Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
The answer to this is based on the fact that we probably exaggerated the benefit of taking omega 3 based things like fish or fish oil. The root of this stems from the fact that with rise in processed foods and vegetable oils we sky rocketed the amounted of omega 6 fatty acids in our diet. From a evolutionary standpoint we are supposed to have a 1:1 ratio. This created a knee jerk reaction of increasing omega 3s to balance out omega 6s.
We do this a lot in nutrition, we match excessively high amounts of something with increasing the counter. A good module for this would be Duality in our Nutrition course. We could potentially increase our omega 3 to match high levels of omega 6, or we could simply lower our omega 6 to begin with and see what happens.
Truth is that all polyunsaturated fatty acids (3, 6, 9) are molecular unstable and oxidize readily. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7517362/). We are exposing ourselves to problematic foods when we eat any excess polyunsaturated fatty acids. we need some, but abundance no. So the answer would be to lower all polyunsaturated fatty acids and getting to a normal ratio between omega 3 and 6.
If there is a risk of mercury in fish, it will not be an issue with eating fish 2-3x a week. The best defense to heavy metals is to reduce the amount in the body. If we spread out fish in take over the course of a week, we can get the necessary amount of omega 3s (along with being a good source of protein), without causing any damage to nervous tissue from mercury.
So this is a great question, it goes back to all Models are Wrong – but some are useful. The answer to this question is that Strength Deficit does not always fit perfectly.
There are parts that do though
1) Jump Profiling – is the ratio of CMJ:NCMJ what you want for basketball. My mind would be yes, Increasing the Deficit would be logical. But an argument would be to improve force output in general and cross sectional area/lean body mass.
2) I would say that a better case could be made for body types and exercise selection – narrow body types would be more eccentric/exhale focussed. This would lend its self to more parallel muscle fibers and pulling exercises like snatch/pullup/hinges. Where the pennate muscle fibers and pushing exercises harder to develop which would be key to developing lean muscle mass
– on that note it really comes down to creating as much tension within pennate muscle fibers while accommodating longer levers/muscle bellies. This is where machines are really handy with ectomorph/narrow ISA athletes. we can create more tension in a targeted muscle group while preventing leveraged athletes finding mechanical advantaged positions.So yes, biomotor wise I would look at it from a needs basis and focus on the exercise selection based on the extreme body types in basketball.
Does that help?
I think that is where you have to work with the coaches and the athletes. Its a matter of trust with everyone to execute on a bunch of things all at once. The important thing is to value how to execute on making something more relevant to the primary task of making them better at their sport.
Its just simple understanding the dynamics around the reasons why something is done the way it is.
We get so lost in what we want to do, we rarely ask why we do it in the first place. I get it is hard, and I am just as much a victim of this, but if we fail to consider the reason behind something we are no better than the person that institutes archaic methods.
Working from a common understanding is easily one of the most underrated skills someone can develop.
Thank you for this Corey, Its a hard conversation. I hope it did not come off as too much dream crusher. But also setting realistic boundaries for career options you can or even want to do.
Yeah its a tough thing to tease in and out of, on one end you have this knowledge of blood panel’s and how to best optimize on the other end you have to figure what is practical and explainable.
Good news is that we can sequester discounted lab pannels on realize now
Blood is great, but it can change pretty dramatically. My opinion on your question would be body comp>blood. My reason for that is its more of an outcome measure of what you are doing over a longer period of time, it is more accessible, and more within S&C scope.
Hope that they line up but for sakes of keeping it simple:
1 Bod Fat >12%, probably need to restrict overall carb intake
2a High Subscap – Lower Carbs
2b High Supeailliac – Lower High GLycemic Carbs
3a High Fasting Blood Glucose – Time post workout only
3b High Ha1C – Lower Carbs
3C High Oral Glucose – Lower High GlycemicSorry if that was confusing, reality is that this will probably line up, but in the event it does not go overall body fat, site specific, to blood. This is based on what we have more direct access to and what is primarily in our scope. if that makes sense
Case Study (C) for Nutrient Timing is up, went over Carbohydrate Tolerance and High Glycemic Indexed foods based on Goals/BodyFat/Regional Storage/Blood Markers
Went pretty deep, enjoy everyone!
If you had a chance to listen to A Nutrient Timing, I went pretty deep on some topics. This is not an easy thing to unpack, just like looking at there is no such thing as a lever in the body and its just fluids moving, nutrient timing is not a principle, but sun and dark are. Some books that really helped me come to this, lets say conclusion for now, were:
How good was Brijesh!
Exactly what we wanted to get at, triplanar movement trains fascia and functional anatomy more son than a quality. Looking at that, as its own thing that correlated to open environments is critical to success
Apologize for the delay on this, got the Interview with a Strength Coach up on Individuality Up! Got Joe Gilfedder, Director of S&C at Fordham up to discuss Individuality. Had a lot of gems, highly suggest listening to.
Have on youtube and will be up on Spotify/iTunes this week
