-
Posts
177 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by Adam Young
-
Hi Kenny, Glad you enjoyed. Yes, there is a lot in the book. I set it out with summaries at the end of each chapter so it makes it easier to dip in and out to remind yourself of the concepts. Patch- I like that idea. I first started blogging as a means of organizing my thoughts. A book was the extension of this. The book and concepts within were gained from my teaching experience, but I also found that they are supported by the scientific literature on motor learning. p.s. you wont find it on a shelf at the moment - it is only available through amazon
-
Phil, I have actually been at the same academies for almost 8 years now. My 8 month stint at Turnberry (poor me) was due to a visa issue. So I would rather you didn't make assumptions about my professional career in front of others whose opinions may be influenced. Abu - It's a pretty big book and covers many different topics, from How we learn How to practice for technical adjustments How to practice for skill development How to practice for performance How to transfer your game to the course Goal setting and quantifiable practice How to use statistics during practice to knock shots off your game How attention (where you place your focus) affects both learning and retention (as well as performance under pressure). How to schedule your practice effectively over the course of a day, week, month or even year (important for tournament players) And much more. I will be open and say that the book is not for everyone. If you are a 28 handicap looking for a quick fix, I would look elsewhere. However, although the book is not for everyone, everyone will get something of value out of the book. - Even if that means using it as a doorstop because you had a disagreement with the author 3 years ago
-
Hi guys, Just came across this. Feel free to ask any questions and I will try my best to answer them. And for those who are looking to Phil McGleno for an unbiased review - I wouldn't count on it. The guy has a personal vendetta against me (to each their own), hence the instant bashing of the book without any knowledge of its contents. Ernest - yes, the free Ebook is what it is (free) and aimed more towards less info-seeking golfers. The Practice Manual is a very different animal - more for the serious golfer who wants to know more in depth details about how to link the motor learning research to practical applications. Sinned said "Now reading the book I'm getting it.I'll practice with a different mindset now, one I should've been doing for the past year" That was the main goal of the book. I also wanted to look at skill development strategies as opposed to pure technical work. Skills are often As I said, I will be happy to answer any questions and offer more details Adam Young
-
Ok, I'm going to have a go - although I'm nervous as hell, so be gentle with me Erik :) When the golf club hits the golf ball, what's required for the ball to go up in the air? the contact point of the clubhead and ball must be below the equator of the ball relative to the angle of attack In a properly struck golf shot, what does the divot tell you? point of contact with the ground What primarily determines the starting direction of the golf ball? clubface Can you actually compress a golf ball? between clubface and turf - no. does the ball compress on the clubface? yes Why is it easier to curve a 4-iron than a sand wedge? I'm finding this very difficult to word, as I understand the higher lofted club actually have more curve if the lie angle is incorrect. I'm going with "because there is less loft on a 4 iron, so the spin axis is more easily tilted if the face/path combo is not matched" What makes a golf ball break? What I consider the easiest question, although will probably get this one wrong for that reason. - Gravity my alternative answer is Einstein's theory of general relativity (although go with my first one) How do you increase backspin on a shot? What has to actually happen? striking the ball first increases spin compared to someone who gets too much grass inbetween face and ball. Increase the speed of the clubhead and the spin rate will also increase further. Increase the difference between loft and angle of attack (spinloft) and (to a point) the spin will increase. Strike the ball from below the centre of mass of the clubhead and vertical gear effect will increase spin increase frictional coefficient of the clubface and spin will increase If you look at any PGA Tour range, almost everyone has a different style of grip, posture, alignment, etc. How are they fundamentals? they are not - they are just dogma At what point in the swing do the hands reach their lowest point? ooh, interesting. Different for everyone. There are simply too many variables and moving parts to define one universal point. You would also only be able to truly identify this with 3D and not with stills With a driver, why does hitting up actually make the ball go farther? Twofold It tends to produce a lower spinloft for maximal compression of the ball thus maximising energy transfer it produces an optimal trajectory through launch conditions caveat - hitting MORE up on the ball does not always produce more distance. There are optimal launch conditions for each clubhead speed
-
Golfing Machine says "Shame" on Jim McLean
Adam Young replied to mvmac's topic in Instruction and Playing Tips
Awesome stretch. What book is that. I loved the first page completely. as to McClean, I don't know what his marketing guys are telling him to do, but there are lots of other guys in the industry who are not happy with him about it. tut tut -
Fair enough. I have made a swing path change before and it wasnt easy, but the rewards are often big when (and if) the change is successful. There are many ways to change your path. The info MVmac and Iacas give will be good stuff to follow. I also experiment with a very instinctive approach to it - when I want my path more left I literally just rehearse and visualise the club swinging left through impact (plus whatever face angle I want to see) and keep adjusting the feeling until I find the flight I want. I do the same for a draw also. My advice to you is to start with small swings first, until you can learn to strike the ball nicely with the path you want - then just add speed. Don't be afraid to experiment with extremes also (too much in to out for example). I have done a lot of messing around with swing path, and now have the ability to vary it by as much as 90 degrees (45 left to 45 right) if needed. This makes it much easier to refine the path when you get down close to neutral, or where you want to be.
-
What type of shot should I play in this situation ?
Adam Young replied to bjoern2796's topic in Instruction and Playing Tips
then get on the range and hit 50 drives with a fade and 50 with a draw. Note down where the ball finishes in relation to your target. The one which has less balls to the right of your target (out of bound) - use this one on the course. you can learn a lo from this type of pattern finding in your own game. Work out an anti left shot, and an anti right shot - use them wisely. For me, anti left is the feeling of opening the face a little at address and feeling a hold off release. An anti right shot is when I feel the rotation of the clubhead through impact -
Quote: Originally Posted by mvmac So you're saying the weight shouldn't be forward at impact? Obviously you can get a positive AOA with the weight forward, it is actually preferred. you can also be well behind the ball at impact with a driver and have a lot of pressure on your front foot, even though the mass of your body is relatively neutral. This is how a lot of the guys bomb it. Why is having weight forward and positive AOA preferred with driver? Quote: Yes but remember, the feeling of closing the club face or rotating the forearms more will rotate the path more to the left. To an extent yes - but the amount of face closure will far outweigh the shift in path. It is just an option that I and all the guys I play with use as a tool. I know it needs to be used in the right hands, but so does eveything. A stronger grip can sometimes make someone slice it more - I think I remember Iacas saying this happens to him. For the majority of people, getting the clubface to close through impact is simple and effective. Not always the best fix though, I agree Quote: I'm just trying to give the best advice I can with the information provided. I don't like telling a slicer to close the face more when they probably already have the face aimed left at impact, dorsi flexed left wrist and elbows pulling apart (typical slicer). Sometimes a slicer gets rid of those wrist and elbow positions when they close the face effectively through impact, and sometimes they can change their swing direction more positive and still maintain those positions (which would cause a problem for low point, which would also have to be rectified). What is wrong with having a face aiming left at impact - that is how I hit my fade shots, and every tour pro who fades it does the same. Quote: Why would the swing direction still be to the left? I want to get it rightward or as close to a positive swing direction as possible. Oh, my mistake. I mis interpreted what you said as to just hit more downward on the ball to compensate for the (likely) left swing direction.- something which would lower the flight too much - whereas closing the face would not have as detrimental effect on trajectory (as I can demonstrate with my high fades)
-
Quote: Originally Posted by mvmac First question I want to ask is where is the ball starting? Most slicers start the ball left, so closing the club face is only going to start it more left. This is the point MV - we want him to start the ball more left so that his shot doesn't end up right of his target like it has been. As clubface is the most determinant factor of dierction, this would be the most efficient change. The clubface would also get more matched to the path - so there would be less curvature. Quote: I would recommend you work on your path, which is probably too far to the left. Why is the path too much across the ball? - Weight is not far enough forward at impact - Left wrist isn't flat at impact, meaning the left wrist is cupped with the club head overtaking the hands, path will be across the ball. Solid impact position would have the grip end forward of the club head. I agree that path change could be a long term solution, but the two are not mutually exclusive, they work in conjunction with each other. A higher handicap player would also tend to have more problem changing path without supervision from a coach - would you not agree? Why is the path too much across the ball? In most cases it is a reaction to the ball going right - instinctively a player will want to swing more left. Or, physical limitations can cause this to be the issue from the start - either way, a face change will deal with the psychological elements and overcome the physical (if that is the problem). It is rarely just a case of lack of education imo - but I do deal with players of different levels on the whole, so I respect your opinion. If a player has a predominant left path due to poor body action, putting more weight on the left will only shift path more right through d-plane effects. It will essentially produce a square path but with a left swing direction - it will also mean the player is hitting the ball too much on the downswing - not great for driver. Add to that the fact the face is going to be more open to the swing curve at this point, the ball will likely slice more - or become a block fade at best. players tend to lose their wrist position at impact due to the fact that their path is too left. This is their way of adding loft to the face to get some kind of flight on it. Maybe I didnt understand your suggestions - but I would suggest with a face change first - or if you are going to hit the path, go with changing the swing direction, not just manipulating the d-plane.
-
1 - understand what is happening. If your ball is slicing right, your clubface is aiming further right of you path at impact. To turn your slice into a fade (my recommended advice for you), find a way of closing the face more. I would try the following route, but it is pretty individual what would work or not. 1 - strengthen your grip. Close the face at address and grip it as normal. Then with your hands on the grip, rotate the club back to neutral - this will automatically set a stronger grip position for you 2 - add a bit of face rotation through impact. Rehearse in slow motion the act of the clubface closing (rotating) through impact. 3. Just shut the face at address a little and then grip it. Try to rehearse the clubface coming back to this position at impact (or more closed). The above advice doesn't address the swing path, but it will turn your slice into more of a manageable fade. Plenty of players played great golf like this - Paul Azinger was a very closed face fader, as was David Duval.
-
What type of shot should I play in this situation ?
Adam Young replied to bjoern2796's topic in Instruction and Playing Tips
How often do you go out of bounds when you hit your driver? you would probably (at your handicap) be better at hitting 150 yards off the tee, then another 150 up there, 40 yards to the green and get a 5, or potential 4 if your short game is good. With your handicap, you are probably hitting 20% out of bounds (costing you 4 shots every 10 times you play it). Even when you do hit the fairway, you are probably only taking advantage of it and par-ing the hole 40% of the time (max). Meaning, by playing the hole 10 times with a driver, you would shoot 10 over. By playing for bogey as I said, you would almost take out the risk of out of bounds, and maybe get a few pars from pitching it close, resulting in a lower score. The only real way to tell is to do the test yourself. Play the hole 5 or 10 times with each strategy, and you will see which one provides the best score. In fact, do this for every hole on your course -
What specifically has made you longer. It is doubtful that it is an increase in clubead speed, as the swing does not generally promote that (specifically over a more traditional model). As Iacas said, was it an improvement in ball/turf contact - or was it a better clubface/path relationship (did you stop slicing it for example).
-
Lustig is a quack with an agenda. He makes up a load of bull to fit his agenda, which doesnt even fit with the scientific evidence. Obesity is a result of overconsuming calories and not burning enough..... FULL STOP The average American consumes between 2700-3000 calories a day now compared with 30 years ago being more 2,200 - 2,500. Add to this more sedentary lifestyles and you have a recipe for obesity and its' related diseases. Carbs are only to blame if eating them causes an excess in calorie consumption or somehow lowers metabolic rate (which it doesnt - eating carbs actually raises leptin levels and raises metabolic rate). but again, this comes down to energy in vs energy out. And insulin doesn't cause obesity. Even if the role of insulin was to store carbs as fat (which it is not), it can't magic energy out of thin air. If my blood was injected with insulin and I ate only 1,000 calories a day, I would not gain weight. Even if all of that 1000 calories was instantly converted to fat, my body still burns 2000 caloires at some point - this comes from fat stores and so the net result is minus 1000. Again, this is not just an opinion that is more logical that this guys' argument, it is FACT backed up by several studies in controlled settings. here's one for shits and giggles http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19246357 Why do people want to completely ignore the laws of physics which are supported in diet trials and studies? Everyone is looking at this way too intricately. You are all looking at such small parts of the big picture - analyzing the omplex interactions between cells and insulin and ghrelin. WIDEN OUT YOUR VIEW, you will see that it only looks at one side. The real answer is much much simpler than all this boloney about how insulin and carbs makes us fat.
-
saevel, tis isnt aimed at you, but the both of you and the false theory of it all Quote: I don't think it matters, your body is going to store carbs the same way no matter what, so if you eat carbs at night, as long as you don't go over your glycogen limit at dinner, your not going to gain any weight, except water weight from storing more glycogen. Then overnight your just sleeping, which primarily burns all fat anyways due to the fact is such a low heart rate. I do agree eating carbs for breakfast is good if you are low, for me, i never had an issue with be groggy or not having energy in the morning due to low glycogen levels. Guys - this really misses the point completely. Whetehr you eat your food late at night or early in the day will not make a difference how you would imagine. Sure it makes logical sense that if you are eating late at night, you body is metabolically slower, therefore you will store more of those calories as fat. But it looks at the small part of the picture, the post prandial state. Let me put it this way. Guy one (lets call him guy A) eats his 2,000 caloires for breakfast. He is somehow magically efficient and doesnt store any of it as fat, and burns all of those calories away during the day. Guy two eats the 2000 calories at night. Uh oh, insulin spike and stores all of it as fat (not that this would happen anyway). But what you ahvent seen is, during the day he burned the same 2000 calories as guy A, WHICH CAME FROM FAT stores. Net gain in fat = same as guy A. Yes he technically gained more fat - but he also lost more too during his morning fast. This is the same to your point of glycogen - it doesn't make a difference. You are looking again at the short term - not the bigger picture. Even more to the point, taking in food late at night has been show in several studies to actually aid in FAT LOSS. the big hooha was because the people who ate late at night lost less weight. What wasnt mentioned was they maintained more lean mass but lost more fat mass. Put that in your pipe, smoke it, and ponder on the ramifications for your 'no carbs after 6pm' 80's style philosophy Quote: I will go after this, saturated fats are not bad for you. There has been many studies in the past 5 years showing that saturated fats don't cause heart failure, that inflamation causes heart failure. There has been no conclusive study to show that saturated fats are as evil as they are portrayed. I am not saying we should make them 100% our diet of fat. Fats from Olive Oil, nuts, and are conclusively more beneficial than saturated fats, but humans have been eating meats for a long long time, and saturated fats are apart of that. I personally just don't check, i don't eat hamburgers 24/7. but i am not afraid of cooking one up every other day. Or enjoying a steak or bacon when i want to. The only fat i worry about is Trans Fat, i just try to stay away from that as much as possible. Lots of the studies have shown that eating fat and even saturated fat does not increase MARKERS of poor health. But more research has shown that it can still create the diseases regardless of the markers present. Having low cholesterol is an indication, and only an indication, that you are healthy regarding heart disease. I am not against fat at all, I am just pointing this out. Also, most of these studies have been done whilst in a caloric deficit. It is the caloric deficit and not necessarily the type of food we are eating which create the health markers. Quote: Not sure on this one, i have heard about people who do marathons come out with less muscle. But i think the running once or twice a week, not for extreme distance is fine. But i also think its more about how we run now. We were never meant to run with supporting shoes, we were meant to run barefoot. Besides loosing muscle due to marathon running, i believe that shoes are what are causing people to have knee problems. I use to run with new balance shoes, i switched to Nike Free shoes, and i can just run a lot longer with no pain to my legs at all. It also strengthens my ankles and feet muscles to support the impact from running and walking, which is beneficial to a golf game. Want a stable golf swing, strengthen your ankles by balance and getting rid of supportive shoes. Yeah cardio cuts down the Mtor pathways (muscle building) and amps up AMPK pathways (catabolic for muscle). But in reality, it is probably negligible to overall muscle loss/gain unless youa re killing it for hours every week. Saevel is right about knee injuries. Plus most of the studies show youa re just as likely to have knee injuries regardless of whether you are running or not. Seems like you cant outrun your genetics/ageing. Quote: Originally Posted by saevel25 Its been a while since i researched weight lifting, i know there are some myths involved with reps, but i can't remember. I do know there was a study done showing that outside the first set you do, your not gaining any significant gains. So really if you know your weight and reps, just do one set, anything after that isn't significant to muscle growth. You basically stressed your muscles enough in the first set for what session. Simply not true. These studies are ones done on newbies who can basically look at a weight and gain muscle. If you ave anything more than 1 year training experience, one set is not going to stimulate musclee growth. However, it can be an efefctive way to maintain muscle whilst on a caloire deficit.. Although, again, slightly higher volume is going to be more necessary for advanced trainees/people not on drugs.
-
the bodybuilder example was extreme, but relevant. A lot of people (not you for some reason) experience this supercompensatory effect when binging on carbs after a low carb diet. They then see the scale go up a few pounds and go off track. In reality, it is possible to gain quite a few pounds and not gain any physical fat - so people shouldnt worry so much about this. People need to be educated on the diff between glycogen and fat loss. regarding overweight people - they usually have just as big, if not bigger capacity to lose water weight. Watch 'The biggest loser' and see that some of them lose 20lbs in the first week (i think i have even seen more). There is no way they are burning over 72,000 calories in that time. Regardless, people shouldn't weigh themselves too often as it can fluctuate so much. the only reason I get so uppity about this is that so many people go on tese crazy diets cutting out many things unnecessarily, then after a couple of weeks they have had it - think dieting is not for them and then give up. If they realised there was a more appropriate approach to dieting, they would never feel the need to actually diet as such. If you ever get chance, research intermittent fasting, (eat stop eat is a good start, followed by leangains) and IIFYM (if it fits your macros). These are much more flexible approaches to dieting and are very scientific in their approach. Even if you dont apply any of the principles, it is fascinating stuff. Alan Aragon is also an excellent writer on this stuff and debunks a lot of myths surrounding alarmism on cabophobia/fructophobia etc. My personal plan includes fasting one day a week - then dispersing those carbs throughout the other weekdays when i am training. I alternate calorie days in a cyclical fashion too. It is not necessary in terms of weight loss, but allows me to build muscle better. It also allows me bigger meals - which I love as I have an insanely huge appetite. I can sometimes eat 3,000 calories in one sitting. But since I have been following these principles, I have seen fat levels drop and muscle levels increase and blood work is better also (went a little funny when I got down to 6%, so I have gained back up to 9 now and they read better).
-
and regarding the fructose thing. This guy explains it better than I could, - fructose is not my area i'm afraid http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/
-
Quote: I have researched and found no sources on the fact that low glycogen levels cause muscle loss. It causes muscle fatigue faster, probably due to the fact that glycogen holds water, but nothing concerning directly related to muscle loss. It has been shown that glycogen is needed by muscles to help them maintain there function. But a low carb diet ISN'T a NO CARB diet. I will try to find the couple of studies that I saw. They looked at low carb versus normal carb and found that, although weight loss was even, the low carbers lost more lean mass. Fair enough that low carb is not NO carb - but the amount or types of carbs ingested is irrelevant to weight loss. Quote: In fact i say that its a lack of protein that most people suffer from than a lack of carbs. agreed, people should eat more protein in general. although, once protein requirements are met (this is generally pretty low, - a 180 pound male consuming 1 gram per pound of body weight would be consuming 720 caloires out of a typical 2,500 daily need). The rest of the calories can be allotted as wished, as long as basics fat intakes for health and hormonal balance are met. Quote: Sugar does not cause Type 1 diabetes, that is Genetic Type 2 diabetes is caused by sugar, because its caused by insulin resistance, which is partly genetic, but also caused by the fact that if you keep spiking your sugar levels over and over again your body will adapt to it and start pumping out more and more insulin when its not needed. Insulin resistance is much more complicated than to say it is purely a result of spikes caused by sugar. As I ahve said, When eaten with fat/protein, te digestion rate of sugar is dramatically slowed down and so are the insulin spikes. Most of the studies looking at insulin spikes are out of context as they are usually done in a fasted state with the carbohydrate in its pure form alone. In real world, we don't eat things like this. The insulinemic index of a food is dramatically altered by the foods it is eaten with. A couple of spoons of sugar mixed in with peanut butter will in no way spike insulin as much as alone. Eaten after a high protein meal - less again. Eaten post workout - less again. Eaten after a day of low calories - less again (due to increased insulin sensitivity and lower liver glycogen stores). As with everything, sugar has to be taken into context in terms of diabetes. Lots of factors alter the amount of insulin released. The type of carb is one of the smaller factors in the real world. Quote: Also sugar damages the liver similar to alcohol. My friend lost his aunt to liver failure because she drank an excessive amount of pop (soda), and the HFCS caused her liver to fail. Sugar is only different from HFCS in the fact taht HFCS has 55% fructose instead of 50% Almost everything in high amounts is toxic. but we have to talk context. I am not going to stop using sugar in my oatmeal because I am worried about getting a fatty liver - I use sugar wisely not guzzling it by the kilogram. Liver stress can also result from over consumption of protein - as the liver has to convert excess protein to sugar via gluconeogenesis. Inuits who have a predominantly protein based diet have larger livers to be able to deal with this. but in terms of weight loss, again, calories are key, not what form they are in. Yes, consuming huge amounts of fructose can be harmful to health, but usually when dieting and filling your protein quota, you are not going to be eating that amount of HFCS from a purely caloric standpoint. Quote: Also, Carbs are not filling, i eat 4 eggs for breakfast, i can go till lunch and not be hungry. I use to eat oatmeal every morning, i was starving in two hours. Protein and fat sedate hunger, which will cause you to eat less. Carbs don't do that. Again, studies have shown that yes, protein is more satiating. But cutting carbs vastly reduces its ability to be so satiating. That's why the studies showing different diets with different macronutirents showed lower adherence rates low carb diets. Quote: That's not true, even though eating 10 candy bars might equal the same calorie intake, lets say you ate a large amount of veggies. But the nutritional value of the veggies are so much greater. Calories are not just calories, even though the weight loss might be the same. Weight loss isn't everything. They even proven this that if two people weight the same and one worked out, the percentage of heart failure is much less for the person who works out. I would say that a person who eats fast food every day, compared to someone who ate fresh foods would be far worse off even if they are having the same energy different in trying to loose weight. you are correct that vegetables will come with many other nutrients. However, the argument was not what produces optimum health, but what produces weight loss. But if we are talking about optimum health, there can be not a lot of things more nutritious than some grains which are a veritable smorgasboard of minerals and fiber. Many vegetables are not as nutrient dense as you would imagine. I am all for getting your vitamins and minerals in, and fiber intake. Carbohydrates can be an effective way of supplying that. Quote: But i don't get your water weight loss. If you loose 15 lbs of water, thats 6795 grams of water, glycogen can hold roughly 3 grams of water per gram, which means the body would have to hold 2265 grams of glycogen, that is not possible. I read the body ranges any were from 400 to 600 grams of glycogen. Especially on a low carb diet, once you deplete the glycogen you only regain the amount the liver will hold (50-70 grams), which it produces in house. Really the max water weight you can loose is roughly around 5 lbs of water weight. Once you loose it, your not going to cummulative keep loosing that amount, its a static amount, you might bounce up a few lbs the next day from intake of carbs, but the rest should be fat loss, or water depletion from another source. http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/56/1/292S.full.pdf+html click link and read page 293 S - claims how glycogen in body can be as much as 1kg - in overwieght subjects it has even been shown to be higher as fat cells can store glycogen in some circumstances too. Add to this the effect of glycogen supercompensation and it can be realistic to lose even more water weight. I have seen bodybuilders gain 15 pounds in a day after a show - an then lose that weight again for another show a couple of weeks later. There is no way this is fat loss. Quote: Why would you say low carb isn't good for you, i've read countless word of mouth recounts of people going to a low carb diet and have many health issues solved, there energy levels are higher, they are healthier and living a better life. Most of these people have been doing this for multiple years. It seems to me, first hand accounts of people having a better life and no adverse health effects is pretty strong reason to give it a try. Most cases a lot of the ailments people were having were cured going to a low carb diet. Ok it was a bit of a far stretch to say they are not good for you. But many low carbers suffer nutrient deficiencies with certain minerals. It does work for some people as they deal better with ketogenesis, as it does for you. Others, like myself, operate better with higher levels of carbohydrates. I suppose the message I am getting across is not that I am anti low carb, but I am anti 'anti carb'. Lots of people don't realise that things can be taken out of context regarding carbohydrates, leading to people completely cutting out any form of sugar or tryign to manically reduce carsb when it is not really necessary. It is possible to lose just as much weight with carbohydrates. Low carb works too. But people should be more concerned with their calories overall and finding a method that is sustainable for them. All this bull about sugar, clean foods and dirty foods, paleo makes people more neurotic about food than ever. Gary Taubes is one of the worst for this - completely taking studies and drawing conclusions from them that are simply not true, just so it can fit his agenda. hopefully from this debate, I will not have convinced you that your way doesnt work (it does) but that you shouldnt be frightened to add a few more carbs every now and again. Hell, if you're worried, add them post workout, as your insulin sensistivity in you skeletal muscle will be increased so it will have preferential partitioning. Just don't cut out foods you love and punish yourself to maintain your weight. If you enjoy how you eat, go ahead. But I enjoy eating a massive bowl of sugar covered porridge late at night after my workout. As long as I hit my protein, fat and fiber and vits and minerals for the day, I'm laughing. I speak form experience. I was once a neurotic mess, eating every 2-3 hours to keep blood sugar levels steady and stop my body from being catabolic. I ate only clean foods and low glycemic carbs. but I was miserable. I did my research, looked into other guys who were achievieng results with similar strategies and scientific approaches and now I have a way that is flexible and healthy. I often go without breakfast, eat late at night, have high carb days, and low meal frequencies with Large meal sizes. everything wrong by the standards of Men's health magazine and the supplement companies will have you believe. But I got down to 6% fat last summer and maintained more muscle than through any other apporach (and I have tried many). And I didnt feel as hungry and didnt have to cut anything out of my diet (I was still sensible and didnt pig out every day). Just watch that Taubes guy and the other nut, that fructose guy. They are a little loopy and have agenda's
-
Quote: Body burns fat depending on how much Oxygen is in the blood stream. Basically lower the heart rate, more fat is burned, higher the heart rate the more Glycogen is burned, because Fat needs Oxygen to burn. You have misunderstood the image.The body burns a larger % of fat at lower heart rates, not a larger amount of fat. % and total energy burned are two different things. If I exercise 1000 calories away in 1 hour at a rate that burns 50% fat and 50% glycogen, that's 500 calories out of fat stores. If I exercise at a more intense rate and burn 2,000 calories in that same hour, but at 33% fat 66% glycogen, I have effectively burned 666 calories of fat. In either case, it doesn't matter as total calories burned is still king here. when you exercise, calories have to come from somewhere - fat stores, muscle glycogen or food that we are digesting. If we just take your example of limiting it to fat an glycogen - even if i burned less fat during a workout and more glycogen, that glycogen has to be replenished at some point. This comes from the food we digest - so it gets favourably partitioned towards muscle cells and so less of it is stored as fat. As an example, say we make it more even in your favour (which it isn't but just to prove a point) even if both exercisers burned 1000 caloires and one burned 100% from fat, the other burned 100% from glycogen stores. The meal postworkout (whether this be immediately, or within the next week) of 1,000 caloiries will be partitioned into either glycogen stores or fat stores. Our 100% fat guy has full glycogen so.... oooh no, the food cant go in the muscles as they are already full. Ok then, it puts it into fat stores. On the other hand, our 100% glycogen guy who lost NO FAT but now has a 1000 calorie space in his muscles - the food gets stored there and voila.... nothing stored as fat. The efefctive same thing has happened, even thoguh one guy burned more fat during exercise now this is an illustrative example taking extremes, but it still functions like this in the real world. Scientific studies have proven this over and over , yet people still want to hang on to this old 80's way of false thinking that you burn more fat by doing cardio. In fact - weight lifting not only burns a higher amount of total caloires during the exercise, but it also creates an afterburn - metabolic arise, for up to 72 hours later. Total caloric expenditure is much greater over the course of a week. The graph you showed only looks at caloric % expenditure over the course of the duration of exercise - an incorrect ay of looking at it. not that cardio doesn't work - it does, it is just inefficient. It also opens up catabolic pathways which could potentially lead to more muscle loss than the same fat loss through a weight training protocol. Quote: Also its not as simple as taking in and taking out. Metabolic rates have a huge key to play. Its also why its hard to tell actually how many calories we burn in a day. I personally have a very good Vo2 and heart rate. My standing heart rate is very low, it can get into the low to mid 60's. Yet i am about 21%-23% body fat. It takes forever for my heart rate to get going when i run. i could do 5 all out sprints for a minute each and still not struggle to catch my breath. Someone could be the same weight and couldn't be in shape as i am. So, it hard to go through general rules of thumb on this. I am very healthy, but not by looks. So the numbers can lie there are a lot of things going on. That's why going by what machines say you burn is tough to go by. It is almost as simple as this. Trust me, When you look in depth enough at all this stuff, and you research insulin, you research glycogen, you research leptin, ghrelin, thyroid, high/low glycemic indexes, etc etc etc you actually realise that it IS THIS SIMPLE. people like Taubes like to try and make it out to be more complex, but they are tryingt o sell you an idea and a reason which doesn't exist. If taubes was right (a calorie is not a caloir) why the hell are the Inuits so overweight with their low carb % but the Japanese are largely diabetic free and skinny with their high % of carb intake. It comes down tot he difference in total caloric intake/expenidture Quote: I agree if your exercising a lot carbs have been shown to help in repairing the muscles. But its not as much as you think, maybe about 10-20 grams of carbs after you exercise is all you need. The best source would be maybe a protein shake made from fresh fruits. im not talking solely about repairing muscles, I am talking about glycogen replenishment also - which will not happen by solely taking in protein and fat. Muscles need to have teir glycogen replenished so they can work hard next time. If the stores dont get replenished over a long time, the muscle gets eaten away. so not only is it important short term (as you stated) but long term it is vital to maintain training capacity/intensity - a prime determinant of how much lean body mass you maintain during your dieting. Quote: But not everything is as simple as calories. What you eat MATTERS!!! If you have read any of the books coming out about Carbs, its not that simple. Especially if you think all carbs are the same, there not. They are the same in energy expenditure, yes they are, but on other functions in the body, no there not. Especially when talking about sugar. Sugar, when it enter's your body, it forces your body to produce insulin, to maintain a blood sugar balance. This is known, but it puts the body into over drive (sugar high/crash). If you keep doing this over time, you will develop a resistance to sugar, meaning you wont get the high/low as before. I have experienced this being a pop drinking for 20+ years then stopping then having a can of pop again. I was totally wired and then crashed. But 5 years ago one pop wouldn't effect me like that. Its because i was insulin resistant, meaning that my body overproduced insulin. This has a nasty side effect, insulin regulates how much fat is being stored in our body. More insulin, means more fat will be stored, beyond energy expenditure. Also a nasty side effect with sugar is that it release pleasure hormones from the brain and will cause us to crave it. Anyone who has tried to kick sugar, will get this, you start thinking about a candy bar or pop, your brain will tell you, that is some good stuff, and you have to really try not to eat it. This creates a nasty cycle that has lead to a rise is obesity and type 2 diabetes, as well as other host of diseases and health problems. What you eat does matter - and you should look to getting the right amount of vitamins, minerals, fiber etc in your diet. But carbs are a great way of doing that. Going anti carb will often leave you more deficient in things which come from grains and the like. But in terms of energy expenditure - it generally doenst matter if they come in the form of sugar, fructose or starch to a large extent (i understand the fructose debate, but it is too largely overrated). again, people who rave about how insulin causes fat gain are looking at such a small part of the picture. If I injected your blood so it was 100% insulin but fed you nothing, you wouldn't gain fat. the body can't magic energy out of thin air. yes, the sugar high/crash is a phenomenon, but it has nothign to do with weight/fat gain. It may lead you to low energy, but tis not gonna make you put on weight. Plus, when sugar is taken with other things it dilutes the effect. White bread will spike blood sugar, white bread with peanut butter will do so less as the fat slows digestion down. Plus, we are talking about context. 1,000 calories of veg is going to send insulin levels higher than a spoon of sugar. And sugar does not cause diabetes. Genetics and being overweight are the main contributing factors. Quote: So if i had to rank carbs, i would eat veggies first, then sweet potato, then potato, then brown rice, then rice, then pasta, then bread, NO SUGAR I like your food choices, apart from the no sugar part. I love to put honey on my oatmeal, or have a couple of spoons of sugar. I sometimes do this right before I go to bed - maintained below 10% fat for over 3 years now, and dieted down to this level using these tactics. But its not just about me. Surwit et al found no diff in weight loss when groups were fed equicaloric amounts of high sugar/low sugar diets. And a meta analysis of all the different diets found no diff in weight loss wehn calories were controlled. high protein/high fat/high carb didnt matter. Low carb performed better first, but then everything else caught up - low carb just promotes water loss initially from all the muscle glycogen stored being dpeleted. This also then promotes more musc'e loss. The main thing to note about all the diets was the drop out rate. Anytime a macronutrient was cut out (carbs/fat/protein) adherence rates droped. The best diet was a balanced one which focused purely on calories - as it allowed people to eat what they wanted. Quote: Originally Posted by saevel25 Believe me, i tried it all. I've done the crash diet for 6 months, 500 calories a day. I lost 40 lbs, then i was stuck there for 2 years. I was eating 50% carbs, and split on fat and protein. I ran 3 times a week and lifted weights the other two days. I was eating less than what i was working out, DID NOT LOOSE WEIGHT. Then i stopped drinking pop, and i started going low carb, and i dropped 30 lbs to were i am at now, 200 lbs. My diet is about 15% carbs, 40% fat, and 55% protein, roughly. I feel great, i am not bloated anymore, i just kept loosing weight. Guess what, i am eating the same calorie expenditure as i was when i was stuck at 230. So let me ask you, explain that please? Gladly, If you crash dieted to 500 calories a day its likely you completely runined your metabolism drop. Metabolic crashes are real - although it takes a SUSTAINED low calorie to do it. It is more likley that upping your protein caused the weight loss, as protein has a slight metabolic advantage (20%) - although that deals with calories out side so it is still a matter of calories in vs out. Also, going low carb will always see a great initial weight loss from glycogen stores. It is not uncommon to see a bigger person have the ability to lose 15 pounds in a week by going low carb, but this is fake weight loss - not true fat loss. It would be almost physiclaly impossible to lose this amount of fat in such a short time. People get hooked on low carb for this initial massive wieght loss. but they, too, then suffer with an inevitable decline in weight loss. Plus it's not good for your health. Plus it is likely you weren't tracking calories correctly - people are renowned poor at doing this. All studies show that when calories are closely moniotored it doenst make a diff to weight loss. Maybe youa re a physics anomoly, but I would prefer to take the word of scientific controlled studies over a person, especially when the logic doenst fit and my own experiences and experiences of other I know contradict this. Congrats on losing weight though.
-
Even if it were true that the body burns carbs before it burns fat, it still wouldn't make a difference at the end of the day. you are looking at it only from the point of burning, whereas total fat gain is a result of how much is burned and gained. Just because you are spending lots of money doesn't not make you poor. You could have a lot of money going in. It is true that if you are not eating carbs your body will be burning fat. But if you are not eating carbohydrates, what re you eating? Fats and protein. Fats will get stored as fat by a very direct method, and protein will also get stored as fat if you eat more than your body is burning. For example, if I burn 2000 calories in a day but eat 3,000. If all of that came in the form of carbohydrates, the body would use 2,000 of those ingested carbs as fuel (therefore they wouldnt get stored as fat) and I would store the remaining 1,000 in the form of fat. The same person eating their 3,000 calories in the form of fat, they may burn 2,000 calories of fat, but they would also store 3,000 calories. Net result - 1,000 calorie gain in fat. If the same person ate 3,000 in the form of protein, again some of it would be burned as fuel (perhaps 1000 cals of the protein used, 1000 claories from fat stores), the rest would be stored as fat. Net gain = 1000 calories. IT IS THE SAME RESULT EITHER WAY. Now protein does have some slight thermogenic effects and some of it goes to muscle maintenance. But we are talking about low carb, not low protein. I do advocate high protein in the diet, but once proetin requirements are met, there is no advanatge to cutting out carbohydrates. I am even taking extreme examples here of purely taking all your energy in one form. In reality that doesn't happen, which further goes for my argument. Anyway, all this is going on the premise that the body only uses fat when there are no carbs present. This is not true. Fat loss does not just switch off when carbs are present, it's a sliding scale. In a human body it is not a case of black and white - fat is being broken down and stored all the time. It is the balance between the two which creates weight gain or weight loss. Weight gain/loss has and always will be a case of energy in vs energy out to the largest extent
-
Low carb diets are totally unnecessary. Carbohydrates can really help in maintenance of muscle in the long term and have no effect on fat loss when calories are kept the same. High protein is always a good idea, but low carb - why why why. Next you'll be telling me I'll get fat if I eat carbs after 6pm
-
Keep doing what you're doing, good on you. Keep doing the training and try walking some rounds also - a round of golf with a bag on your back can burn upwards of 1,000 calories. Regarding diet - just watch your calorie intake - this is the primary determinant of long term weight loss. Nuts are good for you, but also high in calories, so you may want to taper them off a little. 100 grams of nuts can be 550 calories - after a few months, you metabolism will slow down to match what you are eating and doing, hopefully byt hen you will be your ideal weight. But if not, you could try some more advanced strategies. I fast once a week (not a complete fast). Also, I cycle calories up and down, combining my high calorie days with my exercise days. I managed to get down to 6% bodyfat last year preparing for a fitness event - without cutting sugars, fats etc Good luck
-
Why do I hit my Irons so high and short?
Adam Young replied to Tyler2234's topic in Instruction and Playing Tips
there isn't now - but that is McClean's revised version. When he originally came out with the theory, he talked more about resisting in the backswing to create coil in the core or elastic energy. This got a load of pro's teaching everyone to coil up in the backswing and resist with the hips. Trust me, I was exposed to that teaching as a player and it took a bit of time to get away from it and get my hips moving naturally once more. McClean revised his ideas more recently regarding the x factor, and as far as I am aware, it is more sound now. Still don't think it should get 'taught' though -
Sorry Erik, Think you mis understood my intentions. I was just asking a question about your original quote regarding weight at the top - asking if it was transition or before. Then I went on to just simply talk about having the same pressure rating at impact with differing methods, and recommending a drill for obtaining a posting method as opposed to a lunging method (what some people do, nothing to do with anything you said or did not say).
-
ok, one last attempt ;) the two pictures you posted are of very different body positions post impact - I would consider the right picture the more stacked position (even though he still has secondary axis tilt, or however you word it) and the left picture the more tug of war picture. Both could be producing the same amount of relative force under the left foot - and as you rightly said, some amateurs can produce pressure in the left foot equal to the same amount yet in a completely different manner (although with a steady head - one of your keys) it is more likely to be through correct means. Regardless, I like a drill where you hit the ball and then immediately re-coil back to the top of your backswing as fast as you can. you can even make swings where you just swing back and through and back again (over and over) as fast as you can. This forces you to move your weight correctly and to 'post up' better as opposed to lunging forward to create the weight shift. With the correct posting, you will be able to keep you balance and have no problem re-coiling. Putting this on a force plate produces good amounts of pressure shift without over-doing the weight movement (much tighter coils and movement, much more snap at the bottom, much more aggressive transitions in terms of change of direction (as opposed to flinging of body parts))