Lightweight Rowing In College

[old] DIESEL · Post by **[old] DIESEL** » June 26th, 2005, 10:26 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(Bayko @ Jun 24 2005, 06:41 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(DIESEL @ Jun 24 2005, 09:19 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(Xeno @ Jun 24 2005, 12:00 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> Steady state rowing between 18-22 strokes per minute should not make you lose muscle weight. </td></tr></table> Not exactly. This is true provided you are eating enough calories. Rowing burns hella calories - if you are at a caloric deficit your body will initially metabolize muscle mass for energy as it is easier for it to do so than bodyfat. the best way to stave this is to make sure you are taking in some quick protein and carbs before and after your workout. A scoop of a quality protein powder mixed with Gatorade or similar sports drink is key - allowing you train hard with negligible effects on muscle mass or recovery. But Xeno is right about one thing - if you want to be a rower - you have to train like a rower. Crossfit is cool - but remember your focus: rowing. take care guys, D </td></tr></table> Ah Geez, not the muscle-mass-for-energy mis-information again. If you missed it, I posted the following to NJPitcher on April 28th: NO! No! No! No! No! This is at least the second time that this fallacy has appeared on the forum recently. The preferred fuel for exercise is glycogen. When that is depleted fat is turned into ketones that act in much the same way that glycogen does, albeit requiring far more oxygen (heavier breathing) than glycogen. Consider this from the Holy Cross College biology department: "The only time body protein as normally used for energy is in the advanced stages of starvation." The full article is here: <a href='http://www.holycross.edu/departments/bi ... erview.pdf' target='_blank'>http://www.holycross.edu/departments/bi ... pdf</a> Excess consumed protein can sometimes be used for fuel, but only after having been converted to fat or carbohydrate. This is consistent with everything that I've studied on the subject over the past 30 years. The only place (other than the couple of times here on the forum) that I've seen this myth of burning muscle is on body building and sports nutritional sites that seem to have an agenda of selling supplements. Additionally, I've dug out Textbook of Work Physiology by Astrand & Rodahl, which is considered one of the best works in the field. In eight pages (pages 12-20 in my edition) on The Fuel there is only one oblique reference to proteins: "Even the amino acids, after deamination, can enter the Krebs cycle via pyruvic acid and be completley oxidized or synthesized to glycogen or fat. As a fuel for muscular contraction, however, the oxidation of proteins normally plays a very limited role." Even stronger language is used on page 456: "PROTEIN -- It is well established that protein is not used as a fuel to any appreciable extent when the caloric supply is adequate. Nitrogen excretion does not rise significantly following muscular work. .......references, references, references......Similar findings have been reported in skiers during 2.5 hours of skiing at a rate corresponding to about 3.8 liters of 02/min, amounting to a total expenditure of about 3000kcal. Even after exhausting the glycogen depots, continued exercise does not raise the nitrogen excretion significantly. The choice of fuel for the working muscle, therefore, is actually limited to carbohydrate and fat." Inadequate caloric intake in scientific circles does not mean missing breakfast, it means concentration camp or anexoria nervosa starvation. Please lead me to references that back up the statements you are making about muscle catabolism. Something that doesn't come from a website promoting supplements. I'm willing to unlearn 30-something years of study of physiology and nutrition (as a hobby, not a profession) if you can give me something valid to go on. Rick </td></tr></table> Xeno, Rick- I am speaking from experience, not only from what I have experienced myself, but from what I have observed in others. I can find studies backing up what I say, so can you - so I'm going to avoid the pissing match. I have seen natural (non-steroid) bodybuilders whittle away 18" pythons to 15" peashooters preparing for a contest - the preferred prep is doing tons of low-intensity (probably under 2mmol if you measured their blood lactate) cardio and circuit style weight training using a calorie restricted diet to get into that mid single digit bodyfat range. I don't know how you lose 3 inches of fat off your arms - so I'm pretty sure the bulk of it was muscle. The other point is that there is a lot we don't know about how the human metabolic system works. Study after study comes out, many of them contradictory, that pretty much have the average trainer going around in circles. If we did know how the human body worked, there would probably be one definitive best way to train and we wouldn't be having these silly discussions on the internet. All I was saying is that if you are going to pursue this kind of training - you are well advised to follow a proper nutritional regime - a small serving of protein and carbs before and after the workout. Consider it an insurance policy - I think we can at least agree on that can't we? take care guys, D P.S. Xeno, I'll be seeing you next week. I look forward to getting my butt kicked by one of your workouts.

[old] Bayko · Post by **[old] Bayko** » June 26th, 2005, 5:28 pm

O.K. Deisel, I think I see where you're getting your ideas from, given your observations. Unfortunately, the conclusion you're making is wrong and then you're passing it on to others. And I don't think that you can find legitimate studies to back it up. I'll be happy to acknowledge anything to the contrary if you can show me something valid to work with. You seem to be confusing muscle mass with muscle fuel (glycogen). The FIRST thing used for fuel by a woking muscle is glycogen. It burns fast and with very little oxygen consumption. This is a good thing for the muscle and that is why it stores glycogen there. Glycogen also stores water with it, which also is used and again is a good thing for exercise. Burning that off is NOT burning muscle mass, even though the size of the muscle will get smaller as it uses it up. Just as with most diets, the initial weight loss for a body builder using a restricted calorie diet will the all the stored glycogen and the water bound up with it. This can be very dramatic. As I wrote to Roy Brook a while back, I once came in from a 15 mile run on an unseasonably hot, humid day 15 pounds lighter than I went out. In less than 2 hours I went from a saturated 144 pounds to a dehydrated 129 pounds. It was all glycogen and water, and maybe a little fat. No muscle mass. I do agree that it is advisable to follow a proper nutritional regime. But that doesn't mean scaring people with bad information. It's like the lies that we were told as youngsters about going blind if we did a certain...erm...solitary one-handed "exercise." (Oh crap, now I'm in the mood to "exercise.") Cheers, Rick

[old] sinai16 · Post by **[old] sinai16** » June 26th, 2005, 7:35 pm

Whether or not muscle mass is lost with endurance exercise, is it not at least somewhat disheartening that endurance exercise leads to a loss of muscular power through muscle fiber conversion? Isn't it somewhat ironic that all those meters on the erg are making you a slower, less explosive athlete, less adapted to the stop and go demands of most sports?

[old] Peter S · Post by **[old] Peter S** » June 26th, 2005, 10:13 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(sinai16 @ Jun 26 2005, 07:35 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Whether or not muscle mass is lost with endurance exercise, is it not at least somewhat disheartening that endurance exercise leads to a loss of muscular power through muscle fiber conversion? Isn't it somewhat ironic that all those meters on the erg are making you a slower, less explosive athlete, less adapted to the stop and go demands of most sports? </td></tr></table> True that, Ive noticed that with all the endurance exercises I do, I can't do a running sprint at near capacity I used to be able too lol

[old] reynolds352 · Post by **[old] reynolds352** » June 26th, 2005, 10:13 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(sinai16 @ Jun 26 2005, 07:35 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Whether or not muscle mass is lost with endurance exercise, is it not at least somewhat disheartening that endurance exercise leads to a loss of muscular power through muscle fiber conversion? Isn't it somewhat ironic that all those meters on the erg are making you a slower, less explosive athlete, less adapted to the stop and go demands of most sports? </td></tr></table> slower and less explosive? my experience is quite to the contrary. it might be that i'm training at 22-24spm. (the only time i take a higher rating is if i'm testing at a 5000m or shorter distance. would this lead to more leg mass than rowing at a 28 or 30 all the time?) i've found that my legs are far more powerful than when i began training on the erg. soccer, football, and rugby all seems so much easier to handle than before i began rowing.

[old] DIESEL · Post by **[old] DIESEL** » June 27th, 2005, 12:04 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(Bayko @ Jun 26 2005, 04:28 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>O.K. Deisel, I think I see where you're getting your ideas from, given your observations. Unfortunately, the conclusion you're making is wrong and then you're passing it on to others. And I don't think that you can find legitimate studies to back it up. I'll be happy to acknowledge anything to the contrary if you can show me something valid to work with. You seem to be confusing muscle mass with muscle fuel (glycogen). The FIRST thing used for fuel by a woking muscle is glycogen. It burns fast and with very little oxygen consumption. This is a good thing for the muscle and that is why it stores glycogen there. Glycogen also stores water with it, which also is used and again is a good thing for exercise. Burning that off is NOT burning muscle mass, even though the size of the muscle will get smaller as it uses it up. Just as with most diets, the initial weight loss for a body builder using a restricted calorie diet will the all the stored glycogen and the water bound up with it. This can be very dramatic. As I wrote to Roy Brook a while back, I once came in from a 15 mile run on an unseasonably hot, humid day 15 pounds lighter than I went out. In less than 2 hours I went from a saturated 144 pounds to a dehydrated 129 pounds. It was all glycogen and water, and maybe a little fat. No muscle mass. I do agree that it is advisable to follow a proper nutritional regime. But that doesn't mean scaring people with bad information. It's like the lies that we were told as youngsters about going blind if we did a certain...erm...solitary one-handed "exercise." (Oh crap, now I'm in the mood to "exercise.") Cheers, Rick </td></tr></table> Rick, I think you're being a little extreme. "Scaring" people? with "bad" information? and equating it with masturbation? OK. Anyway, 3 inches lost in arm mass is not water and glycogen - a lof of that's muscle, my friend. The only problem with your argument is that the body is not substrate specific when it comes to burning fuel for energy - prolonged endurance work over time will create losses in muscle mass. If not, then why are Lance Armstrong's legs comparatively skinny compared to those of a track cyclist? (like a match sprinter or a pursuit specialist - those guys have huge quads) or a 100m sprinter compared to a miler? You would figure that Lance has way, way more power. The reason - it's a function of the training - Lance's long training rides have impeded his body from producing huge, massive legs - that's what I'm getting at. If you start off really big and muscular and start doing prolonged endurance training (6 mos or more ) you are going to lose lean body mass. Let's just agree to disagree. Let the people experience it for themselves. take it easy, D

[old] Bayko · Post by **[old] Bayko** » June 30th, 2005, 11:37 am

Diesel, We may be getting closer, and I've agreed to disagree before on the forum. But we have a situation here in which there is a right and a wrong, not just a matter of opinion or a matter of whether Diesel or Bayko is better at debating. First, let me add to my previous post that we can agree on your suggestion to have "a small serving of protein and carbs before and after the workout. Consider it an insurance policy." I wouldn't have the "before" myself, but only because it would uncomfortably slosh around inside not because I'd consider it harmful. And I wouldn't discourage anyone else from following your suggetion. Also, I don't believe that you are purposely trying to deceive. If so, you could have conveniently left out the part in your example about the guy restricting his calories as well as adding cardio. The reason that the topic is important is because a lot of the people coming to the forum are trying to either improve their endurance or lose excess weight, and both of those goals benefit from extended workouts. People shouldn't have to be needlessly worried that if they do such workouts that they might be damaging their muscles. I know that it may seem hard to believe (although it can be checked in the scientific literature), but the human body has as many muscles fibers as a 5-month-old embryo as it will ever have. This has been know since at least 1898 (MacCallum Bull. Johns Hopkins Hosp.) Only the thickness varies. At birth the fiber is about twice as thick as in the fourth fetal month, but has only one-fifth of the adult thickness (Lockhart, 1960). The muscle fiber has a remarkable adaptability to grow and atrophy depending on the loads placed on it, but they do not regenerate once they have been destroyed. As with your previous examples, the Lance Armstrong vs. match sprinter example is another case of muscles adapting to their load. Specificity. If the sprint cyclist turned his attention to the Tour de France and began training like Lance then his quad muscles would undoubtedly begin shrinking, but not because long slow distance was "eating" them but because he stopped doing the kind of high power training that made them big in the first place. Just as your guy who went from 18" pythons to 15" pea-shooters did so because he removed the combination of weight training and calorie consumption that got him the 18" in the first place, not because he added cardio. Use it or lose it. In both cases the number of muscle fibers remain the same while the size of each fiber changes. I'd hazard a guess that you have argued in the past against the myth that adding some weight training will change a well-proportioned supermodel into the Incredible Hulk. We both know that the amount of weight training necessary to change a body dramatically is much more than a well-conditioned all-around athlete does. Likewise the amount of cardio necessary to change a well-conditioned all-around athlete into the size of an Ethiopian marathoner is far more then what is necessary to lose some weight or to add some endurance to do a decent 10km erg piece. If you've come around to considering a loss of muscle mass to be a change in the size of the muscle, we can be in agreement. If you continue to think that at the start of exercise a muscle first raids its protein and destroys the muscle, then I have to continue to point out that it does not happen that way. Whew. Peace, Rick

[old] dennish · Post by **[old] dennish** » July 2nd, 2005, 9:43 am

Rick, Sorry just back and getting caught up. I reference the earlier comment about "extraordinarily scrawny frame", did you mean that as understatement? dennis

[old] Bayko · Post by **[old] Bayko** » July 2nd, 2005, 10:13 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(dennish @ Jul 2 2005, 01:43 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Rick, Sorry just back and getting caught up. I reference the earlier comment about "extraordinarily scrawny frame", did you mean that as understatement? dennis </td></tr></table> A lame attempt to pass myself off as being modest. The Cyclysm begins today. Are you ready? TV in peak form? Erg set up in front of the screen? LiveSTRONG, Rick

Concept2 Forum

Lightweight Rowing In College

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training