Awesome !

"atriage" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 06/10/2012 21:30, thirty-six wrote:
On 6 Oct, 19:46, "Free wrote:
wrote in message

o.uk...









On 06/10/2012 12:10, Davey Crockett wrote:
atriage a crit profondement:

| On 05/10/2012 22:55, Free Willy wrote:
| wrote in message
|
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/12...00-kilometre-a...
|

| I'm 65 and I can average 21 mph over 100 kilos.
|
| Well whoopy-doo I'm the same age and can do that too, I can also go up
| 8% gradients at much the same speed as 24 year old club cyclists. I
| know of other guys my age who are faster than me, however I don't know
| of a single 100 year old in the UK or USA who can get on a bicycle and
| ride it for 4 hours at *any* speed.

Davey was reasonably competitive until 65 too and held a pro license
until he was 45 and a few years ago finished well placed in the Worlds
(Masters - age segmented)

And a few years later, it's all downhill. The ambition is still there,
but the loss of muscle and bone mass, even with illegal drugs which
Davey didn't practice for 40 years now and mega Calcium intake, will
limit your performance. As will diminished lung capacity and realistic
heart-rate upper limits.

Last year I tackled a sportif in Italy. I'd done the same or similar
course several times and knew what to expect. Official Start in Cuneo,
real start in Vinadio then the Lombardy, Bonnette and Maddlelena (Col de
Larche in Froggyspeak) and it was really tough going on the Lombardy
which in reality isn't too bad, but I damn near died on the Bonnette -
it's not the ascent proper that gets you, it's that punishing loop
around the top of the mountain, even when you know it's coming and many
don't. Davey almost looked for the voiture balai at that point but
thought better of it since he's never ever put his foot down and said
"enough", and took it real easy in the crawler on the Maddelena, wishing
he'd had the brains to install a third clanger.

BUT doing something like that at 100? Add that one to the "Exploits of
the SuperFlahut" and get wassisname, that guy that plagiarizes or
rewrites just about everything he's ever cranked out - Fotheringham or
something - to publish it.

Yeah, as you say the lungs and the heart get you, going up super steep
stuff
20% my legs are OK but I have real problems sucking enough air in to
supply
them, that 'nearly dying' feeling is magic isn't it?

The lungs don't atrophy much provided the rib cage is still capable of
maximum
expansion.

We old farts need to do 'special' exercises to keep our lungs in shape. My
technique involves blowing up big, stiff balloons. I hear some of the
younger
pros expand their lungs by using something like a SCUBA regulator adjusted
so
it will actually lightly pressurize and expand the lungs. As the lungs
expand
so does the rib cage stay flexible. Also the diaphragm needs to have ROOM
to
expand down into the body cavity so there should be little or no fat on
the
body, inside or out. BMI needs to be on the lower side of the normal
range.

Which means lay off protein foods and eat more fruit.


As for losing bone calcium that's a matter of plenty of vitamin D. Blood

Loss of bone calcium to the muscle tissue is due to acidosis. Slow
down, stop eating proteins Eat more fruit and cooked greens.

should be tested so your level is around 50-55 (Most American have
chronically
low levels of vitamin D). Also some calcium supplements might be
indicated.

Eat cooked greens.

Also, some impact exercising needs to be done as impacting the bones
causes
them to add calcium.

Or is it load-bearing exercise or weights aid lymph pumping from
exercising fatigued muscle so moving acid deposits (minerals) into the
bowel (as long as one is eating fruit and not meat) and the
parathyroid hormone puts the calcium back where it belongs. Calcium
blocks the transport of stools unless fruit is consumed which
dissolves it for absorption directly into the lymphatics and the acid
released is then evacuated.

I'm not medically trained so all the money grabbing butchers and drug-
pushers can shoot me down and speak bollox, as that is what they do
beat.

I'll still say eat fruit not protein for exercise.

Cycling is poor impact exercise. Another thing every
serious senior cyclist should be taking daily is about 400mg of Co-Q10 and
about 400mg of vitamin E and about a thousand mg of DHA and EPA (fish
oil). A
couple thousand mg of good ole Vitamin C is also very helpful. These
anti-oxidants are highly necessary for senior athletes who wish to remain
competitive.

Or just eat fruit and get ALL the micro-nutrients. Remember that
vegetation also works with cells and ducts, just like man.

Then there's the old natural hematocrit count. Mine stays naturally around
45-46 percent so I don't need to do any blood doping like many pros used
to
get caught doing. In individual time trials I can run my heart on the
finish
line leg at 95-100% of max (my max HR is 170 bpm). I don't go anaerobic
until
about 95%, btw.


Do your eyes pop?

My lungs are very large and efficient. I never feel like I'm
out of air. I can inflate a swimming pool, single-wide air mattress in
12-13
breaths. I think my lungs have about half again as much capacity as the
average man. My limitation seems to be my legs, not my heart and lungs. At
max

Lymph flow.

heart/lung rate my legs just reach a point where they don't produce any
more
power. I've even trained them to use the burn when I feel the burn. (IOW
my
muscles metabolize the lactic acid to get the extra oxygen and energy
contained therein).

Eat more fruit and possibly a little sodium bicarbonate and magnesium
chloride.. Rub legs and up to waist with castor oil



All of this stuff is all very well but as Gotam said 'Decay is inherent in
all compound things'. No matter what you do by the age of 100 *nobody* is
gonna be riding a road bike for four or more hours which is why Marchand's
achievement is so utterly exceptional. You, me, Free Willy and Davy could
drink ****ing fish oil till the cows come home but we still ain't gonna be
riding bikes at 100 for the simple reason that the overwhelming probability
is that we're all gonna be pushing up daisies by then. In the meantime I
agree that riding bicycles is an outstanding way to keep fit in older age
and is also a lot of fun, specially if it involves whupping the arses of
forty year younger riders. However whist riding up a hill near Boulogne in
France recently I was overtaken by a guy who looked like he'd just stepped
out of the sixties peleton (steel bike, frame shifters, cloth cap, at least
seventy years old) and to my horror I found that I was unable to get on his
wheel so it works both ways. At least he had the decency to say bonjour
politely to me as he went by...****!




Did the bike have a large rear hub? Somebody went by me the other day pretty
fast and he didn't look all that fit to me. So I cranked out some more watts
and caught up to him. It took a while as I had to go 25mph to do it. I noticed
the bike had a large rear hum and then I could hear a little whir. Turned out
it was a 'pedal assisted' bike where when the rider was turning the pedals an
electric motor in the hub helped out with the job. The battery pack was well
hidden. It looked like a fat seat tube. LOL.

--
Willy Free

On 6 Oct, 22:06, atriage wrote:
On 06/10/2012 21:30, thirty-six wrote:









On 6 Oct, 19:46, "Free *wrote:
*wrote in message

news:Z9ydnd7HbqlriO3NnZ2dnUVZ7sKdnZ2d@brightview .co.uk...

On 06/10/2012 12:10, Davey Crockett wrote:
atriage a crit profondement:

| On 05/10/2012 22:55, Free Willy wrote:
| * * * wrote in message
|
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/12...00-kilometre-a....
|

| * *I'm 65 and I can average 21 mph over 100 kilos.
|
| Well whoopy-doo I'm the same age and can do that too, I can also go up
| 8% gradients at much the same speed as 24 year old club cyclists. I
| know of other guys my age who are faster than me, however I don't know
| of a single 100 year old in the UK or USA who can get on a bicycle and
| ride it for 4 hours at *any* speed.

Davey was reasonably competitive until 65 too and held a pro license
until he was 45 and a few years ago finished well placed in the Worlds
(Masters - *age segmented)

And a few years later, it's all *downhill. The ambition is still there,
but the loss of muscle and bone mass, even with illegal drugs which
Davey didn't practice for 40 years now and mega Calcium intake, will
limit your performance. As will diminished lung capacity and realistic
heart-rate upper limits.

Last year I tackled a sportif in Italy. I'd done the same or similar
course several times and knew what to expect. Official Start in Cuneo,
real start in Vinadio then the Lombardy, Bonnette and Maddlelena (Col de
Larche in Froggyspeak) and it was really tough going on the Lombardy
which in reality isn't too bad, but I damn near died on the Bonnette -
it's not the ascent proper that gets you, it's that punishing loop
around the top of the mountain, even when you know it's coming and many
don't. Davey almost looked for the voiture balai at that point but
thought better of it since he's never ever put his foot down and said
"enough", and took it real easy in the crawler on the Maddelena, wishing
he'd had the brains to install a third clanger.

BUT doing something like that at 100? Add *that one to the "Exploits of
the SuperFlahut" and get wassisname, that guy that plagiarizes or
rewrites just about everything he's ever cranked out - Fotheringham or
something - to publish it.

Yeah, as you say the lungs and the heart get you, going up super steep stuff
20% my legs are OK but I have real problems sucking enough air in to supply
them, that 'nearly dying' feeling is magic isn't it?

The lungs don't atrophy much provided the rib cage is still capable of maximum
expansion.

We old farts need to do 'special' exercises to keep our lungs in shape.. My
technique involves blowing up big, stiff balloons. I hear some of the younger
pros expand their lungs by using something like a SCUBA regulator adjusted so
it will actually lightly pressurize and expand the lungs. As the lungs expand
so does the rib cage stay flexible. Also the diaphragm needs to have ROOM to
expand down into the body cavity so there should be little or no fat on the
body, inside or out. *BMI needs to be on the lower side of the normal range.

Which means lay off protein foods and eat more fruit.

As for losing bone calcium that's a matter of plenty of vitamin D. Blood

Loss of bone calcium to the muscle tissue is due to acidosis. *Slow
down, stop eating proteins *Eat more fruit and cooked greens.

should be tested so your level is around 50-55 (Most American have chronically
low levels of vitamin D). Also some calcium supplements might be indicated.

Eat cooked greens.

Also, some impact exercising needs to be done as impacting the bones causes
them to add calcium.

Or is it load-bearing exercise or weights aid lymph pumping from
exercising fatigued muscle so moving acid deposits (minerals) into the
bowel (as long as one is eating fruit and not meat) and the
parathyroid hormone puts the calcium back where it belongs. *Calcium
blocks the transport of stools unless fruit is consumed which
dissolves it for absorption directly into the lymphatics and the acid
released is then evacuated.

I'm not medically trained so all the money grabbing butchers and drug-
pushers can shoot me down and speak bollox, as that is what they do
beat.

I'll still say *eat fruit not protein for exercise.

Cycling is poor impact exercise. Another thing every
serious senior cyclist should be taking daily is about 400mg of Co-Q10 and
about 400mg of vitamin E and about a thousand mg of DHA and EPA (fish oil). A
couple thousand mg of good ole Vitamin C is also very helpful. These
anti-oxidants are highly necessary for senior athletes who wish to remain
competitive.

Or just eat fruit and get ALL the micro-nutrients. *Remember that
vegetation also works with cells and ducts, just like man.

Then there's the old natural hematocrit count. Mine stays naturally around
45-46 percent so I don't need to do any blood doping like many pros used to
get caught doing. In individual time trials I can run my heart on the finish
line leg at 95-100% of max (my max HR is 170 bpm). I don't go anaerobic until
about 95%, btw.

Do your eyes pop?

My lungs are very large and efficient. I never feel like I'm
out of air. *I can inflate a swimming pool, single-wide air mattress in 12-13
breaths. I think my lungs have about half again as much capacity as the
average man. My limitation seems to be my legs, not my heart and lungs.. At max

Lymph flow.

heart/lung rate my legs just reach a point where they don't produce any more
power. I've even trained them to use the burn when I feel the burn. (IOW my
muscles metabolize the lactic acid to get the extra oxygen and energy
contained therein).

Eat more fruit and possibly a little sodium bicarbonate and magnesium
chloride.. *Rub legs and up to waist with castor oil

All of this stuff is all very well but as Gotam said 'Decay is inherent in all
compound things'. No matter what you do by the age of 100 *nobody* is gonna be
riding a road bike for four or more hours which is why Marchand's achievement is
so utterly exceptional. You, me, Free Willy and Davy could drink ****ing fish
oil till the cows come home but we still ain't gonna be riding bikes at 100 for
the simple reason that the overwhelming probability is that we're all gonna be
pushing up daisies by then.


I don't intend to lie down easily and I've many years to see the
effects of a better diet.

In the meantime I agree that riding bicycles is an
outstanding way to keep fit in older age and is also a lot of fun, specially if
it involves whupping the arses of forty year younger riders.

eat more fruit.

However whist
riding up a hill near Boulogne in France recently I was overtaken by a guy who
looked like he'd just stepped out of the sixties peleton (steel bike, frame
shifters, cloth cap, at least seventy years old) and to my horror I found that I
was unable to get on his wheel so it works both ways. At least he had the
decency to say bonjour politely to me as he went by...****!


Onions are good too, particularly in a soup with green cabbage, lard,
pea flour, mustard, turmeric and sea salt. Both cabbage and onion
have strong cellular walls, they contain the right proteins for man.
I've not checked the mineral content of this soup but it can't be far
off optimum (damn tasty), probably needs some magnesium chloride
(although the turmeric helps) because none of it is organic. And of
course the residual fibre from the cabbage will help scour the bowel
wall of all that nasty fermenting meat protein clogging up the lymph
connections.




--

"thirty-six" wrote in message
...

trim

Onions are good too, particularly in a soup with green cabbage, lard,
pea flour, mustard, turmeric and sea salt. Both cabbage and onion
have strong cellular walls, they contain the right proteins for man.
I've not checked the mineral content of this soup but it can't be far
off optimum (damn tasty), probably needs some magnesium chloride
(although the turmeric helps) because none of it is organic. And of
course the residual fibre from the cabbage will help scour the bowel
wall of all that nasty fermenting meat protein clogging up the lymph
connections.

That's all well and good but there is a recent study that says vegetarians
aren't as well off as you seem to think. To wit:

http://www.sott.net/article/203114-V...Smaller-Brains

"There is overwhelming evidence that we can not be a vegetarian species. In
1972 the publication of two independent investigations confirmed this.-1-2They
concerned fats. About half our brain and nervous system is composed of
complicated, long-chain, fatty acids. These are also used in the walls of our
blood vessels. Without them we cannot develop normally. These fatty acids do
not occur in plants, although fatty acids in a simpler form do. This is where
plant-eating herbivores come in. Over the year, the herbivores convert the
simple fatty acids found in grasses and seeds into intermediate, more
complicated forms. By eating the herbivores we can convert their stores of
these fatty acids into the ones we need."

"But there is another aspect. Two scientists, Aiello and Wheeler, measured the
sizes of brains and other body organs against organ size relative to body size
predictions.-8 What they found was that the larger-than-expected size of the
human brain was compensated for by a smaller-than-expected gut size. Measuring
the other energy-expensive organs in the body: heart, kidneys, liver, and
gastrointestinal tract, as these use the most energy after the brain, and
comparing those of a 65-kg non-human primate with the organ sizes of an
average 65-kg human, they found dramatic differences between the expected and
actual sizes of the human brain, and gut: 'the splanchnic [abdominal/gut]
organs were approximately 900g less than expected'. Almost all of this
shortfall was due to our gut being only about 60% of that expected for a
similar-sized primate."

"As these values are all considerably less than 1.00, it can only mean one
thing: for the absorption of sufficient energy and nutrients for the body to
function properly, food must be very energy and nutrient dense. Fat meat is
the only universal class of food that falls into this category, thus there can
be no doubt that humans fall into the carnivore class."

"With a brain so out of proportion to the rest of our bodies, it's not
surprising that it uses such a large proportion of our total energy. As brain
size and energy use is so high, and our gut size so small, the amount of
energy available to the brain is dependent not only on how the body's total
energy budget is allocated between the brain and other energy-intensive organs
and systems, but on the ability of our gut to extract sufficient energy from
our food. That also confirms that the kind of diet we should eat must have the
high nutrient density found in foods such as meat and fat."

"Since the advent of agriculture, there has been a worrying trend as our
brains have actually decreased in size. A recently updated and rigorous
analysis of changes in human brain size found that our ancestors' brain size
reached its peak with the first anatomically modern humans of approximately
90,000 years ago. That then remained fairly constant for a further 60,000
years.-11 Over the next 20,000 years there was a slight decline in brain size
of about 3%. Since the advent of agriculture about 10,000 years ago, however,
that decline has quickened significantly, so that now our brains are some 8%
smaller.

"This suggests some kind of recent historical deficiency in some aspect of
overall human nutrition. The most obvious and far-reaching dietary change
during the last 10,000 years is, of course, the enormous drop in consumption
of high-energy, fat-rich foods of animal origin which formed probably over 90%
of the diet, to as little as 10% today, coupled with a large rise in less
energy-dense grain consumption.-12 This pattern still persists; it is even
advocated today: it is the basis of our so-called 'healthy' diet."

The above paragraphs are copied and pasted from the longer article I linked
to. After reading the entire article any objective reader would reject a
vegetarian diet. Not that there's anything wrong with eating lots of fruit and
veggies but it's abundantly clear that protien from meat is a necessity.


--
Willy Free

On 6 Oct, 23:31, "Free Willy" wrote:
"thirty-six" wrote in message

...

trim

Onions are good too, particularly in a soup with green cabbage, lard,
pea flour, mustard, turmeric and sea salt. *Both cabbage and onion
have strong cellular walls, they contain the right proteins for man.
I've not checked the mineral content of this soup but it can't be far
off optimum (damn tasty), probably needs some magnesium chloride
(although the turmeric helps) because none of it is organic. *And of
course the residual fibre from the cabbage will help scour the bowel
wall of all that nasty fermenting meat protein clogging up the lymph
connections.

That's all well and good but there is a recent study that says vegetarians
aren't as well off as you seem to think. To wit:

http://www.sott.net/article/203114-V...Smaller-Brains

"There is overwhelming evidence that we can not be a vegetarian species. In
1972 the publication of two independent investigations confirmed this.-1-2They
concerned fats. About half our brain and nervous system is composed of
complicated, long-chain, fatty acids. These are also used in the walls of our
blood vessels. Without them we cannot develop normally. These fatty acids do
not occur in plants, although fatty acids in a simpler form do. This is where
plant-eating herbivores come in. Over the year, the herbivores convert the
simple fatty acids found in grasses and seeds into intermediate, more
complicated forms. By eating the herbivores we can convert their stores of
these fatty acids into the ones we need."

"But there is another aspect. Two scientists, Aiello and Wheeler, measured the
sizes of brains and other body organs against organ size relative to body size
predictions.-8 What they found was that the larger-than-expected size of the
human brain was compensated for by a smaller-than-expected gut size. Measuring
the other energy-expensive organs in the body: heart, kidneys, liver, and
gastrointestinal tract, as these use the most energy after the brain, and
comparing those of a 65-kg non-human primate with the organ sizes of an
average 65-kg human, they found dramatic differences between the expected and
actual sizes of the human brain, and gut: 'the splanchnic [abdominal/gut]
organs were approximately 900g less than expected'. Almost all of this
shortfall was due to our gut being only about 60% of that expected for a
similar-sized primate."

"As these values are all considerably less than 1.00, it can only mean one
thing: for the absorption of sufficient energy and nutrients for the body to
function properly, food must be very energy and nutrient dense. Fat meat is
the only universal class of food that falls into this category, thus there can
be no doubt that humans fall into the carnivore class."

"With a brain so out of proportion to the rest of our bodies, it's not
surprising that it uses such a large proportion of our total energy. As brain
size and energy use is so high, and our gut size so small, the amount of
energy available to the brain is dependent not only on how the body's total
energy budget is allocated between the brain and other energy-intensive organs
and systems, but on the ability of our gut to extract sufficient energy from
our food. That also confirms that the kind of diet we should eat must have the
high nutrient density found in foods such as meat and fat."

"Since the advent of agriculture, there has been a worrying trend as our
brains have actually decreased in size. A recently updated and rigorous
analysis of changes in human brain size found that our ancestors' brain size
reached its peak with the first anatomically modern humans of approximately
90,000 years ago. That then remained fairly constant for a further 60,000
years.-11 Over the next 20,000 years there was a slight decline in brain size
of about 3%. Since the advent of agriculture about 10,000 years ago, however,
that decline has quickened significantly, so that now our brains are some 8%
smaller.

"This suggests some kind of recent historical deficiency in some aspect of
overall human nutrition. The most obvious and far-reaching dietary change
during the last 10,000 years is, of course, the enormous drop in consumption
of high-energy, fat-rich foods of animal origin which formed probably over 90%
of the diet, to as little as 10% today, coupled with a large rise in less
energy-dense grain consumption.-12 This pattern still persists; it is even
advocated today: it is the basis of our so-called 'healthy' diet."

The above paragraphs are copied and pasted from the longer article I linked
to. After reading the entire article any objective reader would reject a
vegetarian diet. Not that there's anything wrong with eating lots of fruit and
veggies but it's abundantly clear that protein from meat is a necessity.

Fats are essential. Meat is currently injurous to me eaten after
breakfast, my gut, my heart and head tell me. I use at least 2oz of
butter/lard/coconut oil a day. Organ meat is highly nutritious and I
have kidney and/or liver when I fancy. I don't have milk or grain and
my desire for coffee seems to have ceased.

I spent a good few weeks recently eating cooked breakfasts of pork-
belly, spinach, organs, egg (mostly raw) and black pudding and a few
beans with added tomato and sea salt. This was to prompt my body into
processing meat protein correctly and generally clean things up by
encouraging pancreatic flow. I filled myself with the protein rich
foods so I could eat no more before finishing with the spinach. There
were never more than 10 beans left. This was all well and good except
was providing me with almost all my desired calories for the day so
that I was perhaps only eating a banana and an orange for supper.
Anyway since my pancreas had been awoken I switched to a fruit rich
diet and have been feeling twitching all over my body after waking
followed by abdominal discomfort, pain and wind. Stools show dark
patches which I suspect is the remnants of the meat protein which
stick to the bowel.

I suspect that protein from meat is not necessary for man's vitality
because my gut, my heart and my head tell me different. I will not
cloud my judgement with a trained brain for it has led me to serious
illness from which I now have the knowledge for escape. The joy of
language is the ability to communicate. Unfortunately this results in
lying for commerce.

Free Willy wrote:
"As these values are all considerably less than 1.00, it can only mean one
thing: for the absorption of sufficient energy and nutrients for the body to
function properly, food must be very energy and nutrient dense. Fat meat is
the only universal class of food that falls into this category

What about chocolate ?

"Simply Fred" wrote in message
...
Free Willy wrote:
"As these values are all considerably less than 1.00, it can only mean one
thing: for the absorption of sufficient energy and nutrients for the body
to
function properly, food must be very energy and nutrient dense. Fat meat is
the only universal class of food that falls into this category

What about chocolate ?


It's simply delicious!

--
Willy Free

On 10 Oct, 11:22, Simply Fred wrote:
Free Willy wrote:
"As these values are all considerably less than 1.00, it can only mean one
thing: for the absorption of sufficient energy and nutrients for the body to
function properly, food must be very energy and nutrient dense. Fat meat is
the only universal class of food that falls into this category

What about chocolate ?

Dark chocolate can be good, goes with oranges. I try to keep them
both as emergency foods.