is there any association between working out and hairloss?

[Guest]

I don't know how to test for free radicals, it's probably an indirect measurement, sorta like the uptake of another stable tracer free radical or something. Many compounds can form free radicals so you would have to test for capacity/result rather than targeting a compound like with GC/MS, I just don’t know how that works.

But why the heck would you want to test for free radicals? Because some quack posts that aerobic exercise is going to give you cancer?

Don't believe everything you read, especially when there is nothing to back it up. And the more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary evidence you should demand. Don't listen to these jokers.

This place is going superstitious. Boogie Woogie!!!

 

[Guest]

i think you mean, american white men, if something is wrong in the world people tend to rather blame it on american conservatist rather than actually addressing the issue, i guess it easier to declare who is at fault then make actions that improve not aggravate a situation

That is a keen observation! :rockon:

 

[Guest]

I don't know how to test for free radicals, it's probably an indirect measurement, sorta like the uptake of another stable tracer free radical or something. Many compounds can form free radicals so you would have to test for capacity/result rather than targeting a compound like with GC/MS, I just don?t know how that works.

But why the heck would you want to test for free radicals? Because some quack posts that aerobic exercise is going to give you cancer?

Don't believe everything you read, especially when there is nothing to back it up. And the more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary evidence you should demand. Don't listen to these jokers.

This place is going superstitius. Boogie Woogie!!!

Sorry, but no one is suggesting that aerobic exercise is causing cancer. Re-read the post if you need to. And, yes, the free radical theory of aging is widely regarded as useful as of this writing. So, the issue is a valid if theoretical one at present.

Free radical testing is routinely done in the lab today. It is quite easy to put a person on a treadmill and do a before and after test of free radicals in the body.

Re: the quack issue, actually Dr. Siff was a very widely regarded professor and certainly does not fall into the quack category. He was also a world class athlete who was not adverse to intense exercise. And, he was only speculating in this article. So get your facts straight before you brand someone a quack.

Hey, jog your *** off for all we care. We will continue to look for science, not folklore. And we can kick your *** in arm wrestling too!


:laugh:

 

[Axon]

We'll see soon enough. It could certainly be true.

 

[Guest]

I don't know how to test for free radicals, it's probably an indirect measurement, sorta like the uptake of another stable tracer free radical or something. Many compounds can form free radicals so you would have to test for capacity/result rather than targeting a compound like with GC/MS, I just don?t know how that works.

But why the heck would you want to test for free radicals? Because some quack posts that aerobic exercise is going to give you cancer?

Don't believe everything you read, especially when there is nothing to back it up. And the more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary evidence you should demand. Don't listen to these jokers.

This place is going superstitius. Boogie Woogie!!!

Sorry, but no one is suggesting that aerobic exercise is causing cancer. Re-read the post if you need to. And, yes, the free radical theory of aging is widely regarded as useful as of this writing. So, the issue is a valid if theoretical one at present.

Free radical testing is routinely done in the lab today. It is quite easy to put a person on a treadmill and do a before and after test of free radicals in the body.

Re: the quack issue, actually Dr. Siff was a very widely regarded professor and certainly does not fall into the quack category. He was also a world class athlete who was not adverse to intense exercise. And, he was only speculating in this article. So get your facts straight before you brand someone a quack.

Hey, jog your *** off for all we care. We will continue to look for science, not folklore. And we can kick your *** in arm wrestling too!


:laugh:

I'm afraid not, BruceLee. Your post was attempting to insinuate that aerobic exercise causes production of free radicals and further insinuated that aerobic exercise may be harmful for that reason. Now we can split hairs all night but that was the point you were trying to make and there is NO science to back it up.

It's funny how exercise and/or sex can cause an increase in testosterone levels and YOU decide that the research of many other scientists indicating that this could result in hairloss has no basis but YOU have decided that if exercise potentially creates free radicals then there is science backing up your insinuation that it may cause harm.

That's called hypocrisy. It usually creeps up when we are trying to push an agenda, we rarely mean it, but the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. No hard feelings, it happens to all of us

 

[Axon]

I don't know, I can so far only see that report as speculation or perhaps even opinion. The article I linked to was written by Brad Kearns, one of the foremost tri-athletes in the world. The guy knows his stuff, probably just as much as Dr. Siff.

 

[Guest]

I don't know how to test for free radicals, it's probably an indirect measurement, sorta like the uptake of another stable tracer free radical or something. Many compounds can form free radicals so you would have to test for capacity/result rather than targeting a compound like with GC/MS, I just don?t know how that works.

But why the heck would you want to test for free radicals? Because some quack posts that aerobic exercise is going to give you cancer?

Don't believe everything you read, especially when there is nothing to back it up. And the more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary evidence you should demand. Don't listen to these jokers.

This place is going superstitius. Boogie Woogie!!!

Sorry, but no one is suggesting that aerobic exercise is causing cancer. Re-read the post if you need to. And, yes, the free radical theory of aging is widely regarded as useful as of this writing. So, the issue is a valid if theoretical one at present.

Free radical testing is routinely done in the lab today. It is quite easy to put a person on a treadmill and do a before and after test of free radicals in the body.

Re: the quack issue, actually Dr. Siff was a very widely regarded professor and certainly does not fall into the quack category. He was also a world class athlete who was not adverse to intense exercise. And, he was only speculating in this article. So get your facts straight before you brand someone a quack.

Hey, jog your *** off for all we care. We will continue to look for science, not folklore. And we can kick your *** in arm wrestling too!


:laugh:

I'm afraid not, BruceLee. Your post was attempting to insinuate that aerobic exercise causes production of free radicals and further insinuated that aerobic exercise may be harmful for that reason. Now we can split hairs all night but that was the point you were trying to make and there is NO science to back it up.

It's funny how exercise and/or sex can cause an increase in testosterone levels and YOU decide that the research of many other scientists indicating that this could result in hairloss has no basis but YOU have decided that if exercise potentially creates free radicals then there is science backing up your insinuation that it may cause harm.

That's called hypocrisy. It usually creeps up when we are trying to push an agenda, we rarely mean it, but the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. No hard feelings, it happens to all of us

I think it is fairly well established that aerobic exercise generates free radicals (as does all exercise). It is simply that much "cardio" goes on forever so the speculation by many reputable scientists is that this COULD BE cause for concern. So, I did not insinuate it, I stated it.

So, frankly there is plenty of science to back that up. Simply go do a sort on Free radicals and exercise and you spend the night reading about it if you want.

Re: T increases from exercise, I was very clear what my point was. If you have data that suggests that the T increases from exercise are sufficient to cause hair loss, simply cite them or shut up.

 

[Guest]

Oh no the giant pizza got me again... :cry:

I don't know if I'm gonna be OK I might get sick :cry:

I'm going to bed

 

[Guest]

I don't know how to test for free radicals, it's probably an indirect measurement, sorta like the uptake of another stable tracer free radical or something. Many compounds can form free radicals so you would have to test for capacity/result rather than targeting a compound like with GC/MS, I just don?t know how that works.

But why the heck would you want to test for free radicals? Because some quack posts that aerobic exercise is going to give you cancer?

Don't believe everything you read, especially when there is nothing to back it up. And the more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary evidence you should demand. Don't listen to these jokers.

This place is going superstitius. Boogie Woogie!!!

Sorry, but no one is suggesting that aerobic exercise is causing cancer. Re-read the post if you need to. And, yes, the free radical theory of aging is widely regarded as useful as of this writing. So, the issue is a valid if theoretical one at present.

Free radical testing is routinely done in the lab today. It is quite easy to put a person on a treadmill and do a before and after test of free radicals in the body.

Re: the quack issue, actually Dr. Siff was a very widely regarded professor and certainly does not fall into the quack category. He was also a world class athlete who was not adverse to intense exercise. And, he was only speculating in this article. So get your facts straight before you brand someone a quack.

Hey, jog your *** off for all we care. We will continue to look for science, not folklore. And we can kick your *** in arm wrestling too!


:laugh:

I'm afraid not, BruceLee. Your post was attempting to insinuate that aerobic exercise causes production of free radicals and further insinuated that aerobic exercise may be harmful for that reason. Now we can split hairs all night but that was the point you were trying to make and there is NO science to back it up.

It's funny how exercise and/or sex can cause an increase in testosterone levels and YOU decide that the research of many other scientists indicating that this could result in hairloss has no basis but YOU have decided that if exercise potentially creates free radicals then there is science backing up your insinuation that it may cause harm.

That's called hypocrisy. It usually creeps up when we are trying to push an agenda, we rarely mean it, but the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. No hard feelings, it happens to all of us

I think it is fairly well established that aerobic exercise generates free radicals (as does all exercise). It is simply that much "cardio" goes on forever so the speculation by many reputable scientists is that this COULD BE cause for concern. So, I did not insinuate it, I stated it.

So, frankly there is plenty of science to back that up. Simply go do a sort on Free radicals and exercise and you spend the night reading about it if you want.

Re: T increases from exercise, I was very clear what my point was. If you have data that suggests that the T increases from exercise are sufficient to cause hair loss, simply cite them or shut up.

If you have data that suggests that free radicals generated from exercise are sufficient to cause harm, in your words, simply cite them or shut up.

 

[Axon]

Indeed, I just don't get it. Anaerobics is just a label for intensive exercise that tends to go on for about as long as I do any kind of cardio, if not much longer.

If exercise produces free radicals, how could more intensive exercise not?

 

[Guest]

Axon, it's not something to worry about, it's bullshit like the rest of it. I can tell you that eating vegetables increases cyanide levels in your blood. Are you going to stop eating vegetables? This is the great thing about chemistry and medicine, it makes it so easy to bullshit people. You can make absolutely nothing sound scary. And usually you can get away with it without any justification as well.

We are getting more and more of these bullshit stories around here every day. BruceLee use to be the first to say that the detection of a compound or change of a blood level was not proof of medical efficacy (or harm).

The quote he posted is not motivated by academia but rather by a well--intended agenda gone wrong. Strength training was ignored during the 80s. A crusade to get it's benefits recognized has resulted in a quackery of slander against aerobic training.

When you hear this crazy crap don't take it to heart. Some of it can be worthy of academic discussion but not worthy of concern. But whatever you do, don't eat vegetables because your blood cyanide levels will increase. And that IS true (but don't be stupid you should still eat vegetables).

 

[Axon]

Oh, I understand, I just think that those things are connected, ya know?

Most of the guys who do "anaerobics" at my gym are distance runners and they do tons of cardio as well. I always see them in the aerobics class, talking about keeping the weight down and the stamina up...seeing articles or psuedo-studies like that doesn't make me think it's BS - it makes me want to try it out and then disprove it, or acknowledge it and avoid it. It may raise free radicals - but probably not enough to do any form of damage to anything.

Bruce can say whatever he wants. I don't know how often he's in the gym or if he is at all, but I know of late I'm in there 6 days a week. I even cracked 180 lbs last week. Studies are nice, but studies don't get me results.

People at the gym try to sell me on all sorts of sh*t, from protein shakes to fat-burning supplements. Hey, I'm glad it works for you. I know what works for me, and that's a good 20-30 minute run or skate as a warm-up and then a one hour session of varying exercises. 3 days a week of chest, biceps, triceps;other three days are legs, back, shoulder, lats. Then at least 200 crunches, 200 captain chair leg raises, and some varying sit-ups.

I come home, I eat veggies, fruits, chicken and fish mainly. Sure, sometimes I eat junk, but it's more like once a week or less than once a day like I used to.

I've never felt better in my life. You can post studies until your blue in the face; I don't really care. I know what works for me, and I know how I feel.

 

[Guest]

Indeed, I just don't get it. Anaerobics is just a label for intensive exercise that tends to go on for about as long as I do any kind of cardio, if not much longer.

If exercise produces free radicals, how could more intensive exercise not?

They both def. do generate free radicals (actually all physical movement generates free radicals). The advocates of anaerobics would argue that the brief but intense bouts don't last nearly as long as say 30 minutes on the treadmill and hence are "less damaging."

I don't thnk the jury has come back on this but it is interesting.

For my money, I want to look like a sprinter, not a marathoner. So, I do wind sprints and weights/isometrics. I get the look and fitness level I want without the boredom (to me anyway) of "cardio." My knees and ankles don't hurt either.

To each his own!

:lol:

 

[Guest]

All I know is you and BruceLee are both in better shape than me sight-unseen!!! :cry:

At least I'm not fat so I guess I can't complain too bad, although I could probably lose/trade 10 pounds. I'm trying to work out lightly 30 minutes 3x per week. It's about 5% of what I would do every morning in my 20s, but you would be surprised, in your early 30s even that little bit does seem to make some difference in mood and energy.

I wish I could do more but I found out that this is what I can stick to right now, and that alone is worth a lot. I'm eager to do more but it will have to wait until after I move.

 

[Guest]

All I know is you and BruceLee are both in better shape than me sight-unseen!!! :cry:

At least I'm not fat so I guess I can't complain too bad, although I could probably lose/trade 10 pounds. I'm trying to work out lightly 30 minutes 3x per week. It's about 5% of what I would do every morning in my 20s, but you would be surprised, in your early 30s even that little bit does seem to make some difference in mood and energy.

I wish I could do more but I found out that this is what I can stick to right now, and that alone is worth a lot. I'm eager to do more but it will have to wait until after I move.

You are on the path. Move up in intensity a little bit week and you will get to where you want to be.l

Good luck

:lol:

 

[Guest]

Oh this pizza is killing me. I should probably stop working out and just quit the Sunday pizza. :cry:

Is it possible that someone who doesn't eat much meat or cheese would be sickened by a giant Sunday delux pizza because it has too much stuff? I'm starting to think it like overloads me or something. I feel overloaded... I'm never gonna eat again....

Oh well, sorry for hijacking the thread again

 

[Guest]

.

does anyone here take creatine?... some people have recommended it to me, but i don't want to put anything in my body that i don't know much of. what exactly does creatine do and will it make me "monstrous" faster?

Afro Thunder :rockon:

 

[Guest]

Thanks for the encouragment, BruceLee, like I said I am thankfull that I at least have something that I can stick to for the time being because it has made a difference in how I feel over the past year of so.

Except for the pizza, OMG I don't feel so good, I don't even think I can lie down it's like seasick, and I'm drinking a lot of water... I know it will go away in another hour or so and I can go to bed.

 

[Guest]

Re: .

does anyone here take creatine?... some people have recommended it to me, but i don't want to put anything in my body that i don't know much of. what exactly does creatine do and will it make me "monstrous" faster?

Afro Thunder :rockon:

I take creatine. It is purported to be useful in helping muscles generate greater maximal contraction, ie to help you lift more weight, perhaps jump higher. Creatine is a very well researched substance and you can find tons of studies but much more opinion on what it does and does not do.

I use it and think it helps muscle strength (maybe endurance???) and resting muscle tonus. I have no proof of this, purely subjective.

 

[Guest]

Thanks for the encouragment, BruceLee, like I said I am thankfull that I at least have something that I can stick to for the time being because it has made a difference in how I feel over the past year of so.

Except for the pizza, OMG I don't feel so good, I don't even think I can lie down it's like seasick, and I'm drinking a lot of water... I know it will go away in another hour or so and I can go to bed.

Keep the bucket by your bed! :lol: