Weightloss/ Muscle Gain Naturally?

[Myweponsg00d]

Proteins: yogurt, milk, lean beef, chicken breast, canned tuna, canned sardines, eggs, cottage cheese

 

Fibers: broccoli, cale, apples, bananas, brown rice, almonds (also protein), green beans, oranges, berries.

 

Fats: avocado, sardines, olive oil, nuts, peanut butter, salmon.

 

Eat 6 "meals" a day (really, they are more like snacks), each containing 1 item from each of the first 2 lists (one protein, one fiber). Eat every 2-3 hours. Before bed, have a small snack of some cottage cheese. Casein protein takes a long time to burn, and will keep your metabolism high as you sleep. For your fats, try to listen to your body. You need enough healthy fat in order for your body to work right. If you look at your lunch of an apple and a can of tuna and think "Yuck...I'm sick of this crap!" Then dress that tuna with a tablespoon of olive oil. You will know when you need fat.

 

This is just a crash course, and my lists are really simplified.

 

Cooldog wins this thread. Hes so cool... (:

 

Only thing I find abit excessive about Paleonu is the nuymber 12 at getting started. I find raw milk to be very good for you.

Also number 7 is also somewhat questionable and debends on the person and how much he works out for example. I usually eat 3 to 4 meals a day. Only when I havent done any workout for days I can live with only 2. If im working out hard I can eat 5 or even 6 meals a day. These are big meals with lots of protein and fat in every meal mind you. Also I eat more carbs when i'm working out. But they never come from grains but vegetables, fruits, nuts or milk.

 

Marks Primal Blueprint is great for both, exercise and nutrition :)

 

You might also wanna check Undergroundwellness on Youtube

 

Always with these kind of things, like special diet, it's important to do a good research first before running head over heels to something. Veganism for example can be very dangerous for you if not implemented properly.

 

I have seen this stuff before, and I really don't know what to think of it. I wish government would actually take the time to research more stuff about diets, so we could find out if we are killing ourselves with cow's milk. Unfortunately, we just spend most of our time researching new medicines to prolong peoples diseases, instead of searching for dietary solutions (which people are starting to take note of).

 

I do find it interesting how much we have started to eat more and more processed foods, and more and more milk and sugar products, and people keep getting fatter and keep dieing from diseases that werent even around before aggricultural times. I've been thinking of trying a primal diet and seeing how I feel, and seeing how my muscles feel after lifting. If it turns out alright, I might just get into it.

[NorthernHero]

Unfortunately it is most of the times (if not all the times) is the case that goverment isn't to be trusted. We are thus forced to do our own recearch, and to experiment with our bodies.

 

Lots of debate going on about cows milk. And I do believe it is not very healthy if it is processed. But raw and processed milk are two very different things.

[tortilliachp]

Unfortunately it is most of the times (if not all the times) is the case that goverment isn't to be trusted. We are thus forced to do our own recearch, and to experiment with our bodies.

 

Lots of debate going on about cows milk. And I do believe it is not very healthy if it is processed. But raw and processed milk are two very different things.

 

 

conspiracy much? Sorry, this type of blatant bias has to be pointed out: people might take such a statement at face value, which is very dangerous.

 

show me convincing, multi-source evidence on raw and proccessed milk having any dietary differences at all. You have an opinion you present as fact, again potentially dangerous: we're talking real life dieting here, not some online game.

 

 

obviously, you have to be a conspiracy theorist to assume your government is out to get you and your health by providing faulty advice. why in the world would they do that, which is blatantly against the law, without any sort of motive?

 

 

 

 

 

Many of the other advice posts on this thread also show individual "treatment" that have undocumented effects. follow this advice at your own risk.

[NorthernHero]

Ok.. I'll bite that.

 

Many of the other advice posts on this thread also show individual "treatment" that have undocumented effects. follow this advice at your own risk.

Yes. Absolutely correct. I already adviced to do your own research on my previous post and for good reason. Don't just trust my word.

 

show me convincing, multi-source evidence on raw and proccessed milk having any dietary differences at all.

There is plenty of evidence. If you just can be bothered to look for it.

Do you know why pasteurization is done? Watch:

and

. Combined time: 15 minutes. I learned alot from those videos.

 

obviously, you have to be a conspiracy theorist to assume your government is out to get you and your health by providing faulty advice. why in the world would they do that, which is blatantly against the law, without any sort of motive?

Nononono haha i'm not conspiracy theorist. There is no such thing as conspiracy. It's quite simple. All i'm saying that it was a human being who draw the food pyramid. It was a human being who decided it is good thing to pasteurize milk. And that guy propably wasn't a nutrisionist either. The reasons behind prosessing milk are purely productinal. Pasteurized milk has longer shelflife. It is easier to do it that way. It saves money.

 

I will not be so bold to say that goverment is evil and it shouldn't be trusted on any subject. But lets pretend for a moment that it is a fact that raw milk is healthier. Now, what do you think is the reason it is illegal to sell it in almost all states in america? If everyobody would wake up and start buying raw milk the big dairy factories would go out of bussiness. Don't you think that has anything to do with the fact it is outlawed to sell it? And don't give me the weak argument that it can cause diseases. It's perfectly legal to sell raw vegetables and raw meat and those can cause dieseases too if eaten raw.

Sorry matey, this isn't a disney movie... it is for sure that there are corrupt people working in any goverment, any part of the world. As long as money is involved. Always has been, always will.

 

any sort of motive?

Money, power, greed, ignorance. Those kind of things. Also general nutrition advice usually changes very slowly, even if there is loads of evidence that condratics it.

 

conspiracy much? Sorry, this type of blatant bias has to be pointed out: people might take such a statement at face value, which is very dangerous.

For who would it be dangerous if people for once would think for themselves? hmm?

[tortilliachp]

Ok.. I'll bite that.

 

Yes. Absolutely correct. I already adviced to do your own research on my previous post and for good reason. Don't just trust my word.

 

show me convincing, multi-source evidence on raw and proccessed milk having any dietary differences at all.

There is plenty of evidence. If you just can be bothered to look for it.

Do you know why pasteurization is done? Watch:

and

. Combined time: 15 minutes. I learned alot from those videos.

 

You are aware you're taking dietary advice from an "expert" chiropractor? A chiropractor giving the "general history of milk" At 3:10 in the first video he says "Even a thousand years before Jesus, in the old testament, the Hindus with the Vetas were saying that milk was the most important food for people" Sorry, with so many flaws in a single sentece, i give this guy's testemony no credibility AT ALL. you shouldn't either, has he clearly has not checked what he is talking about in the least. The second video, on the "history of milk" he claims that at a given point in time "half of the deaths in New York were a result of the contamination of milk" that is an absurd claim, simply absurd

 

I urge you to read scientific works : http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/507035?cookieSet=1 there is no nutritional difference in raw milk and regular milk. Touché.

 

 

Nononono haha i'm not conspiracy theorist. There is no such thing as conspiracy. It's quite simple. All i'm saying that it was a human being who draw the food pyramid. It was a human being who decided it is good thing to pasteurize milk. And that guy propably wasn't a nutrisionist either. The reasons behind prosessing milk are purely productinal. Pasteurized milk has longer shelflife. It is easier to do it that way. It saves money.

 

A human drew teh food pyramid? Thousands of real experts, with degrees in related areas, who base their claims on scientific research drew and continously revise the food pyramid. Do you doubt the fact of evoluton as well? The scientific principles are identical.

And there are no significant measurable differences in the nutrition of raw milk and other organic milk. Do you also believe in homeopathy, a similar case where no measurable differences in content are responsible for beneficial health effects? Treatment of cows, not pasteurization or homogenisation are the differences, nothing more nothing less.

 

I will not be so bold to say that goverment is evil and it shouldn't be trusted on any subject. But lets pretend for a moment that it is a fact that raw milk is healthier. Now, what do you think is the reason it is illegal to sell it in almost all states in america? If everyobody would wake up and start buying raw milk the big dairy factories would go out of bussiness. Don't you think that has anything to do with the fact it is outlawed to sell it? And don't give me the weak argument that it can cause diseases. It's perfectly legal to sell raw vegetables and raw meat and those can cause dieseases too if eaten raw.

Sorry matey, this isn't a disney movie... it is for sure that there are corrupt people working in any goverment, any part of the world. As long as money is involved. Always has been, always will.

Let us consider the risks of tuberculosis, typhoid and salmonella that can only be spread by unpasturized milk. Your assumption is the basis of your whole argument, and it is false, fatally so. I usually cook my meat and vegetables, I don't usually boil (which is effectively more "harmful" than pasteurizing) milk before drinking, do you?`

 

I urge you to consider the details on disease caused by raw milk, that pasteurization would remove. http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/2007/ucm108856.htm "From 1998 to May 2005 CDC identified 45 outbreaks of foodborne illness that implicated unpasteurized milk, or cheese made from unpasteurized milk. These outbreaks accounted for 1,007 illnesses, 104 hospitalizations, and two deaths."

 

Money, power, greed, ignorance. Those kind of things. Also general nutrition advice usually changes very slowly, even if there is loads of evidence that condratics it.

 

Sorry, the evidence clearly contradicts your thesis, not mine. Advice changes rapidly, when propper evidence emerges and has been examined. That always takes time, not a single survey showing something new. You need a vast amount and thorough examination of ALL reliable evidence, and assess its reliability.

For who would it be dangerous if people for once would think for themselves? hmm?

 

Very directly, this paranoia is the sign of conspiracy " they don't want us to think" bullpoo. bullpoo!

 

I urge people to think for themselves, but that actually involves not just sitting there to "think". It involves examining actual evidence, not misplacing your trust in sources that have no credibility at all. You can think all you like, but that doesn't change reality. It demands an understanding of academia, and the particulars of the field and the research conducted in the field. Who is really capable of that thinking? The experts, the actual experts who have professions, and generally accredited degrees within their fiels ensuring they are the people who we should trust the most. These people with actual education and knowledge in the fields do the thinking you and I are INCAPABE of. You do not have the qualifications to make the neccessary rational analysis of the facts. We all rely on others for our technology (science is obviously technology), because they are the ones able to produce reliable, safe alternatives for us all.

 

 

At the end of the day, all those who have reasoned, and examined the evidence properly come to reasonable conclusions. It would be dangerous for those with emotive reasons for choosing to drink raw milk, if people thought for themselves. Intelligent free thinkers would then not heed their misguided advice. Thinking for yourself very often means placing your trust in those who are actually competent in making a desicion for you.

[Myweponsg00d]

I dont think the issue is with governments trying to hurt us, but rather just the fact that change doesn't happen overnight. Especially when we are talking about something that has been thought of as quite healthy for decades (drinking milk).

 

If governments looked at only the newest scientific studies that showed that one thing or another might be killing us or harming us in some way, we would be having dramatic legislation passed multiple times per year and conflicting with what we passed last year.

 

Also, consider calcium. Everybody needs calcium in their diet. Dairy products are the easiest way to get your recommended intake of calcium. Yes, you can get plenty of calcium from other sources, but it takes a lot more effort than just drinking a glass of milk. If the government supported the movement that dairy is dangerous, many people might start losing their dairy without getting adequate calcium elsewhere.

[NorthernHero]

My reply in white.

 

 

 

You are aware you're taking dietary advice from an "expert" chiropractor? A chiropractor giving the "general history of milk" At 3:10 in the first video he says "Even a thousand years before Jesus, in the old testament, the Hindus with the Vetas were saying that milk was the most important food for people" Sorry, with so many flaws in a single sentece, i give this guy's testemony no credibility AT ALL. you shouldn't either, has he clearly has not checked what he is talking about in the least. The second video, on the "history of milk" he claims that at a given point in time "half of the deaths in New York were a result of the contamination of milk" that is an absurd claim, simply absurd

 

I urge you to read scientific works : http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/507035?cookieSet=1 there is no nutritional difference in raw milk and regular milk. Touché.

 

I'm pretty sure he doesn't mean there are hindus in the old testament, but it was just something that slipped by him. He maybe meant that at the times of old testament the hindus were saying... A mistake I wouldn't pay too much attention to. I think youre exaggerating abit by saying that all creditibility of what he says is thus lost.

That link isn't working. It worked earlier but I had no time to read it fully. Could you please paste the exact sentences where it says there is no nutritional differences?

 

 

A human drew teh food pyramid? Thousands of real experts, with degrees in related areas, who base their claims on scientific research drew and continously revise the food pyramid. Do you doubt the fact of evoluton as well? The scientific principles are identical.

And there are no significant measurable differences in the nutrition of raw milk and other organic milk. Do you also believe in homeopathy, a similar case where no measurable differences in content are responsible for beneficial health effects? Treatment of cows, not pasteurization or homogenisation are the differences, nothing more nothing less.

 

'Thousands of experts?' I find that hard to belive.

And yes, in the name of sciense I don't take even the evolution theory for 100% granted. I certainly would doubt it if I got new evidence about it which would show it to be false.

I find it hard to believe there is really that much solid evidence for food pyramid as there is for evolution.

As for homeopathy, I can't say much because I havent really looked into it. In the surface it seems to be rubbish but I won't deny completetely it before I have gotten a good look into it.

 

When heated, milk protens do undergo a change.

Also it is very logical to think that which kills the bad guys will kill the good guys aswell (talking about the microbes).

Vitamins are also very sensitive to heat.

 

Let us consider the risks of tuberculosis, typhoid and salmonella that can only be spread by unpasturized milk. Your assumption is the basis of your whole argument, and it is false, fatally so. I usually cook my meat and vegetables, I don't usually boil (which is effectively more "harmful" than pasteurizing) milk before drinking, do you?`

 

I urge you to consider the details on disease caused by raw milk, that pasteurization would remove. http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/2007/ucm108856.htm "From 1998 to May 2005 CDC identified 45 outbreaks of foodborne illness that implicated unpasteurized milk, or cheese made from unpasteurized milk. These outbreaks accounted for 1,007 illnesses, 104 hospitalizations, and two deaths."

 

I don't usually cook my vegetables for the same reasons I don't cook my milk. I do cook my meat however because I haven't done enought research on that to assume it is safe yet. Diseaces spread in my understanding are usually because a mistake or faulty handling of the milk. Pasteurized milk has also caused many outbreaks. I heard 95% of farmers drink their milk raw. I would assume they know something about the topic.

 

Sorry, the evidence clearly contradicts your thesis, not mine. Advice changes rapidly, when propper evidence emerges and has been examined. That always takes time, not a single survey showing something new. You need a vast amount and thorough examination of ALL reliable evidence, and assess its reliability.

 

Science isn't democracy. It's not the theory that has most evidence backing it up but the one that that has most reasonable evidence backing it up.

 

Very directly, this paranoia is the sign of conspiracy " they don't want us to think" bullpoo. bullpoo!

 

 

Not conspiracy. Just that people in power usually want to keep that power.

 

I like history. I find it very intresting but time consuming to study. I wish I had more time to study it. Many people seem to think we, people who live today are somehow better or different than the people who lived before us. That all the things that happened in past countless of times again and again can't happen in todays world. For example, People think that even tho there were slaves in ancient egypt there can't be slaves in modern world. Little do they know that human slavery is still very common thing in many parts of the world. What i'm trying to say that we aren't that different. Don't you think people of the modern world have always, troughtout the history thinked that because for example advanced technology, they are so much better than their ancestors nothing can happen to them. People have always trusted their leaders too much. Countless examples troughtout the history show that there are two kinds of people: the masses who trust what they are told and do what their leaders say and the free thinkers who trust themselves. Religion comes in many forms.

 

I urge people to think for themselves, but that actually involves not just sitting there to "think". It involves examining actual evidence, not misplacing your trust in sources that have no credibility at all. You can think all you like, but that doesn't change reality. It demands an understanding of academia, and the particulars of the field and the research conducted in the field. Who is really capable of that thinking? The experts, the actual experts who have professions, and generally accredited degrees within their fiels ensuring they are the people who we should trust the most. These people with actual education and knowledge in the fields do the thinking you and I are INCAPABE of. You do not have the qualifications to make the neccessary rational analysis of the facts. We all rely on others for our technology (science is obviously technology), because they are the ones able to produce reliable, safe alternatives for us all.

 

 

At the end of the day, all those who have reasoned, and examined the evidence properly come to reasonable conclusions. It would be dangerous for those with emotive reasons for choosing to drink raw milk, if people thought for themselves. Intelligent free thinkers would then not heed their misguided advice. Thinking for yourself very often means placing your trust in those who are actually competent in making a desicion for you.

 

That additude that, you have to have a degree or you are incapable of, or you don't have the qualifications, does not have a solid fountation. Never have the people who really invented something new have had to site sources or something like that for their research. This is a fact that can't be argued, all knowledge you have today is by a human being.. like yourself. We have, in a way been brought up to think that we are not good enough and that we should place our trust on those that know better, it is certain kind of religion in a way.

 

Everything can be argued. Ever visited flat earth society web forum? Yeah, they do argue that earth is flat, altought its not very convincing thought, they do come up with loads of 'evidence' for their cause.

 

I hope you noticed I am not trying to win this argument, just hope to exchange some information. And I didin't have time to look for scientific sources for all my claims, heck writing this post took already too much time, It's beautiful day outside for gods sake. And I have to say you gave me some food for though, thats why I didin't haste to reply this right away, it was so much information to process. I will however for the time being still consume my milk raw, but I will keep researching the subject. Mainly the evidence for diseaces spreading is worrying me a little bit, I definetely need to look into that. Thanks

[tortilliachp]

I hope you noticed I am not trying to win this argument, just hope to exchange some information. And I didin't have time to look for scientific sources for all my claims, heck writing this post took already too much time, It's beautiful day outside for gods sake. And I have to say you gave me some food for though, thats why I didin't haste to reply this right away, it was so much information to process. I will however for the time being still consume my milk raw, but I will keep researching the subject. Mainly the evidence for diseaces spreading is worrying me a little bit, I definetely need to look into that. Thanks

 

Indeed, the weather is nice. I don't only hope to exchange information, because i feel the evidence to back my case is so strong, i would be doing you a disservice if i didn't present the evidence convincingly.

 

 

The fact is, we have more than 250 people (all with norwegian names) where are credited with the official norwegian food pyramid (or so my old health and cookery textbook from middle school claimed). With 250 researchers from norway being accredited the norwegian food pyramid, we have a population of 5,8 million people, i then find it very hard to believe the UN's food pyramid won't have thousands and thousands of researchers examined and accredited.

 

I think this discussion is really about our perspectives on science: modern science is so complicated, that understanding the raw results takes years of training, in any field. Why else does it take years of education to get degrees in the field, and therefore the means of getting your scientific work published? Wouldn't you then be able to publish in peer reviewed journals without degrees? Therefore, having a chiropractor be an expert in a completely different field is absurd: you want a nutritionist.

 

The one sentence I quoted has so many flaws though, if so many flaws in a single sentence just "slip" out of him, I personally can't trust him not to make similar mistakes:

 

"Even a thousand years before Jesus, in the old testament, the Hindus with the Vetas were saying that milk was the most important food for people"

 

-"The Hebrew Bible, composed between the 14th and 5th centuries BCE" (that is the old testament, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible )

 

-"Veta" is actually "Veda" the four holy texts of Hinduism. Dating these Vadas are also almost impossible, because they were orally transfered, and the oldest transcripts were written on birch bark, palm leaves etc. that generally have a living span of a few hundred years. Even knowing that, the Vedas are also composed, at least in part, before the 15th century BCE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veda)

 

-an article on milk in the Vedas: http://dahd.nic.in/ch52/annex522.htm

1. Milk has been a part of diet of Indian society since times immemorial. Our scriptures are full of references on importance and value of milk for human life. And the only milk, apart from mothers milk, known to Indians was Cow Milk only which has been equated with Amrita.

 

2. Man has been in search of an Elixir or Nectar or AMRITA, a sip or two of which could make him free from all sufferings and make him immortal. It is not known yet, whether such an elixir ever existed but Indias ancient scriptures have described cow Milk as AMRITA.

 

Thus, mistranslations flourish, as the elixir of life, and milk itself are both denoted as Amrita in the Vedas. How do you know factual milk from the elixir of life, when examining what the Vedas actually say about milk? You can't.

 

-Milk cannot possibly be the most important food for people (unless you mean newborns). That is not true historically, or in terms of what any person can ingest to fulfill all their nutritionary needs.

 

-If the Vedas are to be trusted on the effects on the health of dietary products, let us examine Ghee (cleared butter):

The 8th Mantra of 12th kand of the 3rd chapter of Atharvaveda (3-12-8 Atharva Veda) emphasises the importance and value of ghee by referring to the stream of ghee- full of elixir ghritasya dharamariten sambhritam. (slide 10) Similarly At several other places in the Vedas, ghee has been described as a (flawless) Nirdosh food, which increases body vigor and vitality (Rigveda 10-19-7). The use of ghee strengthens the body and helps enhance the life span (Atharva Veda (2-13-1).

 

Ghee is one of the compounds most directly corrolated with an increase in cardiovascular disease.

 

 

With these five major faults, and their implications, when they are presented as evidence for the case of raw milk, by a chiropractor, I have question his reliability as a source on any topic, really.

 

 

It's nice to see you find the information valuable :)

[Myweponsg00d]

Something I think you need to be aware of is that all this crap in the Hindu texts is irrelevant. The point is that drinking milk of other species is unnatural in our evolution. It is only in "recent" times that we have drank milk.

 

And yes, the time of the writing of the Hindu holy scriptures is very recent.

 

When you consider all of this writing to have been from less than 10 thousand years ago, and prior to that there were millions of years of homosapiens and their ancestor species drinking milk only from their own species and only when they are infants. Any written record we have of milk is already modern times. We would not have evolved as a species in a few thousand years to go from not being able to handle milk to being able to drink it as much as we want.

[fastortoise]

[hide]

My friends and I want to take up a sport this summer with high physical and mental demands but wont tie us down to a schedule (we were convinced to sign up in a soccer league, but our schedules don't fit). We were thinking kite boarding too, but that's pretty expensive - so we're also looking for something relatively cheap to start up :smile:

 

basketball? all you need is a ball, and you can get together whenever. Just be sure to always play full-court and have fair teams. 5 on 5 full-court can be quite a work-out.

 

To be challanged mentally, chose any sport. Do it properly, and be a little competitive amongst yourselves, and the mental and tactical component always starts.

 

Many sports (tennis, squash, handball, water polo, martial arts sparring, volley ball) requires so much practice with technique before you get a real tough workout that it might be a good idea to start with something where you can get exhaused right off the bat :D

 

 

what're you interested in? that's what really matters.

Track and Field is all a mind race. Knowing when to pass an opponent up and when to start the kick at the end is all mental. Its all tactics. If you have speed after a long race, use it.

 

I would suggest jogging, once you get into better shape you can try going at a tempo pace (30 seconds hard jogging, 30 seconds light jogging).

[/hide]

Thanks for the advice but we just decided to play hockey all summer. I guess we can't escape the canadian stereotype :(

 

Also, I've been going to the gym a lot recently and I really want to update my progress picture montage but I don't know what I did with the shirt I take the pictures in! I never wear it out of the house because its way too small for me now and the only way it could have left if is this unnamed girl took it with her one day. I needed that t-shirt but I don't feel like talking to her <_<

[NorthernHero]

The fact is, we have more than 250 people (all with norwegian names) where are credited with the official norwegian food pyramid (or so my old health and cookery textbook from middle school claimed). With 250 researchers from norway being accredited the norwegian food pyramid, we have a population of 5,8 million people, i then find it very hard to believe the UN's food pyramid won't have thousands and thousands of researchers examined and accredited.

Ok. Little bit of flawed logic there. Even if it was factual information in your middle school schoolbook, which is information source in which definetely you can't say it's written in stone.. But lets pretend for a moment its true, 250 top class researchers have contributed in norweigian food pyramid. Now that doesn't say anything about UN's food pyramid, the population rate isn't in correlation with that.

For some odd reason I couldn't find the credentials on food on UN food pyramid tho.. bugger :S

Science has never been a question of quantity but a question of quality. What would it be like if we would believe everything accordingly to who has the most supporters. Judaism has the most followers of all religions, so it must be the one true religion then? Get my point?

 

By the way, I know all about these cardiovascular dicease stuff and whatnot, I used to be a believer of conventional nutritional wisdom too.

 

Mark Siccon on Marks Daily apple:

[hide]"In most cases, CW (*conventional wisdom) is a lumbering beast: slow to move, but difficult to alter course once its big bullish head is set on moving in a certain direction. It’s the pigheaded, stubborn curmudgeon yelling at those darn kids to get off his lawn. It’s loud, pervasive, and impossible to ignore – and avoid. Oftentimes, entire careers are staked on maintaining its veracity. When that veracity is challenged, either by critics or by experiment, the challenger is often silenced. No, I’m not talking about some conspiracy theory wherein a rival scientist is snuffed out by a cabal of evil scientists. Rather, it’s that a conforming chorus of assent can be mobilized to drown out even the most rigorously defended thesis, just as long as Conventional Wisdom is at stake. The simple fact that faulty Conventional Wisdom – especially nutritional – is mostly supported by not malevolent, but altruistic and good-intentioned people is what makes it so difficult to defeat. Scientists, nutritionists, and doctors are generally convinced that the CW they support and defend is in the best interest of the population. These aren’t evil geniuses; these are good people operating from a fundamentally flawed stance.

 

Such a fundamentally flawed stance forms the basis for the nutritional CW that we all know and despise: the dietary fat-heart disease link. It started with Ancel Keys’ 7 Country Study, in which he examined heart disease rates in dozens of countries looking for support of his hypothesis that saturated fat intake correlated positively with heart disease mortality. He was able to put together a group of 7 countries that fit the bill – but only after discounting and excluding data points from the 14 other nations that showed little to no correlation! Keys set out to prove a previously-held position and, as is so often the case, he managed to focus only on the evidence that supported it ..."full story[/hide]

 

 

I think this discussion is really about our perspectives on science: modern science is so complicated, that understanding the raw results takes years of training, in any field. Why else does it take years of education to get degrees in the field, and therefore the means of getting your scientific work published? Wouldn't you then be able to publish in peer reviewed journals without degrees? Therefore, having a chiropractor be an expert in a completely different field is absurd: you want a nutritionist.

I kind of agree with this, altough some may argue that modern schooling system suppresses own thinking, is a place to learn 'death information', and to be brainwashed in certain beliefsystem, ie. not trained to think with their own brains.

 

 

-Milk cannot possibly be the most important food for people (unless you mean newborns). That is not true historically, or in terms of what any person can ingest to fulfill all their nutritionary needs.

Milk is arguably one of those rare foods that a human being can live solely on. It has all the nutrients in it; Plenty of amino acids, plenty of fats, carbohydrates (not really needed, but is good for gaining weight), loads of different vitamins, minerals and so on. What do you think is the reason it is so good nutrition for newborns? It has all human needs for fast growt. A newborn is a human being at his weakest, he needs a food that is gentle for the still undeveloped ingestines and at the same time very nutrisious: mothers milk. When humans grow up they don't usually lose the ability to digest milk, only some of that ability. Milk allergy is very rare and lactose intorelance isn't that common either. Also, I have heard from numerous people that their issues with milk disappeared when they have swiched to unprocessed milk, I myself also feel better with the real deal. Go figure.

 

 

Ghee is one of the compounds most directly corrolated with an increase in cardiovascular disease.

Very arguable.I don't have much knowledge about ghee because it's not traditionally used where I live. But I assume it to hold much of the same properties as butter. What do you think about this research? http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/ajcn.2009.27725v1

 

"Conclusions: A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD. More data are needed to elucidate whether CVD risks are likely to be influenced by the specific nutrients used to replace saturated fat. "

 

 

It's nice to see you find the information valuable :)

It's nice to see you appreciate me taking your information valuable :)

 

 

When you consider all of this writing to have been from less than 10 thousand years ago, and prior to that there were millions of years of homosapiens and their ancestor species drinking milk only from their own species and only when they are infants. Any written record we have of milk is already modern times. We would not have evolved as a species in a few thousand years to go from not being able to handle milk to being able to drink it as much as we want.

There are evidence of milk drinking from as far as 15,000 years ago. But that isn't really so relevant here. Link: Kurt. G. Harris writing about his paleo principle

The fact is we have been drinking milk as long as we have been mammals. And be it another species milk we drink (cows) it still has the same compounds, they are really not much different from each other, the primary compounds are there, just in little different quantitys.

[Dizzle229]

Okay, so I've been taking walks around town, and today I noticed that my average "cruising speed" is about as fast as my jog was at around the time that I made this thread. I would still be walking, but it seems that has been cut short.

 

I outstretched my leg too much today and literally WATCHED THE MEAT ON MY LEG SLIDE AROUND THE BONE. Christ it hurts.

[Myweponsg00d]

 

There are evidence of milk drinking from as far as 15,000 years ago. But that isn't really so relevant here. Link: Kurt. G. Harris writing about his paleo principle

The fact is we have been drinking milk as long as we have been mammals. And be it another species milk we drink (cows) it still has the same compounds, they are really not much different from each other, the primary compounds are there, just in little different quantitys.

 

1.) We are designed to stop drinking milk as we mature. Our bodies stop producing the enzyme to break it down.

 

2.) I can assure you that we have not been drinking the milk of other animals since ancient times. When homo-erectus was walking around with barely any tools, I dont think there is any way he would stop and suck on the udder of a cow.

 

3.) 15,000 years is still very, very recent.

[gremmy]

You can loose all the weight, by focusing on the diet only. Yes, exercise will speed up the process, but techincally (biologically if you want) better diet should do the job.

 

A good rule of thumb is to divide your plate into 4 parts; 2 of these should be vegetables, 1 should be meat/poultry etc, 1 should be potatoes/pasta/rice etc. Worked for me at least; you won't lose 10 pounds in a week, but your weight will go down and your stomach will feel better during the day. Also, drink water as much as possible, it flushes your body, getting rid of more unhealthy substances aswell as filling and swelling the food you eat. Of course you will be less thirsty, and therefore less likely to drink soda during the day.

 

Bring a bottle of water to school; it's that easy - you will automatically go fill it in the later hours.

 

Good luck :)

 

Edit: Another good rule is, ALWAYS EAT BREAKFAST; you will be full from the start of the day, you will eat less sweets in school and you will be able to concentrate better. Simple yoghurt, a piece of bread, anything will do. And milk for your bones :)

 

Edit2: Keep doing push-ups; I can probably do 50 a day by now, and I started at 20 a day. Increasing by 1-5 like every 2-3 weeks really works wonders.