Your video, Why Are You Alive – Life, Energy & ATP, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

there looks to be grains of salt on the chopping board. High concentration of Sodium on the muscle fibres can cause the cells to depolarise chaotically like a muscle cramp. Depolarisation releases calcium ions from the sarcoplasmic reticulum causing the muscle fibres to contract and there is enough energy in the cell(ATP) to release the contraction and allow further contractions as with the video.Eventually it will stop working as the ATP is exhausted .

Aren't some mild acrobatics (like this) required for a commercial license? I wonder what the biggest plane most ATP have done acrobatics in..

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by oritteropo.

I never had a problem with the whole "fast zombie vs. slow zombie" debate, as technically you could have fast zombies in the first 6-12 hours, before rigor mortis set in. Then you'd start having the classic variety of zombie.

My biggest problem is figuring out how zeds move after death in the first place. Muscles require ATP (adenosine triphosphate) in order to move; it is the primary and only fuel that muscles use. ATP is broken down from glycogen; glycogen is produced by the liver from the carbs, fat and proteins in the food you eat. In order for glycogen to get from your liver to your muscles, your heart has to pump it through your circulatory system. But if our current clinical definition of death is no cardiac activity, then how do zombies move?

>> ^xxovercastxx:

What people don't seem to realize is that Atkins is starvation with a full belly. Yes, if you reduce your useable energy intake to zero, you'll quickly start dropping fat... and muscle... and whatever else your body can break down to fill the gap.
When you go back to eating normally, you'll probably pack it right back on. That's how our bodies generally respond to starvation.
The real kicker is how many people think carbs are unhealthy as a result of this stupid diet.
Back around 2000 when I was sick with an ulcer, acid reflux, and a generally uncooperative GI tract, I was telling someone about how I ate a lot of plain pasta because it never irritated my gut, it was reasonably healthy, and at least I was eating something. I was about 40lbs underweight at this point, so I had to take what I could get. Someone overheard me and said, "Oh, all those carbs are really unhealthy."


It's not starvation - fat has twice as much 'usable energy' as carbohydrates have per gram. Your mind will tell you it's starving for the first few days, because it takes time to build up enough enzymes to efficiently process the different form of energy than it usually gets, but it all ends up as ATP eventually. You're probably right about some people thinking carbs are bad because of this diet, but that's assuming they treat the diet like a religion and don't look at any other information, which is not going to be the case for everyone - and heck, quite a few of the sources of easily available carbs these days are pretty horribawful.

Also, if you look at the research, those participants in low carb/high fat/adequate protein diets usually fair just as good, or better than, high carb participants in terms of keeping the weight off after the diet is over.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by Barseps.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by Norsuelefantti.

>> ^conan:

useless without explanation. could also be a moby music video.


Well, being a biology professor let me try and help you out...

0:13 - 0:22 - mitochondria

0:23 - 0:29 shows glucose (long blue string) with associated phosphates floating in the cytoplasm. I believe those are phosphates (?) coming off as it enters the mitochondrion. Though there should only be 1 phosphate, so this may be incorrect.

0:30 - 0:32 show the extramembranous proteins on the exterior of the mitochondrion.

0:37 we enter the mitochondrion.

0:38 - 0:47 we float through the mitochondrion. Notice the green double-helixed DNA at the left and bottom of the screen. This is mitochondrial DNA. I believe those other colored things floating around are later molecules from the Krebs Cycle - they could be miscellaneous intermediary molecules such as oxaloacetate and citrate.

0:48 - 0:54 we see the cristae (inner foldings) of the mitochondrion with the transmembranous proteins along it. The small molecules floating around are ADP and ATP.

0:55 - 0:59 we see NADH and FADH2 floating to a transmembranous protein (purple) and becoming oxidized, losing their electron. The green/blue colored sea on the bottom of the screen is the membrane (phospholipids).

1:00 - 1:01 we flip to the opposite side of the membrane, to the outer membranous space. The tentacle-looking things is part of the membrane, the phospholipid bilayer.

1:02 - 1:07 I'm not entirely sure which part this is...if I had to guess I'd say it was an electron carrier.. perhaps ferredoxin transporting electrons from protein to protein in the electron transfer chain, which is why it glows (electron-rich) as it moves from protein to protein.

1:07 - 1:10 we see millions of protons flowing DOWN through the transmembranous proteins, into the outer membranous space (bottom) from the matrix (top). This creates a hypertonic concentration of protons in the outer membranous space.

1:10 - 1:14 we see ATP synthase, the main energy-producing enzyme that rotates on the cristae (part of the electron transport chain). This enzyme has a stationary portion and a rotating portion (purple and part of the brown at the top). When protons flow back into the matrix from the intermembranous space, ATP synthase rotates, creating energy. You can see the dull yellow-colored (energy-low) ADP getting transformed (being phosphorylated) into the bright white-colored (energy-high) ATP.

1:15 - 1:21 we see the phoshporylation of ATP up close. A phosphate is added to ADP to produce ATP. This is done by ATP synthase via the energy produced by the movement of protons.

1:22 - 1:29 just an overview of the whole phosphorylation process. You can see the energy-rich ATPs moving into the outer-membranous space through pores in the membrane.

1:30 - 1:32 shows a close-up of this ATP movement, to the outer-membranous space, and eventually out of the mitochondrion to be used by the cell for energy.

@mentality - Let me guess, Crossfit?

@mgittle - Let me guess, sports medicine student?

Machines are for people who want to spend 3 hours in the gym wasting their time acting like they are doing something in front of other people - aka people who go to the gym looking for dates or self esteem. Olympic style lifts are for people who want to get in, work hard, get strong for real-world applications, and go home. How many sports, hobbies, or real-life situations involve moving bars over a static range of motion? None. Training strength without the coordination to use it properly is pointless, and a recipe for injury.

Citing scientific studies about ATP is retarded. Go to the gym, try both, see which one works better for you.

@mgittle

Really, the point of studying the science isn't about supporting your preferred methodology. It's about agreeing on best practice. I hope everyone keeps that in mind.



What I'm saying is that the conclusion that decreased ATP consumption is good for muscle growth is scientifically wrong. See my summary above. As a result, the program that they designed based on this false conclusion is flawed, and is not optimal training.

@mgittle

Can't see your link without a login, but I'd like to read it. I'll make an account later. Though I'm not sure how what you said directly after the link disproves the part of my article you quoted.



Well, the author you quoted states that:

1. increased ATP = increased metabolic stress
2. metabolic stress blocks mtor activity (*This point is wrong*)
3. increased mtor activity results in increased muscle gain.

He's basically saying increased ATP use results in decreased muscle gain, hence the rational for minimizing ATP use. However, this conclusion is incorrect since the literature shows that increased metabolic stress is actually GOOD for muscle gain.

"I'm not an expert, but I've always been told/read that tendons heal more slowly than muscle."



This is correct because your tendons do not have good blood flow compared to your muscles. I'm not sure that this also applies on a microscopic level that weightlifting may cause because I don't know how long it takes for your tendons to fully recover from specifically weightlifting induced wear and tear. Again, this plays into the whole overtraining thing. The key I guess is to avoid overtraining, and personally, I've never had any tendon problems as a result of doing 1 rep max lifting.

Can't see your link without a login, but I'd like to read it. I'll make an account later. Though I'm not sure how what you said directly after the link disproves the part of my article you quoted.

As for the tendon injury thing, it's not baseless at all. Maybe they didn't cite sources for every comment... I'm not an expert, but I've always been told/read that tendons heal more slowly than muscle. Slow lengthening contractions are easier on tendons and therefore training frequency is not affected the same way.

Also, just saying 1-rep max doesn't state what method you're using, specifically. It just states a rep frequency. If you're lifting and then letting the weight down slowly I suppose that could be good. If you're doing high-jerk stuff you're just wasting ATP.

@mgittle

I looked a bit into that article, and it seems to do a pretty poor interpretation of the science available. While the article cites papers to support the relation between mTor and muscle mass gain, as well as increased resistance and activation of mtor, there was no evidence cited for the following:

"On the other side of the equation, mTOR activity is blocked by metabolic stress. This means that we want to use as little muscular ATP (an energy yielding molecule used in muscle contraction) as possible when we are doing our resistance training."



This part just has no basis whatsoever and doesn't make sense.

In fact, if you look at the literature, the exact opposite is true:
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/506930
Increased metabolic stress is correlated with increased levels of growth hormone, epinephrine, and an increase in muscle cross sectional area.

Similarly, look at this quote from the article you linked:

"The highest absolute power is seen when performing fast lengthening contractions with a lot of weight (high jerk), or heavy plyometric exercises. This type of exercise is very effective in activating mTOR, but unfortunately can be very bad for tendon health, and as a result can lead to injuries."



The first part of this quote states exactly why 1 rep max is so effective. However, the second part of this, which quotes increased levels of tendon injury, is again completely baseless and unsourced.

I have by no means done a comprehensive analysis of the article you suggested, but it seems to me that it uses bits and pieces of science to come up with false conclusions to support the author's personal preferred exercise methodology. The evidence brought up by this article instead seems to support the theory that 1 rep max is an effective method of strength training.

>> ^mgittle:
I'm just saying, "don't believe the hype". Despite strength training being an extremely common activity among athletes for a couple decades, emerging science is still calling into question many common and popular training practices. The following article is perfect for answering your query. I would strongly suggest anyone interested in weight training read and understand the entire article, but especially the sections about maximizing mTOR and minimizing muscle ATP usage, as well as the section about program features and tendon health. Oh...and don't forget push-pull methodology!
http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/strength-training-over
loading-increase-muscle-mass-40882

If you're doing something and it's working for you without injury, by all means go for it. Lifting weights is way better than not lifting weights. But, if you're looking to maximize your time and energy, which is always a concern for any busy person or (especially) athletes, there's always more to learn.
As for safety, training with machines is obviously safer than free weights. Machines are also ideal equipment for following the article's recommendations. When using a machine, angles are much more controlled (though you still need good form of course) and it's nearly impossible to drop anything. Any athlete would be best served by using machines since they offer the smallest chance of injury. Free weights and Olympic-style training may look flashy, but it's not an optimal way to train and has high chance of injury. Also, athletes need to spend most of their energy and time learning skills for their sport. Getting strong doesn't really take that much time in comparison to skills training.


@mgittle
Hey thanks for the link. There is definitely a lot of hype in exercises methodology and any real data is always appreciated. I'll look more in depth into this when I have the time.