn epiphyses.

So why does everyone talk about epiphyses? Because that's where growth in the long bones come from, and that's where height comes from, and that's why people stop getting taller when epiphyses close.

If anything, some people (http://staff.washington.edu/griffin/kids_weights.txt) believe that the forces involved in those other activities can be a greater stress on the epiphyses than weightlifting.

As I've said before, the concern about weightlifting was a result of case (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=2927961&dopt=Abstract) reports (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=2147541&dopt=Abstract) of athletes damaging their epiphyseal plates prior to closure and prior to reaching full growth. Their long bones were unable to continue growing in the expected manner, and they were short.

And here's an article (http://www.physsportsmed.com/issues/2003/0903/benjamin.htm) from the same source as above that summarizes the historical concerns regarding weightlifting and debunks them as having been poor studies.
(damn these letter count limits..)
so basically, you just reposted the same page as before that doesn't mention "height" once?

And your entire rebuttle relies around "weighlifting can't reduce height growth because there's two people that successfully had surgery" ???

[bigredlemon]

Again, from your article:


Again gymnastics, swimming, tennis, and team handball. And the gymnasts reached their full adult height. Just later. And weightlifting is listed where...?

Ahh... Here it is under the title:
Is Weight Training Harmful for Young Athletes?

It basically concludes that if done right, weightlifting is in fact beneficial.

And there's that darn nutrition again.

Exercise does increase the release of GH. But as I said earlier, catchup won't occur if the athletes hadn't stopped to give their bodies a rest.



Look, bigredlemon, if you'd originally said, "I think nutrition is important," I would have heartily agreed with you and that would have been that.

Instead, you said:


So, you started off talking about hormones closing the growth plates. Then you proved that nutrition is important. "Look, look, I've shown that nutrition is important. Ha! See?" Duh..

You may as well have told me that weightlifting causes blindness, and then showed me case studies where weightlifting combined with a stick in the eye causes blindness. Of course weightlifting plus poor nutrition would cause growth retardation. Poor nutrition alone (as you've so ably shown (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...t_uids=15238923)) causes growth retardation.

My original mistake was responding to your concerns about "#4" assuming that some understanding of the underlying physiology and history was already present. That's why I focused on damage to the epiphyseal plates which were the physiological and historical reasons why people were concerned about weightlifting in people who had yet to reach full adult height. I obviously overestimated the audience.
My initial concerns were about the diversion of the body's resources away from height growth towards adding thickness. Comments regarding the plates happened to be at the top because that's what was previously commented on first.

[bigredlemon]

Almost forgot to address this:


So basically you're contradicting your original point. You were concerned that a burst of androgens (from weightlifting)

Looks like you aren't the only one overestimating your audience.

That was put there to allow the reader to draw the inference that two people do not make a pattern. For every arnold and lou ferringo, there's a dozen Lee Priests of the world. And BBers take a lot of care in what they eat, which should negative the nutrient drain.

A typical person does not.


Now you're giving me two examples who, by your claim (which of course I can't substantiate), took steroids before their growth plates close. A better argument would have been to say that they were both known to have started bodybuilding and taking steroids after reaching their full adult growth, not before ("earlier teens").

On the one hand you say androgens stunt growth ("accelerates the closing of the plates"). On the other hand, you show me examples where testosterone didn't. Don't know if the second point is true, but you've just made your own good argument against it and contradicted yourself.
So you're saying you actually buy the site's reasoning, and think my rebuttle actually contridict myself? read above.

[bigredlemon]

btw, you realize that competitive 'gymnastics, swimming, tennis, and team handball" people usually undergo resistance training every other day right?

[bdckr]

actually it does prove my point. Since inadequate nutrition = less growth, and weightlifting significantly boosts nutrition requirements, therefore lifting poorly DOES result in less growth all things equal. (Its unfair to compare someone eating more poorly vs. someone eating better)
What it sounds like you’re saying is:
Inadequate nutrition leads to less growth. Agreed.
Weightlifting boosts nutrition requirements. Agreed.

So of course you then assume someone weightlifting will eat less than they need. There’s the problem with what you’re saying.

Replace “weightlifting� with “getting out of bed.� Do you even realize how ridiculous that sounds? And yet it’s the basis of your argument: “Let’s assume that you still eat the same amount if you start weightlifting.� Reductio ad absurdum (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8&oi=defmore&q=define:reductio+ad+absurdum).

actually it does prove my point. Since inadequate nutrition = less growth, and getting out of bed significantly boosts nutrition requirements, therefore getting out of bed DOES result in less growth all things equal. (Its unfair to compare someone eating more poorly vs. someone eating better)


Yes. I did a search for height and noticed that it was not mentioned once.
Here’s the original point that gave you such fits and starts:

4. Weight Training stunts Growth – FALSE
It has been proven time and again and yet people still believe this myth, Weight Training does not stunt your growth. The only reason it was ever associated with this is the use of Anabolic Steroids which can close the Growth Plates in younger individuals and thus do stunt growth.
Weight training in fact can have quite the opposite affect; it can increase your rate of growth. Not above your genetic limitations but due to the increased Calories you should consume and the increased concentrations on hormones. Whilst there is little research on this it is very pheasable and should be taken into consideration.

#4 is fishy...

there's a lot of evidence that strength training boosts the levels of androgens in your body, and hence accelerates the closing of the plates. Hard training also limits the availability of fuel for height growth as alot of it is moved towards building/maintaining muscles.


Safety Issues and Concerns
Severe injuries causing death or severe disability are exceedingly rare, but can occur while strength training in children and adolescents. These injuries are mostly due to the lack of appropriate adult supervision, instruction, or technique. Much controversy has surrounded the more explosive lifts involving children with open growth plates. A recent study involving 1109 children and adolescents lifting at national meets over a four-year period showed not only no growth-plate injuries but no serious injuries requiring hospitalization or surgery. Minor injuries such as muscle strains are common among children and adolescents, as they are in their adult counterparts who do strength training. When compared to other sports in which children and adolescents participate—such as football, soccer, basketball and even baseball—the injuries due to all types of strength training are much lower. There is no current scientific evidence to support that early weight training can “stunt� a child’s growth. Children and adolescents wishing to participate in intermediate and advanced strength training programs should consult with a certified or qualified strength specialist when developing individual programs.
I’ve highlit the important points for you. OK, so the ACSP talked about growth plate injuries. I guess if you still need it explained to you, they talk about the lack of evidence showing that weight training can “stunt� a child’s growth. Do you still need the word “height� to appear before you’ll believe it?

The original article (that you had a problem with) talks about growth. The position paper from the ACSM talks about growth. And you’re still fixated on the word “height.� In case you didn’t realize, height is included. It’s a growth parameter.

So your claim that:

#4 is fishy...

there's a lot of evidence that strength training boosts the levels of androgens in your body, and hence accelerates the closing of the platesfails.

Where’s this lot of evidence? The American College of Sports Medicine believes it doesn’t exist. You do, though. Hmm... A conspiracy, perhaps?


then why don't you quote for me the relevant sections here?
Recap: You don’t like my links because you claim that all the kids mentioned got lots to eat. Then I tell you that the links don’t actually say that (since neither are studies, one is a summary article and one is a position paper, no details about kids are mentioned). If you need to see that the stuff you made up isn’t there, then you should read the articles. No point quoting them since no matter which part I quote, it still won't be there.

As you alluded to, bone density is correlated with height. Reduced bone density caused by exercise suggests a link with reduced height. While the study does not specifically target weightlifting, it does target physical exercise. They both involve placing a physical load on the body, resulting in higher nutrient requirements.
I “alluded� to no such thing. The study was about bone densities in a group of gymnasts. The study didn’t even target anything as broad as physical exercise. As I mentioned, getting out of bed involves placing a physical load on the body, resulting in higher nutrient requirements.

The gymnasts were found to have a lower bone density than expected for their chronological age. They were also found to have an appropriate bone density for their bone age. Ask your pediatrician to explain that to you. It means that their bone density is appropriate for the stage of development of their bone. They were also found to be at a height that correlated with their bone age.

where does it say they were expected to reach their full potential adult height?
It doesn’t. I was explaining something to you. This is an example of actually knowing some background information and understanding the implications of what they’re saying. Ask your pediatrician about the significance of bone age correlating with growth parameters in short stature kids. In case you don’t understand his/her explanation, that means they are expected to reach their full growth potential. Yes, it may be delayed. As another article you quoted says, it may be up to eight years. But that means they do reach their full expected growth/height.

which would happen during prolonged exercise without adequate changes in a person's diet. So what you say is misleading. Eating less will make you shorter. But so will just eating the same amount. And even eating more can reduce your final height if you aren't eating much more calories and protein.
Nothing misleading there. Still the same assumption on your part that people will not eat more when they do more. Which you get from…?

It has everything to do with weighlifting. See above.

If you are waiting for a study called "children lifting 5 exercises at 3 sets of 8 reps of 30 of 60% 1 rep max everyday for 5 years and height growth", you would be waiting for a long time.
Actually, I’m just waiting for one study of the type that you mentioned.

#4 is fishy...

there's a lot of evidence that strength training boosts the levels of androgens in your body, and hence accelerates the closing of the plates Hard training also limits the availability of fuel for height growth as alot of it is moved towards building/maintaining muscles.
So far, you’ve found one study about caloric restriction (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15328065) (no mention of weightlifting),
one about a group of gymnasts and their bone density (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15238923) (no mention of weightlifting),
one study review about a few sports that could be bad (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15238923) (tennis, gymnastics, ballet, basketball, none of which is weightlifting),
and one summary article that debunks the earlier studies that scared people away from weightlifting. That last one was the one that said weightlifting (when done properly of course) was beneficial. (http://www.current-reports.com/article.cfm?PubID=SR03-3-2-06&Type=Article&KeyWords=)

And this is supposed to be your proof that
strength training boosts the levels of androgens in your body, and hence accelerates the closing of the plates.???


so you are agreeing that #4 is wrong then?

If you need to ask…

Reading comprehension. Try it. You’ll like it.

so basically, you just reposted the same page as before that doesn't mention "height" once?
That’s right. Read above. G-R-O-W-T-H. It encompasses height (among other things).

And your entire rebuttle relies around "weighlifting can't reduce height growth because there's two people that successfully had surgery" ???
They were two examples of case studies that show why people historically thought weightlifting was dangerous in kids. Geez.

[bdckr]

Exercise does increase the release of GH. But as I said earlier, catchup won't occur if the athletes hadn't stopped to give their bodies a rest.


My initial concerns were about the diversion of the body's resources away from height growth towards adding thickness. Comments regarding the plates happened to be at the top because that's what was previously commented on first.
Either you think the comment about plates (on finertia) was OK, in which case you didn’t need to complain about it. Or you think it’s not, in which case, who cares whether you put it first or second? [edit]You're still wrong. You say there’s “a lot of evidence.� I’m sure the American College of Sports Medicine (http://www.acsm.org/health+fitness/pdf/currentcomments/stretrai122602.pdf) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/pediatrics%3b107/5/1205.pdf) would love to see it.

Just so you don’t misunderstand the point of this link, it’s to show that even though the AAP singles out a few sports among many for being a problem in kids, weightlifting is not one of them. And if you look at the two tables, you’ll see that they didn’t forget weightlifting. They just didn’t think that it was a problem in and of itself.

Looks like you aren't the only one overestimating your audience.

That was put there to allow the reader to draw the inference that two people do not make a pattern. For every arnold and lou ferringo, there's a dozen Lee Priests of the world. And BBers take a lot of care in what they eat, which should negative the nutrient drain.

A typical person does not.

So you're saying you actually buy the site's reasoning, and think my rebuttle actually contridict myself? read above.

I’ll type r…e…a…l…l…y…… s…l…o…w…l…y…

Here’s what I was responding to:

a quick google on weightlifting + height shows a ton of bodybuilding sites declaring it a myth with laughable support. This includes parading inconclusive studies as "proof." A few sites even cite arnold schwarz and lou ferringo's above average height as proof. (it's especially laughable since both are known to have started taking significant steroids in their earlier teens.)
You pooh-poohed the bodybuilding sites for holding up Arnold Schwarzenegger and Lou Ferrigno as examples of people who lifted weights and still ended up pretty tall. You think it’s “especially laughable� since they were known to have taken steroids at a young age. So you’re saying that using these two as examples is an especially bad defense of weightlifting, since you know they were taking steroids early.

I don’t know how you know this about Arnold and Lou, but if it’s true, then that would actually be a good defense. Your original worry:

#4 is fishy...

there's a lot of evidence that strength training boosts the levels of androgens in your body, and hence accelerates the closing of the plates. Hard training also limits the availability of fuel for height growth as alot of it is moved towards building/maintaining muscles.

If I take what you know about Arnold and Lou at face value, then you have contradicted yourself. If you worry that strength training boosts androgens and closes the plates, then in order to refute the claims of the bodybuilding sites, you should claim either (1) that Arnold and Lou are rare aberrations or (2) that they didn’t get the steroids until their growth plates (= epiphyses = epiphyseal plates) closed. Instead you laugh at them because Arnold and Lou are known to have gotten that boost of androgen before their plates closed, which means…

In your world, that means they would be shorter (your original worry) and they would be taller(“Ha, ha. Look at them trying to say that weightlifting doesn’t stunt growth. Of course Arnold and Lou are tall guys. They got steroids in their early teens.�). Reductio ad absurdum (http://www.acsm.org/health+fitness/pdf/currentcomments/stretrai122602.pdf) again.

btw, you realize that competitive 'gymnastics, swimming, tennis, and team handball" people usually undergo resistance training every other day right?

Well, since I’m not an expert on gymnastics, swimming, tennis, and team handball (which I suppose you are), I can’t say that I know that for certain. I guess you are an expert on coaching all these sports, so I’ll just take your word for it .

[bdckr]

actually it does prove my point. Since inadequate nutrition = less growth, and weightlifting significantly boosts nutrition requirements, therefore lifting poorly DOES result in less growth all things equal. (Its unfair to compare someone eating more poorly vs. someone eating better)
What it sounds like you’re saying is:
Inadequate nutrition leads to less growth. Agreed.
Weightlifting boosts nutrition requirements. Agreed.

So of course you then assume someone weightlifting will eat less than they need. There’s the problem with what you’re saying.

Replace “weightlifting� with “getting out of bed.� Do you even realize how ridiculous that sounds? And yet it’s the basis of your argument. “Let’s assume that you still eat the same amount if you start weightlifting.� Reductio ad absurdum (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8&oi=defmore&q=define:reductio+ad+absurdum).

Given your previous fixation on the points raised, I thought I would come back and try to make this even more clear. Apologies to everyone for needing to read another separate post (instead of an edited one), but again, those 10,000 character limits.

The abstract (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15328065) you linked to:
1) has nothing to do with weightlifting
2) is about gymnasts
3) involves a sport where there is a huge pressure to be smaller
4) involves a sport with significant incidence of eating disorders (http://www.vanderbilt.edu/AnS/psychology/health_psychology/gymnasts.htm)
5) showed that they were expected to reach full growth

Is it common for gymnasts (and ballet dancers) to be malnourished? Sure.

So what does that have to do with weightlifting?

a) nothing
b) nothing
c) nothing
d) nothing
or
e) all of the above

Edit: By the way, "delayed growth" means that the epiphyseal plates are still open. You can ask your pediatrician about that, too.

[bdckr]

Ahh...

Finally found the actual American Academy of Pediatrics position paper on Weightlifting. (http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;107/6/1470)

Here's the relevant section:

RISKS OF STRENGTH TRAINING

The US Consumer Product Safety Commission, through its National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS), has estimated the number of injuries that are associated with strength training equipment. The NEISS data neither specifies cause of injury nor separates recreational from competitive weight lifting injuries. From 1991 to 1996, an estimated 20 940 to 26 120 injuries occurred each year in individuals under 21 years old.12 According to NEISS data and other studies,13 muscle strains account for 40% to 70% of all injuries. The lumbar back is the most commonly injured area.11,14

A limited number of case reports have raised concern about epiphyseal injuries in the wrist and apophyseal injuries in the spine from weight lifting in skeletally immature individuals. Such injuries are uncommon and are believed to be largely preventable by avoiding improper lifting techniques, maximal lifts, and improperly supervised lifts.12,15,16

Strength training programs do not seem to adversely affect linear growth and do not seem to have any long-term detrimental effect on cardiovascular health2,417-19 Young athletes with hypertension may experience further elevation of blood pressure from the isometric demands of strength training.8

[bigredlemon]

~bump~


i WILL respond to this... just can't be bothered to right now.
:lol:

[daimien]

~bump~


i WILL respond to this... just can't be bothered to right now.
:D

LOL!!! thought it's done :D

[bdckr]

I thought it was done, too. :D

Let’s save the good folks (who don’t want to read the whole thread) some trouble. I’ll leave out the secondary issues that seemed to be so distracting and focus on the main issues.

Here are the original points.

From Finertia (http://www.finertia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=93).

4. Weight Training stunts Growth – FALSE
It has been proven time and again and yet people still believe this myth, Weight Training does not stunt your growth. The only reason it was ever associated with this is the use of Anabolic Steroids which can close the Growth Plates in younger individuals and thus do stunt growth.
Weight training in fact can have quite the opposite affect; it can increase your rate of growth. Not above your genetic limitations but due to the increased Calories you should consume and the increased concentrations on hormones. Whilst there is little research on this it is very pheasable and should be taken into consideration.
Here’s your comment from this thread:

#4 is fishy...

there's a lot of evidence that strength training boosts the levels of androgens in your body, and hence accelerates the closing of the plates. Hard training also limits the availability of fuel for height growth as alot of it is moved towards building/maintaining muscles.

Here’s my first reference from The Physician and Sportsmedicine (http://www.physsportsmed.com/issues/2003/0903/benjamin.htm), which you didn’t think was relevant:


Effects on Growth
Most of the scientific literature on injury refers to activities other than strength training, such as competitive weight lifting, and to age-groups other than prepubescents. Stunted growth in Japanese children who habitually carried heavy loads on their shoulders was compared with the effects of weight training.4 The study did not address other factors, such as poor nutrition, sleep deprivation, and general health conditions, all of which may affect growth.
Recent literature4,5,14 indicates that strength training will not have an adverse effect on growth. A few studies4,5 have shown positive growth effects as long as proper nutrition and age-specific physical activity guidelines were met. However, resistance training will not affect an individuals' genotypic maximum.4,5 Parents can be assured that strength training (in moderation) will not have an adverse effect on growth. Training may actually be an effective stimulus for growth and bone mineralization in children, especially for those at risk for osteopenia or osteoporosis.25
Here’s another reference you didn’t like from the American College of Sports Medicine: (http://www.acsm.org/health+fitness/pdf/currentcomments/stretrai122602.pdf)



Safety Issues and Concerns
Severe injuries causing death or severe disability are exceedingly rare, but can occur while strength training in children and adolescents. These injuries are mostly due to the lack of appropriate adult supervision, instruction, or technique. Much controversy has surrounded the more explosive lifts involving children with open growth plates. A recent study involving 1109 children and adolescents lifting at national meets over a four-year period showed not only no growth-plate injuries but no serious injuries requiring hospitalization or surgery. Minor injuries such as muscle strains are common among children and adolescents, as they are in their adult counterparts who do strength training. When compared to other sports in which children and adolescents participate—such as football, soccer, basketball and even baseball—the injuries due to all types of strength training are much lower. There is no current scientific evidence to support that early weight training can “stunt� a child’s growth. Children and adolescents wishing to participate in intermediate and advanced strength training programs should consult with a certified or qualified strength specialist when developing individual programs.
Here’s the American Academy of Pediatrics position paper on Weightlifting (http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;107/6/1470) to which you haven’t replied:

RISKS OF STRENGTH TRAINING
The US Consumer Product Safety Commission, through its National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS), has estimated the number of injuries that are associated with strength training equipment. The NEISS data neither specifies cause of injury nor separates recreational from competitive weight lifting injuries. From 1991 to 1996, an estimated 20 940 to 26 120 injuries occurred each year in individuals under 21 years old.12 According to NEISS data and other studies,13 muscle strains account for 40% to 70% of all injuries. The lumbar back is the most commonly injured area.11,14

A limited number of case reports have raised concern about epiphyseal injuries in the wrist and apophyseal injuries in the spine from weight lifting in skeletally immature individuals. Such injuries are uncommon and are believed to be largely preventable by avoiding improper lifting techniques, maximal lifts, and improperly supervised lifts.12,15,16

Strength training programs do not seem to adversely affect linear growth and do not seem to have any long-term detrimental effect on cardiovascular health2,417-19 Young athletes with hypertension may experience further elevation of blood pressure from the isometric demands of strength training.8
Your responses consisted of references that don’t show:



...there's a lot of evidence that strength training boosts the levels of androgens in your body, and hence accelerates the closing of the plates.
The three points in your comment:
1) there's a lot of evidence
2) strength training boosts the levels of androgens
3) closing of the plates is accelerated

To prove your comment, your references should deal with the following things:

a) Strength training. Most of them don’t mention it. The ones that do don’t have a problem with weight-training.

b) They should also deal with androgen levels being boosted. None of them mentions it.

and

c) They should show that the growth/epiphyseal plates close early. For this, you don’t need direct proof. Indirect proof, such as short final adult height would be good enough. Showing “delayed growth� actually indicates that the plates are still open.

To back up your original point, you need to show all three: a), b), and c). Picking articles that are missing any of a) or b) or c) – that still doesn’t substantiate your original comment.

So if you found an article about gymnasts (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15328065) (not a)) that doesn’t mention androgens (not b)) and shows delayed growth (not c)), well, that’s really not useful to you, is it?

Here are your other references:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15238923
not a), not b), just c)
This one was too easy, it wasn't even about exercising.

http://www.physsportsmed.com/issues/2002/10_02/daly.htm
not a), not b), some sports c), some sports not c)
Other sports, no mention of hormones, some sports they ended up short, some not.

http://www.current-reports.com/article.cfm?PubID=SR03-3-2-06&Type=Article&KeyWords=
lots in this article, parts relating to other sports
not a), not b), sometimes c)
while some parts were actually about weightlifting, so
a), not b), not c)
and quoting the AAP saying that weightlifting was OK.

If you could find something backing up just a) and c) (i.e. strength training leads to premature closing of the plates) by a different mechanism (non-hormonal) -- that would be interesting, but you haven’t even shown that.

If you need to make a bunch of assumptions
(i) that gymnastics, tennis, basketball, etc. are the same as strength training,
(ii) strength training leads to undereating,
and
(iii) strength training is always unsupervised and done improperly;
well, those are still just your assumptions. That’s not evidence.

It doesn’t matter how many inaccurate inferences you make regarding the articles that you quote. You still haven’t backed up your original point.

I can't wait to see your response. :)

[Mintmaster]

Sorry to interrupt your argument, but has anyone tried the nutrition calculator in that guide? It says I need 280 grams of protein per day! How the hell am I supposed to do that? 10 protein shakes?!?

Maybe I should get one of those 50lb bags on ebay :D

Man, I'm almost at the point of giving up trying to gain more muscle mass. I've added a good 40-50% to my strength in the past year to the point where my stength/mass ratio is better than my lean-and-mean 200lb+ cousins, but I'm still a scant 145lbs (on a 5-9 frame). All my friends are blown away when the see how much I lift, especially given my build. :confused:

Is it just a matter of protein? I only get about 80g per day, but I didn't gain any weight from when I consumed even lower than that without shakes. It just seems so expensive for something that doesn't seem to work for me.

Any advice?

[bdckr]

Sorry to interrupt your argument, but has anyone tried the nutrition calculator in that guide? It says I need 280 grams of protein per day! How the hell am I supposed to do that? 10 protein shakes?!?

Maybe I should get one of those 50lb bags on ebay :D

Man, I'm almost at the point of giving up trying to gain more muscle mass. I've added a good 40-50% to my strength in the past year to the point where my stength/mass ratio is better than my lean-and-mean 200lb+ cousins, but I'm still a scant 145lbs (on a 5-9 frame). All my friends are blown away when the see how much I lift, especially given my build. :confused:

Is it just a matter of protein? I only get about 80g per day, but I didn't gain any weight from when I consumed even lower than that without shakes. It just seems so expensive for something that doesn't seem to work for me.

Any advice?
Sorry for having the argument. :) My apologies for losing sight of the point of the thread.

Without addressing the larger issue of how you can get bigger, you could probably use more protein.

You're about 66 kg, so 80g of protein per day would be on the lowish end. Top end of recommended amount of protein for someone your weight doing serious weight training would be about 130g.
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/AnS/psychology/health_psychology/Protein.htm#PROTEIN%20AND%20ATHLETES
http://www.aces.edu/pubs/docs/H/HE-0748/
http://www.healthgoods.com/Education/Nutrition_Information/Nutrition_for_Athletes/protein.htm

Some people suggest more, but there are potential risks involved (see references) and no clear benefit of taking more protein.

[daimien]

Sorry to interrupt your argument, but has anyone tried the nutrition calculator in that guide? It says I need 280 grams of protein per day! How the hell am I supposed to do that? 10 protein shakes

1 fried drumstick with no skin is already 28.5 grams of protein. If you need more help with your diet or whatever regarding your workout then checkout the link in my signature. You can start a journal there with your everyday diet or workout so you can keep track of things and most of them will give you advice if you're doing something wrong.

[t_ginuwine]

1 fried drumstick with no skin is already 28.5 grams of protein. If you need more help with your diet or whatever regarding your workout then checkout the link in my signature. You can start a journal there with your everyday diet or workout so you can keep track of things and most of them will give you advice if you're doing something wrong.


I drumstick is not 28.5 grams of protein !

TOP PROTEIN PACKED FOODS:

Egg, white, dried - 100 Grams = 81.1g

Finfish, cod, Atlantic, dried and salted - 100 Grams =62.8g

Beef, round, top round, separable lean only, trimmed to 1/4 inch fat, all grades, cooked, braised - 100 Grams
=36.1g


Chicken breast, fat-free, mesquite flavor, sliced - 100 Grams =16.8g

Chicken, broilers or fryers, breast, meat only, cooked, roasted - 100 Grams 165 = 31g

[daimien]

I drumstick is not 28.5 grams of protein !
to back up my word. Here's a list that you can check
Check Here! (http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/nutrient.php?id=5072)

[Mary]

Wow, that's quite a lengthy argument there, bdckr! Nice job for finding all those researches :)

[ramoose]

Wow, that's quite a lengthy argument there, bdckr! Nice job for finding all those researches :)

Does anybody here do core and stability with circuits on strength
and power and interval cardio training? This kind of training is quite acceptable for kids as it is more light weights with reps on stability balls, bosu boards, balance balls and boards. As for strength training for kids, my daughter was a junior national swimmer and had shoulder problems because of her hyperextention. We went to womens college hospital(Sport Care Clinic) to Dr. Julie Allende and she has done studies on this topic and she specifically said that resistance training enhances bone developement. We ended up training at the Olympic High Performance Center at Victoria park and shephard in the sprint building doing low weights high reps.

[Mary]

Does anybody here do core and stability with circuits on strength
and power and interval cardio training? This kind of training is quite acceptable for kids as it is more light weights with reps on stability balls, bosu boards, balance balls and boards. As for strength training for kids, my daughter was a junior national swimmer and had shoulder problems because of her hyperextention. We went to womens college hospital(Sport Care Clinic) to Dr. Julie Allende and she has done studies on this topic and she specifically said that resistance training enhances bone developement. We ended up training at the Olympic High Performance Center at Victoria park and shephard in the sprint building doing low weights high reps.

A friend of mine does something similar to what you've just mentioned.