challenge what you know to be true
May. 17th, 2006 11:51 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
novapsycheLactic Acid Is Not Muscles' Foe, It's Fuel
Everyone who has even thought about exercising has heard the warnings about lactic acid. It builds up in your muscles. It is what makes your muscles burn. Its buildup is what makes your muscles tire and give out.
[...] But that, it turns out, is all wrong. Lactic acid is actually a fuel, not a caustic waste product. Muscles make it deliberately, producing it from glucose, and they burn it to obtain energy. The reason trained athletes can perform so hard and so long is because their intense training causes their muscles to adapt so they more readily and efficiently absorb lactic acid.
[...] When [George A. Brooks] graduated and began working on a Ph.D. in exercise physiology, he decided to study the lactic acid hypothesis for his dissertation.
"I gave rats radioactive lactic acid, and I found that they burned it faster than anything else I could give them," Dr. Brooks said.
It looked as if lactic acid was there for a reason. It was a source of energy.
Dr. Brooks said he published the finding in the late 70's. Other researchers challenged him at meetings and in print.
"I had huge fights, I had terrible trouble getting my grants funded, I had my papers rejected," Dr. Brooks recalled. But he soldiered on, conducting more elaborate studies with rats and, years later, moving on to humans. Every time, with every study, his results were consistent with his radical idea.
Eventually, other researchers confirmed the work. And gradually, the thinking among exercise physiologists began to change.
Everyone who has even thought about exercising has heard the warnings about lactic acid. It builds up in your muscles. It is what makes your muscles burn. Its buildup is what makes your muscles tire and give out.
[...] But that, it turns out, is all wrong. Lactic acid is actually a fuel, not a caustic waste product. Muscles make it deliberately, producing it from glucose, and they burn it to obtain energy. The reason trained athletes can perform so hard and so long is because their intense training causes their muscles to adapt so they more readily and efficiently absorb lactic acid.
[...] When [George A. Brooks] graduated and began working on a Ph.D. in exercise physiology, he decided to study the lactic acid hypothesis for his dissertation.
"I gave rats radioactive lactic acid, and I found that they burned it faster than anything else I could give them," Dr. Brooks said.
It looked as if lactic acid was there for a reason. It was a source of energy.
Dr. Brooks said he published the finding in the late 70's. Other researchers challenged him at meetings and in print.
"I had huge fights, I had terrible trouble getting my grants funded, I had my papers rejected," Dr. Brooks recalled. But he soldiered on, conducting more elaborate studies with rats and, years later, moving on to humans. Every time, with every study, his results were consistent with his radical idea.
Eventually, other researchers confirmed the work. And gradually, the thinking among exercise physiologists began to change.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-17 05:24 pm (UTC)radioactive lactic acid?
Date: 2006-05-17 06:37 pm (UTC)Though, I am not attached to any of the findings.
tip of the day from me..
To prevent getting stiff and sore after a hard work out do a couple laps in the pool.
Have fun, mm
Re: radioactive lactic acid?
Date: 2006-05-17 06:54 pm (UTC)Also, I got the impression that that was for his dissertation and not necessarily involved in every study he's done since then. Also, since his work has been upheld by other scientists, I would think that in this case it's okay to overturn conventional wisdom.
Re: radioactive lactic acid?
Date: 2006-05-17 08:07 pm (UTC)One could debate that synthetic lactic acid is not the same as that produced by a mammal, but I think you'd lose that arguement too, its a simple compound, nothing that would preclude making an exact copy of it in the lab.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-17 09:36 pm (UTC)Re: radioactive lactic acid?
Date: 2006-05-18 06:17 am (UTC)Things seem to process in the body differently when they are natural than if they have been altered.
Note the radioactive dye put into folks to track a variety of conditions tends to give folks a variety of reactions for a day or so. So I would say it is not exactly like lactic acid which naturally occurs in the body.
A number of vitamins can be overdosed when using the synthetics and not when using the natural. It does seem to make a difference.
(vitamin a for one. Synthetic Vitamin D blocks the absorbtion of magnesium which is needed to use calcium. This is somewhat amusing as synthetic D is what they put into milk to help you use the calcium-what they basically did was block your absorbtion, not help it.)
Stuff like that.
On the most basic level....if you add a number to an equation other than zero...you change the answer.
Just some thoughts....