Exercise for 5 to 10 sec only, in 5 to 10 different exercises.

http://www.youtube.com/user/StaticContraction#p/a/u/1/4_OJdeWacFo

http://www.staticcontraction.com/index.html?hop=liquidice4




All the muscle you want! Guaranteed.

Four Workouts From Today You Can Be Stronger Than You've Ever Been!

My name is Pete Sisco and I have developed a better way to lift weights and build muscle.

I’ve been telling people about it for a several years. I’d like to explain my training to you as if you and I knew each other and you just wanted plain talk without the psychological sales tricks used to manipulate and pressure you.

Here goes.

There is a huge amount of confusion in the realm of strength training, or weightlifting or bodybuilding or whatever name you want to give to the task of making your muscles and body stronger. I think the confusion is spread deliberately so that people become reliant on ‘experts’ to help them. As George Bernard Shaw said, “Every profession is a conspiracy against the layman.”

But the honest truth is there are only a handful of very easy to understand fundamental rules that govern muscle and strength building. And once you know what they are you can quickly tell whether or not a training method is rational. I’ll tell you those fundamentals right now.

The Law of Muscle Fiber Activation

Every muscle basically consists of million of individual muscle fibers. When it receives an electrical signal from the brain a fiber contracts and becomes smaller. To visualize, picture a one inch long fiber suddenly contacting to ¼ inch. (Or a 4cm fiber contacting to 1cm, for my metric friends.)

That simple function is responsible for all movement in the human body. From a watchmaker’s fine tinkering to swinging a sledgehammer, muscle fibers create all motion.

OK, here is the important characteristic we need to know about. When a muscle fiber is activated it contracts completely, not by degrees. So it either contracts fully or it does not contract at all.

Who cares?

You do (or, at least, you should), because this fact – above all others - determines how you should stimulate your muscles to get bigger and stronger. For example, when your biceps muscle tries to curl a dumbbell that is 30% of the maximum you could lift it does not activate 100% of the muscle fibers to contract with 30% of their power. They can’t do that. They can only contract fully and completely. What happens is 30% of the fibers contract fully, lifting the dumbbell, and 70% of the muscle fibers do nothing and therefore – this is important – 70% of the fibers receive no stimulation to grow bigger or strengthen.

That’s the way muscles work. It’s been known for nearly a century and it’s simple to understand. Your body only uses the muscle fibers it needs to use and no more. This is the law of muscle fiber activation and it’s why we need to lift heavy weights if we want to stimulate as much of a target muscle as possible.

Muscles Must Be Stimulated In Order To Grow

The second critical concept is also very easy to understand. For this concept the analogy of the suntan is often invoked. Your skin has the ability to adapt to bright sunlight by growing darker. It will do this only if it must and only if the stimulation is sufficient. Sit under a shady tree or a car’s dome light and you get no tan. Everyone understands that.

Muscle also has the ability to adapt by growing bigger and thus stronger. But it will do so only if the stimulation is sufficient. Lift a relatively light weight and there is no need for your body to adapt. Lift a relatively heavy weight and you get stronger. And, just like the tan analogy, you can get slightly stronger (a bit of a tan) or maximally stronger (a very dark tan).

Stimulation is the indispensable condition. Studies at Harvard University proved that muscle grows even without testosterone, growth hormone, insulin and even food! Obviously, none of those is desirable, but the point is stimulation is the central issue if you want to build bigger, stronger muscles. In fact, even if you injected steroids, HGH and a bunch of the other misused and abused drugs into your body but did not lift weights, you would not grow new muscle.

Recap

OK, so far we know this.
a) Muscle will only grow if it is stimulated to grow.
b) The required stimulation is the use or activation of many muscle fibers.
c) The way we activate the most muscle fibers is by lifting the heaviest weights possible.

(Note to women. ‘Heaviest weight possible’ might be 20 lbs for you so please don’t be intimidated by what could be construed as macho talk. ‘Heavy’ is a relative term. So don’t go away, this training really will help you reach your weight and fitness goals.)

So far we don’t need any experts or professionals to understand that, right? And it meets the common-sense test; if you want to get stronger you need to lift weights that are heavier than you are used to lifting. And, your body will only adapt if it needs to adapt. Nothing controversial there.

Knowing a, b & c, How Can We Engineer a Better Workout?

We lift weights because muscle grows in response to high intensity overload. Just pumping your arm up and down all day won’t increase its muscle size or strength. But if you hold a heavy weight in your hand while you pump up and down, your muscle has to work at a higher rate of intensity…and that triggers new growth.

That’s easy to understand, right? So if you want to increase the size, strength and tone of, for example, your chest muscles…you’d do a high intensity chest exercise. But guess what? Nobody seems to know what exercises really deliver high intensity. Why can I say that? Because I actually measured the intensity of the ten most popular chest exercises and I know what intensity they really generate.

No other training method has hard facts like these to back it up. That's just one reason why magazines like Muscle & Fitness, Flex, Muscle Media, Martial Arts Training, Men's Journal and so many others have repeatedly hailed this training as "revolutionary."

When you plant lettuce

When you plant lettuce, if it does not grow well, you and I would not blame the lettuce. We would look for reasons it is not doing well. We may look at the soil needing natural fertilizers or compost, or more water or less direct sunshine. We would never blame the lettuce itself. Well, we might look at the quality of the seeds but other than that we would not blame the lettuce.

Yet if we have a problem with our friends or our family, we blame the other person. But if we know how to take care of them, they will grow well, like lettuce. Blaming and pointing the finger so to speak has no positive effect at all, nor does trying to persuade using reason and arguments.

That is my experience.

No blame, no reasoning, no argument, just understanding. Putting yourself in the other fellows shoes so to speak.

If you understand, and you show that you understand, you can love, and the situation will change. I'm reminded of Matthew 18: in the Bible on this issue also.

Spices and Your Health

Most spices are good to use. There simply herbs and herbs have nutritional value. Problem is, like everything in the food category there's people selling poor quality food and poor quality spices. Go to the health food store and buy your spices. That doesn't guarantee that your getting organic fresh and top-quality yet I can almost guarantee that what you get in regular grocery stores is far less in food value.

Black Pepper: Get the whole pepper and grind it fresh with a pepper grinder. Many spices have oils in them and they oils if old can go rancid. Rancid oils speed up the aging process therefore are high in oxidative stress. That means that more antioxidants should be taken as a supplement to offset these rancid oils.
The finer grind it is the better. Be sure it is organic.

Check out my video on enzymes and raw food http://www.MakeMeYounger.com

What is Organic Wine?

What is Organic Wine?

Currently, organic wine is defined as “wine made from organically grown grapes.” At this time, a Federal definition for “organic wine” is pending USDA approval. In the meantime, the standards for organic wine (regulating both the crop & production methods) vary among certifiers. However, in all cases, in order for a vineyard to be classed as organic, the owner must be able to prove which vineyard the grapes came from, which officially recognized body certified the vineyard as organic, and from what date certified organic practices began. The fundamental idea behind organic wine is that making wine from grapes grown without chemical fertilizers, weed killers, insecticides, and other synthetic chemicals is better both for the planet AND for the wine drinker because all of these things can damage the soil and the plant, and can end up in the wine as residue.

VICTORY AT CODEX, PRESS RELEASE

Anti-Supplement NRV Document Held Back Because of NHF

November 6, 2009

The Museum Kunst Palast, Dusseldorf, Germany

This week of November 2-6, 2009, the 31st Session of the Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU) met in Dusseldorf, Germany to continue its work in developing standards for global nutrition. Some 260 delegates were in attendance, comprised of various countries’ functionaries and international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) representatives. Never one to disappoint the crowd, Dr. Rolf Grossklaus returned for his final, farewell performance as the CCNFSDU Chairman.
The Committee covered various topics, among them methods of assaying fiber and the establishment of Nutrient Reference Values (NRVs) for Non-Communicable Diseases (NCD)./1 At the special Saturday meeting of the CCNFSDU Working Group on Nutrient Reference Values for Non-communicable Diseases, the NHF was represented by its president Scott Tips and was very active in making its pro-freedom views known. (See our previous release at http://www.thenhf.com/press_releases/pr_01_nov_2009.html.)
At both meetings (that of the Working Group and the Committee), NHF especially took to task the God-like aura given to the “expert consultations” of Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and World Health Organization (WHO). These are pre-selected groups of experts with a pre-determined outcome to their “consultations” and are hardly scientific. Along with other delegations, the NHF succeeded in retaining language in Codex standards that ensured that Codex would not just look to FAO/WHO expert consultations for scientific knowledge.
Amazing Victory
But the real battle and amazing success took place on Tuesday, November 3rd, during the general session, when the two agenda items covering the NRVs for non-communicable diseases, including the “Proposed Draft Additional or Revised Nutrient Reference Values for Labelling Purposes in the Codex Guidelines on Nutrition Labelling,” were discussed by the Committee.
The CCNFSDU was all prepared to rubber-stamp its approval on the “Proposed Draft Additional or Revised Nutrient Reference Values for Labelling Purposes in the Codex Guidelines on Nutrition Labelling,” which had been pushed by the delegation of the Republic of Korea and others.l
This document was so astoundingly anti-vitamin and mineral it infuriated the NHF representative, who had to restrain himself from using harsh and insulting words when it came NHF’s turn to speak. Appendix 2 of the document is only two pages, but contains already-low values for each of the Vitamins and Minerals listed in the Appendix (except for Fluoride, which of course has an excessively high value). (To see the document, go to www.thenhf.com/press_releases/Appendix2photo11-09.pdf)
For example, the “scientific” values assigned to Vitamin C were being reduced from an already-low 60 milligrams to an even-lower 45 milligrams! The NRV for magnesium was to be cut from 300 milligrams to 240 milligrams. Niacin’s value was to be chopped from 18 milligrams to 15. These were, and are, absurd numbers, based upon nutritional ignorance.
Over a one-hour period, the NHF took the floor repeatedly to lambast the document and to insist that its adoption would be a public-relations nightmare and make Codex the laughingstock of the World. If anything, NHF said, these numbers must be drastically raised. The argument swirled around the room with the NHF holding firm against comments from many other country delegations, especially Australia (which calls harsher standards "an extra bit of comfort"), all of whom thought that these numbers were perfectly normal! Had NHF not challenged the document, there would have been no sustained opposition to its passage.
Instead, NHF kept unrelentingly hammering at the points it had first raised and answered at every chance the counter-arguments of the document’s proponents. Finally, the Chairman, perhaps in exasperation, suggested that the Committee not advance the document to its next step because there was no consensus! This “compromise” was supported by NHF but opposed by others until, with it still hanging in the balance, the Indian delegation firmly stated its support for NHF’s position and against it advancing. India’s timing was impeccable. That was enough for the Chairman, who quickly concluded the debate and held the document back.
But for the National Health Federation, India, and also Costa Rica and Iraq, this document would have advanced towards a more final, fixed form. Now, it remains in a malleable form that will let it be corrected at next year’s CCNFSDU meeting.
Increasingly recognized at these Codex meetings, NHF appreciates the support it has been given by other country-member and INGO delegations. Most of all, though, NHF appreciates the support its membership has given it, financially and morally, that enabled this victory to happen at all.

********************
1 Not to be confused with Maximum Upper Permitted Limits, Nutrient Reference Values (“NRVs”) are nothing more than souped-up RDAs. These are numerical values assigned to each nutrient so as to reflect the mythical typical person’s nutritional needs for that nutrient. By referring to the NRV for, say, magnesium, the consumer is supposed to get an idea of whether he or she is getting an adequate (or in European bureaucratic eyes, an excessive) amount of magnesium. If a consumer, for example, sees that he is getting 100% of his daily requirement for Vitamin C, he will almost certainly mistakenly think that he need look no further to supplement his diet.; he is, after all, getting his full needs met, even though 100% will be defined as 60 milligrams! These values are supposed to be set according to rigorous scientific evidence; but, as NHF has long contended, “science” at Codex levels is far more political than scientific.

new swine flu shot

"Study found that primates that received just 1 vaccination containing thimerosal, the mercury-preservative found in new swine flu shot, had neurological impairment when compared with those who received a saline solution injection or no injection at all." Dr. Mercola, 10/22/2009
_________________________________

New Study Demonstrates Significant Harm
From Just ONE Mercury-Containing Vaccine
Posted by Mercola, D.O. October 22 2009

A new study found that primates that received just ONE vaccination containing thimerosal, the mercury-preservative found in many vaccines including the new swine flu shot, had significant neurological impairment when compared with those who received a saline solution injection or no injection at all.
Although the paper is carefully worded and the results reported modestly, these findings are certain to receive intense scrutiny. The vast majority of American infants born during the 1990’s received a vaccine formulation similar to the one the thirteen vaccinated primates received.

Thimerosal-containing vaccines are still routinely administered to newborn infants in developing countries such as Brazil, and most influenza vaccines contain thimerosal and are routinely administered to pregnant women and infants.
The finding that early exposure to potentially toxic vaccine formulations can cause significant neurodevelopmental delays in primates has explosive implications for vaccine safety management.
But while Americans are still debating whether to roll up their sleeves for a swine flu shot, companies have already figured it out: vaccines are good for business.
Drug companies have sold $1.5 billion worth of swine flu shots, in addition to the $1 billion for seasonal flu they booked earlier this year. These inoculations are part of a much wider and rapidly growing $20 billion global vaccine market.
"The vaccine market is booming," says Bruce Carlson, spokesperson at market research firm Kalorama, which publishes an annual survey of the vaccine industry. "It's an enormous growth area for pharmaceuticals at a time when other areas are not doing so well," he says, noting that the pipeline for more traditional blockbuster drugs such as Lipitor and Nexium has thinned.
As always with pandemic flus, taxpayers are footing the $1.5 billion check for the 250 million swine flu vaccines that the government has ordered so far and will be distributing free to doctors, pharmacies and schools. In addition, Congress has set aside more than $10 billion this year to research flu viruses, monitor H1N1's progress and educate the public about prevention.
Drugmakers benefit most from the revenues from flu sales, with Sanofi-Pasteur, Glaxo Smith Kline and Novartis cornering most of the market.
But some say it's not just drugmakers who stand to benefit. Doctors collect copayments for special office visits to inject shots, and there have been assertions that these doctors actually profit handsomely from these vaccinations.

Sources:

Age of Autism September 30, 2009 http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/09/blockbuster-primate-study-shows-significant-harm-from-one-birth-dose-of-a-mercurycontaining-vaccine.html

Time Magazine October 19, 2009

Examiner September 30, 2009 http://www.examiner.com/x-2370-Denver-Early-Childhood-Parenting-Examiner~y2009m9d30-Nearly-23-of-US-parents-wont-vaccine-their-children-against-H1N1-according-to-poll

Science News September 30, 2009 http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/47971/title/Excreted_Tamiflu_found_in_rivers

Neurotoxicology October 2, 2009 [Epub ahead of Print]

ABC News October 14, 2009

Comments:
Last week I wrote about the Washington Department of Health’s (DOH) decision to suspend the rule limiting the amount of thimerosal in vaccines that can be administered to pregnant women and infants under the age of three. Thimerosal is the highly toxic and poisonous ethyl mercury agent that is used as a preservative in most flu vaccines.
With all the evidence stacked against this mercury-containing vaccine preservative, this decision is downright foolhardy.
The study above is just one of several studies published this year, suggesting that injecting mercury into children can have far-reaching health ramifications, contrary to everything your government health officials are saying.
For example, the Seattle Times quoted Washington’s Secretary of Health, Mary Selecky, as saying that “the preservative, thimerosal, has never been linked to any health problems.”
The article goes on to state that a “vocal minority” believes the compound could be linked to autism. Nowhere do they mention the fact that there is in fact abundant scientific evidence to come to that conclusion.
The Tricky Terrain of Vaccines
No doubt this study will be closely scrutinized and no effort spared to try to dismiss it as its findings are quite significant. If there are neurological effects after just one dose of mercury-containing vaccine, what might the ramifications be when you inject multiple vaccines within a short amount of time?
In the US, most childhood vaccines are now thimerosal-free. Vaccines that still contain mercury include:
• All DTwP products (Diphtheria, Tetanus & whole cell Pertussis)
• DT (Diphtheria & Tetanus) multi-dose vials
• All Tetanus Toxoid vaccines
• Meningococcal multi-dose vials
• All multi-dose vials of seasonal- and swine flu vaccine, typically recommended for adults and children over the age of three.
For a list of mercury content in US licensed vaccines, please see this link.
The vaccine-safety community fought long and hard to get thimerosal removed from childhood vaccines, and now, just a few short years later, we’re looking at government recommendations that include multiple injections of mercury-containing flu vaccines year in and year out from early toddlerhood…


Related Links:

Washington Health Department Suspends Mercury Restrictions for Swine Flu Vaccine

Proof That Thimerosal Induces Autism-Like Neurotox

Safe Minds’ Assessment of the Thimerosal-Containing Vaccine Study

Friendly bacteria &/or Probiotics?

Bacteria in Your Gut May Enhance Your Health.

The human digestive tract is home to millions of bacteria. Some researchers estimate that humans have more bacterial cells than body cells. But when it comes to health, bacteria usually have a bad reputation. For example, if you've ever suffered from loose bowls that strikes people who travel to other countries), you're well aware of the effect of unwelcome bacteria on your digestion.
While there are well over 375 species of bacteria in humans, not all cause problems. I know that friendly bacteria—probiotics, may help digestion and over all wellness.
What are probiotics?
The United Nation's Food and Agriculture Organization defines probiotics as live microorganisms...which confer a beneficial health effect on the host. In other words, for bacteria to be considered a probiotic, it must be beneficial to humans. As a result, if food manufacturers labels a food as containing probiotics, the benefits must be proven by research.
In the United States, no health claims for probiotics have been approved, but this hasn't stopped the recently surging sales of probiotic products. Yogurt and yogurt-type drinks are especially popular probiotic-containing foods. In the European Union, there are even stricter rules requiring companies to prove the health claims about probiotics. New research efforts are focused on proving the beneficial effects, so that food producers can add these health claims to food labels.
Probiotics can be helpful.
Anecdotal (word of mouth) evidence suggests friendly bacteria help a variety of digestive problems. I believe this is often the start a Wellness deficiency.
Benefits have been proven, mainly because the research is complicated and time consuming. What's so complicated? Well, each species of bacteria may come in several different strains. If one strain shows a beneficial effect, researchers can't assume other strains will have the same effect and must test each strain individually.
At the moment, most probiotic-enhanced foods and supplements contain varieties of lactobacillus or bifidobacterium, which are the best known probiotics. As research continues, other types of bacteria may also prove beneficial.
Eat friendly bacteria (probiotics).
The concept sounds simple enough. Eat friendly bacteria and they will eventually arrive in your intestine and enhance your overall health. However, the reality is more complex. For starters, the bacteria may not survive the digestive enzymes in your stomach and upper small intestine. The probiotics industry is working to solve this problem by making more viable products so the cultures survive the digestive process. Then, there's the problem of the bacteria needing to eat, which is where prebiotics come in.
Eating food that containing probiotics.
Probiotics are not bacteria; they are food for friendly bacteria. The best-known of these are fructooligosaccharides (FOS), a class of sugars that are indigestible by humans. FOS are derived from edible plants like Jerusalem artichokes, and can now be found in a range of specialty food products from yogurt to ice cream to lollipops. FOS can also be purchased separately in capsule or powdered form. Consuming prebiotic-containing products encourage the growth of friendly bacteria in the digestive tract.
Friendly bacteria, along with prebiotics, may very well be shown to enhance your health in a variety of ways. Evidence for benefits will lead to an explosion of food products that contain pre and pro-biotics, or combinations of them termed "synbiotics." Live enzymes a a big part of this story also but that I will have to cover it at another time.

Get my free copy of “Bacteria Wars” for more information.
Ken Anderson