when to do weights,

TKD SC

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote: »

Drinking ale or beer or wine was often a safer option as the alcohol limited bugs present.

Alcohol - the cause of and solution to all of life's problems

Colm_OReilly

Seriously uncool Barry.

Roper

Oh come off it it's a Dumb and Dumber reference!

Nothingcompares

Have you ever seen the leaflets in the doctor's surgery on "diets". They're sponsored by the Irish Dairy Council etc.

Tim look at the typical doctor's guide to exercise - 30 minute stroll every day. A lot of the sports dieticians deal with sports like rugby, soccer and american football where size matters, being heavier is better. Perhaps that's why they continue to promote the consumption of pasta and rice.

What do paleo guys eat the day before a big fight?

Tim_Murphy

Have you ever seen the leaflets in the doctor's surgery on "diets". They're sponsored by the Irish Dairy Council etc.

so that means Doctors don't know what they are talking about when it comes to diet? And guys who've read a few articles in the net do?

A lot of the sports dieticians deal with sports like rugby, soccer and american football where size matters, being heavier is better. Perhaps that's why they continue to promote the consumption of pasta and rice.

Ya that would be one reason. :rolleyes:

What do paleo guys eat the day before a big fight?

I usually eat a paleo-like diet when I'm training for a fight as I need to keep my weight under control. I usually eat some pasta after I weigh in and some early the day of the fight.

Dragan

The simple fact is that carbs are an awesome source of quick and usable fuel. When it comes to a pick me up your looking at glycogen and for glycogen you want carbs.

The reason carbs are so toasty for adding some mass to your frame is they are stored directly within the muscle.....it's quick energy for quick contractions and growth. Bring it on!

The reason why fats kick the crap out of carbs as a long term energy source is they are FAR more dense carlorie wise....you get more bang for you buck....but they are slow to be utilised by the body itself.

I would simply suggest people take their energy from where they need it at that moment in time!

BobbyOLeary

Tim_Murphy wrote: »

so that means Doctors don't know what they are talking about when it comes to diet? And guys who've read a few articles in the net do?

I don't think thats what nothingcompares meant. Its just you have to look at who's behind the research done into these things. If the dairy council commission a study into the effects of dairy consumption I'm not going to put as much faith in it as one done by let's say, the Obesity clinic over in Vincent's.

The dairy council of Ireland are hardly going to print up brochures that say eating dairy is bad for you are they?

Tim_Murphy

I don't think thats what nothingcompares meant. Its just you have to look at who's behind the research done into these things.

Of course. But it doesn't follow that because Irish dairy counsel, or whoever, left some leaflets into a doctors clinic that that means the doctor isn't going to give good neutral advice.

BobbyOLeary

Neutral with respect to who? Not trying to be smart but I don't get what you mean.

Nothingcompares

Tim what did your GP tell you when you asked them about nutritional advice?

I think moderation is their mantra.

Tim_Murphy

Neutral with respect to who? Not trying to be smart but I don't get what you mean.

As in not being forced to advocate say dairy, because they they happened to have some dairy council leaflets.

I think moderation is their mantra.

That's generally good advice.

BobbyOLeary

Ah right, I get you now. I think they'll give advice to the best of their knowledge, and I think thats where the problem lies. Maybe the best of their knowledge isn't in fact, good enough?

Ha, I remember recently a lecturer of mine said he'd never really gotten into the whole exercise thing. He didn't think it had been proven to extend your life, he reckoned reduced calorific intake was the way to go. The man has both an MD and a PhD so there you go. Just to totally confuse you

Nothingcompares

BobbyOLeary wrote: »

he reckoned reduced calorific intake was the way to go. The man has both an MD and a PhD so there you go. Just to totally confuse you

This is a widely followed theory. Their goal is to maximise the length of their lives and they believe living on a very low daily calorie consumption and reducing physical activity is the way to go. Obviously there isn't that much unscientific evidence to support their claims, lifetime studies are pretty tough to carry out. Perhaps one of the reasons skinny women outlife their Football playing husbands.

Anyway, they're not talking about fitness but longevity. Do you want to live to 80 and never eat a full dinner or play football or live to 70 and drink, eat and be merry. It's a personal decision.

Dragan

Personally i tend to steer clear of GP's when i'm seeking nutritional advice.

Depending on the cause or effect i will talk to either a Nutritionist or a Dietician.

Nothingcompares

Or the next best thing, someone on boards.ie;)

Dragan

Nothingcompares wrote: »

Or the next best thing, someone on boards.ie;)

To be honest, i find a careful filter applied to exctly who you listen to makes sites like these invaluable. Over on fitness and my own site there are maybe 20, 30 people that i have met, and train with and know for a fact that when they say "X,Y or Z happened" that they are telling the truth.

Give me a nice little pool of folk to discuss such things with.

However, putting too much faith in the worths of a total randomer is just plain silly!

johnathan woss

Scramble wrote: »

I haven't found the paleo diet expensive at all, to be honest- I'm starting to wonder if I'm missing something, since its been mentioned twice in this thread?

You might end up spending a fair bit on good quality fish and meat, but whats the alternative? Stuff that is not included on the diet, dairy, cereals, sugary foods and drinks all tends to be more expensive (and come in heaps more wasteful packaging, incidentally).

I allow myself one 'cheat' day a week, where I'd get a curry, rice and naan bread from Bombay Pantry, or something like that. Maybe this defeats the purpose to some extent, but I'll put up my hand and say that I eat for more than performance- I also just like nice food even if it isn't necessarily nutrionally great for us. After all- Beer, anyone?

Well I just meant that potatoes are a cheap food.
Rice, pasta and porridge,etc are relatively cheap too.

Replacing them in your diet with chicken,fish and meat would be very expensive.

Dragan

johnathan woss wrote: »

Replacing them in your diet with chicken,fish and meat would be very expensive.

get to know your butcher!!!! I have a great relationship built up with my butcher and i can now get 30 chicken fillets, 4lbs or round steak and a few bits of salmon for 45euro!! He'll also throw in whatever else he feels will help me "pack on that size your always after!"

FiannaGym.com

First off, to get the "elitists" label shaken off.

When people ask "What should I train to become a cage fighter?" There is a good answer - MMA. ANd thats the answer I give. If someone came to me and said they have the following options x y and z, well then We see what would work best with what they have. It easy to label someone giving the best answer, even if it is hard to attain, an elitist.

On Nutritionists - I've yet to find a nutritionist who was trained to develop new knoweldge, rather they are trained to reguritate existing knowledge.

On science and paleo - If your too lazy to inform yourself on the subject (read the Paleo Diet) Im glad you'll never reap the rewards. I transcriped parts of the book on the old UCDBJJ forum and Im not doing it again.

On science - there a wealth of scientific data supporting the Paleo diet but for me, that wasnt enough. Simply put, I was sick to death of wasting my time searching through internet forums, reading books on nutrition and not finding any answers that warent, either rubbish or just plain old fads. Science is of course a system of fads haha.
I was also infuriated that people would argue using "logic" on forums to support "scientific" knowledge. Go ahead, read back over this forum. Using these diametrically opposed viewpoints as if they are one are akin to creationism - using science and religion. Simply put I was sick of people spouting nonsense.
I wanted to find something that was solid, consistant and had "truth" value, I forgot all the "Protein" "fat" "carbs" "nutrients" etc - things I had never seen.

So what do humans eat? What did we evolve to eat? This was something I always thought about. My sister was a vegitarian and my argument against me being one too was that I had incisors for tearing meat.

Turns out we are even more evolved to eat certain things....

Lets look at our good friend the herbivore, think of one, a cow a horse an elephant.. they all have one thing in common, a gigantic gut.
Now lets look at our friend the carnivore, again think of one (with the exception of hibernating ones because we dont hibernate) a cheetah, tiger, whatever.. once again they have something in common.. a small gut. This is because not suprisingly animals digest animals easily. THere is something else important about this... intelligence.

Intelligence? YES! And this can be traced as the key to our evolutionary path.
Many years ago, to species of "human" existed. We'll call one Robust because he was big and strong and the other the Toolmaker.

Well, these guys lived at the same period with Robust using his gigantic jaws to grind up the roots and other vegitation he found. He had the large gut too.
Toolmaker used rocks to break bones left over from other larger canivore's kills and eat the fatty/protein rich marrow.. .emmm delicious.

WHat happened here was this, the new access to fat/protein (if your into that sort of thing) allowed Toolmaker's body to send the blood it would have used digesting food to his brain, which combined with the fat and protein allowed Toolmaker to have a larger and more blood rich brain. Robust never evolved and died out, Toolmaker later became US.

On dairy. Hmmm, I suppose we just have to "beleive" whatever the scientists/nutritionist tell us, even if they are heavily funded by the dairy industry - directly of indirectly. Dont we? HELL NO!
We can all do this - lets plot a graph for countries that consume dairy, with those that consume none on the right and lowest (paleo societies) and those that consume most on the left and highest. Good, we can see that there is a stead rise from left to right (of course, thats what we are graphing).
Now lets make the same graph for societies with osteoperosis. You will find that the line follows the same path. So you dont need to be a genius to see, milk = osteopersis.

More on milk. I no longer breast feed, so i know longer consume milk. Unless you are part of the Nuer your body will stop producing lactase and therefore you wont digest lactose (as Colum already said).

After we navigate through the maze that is nutrition/philosophy of science/science and the political economy of sceince and it's influence of scientific knowledge/ and most importantly what works for us, we arrive at this conclusion. Diet is not part of sceince but rather a technology. Now lets not get confused about what technology means - Many aboriginal societies use songs as "maps" and navigate the outback with great efficiency and accuracy than modern "technologies" allow - see "walkabout" for example. Anyway, diet is a technology, it just so happens that for me (and anyone I know who actually did the diet) paleo is the be all and end all of diet - in short it's not a diet - everything else is.

Peace

Roper

Perhaps it wasn't long after toolmaker discovered his meat eating capabilities that he also discovered his grain pounding abilities:D. I have read through the science behind paleo and I find it a bit wishy washy in parts, but convincing in other parts.

On Nutritionists- I think saying you've never met a nutritionist who researches is like saying your GP isn't in his back room seeking a cure for cancer. Obviously we only have access to the front end of nutrition professionals.

As for diet being a technology, I don't buy it, I think its a bad reference but I do see what you're trying to say about aboriginal societies and diet being outside the realm of science.

As for elitism, no I don't agree that paleo is elitist, its a way of eating and I don't think that people should be called elitist based upon their shunning of one type of food or another. I think what people are referring to is the attitude of some of the posters here in support of paleo- particularly some of the comments about people's dairy consumption and how it disgusted them, and perhaps your comments about the use of science and logic in one argument, when clearly not everyone has had the access or the inclination to study these belief systems in depth as you have. This might be irritating to you, as someone's use of improper punctuation and spelling might be to me, but I think you should see beyond it to the core of their message as opposed to belittling their understanding of the world.

In short, I found paleo good but unsustainable in 21st Century 12 hour working days and 4 hour training sessions when there are scientific replacements which enable me to train harder and work harder with less hassle.

Tim_Murphy

Interesting to read a post that seems to be dismissive of science but still talks about what we should be eating in evolutionary terms.

I have read through the science behind paleo and I find it a bit wishy washy in parts, but convincing in other parts.

Same as.

Most posts I've read on Paleo tend to appeal to emotion more than to science, e.g. why eat like a peasant when you can eat like a king?

Red Hand

FiannaGym.com wrote: »

On science - there a wealth of scientific data supporting the Paleo diet but for me, that wasnt enough.

What was enough then?

Simply put, I was sick to of wasting my time searching through internet forums, reading books on nutrition and not finding any answers that warent, either rubbish or just plain old fads. Science is of course a system of fads haha.

Yep, fads called paradigms. Aristotle's view of the universe is replaced by Copernicus's, which is repleaced by Keplar's, which is placed by Newton's which is replaced by Einstein's. Each one coming closer but never actually touching "the truth".

I was also infuriated that people would argue using "logic" on forums to support "scientific" knowledge. Go ahead, read back over this forum. Using these diametrically opposed viewpoints as if they are one are akin to creationism - using science and religion. Simply put I was sick of people spouting nonsense.

I wanted to find something that was solid, consistant and had "truth" value, I forgot all the "Protein" "fat" "carbs" "nutrients" etc - things I had never seen.

You seem a bit dismissive of science here. Proteins, fats and carbohydrates are often isolated in the lab. You can see, touch and smell them.

So what do humans eat? What did we evolve to eat? This was something I always thought about. My sister was a vegitarian and my argument against me being one too was that I had incisors for tearing meat.

Turns out we are even more evolved to eat certain things....

Lets look at our good friend the herbivore, think of one, a cow a horse an elephant.. they all have one thing in common, a gigantic gut.
Now lets look at our friend the carnivore, again think of one (with the exception of hibernating ones because we dont hibernate) a cheetah, tiger, whatever.. once again they have something in common.. a small gut. This is because not suprisingly animals digest animals easily. THere is something else important about this... intelligence.

Intelligence? YES! And this can be traced as the key to our evolutionary path.
Many years ago, to species of "human" existed. We'll call one Robust because he was big and strong and the other the Toolmaker.

Well, these guys lived at the same period with Robust using his gigantic jaws to grind up the roots and other vegitation he found. He had the large gut too.
Toolmaker used rocks to break bones left over from other larger canivore's kills and eat the fatty/protein rich marrow.. .emmm delicious.

WHat happened here was this, the new access to fat/protein (if your into that sort of thing) allowed Toolmaker's body to send the it would have used digesting food to his brain, which combined with the fat and protein allowed Toolmaker to have a larger and more rich brain. Robust never evolved and died out, Toolmaker later became US.

Well...I'd have to agree with Roper's comment below. The "toolmaker" mashed roots, and pounded cereals and used fire to soften foods that were never before eaten. Which inculded starchy foods. And, lets not forget that until just 30,000 years, a robust human species was still around-Homo Neanderthalus. He had more powerful jaws than us, was quite physically more powerful compared to us and had a brain equal and often bigger than our own. And, he was a toolmaker.

On dairy. Hmmm, I suppose we just have to "beleive" whatever the scientists/nutritionist tell us, even if they are heavily funded by the dairy industry - directly of indirectly. Dont we? HELL NO!
We can all do this - lets plot a graph for countries that consume dairy, with those that consume none on the right and lowest (paleo societies) and those that consume most on the left and highest. Good, we can see that there is a stead rise from left to right (of course, thats what we are graphing).
Now lets make the same graph for societies with osteoperosis. You will find that the line follows the same path. So you dont need to be a genius to see, milk = osteopersis.

The Dutch and the Masai are the two tallest peoples in the world. The Masai are pastoralists and have depended on their cows for milk and have been for hundreds of years. Likewise, the Dutch are big consumers of dairy.

More on milk. I no longer breast feed, so i know longer consume milk. Unless you are part of the Nuer your body will stop producing lactase and therefore you wont digest lactose (as Colum already said).

After we navigate through the maze that is nutrition/philosophy of science/science and the political economy of sceince and it's influence of scientific knowledge/ and most importantly what works for us, we arrive at this conclusion. Diet is not part of sceince but rather a technology. Now lets not get confused about what technology means - Many aboriginal societies use songs as "maps" and navigate the outback with great efficiency and accuracy than modern "technologies" allow - see "walkabout" for example. Anyway, diet is a technology, it just so happens that for me (and anyone I know who actually did the diet) paleo is the be all and end all of diet - in short it's not a diet - everything else is.

Peace

Well, researchers that support Paleo are obviously going to be funded by the "paleo industry"...the same as you were saying above that researchers that support a diet that contains cereals and dairy are going to be funded by those industries. Books, personal dieticians, daytime afternoon shows appearances, funding...Paleo may be just another "fad".

FiannaGym.com

The Paleo industry? Do tell I'd love to hear all about this!!

I'm not dismissive of science, but for me to understand something I like to take a more holistic approach - as in a whole approach.
Anyway, this isnt the place to discuss the philosophy of science and Im not sure anyone here is qualified to talk about it.
If I wanted to use the term "paradigm" I would have, I wouldnt call the South Beach Diet or the Atkins Diet "paradigms".
In any event, When mechanical engineers design a bridge they use a "technology" closer to Newtonian physics than Einsteinian. So these "paradigms" are not completely replaced. This is my whole point, no one comes from a consistent stand point.
The toolmaker was many years before agriculture. Like 2 million years before. Agriculture is I would say, and of course there is much conjecture, no older than 15,000 years old. And this is pretty much the point of Paleo.

Humans have been existing in the homo-genus for about 2.5 million years, agriculture has been for around 12,000 years. Our bodies have evolved over a very long period of time to consume a certain diet and now that diet has completely changed.

Besides, the agricultural argument is wishy washy. Who's diet today is agricultural? I mean a ham and cheese sandwich these days should more accurately be labeled part of the "industrial diet" and if you consume organic whole grain bread, organic ham and cheese your going to be paying more than a paleo meal costs.

No, I cant actually observe proteins and stuff in a lab, I could if I was a scientist and then we'd get into a debate about phenomenology but Im never in Labs, have no desire to be in labs and want to invest the time I would spend breaking apart amino acids, training or studying what I love. SO instead I classify meat/fish/fruit/vegtables and ultimately paleo and not paleo.

Anyway, Im getting drawn into an argument I dont want to be in. I've been down these avenues a zillion times with loads of people. Those who used their intelligence to utilise paleo as best they could always come back saying it was great. Those that dont do their thing. I'm finished studying diet and nutrition because Im confident Ive arrived. Likewise, I dont worry about "workouts" because crossfit (which is basically a paleo philosophy) has done that, I've arrived there too. I also dont go experimenting in Karate and TKD for MMA because I feel MMA has arrived. Sure all of these things is evolving on their own but generally paleo for nutrition, crossfit for fitness and MMA for combat pretty much are philosophically sound to me.

Peace

Tim_Murphy

Im not sure anyone here is qualified to talk about it.

What qualifications do you think one needs to be able to talk about the philosophy of science?

Just curious.

johnathan woss

FiannaGym.com wrote: »

.

We can all do this - lets plot a graph for countries that consume dairy, with those that consume none on the right and lowest (paleo societies) and those that consume most on the left and highest. Good, we can see that there is a stead rise from left to right (of course, thats what we are graphing).
Now lets make the same graph for societies with osteoperosis. You will find that the line follows the same path. So you dont need to be a genius to see, milk = osteopersis.

I'm not an expert but this jumped out at me.
In the modern world the societies that consume the most dairy are also probably the most sedentary, while "paleo" societies would be far more active in general. I would be confident that this has a large effect on osteoperosis rates.
"Dairy" societies also have, in general, better medical facilities so diagnosis rates would be higher.
I mean "dairy" societies would have a lower infant mortality rate and a longer life expectancy so what can we conclude from that ?

Tim_Murphy

We can all do this - lets plot a graph for countries that consume dairy, with those that consume none on the right and lowest (paleo societies) and those that consume most on the left and highest. Good, we can see that there is a stead rise from left to right (of course, thats what we are graphing).
Now lets make the same graph for societies with osteoperosis. You will find that the line follows the same path.

What figures are you using here? Source?

So you dont need to be a genius to see, milk = osteopersis.

That sounds like a gross over-simplification TBH.

buck65

would be interested in hearing from you guys about weights (see o.p)

I have lifted weights for the past 2 years /nothing serious maybe 2 times a week ( I train TKD 2 nights and run another evening), my typical weight session is aprox 20 mins

3 x 8 reps bicep curls (all 25kg. barbell) and 3 x 8 reverse curl ? (pulling bar upward in rowing motion)
2 x 20 squats
3 x 8 bench press
some tricep exercises also
100 crunches
20 pressups
1 min each side in side raises (leaning on elbow with body off ground)


I find this weight heavy enough and have recently moved up from 20kgs.
sizewise I am 5'11 and 180lbs , what should I be lifting ? are my reps etc allright? any help on how to get stronger appreciated.
Most of my strength is in my core and legs would love to be stronger in upper body.

Black Swan

FiannaGym.com wrote: »

Science is of course a system of fads haha.

It would appear from reading this thread, that you are not alone in discounting things scientific?

You mentioned evolution in your earlier post, yet Darwin (i.e., "differential reproduction") was not scientific? You intimated "survival of the fittest" between Robustus and Toolmaker, and Spencer was not scientific? You mentioned the "Toolmaker" or Australopithicus Africannis (sp?), and L.S.B. Leakey was not scientific (or his son Richard Leakey that discovered "Lucy")? Where did you get your information but from these scientific types? Where did anyone on this thread get their information, for that matter, but from the interaction of science and technology?

To suggest that technology (nutrition) can stand by itself, without being informed by science is spurious. Should you wish to revisit the scientific process, Wallace's Wheel is a very informative model that demonstrates the very complex interaction between science and technology over time. Interaction, where one informs the other, either deductively (theory) or inductively (observation), or both at the same time, in a combined interaction.

Some in this forum have discounted what a nutritionist might advise, because the nutritionist was not personally involved in the discovery process, and is just passing on information? This is problematic indeed! Certainly there are GPs and nutritionists that are lazy or influenced by commercial interests, but this does not mean that ALL of them are! Generalisations are too often made about everyone, including comments about people who practice MA by those who don't (and you have heard the jokes if in MA for awhile).

If I misunderstood you (or others) in points being made, then let's hear it. Being human, I am subject to error. That's why we have rules, refs, and judges when we spar, or gardai in the street when we fight?

Then again, others reading this thread may think that it's been over-milked?;)

Valmont

so the whole 'dem bones dem bones need calcium' is a big con job? Next thing you're going to tell me is that carrots aren't good for my eyesight.

edit: I drank a whole lot of avonmore chocolate milk reading this thread and it felt absolutely brilliant:p

Black Swan

Valmont wrote: »

so the whole 'dem bones dem bones need calcium' is a big con job? Next thing you're going to tell me is that carrots aren't good for my eyesight

What a laugh! B!ue gives Valmont a big hug! (even if the ref cries foul and deducts a point)

crokester

FiannaGym.com wrote: »

We can all do this - lets plot a graph for countries that consume dairy, with those that consume none on the right and lowest (paleo societies) and those that consume most on the left and highest. Good, we can see that there is a stead rise from left to right (of course, thats what we are graphing).
Now lets make the same graph for societies with osteoperosis. You will find that the line follows the same path. So you dont need to be a genius to see, milk = osteopersis.

Theres a huge difference between correlation and causation. As Tim said, your argument is way too simplefied. You may be correct, but unless you use that nasty old "science" you cant prove it through statistics like the one above.

Black Swan

FiannaGym.com wrote: »

We can all do this - lets plot a graph for countries that consume dairy, with those that consume none on the right and lowest (paleo societies) and those that consume most on the left and highest. Good, we can see that there is a stead rise from left to right (of course, thats what we are graphing).
Now lets make the same graph for societies with osteoperosis. You will find that the line follows the same path. So you dont need to be a genius to see, milk = osteopersis.

A predictive statement based upon a statistical measure? Well, I'm not a genius, but before you make a convincing statistical argument, you might want to include your:

• Population parameters (counties sampled)?
• Sampling methods (in each of those countries)?
• Confidence intervals and levels for each country sampled?
• Design of study (experimental, quasi-experimental, non-experimental, probability, non-probability, etc.)
• Analytic methods (parametric or nonparametric)?
• Explained variance for the relationship between "milk=osteopersis?"
• Unexplained variance (all those other variables that may contribute to the effect besides milk)?
• Error and limitations of the study?

A word of caution! Simple graphs cannot be used in and of themselves to support a relationship, much less one that is claimed to be causation (as you have claimed). Graphs are descriptive, not inferential. You must also include many of the above points, or risk falling into the trap of spurious reasoning from graphing techniques so well discussed by Huff in How to Lie with Statistics? So you don't need to be a genius to be a cautious consumer of information, which may or may not be valid or reliable?

Anyone what to milk this cow thread more? Methinks it's dead!;)

lmtduffy

Wow havent I got a lot more out of this then I tought I would.

Tim_Murphy

lmtduffy wrote: »

Wow havent I got a lot more out of this then I tought I would.

LOL, that tends to happen alright.

Good posts Blue Lagoon.

Being human, I am subject to error. That's why we have rules, refs, and judges when we spar, or gardai in the street when we fight?

...and the general principles of scientific inquiry. Of course these are often discounted by people when it suits.

Red Hand

FiannaGym.com wrote: »

The Paleo industry? Do tell I'd love to hear all about this!!

I was being flippant.;) Do you deny that there is money to be made off the back of flogging Paleo Diet books, making TV appearances on Oprah or advising people to adere to this diet? That's what I meant. Industry and thus money.

I'm not dismissive of science, but for me to understand something I like to take a more holistic approach - as in a whole approach.
Anyway, this isnt the place to discuss the philosophy of science and Im not sure anyone here is qualified to talk about it.

Its just talk.

Blue_Lagoon wrote:

Anyone what to milk this cow thread more? Methinks it's dead!;)

There's life in the old girl yet!

Tim_Murphy

As I was drinking some milk in my coffee there yesterday I noticed that there was an Irish Osteoporosis Council logo on the milk carton. Imagine how much of a scandal there would be if some of the claims on this thread were true.

I'd be interested in hearing if some of the guys making the claims here actually think there is some kind of conspiracy theory going on or what.

I'd be interested in hearing if some of the guys making the claims here actually think there is some kind of conspiracy theory going on or what.

I think milk is bad for people Tim. The reasons why people haven't figured this out yet? It's culturally normal for people to drink it. The dairy council (particularily in america) have put lots of money into it. There is calcium in milk so people assume that it increases systemic calcium supplies. Like there's water in beer so it must hydrate you.

People in big industries often defend their industries with science. Milk, grain, corn, soy. They will always have a massive sway in popular opinion.

Martial arts are no exception. So Tim if 99% of what 99% of martial arts classes teach rubbish is it conspiracy mongering on the part of the "paranoide enlightened"?

Tim_Murphy

I think milk is bad for people Tim. The reasons why people haven't figured this out yet? It's culturally normal for people to drink it.

Again, this seems like quite an oversimplification. It could well hold true for an average person but I don’t think it does for a qualified nutritionist or dietician. At least nobody has yet put forward a good reason to believe that it does.

There is calcium in milk so people assume that it increases systemic calcium supplies.

You are saying that various health organisations advocate drinking milk because they simply assume that it increases calcium supplies. This is another big claim to make without backing it up with anything.

So Tim if 99% of what 99% of martial arts classes teach rubbish is it conspiracy mongering on the part of the "paranoide enlightened"

This is actually an interesting comparison. Many MAs, whether consciously or not, put themselves outside any kind of scientific testing. For MAs that do not do this, MMA etc, then if 1% of the participants were making a particular claim which the remaining 99% disagreed with then I would be sceptical of that claim. That is not to say that the claim, whatever it might be, didn’t have any basis. It might well do, but it is up to those putting it forward to put up evidence in support of it. If it is a big claim, then a lot of evidence will be needed. To get back to milk, what you are saying may well be true for all I know, but it is a big claim so if people want it to be taken seriously they would need put forward a lot of evidence. If it is I’d be interested in hearing about. If on the other hand the evidence is along the lines of Pearse’s graph drawing above then…