Gym & Misc General Health and Fitness Thread

Remove this Banner Ad

showdownhero said:
da4482d7c30484890c6f153151a7362d.jpg
Click to expand...
You're just trolling because I'm a level 4 Jurassic maccas crossfitter
 
Paleo is esentially just a whole food diet that excludes foods thought to contain antinutrients or cause inflammation.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Then from there it's just a matter of how strict you want to be - ranging from the basics of cutting out sugar, grains and vegetable oils, to the ultra strict version of cutting out veggies like potatoes, tomatoes etc, no dairy and only eating grass fed meat.
 
Paleo... "big carb is lying to you! Take the sugar out! Put fat back in!"

Actual dietitians: When we sensibly reduced fat, manufacturers put sugar in. Take that sugar back out. The end.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
Chief said:
Paleo... "big carb is lying to you! Take the sugar out! Put fat back in!"

Actual dietitians: When we sensibly reduced fat, manufacturers put sugar in. Take that sugar back out. The end.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
Click to expand...
obviously fat needs to be measured and controlled if following a calorie restricted diet given their caloric density

not sure there's anything sensible about this
whh4UxR.png


and yes dietitians hate sugar
l3f8kNs.png

DWqSrV1.png

zbNjucN.png

OPLuStl.png
 
phantom13 said:
I'm actually kinda glad a few more people are chiming in with different definitions now, kinda vindicates my initial thoughts
Click to expand...

I don't really see the issue with not being able to condense it down into a simple soundbite.

For people who are interested it's just a matter of doing a bit of research on the pros and cons of the types of foods considered an issue and decide which ones they want to cut out and which to keep.

It's just like exercise - you don't have to go all out and become a 24/7 gym junkie to get a benefit from it, just like you don't have to become a militant paleontologist(?) to get a benefit from adopting some paleo principles like avoiding vegetable oils, etc.
 
Probably why the very first post that started this ridiculous thing was me saying MY ISSUES WITH IT.

And you're actually dead right, if people wanna do some research then adapt it that's fine, probably the most sensible approach but if you do that you're not really following a paleo diet are you? If I go "I really like this vegeterian thing but I might leave chicken in there" I'm not really being a vegeterian am I? I think most paleoers have done exactly what you're saying but they still claim to be paleo, then they preach, then we get to where Phantom goes "wait a minute, what estibador says is paleo seems to be different to what DemonTim says is paleo, so are either of them actually paleo or are both of them an adaptation of paleo?" And on the grand scheme of things it's a pretty irrelevant and minor gripe but yet it's still somehow taken about 150 posts of discussion.
 
phantom13 said:
Probably why the very first post that started this ridiculous thing was me saying MY ISSUES WITH IT.

And you're actually dead right, if people wanna do some research then adapt it that's fine, probably the most sensible approach but if you do that you're not really following a paleo diet are you? If I go "I really like this vegeterian thing but I might leave chicken in there" I'm not really being a vegeterian am I? I think most paleoers have done exactly what you're saying but they still claim to be paleo, then they preach, then we get to where Phantom goes "wait a minute, what estibador says is paleo seems to be different to what DemonTim says is paleo, so are either of them actually paleo or are both of them an adaptation of paleo?" And on the grand scheme of things it's a pretty irrelevant and minor gripe but yet it's still somehow taken about 150 posts of discussion.
Click to expand...
Fairly sure it's because you're silky Johnston playa hater of the year
 
Theres an article about ol Paleo Pete today linking a facebook post of his from a few years ago. The post is loooong and in it he raises some interesting and at times very apt points (conflict with heart foundation of Australia has with accrediting food, the conditions for dairy cows in Oz) however he also posts.

"Why has our rate of autism jumped from 1 in 10000 children in 1974, to 1 in 50 in 2014, where do you think it will be in another 40 years if it is escalating at this rate? This has grown rapidly since the guidelines have been in place!

Why is the rate of mental illness including dementia and Alzheimer's escalating at a frightening rate and we are told by the DAA and Heart Foudnation to avoid Saturated fat when this is what our brains need to survive and function properly."

now he may have a point here, diet and mental health links are a thing, but if you wanna say something like the above youre going to be questioned on your evidence, and if the best you have is correlation (which is NOT the same as causation) people are probably going to take you to task, especially when the insinuation is that you as a parent could have easily avoided having a kid with autism. Now to clarify here

1- I'm not a parent and by and large I think helicopter parents and inconsiderate parents are actually the worst (some flogs brought their one year old to a gold class movie the other night and I went off about it). So I'm no sympathiser to them
2- Keep in mind I actually don't have an issue with Pete and I don't even mind that he says stuff like this, if I had a kid, even a kid with Autism I think id laught this sort of thing off cause everyone thinks they know better, Pete just has a larger platform and way to make coin BUT...

If your'e gonna say stuff like this you have to accept that people are gonna ask for some evidence and that a lot of people are gonna be extremely pissed off with you for suggesting you caused or at least contributed to your child having autism or Alzheimer's. I post this just to show that Pete can be extremely controversial at times and that not everything has been attributed to him is a beat up. It also just happened to come up on some news site I was on today (I don't have DemonTim s patience to actually look stuff up)
 
I could be wrong but I though the accepted consensus for higher rates of diagnosis of autism and issues like Alzheimers was that in some cases the technology/undertstanding has improved ie Autism covers a pretty wide spectrum of issues and things that used to not be classified as autism now are
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

You'd also have to explain that any increase is not directly related to more adequate mental health testing, and better guidelines in diagnosis.
 
Aeglos said:
Autism rates also directly correlate with organic food sales.
Cop that Pete.
Also, the gene that causes autism 'mutations" is also the one that over generations has allowed us to evolve to be more intelligent etc
http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1003221
http://www.pd.infn.it/~dorigo/autism_organic_foods.jpg
Click to expand...
Should also add his comments even though he made them, were in relation to a conversation about Autism he had with Martha Herbert assistant professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School two week prior. It was interesting he covered it briefly on his facebook page back then and as he quoted Herbert no one cared, but soon as he repeated it with out referencing her, well the rest is history.

My opinion, Autism "numbers" have increased because of higher quality diagnosis.
 
Gralin said:
I could be wrong but I though the accepted consensus for higher rates of diagnosis of autism and issues like Alzheimers was that in some cases the technology/undertstanding has improved ie Autism covers a pretty wide spectrum of issues and things that used to not be classified as autism now are
Click to expand...
Haha perfect timing for my response.
 
Gralin said:
I could be wrong but I though the accepted consensus for higher rates of diagnosis of autism and issues like Alzheimers was that in some cases the technology/undertstanding has improved ie Autism covers a pretty wide spectrum of issues and things that used to not be classified as autism now are
Click to expand...

Look that's generally what I thought as well, but playing devils advocate I'm sure there are studies linking diet and Alzhemiers at least.
 
Bazzar said:
Should also add his comments even though he made them, were in relation to a conversation about Autism he had with Martha Herbert assistant professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School two week prior. It was interesting he covered it briefly on his facebook page back then and as he quoted Herbert no one cared, but soon as he repeated it with out referencing her, well the rest is history.

My opinion, Autism "numbers" have increased because of higher quality diagnosis.
Click to expand...

That's the important part. They are his words, on his facebook page.
 
Bazzar said:
Should also add his comments even though he made them, were in relation to a conversation about Autism he had with Martha Herbert assistant professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School two week prior. It was interesting he covered it briefly on his facebook page back then and as he quoted Herbert no one cared, but soon as he repeated it with out referencing her, well the rest is history.

My opinion, Autism "numbers" have increased because of higher quality diagnosis.
Click to expand...

Doesn't mean he didn't cherry pick from that conversion as well
 
phantom13 said:
Look that's generally what I thought as well, but playing devils advocate I'm sure there are studies linking diet and Alzhemiers at least.
Click to expand...
we still don't understand how a lot of things in our body work thats for sure

the waters are incredibly muddied by the $$$ thrown around by the food industry and the pressure put on politicians by them whenever new guidelines are proposed

there could be some truth in what Pete said, it could also be complete bullshit, one day we may find out but I'm not holding my breath when you consider who funds food research the most
 
Bazzar said:
Whats that got to do with it? I'm just pointing out the background to the post.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't him selectively picking out what information to feed to the public be part of the background?
 
Uh oh. Someone said something slightly negative about Pete, didn't they? Big trouble
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top