Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Muscle memory discovery ends 'use it or lose it' dogma

sciencedaily.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 137 posts

Re: Muscle memory discovery ends 'use it or lose it' dogma

#71

Post by goodwork »

adrianN wrote: post #56
wcarron wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While your second sentence is definitely true, I disagree with your first. Developing muscle strength is partially caused by training your nerves to better engage your muscle fibers; however, simply adding fibers aka raw muscle mass is the other main component of gaining strength. I would argue it's the predominant factor.

You're both right. Improved muscle fiber recruitment is the primary way beginners gain strength. This is a fairly fast process, but plateaus off quickly. After the so-called "noob gains" are through, growing more muscle is the primary way to gain strength.

Are you some expert to judge who is right? Or you are some guru?

Re: Muscle memory discovery ends 'use it or lose it' dogma

#72

Post by z3t4 »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #7
gameswithgo wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i hope in 2095 we have more targeted ways to do that.

Do we know if intense weight training combined with cardio workout during childhood and adolescence works to build a life time of improved musculoskeletal outcomes? Has anyone done a longitudinal study in this area?

The strength (and cardio) gains you make as a child will stay. But if you stop training they will go away. But when you however start training again you will have faster gains due to prior training. It all depends on how much you train during your life. While you are the strongest around 30 years old, you will keep most of it until 60 years old if you keep on training. While there are definitely advantages to have been training as a child, I don't think it will be significant when you are 40-50, it will more depend on how active you are during your life. And it's really never too late to start training.

Re: Muscle memory discovery ends 'use it or lose it' dogma

#73

Post by JamesBarney »

prescription wrote: post #57
ekanes wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless I'm misunderstanding, I don't think steroids are banned for non-competitive athletes. Who would test them and why? They're not competing anywhere.

As a manner of speaking, the word “banned” indicates a rule forbidding use in formal competition, under penalty of disqualification. But, in the medical sense, there are a number of layers that restrict access to substances, even over the counter drugs are subject to regulation and laws, as well as prescription drugs, research chemicals, known toxins, and hazardous chemicals. All for many different reasons. The class…

> They cause harm, to the point of leaving behind a wake of debilitating destruction among the lives of users, causing awful damage that emerges later, in ruinously subtle ways, or suddenly killing without warning, by way of cardiac problems or strokes.

> People use them, the results can be frightening and permanent, and a few years later, deadly.

This is exaggerated. There is an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, and maybe irritability at high doses. Closer to the risks of taking a medication than a street drug.

Re: Muscle memory discovery ends 'use it or lose it' dogma

#74

Post by newsbinator »

geargrinder wrote: post #35
hellllllllooo wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I genuinely question why people are so concerned if people use science to achieve better results at sports. It often seems like some kind of puritanical moral outrage over drugs. Edit: I understand the reasoning behind why testing is done. I just question if it is really led by safety concerns, fairness and science or just our default knee-jerk "drugs are bad" culture. There are plenty of other safety concerns in spo…

As a competitive athlete, I value a fair playing field. I don't want the winner to be the one with the best scientific team behind them. That just becomes a race to spend more than anyone else and also happens to leave a trail of damaged or dead athletes. It would be totally de-motivating if I thought everybody was doping and it was just the best doper who wins.

I'm not sure I see the difference between winning because you can afford the best biochemical team and winning because you can afford the best kinesiology team and winning because you can afford the best coach.

If we wanted competitive sports to be equal and fair, we'd raise all the athletes from childhood in the same environment with the same training/coaches.

Barring that, it's not fair at all.

Ref: Jamaican Bobsleigh team: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamaica_national_bobsleigh_tea...

(note: I'm obviously not advocating for leveling the playing field by raising athletes from childhood in some dystopian nightmare scenario)

Re: Muscle memory discovery ends 'use it or lose it' dogma

#75

Post by dawidw »

sincerely wrote: post #68
ekanes wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless I'm misunderstanding, I don't think steroids are banned for non-competitive athletes. Who would test them and why? They're not competing anywhere.

Steroids are not legal lol

They are legal medicine. If you suffer from serious disease, doctor will prescribe them to you.

Now interesting question is: if someone wants to have big muscles - is it serious disease? In some sense it's similar to silicon breast implants - in both cases it's mental 'disease'/disfunction/discomfort - so some doctor's help is needed. Or surgery due to bad looking nose eg.

Re: Muscle memory discovery ends 'use it or lose it' dogma

#76

Post by JamesBarney »

eveningcoffee wrote: post #20
hellllllllooo wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I genuinely question why people are so concerned if people use science to achieve better results at sports. It often seems like some kind of puritanical moral outrage over drugs. Edit: I understand the reasoning behind why testing is done. I just question if it is really led by safety concerns, fairness and science or just our default knee-jerk "drugs are bad" culture. There are plenty of other safety concerns in spo…

This is my understanding (not particularly my own view but can be). People are not especially against the science but drugs. Because drugs being drugs come all also with side effects. When athletes taking the drugs win then it forces other non taking athletes to take the drugs too making them involuntarily put their health into risk. That is not fair. That is the best reasonable explanation I have been able to come u…

There is nothing special about drugs that means they have side effects while other things don't.

Take epo for instance. What makes epo risky is not epo, but the increase in red blood cells. Now other things that increase red blood cells like intense training at high altitudes have the same risk. But we always draw the line with drugs.

It's definitely cultural. Imagine a ruling body finds out about a performance enhancing drug and a performance enhancing technique. They have the same risks. Which gets banned?

Re: Muscle memory discovery ends 'use it or lose it' dogma

#77

Post by collyw »

mrob wrote: post #19
hellllllllooo wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I genuinely question why people are so concerned if people use science to achieve better results at sports. It often seems like some kind of puritanical moral outrage over drugs. Edit: I understand the reasoning behind why testing is done. I just question if it is really led by safety concerns, fairness and science or just our default knee-jerk "drugs are bad" culture. There are plenty of other safety concerns in spo…

Because these drugs have risks, and if they are allowed then every athlete has to take as much as possible or they won't be competitive. It's a classic "race to the bottom" scenario, where everybody would be better off without the drugs, but they're forced to expose themselves to avoidable heath risk because that's what everybody else is doing. There's a relevant SNL sketch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAdG-iTilW…

Cannabis will still get you banned, despite not having a high risk profile and being unlikely to help in most sports.

Re: Muscle memory discovery ends 'use it or lose it' dogma

#78

Post by jordinl »

55555 wrote: post #54
ekanes wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless I'm misunderstanding, I don't think steroids are banned for non-competitive athletes. Who would test them and why? They're not competing anywhere.

lol they are illegal... they are banned for citizens by the government.

This is incorrect. What's banned (in many western countries) is distribution unless there is a medical prescription.

But nothing prevents people from using them, same with other drugs like cocaine and heroine.

Re: Muscle memory discovery ends 'use it or lose it' dogma

#79

Post by leonsmith »

dawidw wrote: post #75
sincerely wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Steroids are not legal lol

They are legal medicine. If you suffer from serious disease, doctor will prescribe them to you. Now interesting question is: if someone wants to have big muscles - is it serious disease? In some sense it's similar to silicon breast implants - in both cases it's mental 'disease'/disfunction/discomfort - so some doctor's help is needed. Or surgery due to bad looking nose eg.

Steroids generally prescribed for disease (corticosteroids) are not the same as Anabolic steroids. Same class/grouping but different molecular structure and it's worth making the distinction when talking about the legality of them

Re: Muscle memory discovery ends 'use it or lose it' dogma

#80

Post by ovi256 »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #8
crooked-v wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look up Emsculpt. It's a fascinating/creepy new device that artificially stimulates core muscular contractions, with visibly more exercised and defined muscles after a few sessions with no changes in lifestyle.

One of the benefits of lifting heavy things repeatedly over time is increased bone density. Do we know if devices like Emsculpt work to improve bone density? I don't know how the cell-signalling cascade works for putting more calcium-mineral matrix in bones so maybe muscle contraction repetition initiates the cascade, or maybe it's insufficient by itself? Full range of movement training also works to shift lymph back…

The mechanism you'll find described in the literature for increasing bone density is through heavy stress (compression) on bones. Your muscles aren't positioned to compress like that anyway. Only heavy weights can. The stress very lightly damages the bone matrix, which is then repaired to above the previous strength.
Post reply on HN