I was going to post this this in the gaining muscle while losing fat thread but thought it deserved it's own thread. I love this guy's thought process on so many health and diet aspects. http://perfecthealthdiet.com/2015/0...er-antioxidants-and-the-response-to-exercise/
Why is there not a single mention of steroid use and abuse in the article? (It's only mentioned in the embedded video.) You can't get that big without steroids anyway. Building muscle naturally actually strengthens the heart. However, and aside from other far-reaching toxicity, steroids can actually weaken the heart. http://www.webmd.com/fitness-exercise/20100427/anabolic-steroids-may-weaken-the-heart Perhaps a better thread title would be: "Large Muscle Size is a Sign of Steroid Use."
Nutritional & supplement strategies to produce excess muscle most often are inconsistent with those employed for longevity and preservation of health. Big biceps do not impart a survival advantage, BB's die prematurely young with rest of freely eating populace
Sorry, JB, but you're becoming a bit of a drone. Building muscle naturally is healthy because there is a natural limit and it strengthens the heart. It promotes longevity and mobility in advanced years. It adds quality and quantity to life. As for supplements, I don't pretend to know much about them, but my guess is that they offer little more than rounding error, if that, to a good exercise regimen and proper diet. The only "supplements" that produce "excess muscle" are steroids and their equivalent. And they have nothing to do with either health or longevity. Genetic differences aside, the obviously big guys who claim to be "natural" would be more honest if they said that they were, at best, "natural now." Big difference.
exercise (ie activity) is useful for longevity, but it's bell shaped with a maxima reached quickly. Now, make nutritional decisions about your bicep size, you're no longer thinking of health but appearance
So the antioxidant group gained more strength but less size than the placebo group. Which group was made healthier by the program? I’ll put my money down on this: the smaller muscle that can exert more force is the healthier muscle. A gargantuan but weak muscle is an unhealthy muscle.
I did. My point is that the author's reference to bodybuilders, who were clearly juicing, is something of a false point of comparison, and therefore diminishes the credibility of the article. As for the guinea pigs, I'll be sure to give mine plenty of antioxidants (rather than deprive them of antioxidants either substantially or altogether). But I'll just stick to the ~normal levels: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...t-supplements-too-much-of-a-kinda-good-thing/ http://healthland.time.com/2013/08/06/the-truth-about-antioxidants/ I don't know how big you think you can get naturally, but my guess is most people overestimate that limit by what they see and read in muscle rags. I doubt the natural limit impedes health, especially when supported with a natural, balanced diet.
The concern where 'building muscle' is primary goal too many calories and too much protein is consumed, knocking biomarkers in the dirt. and too much fat which almost always attached to animal protein. "To get big muscle got to eat big muscle (ie, animal protein)..ever hear this adage?
And that's the concern in a nutshell. Making nutritional decisions such as protein intake on your muscle size. Only so many calories can be consumed, how many % will you devote to protein, and what source and why? Every gram additional of protein is a gram of blueberries that must be discarded. Where do you believe the nutritional bang for the buck lies...steak or blueberries, and WHY
Statements such as this below are always amusing: "Yes, the improvement was not statistically significant. But it was there. " If it is not statistically significant, it is NOT there. Not at the level of significance one has elected.