3/15/2009 9:11pm, #71
It's a great program, but call it 20 rep squats or supersquats =P"Emevas,
You're a scrapper, I like that."-Ronin69
3/15/2009 10:07pm, #72
Jan-Mar '07, I tossed it in every second or third hypertrophy workout. Seemed okay. Amusingly enough, I think I made it through an entire bout of hypertrophy, and then on my first day of max strength after it, I crushed my deadlift record and ripped a bunch of skin off my hand in the process.
Jun-Jul '07, I was doing them in earnest (3x/week), but I managed to hyperextend my knee seven workouts in. I think it was either timed barbell holds or standing calf raises (which are the devil) to blame.
October-November '08, did 'em for nine workouts and my hip started clicking. That was the end of that.
As has already been established, the vast majority of the programs I've tried have ended with me getting injured. It's probably not an indictment of the individual programs. But with Super Squats, I think that there are some risks from the volume, frequency, fatigue and emphasis on depth. The ideal would be to have someone there to monitor your form and yell at you if you start getting sloppy.
It's also a straight-up progressive resistance program, which means it works until it doesn't. The two legitimate* failure modes for a program like this are:
1) injury, and
(* People quitting a program because it's unpleasant is not legitimate)
An effective program will do its best to avoid #1 and be realistic re: #2. I think "Super Squats" the book is only supposed to last for six weeks.
Also, whenever I boost my milk intake, painful shits ensue. If you think you may have the same problem, get some milled flaxseed in your diet.
Tournament was on January 24th.
I'm not sure at all about the fish oil (I typo'd that as snake oil) megadosing thing either, but there's at least some science there. Besides, if I get jacked up on EPA/DHA and don't feel better, I'm out a few bucks. If I do feel better, it's worth the few bucks.
3/16/2009 1:01am, #73
Here's what Brian Dunning over at Skeptoid had to say about fish oil supplementation:
Fish oil is a great source of omega-3 fatty acids, and these have been shown many times to have certain cardiovascular benefits. The American Heart Association recommends that you eat fish at least twice a week.
Where the pseudoscience invades is in the area of supplementation — basically fish oil pills. Generally speaking, healthy people gain no benefit from supplementation; taking pills when you don't need them amounts to what doctors call a "wallet extraction". However when you do have documented coronary heart disease or otherwise need to lower your triglycerides, your doctor may well recommend that you take supplements, along with whatever fish you might already eat, to reach a desired amount of daily intake, usually between 1000 and 4000 mg depending on your condition. Omega-3 fatty acids do carry risks such as blood thinning, so don't take it if you don't need it. Bottom line: If you're healthy, save your money, and enjoy a fish dinner now and then.
Omega-3 fatty acids and fish oil are often trumpeted as treatments for many other conditions, such as asthma, cancer, or as some kind of wonder food for the brain, but such claims as these have so far been found to be completely without merit.
3/16/2009 11:10am, #74
1) Audio footnote impossible? "According to a study published in Neurosurgery in September '03, administering caffeine to rats before whacking them in the head..."
2) Research it for yourself? That's the whole point of footnotes. It's not supposed to be a Barry Sears-esque wall of text that gives you something to point at and say "hey, I'm right". It's so that when someone doesn't want to take something you've said for granted, they can investigate that claim directly, from the source.
3) If you don't want people to listen to you, don't make a fucking podcast.
4) People have agendas? I'm shocked. Again, that's why you cite sources - so that the listener/reader can find out who exactly is making a given claim. Appeal to Unidentified Authority is one of the most insidious fallacies.
5) Corollary to #3, if you don't have the time to provide your sources, you don't have time to make a fucking podcast. That sounds harsh, but if there are two things the Internet has a surplus of, it's assholes and their opinions. If you want to add to the signal rather than the noise, focus on doing something right, even if you can't do as much as a consequence.
And anyone who thinks I'm being unfair or hypocritical is welcome to go through my posts here and count my cited references.
As far as actual supplementation goes (with any arbitrary supplement), there are a few issues at hand.
1) What level I have.
2) What level I need.
3) What level I could benefit from. (Usually finite due to diminishing returns - reduced uptake or endogenous synthesis, increased breakdown, etc.)
4) Assuming that 1) is less than 3), what my options are to increase those levels, and the attendant benefits and drawbacks of each.
Dunning glosses over 1-3 with a sweeping assertion that "Generally speaking, healthy people gain no benefit from supplementation".
-"Healthy" does not imply optimal (consider supplementation of creatine/caffeine, for example).
-"Apparently healthy" does not imply healthy.
-"Healthy now" does not imply healthy in the future.
That said, he's not too far off.
In general, one wants to ensure one's level of any given chemical is at or above 2), and as close to 3) as 4) deems prudent.
Now, with a lot of nutritional elements, to the best of our knowledge, 2) and 3) are basically the same - either you're deficient or you're okay. People who try to sell supplements that fall into this group will take one of two approaches - the "insurance" approach, which is generally honest, or the "special pleading" approach, which is generally dishonest.
Example of the latter: "Sure, average people only 'need' five units of Vitamineral X, but you're not an average chump, are you? No, you're a big strong extreme manly-man, so take a big strong extreme manly-man amount for big strong extreme manly-man results*!
* results may not actually be big strong extreme manly-man"
(More to come, but I'm going to split it into a separate post, maybe several)
3/16/2009 11:31am, #75
You may also want to check out some of these articles:
It sounds like some of them might be relevant to your head trauma issues.
3/16/2009 12:54pm, #76
Okay, so having established all of that, let's get specific.
In order of increasing specificity, we're talking about:
-omega-3 polyunsaturated fats (n-3)
-long-chain omega-3 polyunsaturated fats (couldn't find a precise definition, but it sounds like this is 20+ carbons)
We are directly concerned with:
EPA (eicosapentaneoic acid 20:5 n-3)
DHA (docosahexaneoic acid 22:6 n-3)
(If you're confused by some of the notation, see this)
Because they may be involved in the metabolic activities we are trying to influence, we are indirectly concerned with:
ALA (alpha-linoleic acid 18:3 n-3)
AA (arachidonic acid 20:4 n-6)
To be unambiguous, we need to consider the following:
ETA (eicosatetranoic acid 20:4 n-3), which is not AA
GLA (gamma-linoleic acid 18:3 n-6), which is not ALA
EDIT: I missed something while making this list. If anyone can guess what it is, they earn an e-high-five.
In a nutshell, here's why the above are relevant.
-EPA and DHA are the substances that have all of the claims made about them, and as such, they're the ones I'm looking at supplementing with.
-Because EPA and DHA are long-chain omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids, supplementing with them will, by default, affect the amount of fat/unsaturated fat/polyunsaturated fat/omega-3 polyunsaturated fat in my diet, so that needs to be considered as well.
-The body may be able to produce EPA and DHA from ALA to some degree, which makes ALA relevant.
-Many of the purported health benefits of EPA/DHA are based on eicosanoid production. It is claimed that AA influences the proportions of eicosanoids produced in the opposite direction of EPA and DHA, making AA relevant as well.
-And finally, on a pragmatic note, the reports I'm looking at (from the Canadian Nutrient File and USDA NND) do not distinguish between AA and ETA, or between ALA and GLA, so to be thorough, we need to bear in mind that reported values are for combinations of the above unless we know otherwise.
So I have next to me a 213g can of Gold Seal Pacific Pink Salmon, with added salt. It cost me $6.99 for 6 of 'em, which breaks down to $0.55 per 100g of can contents. Not coincidentally, both the can label and the CNF report on "Salmon, pink (humpback), canned, solids with bone and liquid, salted" (food code 3222) also provides information in per-100g units, so that's what we're going to use.
Can label nutrition (per 100g):
CNF nutrition (per 100g):
--EPA (20:5 n-3): 0.605g
--DHA (22:6*): 1.083g
--AA + ETA (20:4): 0.148g
--ALA + GLA (18:3): 0.084g
* It doesn't say n-3, but I didn't see any n-6 or n-9 variants.
Not really concerned with anything else (technically not concerned with protein, but let's be honest here... we're always concerned with protein).
(Still more to come, but I may take a nap first)
---------- Post added at 11:54 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:44 AM ----------
I am also fairly confident that the exertion induces both the headaches and the eye-crossing. It may induce the headaches by way of eye-crossing.
There are two problems I'm faced with here:
1) As identified in this post, a single piece of data doesn't tell you much of anything.
Examples of this:
-If a doctor had looked at me halfway through my most recent weight loss reduction, he may have said something like "Russ, you're morbidly obese. You need to change your lifestyle dramatically." The problem with this, of course, is that I had already changed my lifestyle dramatically, and was well on the way to a normal body composition.
-Similarly, the trend in concussion diagnosis right now is administering cognitive tests. "Remember these words, repeat these numbers back to me, etc." Great idea in theory, but when they gave me the baseline test a few weeks into the... '05 season, I think?... I was already concussed, and I still came within one word of perfection. In the same way, I'm quite sure that the doctor I first saw about this concussion dramatically underestimated the severity of my symptoms, because she had no concept of what I'm like when I'm fully-functional.
(To an extent, even I'm not sure what I'm like when I'm fully functional. I've been smacking heads since I was thirteen or so. This makes it hard to distinguish between:
-how I've been since I was born,
-how I've been since I hit puberty,
-the effects of a decade-plus of football, and
-the effects of the judo tournament)
-And the same goes for vision. Sure, my vision's "normal". Does the doctor know what my visual acuity was the last time I had it tested? No. When I tell him, does he understand that I'm not bragging - I'm warning him that he needs to recalibrate his scale of "normal"? No.
2) The symptoms in question don't show up unless my blood pressure/pulse (or maybe intraocular pressure?) are elevated. Maybe there's something else that the doctors are looking for, but the vibe I'm getting is that they're looking at me while I'm asymptomatic and assuming that I'm always asymptomatic, rather than just okay at the moment.
Anyways, I suppose I'll try to get in with an optometrist soon (I believe my "family" doc has already set me up with an appointment, which I will verify). I'm not sure what any of this implies in terms of diagnosis or treatment, though.
3/16/2009 12:58pm, #77
Just one more thing on the list of possible issues you have to be aware of. Hope you get this figured out soon.
3/16/2009 3:08pm, #78
3/16/2009 4:00pm, #79
3/16/2009 5:55pm, #80
intra cranial pressure.
I wanted to name my old band that.