Monday 26 July 2010
Friday 23 July 2010
Flex Lewis DVD
Having met Flex in person (NEC/Bodypower this year) I have to say his arms, forearms and thickness overall were outstanding. Watch the DVD to see how he got them.
Wednesday 21 July 2010
Tuesday 20 July 2010
Monday 19 July 2010
Saturday 17 July 2010
Friday 16 July 2010
Thursday 15 July 2010
Andy Bolton Deadlift Challenge
The date has been announced as May 28th 2011. This should be awesome!
Tuesday 13 July 2010
Creatine.... the professors response
I just found this. It's a few months old but still good - originally posted on UK-Muscle:
Today I had the long-awaited call with Paul Greenhaff. He was very relaxed about the call, not at all concerned about the readership and happy to answer any questions. Please appreciate the answers are based on Paul's research, that of his peers, the knowledge he has gained through his work and his own opinions. You may not agree with the answers, but hey that's life.
I won't write one word answers to the questions, as it wouldn't give the general feeling for the conversation, I'll try to summarize as best I can....
Types
On the subject of the various different types, this is all hype/gimics (bull**** to use Paul's real term). Most of these products boast an improved absorption rate into the cells, when actually all of them are broken down to basic creatine phosphate in the gut and so its the same compound by the time it reaches the cell wall, irrespective of its nature when its started the journey (if you get what I mean). The limiting factor for creatine uptake is at the cell wall, as creatine phosphate, and not as CEE, Kre- etc etc. Absorption in the gut is rapid, and is not a problem at all. 30 mins after ingestion, the blood plasma levels rise to about 20x resting levels, which is far more than sufficient for the rate it can enter the cell at. ie you don't particularly need high blood plasma levels.
Loading / Entry to Cell
Most efficient and effective method remains 20g per day for 5 days, split into 4x5g, each one with 80-100g of simple sugars (thats about 500ml of Lucozade). The one thing that can significantly improve the movement across the cell wall, is the ingestion of the simple carbs, this stimulates the sodium potassium pumps and improves the uptake across the cell wall. Adding an esther, or buffering the creatine has no effect at all. As he put it, its the quickest way to link your bank balance with the sea!
Cycling/Toxicity
No evidence whatsoever that cycling is necessary either from a point of continued effectiveness of the supplement, or for renal health. Despite the sheer volume of creatine sold worldwide, there remains no evidence of renal damage unless a pre-existing renal condition was present. And there is no evidence that the effectiveness reduces over time, ie no resistance builds up. So no need to cycle.
Dependence
Not really studied. Any supplement can illicit training adaptations that if beneficial, will probably stop when the supplement is withdrawn. Doesn't necessarily indicate any dependence.
Water Retention
This is real, but is not extra-cellular in Pauls view. In exercising people, creatine facilitates glycogen storage and this directly causes water retention within the muscle cells. So the water retention that occurs is positive in his opinion.
Combining with other Products
There is no evidence as far as he knows that other products improve the effects of creatine, just the benefits of taking with simple carbs.
Asked him about Nitric Oxide pre-cursors or L-Arginine and he said that product in itself really is unproven, the only evidence proving L-Arginine's effects was done on dogs and in huge concentrations (I told him I think it works!)
Breakdown
Talked about creatinine and he says its not a good marker for the breakdown of supplemental creatine, but could indicate that some of the creatine itself has degraded to creatinine prior to ingestion, or as an indicator of renal damage per se. ie creatinine is a marker for creatinine presence, not for creatine breakdown.
Muscletech
No relationship with them, they funded some research into insulin and muscle protein metabolism in the past, its normal for manufacturers to do this. Paul doesn't endorse any product, and when questioned on difference between brands, answered he hasn't come across any brand that is better than others (simple pure creatine monohydrate varies little).
Other
There is some new research into L-Carnitine and ingestion with sugars to give an insulin response. I'll try and locate Paul's study and post it. Its supposed to be interesting. And then current research in general is focused on understanding less about the effects of products, and more about what is happening at a molecular level and then working back from there.
In general, not an awful lot has changed with creatine in 10 years and the research done in the '90s pretty much established the facts. His advice for using creatine for bodybuilding, go back to basics, stop ****ing your money into the sea and use creatine monohydrate in the way that has been proven countless times. Also, for us as individuals, be as critical as possible about the products you are using and don't get sucked in by any hype.
Today I had the long-awaited call with Paul Greenhaff. He was very relaxed about the call, not at all concerned about the readership and happy to answer any questions. Please appreciate the answers are based on Paul's research, that of his peers, the knowledge he has gained through his work and his own opinions. You may not agree with the answers, but hey that's life.
I won't write one word answers to the questions, as it wouldn't give the general feeling for the conversation, I'll try to summarize as best I can....
Types
On the subject of the various different types, this is all hype/gimics (bull**** to use Paul's real term). Most of these products boast an improved absorption rate into the cells, when actually all of them are broken down to basic creatine phosphate in the gut and so its the same compound by the time it reaches the cell wall, irrespective of its nature when its started the journey (if you get what I mean). The limiting factor for creatine uptake is at the cell wall, as creatine phosphate, and not as CEE, Kre- etc etc. Absorption in the gut is rapid, and is not a problem at all. 30 mins after ingestion, the blood plasma levels rise to about 20x resting levels, which is far more than sufficient for the rate it can enter the cell at. ie you don't particularly need high blood plasma levels.
Loading / Entry to Cell
Most efficient and effective method remains 20g per day for 5 days, split into 4x5g, each one with 80-100g of simple sugars (thats about 500ml of Lucozade). The one thing that can significantly improve the movement across the cell wall, is the ingestion of the simple carbs, this stimulates the sodium potassium pumps and improves the uptake across the cell wall. Adding an esther, or buffering the creatine has no effect at all. As he put it, its the quickest way to link your bank balance with the sea!
Cycling/Toxicity
No evidence whatsoever that cycling is necessary either from a point of continued effectiveness of the supplement, or for renal health. Despite the sheer volume of creatine sold worldwide, there remains no evidence of renal damage unless a pre-existing renal condition was present. And there is no evidence that the effectiveness reduces over time, ie no resistance builds up. So no need to cycle.
Dependence
Not really studied. Any supplement can illicit training adaptations that if beneficial, will probably stop when the supplement is withdrawn. Doesn't necessarily indicate any dependence.
Water Retention
This is real, but is not extra-cellular in Pauls view. In exercising people, creatine facilitates glycogen storage and this directly causes water retention within the muscle cells. So the water retention that occurs is positive in his opinion.
Combining with other Products
There is no evidence as far as he knows that other products improve the effects of creatine, just the benefits of taking with simple carbs.
Asked him about Nitric Oxide pre-cursors or L-Arginine and he said that product in itself really is unproven, the only evidence proving L-Arginine's effects was done on dogs and in huge concentrations (I told him I think it works!)
Breakdown
Talked about creatinine and he says its not a good marker for the breakdown of supplemental creatine, but could indicate that some of the creatine itself has degraded to creatinine prior to ingestion, or as an indicator of renal damage per se. ie creatinine is a marker for creatinine presence, not for creatine breakdown.
Muscletech
No relationship with them, they funded some research into insulin and muscle protein metabolism in the past, its normal for manufacturers to do this. Paul doesn't endorse any product, and when questioned on difference between brands, answered he hasn't come across any brand that is better than others (simple pure creatine monohydrate varies little).
Other
There is some new research into L-Carnitine and ingestion with sugars to give an insulin response. I'll try and locate Paul's study and post it. Its supposed to be interesting. And then current research in general is focused on understanding less about the effects of products, and more about what is happening at a molecular level and then working back from there.
In general, not an awful lot has changed with creatine in 10 years and the research done in the '90s pretty much established the facts. His advice for using creatine for bodybuilding, go back to basics, stop ****ing your money into the sea and use creatine monohydrate in the way that has been proven countless times. Also, for us as individuals, be as critical as possible about the products you are using and don't get sucked in by any hype.
Monday 12 July 2010
Friday 9 July 2010
Lose the gay straps!
A post of mine on RX:
I take it you choose to keep ignoring my statement about greater contractile force for a reason?
While there will always be debates about support gear among even the lifters as opposed to the builders (two ply shirts, lever belts, wraps of various kinds are endlessly debated) this isn't one of them.
Those, with the exception of the lady with an actual physical malady in her hands and wrists, would benefit with a better workout if they lost their straps and yes that includes Cutler. It's also worth adding that throwing in a genetic freaks name to prove a point is like throwing in a Formula 1 or Nascar vehicle into a soap box derby debate.
All builders (those looking to develop and shape muscle as opposed to those looking for greater strength and power) work to create an intense contraction in the muscle being worked thus hoping to encourage hypertrophy (muscle growth). Any system, be it drop sets, super sets, super slow protocol, 21's, whatever that intensifies this gym work will, one hopes, mean greater gains in the gym. Still with me?
A quick test: flop your sorry asses down on a bench press bench and take a weight at arms length with which you can usually get lets say 8 reps. Let's say you're an average Joe and have worked your way to a respectable 300lbs. So your eight rep set will be somewhere around 225-250lbs. Now do a set with the hands open. The thumb hooked over but the fingers loose or better still pointing up (use a machine if you feel you might drop it). Now do a follow up set, after a rest, with a closed hand as you are supposed to do it (even a solid thumbless grip will do). Now do a final test set with the hands squeezing as though you wanna leave fingerprints etched forever in the knurling. Squeeze through the whole hand as hard as you possibly can. All things being equal as a lifter you should feel good for an additional 5% added to the bar and as a builder good for an additional 2-3 reps.
Not only that but your forearm will feel like a rock, the triceps will contract harder and so will the pecs. More so if you use a good builder style bench and focus on the contraction as well as that hard squeeze.
The way it works is by neural feedback. Basically your brain is fooled into making the working muscles contract harder because the feedback from the hands tricks it into 'thinking' the weight is heavier than it is and so more of the muscle fibers contract. There's some sports science to do with how much of a percentage of the fibers in a muscle worked contract when under duress and it is NEVER 100% (you'd be fucked in seconds if it was) but the squeeze makes more be used than not. If it was, for example, 15%, the squeeze adds another few percent.
Thus a better grip means a better squeeze equates to more fibers contracting so... you do the math.
So those that use the 'I want my back to feel more...' blah, blah WOULD if they had better grips.
Try the squeeze next time your in the gym. And lose the gay straps.
While there will always be debates about support gear among even the lifters as opposed to the builders (two ply shirts, lever belts, wraps of various kinds are endlessly debated) this isn't one of them.
Those, with the exception of the lady with an actual physical malady in her hands and wrists, would benefit with a better workout if they lost their straps and yes that includes Cutler. It's also worth adding that throwing in a genetic freaks name to prove a point is like throwing in a Formula 1 or Nascar vehicle into a soap box derby debate.
All builders (those looking to develop and shape muscle as opposed to those looking for greater strength and power) work to create an intense contraction in the muscle being worked thus hoping to encourage hypertrophy (muscle growth). Any system, be it drop sets, super sets, super slow protocol, 21's, whatever that intensifies this gym work will, one hopes, mean greater gains in the gym. Still with me?
A quick test: flop your sorry asses down on a bench press bench and take a weight at arms length with which you can usually get lets say 8 reps. Let's say you're an average Joe and have worked your way to a respectable 300lbs. So your eight rep set will be somewhere around 225-250lbs. Now do a set with the hands open. The thumb hooked over but the fingers loose or better still pointing up (use a machine if you feel you might drop it). Now do a follow up set, after a rest, with a closed hand as you are supposed to do it (even a solid thumbless grip will do). Now do a final test set with the hands squeezing as though you wanna leave fingerprints etched forever in the knurling. Squeeze through the whole hand as hard as you possibly can. All things being equal as a lifter you should feel good for an additional 5% added to the bar and as a builder good for an additional 2-3 reps.
Not only that but your forearm will feel like a rock, the triceps will contract harder and so will the pecs. More so if you use a good builder style bench and focus on the contraction as well as that hard squeeze.
The way it works is by neural feedback. Basically your brain is fooled into making the working muscles contract harder because the feedback from the hands tricks it into 'thinking' the weight is heavier than it is and so more of the muscle fibers contract. There's some sports science to do with how much of a percentage of the fibers in a muscle worked contract when under duress and it is NEVER 100% (you'd be fucked in seconds if it was) but the squeeze makes more be used than not. If it was, for example, 15%, the squeeze adds another few percent.
Thus a better grip means a better squeeze equates to more fibers contracting so... you do the math.
So those that use the 'I want my back to feel more...' blah, blah WOULD if they had better grips.
Try the squeeze next time your in the gym. And lose the gay straps.
Wednesday 7 July 2010
Tuesday 6 July 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
