Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Advise Please Intermitting Fasting vs high Protein Diet

Options
24

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Alf Veedersane
    Registered Users Posts: 24,554 ✭✭✭✭Alf Veedersane


    ILoveYourVibes wrote: »
    I had a nutrition module. :) Both terms!

    It's not a qualification.

    Not shìtting on your qualifications either but a couple of modules don't count as a qualification otherwise dieticians wouldn't bother going to college.


  • Options
    #33
    ILoveYourVibes
    Registered Users Posts: 15,176 ✭✭✭✭ILoveYourVibes


    Alf Veedersane wrote: »
    It's not a qualification.

    Not shìtting on your qualifications either .

    It's ok i don't mind you ****ting on it! :p

    I feel like now is when I start learning tbh. They always say you don't learn in a classroom but from doing etc.

    But i do feel strongly about the industry promoting short fixes and obesity still rising! Its a bug bear.

    Although i've never had to lose weight.


  • Options
    #34
    Alf Veedersane
    Registered Users Posts: 24,554 ✭✭✭✭Alf Veedersane


    ILoveYourVibes wrote: »
    It's ok i don't mind you ****ting on it! :p

    I feel like now is when I start learning tbh.

    But i do feel strongly about the industry promoting short fixes and obesity still rising! Its a bug bear.

    We possibly.agree on more than we disagree on.

    But not every 'diet' is necessarily unhealthy and /or unbalanced. And IF certainly isn't.

    Regardless of what it is, it needs to be sustainable and people find adherence on different ways.


  • Options
    #35
    ILoveYourVibes
    Registered Users Posts: 15,176 ✭✭✭✭ILoveYourVibes


    Alf Veedersane wrote: »
    We possibly.agree on more than we disagree on.

    But not every 'diet' is necessarily unhealthy and /or unbalanced. And IF certainly isn't.

    Regardless of what it is, it needs to be sustainable and people find adherence on different ways.

    I agree.

    :)

    Look at the fry thread in AH.....some people have the fry from hell ( but delish)..some people have a healthy one!

    Someone could eat healthy within 8 hrs ..and someone could eat miccy ds!


  • Options
    #36
    collywobble7
    Registered Users Posts: 95 ✭✭collywobble7


    spodoinkle wrote:
    IF has been about for years, hardly a fad

    Anything that involves fasting is not sustainable long term. Hence it's a fad. As others have suggested choose healthy foods and portion sizes and aim to lose weight gradually.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Alf Veedersane
    Registered Users Posts: 24,554 ✭✭✭✭Alf Veedersane


    collywobble7 wrote: »
    Anything that involves fasting is not sustainable long term. Hence it's a fad.

    Not by the definition of fad.

    Take someone who sleeps 11pm until 7am. 8 hour fast. Had dinner at 6pm. Add 5 hours to 'fast'. That's 13 hours of 'fasting' while eating 'normally'. Yet someone following a time-restricted fast with a 16 hour fast is suddenly swinging off into an unsustainable diet?


  • Options
    #38
    ILoveYourVibes
    Registered Users Posts: 15,176 ✭✭✭✭ILoveYourVibes


    Alf Veedersane wrote: »
    Not by the definition of fad.

    Take someone who sleeps 11pm until 7am. 8 hour fast. Had dinner at 6pm. Add 5 hours to 'fast'. That's 13 hours of 'fasting' while eating 'normally'. Yet someone following a time-restricted fast with a 16 hour fast is suddenly swinging off into an unsustainable diet?
    Yes. And the whole world does that. Are we thin yet? Or do we have an obesity crisis? ;)


  • Options
    #39
    Alf Veedersane
    Registered Users Posts: 24,554 ✭✭✭✭Alf Veedersane


    ILoveYourVibes wrote: »
    Yes. And the whole world does that. Are we thin yet? Or do we have an obesity crisis? ;)

    It doesn't trump eating proper food. Of course it doesn't and no has ever claimed it does.

    Reducing the window often just means people don't graze at night.

    It also doesn't suit everyone. It's just a tool to control calories.

    There is more than one way to skin a cat sustainably, which is all my point is.


  • Options
    #40
    Mellor
    Registered Users Posts: 39,038 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    ILoveYourVibes wrote: »
    It's quite simple. The fact that they are trending in the media is not based on endorsement from dieticians and the mainstream medical community or evidence based science that is peer reviewed.
    Neither is trending atm tbh.
    https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=2018-04-16%202020-05-16&geo=US&q=%2Fm%2F04ycpbq,keto%20diet,%2Fm%2F03cg86

    As for peer reviewed studies, there's plenty that show that either work.
    The only reason people lose weight is because they end up being hypocaloric.

    And low carb diets often make the body eat it's own tissue inc muscle.

    The goal of a weight loss diet is to be catabolic and consume your own fat tissue.
    The optimum diet is just a plain old boring healthy diet that your GP or any dietician would tell you to follow.
    You mean based on decades old science since disproven. Avoid sat fat, lol.
    Your body can't store protein and it can't take up more than it needs at the exact moment so ideally little and often is best for protein. (based on grm per lb of body weight and your activity etc)

    Wrong on both counts tbh.

    Ingested protein can be stored indirectly, as they can be converted to other macros.
    It can also be oxidised for energy. So excess over your needs at an exact. moment is used. If it couldn't be used, you could eat as much as you like with no impact, which isn't the case obviously.
    Low carb diets make your body eat muscle.
    No they don't. Why would it?
    Muscle contains no carbs, what do you think the body is achieving by consuming muscle?

    Low protein diets are a different story. The body consumes muscle is its proteins needs aren't met. Probably what you are thinking of.
    The only reason people lose weight is because they are hypcaloric. But they are not sustainable. And then people gain it back.
    Yes, a hypo-calorific diet if the only way to lose weight. That goes for all diets.
    Are you claiming that all weight loss is unsustainable, that's really not true.


  • Options
    #41
    ILoveYourVibes
    Registered Users Posts: 15,176 ✭✭✭✭ILoveYourVibes


    Mellor wrote: »
    Neither is trending atm tbh.
    https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=2018-04-16%202020-05-16&geo=US&q=%2Fm%2F04ycpbq,keto%20diet,%2Fm%2F03cg86

    As for peer reviewed studies, there's plenty that show that either work.



    The goal of a weight loss diet is to be catabolic and consume your own fat tissue.


    You mean based on decades old science since disproven. Avoid sat fat, lol.



    Wrong on both counts tbh.

    Ingested protein can be stored indirectly, as they can be converted to other macros.
    It can also be oxidised for energy. So excess over your needs at an exact. moment is used. If it couldn't be used, you could eat as much as you like with no impact, which isn't the case obviously.


    No they don't. Why would it?
    Muscle contains no carbs, what do you think the body is achieving by consuming muscle?

    Low protein diets are a different story. The body consumes muscle is its proteins needs aren't met. Probably what you are thinking of.


    .

    Nothing of what you have said makes sense.

    The body cannot efficiently convert protein into glucose. It's usually just stored as fat when consumed in excess.

    You HOPE this fat is going to be used up in a calorie deficit ....but the body liked to use fat last and muscle first or other tissues once glycogen reserves are used up.

    And if your body COULD be a protein to carb converting machine ..your body is STILL Not storing protein as i said.
    Yes, a hypo-calorific diet if the only way to lose weight. That goes for all diets.
    Are you claiming that all weight loss is unsustainable, that's really not true
    Clearly i am not claiming that ...

    The goal of healthy weightloss is not to be indiscriminately catabolic.

    Your body only needs a small percent of sat fat its best to get fat from mono or poly unsaturated sources.

    Fat contains no carbs either funnily.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Mellor
    Registered Users Posts: 39,038 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    ILoveYourVibes wrote: »
    Nothing of what you have said makes sense.
    Not able to understand it, isn’t the same as it making sense.
    The body cannot efficiently convert protein into glucose. It's usually just stored as fat when consumed in excess.
    Nobody claimed it does so efficiently. In fact I referenced the fact it biases other processes.
    You just said it’s stored as fat, but before you say it can’t be stored. Which is it?

    Still incorrect thought, the body biases efficiency. In this case, it will use the protein and store dietary fat over converting protein to fat.
    You HOPE this fat is going to be used up in a calorie deficit ....but the body liked to use fat last and muscle first or other tissues once glycogen reserves are used up.
    Also incorrect.
    If the body used muscle first and fat last, then all calorie deficits would result in muscle loss and make fat loss extremely rare.
    And if your body COULD be a protein to carb converting machine ..your body is STILL Not storing protein as i said.
    You said it can’t be stored.
    I said it can, but it rare happens. Small but important difference.
    If rarely happens because the protein gets used, which makes your entire point about wasted protein baseless.


  • Options
    #43
    ILoveYourVibes
    Registered Users Posts: 15,176 ✭✭✭✭ILoveYourVibes


    Mellor wrote: »
    Not able to understand it, isn’t the same as it making sense.


    Nobody claimed it does so efficiently. In fact I referenced the fact it biases other processes.
    You just said it’s stored as fat, but before you say it can’t be stored. Which is it?

    Still incorrect thought, the body biases efficiency. In this case, it will use the protein and store dietary fat over converting protein to fat.


    Also incorrect.
    If the body used muscle first and fat last, then all calorie deficits would result in muscle loss abs make fat loss extremely rare.


    You said it can’t be stored.
    I said it can, but it rare happens. Small but important difference.
    If rarely happens because the protein gets used, which makes your entire point about wasted protein baseless.

    No ...your body stores fat ..not protein ...

    ALL CALORIE DEFICITS DO RESULT IN MUSCLE LOSS....:rolleyes:

    Its rare for people to lose fat without losing some if not equal parts muscle.

    In even the most protein rich diet while lifting it is inevitable that you will lose some muscle.

    Your body turns to muscle to break down amino acids. Which is will use instead for fuel. But it wouldn't have to if you have adequate carbs.

    Your body wants to use glycogen first.

    Right i guess we will have to inform peeps with diabetes to watch the protein for that glucose spike an hr after right?


  • Options
    #44
    Mellor
    Registered Users Posts: 39,038 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    The goal of healthy weightloss is not to be indiscriminately catabolic.
    Neither keto or IF produces indiscriminate catabolism. That claim was disproven.

    Catabolism is a product of other factors.
    Your body only needs a small percent of sat fat its best to get fat from mono or poly unsaturated sources.[/quotes]
    The body’s requirements isn’t the same a limit you should have.

    The body requires protein and fat. But not carbs.
    By the above logic we should avoid carbs as they’re not required.
    Fat contains no carbs either funnily.
    Of course not. But I didn’t make any claims about low-carb diets triggering any specific kind of catabolism. That was you.
    ILoveYourVibes wrote: »
    No ...your body stores fat ..not protein ...[/protein]Exactly. Protein is used for energy and fat gets store as this is the most efficient pathway. This is exactly what I said above.
    And it proves your original claim to be false. Eating more than your instantaneous protein requirements isn’t “not used”. It’s simply used later.
    ALL CALORIE DEFICITS DO RESULT IN MUSCLE LOSS....:rolleyes:

    Its rare for people to lose fat without losing some if not equal parts muscle.

    In even the most protein rich diet while lifting it is inevitable that you will lose some muscle.
    I never claim led that muscle loss didn’t occur when dieting. :confused:

    You said that low carb is bad because cause muscle loss. But your justification is that it happens with all diets. Which makes your criticism pointless.
    Your body turns to muscle to break down amino acids. Which is will use instead for fuel. But it wouldn't have to if you have adequate carbs.

    Your body wants to use glycogen first.
    Again, incorrect.

    The body doesn’t break down muscle for energy, it uses amino acids for new cells, hair, skin, etc. Because it can’t use fat or carbs. Which is why adequate protein and weight training minimise muscle loss.

    Energy needs are suppler by glyocogen stores and body fat.
    Nothing your said suggests eating carbs improve the rate of fat loss.


    Right i guess we will have to inform peeps with diabetes to watch the protein for that glucose spike an hr after right?
    I dont see the relevance.


  • Options
    #45
    ILoveYourVibes
    Registered Users Posts: 15,176 ✭✭✭✭ILoveYourVibes


    MELLOR
    Energy needs are suppler by glyocogen stores abs body fat.
    Nothing your said suggests eating carbs improve the rate of fat loss.






    ok


  • Options
    #46
    ILoveYourVibes
    Registered Users Posts: 15,176 ✭✭✭✭ILoveYourVibes


    As for protein, our bodies don't maintain official reserves for use as fuel. Rather, protein is used to build, maintain, and repair body tissues, as well as to synthesize important enzymes and hormones. Under ordinary circumstances, protein meets only 5 percent of the body's energy needs. In some situations, however, such as when we eat too few calories daily or not enough carbohydrate, as well as during latter stages of endurance exercise, when glycogen reserves are depleted, skeletal muscle is broken down and used as fuel. This sacrifice is necessary to access certain amino acids (the building blocks of protein) that can be converted into glucose. Remember, your brain also needs a constant, steady supply of glucose to function optimally.


    https://us.humankinetics.com/blogs/excerpt/the-bodys-fuel-sources

    Its why endurance athletes need carbs so much.


  • Options
    #47
    Mellor
    Registered Users Posts: 39,038 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    ILoveYourVibes wrote: »
    Where does your body get glycogen from Mellor?
    So can't actually counter what I said.

    Glycogen and fat stores.
    Existing glycogen stores are depleted when dieting, which increases fat oxidation. If you are hypocalorific, regardless of macro split, you aren't going to replenish glycogen, and all your dietary energy is used per over 24 hours.

    ILoveYourVibes wrote: »
    https://us.humankinetics.com/blogs/excerpt/the-bodys-fuel-sources

    Its why endurance athletes need carbs so much.
    The body has a limited glycogen store and a limited rate of fat oxidation. During an endurance event (beyond marathon distances) the energy needs surpass those limits, even with mid-event fueling. So the energy has to come from somewhere, ie muscle catabolism.*

    We are talking about normal people dieting, not endurance athletes during endurance events. Kinda baffling that you thought that was relevant.
    This is all really basic stuff btw. I think you need to lose the "qualified" attitude until you've studied a bit more.


    *There are a contingent of endurance events who compete in a ketogenic state. As this provides a additional energy pathway (ketones), sacrificing glycogen. But that's a complex issue beyond the scope of this thread.


  • Options
    #48
    ILoveYourVibes
    Registered Users Posts: 15,176 ✭✭✭✭ILoveYourVibes


    Mellor wrote: »
    So can't actually counter what I said.

    Glycogen and fat stores.
    Existing glycogen stores are depleted when dieting, which increases fat oxidation. If you are hypocalorific, regardless of macro split, you aren't going to replenish glycogen, and all your dietary energy is used per over 24 hours.



    The body has a limited glycogen store and a limited rate of fat oxidation. During an endurance event (beyond marathon distances) the energy needs surpass those limits, even with mid-event fueling. So the energy has to come from somewhere, ie muscle catabolism.*

    We are talking about normal people dieting, not endurance athletes during endurance events. Kinda baffling that you thought that was relevant.
    This is all really basic stuff btw. I think you need to lose the "qualified" attitude until you've studied a bit more.


    *There are a contingent of endurance events who compete in a ketogenic state. As this provides a additional energy pathway (ketones), sacrificing glycogen. But that's a complex issue beyond the scope of this thread.
    Mellor its clear you have no idea what you are talking about so honestly its not worth arguing with you. Goodbye.

    I have an ACTUAL professional and internationally recognized qualification ....i didn't read some article online. Its not an attitude. You have the attitude. You have read a lot of articles or books with no background in physiology etc.

    Clearly the whole idea of 'ketosis' etc is to use this same energy pathway. My point is its not a good idea.

    Similarly you seemed to think the body could store protein as fuel. It can't ..it has to be stored as fat ...the same fat you are trying to lose on your ass ...then burned. If the body could store protein then you wouldn't need to consume it pre or post workout. You could have a huge amount in the morning and call it a day.

    You seem very confused.


  • Options
    #49
    Mellor
    Registered Users Posts: 39,038 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    ILoveYourVibes wrote: »
    I have an ACTUAL professional and internationally recognized qualification ....i didn't read some article online. Its not an attitude. You have the attitude. You have read a lot of articles or books with no background in physiology etc.

    A PT course isn't a professional qualification in nutrition or physiology.
    Like Alf, I'm not ****ting on your career path, but you are making erroneous claims.
    ILoveYourVibes wrote: »
    Clearly the whole idea of 'ketosis' etc is to use this same energy pathway. My point is its not a good idea.
    Nothing you've refers to that pathway. And that's not the point of keto for weight loss.
    It's simply about being hypocalorific.
    Similarly you seemed to think the body could store protein as fuel. It can't ..it has to be stored as fat ...the same fat you are trying to lose on your ass ...then burned. .
    You said it was not possible, I pointed out that it is actually possible, which you've agree is correct. I never said anything about storing protein being a goal.
    Why you somebody trying to lsoe weight be trying to store energy. That makes no sense.
    If the body could store protein then you wouldn't need to consume it pre or post workout.
    Tell me more about this protein window. lololol


  • Options
    #50
    ILoveYourVibes
    Registered Users Posts: 15,176 ✭✭✭✭ILoveYourVibes


    Mellor wrote: »
    A PT course isn't a professional qualification in nutrition or physiology.
    l


    ?? My specialization was exercise physiology and human anatomy. So you are wrong. I had a secondary module in nutrition.

    Of course a PT qualification should be a professional qualification in exercise physiology unless you have just done some mickey mouse 6 week or 3 month course.


  • Options
    #51
    Mellor
    Registered Users Posts: 39,038 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    ILoveYourVibes wrote: »
    ?? My specialization was exercise physiology and human anatomy. So you are wrong. I had a secondary module in nutrition.

    Of course a PT qualification should be a professional qualification in exercise physiology unless you have just done some mickey mouse 6 week or 3 month course.
    Physiology is a medical science field. "Exercise physiology" isn't the same thing as physiology qualification.
    Similarly, the course may have included an anatomy module, but a PT cert isn't a professional anatomy qualification either. They are subjects covered in a short course, but a professional qualification (ie a degree) in that specific subject would take years on its own.

    I've sure your PT course was a very good PT course. But it does not make one a expert in nutrition, biology, anatomy etc.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    ILoveYourVibes
    Registered Users Posts: 15,176 ✭✭✭✭ILoveYourVibes


    Mellor wrote: »
    Physiology is a medical science field. "Exercise physiology" isn't the same thing.
    Similarly, the course may have included an anatomy module, but a PT cert isn't a professional anatomy qualification either. They are subjects covered in a short course, but a professional qualification (ie a degree) in that specific subject would take years on its own.
    I understand. But how relevant is that to anatomy in a exercise setting?

    I can tell how each of the 4 quads are contracting (concentrically or eccentrically) in any movement on any plane sagittal transverse etc in any exercise.

    I have had to list every single muscle being used and how its contracting in a practical exam.

    I can tell you where muscles insert and originate. For example the rectus femoris originates in the anterior ( to the front) inferior iliac spine...it inserts in the patella...which is a tendon

    I can tell you how to engage all heads of all muscle groups. Or just one or two.

    I can tell you about muscle sliding theory and how ATP is generated.

    I can tell you about the CNS or the peripheral nervous system.

    I can tell you about the respiratory system in relation to exercise. I can tell the response of systolic or dystolic blood pressure to resistance training and how you can use this to your advantage.

    I can tell you about the golgi tendon organ ...how it can inhibit contraction or stretching.

    I can screen people safely for exercise.

    I can tell you about cardiovascular fitness. How it improves stroke volume and venous return. I can tell you which program best fine tunes this.

    I know the difference between a ligament and a tendon or the diff most important for exercise one is bone to bone the other muscle to bone.

    I know how to design a program for people without injuring them.

    I know how to isolate or mobilize joints in a warm up. I know how to safely stretch tendons, muscles etc in a warm up.

    I know the structure of the knee joint etc I know what TYPE of joints they are synovial ,cartilage or fibrous etc I know the 6 types of synovial joints.

    I know the 4 articulations (joints) that make up the glenohumeral joint (the shoulder joint).


    I know DeLorme-Watkins weight training method ..tabata ..explosive dynamic training ...compound training ..muscular isolation training.
    Are you an expert?

    I know the thoracic spine begins at T1 and ends at T12. I know where the cervical spine ends ...the lumbar spine etc.

    I know how to test for endurance in the neck muscle stabilizers ...i know WHAT the muscle stabilzers of the neck are ...i know what the primary flexors vrs the extensors of the neck are. (cervical extensors).

    I don't know everything. True.

    I feel bad for bitchin about so many anatomy classes now!

    I did the PT course in UCD sports and fitness. Do it peeps its cool!


  • Options
    #53
    ILoveYourVibes
    Registered Users Posts: 15,176 ✭✭✭✭ILoveYourVibes


    I ain't gonna lie though ...during my exam i was like where does the thoracic spine end !??? I know it begins t1 that's easy!


  • Options
    #54
    Mellor
    Registered Users Posts: 39,038 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    ILoveYourVibes wrote: »
    I understand. But how relevant is that to anatomy in a exercise setting?

    The thread is about diet, not exercise.
    You were talking about professional qualifications in nutrition and other areas. I was pointing out in you don't actually have one.

    I'm sure you know lots about exercise. You are clearly enthusiastic. But surely you recognize that it's broad field and there is more to it than covered by your course? There are plenty of very experienced trainers about this forum you could learn from.
    I can tell you where muscles insert and originate. For example the rectus femoris originates in the anterior ( to the front) inferior iliac spine...it inserts in the patella...which is a tendon
    Yes it inserts in the patella, which is a bone, not a tendon, also known as the kneecap.
    I know the difference between a ligament and a tendon or the one most important for exercise one is bone to bone the other muscle to bone.
    I'd have thought that was common knowledge. Covered in the junior cert.

    Great flex, but largely irrelevant.


  • Options
    #55
    ILoveYourVibes
    Registered Users Posts: 15,176 ✭✭✭✭ILoveYourVibes


    Mellor wrote: »
    The thread is about diet, not exercise.
    You were talking about professional qualifications in nutrition and other areas. I was pointing out in you don't actually have one.

    .

    Actually i do. Its part of the EQF level 4 PT qualification. :)
    Yes it inserts in the patella, which is a bone, not a tendon, also known as the kneecap.
    The quad CANNOT just attach itself to the patella....it needs the patellar or patella tendon to attach as i said.. Muscles can't attach directly to bone.

    Muscles cannot attach to bone without tendons.


    yes I would have thought that was common knowledge.

    All muscles need tendons to attach to bone.

    The patellar tendon ....extends from the quad to the patella. The quad inserts at the patellar tendon ..not the knee cap. (patella)

    NOW! Drop and gimmie ten push ups :P

    Now ten points if you can gimmie a patellar tendon stretch!


    (Im sorry power has gone to my head) MOD I NEED A MOD!

    Spoiler it inserts into the quadriceps tendon first.

    All muscles must insert into a tendon.

    The patella tendon is wait for it a tendon ..the patella bone is wait for it a bone.

    The patella tendon i sometimes called the patellar tendon ..the patella bone is sometimes called the patellar bone.

    EG patellar knee graft ..patellar fracture etc.


  • Options
    #56
    Mellor
    Registered Users Posts: 39,038 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    ILoveYourVibes wrote: »
    The quad CANNOT just attach itself to the patella....it needs the patellar or patella tendon to attach as i said.. Muscles can't attach directly to bone.
    I never said anything about muscle attaching directly to a bone. :confused:
    As I pointed out the function of ligaments and tendons is cover in junior cert biology.

    You said the patella was a tendon. It's not. You made a mistake. It's ok.
    All muscles must insert into a tendon
    Muscles insert into bones via tendons, not into tendons. If you gonna be pedantic, get it right otherwise you just look like a fool.


  • Options
    #57
    ILoveYourVibes
    Registered Users Posts: 15,176 ✭✭✭✭ILoveYourVibes


    Mellor wrote: »
    I never said anything about muscle attaching directly to a bone. :confused:

    You said the patella was a tendon. It's not. You made a mistake. It's ok.
    Maybe that course wasn't are good as you made out.
    IT IS.


    The patella ...a tendon.

    The patella ..a bone.

    The patellar bone...

    The patellar tendon.

    :confused:

    Pateller graft ..patellar facture...

    One refers to a tendon the other to a bone.

    No muscle can insert into a bone. Obviously if i am saying a muscle inserts into something i mean a tendon. ALL SKELETAL MUSCLES INSERT INTO TENDONS
    Yes it inserts in the patella, which is a bone, not a tendon, also known as the kneecap.

    Since muscles cannot insert into bone it MUST be a tendon. The patellar/ patella tendon.

    I am not going down this rabbit hole with you.

    Your knowledge of anatomy is dangerous. For your future reference if someone tells a muscle inserts into something they must mean a tendon.How could i be saying a muscle inserts into a bone? It has to insert into a tendon first ..if you know the first thing about anatomy you know that.


  • Options
    #58
    Mellor
    Registered Users Posts: 39,038 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    ILoveYourVibes wrote: »
    IT IS.

    The patella ...a tendon.

    The patella ..a bone.
    The patella is a bone not a tendon.
    The patella tendon is not the patella.

    The fact you are arguing this, is baffling

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patella

    Your knowledge of anatomy is dangerous. For your future reference if someone tells a muscle inserts into something they must mean a tendon.How could i be saying a muscle inserts into a bone? It has to insert into a tendon first ..if you know the first thing about anatomy you know that.
    Muscles insert on bones via tendons. The insertion point is a anatomical term for that point of the bone, that is a fact. That doesn't equate to claiming they attach on bones directly.

    You've turned it into a personal attack for the sake of ego.


  • Options
    #59
    ILoveYourVibes
    Registered Users Posts: 15,176 ✭✭✭✭ILoveYourVibes


    Mellor wrote: »



    Muscles insert on bones via tendons. The insertion point is a anatomical term for that point of the bone, that is a fact.


    No the insertion point is the attachment that has the most movement. And the origin point is the anchoring stable point. The origin is called so because the insertion point is usually distal. And the original point is usually proximal. That is what the terms refer to.

    They don't refer to the point of bone because tendons can be diff lengths. And on diff people muscles can insert and originate at diff points on the bone. That is why some people have awesome glutes or hamstrings and great muscle separation. And others despite training ..often don't. There is a huge variation in origin and insertion points in individuals. It also makes people move differently. It will also mean diff exercises will be better for some individuals and that muscle group will respond better than others etc. Its because of their individual anatomy. This was a really interesting example for the lats https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3768243/

    Also the origin is also connected to the bone via a tendon. We don't call that point of the bone where the tendon attaches the insertion do we? We call it the insertion.

    The terms have nothing to do with the point of bone. The terms origin and insertion are to do with the terms distal and proximal and the relative stability of the point of origin and the movement of point of the insertion.

    The origin is the site that doesn't move when the muscle contracts the insertion is the point that does move when the muscle contracts.

    (talking about skeletal muscle)

    That is what the terms refer to.

    Origin is usually proximal ...insertion is usually distal.
    The above is vital information in relation to exercise.

    Proximal attachment of the tendon is called the origin of whatever muscle you are talking about. It also will connect muscle to bone through a tendon. Its nothing to do with the point on the bone as to why its called that. etc.
    Muscles insert on bones via tendons. The insertion point is a anatomical term for that point of the bone, that is a fact. That doesn't equate to claiming they attach on bones directly.

    Obviously just because a muscle attaches to a bone at a stable point its not going to be called an insertion because that is the point it attaches to bone. Its going to be called the origin.

    The term insertion has nothing to do with the fact that a muscle is attached by a tendon at that point of bone. Its to do where its the stable proximal point or the distal moving point when the muscle contracts..

    Muscle origins are also attached by tendons to bone.

    Long story short not every point at which a muscle attaches to bone is called an insertion. Only the point that moves when the muscle contracts .

    The muscle insertion moves towards the muscle origin when the muscle contracts concentrically. The muscle insertion moves away from the muscle origin when the muscle contracts eccentrically. These two points of the muscle or muscle head are both connected to bone through tendons. But they are called origin and insertion respectively.

    It has nothing to do with the point of bone they are attached to.

    Muscles both originate and insert on bones via tendons. Bones have their own landmarks. The patella bone has its own landmarks for example.

    Muscle attachment sites are a separate thing from the landmarks of bones.


  • Options
    #60
    Mellor
    Registered Users Posts: 39,038 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    ILoveYourVibes wrote: »
    No the insertion point is the attachment that has the most movement. And the origin point is the anchoring stable point. The origin is called so because the insertion point is usually distal. And the original point is usually proximal. That is what the terms refer to.
    Nobody mentioned origin vrs insertion.

    The point was the insertion refers to the attachment site on the bone. Origin also refers to a different attachment at the opposite end.
    You are not refuting anything I said here, you are just waffling.
    Long story short not every point at which a muscle attaches to bone is called an insertion.
    I never said that all attachments are called insertions.
    I said insertions refer to the attachment on the bone, not the attachment to the tendon as you claimed.
    Muscles both originate and insert on bones via tendons. Bones have their own landmarks. The patella bone has its own landmarks for example.
    So after all that, you agree with what I wrote previously, muscles insert on bones via tendons. Great. No idea why that took so long.
    Since muscles cannot insert into bone it MUST be a tendon. The patellar/ patella tendon.
    Can we agree the above is incorrect now. That muscle do insert on bones and that the patella is a bone.
    The quad inserts onn the patella (via quad tendon) and patella connects to shin via patella ligament (aka tendon).

    No relevant to diet so completely off topic. I'm done.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    ILoveYourVibes
    Registered Users Posts: 15,176 ✭✭✭✭ILoveYourVibes


    Mellor wrote: »
    .
    I said insertions refer to the attachment on the bone, not the attachment to the tendon as you claimed.



    This is incorrect.

    Insertions refer to the attachment on the bone AND the attachment to the tendon. But at the distal moving site.


    Origins ALSO refer to the attachment on the bone and the attachment to the tendon but at the proximal stabilization site.

    Its not that insertion is the attachment to bone and the origin is the attachment to muscle. Which is what you SEEM to be saying. (not sure. )

    The muscle insertion is the WHOLE attachment both the muscle to the tendon and the tendon to the bone of the moving distal site.

    The muscle origin is the WHOLE attachment both the muscle to the tendon and the tendon to the bone of the stable proximal site.


    Insertions DO refer to the attachment of muscle to tendon and of bone to tendon. Origins also refer to the attachment of muscle to tendon and bone to tendon.

    Their difference is that one is the distal moving site and one is the stable proximal site. The distal site of insertion moves towards the proximal site of origin when that muscle contracts concentrically.
    Insertion can refer to the attachment to the bone or to the tendon. The origin can refer to the attachment to the bone or to the tendon.

    Its whether its the moving distal point or the stable point. IE the muscle insertion has to come towards the origin when the muscle contracts concentrically.

    Do you get it now?
    So after all that, you agree with what I wrote previously, muscles insert on bones via tendons. Great. No idea why that took so long.

    I was the one who said this. You claimed the quads inserted right into the patella bone.


Advertisement