Results 1 to 3 of 3
  1. #1
    Moderator OptikaNET's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Manchester, UK
    Posts
    651

    The Science Thread

    Celebrating my new subscription to New Scientist which now gives me online access to the text of one of my favourite magazines, I thought I would share with you such articles which impact upon our favourite sport/activity/lifestyle.

    So, in interest of provoking debate, I thought there were elements of the following article which apply to Bodybulding and weightloss. The observations on Glucose were particularly interesting, perhaps restricting refined sugars is not always the best choice for weightloss/cutting if it undermines our motivation and willpower?

    Weak will comes from tired mental muscles

    Self-controlled people have better lives – but for the rest, lack of willpower is more like physical fatigue than moral failure

    AS THE last of your New Year's resolutions unravels in front of your eyes, you probably feel like a moral pygmy. But before you sink into a heap of self-loathing, consider this.

    After decades of research, psychologists now reckon two traits are most likely to make us successful. The first is intelligence, with smart people doing better at all jobs. Unluckily, there is little evidence that you can make lasting improvements to intelligence.

    The other trait is self-control, the ability to change thoughts, emotions, actions and level of performance on duties and tasks. Of course, goals, moral rules, laws, social expectations, personal commitments and other forces play a role, but the more you can change yourself, the more successful you tend to be.

    Studies on self-control have their roots in the "marshmallow test" devised by Walter Mischel at Stanford University, California, in 1972. More than 600 children aged between 4 and 6 were offered treats (an Oreo cookie, marshmallow or pretzel). The children could eat the treat, but if they waited 15 minutes without giving into temptation, they would be rewarded with two treats. Mischel watched as some children covered their eyes or turned around so that they couldn't see the treat, others kicked the desk, tugged their pigtails or stroked the marshmallow as if it were a stuffed animal. Some waited for the researchers to leave the room before eating the treat.

    Interestingly, a minority ate the treat immediately. Of those attempting to delay, one-third deferred gratification long enough to get the second treat. Age was a major factor, with older children waiting longer. Years later, Mischel's researchers tracked down the children and found that those who had done best at 5 grew up to be more successful in school and work, and to be more popular.

    Other studies support this. People with stronger self-control do better at school, earn more and are more respected by co-workers. They are also less likely to be arrested, have fewer personal problems, less stress and live longer.

    So what is this amazing thing called self-control? The common sense view is it depends on using willpower to resist temptation and to enable the right action. Our research suggests this notion is not entirely fanciful but that it lacks a key dimension. Research has shown repeatedly that after people exert self-control, they tend to perform relatively poorly on a subsequent, seemingly irrelevant test of self-control. The most plausible explanation is that "energy" was consumed and depleted during the first test, leaving less for more challenges.

    Evidence for this depletion of willpower comes from studies like ours in 1998 at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, when we had people turn up at our lab hungry. They were shown into a room full of the scent of freshly baked chocolate cookies and seated at a table facing a tray of them. Also on the table was a bowl of radishes. Some subjects were allowed to eat radishes only. They were left, ostensibly to eat radishes, but in fact had to use willpower to resist cookies.

    Later, we measured how long people persevered before giving up on a difficult (actually unsolvable) puzzle. Those who had depleted their willpower resisting the cookie temptation gave up faster than controls - some of whom had eaten cookies, others who had eaten nothing. Resisting the cookies had used up some of their willpower, leaving less to help them persevere with the puzzle.

    Another study led by Wilhelm Hofmann, now at the University of Chicago, had 200 German adults wear beepers for a week. When the beeper went off, they reported what they were doing. This provided snapshots into the daily patterns of desire and resistance in ordinary people. Extrapolating from the beepers, Hofmann found that people spend a staggering three to four hours a day on average just resisting temptations and desires.

    Not surprisingly, as the day wears on, the more often the person exercises self-control to try to resist what they desire, the more likely they are to give in to whatever temptation comes along: it's not the time of day that matters, but the cumulative exertion that saps your willpower. If you do not have many temptations to resist, your willpower stays relatively strong, and you may well be able to resist new temptations.

    So rather than seeing willpower as a moral quality, the scientific view is that it is like a muscle that tires. After you exert self-control, you have less willpower so you are less able to resist a new demand. Self-control is only temporarily weakened and can recharge after a rest. Willpower resembles a muscle also in that it can be strengthened by exercise.

    Two clear facts about willpower have emerged so far. Willpower is what researchers call "domain-general": controlling thoughts, emotions and feelings, restraining impulses, and performing tasks and duties will draw on one pool of willpower, not, as people tend to imagine, multiple pools with different quantities for, say, dieting or exercise.

    The second fact is that the resource is limited. Even a few minutes of exerting self-control is enough to cause a decline in performance on a subsequent, seemingly unrelated test. That might suggest human willpower is scarce, but, again, no: willpower is like a muscle, and when a muscle gets tired, an athlete may cut back effort to conserve what remains. In fact, willpower looks as if it is indeed a kind of energy, tied to levels of the chemical glucose used to carry energy from the digestive system and fat stores to muscles and other organs. Neurotransmitters, that enable brain cells to fire, are made of glucose.

    The standard willpower depletion effect, confirmed by a 2010 meta-analysis of 83 studies, shows that after exerting self-control, people perform worse on the next self-control task without being given glucose between tasks. Researchers use lemonade these days: one batch sweetened with sugar (plenty of glucose), the other with diet sweetener (no glucose). After allowing up to 15 minutes for the lemonade to reach the bloodstream, subjects drinking sugared lemonade perform quite well at the next test, while those on diet lemonade fare less well.

    This glucose research also suggests why dieting is so fiendishly difficult. In order to resist tempting foods, we need willpower but to have willpower, we must eat. The essence of dieting (restricting food intake) robs us of the psychological strength needed to succeed. Perhaps dieters should concentrate on filling up with healthy food so they have the willpower to resist fattening stuff.

    If research continues to implicate glucose in willpower, it could be a powerful key to understanding the human mind since self-control is such a vital part of daily life. But willpower is also used in making choices and decisions, so here's a startling thought: could daily decision-making impair self-control?

    Last year, Jonathan Levav at Stanford University and Shai Danziger at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Israel, came up with important clues when they studied parole judges in Israel. The safe and easy decision is to refuse parole since it carries the risk of the convict committing further crimes - and making the judge look bad. The researchers found judges often granted parole in the early morning, but as the day wore on and they made more decisions, they were less willing to take a chance and sent most people back to prison. After a snack, or after lunch, the likelihood of parole went up. In other words, the food seemed to restock the willpower depleted by making many choices, leaving the judge more willing to take a riskier step and grant parole to the next applicant.

    So bear that in mind should you end up in court after a bad bout of glucose depletion!
    Last edited by OptikaNET; 02-01-2012 at 01:32 AM.

  2. #2
    Moderator OptikaNET's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Manchester, UK
    Posts
    651

    Muscle lab: Bulk up with the science of bodybuilding

    Muscle lab: Bulk up with the science of bodybuilding
    18 August 2010 by Jessica Hamzelou

    Looking to beef up? As research sheds new light on how our muscles work, it may be time to scrap old bodybuilding advice. New Scientist brings you top tips for the budding Mr Universe.

    What is the best way to pump iron?

    Standard advice for gym bunnies is to lift as much weight as you can in a training session. But Stuart Phillips and his team at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, reckon this might not be the best way to build muscle. Instead, they suggest that slow and steady wins the race.

    In Phillips's study, men in their early 20s lifted weights with their legs over various periods at 30 and 90 per cent of the maximum weight they could lift. Phillips analysed biopsies from the leg muscles before and after each training session.

    He found that the production of new muscle proteins was greatest when the men were lifting the relatively light weights – at 30 per cent of their maximum – until they were fatigued, and couldn't lift any more.

    The idea that you should lift progressively heavier weights to bulk up is "completely false", says Phillips. Instead, the best way to build muscle is to lift more manageable weights until you tire out, he says.

    Is it easier to rebuild lost muscle than start from scratch?

    The phenomenon of "muscle memory" is a handy one for muscle buffs who take extended breaks between workouts. The idea is that once a person has acquired a certain level of strength for the first time, they will find it easier to reach that point again, even if they allow their muscles to waste away in the meantime.

    Kristian Gundersen and his colleagues at the University of Oslo in Norway reckon the explanation lies in the fact that muscle undergoes permanent changes during training.

    To investigate, Gundersen's team cut the synergist, or "helper", leg muscles in one leg in mice, thereby increasing the amount of work for the remaining muscle. After two weeks, the group found that the number of nuclei in the fibres of the remaining muscle had increased by 37 per cent.

    This bulked-up muscle was then left to waste by cutting off its nerve supply. However, three months later – equivalent to around 10 human years – the increased number of nuclei remained within the muscle fibres.

    Because the nuclei of muscle fibres are key to the production of new muscle protein, Gundersen thinks that after a bout of training, the potential to grow muscle sticks with you for life. So no matter how much time has passed since you were in the peak of muscular fitness, it should be easier to achieve the second time around.

    What about steroids?

    Anabolic steroids are thought to work by increasing the number of muscle cell nuclei. "If those effects are also permanent, the effects of one-time doping could last forever," says Gundersen. "We may need to reconsider how long the exclusion period should be for an athlete caught taking steroids."

    What's that burning feeling a day or two after a workout?

    The ache you feel a couple of days after particularly intensive exercise is known as "delayed onset muscle soreness". It is thought to be caused by the lengthening and subsequent damage of muscle fibres during strenuous stretches. Damaged muscle cells can die off, causing inflammation and pain. Muscle builders take note: overly arduous workouts could work your muscles into oblivion.

    What's the ideal diet for a bodybuilder?

    It is important to get enough protein in your diet, from foods such as red meat and eggs, as amino acids are essential for making new muscle proteins. In a 2004 paper, Charles Lambert, then at the University of Arkansas in Little Rock, and colleagues recommended that protein make up 25 to 30 per cent of a bodybuilder's diet.

    During exercise, most of the energy for muscle work comes from carbohydrates that have been broken down into glucose and converted to glycogen. Lambert's team reckoned carbs should make up around 55 to 60 per cent of a bodybuilder's energy intake.

    Before a photo shoot, some male models are known to go to drastic lengths to look their most buff. A pre-shoot drinking binge dehydrates the skin, so it is pulled taut over the muscles to accentuate them. A healthier way to look your best would be to cut fat intake, says Phillips.

    But cutting out too much fat could be a mistake. Lambert thinks fat should make up around 15 to 20 per cent of total energy intake. Reducing fat in the diet is known to reduce circulating levels of testosterone, which is thought to boost muscle mass and limb strength.

    Journal references: Phillips, PLoS One, DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0012033; Gundersen, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0913935107; Lambert, Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2008.01927.x

  3. #3
    Moderator OptikaNET's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Manchester, UK
    Posts
    651
    My thoughts are that some of the conclusions of this report (which I found while searching the New Scientist website) seem to fly in the face of longstanding evidence and I wonder how strong the research is. It has long been understood, for example, that training with low weights and high reps to exhaustion can promote catabolism which can result in the body breaking down hard-gained muscle and not replacing it.

    In fact, it is a strategy sometimes employed by actors who may have bulked up for a role and now need to reduce their muscular development to something slimmer. Matt Damon did this recently. Some featured-bodybuilders in the magazines have said that when they tried to break into acting, the first thing their agents said was that they should lose some of the bulk and get leaner.

    Obviously they want to keep definition, and not put on fat, so lower weights and long workouts was one way to achieve it (along with the all-important diet!).

    I wonder how strong, therefore, some of these conclusions really are, and how well the science-journalist understood it. The muscle-memory thing is interesting though (and promising in that it suggests I may be able to regain the physique I had in my twenties if I work hard at it!).

    Kind Regards
    Dave

Similar Threads

  1. Help and Advice Thread
    By Robertrogo in forum Workout Help and Advice
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 02-02-2018, 06:25 AM
  2. [Insert Thread Title Here]
    By ARicho in forum Introduce Yourself
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-29-2012, 01:04 PM
  3. Bruce Lee Motivational Thread
    By Robertrogo in forum Motivation and Support
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-22-2012, 03:46 PM
  4. Understanding Motivation - Willpower; the science
    By OptikaNET in forum Motivation and Support
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-28-2012, 08:05 PM
  5. The Demotivational Thread: Post What Sucks
    By octarinedragon in forum Motivation and Support
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 06-02-2011, 07:59 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •