Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - aLptHW4k4y

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 17
Instincto / Anopsology / Re: How to start
« on: March 29, 2013, 08:02:51 pm »
Also I'm noticing sweet fruit isn't as appealing or tasty any more. I've been eating less and less fruit. At first I snacked on fruit, now I go for eggs instead, some times marrow bones.
Aren't you following your instincts then? ;)

Health / Re: Just tested positive for herpes
« on: March 29, 2013, 02:52:10 pm »
I've just been reading on how some viruses (virotherapy) are potentially very effective for treating cancer.
The article is focusing on something else, but still interesting:

Omnivorous Raw Paleo Diet / Re: Raw meat only... for now?
« on: March 29, 2013, 01:56:54 am »
That's perfectly fine, feel free to believe anything you like ;)
But please don't persuade other people to follow  your beliefs, as if they are 100% correct and proven.

Exercise / Bodybuilding / Re: young powerlifter
« on: March 29, 2013, 01:41:36 am »
Sounds like you just like to blame it on someone, whether it's your mom, the government, the farmers, and so on. And especially without any evidence or even logic behind.

Exercise / Bodybuilding / Re: young powerlifter
« on: March 28, 2013, 06:02:16 am »
Nope, genetics plays a huge role. E.g. I have small wrists, long but thin bones, and there's only so much muscles that will attach to these bones, and no way that they will be ever able to support let alone lift such weight. I've started lifting weights and working hard since I was 12, and I've been eating 8 eggs, plenty of meat (1/2kg min) and milk every day until 20 or so. Yet I could barely bench 80kg.

Omnivorous Raw Paleo Diet / Re: Raw meat only... for now?
« on: March 28, 2013, 05:46:42 am »
FYI I continued for a while with raw butter and cheese. But it got completely right only when I stopped eating those too.

Exercise / Bodybuilding / Re: young powerlifter
« on: March 28, 2013, 05:35:57 am »
:p I have probably lifted this much in potatoes on a good days harvest, wheres my damn daily mail article!!
and I've lifted like 20 tones on a good day of work, where are my few articles then :D
seriously though, he lifted the 1900 pounds in three lifts, whereas you and me did something like a million small lifts :)
his secret is his genes, he just doesn't know it. I could eat all the eggs and meat, but will never ever be able to lift that much.

Omnivorous Raw Paleo Diet / Re: Raw meat only... for now?
« on: March 28, 2013, 05:28:36 am »
Completely agree with Iguana, and similar experience here.

Omnivorous Raw Paleo Diet / Re: Bloating, digestive problems?
« on: March 28, 2013, 04:32:20 am »
Suiren, you can just search the internet. The first link that I found said: "Adult women need about 46 grams protein a day."
Which sounds about right. So 100-200 grams meat/fish would be enough for you.
Raw grass fed is best
Sure, while at the same time it will have more or less INSIGNIFICANT impact on your health. It doesn't make sense to waste time discussing it, or money (especially if you don't have much) buying it.

Omnivorous Raw Paleo Diet / Re: Bloating, digestive problems?
« on: March 28, 2013, 02:23:13 am »
Bio eggs are fine; I buy free-range at a farmers market, but have never had problems with the bio eggs either. But check at the better shops, the supermarket where I buy also has pastured eggs, and actually from two different producers.

If you have problems finding good meat, just eat it less often.. and you don't need to eat tons of meat and protein anyway, especially considering you're a woman at 50kg.

The fear of PUFA in fish regarding the thyroid sounds unfounded to me, but maybe there is some connection, I couldn't say for sure.

Omnivorous Raw Paleo Diet / Re: Raw meat only... for now?
« on: March 25, 2013, 06:44:36 am »
trollofthedungeon don't be ridiculous. You can't digest olive oil we got it. There's no need to go on with your pointless rambling about the nutritive value or whatever else. I'm perfectly fine with olive oil (and lots of it), whereas I find dairy terrible, and it's not because I'm lactose intolerant or something. I just told Poncho what works for me, maybe it helps her or maybe not.

The cut I get is typically this, no clue how's it in English

I agree with RF. I gave up on finding someone to help me here with the house, the rather small poultry farming and orchard with 8000 square meters land. Most guys are not even able to split a log, they are just front of their computer the whole day playing stupid video games or such and when asked to do some manual labor, they break the tools...
So true, and I'd say it's like this in many places. My dad is working some 200 hectares (grains though, not livestock), and while it's a 3rd world poor country with sky high unemployment, there are still no people willing or actually capable to help with it. In the end with my brother they have to do more or less all the work alone. It's such a paradox.

Omnivorous Raw Paleo Diet / Re: Raw meat only... for now?
« on: March 25, 2013, 05:37:24 am »
I manage to keep my weight stable with a lot of olive oil. Also I buy the meat cuts with most fat on them, which at the same time are cheapest.
So you could try olive oil, if you have no problems digesting it.

Health / Re: Nutrient loss through freezing
« on: March 24, 2013, 09:04:22 pm »
On average 0-5% loss of vitamins and minerals, with exception of 30% for vitamin C.

Journals / Re: PaleoPhil's Journal
« on: March 24, 2013, 02:17:27 am »
PaleoPhil, what do you mean by teeth cleaning? I don't remember ever doing any teeth cleaning, when I go to the dentist he checks if any fillings are necessary or not and that's about it.

You were lazy and unmotivated. It's all in your head ;)

Yes I agree. When it comes to the cooking part, it's not so trivial and with the facts we have we can only say with confidence that fried cholesterol is not good. But you don't need much brain to figure out that the less cooked the less oxysterols and hence safer. I assume they are putting low cooked cholesterol in the "safe" dietary cholesterol, since raw cholesterol means raw animal foods and we all know how that works in the general public. So perhaps the title should be changed to "dietary cholesterol good, as long as not fried" in order to match the original article. Or it can stay as is, since we're smart enough to derive that raw cholesterol is the best, and also not afraid of raw animals.

It equally applies to both raw paleo and cooked paleo since it specifically talks about not frying in used oil, limiting PUFA, and quit smoking.
Yeah no surprise there
I wish to thank Dr. Chris Masterjohn, Ph.D. for his helpful insight and editing of the text...
This work was supported by funding from The Weston A. Price Foundation and the Verna L. and John R. Hildebrand Foundation.
The contribution of the article is mainly the link between excess oxysterols, sphingomyelin and calcium to atherosclerosis.

I guess you know better than someone researching this stuff for the past 60+ years :)

Cholesterol is extremely fragile and will oxidize just left out on the air and sun. You don't even need to cook it.
But even oxidized cholesterol has it's functions in the body.
For example how is vitamin D made? It starts by UVB oxidizing cholesterol in the skin to oxysterol..

But then there are different types of oxysterols, and obviously frying foods will produce the worst stuff and have the strongest link to disease. Or are you saying you have the facts that less cooked foods, like slow-cooked for example will also have a huge impact on health?

Probably he was specifically referring to oxycholesterol:

Uhm yes it does, it's about oxysterols which can be exogenous as well as endogenous.
The effect of oxidized LDL is additionally investigated.

If they are measuring estrogen excreted in urine how do they know that the excess estrogen wasn't just passed?
I missed the serum measurement graphs, serum estrogen and progesteron also increased, whereas luteinizing hormone, follicle-stimulating hormone and testosterone decreased.

Exercise / Bodybuilding / Re: Excercise frequency
« on: March 15, 2013, 04:58:49 am »
Bad analogy. Cold training is not about building muscle, it's about building the body's capacity to thermoregulate. Completely different issues.
I believe it's a generic enough principle that can be equally applied in many aspects of life. Why is it a bad analogy? Both are done with the goal to improve something.

An interesting study, but I'm always skeptical of scientists who make extreme claims from comparatively weak and ambiguous evidence. I'm not inclined to read much into this. You're welcome to if you'd like to, of course.
Don't tell me that the evidence for your claim is any stronger. The point is we can't consider such arguments as seriously supporting any claim.

Exercise / Bodybuilding / Re: Excercise frequency
« on: March 14, 2013, 11:02:35 pm »
Interesting, not my experience at all. Maybe there's something unique about me that makes it work. Who knows...
Could be.
I strongly disagree here. Moderate intensity, high frequency is a formula for repetitive stress injuries. I see this all the time with joggers, and weight lifters. These people spend so much of their lives dealing with chronic injury they don't even question why they're constantly hurt
High intensity does push the body closer to it's edge, but this isn't necessarily unsafe as long as a person takes care of themselves and honors edges. Short duration and lower frequency gives the body more time to recover, and puts the body under much less strain overall, leading to fewer repetitive stress injuries.
Note I also said short duration. Essentially you cut from the intensity of HIT which allows you to increase the frequency. Injuries happen due to overtraining; you have to be smart and patient with exercising just as with everything else. More or less like you said, "this isn't necessarily unsafe as long as a person takes care of themselves and honors edges".

Maybe a more extreme example would help illustrate my reasoning. What do you think would be more effective in cold training:
 1. Training once a week at I don't know, let's say -50C, and then spending the rest of the time recovering from frostbite and similar issues, or
 2. Training every day in the week at -30C at which (hypothetically) one day is perfectly enough to recover and be ready to train again the next day.

On a personal note, before I started using the methods outlined in Body By Science I had back, knee and hip problems from years of moderate intensity, high frequency exercise (jogging, weight lifting, bodyweight exercises). After a little over a year all of those problems are gone. But of course to each their own, and it's always possible there's something unique about my body that makes these methods work, where they wouldn't work for anyone else.
That's great that it worked so well for your problems!
That's what I'm saying. And that what the high-intensity gurus in general are saying. And this statement jibes with my experience, and with the sorts of activities that ancient people used to develop their strong, fit bodies. Paleo people didn't exercise every other day, the occasionally participated in intense, brief periods of activity (moving heavy objects, running from predators, taking down large prey animals), and that's how they got to be strong and fit.
Doesn't quite fit with scientific findings. Just a few days ago I read something rather different
It certainly wasn't brief periods of activity once a week.

Nice find. They measured estrogen excreted in urine. One hour after drinking the milk estrogen excretion peaks a 2-3x above the normal rate (proportional to the amount of milk drunk), and over the next 4-5 hours it slowly goes down to normal.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 17
SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk