General fitness

Anyone using nootropics (fancy name for vitamins)? I've been supplementing with higher doses of vitamin D, a variety of amino acids and probiotics over the past months and my energy levels and mood are definitely increasing. Thinking of adding fish oil, L-Theanine, Creatine and Bacopa Monnieri. Should suffice for now.
 
Monkeyface said:
Anyone using nootropics (fancy name for vitamins)? I've been supplementing with higher doses of vitamin D, a variety of amino acids and probiotics over the past months and my energy levels and mood are definitely increasing. Thinking of adding fish oil, L-Theanine, Creatine and Bacopa Monnieri. Should suffice for now.
Click to expand...
Are you reading the nootropic Reddit?

What amounts of each vitamin are you dosing with?
 
Not lifting as hard as I used to, and have incorporated 30 min of cardio (either treadmill or elliptical) every other morning. It is getting hard to wear the clothes I won.
 
Rambo said:
Are you reading the nootropic Reddit?

What amounts of each vitamin are you dosing with?
Click to expand...

Yeah, 4000ui vitamin D, 4 amino acid pills that pretty much has all of them (amino 1500 it's called I think). One probiotics pill (think it has 15 strains). For the other stuff I'll just take whatever Reddit recommends.
 
When I remember to buy it and are in a good training period, I eat a probiotic in the morning + 2500 iu vitamin D and omega 3. Half an hour before bed, a mineral/zinc product*. The mineral/zinc product helps relax the muscles and a deeper sleep. I feel it works, but I am not bro science or religious about it - could be all placebo..

*D3,O3,M3 from Pure Pharma. I am sure you can find something similar if you want to try it out.
 
güero said:
Why don't you guys just eat right?
Click to expand...

Vitamin D is not in food. My blood work showed extremely low levels vitamin D. Fish has Mercury, fish oil doesn't. I've had to take antibiotics 4 times over the past year, so my stomach bacteria are pretty much destroyed, meaning probiotics and amino acids like L-glutamine are necessary to recover. The L-theanine, Creatine and Bacopa have no significant side effects and are somewhat beneficial, so why not take them?
 
Actually fat fish such as salmon has lots of Vitamin D, plus being outside helps for the larger part of the year. Though you are right, something like 90% of the population ist D deficient. I personally don't take anything that a doctor can't prescribe, because so far everything that was wrong could be fixed by changing eating habits. Mostly though because I'm a cheap fuck and don't want to pay for it.
 
Probiotics are good for iGents who can't leave their bubbles because their clothes might get soiled

More seriously, most people do not expose themselves to non-city environments and hence do not acquire the proper gut flora. Couple that with houses and buildings that are hermetically sealed and have scrubbed airflow

Eat some Keffir if you want to fit your gut flora back in shape

You gotta eat some dirt

Besides fatty fish, liver, cheese, and egg yolks are sources for vitamin D, as well as foods fortified with it like cereals, dairy
 
Thruth said:
Probiotics are good for iGents who can't leave their bubbles because their clothes might get soiled

More seriously, most people do not expose themselves to non-city environments and hence do not acquire the proper gut flora. Couple that with houses and buildings that are hermetically sealed and have scrubbed airflow

Eat some Keffir if you want to fit your gut flora back in shape

You gotta eat some dirt

Besides fatty fish, liver, cheese, and egg yolks are sources for vitamin D, as well as foods fortified with it like cereals, dairy
Click to expand...

So from just being in the woods my gut bacteria will change magically? Lol

Anyways, all this stuff is cheap. Not more £20/30 month combined. Same price as a drink or two at a bar.
 
Monkeyface said:
So from just being in the woods my gut bacteria will change magically? Lol

Anyways, all this stuff is cheap. Not more £20/30 month combined. Same price as a drink or two at a bar.
Click to expand...

Actually, yes. Longitudinal case-control and other studies have demonstrated deficiencies in gut flora diversity in urban populations because of where they live, the environmental effects of air in homes/offices and the fact that people do not spend much time anymore out in nature where they would come into contact with other bacteria. That is why there are so many sickly looking children who are allergic to everything. Same for adults.

Why do you think that bacteria-in-a-bottle is being sold?
 
To improve gut flora it is also possible to visit the next best generic Asian food joint, you know the ones with 500+ different dishes selling chinese/thai/indian at the same time. The cheaper and the more rancid the better! Go there once a week for a couple of weeks and you're all set.
 
Rambo said:
actually, yes. studies have proven that children raised indoors in completely sterile environments are much more prone to developing allergies.
Click to expand...

That's not what I meant. I was raised in the countryside, have been living in the city for only a few years now. Anyways, I meant will being in the woods actually help my stomach that's been destroyed by antibiotics? Highly doubt it
 
Monkeyface said:
That's not what I meant. I was raised in the countryside, have been living in the city for only a few years now. Anyways, I meant will being in the woods actually help my stomach that's been destroyed by antibiotics? Highly doubt it
Click to expand...

No. Was speaking in a broader sense. Taking the probiotics to jump start things is a good course of action. Just don't rely on them. Eating fermented foods is a useful course of action and better in the long run.
 
Monkeyface said:
That's not what I meant. I was raised in the countryside, have been living in the city for only a few years now. Anyways, I meant will being in the woods actually help my stomach that's been destroyed by antibiotics? Highly doubt it
Click to expand...
i think he was speaking in a broader sense. not in the "well if we go hiking this weekend I'll cure my IBS for sure!" sense.
 
Thruth said:
No. Was speaking in a broader sense. Taking the probiotics to jump start things is a good course of action. Just don't rely on them. Eating fermented foods is a useful course of action and better in the long run.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I sometimes go to Hampstead Heath or one of the other parks in London. It's nice to be surrounded by nature, but not always feasible.

I do eat fermented foods as well, and have miso soup or kefir every day. I usually have a salad or soup for lunch and some kind of full fat Freek yogurt and fruit for dinner, sometimes steak or fish or eggs. I prefer light dinners because I go to sleep 2-3 hours after dinner. I usually don't eat after 8pm or before 11am. For snacking I usually have dark chocolate 85% cacao, almonds, sunflower or pumpkin seeds.

Anyways, the best would of course be a lifestyle change, but that's not really possible if I want to continue this career. Seems like money and health are somewhat mutually exclusive.
 
Last edited:
Monkeyface said:
Anyways, the best would of course be a lifestyle change, but that's not really possible if I want to continue this career. Seems like money and health are somewhat mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...

Just like most "finance monkeys" you will one day wake up, think "wtf have I been wasting my life on" and proceed to become a happier and healthier person. ;)
 
güero said:
Just like most "finance monkeys" you will one day wake up, think "wtf have I been wasting my life on" and proceed to become a happier and healthier person. ;)
Click to expand...

Maybe, maybe not. By that time there will be little alternatives.
 
Has anybody here used the old-fashioned leather "strongman" wrist straps? I have been bothered by a touch of tendonopathy in my left wrist. Unfortunately, it has forced me to forsake sledgehammer training for the nonce, and I do miss this form of exercise. Otherwise it hasn't affected my training regimen adversely, e.g., the Indian clubs and kettlebells. Anyway, I ordered a pair of the these straps from Rogue Fitness yesterday, and I am hopeful that their use will enable me to resume the John Henry act soon.
 
Jan Libourel said:
Has anybody here used the old-fashioned leather "strongman" wrist straps? I have been bothered by a touch of tendonopathy in my left wrist. Unfortunately, it has forced me to forsake sledgehammer training for the nonce, and I do miss this form of exercise. Otherwise it hasn't affected my training regimen adversely, e.g., the Indian clubs and kettlebells. Anyway, I ordered a pair of the these straps from Rogue Fitness yesterday, and I am hopeful that their use will enable me to resume the John Henry act soon.
Click to expand...
i use wrist wraps but generally the neoprene/spandex/cotton type. never seen anyone working out in the leather ones, but if you're going for the full John Henry bit, its surely the right move to complete the ensemble.
 
Well, I got the leather wrists straps. Some of the reviewers had said they were too big, and indeed they were! Even buckled at the tightest setting, they were way too big. And I am not a delicately built man. I have a wrist circumference of 7 1/2 inches. As I remarked in my note returning these items, I had to wonder for whom they were made: King Kong? Andre the Giant? But they're both dead!
 
I just bought a pair of five-pound Indian clubs yesterday. This is quite a heavy weight for Indian clubs. I would definitely not recommend anything this heavy for someone just getting started with the clubs. I was pleased to find I could perform most, but not all, my customary swings with this weight.

My wrist has healed to the point where I have resumed pounding a tire with a sledgehammer. I use my 10-pound maul for the first two circuits, then my 16-pound sledgehammer for the final two. This I do on days when I don't swing the kettlebell.

The chap I bought the clubs from had a 70-pound kettlebell. I tried a few moves with it, and they were easier than I had anticipated. I may stick with my 1.5-pood (53 pound) kettlebell until early next year and then move all the way up to two poods (72 pounds). As I understand the history, the Russians, the great proponents of the kettlebell, traditionally only used them in three weights: one, 1.5 and two poods.
 
Need to work on some corrective things for a bit, and generally change things around.
Did some 1 pood and 18.5 kg dumbbell exercises today.

A1 KB swing
A2 KB goblet squat
A3 KB one arm press
B1 KB walking lunge
B2 DB one arm row
B3 DB bench press

Should be possible to go up to 1.5 pood within a few workouts. The dumbbell was a bit too light, but did not want to all out. Good thing as I am pretty toasted in the triceps a few hours later. Was fun.
Want to add som rounds of battlerope in the end as a finisher, and add more volume on the KB swings when I have horned in the technique. Some hang time would also be nice. Should perhaps change the walking lunge for a loaded carry with a set of heavier kettlebells.
 
güero said:
Actually fat fish such as salmon has lots of Vitamin D, plus being outside helps for the larger part of the year. Though you are right, something like 90% of the population ist D deficient. I personally don't take anything that a doctor can't prescribe, because so far everything that was wrong could be fixed by changing eating habits. Mostly though because I'm a cheap fuck and don't want to pay for it.
Click to expand...

Atlantic salmon is all farm-raised (bad for you), and wild Pacific is contaminated from Fukushima.

RIP salmon diet.
 
LelandJ said:
Atlantic salmon is all farm-raised (bad for you), and wild Pacific is contaminated from Fukushima.
Click to expand...

Because they never had nukes in the Pacific before Fuckoshima?? olo lol !!!1!1!

If you ate salmon in last 70 years you are fucked according to your theory - RIP LelandJ LelandJ .
 
prince nez said:
Because they never had nukes in the Pacific before Fuckoshima?? olo lol !!!1!1!

If you ate salmon in last 70 years you are fucked according to your theory - RIP LelandJ LelandJ .
Click to expand...

Pacific never had 10 million pounds of continuous uncontrolled fission/release into the ocean prior!
 
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.wir...ukushima-safe-fear-remains/amp/?client=safari


The enormous size of the Pacific dilutes radioactive isotopes until they’re harmless. In fact, only one percent of the radioactivity in the ocean comes from Fukushima, Steinhauser says. The rest? Cold War-era nuclear weapons tests. “Fukushima has not made a big impact on overall radioactivity, believe it or not,” he says.

The problem is, a lot of people still don’t believe it. “People are really afraid that the Pacific is so contaminated that you can’t eat any fish anymore,” Steinhauser says. “It’s not true, and I find it very difficult. This is one of the biggest challenges in my work.”


http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=83397&tid=3622&cid=94989


Are fish such as tuna that might have been exposed to radiation from Fukushima safe to eat?
Seawater everywhere contains many naturally occurring radionuclides, the most common being polonium-210. As a result, fish caught in the Pacific and elsewhere already have measurable, but small, quantities of these substances. Most fish do not migrate far from their spawning grounds, which is why some fisheries off Fukushima remain closed. But some species, such as the Pacific bluefin tuna, swim long distances and could pick up cesium in their feeding grounds off Japan before crossing the Pacific.

However, cesium is a salt like potassium, and it will begin to flush out of exposed fish soon after they enter waters with lower contamination from Fukushima. By the time tuna are caught in the eastern Pacific, cesium levels in their flesh are 10-20 times lower than when they were off Fukushima. A study published in 2012 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences(PNAS) reported finding very low levels of cesium in Pacific bluefin tuna caught by recreational fisherman off the coast of California in August 2011. The FDA reviewed this study and determined that the levels of cesium were roughly 300 times lower than levels that would prompt FDA to investigate further to determine if there were a health concern

Radioactive isotopes originating from the damaged Fukushima nuclear reactor in Japan following the earthquake and tsunami in March 2011 were found in resident marine animals and in migratory Pacific bluefin tuna (PBFT). Publication of this information resulted in a worldwide response that caused public anxiety and concern, although PBFT captured off California in August 2011 contained activity concentrations below those from naturally occurring radio- nuclides. To link the radioactivity to possible health impairments, we calculated doses, attributable to the Fukushima-derived and the naturally occurring radionuclides, to both the marine biota and human fish consumers. We showed that doses in all cases were dominated by the naturally occurring alpha-emitter 210Po and that Fukushima-derived doses were three to four orders of magnitude below 210Po-derived doses. Doses to marine biota were about two orders of magnitude below the lowest benchmark protection level proposed for ecosystems (10 μGy·h−1). The additional dose from Fukushima radionuclides to humans consuming tainted PBFT in the United States was calculated to be 0.9 and 4.7 μSv for average consumers and subsistence fishermen, respectively. Such doses are comparable to, or less than, the dose all humans routinely obtain from naturally occurring radionuclides in many food items, medical treatments, air travel, or other background sources. Although uncertainties remain regarding the assessment of cancer risk at low doses of ionizing radiation to humans, the dose received from PBFT consumption by subsistence fishermen can be estimated to result in two additional fatal cancer cases per 10,000,000 sim- ilarly exposed people.

http://m.pnas.org/content/110/26/10670.full.pdf

Radioactive isotopes originating from the damaged Fukushima nuclear reactor in Japan following the earthquake and tsunami in March 2011 were found in resident marine animals and in migratory Pacific bluefin tuna (PBFT). Publication of this information resulted in a worldwide response that caused public anxiety and concern, although PBFT captured off California in August 2011 contained activity concentrations below those from naturally occurring radio- nuclides. To link the radioactivity to possible health impairments, we calculated doses, attributable to the Fukushima-derived and the naturally occurring radionuclides, to both the marine biota and human fish consumers. We showed that doses in all cases were dominated by the naturally occurring alpha-emitter 210Po and that Fukushima-derived doses were three to four orders of magnitude below 210Po-derived doses. Doses to marine biota were about two orders of magnitude below the lowest benchmark protection level proposed for ecosystems (10 μGy·h−1). The additional dose from Fukushima radionuclides to humans consuming tainted PBFT in the United States was calculated to be 0.9 and 4.7 μSv for average consumers and subsistence fishermen, respectively. Such doses are comparable to, or less than, the dose all humans routinely obtain from naturally occurring radionuclides in many food items, medical treatments, air travel, or other background sources. Although uncertainties remain regarding the assessment of cancer risk at low doses of ionizing radiation to humans, the dose received from PBFT consumption by subsistence fishermen can be estimated to result in two additional fatal cancer cases per 10,000,000 sim- ilarly exposed people.

https://www.google.ca/amp/phys.org/news/2016-07-pacific-ocean-fukushima.amp?client=safari

Radiation levels across the Pacific Ocean are rapidly returning to normal five years after a meltdown at the Fukushima nuclear plant spewed gases and liquids into the sea, a study showed Monday
 
Thruth said:
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.wir...ukushima-safe-fear-remains/amp/?client=safari


The enormous size of the Pacific dilutes radioactive isotopes until they’re harmless. In fact, only one percent of the radioactivity in the ocean comes from Fukushima, Steinhauser says. The rest? Cold War-era nuclear weapons tests. “Fukushima has not made a big impact on overall radioactivity, believe it or not,” he says.

The problem is, a lot of people still don’t believe it. “People are really afraid that the Pacific is so contaminated that you can’t eat any fish anymore,” Steinhauser says. “It’s not true, and I find it very difficult. This is one of the biggest challenges in my work.”


http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=83397&tid=3622&cid=94989


Are fish such as tuna that might have been exposed to radiation from Fukushima safe to eat?
Seawater everywhere contains many naturally occurring radionuclides, the most common being polonium-210. As a result, fish caught in the Pacific and elsewhere already have measurable, but small, quantities of these substances. Most fish do not migrate far from their spawning grounds, which is why some fisheries off Fukushima remain closed. But some species, such as the Pacific bluefin tuna, swim long distances and could pick up cesium in their feeding grounds off Japan before crossing the Pacific.

However, cesium is a salt like potassium, and it will begin to flush out of exposed fish soon after they enter waters with lower contamination from Fukushima. By the time tuna are caught in the eastern Pacific, cesium levels in their flesh are 10-20 times lower than when they were off Fukushima. A study published in 2012 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences(PNAS) reported finding very low levels of cesium in Pacific bluefin tuna caught by recreational fisherman off the coast of California in August 2011. The FDA reviewed this study and determined that the levels of cesium were roughly 300 times lower than levels that would prompt FDA to investigate further to determine if there were a health concern

Radioactive isotopes originating from the damaged Fukushima nuclear reactor in Japan following the earthquake and tsunami in March 2011 were found in resident marine animals and in migratory Pacific bluefin tuna (PBFT). Publication of this information resulted in a worldwide response that caused public anxiety and concern, although PBFT captured off California in August 2011 contained activity concentrations below those from naturally occurring radio- nuclides. To link the radioactivity to possible health impairments, we calculated doses, attributable to the Fukushima-derived and the naturally occurring radionuclides, to both the marine biota and human fish consumers. We showed that doses in all cases were dominated by the naturally occurring alpha-emitter 210Po and that Fukushima-derived doses were three to four orders of magnitude below 210Po-derived doses. Doses to marine biota were about two orders of magnitude below the lowest benchmark protection level proposed for ecosystems (10 μGy·h−1). The additional dose from Fukushima radionuclides to humans consuming tainted PBFT in the United States was calculated to be 0.9 and 4.7 μSv for average consumers and subsistence fishermen, respectively. Such doses are comparable to, or less than, the dose all humans routinely obtain from naturally occurring radionuclides in many food items, medical treatments, air travel, or other background sources. Although uncertainties remain regarding the assessment of cancer risk at low doses of ionizing radiation to humans, the dose received from PBFT consumption by subsistence fishermen can be estimated to result in two additional fatal cancer cases per 10,000,000 sim- ilarly exposed people.

http://m.pnas.org/content/110/26/10670.full.pdf

Radioactive isotopes originating from the damaged Fukushima nuclear reactor in Japan following the earthquake and tsunami in March 2011 were found in resident marine animals and in migratory Pacific bluefin tuna (PBFT). Publication of this information resulted in a worldwide response that caused public anxiety and concern, although PBFT captured off California in August 2011 contained activity concentrations below those from naturally occurring radio- nuclides. To link the radioactivity to possible health impairments, we calculated doses, attributable to the Fukushima-derived and the naturally occurring radionuclides, to both the marine biota and human fish consumers. We showed that doses in all cases were dominated by the naturally occurring alpha-emitter 210Po and that Fukushima-derived doses were three to four orders of magnitude below 210Po-derived doses. Doses to marine biota were about two orders of magnitude below the lowest benchmark protection level proposed for ecosystems (10 μGy·h−1). The additional dose from Fukushima radionuclides to humans consuming tainted PBFT in the United States was calculated to be 0.9 and 4.7 μSv for average consumers and subsistence fishermen, respectively. Such doses are comparable to, or less than, the dose all humans routinely obtain from naturally occurring radionuclides in many food items, medical treatments, air travel, or other background sources. Although uncertainties remain regarding the assessment of cancer risk at low doses of ionizing radiation to humans, the dose received from PBFT consumption by subsistence fishermen can be estimated to result in two additional fatal cancer cases per 10,000,000 sim- ilarly exposed people.

https://www.google.ca/amp/phys.org/news/2016-07-pacific-ocean-fukushima.amp?client=safari

Radiation levels across the Pacific Ocean are rapidly returning to normal five years after a meltdown at the Fukushima nuclear plant spewed gases and liquids into the sea, a study showed Monday
Click to expand...
Please don't confuse the argument with your facts.
 
Thruth said:
I really have to stop reading these fringe science papers. Note to self: the truest articles are ones whose headlines end in "!"
Click to expand...
Or start with "this one weird tip..." / "what xx looks like now will leave you speechless"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom