Meta
This is the separated second part of my response to the previous, much
too large message.
/Meta

On 04/05/2009 09:22 PM, Steve Floyd Jr wrote:
> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@...> wrote:
>
>> On 03/06/2009 06:50 PM, Steve C. Floyd Jr. wrote:
>>
>>> Paul wrote:
>>>
>>>> Steve wrote:
>>>>> However, our
>>>>> previous discussions on the topic of building muscle and strength
>>>>> has made me question my preference for lifting weights.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Lifting weights may be of more value to the elderly to oppose sarcopenia
>>>> and reduction of bone density/strength, but I do not see it to be of as
>>>> good health/longevity value for younger people as are many other kinds
>>>> of exercise. In addition, I cannot see why pure physical grunt work is
>>>> as enjoyable as applying the same physical labor to something inherently
>>>> useful in its accomplishment.
>>>>
>>> I have thought about your paragraph above quite a bit in the last few
>>> days. I have concluded that I lift weights to provide me with a more
>>> systematic protocol for maintaining my strength.
>>>
>> By why do you want to maintain this strength to a greater degree than
>> would naturally happen from the activities mentioned below?
>>
>
> I think that if I maintain my strength to a level slightly *above* the
> point my current activities require, I would be less likely to have
> accidents (i.e. falling off my bike, which I ride frequently).

This is true, but what you do not realize is that the body does that
naturally (ie maintains level of strength sufficiently in excess of
normal activity levels to enable the needed occasional excursions and
to prevent accidents). You do not have to attempt to order and direct
from on-high what is an age-old far more optimally ordering system
than you can possibly do with your conscious mind based on very
limited knowledge of its detailed intricacies. What you are trying to
do for your body is much the same as governments trying to direct the
naturally self-ordering free market. This is far different than what I
am doing with respect to my nutrition and supplements. Here I am simply
providing to the body everything that I think might be useful to
it. The body is left to its own decision making whether and how much to
use that which I provide for it. My view is that the body knows best -
at least at the present level of knowledge - and will do far better
than anything that I can currently direct it to do.

> Having
> a level of strength that is slightly higher than what is required for
> daily living would make me safer than being at a level that was lower
> than what is required.

Yes, except that if your daily living activities are not enormously
variable in strength requirements, then it is simply impossible for
your strength to be too low to do them effectively and safely, with
the possible exception of when a person is very old. As I said above
and previously, the body will look after itself extremely well if you
simply give it the necessary substrate, are sensitive to its wants for
activity and leave it look after itself.

Kitty and I were discussing this need for exercise and strength
training as a readiness factor and the only current occupation in
which we could see that as necessary was with firemen and emergency
rescue personnel. These people are often doing nothing relative to
their direct work for many days (or even sometimes weeks) and then are
suddenly required to have enormous strength, stamina and endurance.
Therefore, it is imperative that they be in constant training to be in
a state of readiness for such a crisis situation.

> Should I be at a level of strength that is
> lower, or even with, what is required for my daily activities,

The normal healthy young body *cannot* be in such a state, unless
after a period of sickness and/or other cessation of those daily
activities.

> I think
> I would often struggle with activities, which may put me at risk of
> harm.

Forget this "possibility", since it cannot happen!!

> OTOH, it may be that, if I must struggle a little with some daily
> activities, I would benefit from the increased exertion required to
> execute those activities (should I have an overall lower level of
> strength). I didn't think of this before you asked.

That is correct. You *can* only struggle with some activities that are
in fact quite a bit *above* those of your normal daily level. And to
the extent that you do start doing such activities and struggling a
bit with them, then in no time at all (2 or 3 weeks at most) your
strength will increase above the level necessary so that you are no
longer struggling. You will effectively have increased the level of
your daily activities to a higher plateau.

>>> I do take many
>>> opportunities to do something useful with my labor, such as chopping
>>> wood for my parents' wood burner when I lived with them to contribute to
>>> the household, as well as riding my bike to class instead of driving.
>>> However, from my understanding of the many muscle groups and ranges of
>>> motion in the body, I would be neglecting many of them if I only engaged
>>> in "useful" physical labor. For example, I have noticed that my hip
>>> flexors are quite weak, and I can not hold my leg straight out in front
>>> of me for very long before my hip flexors become very fatigued. I
>>> understand hip flexors to be important for posture and for avoiding
>>> falls, so I want to correct this.
>>>
>> You are "putting the cart before the horse".
>
> Perhaps I am. However, WRT some muscle groups, I understood that a
> level of strength that is greater than the minimum necessary will
> lower the risk of accidental injury.

Yes, but the healthy young body maintains that naturally without any
special attention and "forcing" on your part.

>> If you do maintain your
>> good posture, then those muscles necessary to do so will automatically
>> be maintained sufficiently to do so.

Note that I have been saying the same thing all along, but you still
are not getting the message (or perhaps simply don't "believe" me).
Once again the healthy young body is an enormously complex and highly
optimal self-ordering system in all its aspects. All that it needs is
the right substrate (nutrients), environment (sleep, clean air,
appropriate temperature and humidity) and stimulation (constant daily
physical and mental activities appropriate to the state that it needs
to be in for your ongoing requirements of it) and then to be left
alone to work its own amazing and wondrous self-ordering processes. It
is totally arrogant of anyone to think that s/he knows better than
millions of years of evolutionary development about what the body
should be doing. Note that I am talking here about the normal healthy
young body that is in a high state of homeostasis. I am not talking
about diseased states including aging decline and dysfunction. In the
short run the body knows best, but in the much longer run (dozens of
years) then it will have to be tweaked in many ways to prevent so much
change that the potential for homeostasis is eventually lost.

>> [All that would be needed in addition, is some stretching activities.
>> The subject of "natural" vs "artificial" exercise is one for another
>> post (beyond what I say further below) if you or someone else wish to
>> pursue it. **Kitty]
>>
>>> However, I don't think my current
>>> bike-riding will help very much with this weakness.
>>>
>> What weakness? Do you have bad posture? Do you fall easily?
>
> I was referring to my hip flexors. However, after considering this
> more, I think I may simply have the impression that I should be
> stronger than I need to be.

You certainly do. Worse, you have this crazy idea that *you* must
order your body what to do because it (your body) is too stupid to
know how to look after itself. Instead, you need to do less thinking
and ordering and more listening and observing. I do not "exercise" at
all and my body, even at 71, still responds beautifully to the need
for a high rate of activity.

[An explanation - we have not this 6 months in AZ made use of the
exercise equipment in our basement. We have been so busy that we
haven't wanted to take the time to do so and Paul does not enjoy it
anyway. I've instead a number of times purposely gone out in the yard
to do maintenance work just to breakup the computer sets and at times
Paul has joined me. (We have some of the best manicured creosote
bushes around and the remaining rose bushes are in plentiful bloom
right now.) Despite this lack of purposeful artificial exercise, we
have not at all lacked for lots of energy when dancing at numerous
regular and special events. Remember, we make use of all the
opportunities for natural exercise everyday and they are numerous. Our
every 3 month order from LEF just arrived and there was lots of
lifting, bending, stretching, stair climbing with just that! **Kitty]

> Taking the time and effort to maintain
> this greater level of strength than is required is just a waste of my
> time.

Absolutely! I hope that you will really start to understand that and
respond to it. There are so many other important and much more
mentally stimulating things to do with the time.

>>> So my weight lifting protocol is to target those muscle groups that
>>> I don't normally use (which is many of them).
>>>
>> So what?
>
> From my understanding, muscle mass and strength decline with age and
> non-use.

Not until much later years, not likely till 80-90 plus if you maintain
excellent health. Certainly at 71+ I still have no sign of any such
aging decline. In any case if you do not use them, then what does it
matter if they decline in strength beyond just above what is required
for your normal daily activities? As for muscle *mass*, I can only see
negatives to any rational evaluation of that.

> Those muscles that decline in strength the quickest are those
> that are used the least. To prevent having problems with any muscle
> group that I do not normally use, I thought it would be prudent to
> design an exercise routine that would target the muscle groups that I
> rarely use.

I am getting tired of having to repeat myself. Once again what does it
matter if you lose strength in those muscles which you use very little
in daily activities and only maintains a little more than sufficient
strength for those activities, which, as I said before, the body will
do quite will without your *enforcement*, thank you.

> Besides my bike riding, I currently exercise a very narrow
> range of muscle groups (just some standing and sitting at the lab I
> work in). Because of this limited variation in the muscle groups I
> use, I thought I should make an effort to maintain the muscles I don't
> use, in case I wish to use them in the future, or in the event that I
> do not use those muscle groups for a long period of time.

In that case (you are about to significantly change your level of
activities) you can either get them ready beforehand by exercising
them or simply do so "on the job" when the time arrives. I am reminded
here of the old Chinese Kung-fu martial arts movies, where a young lad
comes to the Shoalin temple to learn martial arts and they accept him,
but all he is told to do is to clean the whole place from top to
bottom. Of course, this is all very hard work carrying large water
pails, washing floors, etc, (all important muscle groups, I expect)
and he struggles with it very unhappily because he so wanted to learn
martial arts and become an expert fighter (often to right a wrong done
to his family). However as the picture progresses we soon see him
lifting the pails and washing the floors with speed, joy and high
agility and ability. He is *now* ready to begin martial arts training!
Again the body will do what is appropriate to your situation if you
only provide the situation and leave it to do so.

>> Unless you are planning on major changes to the muscular
>> activities that you require to accomplish the goals of your life, then
>> why do you need to prepare muscles for such tasks?
>
> I am not sure which muscles I will need for the tasks in my future, so
> I thought a generally high level of strength would keep me prepared
> for anything.

Wait until you know if you will need some more muscles rather than
wasting your time (not to mention stressing your whole system
unnecessarily) preparing for something that may never come.

>> Any healthy young
>> person will automatically exercise the muscles needed in hir daily
>> activities to the extent to which such exercise is needed to accomplish
>> such activities. Hell, even at the ages of me and Kitty, we do not do
>> any special exercises to prepare our muscles for the strenuous dancing
>> that we do
>
> I thought I saw pictures of Paul lifting weights on Morelife.org.

No. The only weights I ever use are 5 lb hand dumbbells, one in each
hand when I am running or dancing around the basement and swinging my
arms around. My upper body strength is a bit lower than I would like
by which I mean it is not really sufficient to do some lifting
activities that I am very occasionally (once every few months) called
on to do. Unfortunately, I do not do these frequently enough that my
body keeps itself read for them (not like my dancing, which I only do
it once a week but my body keeps fully ready for). If you have some
such exercise then it would perhaps make sense to exercise to keep
your strength ready for it. But I really don't have the interest in
doing so. I can either simply struggle with those occasional
activities (not a big deal and soon over with) or I can use a carrying
cart, levers or get help from Kitty. It is not worth all the ]
preparation time to have the strength ready to do them since it is not
a matter of life and death.

>> (Kitty describes her exception to this below). It happens
>> automatically through the activity. The secret is to have sufficiently
>> repetitive activity of the kinds that you want to do, rather than be a
>> once a month warrior. For us it appears that weekly high energy
>> dancing is sufficient. For myself I have always been able to keep in
>> excellent physical shape without exercise and then respond well to
>> strenuous work. Of course, I do walk around the house a bit (and even
>> dance occasionally), perform property/house maintenance tasks (3.5
>> acres in AZ), walk in the yard and take the steps two at a time
>> whenever I come up from the (AZ) basement.
>
> It does sound as though you get adequate exercise that includes work
> for various muscle groups. I had the impression that my normal
> activities excluded certain muscle groups. However, I'm beginning to
> think that my non-use of these muscles is not such a big deal,
> especially considering that I expect to be involved in many, many
> home-improvement projects in the next few months, which will give me
> the opportunity to use a variety of muscle groups. I may continue to
> do such a workout routine as I described, but perhaps I would only do
> it once per month (i.e. a fraction of the time I have in the past), as
> this may be sufficient to maintain a useful level of strength.

Now you are thinking more the right way. Your body will respond to
produce the necessary strength when and as necessary.

> I also just realized that I may be overcompensating with regard to the
> prevention of sarcopenia. This could be especially true in my case,
> since I have previously spent a large amount of time and effort
> developing muscle mass.

And that muscle mass is a continuous drain on the servicing resources
of your body. You would be better rid of it.

> So, while it is true that I can expect to lose
> muscle mass as I grow older (regenerative medicine notwithstanding),

Not until many decades from now and perhaps not then if you use the
correct prevention methods. You are taking what is true for the
average person on the SAD (standard american diet) as *necessarily*
being also true for you!! I *never* accept what is true for the
average person as being true for me. I am a unique individual in every
way and am determined to continue to be far different than the
average. Who wants to be average? - YUCK!!

[Especially when the average is derived with currently so many in such poor
state of physical well-being. **Kitty]

> at this point, I start this "decline" process from a higher level of
> muscular development. Because of this, it may be that I need to invest
> *less* time in muscle maintenance than a person who has attained much
> less muscle mass at the same age.

Again you are planning too much (yes one *can* plan too much,
particularly when you have so little knowledge and control over what
will happen in the future). You have bought into a bill of goods on
this silly notion that sarcopenia for no good reason must necessary
happen to everyone. Nonsense!

>> [My daily "artificial" exercise is mentioned near the very bottom of
>> our Mental/Physical Activities page -
>> http://morelife.org/personal/physacts.html
>
> I tried several times to find the link above. I finally found what I
> think you were referring to (and what I was referring to when I stated
> that I saw Paul lifting weights). Here is the link:
> morelife.org/personal/health/physacts.html. Note that it appears you
> forgot the "health" subfolder after the "personal" subfolder.

The dumbbells that you seen in my hands in the one picture are the 5
lbs ones mentioned above (hardly lifting weights). However, while I
did last winter here (2007-2008) use the gym equipment downstairs
reasonably often (still disliking it but mainly accompany Kitty who
enjoys it more), this last winter I have had far more important things
to do and neither of us have been down to use the basement gym once or
even fast walked/jogged around the block for that matter. I am
particularly negative on doing the exercise because I find that not
doing so (as this year) makes no difference on my readiness ability
to dance very hard and long when I feel like it and get the chance. So
if there is no sign of benefit and need of the exercise then why
should I waste my time (and time of very reduced happiness rate) doing
it?

Meta
Snipped text not needing a response.
/Meta

>>> I want to clarify my weight lifting protocol for this discussion, since
>>> the term "weight-lifting" can be associated with many degrees of
>>> intensity. I currently lift weights for about 20 minutes, three times
>>> per week. During those sessions I do exercises involving my body weight
>>> (push-up derivatives, sit-ups), and some other exercises with 15 or 30
>>> lbs in each hand, depending on the exercise. I do not have a goal of
>>> lifting an enormous amount of weight, which can be very stressful on the
>>> immune system and joints. Instead, during my workouts I try to
>>> systematically "challenge" those muscle groups which are otherwise
>>> neglected by my daily activities. Some important areas to me are my
>>> shoulders (I had a shoulder injury due to a fall several years ago, and
>>> the resistance training helps), my lower back (which hurt in the past
>>> due to my sitting at a computer hunched-over for long hours - resistance
>>> training has improved this also),
>>>
>> These last two are reasonable (similar to Kitty's exception above) if
>> you still have weaknesses/problems related to those areas.
>
> I have noticed that these problems have gone away with continued
> weightlifting. I notice that if I do not lift weights for several
> weeks I begin to feel lower back pain again.

If this were not fixable by any other method then it would be a good
reason to lift weights. However, I think it is more likely that this
is a result of your high BMI (due to all the muscle mass sitting
there) combined with bad posture or at least insufficient constant
attention on your posture - head high, chest out, belly in, back
straight, bounce in your step, air of great lighlness and confidence.
Think of the image of Howard Roark - and can you ever imagine him
*exercising*?? NO. he had no need of it. His body was always ready
because his mind and spirit was. (Mind you, he also needed to provide
it with good nutrition, something unfortunately for her about which
Ayn Rand knew nothing and paid for it by death at a far too early age.)

Meta
Snipped text not needing a response.
/Meta

>>> There is one other possible positive aspect of weightlifting that helps
>>> me to justify to myself my current weight lifting protocol. I also have
>>> a hypothesis that weight lifting while restricting calories (which is
>>> what I do) will improve autophagic proteolysis and protein recycling.
>>>
>> Not any more than any other activity which requires energy. It is a pure
>> calorie balance situation and the source from which the energy can come.
>> See the current thread "vigorous exercise followed by single meal" for
>> details.
>
> I have read this, and I agree that protein recycling is partly a
> function of energy requirement. However, I understand weight lifting
> to have a higher protein requirement than aerobic exercise.

Only because weight lifting is more damaging to proteins, but that is
not any kind of benefit. The proteins that it damages and has to
recycle are not the functional proteins that contribute to aging
dysfunction (those are mostly structural and enzyme proteins). If
anything, the aerobic exercise should promote more building of new
enzymes because these are part of the necessary pathways of aerobic
metabolism and energy production. Aerobic exercise is much more
related to the whole body and to the energy production mechanisms than
is weight lifting. That is why it has been shown to be more health
promoting in general than weight lifting.

> Additionally, I understand the act of weight lifting to increase
> protein requirement for muscle repair *after* exercise, and hence,
> would be more effective at enhancing protein recycling than aerobic
> exercise alone.

Yes, weight lifting is a great way to first damage your specific
muscle fiber proteins, to break them down to their component amino
acids and to then use those amino acids to construct new proteins to
replace the ones that were damaged and eliminated. Now I ask you to
explain to me what good does this do for you? More specifically, in
what way does it promote longevity?

>>> I found one article that found that, after a fasted weight lifting
>>> session, protein synthesis was greater than protein degradation. From my
>>> limited understanding of protein balance, this would require the body to
>>> use its current sources of nitrogen and amino acids to have a positive
>>> protein synthesis value in the fasted state.
>>>
>> Yes, but not any source of nitrogen that is not in the form of an amino
>> acid, since the body cannot build amino acids from scratch. And the
>> amino acids are only needed for protein building - not for
>> gluconeogenesis for energy production.
>
> Hmm, I did not know this is the way it works. I still have plenty of
> biochemistry reading to do!

In rereading my statements above, I don't think I was sufficiently
clear. Let me try again.
1) The human body cannot use any form of nitrogen which is not part of
an amine group of an amino acid for any anabolic purposes, although it
does make great use of other nitrogen compounds, notably NO.
2) The human body cannot make any amino acids from other nitrogen
compounds, although it has a limited ability to transform some amino
acids into others. But this still leaves about 20 unique amino acids
which it must get from food and these are what are called "essential".
3) OTOH, the human body does not need much of these amino acids in its
daily diet because it can simply recycle the ones in the proteins that
it has on board. This is so as long as it is not forced by lack of
sufficient energy sources in carbs and fats to turn those on-board
amino acids into fuel and thereby make them no longer available for
protein regeneration.
4) Note that while it is generally stated that the human body does not
store amino acids as it does both carbs and fats (which makes many
people think that one must have a constant daily input of them - I
used to think that), this is highly misleading if not dead wrong! In
fact, the body does have an enormous store of amino acids since it is
composed mostly of proteins the components of which are all amino
acids. One can look at proteins as the store of amino acids in the
same way that fat cells are the store of fatty acids and glycogen is
the store of glucose.
Yes is true that amino acids from proteolysis are not as quickly
available as is glucose from glycogen (fatty acids from fat cells is
somewhere in between). But so what? If your body need the amino acids
from proteolysis then this will cause the proteolysis to be
upregulated and to produce them. That is the purpose and mechanism of
fasting macroautophagy and proteolysis. Not all of them are used for
fuel by any means.

Meta
Note that at this point, I have decided that I am really, really
getting tired of this discussion, which is not anything in which I am
highly interested. So I am going to skip all of what follows to get
through with this response and I will not be responding again to this
part of the thread, unless there are responses from others which
contain grave errors and misunderstandings.
/Meta

--Paul