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

Lactic Acid Is Not Muscles' Foe, It's Fuel

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 40 posts

Re: Lactic Acid Is Not Muscles' Foe, It's Fuel

#31

Post by jedc »

scotch_drinker wrote: post #3

After doing crossfit for a year, I think I knew this semi-consciously but it's interesting to read about it being backed by science. Short, highly intense training sessions lead to very large gains in fitness because most of your training is anaerobic.

Of course, that depends on how you measure fitness. Highly anaerobic activities will not prepare you well for a marathon, for instance. But they will make you more fit in weight-lifting and anaerobic sports.

Look at the training regimes for Olympic-class athletes in any given sport... they're a pretty good guide, considering the incentives involved.

Re: Lactic Acid Is Not Muscles' Foe, It's Fuel

#32

Post by michaelneale »

stse wrote: post #25
jimfl wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spend more time outside the aerobic zone without worrying that I'm damaging muscle tissue.

It's strange that you hasn't done this before. Ever done interval training? Maybe your training is recreational in which case the risk of getting injured probably overshadows(?) the gains of intense interval training.

I mostly do interval training (when not just doing weights) - I wonder if it is a bad thing - but I just find it so fun and non-boring...

Re: Lactic Acid Is Not Muscles' Foe, It's Fuel

#33

Post by beagle3 »

fatdog789 wrote: post #27
ahoyhere wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

a) known fact: insulin spikes cause more calories to be converted to fat, even when the same amounts of calories are consumed b) even diet soda can cause insulin spikes, causing rats and calves to gain more weight on the same # of calories as rats/calves not consuming diet soda There are links off the wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diet_soda There have also been lots of books written about the insuli…

A calorie is a calorie is a calorie. Because a calorie is a measurement of the potential energy of a quantity of food. The type of food is what makes a difference. Fatty foods are worse than the same caloric-quantity of fibrous foods (i.e., fruits and veggies). And there's plenty of research to suggest that food in - food burned by activity (inc. exercise) - undigestable food = food stored as fat.

There is so much contradicting evidence that it's not even funny. read Gary Taubes, Michel Cabanac, Seth Roberts.

Do you know how the magical "1g protein = 4kcal, 1g carbohydrate = 4kcal, 1g fat = 9kcal" numbers were reached? Hint: They were never measured in vivo, or in vitro cells -- the follow from a very fragile theory, which breaks in every way you look at it -- and yet, it's considered "science.

Re: Lactic Acid Is Not Muscles' Foe, It's Fuel

#34

Post by scotch_drinker »

jedc wrote: post #31
scotch_drinker wrote: post #3

After doing crossfit for a year, I think I knew this semi-consciously but it's interesting to read about it being backed by science. Short, highly intense training sessions lead to very large gains in fitness because most of your training is anaerobic.

Of course, that depends on how you measure fitness. Highly anaerobic activities will not prepare you well for a marathon, for instance. But they will make you more fit in weight-lifting and anaerobic sports. Look at the training regimes for Olympic-class athletes in any given sport... they're a pretty good guide, considering the incentives involved.

I disagree that CrossFit doesn't train you for a marathon. It might not train you to be an elite marathoner but it does train you to be an adequate one. Greg Admundsen who is a fairly well known Crossfitter did nothing by main page workouts for preparation for a 100 mile race and he finished 80 miles.

There is solid data, described in the article and found elsewhere on the web that short, intense fitness sessions where most of your work anaerobically will in fact prepare you for aerobic activities. CrossFit is the empirical proof of that.

Re: Lactic Acid Is Not Muscles' Foe, It's Fuel

#35

Post by scotch_drinker »

mr_luc wrote: post #30
scotch_drinker wrote: post #3

After doing crossfit for a year, I think I knew this semi-consciously but it's interesting to read about it being backed by science. Short, highly intense training sessions lead to very large gains in fitness because most of your training is anaerobic.

Another crossfit hacker? Wow. (The first place I saw that article linked was from crossfit.com, around the time it first came out. ) I got good results with crossfit (dropped 40 pounds, now I'm "athletic" -- I'd never have imagined I could do 20 pullups before), but I'd do it even if it was only average, because it doesn't bore me. Running? Unpleasant and boring . Weight lifting? Boring disciplinarian bullcrap ... Cr…

It's good to hear from other CrossFiters outside the community. I spent the weekend at a level I cert and loved every minute of it. The highly intense workouts are both always interesting (and always painful) and highly results oriented.

Re: Lactic Acid Is Not Muscles' Foe, It's Fuel

#36

Post by ZeroGravitas »

jstevens85 wrote: post #12
sho wrote: post #7

An excellent demonstration of how, sometimes, erroneous but entrenched beliefs take decades, generations, to overturn. Next up in the list of stubborn myths people grew up with and find hard to set down: obesity is caused by excessive caloric intake.

Can you link to any academic papers that dispute that?

No, but if you ask this question on Hacker News you will get a muddled and slightly paranoid sounding synopsis of Gary Taubes' book on this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Diet_Delusion

Probably best to go straight to the source. I'm hoping it's a bit more naunced than the "biology is hard, nutrition is complex, therefore theories proposed by science journalists from outwith the field are more likely to be true" type stuff that you see bandied about online.

Re: Lactic Acid Is Not Muscles' Foe, It's Fuel

#37

Post by ZeroGravitas »

beagle3 wrote: post #33
fatdog789 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A calorie is a calorie is a calorie. Because a calorie is a measurement of the potential energy of a quantity of food. The type of food is what makes a difference. Fatty foods are worse than the same caloric-quantity of fibrous foods (i.e., fruits and veggies). And there's plenty of research to suggest that food in - food burned by activity (inc. exercise) - undigestable food = food stored as fat.

There is so much contradicting evidence that it's not even funny. read Gary Taubes, Michel Cabanac, Seth Roberts. Do you know how the magical "1g protein = 4kcal, 1g carbohydrate = 4kcal, 1g fat = 9kcal" numbers were reached? Hint: They were never measured in vivo, or in vitro cells -- the follow from a very fragile theory, which breaks in every way you look at it -- and yet, it's considered "science.

How does Seth Roberts tie into the "calories aren't the whole story" theme?

I thought his theory was about tricking the body with taste-free calories in order to dampen hunger pangs. If so it fits neatly within that theory since less hunger means less eating means less calories.

In fact since it's billed as an "eat anything" diet, doesn't it contradict Taubes who targets refined carbs as the real villain?

Re: Lactic Acid Is Not Muscles' Foe, It's Fuel

#38

Post by louay »

tumult wrote: post #8
sho wrote: post #7

An excellent demonstration of how, sometimes, erroneous but entrenched beliefs take decades, generations, to overturn. Next up in the list of stubborn myths people grew up with and find hard to set down: obesity is caused by excessive caloric intake.

So I can eat all the cheeseburgers I want now? Totally ready to start, just give me the thumbs up.

iam louay razouq

Re: Lactic Acid Is Not Muscles' Foe, It's Fuel

#39

Post by louay »

tumult wrote: post #8
sho wrote: post #7

An excellent demonstration of how, sometimes, erroneous but entrenched beliefs take decades, generations, to overturn. Next up in the list of stubborn myths people grew up with and find hard to set down: obesity is caused by excessive caloric intake.

So I can eat all the cheeseburgers I want now? Totally ready to start, just give me the thumbs up.

iam louay razouq

Re: Lactic Acid Is Not Muscles' Foe, It's Fuel

#40

Post by beagle3 »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #37
beagle3 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is so much contradicting evidence that it's not even funny. read Gary Taubes, Michel Cabanac, Seth Roberts. Do you know how the magical "1g protein = 4kcal, 1g carbohydrate = 4kcal, 1g fat = 9kcal" numbers were reached? Hint: They were never measured in vivo, or in vitro cells -- the follow from a very fragile theory, which breaks in every way you look at it -- and yet, it's considered "science.

How does Seth Roberts tie into the "calories aren't the whole story" theme? I thought his theory was about tricking the body with taste-free calories in order to dampen hunger pangs. If so it fits neatly within that theory since less hunger means less eating means less calories. In fact since it's billed as an "eat anything" diet, doesn't it contradict Taubes who targets refined carbs as the real villain?

His diet as presented doesn't, but if you read his research notes (specifically, read through "what makes food fattening?") you'll see his own personal evidence/anecdote for this, and how it sits with other results. (But basically, beyond his own anecdote and theory which does not imply or contradict anything about calories, he mostly channels and enhances Cabanac and Israel)
Post reply on HN