Jump to content

Todd S

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Todd S

    Whole Body Vibration Therapy for Bone Health

    Thanks Dean for bringing this topic up again. More than a year ago I paused use of my vibration machine (during early morning supported handstand) along with pausing all handstand progressions due to a shoulder injury that was not likely caused by handstand work. I think the injury was caused by inappropriate execution of a thoracic bridge progression step. That is, I was doing a "twisting bear" transition into more of a "table" rather than the correct "bridge" positioning of the shoulders. Connective tissue recovery takes a long time. After a lengthy recovery period -- including adoption of exercises in consultation with a physical therapist -- I have recently restarted supported handstand training -- with no recurrence of pain. The vibration machine is still where it was -- and I expect to begin using it again soon. --Todd S
  2. Thanks Michael. The Dreem looks interesting. [There is also a Philips SmartSleep headband with some similar functionality to at least part of that of the Dreem.] In the links I didn't see anything addressing potential EMF risk from an ARM computer on the forehead overnight -- other than that WiFi and Bluetooth are disabled then. On the web site, it is interesting to look under Support at the Technical help pages. There are 13 responses to issues apparently brought up by users.
  3. Dean -- FYI, I've now also ordered the Yahoo fit TICKR from eBay. Delivery is projected to be the end of September. [This is my second ever eBay purchase. The first was the vibration platform that you talked about -- see https://www.crsociety.org/topic/11697-whole-body-vibration-therapy-for-bone-health/?do=findComment&comment=16514 -- and that I continue to enjoy briefly standing on and doing a supported handstand on every morning.] I'm willing to contribute my future HRV data if it seems that it might be useful information. Todd
  4. Todd S

    Chilled Vegan Sweet Bean Macarons

    Dean, The beans had a salt content of 135 or 140 mg per 1/2 cup serving. Yes, I used the whipping attachment -- on both of the electric mixers. I didn't measure the time, but it was probably too short -- i.e., somewhat less than the 1/2 hour or so that I see you used. I also think that I needed to use a larger quantity of further reduced aquafaba for the mixing to work better. Todd
  5. Todd S

    Chilled Vegan Sweet Bean Macarons

    Dean, Okay, I'll "bite". I appreciate your providing details of "Chilled Vegan Sweet Bean Macarons". I already had a can of fava beans and recently purchased a can of black beans. I opened them both, poured off the liquid into a separate container, and mixed the beans together for adding a few spoonfuls to my microwave-steamed veggies pot that I usually have for dinner -- and to correspondingly reduce my consumption of "chicken strips" as a protein source. Since today was a holiday, I had time to try your recipe. I'm not certain that I sufficiently extracted the maximum amount of aquafaba from the beans, but it initially seemed as though I had enough to work with. I reduced the liquid in a fry pan on the stove. I dug out my Kitchen Aid high-end mixer (that I purchased in the early '70s to make some peanut butter cookies, but have used only a few times since then) and my Bamix hand-held mixer (that I purchased 10 years ago but haven't used much). Using both of these gadgets, I didn't succeed in getting the fluffy texture that you did. I added cocoa powder and 3 drops of saturated solution of sucralose. I spooned the (slightly airy) results onto a cookie sheet and put the sheet in the freezer. I tried them a few hours later. The flavor is good! And the "melt in the mouth" is pleasant. I assume that if I continued to experiment with this I would be able to reproduce the fluffy texture that you described. But for me personally, I don't currently think I would bother to put the effort into it for something like this that probaby doesn't provide a significant additional nutrititional benefit. [i pretty much knew beforehand that this would be my conclusion -- but, hey, at least I tried it -- and reported on it.] [i typically don't cook with recipes. I normally only use a microwave oven -- and a stovetop burner for frying eggs sometimes for breakfast. I don't even bother to make salads, but I do eat most of a heart of romaine lettuce as part of breakfast. And leafy greens like red chard, kale, and spinach are part of my microwaved-steamed veggies at dinner.] [i should note that about 13 years ago -- during a period of about 18 months when I had more free time -- I experimented with many variations of "binging brownies". At some point I decided that it was more efficient to just eat a variety of simpler foods that require much less preparation time.] Todd
  6. Dean, I had also thought of the cold-water swimming clubs (such as the local Dolphin Club), but my thinking is that the "pool" of potential subjects that are exposed daily to cold would be at least two orders of magnitude greater in the homeless population. Although there are likely many homeless folks without serious addiction or psychiatric issues, I agree that it would probably be a lot more complicated to select subjects from that pool. Todd
  7. Dean, For a researcher wanting to study cold exposure effects on humans, might the homeless population provide a suitable source of subjects? Sleeping on the streets of San Francisco, for example, could already have provided plenty of cold exposure over a long period of time. Todd
  8. Dean, I don't think you fully acknowledged Al's comment -- which was about something that I had also noticed, but originally decided not to comment on. Dean wrote: But the graphical abstract did not appear to show exactly what you stated. Specifically, the column for (BCAAs?) Leucine/Isoleucine/Valine had an '=' in the FGF21 row. I'm not certain why you didn't correct your original statement before moving on to Luigi's new paper in your reply post. [Feel free to correct the original statement and delete this comment if you like.] Todd
  9. Todd S

    Whole Body Vibration Therapy for Bone Health

    Dean, Your protocol sounds fine to me. I'm still only doing daily morning (supported) handstands for about a minute on strong mode with speed 10 (as I described previously). I haven't yet figured out where to fit upright vibration sessions into my daily schedule. From the studies that have been posted, there are two particular things that I think would be interesting to reproduce. One is that the vibration transmission through the body decreases as the speed (frequency) is increased. The other is that the magnitude of vibration at a body part is amplified when vibrated at (or near?) the resonant frequency of the body part. You and I have in the past mostly done measurements at just speed settings of 10 and 20. I'm guessing that measurements taken at speeds of 4,8,12,16,20 -- in both Soft and Strong modes -- might provide enough data points to see the those things that I wanted to reproduce. This evening I used masking tape to fasten my phone to the vibration plate. I then stood on the plate (but not on the phone) -- to standardize with bodyweight applied -- to get some 'base' (at the plate) measurements at those five speeds both in Soft and Strong modes. I have the results but will wait until I have more data (for comparison) to post them. I'm thinking of somehow strapping my phone to my hip -- maybe with an elastic band of some sort -- to get something to compare with the 'base' data. Currently this is more of interest to me than further measurements at the jaw. Todd
  10. Todd S

    Vitamin D Recommendations

    One person data point: I find that taking 50,000 IU twice per month keeps me at a good level -- for example, 41.6 ng/mL on 02/25/2016. I've been using the BIO-TECH D3-50, 100 (dry powder) capsules for many years -- if I recall correctly, based on a recommendation from "Rodney" as a reasonable non-prescription online source. This is the only supplement that I've been taking for quite a while now. [My doctor mentioned some think that up to 60 ng/mL might be good for preventing osteoporosis.] Todd
  11. Todd S

    Whole Body Vibration Therapy for Bone Health

    Dean, I think you misread my post. My inital and later tests did not differ in the reported resonant frequencies. In both sets of tests, the "Soft 10" setting resulted in 30 Hz -- and the "Strong 10" setting resulted in 26 Hz. For the later set of tests, I didn't didn't use a speed of 20 at all. I wrote, "I was planning to do additional tests at speed setting 20, but I think that the results here for speed setting 10 are probably sufficient for now." This was identified as "Strong 10", not "Strong 20". h10p 26/7.8 X 0.3 Y 0.8 Z 7.8 Strong 10 plate upright I'm still not certain about the accuracy of the Magnitude values. And we haven't run enough experiments yet to determine consistency of the reported results. And remember that PMC 3688642 said, "This recommendation is mainly based on exposures in the range of 4 h to 8 h...". It seems to me that this is probably mostly due to occupational exposure. The same source also says "“Shorter durations should be treated with extreme caution.” But is there evidence of problems with shorter durations? As I've described before, I'm currently just using the vibration plate for about a one minute supported handstand every morning -- using the "Strong 10" setting -- and periodically moving between slightly planched, proper stacked handstand, and slightly bridged. I use "Strong 10" not because "Strong 20" is difficult or dangerous, but because the latter is less convenient. Before kicking up (quite vertically because of space limitations) into a handstand, the unloaded vibration plate on "Strong 20" is very noisy and jumping around so much that it doesn't always stay in place. For this reason, "Strong 10" seems more convenient. I intend to continue this usage for now. As I've also described before, I hang from my ankles for about a minute before moving to the vibration plate to do the morning handstand. While hanging upside down, I for about 5 seconds at a time alternate hands using one hand to stretch the fingers and wrist back at 90 degrees on the other hand. This is to prep my wrist for the subsequent handstand. I haven't yet started spending upright time on the vibration plate, but I intend to do so -- maybe at some other time of the day. I'll probably use the "Strong 20" setting, since bodyweight on the vibration platform eliminates the noise and hopping around issues that are present with an unloaded plate. The reason I plan to spend upright time on the vibration plate in the future is because it is far more likely (than when inverted) to stimulate the hip bones. I want to use straight legs when upright because I want the maximum transmission of vibration to the hips (as also noted below). I'm only using the vibration plate in order to get the presumed benefits of vibration on the body. But using shock absorbers, staying away from the outer edges of the plate, and bending the limbs -- all reduce the transmission of the vibration to the body -- and I don't see the need for them myself at this point. For example, I want to use straight legs when upright because I want the maximum transmission of vibration to the hips. If you want less vibration on the body, it seems that you could just use a lower speed setting and/or the Soft mode instead of the Strong mode. [i currently use thin workout gloves on the vibration plate only because the surface seems somewhat smooth and I don't want my hands to unintentionally slip.] The main thing I was initially concerned about was transmission of excess vibration to the brain. With the experience that we have so far -- of order of magnitude less vibration being transmitted to the jaw -- I'm not currently concerned about it. And I'm not planning to ever do a headstand on the vibration plate. With regard to your question about the hands, I'm not currently concerned. I haven't experienced any problem thus far. I should point out that in the gym as part of my warmup I spend a significant amount of time doing both stretching and strengthening exercises for the hands and wrists. [i got these routines from the Handstand One course from gymnasticbodies.com] I have "small bones" (inherited from my Mother, I think) -- and I consider it very important to always work on maintaining or improving wrist mobility and strength. Todd
  12. Todd S

    Whole Body Vibration Therapy for Bone Health

    Dean, I was planning to do addional tests at speed setting 20, but I think that the results here for speed setting 10 are probably sufficient for now. I did a slightly different set of tests than I originally planned. All tests were done with either the feet or the hands at the edges of the vibration plate. With the phone on the plate, it was located slighty inward to avoid bumps and thus only half under the right foot. Straight legs if upright. Straight arms if inverted. Thin yoga socks and thin workout gloves. For 'bite' measurements, the phone was sandwiched between two old CDs for protection of the phone. I used 20 second Delay and 20 second Duration. s10p+30 30/4.8 X 0.0 Y 2.2 Z 4.3 Soft 10 plate upright +30pounds s10p 30/4.8 X 0.0 Y 1.2 Z 4.6 Soft 10 plate upright s10u 30/0.33 X 0.13 Y 0.03 Z 0.30 Soft 10 bite upright s10i 30/0.38 X 0.01 Y 0.03 Z 0.38 Soft 10 bite inverted h10p+30 27/5.1 X 0.2 Y 1.0 Z 5.0 Strong 10 plate upright +30pounds h10p 26/7.8 X 0.3 Y 0.8 Z 7.8 Strong 10 plate upright h10u 26/0.84 X 0.10 Y 0.03 Z 0.83 Strong 10 bite upright h10i 28/0.87 X 0.23 Y 0.03 Z 0.84 Strong 10 bite inverted In support of what you reported, vibration at the jaw appeared to be about an order of magnitude less than at the vibration plate. This was true whether upright or inverted. There was very slightly higher transmission to the jaw when inverted than when upright. [The "+30pounds' test didn't show much difference in these results with Speed 10. In an initial 'Soft 10 plate...' run that I had subsequently deleted the data for, the frequency was slightly less with the extra weight. I don't think I calculated Magnitude for that run.] The Magnitudes at the plate (upright) appear somewhat higher here than with my earlier report: Earlier: 30/3.8 26/5.8 Here: 30.4.8 26/7.8 I think that that difference is because here the feet were in thin yoga socks and positioned at the edges of the vibration plate, whereas earlier the feet were in athletic shoes and were positioned inside of the bumps on the vibration plate. Todd
  13. Todd S

    Whole Body Vibration Therapy for Bone Health

    Dean, I don't have any need to upload the raw data off the phone, especially since I'm just eyeballing the waveforms for rough data. My phone screen seems big enough for this purpose. My original plan was to run ten tests: the first seven to correspond to your seven tests and an additional three while inverted (supported with feet back touching shelving) -- (a. arms slightly bent and shoulders slightly "planched"; b. arms straight and shoulders stacked over hands like in a proper handstand; and c. arms straight but upper chest pushed out to be slightly "bridged")). But after doing the first four tests (phone in contact with vibration plate surface) -- and comparing the results to yours, I decided to defer the rest of the tests until I better understood whether the results I was getting made sense. I thought that there were too many differences between our results. Thank you for repeating one of your tests with the VibSensor App. Since you got the same Resonance frequency as with your other App, it gives me some confidence in continuing with the tools that I have. I still don't know if the Magnitude values that I'm seeing are valid, since the App in some cases reports "LIMIT" (as I explained in an earlier post). That appears to be a limitation of the accelerometer on my phone. Dean, did you ever see "LIMIT" in the "Peak raw" data with your phone? It occurs to me that the measured Resonance frequency is likely to be dependent on the mass of the user resting on the vibration plate. Since our body weights differ significantly, that might account for some of the differences in results. I also think that the measured Magnitude when putting phone in contact with vibration plate surface might be dependent on exactly where the phone is placed. I'm not certain that I sufficiently controlled this variable. Experiments to determine the influence of these factors might be appropriate before moving on to the more exotic tests like with inversion. [i may not get to this until next weekend.] By the way, it occurs to me that for an inversion test if the phone is upside down between the teeth then the tongue is on top when inverted -- and so it could be used to click a touch-screen button. [Yes, the tongue can click a button.] That thought was just a meager attempt at humor, since the VibSensor App lets you set a Delay before the measurement starts anyway. [Thus far, I've been using a Delay of 15 seconds and a Measurement duration of 10 seconds.] [in case you didn't discover it, on the VibSensor results display you can click on X, Y, or Z buttons to toggle their waveforms off/on so that you easily view a single waveform. Note also that you can use settings to have the display in g's.]] ----- I find it interesting that PMCID PMC3688642 covers a lot about transmissibility results from measurements, but doesn't include those data points in figure 2. It seems that doing so would significantly reduce impact of the warnings. Todd
  14. Todd S

    Whole Body Vibration Therapy for Bone Health

    Dean, I ran just the first set of four measurements comparable to what you did. Instead of looking at displayed "Peak raw" values (which sometimes showed "LIMIT" for the Z axis) as I previously did in my first look at the app the other day, I this time just eyeballed the charts (like i think you did) to very roughly estimate top to bottom excursion numbers for X/Y/Z. Then I used a vector magnitude calculator to get a single number. Soft 10 Resonance 30 Hz X 0.1G Y 2.7G Z 2.7G Magnitude 3.8 Soft 20 Resonance 43 Hz X 0.0 Y 2.1 Z 3.1 Magnitude 3.7 Strong 10 Resonance 26 Hz X 0.4 Y 2.0 Z 5.4 Magnitude 5.8 Strong 20 Resonance 38 Hz X 0.5 Y 5.0 Z 2.0 Magnitude 5.4 So, compared to your 25/1.3 36/3.2 38/3.6 33/4.3 I got 30/3.8 26/5.8 43/3.7 38/5.4 We used different phone hardware/software. And there might be some difference in our vibration plates. Perhaps you might consider trying the VibSensor app to see what kind of results you get with it. [The Accelerometer Analyzer app that you used doesn't appear to be available for IOS.] It would be interesting to see if you at least get the same frequency values using two different apps. If not, it might indicate that one or both apps have an insufficient sampling rate to accurately determine the frequency. Todd
  15. Todd S

    Whole Body Vibration Therapy for Bone Health

    Dean, If you haven't already picked an app, take a look at VibSensor, by Now Instruments and Software, Inc. I think it's available on Android as well as IOS. It's free until you want to enable emailing of results. I've tried VibSensor only very briefly -- with a low vibration speed -- by setting my iPhone 6plus (on a piece of foam) -- on my Soloflex platform, on the Vibe Plate in 'soft' mode, and on the Vibe Plate in 'strong' mode. In the Vibe Plate 'strong' mode test, the "Peak raw" dispay of the Z-axis value showed "LIMIT" -- which means "data occurred that was outside the measurement range of the accelerometer". This may mean that a different accelerometer would be needed to directly measure the Vibe Plate in 'strong' mode. For example, the $799 "Digiducer 333D01" supports measurement of amplitude up to 20 g. But the phone built-in accelerometer may be sufficient for measuring vibrations on the head, for example -- where the g's are presumably much lower than directly on the vibration platform. Thanks, Todd