SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Feb 27, 2016 5:49:19 GMT -5
There is a point where continually referring to someone as fat can be considered rude behavior, and plenty of folks around here have, sadly, crossed the rubicon.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,962
|
Post by jimoh on Feb 27, 2016 6:27:22 GMT -5
Hanley looking good at 1b m.mlb.com/news/article/165547658/hanley-ramirez-footwork-at-1st-base-improvingRamirez's fielding was crisp and error-free, punctuated by a fluid agility that seemed to escape him during last season's unsuccessful move to left field. "He looks like he's going to be fine over there," said president of baseball operations Dave Dombrowski. "I think he can do it. He looks like a natural infielder, and I don't see him having any problems fielding ground balls. The key for him is that he's going to have to continue to work at it and we're going to have to make sure he continues to work at it on a daily basis." A three-time, All-Star shortstop, Ramirez showcased his powerful arm with throws to Pedroia that were consistently accurate, with one toss earning an audible "Yes!" from the fiery second baseman. .... "I'm going to keep working. … Trying to get better and better every day. Do my early work with Butter and try to get as comfortable as I can before Opening Day." Manager John Farrell was on hand for the workout, and he liked what he saw from his new first baseman. At one point, the Red Sox skipper offered up a "Wow, look at that!" as Ramirez whirled and threw a strike to second after fielding a challenging one-hopper. "I thought Hanley had a very good day today," said Farrell. "He completed all the plays. As far as the throws ... his footwork today was very good. ... And as a 10-year veteran turned student, Ramirez appreciates that the work ethic Butterfield espouses is an approach that prevails throughout the Red Sox organization.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Feb 27, 2016 7:08:08 GMT -5
...and there's certainly no money in talking about metabolism, lousy diet for any number of overweight kids, and genetics. You are what you eat, as a child, and that's where your body will take you later. You're welcome to ignore that science. I understand there is lots of money in that these days. Last I saw, this is a sports site, we're not talking about kids, we're talking about a professional athlete paid millions to be in the best shape he can be. I have zero sympathy for that or anyone else who is intelligent enough that it's a conscious decision. If you want to gripe about his weight then you're talking about his background, all of it right back to his childhood. If you don't want to go there then stop griping about his weight on this "sports site".
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 27, 2016 8:22:34 GMT -5
No one knows a damn thing about what Pablo is doing or isn't doing with his diet. To just assume that he's trying as hard as he can to lose weight but he just can't lose it is pretty ridiculous. I wonder how boxers make different weight classes. I wonder what Pablo would weigh if he lived out in the woods for 3 months in a survival situation or went on a juicing cleanse. As a professional athlete with unlimited resources and a job that should be taken seriously 24/7/365, there's just no argument that anyone can make that convinces me he can't lose weight, especially since he has actually lost weight before. The only people who can't lose weight are people who don't understand anything about nutrition or people who don't really care enough to lose weight. This let's feel sorry for him crap and then criticizing people who are criticizing him is a bunch of BS. If he doesn't like being fat shamed, he should go home and give up his contract and dry his tears with $100 bills.
Sorry, but professional athletes that make more in one paycheck than most people make in 10 years just aren't like the rest of us. They actually can be held to a higher standard. It's part of the job. If he doesn't like it, no one is forcing him to be a professional athlete.
If you want to rip on people posting pictures of random fat people and making fun of them, then yes, I'm on your side. But that's not anywhere close to the same thing as expecting a player on the team you love, being paid $19 million a year to take his job seriously and to not lie about how no one asked him to lose weight or to even acknowledge his weight or explain what he did to get into shape or what his diet is. This is also on the team for telling the biggest lie ever told about his body fat percentage. It's pretty easy for all of this to go away.
|
|
|
Post by costpet on Feb 27, 2016 8:45:15 GMT -5
I have more confidence in Pablo getting better at 3b, than HR handling 1st. All I know is that Shaw better be ready for anything.
If the idea is about winning and neither help you, or even hurt you, then cut them loose. You gotta pay either way anyway. I'm sure John Henry's had some bad investments in the past and knows how to cut his losses.
Ask yourself what Belichick would do.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Feb 27, 2016 9:23:49 GMT -5
Last I saw, this is a sports site, we're not talking about kids, we're talking about a professional athlete paid millions to be in the best shape he can be. I have zero sympathy for that or anyone else who is intelligent enough that it's a conscious decision. If you want to gripe about his weight then you're talking about his background, all of it right back to his childhood. If you don't want to go there then stop griping about his weight on this "sports site". In a perfect world, the fans at Fenway will let him know what they think every time he waddles up to the plate. ADD: I also think your excuses for what is supposed to be a professional athlete are pretty lame.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Feb 27, 2016 11:04:34 GMT -5
If you want to gripe about his weight then you're talking about his background, all of it right back to his childhood. If you don't want to go there then stop griping about his weight on this "sports site". In a perfect world, the fans at Fenway will let him know what they think every time he waddles up to the plate. ADD: I also think your excuses for what is supposed to be a professional athlete are pretty lame. Back to science, Phil. I haven't made any excuses for him. I posted a quote from a professional with data in hand. There's ample evidence that metabolism drives this show. Take it or leave it. As for the fans at Fenway, if he plays as poorly as he did last year, he deserves every bit of criticism he gets. But he's succeeded in the past even as he's been just as heavy. Whether he can continue to do that as he ages, the question others on the board have posted, is the one that needs to be asked I think. Projecting personal traits from his physical profile is pop psychology. It's not my thing.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 27, 2016 11:37:59 GMT -5
In a perfect world, the fans at Fenway will let him know what they think every time he waddles up to the plate. ADD: I also think your excuses for what is supposed to be a professional athlete are pretty lame. Back to science, Phil. I haven't made any excuses for him. I posted a quote from a professional with data in hand. There's ample evidence that metabolism drives this show. Take it or leave it. As for the fans at Fenway, if he plays as poorly as he did last year, he deserves every bit of criticism he gets. But he's succeeded in the past even as he's been just as heavy. Whether he can continue to do that as he ages, the question others on the board have posted, is the one that needs to be asked I think. Projecting personal traits from his physical profile is pop psychology. It's not my thing. Well, project the traits of someone who was so out of shape that he had to be removed from a game for "dehydration" and miss a few games last year after running first to home. Well, almost to home. He was thrown out by 40 feet because Butterfield didn't realize he was ready to collapse. Or you could see how awful his range was and how long it took him to get up if he dove and actually got to a ball. That's evidence, not guessing like the professional was doing. I don't care how fat or skinny he is if that's his level of conditioning. I'm sure Vince Wilfork could run circles around him.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Feb 27, 2016 15:04:32 GMT -5
Hanley looking good at 1b m.mlb.com/news/article/165547658/hanley-ramirez-footwork-at-1st-base-improvingRamirez's fielding was crisp and error-free, punctuated by a fluid agility that seemed to escape him during last season's unsuccessful move to left field. "He looks like he's going to be fine over there," said president of baseball operations Dave Dombrowski. "I think he can do it. He looks like a natural infielder, and I don't see him having any problems fielding ground balls. The key for him is that he's going to have to continue to work at it and we're going to have to make sure he continues to work at it on a daily basis." A three-time, All-Star shortstop, Ramirez showcased his powerful arm with throws to Pedroia that were consistently accurate, with one toss earning an audible "Yes!" from the fiery second baseman. .... "I'm going to keep working. … Trying to get better and better every day. Do my early work with Butter and try to get as comfortable as I can before Opening Day." Manager John Farrell was on hand for the workout, and he liked what he saw from his new first baseman. At one point, the Red Sox skipper offered up a "Wow, look at that!" as Ramirez whirled and threw a strike to second after fielding a challenging one-hopper. "I thought Hanley had a very good day today," said Farrell. "He completed all the plays. As far as the throws ... his footwork today was very good. ... And as a 10-year veteran turned student, Ramirez appreciates that the work ethic Butterfield espouses is an approach that prevails throughout the Red Sox organization. Amazing the contrast of this report and the one on NE CSN the other day where the commentators talked about the ole swipe, putting the ball in his mouth, and how disgruntled they thought Pedey and Bogaerts were with the "antics." At this point, I think the local media's intense desire for a negative story line is completely driving the Hanley coverage. It's stupid. If he looks bad and isn't working on it mid-ST, that's a time to worry about it. But right now? **Willing** the guy to fail so they have something to gripe about? It's just annoying.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Feb 27, 2016 15:11:07 GMT -5
Back to science, Phil. I haven't made any excuses for him. I posted a quote from a professional with data in hand. There's ample evidence that metabolism drives this show. Take it or leave it. As for the fans at Fenway, if he plays as poorly as he did last year, he deserves every bit of criticism he gets. But he's succeeded in the past even as he's been just as heavy. Whether he can continue to do that as he ages, the question others on the board have posted, is the one that needs to be asked I think. Projecting personal traits from his physical profile is pop psychology. It's not my thing. Well, project the traits of someone who was so out of shape that he had to be removed from a game for "dehydration" and miss a few games last year after running first to home. Well, almost to home. He was thrown out by 40 feet because Butterfield didn't realize he was ready to collapse. Or you could see how awful his range was and how long it took him to get up if he dove and actually got to a ball. That's evidence, not guessing like the professional was doing. I don't care how fat or skinny he is if that's his level of conditioning. I'm sure Vince Wilfork could run circles around him. I think the issue some people are taking is about exactly what you pointed out. If he's in terrible condition, that's one thing. But that's not the same thing as presuming he is because he has a belly (see Vince Wilfork). I'm not excusing his being deconditioned, but I find the chicken little perception based on his belly completely useless, and probably counterproductive. I'd just like to see him play for a few weeks before, you know, judging his ability to play. Or taking two more steps and passing judgement on his dedication, or character.
|
|
|
Post by klostrophobic on Feb 27, 2016 15:40:21 GMT -5
There is a point where continually referring to someone as fat can be considered rude behavior, and plenty of folks around here have, sadly, crossed the rubicon. What about being continually fat? Certainly that's just as rude, and thanks to the added buoyancy makes it easier to cross the Rubicon. But I guess I don't care if Pablo is fat or not; only that he can be at least a replacement level player. Which is just sad that I only hope that for 19 million dollars he can produce at the same level as you'd expect for the league minimum.
|
|
gerry
Veteran
Enter your message here...
Posts: 1,656
|
Post by gerry on Feb 27, 2016 16:08:21 GMT -5
Well, project the traits of someone who was so out of shape that he had to be removed from a game for "dehydration" and miss a few games last year after running first to home. Well, almost to home. He was thrown out by 40 feet because Butterfield didn't realize he was ready to collapse. Or you could see how awful his range was and how long it took him to get up if he dove and actually got to a ball. That's evidence, not guessing like the professional was doing. I don't care how fat or skinny he is if that's his level of conditioning. I'm sure Vince Wilfork could run circles around him. I think the issue some people are taking is about exactly what you pointed out. If he's in terrible condition, that's one thing. But that's not the same thing as presuming he is because he has a belly (see Vince Wilfork). I'm not excusing his being deconditioned, but I find the chicken little perception based on his belly completely useless, and probably counterproductive. I'd just like to see him play for a few weeks before, you know, judging his ability to play. Or taking two more steps and passing judgement on his dedication, or character. NECSN takes pride in holding the feet of their target du jour to the fire of their own making, and believe in their right to do so. That's a sad job description.. Schoolyard bullies comes to mind. I am 100% certain players, managers and coaches pay little attention to them. I sure don't. In he meantime we can expect regular "authoritative" abuse towards Hanley, Sandoval, Castillo, Porcello, Buchholz, Farrell, Amaro, and anyone else who dares not comply with their expectations. IMO as this last place but rejuvenated team begins ST, the last thing we need is negativity. But there it is.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 27, 2016 17:44:16 GMT -5
I think the issue some people are taking is about exactly what you pointed out. If he's in terrible condition, that's one thing. But that's not the same thing as presuming he is because he has a belly (see Vince Wilfork). I'm not excusing his being deconditioned, but I find the chicken little perception based on his belly completely useless, and probably counterproductive. I'd just like to see him play for a few weeks before, you know, judging his ability to play. Or taking two more steps and passing judgement on his dedication, or character. NECSN takes pride in holding the feet of their target du jour to the fire of their own making, and believe in their right to do so. That's a sad job description.. Schoolyard bullies comes to mind. I am 100% certain players, managers and coaches pay little attention to them. I sure don't. In he meantime we can expect regular "authoritative" abuse towards Hanley, Sandoval, Castillo, Porcello, Buchholz, Farrell, Amaro, and anyone else who dares not comply with their expectations. IMO as this last place but rejuvenated team begins ST, the last thing we need is negativity. But there it is. How long have you been a baseball fan? This is quite tame. If everyone making millions is beyond criticism, we may as well just tape our mouths shut and just press the applause button. There would be no negativity from me if I didn't continually read posts that make excuses and criticizing people for fat shaming the poor guy with the $95 million contract. Can I get a job like that? You could even throw rotten tomatoes at me.
|
|
|
Post by dfwsox on Feb 27, 2016 19:58:44 GMT -5
Quick comment just reading all the back and forth on these guys.
1. I agree with the folks that bring the opinion that Pablo's body type is what it is, its basically what it was when we signed him, he had a bad year. I'm especially disappointed in his batting from the right side. But I do believe this guy has it in him to bounce back. Not worried about the weight but more how he looks and moves around.
2. Hanley I have always been big on. He's frustrating at times but I gotta believe he hits better and stands a better chance at being hopefully close to average defender at first.
Cant wait for the seasong guys!
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Feb 27, 2016 20:02:00 GMT -5
LOL, psychoanalysis by media reports. I prefer the simple explanation, calories in > calories out. It's so simple, that's why it's out there and believed by so many. But it is complete and utter bull****.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Feb 27, 2016 20:29:36 GMT -5
LOL, psychoanalysis by media reports. I prefer the simple explanation, calories in > calories out. It's so simple, that's why it's out there and believed by so many. But it is complete and utter bullshit. Calories are measures of heat. Fat is fuel stored by the body for future burning. You can call it BS if you wish but if you burn more calories than you consume you will lose weight. We're talking about a professional athlete here. He signed a big contract, had a negative WAR year and then didn't have the pride or desire to try to do something about it. It's not a question of how good he can be with or without fat, the question is would losing the fat make him better. I don't see anyone making a case that he's a better athlete because of the fat, I only see people making a case that he can overcome the fat. I hope he gets booed for not caring enough to lose the fat, not for performance. He deserves it.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Feb 27, 2016 21:41:37 GMT -5
It's so simple, that's why it's out there and believed by so many. But it is complete and utter bullshit. Calories are measures of heat. Fat is fuel stored by the body for future burning. You can call it BS if you wish but if you burn more calories than you consume you will lose weight. We're talking about a professional athlete here. He signed a big contract, had a negative WAR year and then didn't have the pride or desire to try to do something about it. It's not a question of how good he can be with or without fat, the question is would losing the fat make him better. I don't see anyone making a case that he's a better athlete because of the fat, I only see people making a case that he can overcome the fat. I hope he gets booed for not caring enough to lose the fat, not for performance. He deserves it. Just for your edification, I'm going to tell you that the calories in-out line is not accurate, at least in the terms it's often used. And I'll give the simple example that carbohydrates trigger insulin (glucose>>fructose) production, and induce an anabolic state. However, in order for the body to utilize all carbohydrate, it has to be transported across membranes. This works differently for different sugars in different tissues. And, glucose specifically is the only sugar that can be stored. Fructose is readily converted to fat by the liver, since unlike glucose it can't be used to make glycogen. When carbohydrate is converted to fat, some of its caloric value is actually required to break it down to acetyl-CoA, which is then used to piece together fat molecules. This results in about 25% loss of the energy value in. And depending on the relative amounts of anabolic hormones (insulin and insulin-like growth factors, IGFs, along with others) and catabolic ones (glucagon, cortisol, epinephrine), body metabolism overall and specific tissue metabolism in particular, changes. Furthermore, recent research is showing that the value of exercise in burning calories tends to plateau (which I find bizarre, and hard to believe, but apparently that's the case). So, no, calories in<calories out may, by fundamental conservation of energy, be true, but calories in affects calories out quite heavily, because of the biochemical pathways utilized and their effects on hormones and endocrine function. And calories out is highly dependent on genetics. To oversimplify is not to grasp to complexity and variability of human biology.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Feb 27, 2016 21:52:24 GMT -5
All of which is to say, btw, that losing fat may actually make Sandoval perform more poorly, by putting his body into a compensatory state where his tissues think they're being "starved," and his catabolic "stress" hormones (cortisol, glucagon, epinephrine) are high, because his body thinks it's in danger. The major outcome of immediate stress response is high blood pressure, salt wasting, dehydration, and the breakdown of muscle tissue so that amino acids are available for conversion to glucose...which the brain requires for function. Prolonged catabolic states are associated with poor short-term memory, impaired reaction times, decreased cognitive function, and impaired learning. Some, but not all of that, is because protein synthesis is required for memory and cognition. And when the body thinks it's starving, it breaks down protein and actually tries to store fat during non-fasting periods.
All of which is to say, I don't care if Panda is a little fat, because that very well may be where his body's performance is optimal for him. I care if he performs, and we don't know if he's doing that until ST games are going.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Feb 27, 2016 22:24:41 GMT -5
It's so simple, that's why it's out there and believed by so many. But it is complete and utter bullshit. Calories are measures of heat. Fat is fuel stored by the body for future burning. You can call it BS if you wish but if you burn more calories than you consume you will lose weight. We're talking about a professional athlete here. He signed a big contract, had a negative WAR year and then didn't have the pride or desire to try to do something about it. It's not a question of how good he can be with or without fat, the question is would losing the fat make him better. I don't see anyone making a case that he's a better athlete because of the fat, I only see people making a case that he can overcome the fat. I hope he gets booed for not caring enough to lose the fat, not for performance. He deserves it. The listeners of WEEI would love to hear this. It is BS. It's science. Buy the popular calories in-calories out all you want. It's old school. It's wrong. I'm not going to educate you here. Go discover for yourself if you even care. I'm just pointing it out. There seems to be a lot of "fat" bias here. People think it's just so easy to control your weight. Try being overweight and battling that for your life. Yes, some people can lose it if they want, for others it's much harder. You even said in an previous post that we have no idea what Pablo has done or tried as far as losing weight. That applies to you too, Ray. Don't go saying how unlikely it is that he's been making an effort when you have no idea either. I don't. I'm not saying how wonderful the guy is. But people are all over him this spring because he appears overweight still. Well, he is. Let's see how he performs on the field.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 27, 2016 22:38:23 GMT -5
Here's Jonah Soolman, registered dietitian and personal trainer ( via WEEI):
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Feb 27, 2016 23:55:55 GMT -5
Sleep and mood disturbance are good points. Running significantly calorie-negative will boost epinephrine and norepinephrine levels, resulting in anxiety, restlessness, and difficulty reaching deep sleep (which is the stage of sleep required for physical recovery, vs. REM, which is like defragging your brain's hard drive: memory consolidation, etc.). Protein catabolic states also result in functional deficiencies in amino acids, including tryptophan. Since tryptophan is an essential AA, it has to be eaten (it cannot be synthesized). Reduced intake along with increased breakdown means less available for function. Major functions of tryptophan? Immediate conversion to serotonin (mood), secondary conversion of serotonin to melatonin (circadian rhythm/sleep cycle), and regulation of functional immune responses (tryptophan "starvation" due to expression of the enzyme IDO is used by the body to halt immune responses and suppress immunity, and tryptophan deficiency has a role in immune suppression).
I'm not sure that Panda trying to look the way a lot of people think he should is going to have at all the effect on his performance that they believe. I still say, let him play, and if he stinks, do something about it then. Same goes for Hanley and 1b. But the level of outrage based on zero *current* evidence of a performance deficiency for both of them is just...a waste of energy.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Feb 28, 2016 1:05:03 GMT -5
Sleep and mood disturbance are good points. Running significantly calorie-negative will boost epinephrine and norepinephrine levels, resulting in anxiety, restlessness, and difficulty reaching deep sleep (which is the stage of sleep required for physical recovery, vs. REM, which is like defragging your brain's hard drive: memory consolidation, etc.). Protein catabolic states also result in functional deficiencies in amino acids, including tryptophan. Since tryptophan is an essential AA, it has to be eaten (it cannot be synthesized). Reduced intake along with increased breakdown means less available for function. Major functions of tryptophan? Immediate conversion to serotonin (mood), secondary conversion of serotonin to melatonin (circadian rhythm/sleep cycle), and regulation of functional immune responses (tryptophan "starvation" due to expression of the enzyme IDO is used by the body to halt immune responses and suppress immunity, and tryptophan deficiency has a role in immune suppression). I'm not sure that Panda trying to look the way a lot of people think he should is going to have at all the effect on his performance that they believe. I still say, let him play, and if he stinks, do something about it then. Same goes for Hanley and 1b. But the level of outrage based on zero *current* evidence of a performance deficiency for both of them is just...a waste of energy. We did that, last year, the entire year. He stunk and he hasn't done anything significant to change that. After a negative WAR year, one (at least me), would assume he would attempt to do something about that. He looks fatter than ever. I'm not talking about starving himself to the point that he looks like Buchholz, I'm talking about reducing that mammoth spare tire. There's no way I'm going to be convinced that that much fat is a plus unless we're talking about sumo wrestling. LOL, he gives pandas a bad name.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Feb 28, 2016 1:57:12 GMT -5
Just to review what we're talking about here (Hint, this is not the media guide cover):
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Feb 28, 2016 6:07:59 GMT -5
Hanley looking good at 1b m.mlb.com/news/article/165547658/hanley-ramirez-footwork-at-1st-base-improvingRamirez's fielding was crisp and error-free, punctuated by a fluid agility that seemed to escape him during last season's unsuccessful move to left field. "He looks like he's going to be fine over there," said president of baseball operations Dave Dombrowski. "I think he can do it. He looks like a natural infielder, and I don't see him having any problems fielding ground balls. The key for him is that he's going to have to continue to work at it and we're going to have to make sure he continues to work at it on a daily basis." A three-time, All-Star shortstop, Ramirez showcased his powerful arm with throws to Pedroia that were consistently accurate, with one toss earning an audible "Yes!" from the fiery second baseman. .... "I'm going to keep working. … Trying to get better and better every day. Do my early work with Butter and try to get as comfortable as I can before Opening Day." Manager John Farrell was on hand for the workout, and he liked what he saw from his new first baseman. At one point, the Red Sox skipper offered up a "Wow, look at that!" as Ramirez whirled and threw a strike to second after fielding a challenging one-hopper. "I thought Hanley had a very good day today," said Farrell. "He completed all the plays. As far as the throws ... his footwork today was very good. ... And as a 10-year veteran turned student, Ramirez appreciates that the work ethic Butterfield espouses is an approach that prevails throughout the Red Sox organization. This is the biggest storyline of spring training. If Hanley can be JUST competent then the Sox should be golden. That would pave the way of Hanley starting 100-110 games started at first with Shaw coming in at first at the end of games, especially the games with tight leads. That with 20-30 games at DH , that would be best way to protect Hanley and keep him healthy throughout the whole year. Even if he does get injured once or twice this year, the Sox have him covered with Sam Travis at first in the minors. It's all about him just being good enough to handle the position to be league average or just below league average. Butterfield should get a huge raise if he can turn this guy into a okay defender at first for one year. Fingers crossed he can still turn any poor infielder into a good to great defender. The Sox need Hanley's bat potential this year and his right handed power.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Feb 28, 2016 9:44:54 GMT -5
Sleep and mood disturbance are good points. Running significantly calorie-negative will boost epinephrine and norepinephrine levels, resulting in anxiety, restlessness, and difficulty reaching deep sleep (which is the stage of sleep required for physical recovery, vs. REM, which is like defragging your brain's hard drive: memory consolidation, etc.). Protein catabolic states also result in functional deficiencies in amino acids, including tryptophan. Since tryptophan is an essential AA, it has to be eaten (it cannot be synthesized). Reduced intake along with increased breakdown means less available for function. Major functions of tryptophan? Immediate conversion to serotonin (mood), secondary conversion of serotonin to melatonin (circadian rhythm/sleep cycle), and regulation of functional immune responses (tryptophan "starvation" due to expression of the enzyme IDO is used by the body to halt immune responses and suppress immunity, and tryptophan deficiency has a role in immune suppression). I'm not sure that Panda trying to look the way a lot of people think he should is going to have at all the effect on his performance that they believe. I still say, let him play, and if he stinks, do something about it then. Same goes for Hanley and 1b. But the level of outrage based on zero *current* evidence of a performance deficiency for both of them is just...a waste of energy. We did that, last year, the entire year. He stunk and he hasn't done anything significant to change that. After a negative WAR year, one (at least me), would assume he would attempt to do something about that. He looks fatter than ever. I'm not talking about starving himself to the point that he looks like Buchholz, I'm talking about reducing that mammoth spare tire. There's no way I'm going to be convinced that that much fat is a plus unless we're talking about sumo wrestling. LOL, he gives pandas a bad name. Sandoval looked last year the same as he looked for most of his career. And he looks the same this year. So it's possible, even likely, that how he looks isn't nearly as predictive of performance as you think. I'm reserving judgement until the season starts. If he repeats last year's performance, it's an issue. But as to whether that issue is weight or not, I'm reserving my conclusions.
|
|
|