Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Body for Life!

Jump to new
visual said:
Wayne,
fish as being healthier ,what about all the stuff that goes in the sea,and as for wild game,they live in the same enviroment as the rest of us,if the air we breath kills us why not wild game?
I know I `m being pedantic but,,,,,,,,,

I was watching this doco. where they were comparing country life to city life ,guess what when they compared a farmers lungs with a city dweller lungs the city dweller had much cleaner lungs due to all the chemicals that the farmer was breathing in.So he had a much cleaner ! enviroment than us but it was killing him.So open spaces fresh food ect..made no difference because of how we live as a society. :2twocents
Click to expand...

Thats an easy one visual.

The farmers shouldn't be using chemicals. I don't eat the crap they grow either...if I can help it.

The organic movement is taking off worldwide in a big way, particularly in Europe.

Sheez I'm starting to sound like a hippy here LOL

Answering the first part of your post would take pages so I won't bore you.

But look I'm not trying to convert anyone here. If you're happy with your diet, eat it.
 
waynel,
stop me because I think that i`m starting to sound like a wet blanket.

Organic food,there are carcinogenics in food that occur naturally but for the chemicals that kill it,when those chemicals arent used,guess what? You guessed it, people die.
There was an article in the Herald Sun some time ago where this was discussed,the article was about an eating disorder (told you to stop me) where people only eat particular foods,be they only green foods or food that is out of the ground for only a short amount of time ect.. this person would only eat this particular food but because the food wasnt sprayed it naturally produced this particular thingy which was carcinogenic,sorry it was a while back so i cant remember what this food was I remember though that it was grown ,The eating disorder sorry that also escapes me,apparently is very rare.
It mainly affects people who try to eat only organic food or the freshest food so that it eventually turns into an obsession :banghead: lol Sorry!
 
Greetings,
Any advice on a easy exercise to get rid of a gut ?.
Having been in the food & grog buisness for many years did't help.

Still like to drink & smoke plus eat nice food.
How do I look ? - Good in a dark room. :rolleyes:

Regards Bob.
 
visual said:
waynel,
stop me because I think that i`m starting to sound like a wet blanket.

Organic food,there are carcinogenics in food that occur naturally but for the chemicals that kill it,when those chemicals arent used,guess what? You guessed it, people die.
There was an article in the Herald Sun some time ago where this was discussed,the article was about an eating disorder (told you to stop me) where people only eat particular foods,be they only green foods or food that is out of the ground for only a short amount of time ect.. this person would only eat this particular food but because the food wasnt sprayed it naturally produced this particular thingy which was carcinogenic,sorry it was a while back so i cant remember what this food was I remember though that it was grown ,The eating disorder sorry that also escapes me,apparently is very rare.
It mainly affects people who try to eat only organic food or the freshest food so that it eventually turns into an obsession :banghead: lol Sorry!
Click to expand...

OK you eat the chemicals, I'll eat organic.

It could be a real life experiment!

We'll compare notes in 30 years :D
 
Just touching back on the training routine. My other half (a health professional) forwarded this on to me after coming to the gym with me and looking at my usual routine.

http://www.exrx.net/WeightTraining/LowVolumeTraining.html

I had a read, it seemed fairly logical, so I thought I'd give it a shot for a few weeks. I've been very impressed with the results. Significantly less time at the gym, rarely do I pull up sore the next day, and I'm increasing my weight on most exercises by about 10% every couple of visits (so bump it up a couple of times a week).

It's made it seem almost too easy compared to my old routine.
 
visual said:
Wayne,
fish as being healthier ,what about all the stuff that goes in the sea,and as for wild game,they live in the same enviroment as the rest of us,if the air we breath kills us why not wild game?
I know I `m being pedantic but,,,,,,,,,

I was watching this doco. where they were comparing country life to city life ,guess what when they compared a farmers lungs with a city dweller lungs the city dweller had much cleaner lungs due to all the chemicals that the farmer was breathing in.So he had a much cleaner ! enviroment than us but it was killing him.So open spaces fresh food ect..made no difference because of how we live as a society. :2twocents
Click to expand...
The farmer messes about with chemicals and is exposed to diesel fumes from machinery for long periods or time. The diesel is the most likely cause as far as lungs are concerned to my understanding. In comparisson, any individual animal or plant on the farm is only occasionally exposed to diesel fumes whilst city dwellers receive a constant low dose.
 
smrt-guy said:
Just touching back on the training routine. My other half (a health professional) forwarded this on to me after coming to the gym with me and looking at my usual routine.

http://www.exrx.net/WeightTraining/LowVolumeTraining.html

I had a read, it seemed fairly logical, so I thought I'd give it a shot for a few weeks. I've been very impressed with the results. Significantly less time at the gym, rarely do I pull up sore the next day, and I'm increasing my weight on most exercises by about 10% every couple of visits (so bump it up a couple of times a week).

It's made it seem almost too easy compared to my old routine.
Click to expand...

Had a quick look, sounds a bit like Peter Sisco's stuff (static contraction training etc) where you train on fewer occasions but at a higher intensity in your strongest zone- also notes your progress mathematically.
 
wayneL said:
Be cautious of soy products also. There is a few problems with it depending on the processing etc. Straight raw soy is full of phytites and can cause mineral malabsorption.

Cheers
Click to expand...

Wayne,

Do you know of any Aussie sites which recommend the safer brands/types of soy? I think I'll do more reading on this now, thanks for bringing it up.

It's only recently that I've heard that soy can be bad for you, I thought it was A-OK. Guess not, someone said that its genetic structure is fragile and can mutate easily in nature- I have no idea if that is true or if the mutations can be harmful. I just try to avoid genetically modified (by humans) food generally...
 
RichKid said:
Wayne,

Do you know of any Aussie sites which recommend the safer brands/types of soy? I think I'll do more reading on this now, thanks for bringing it up.

It's only recently that I've heard that soy can be bad for you, I thought it was A-OK. Guess not, someone said that its genetic structure is fragile and can mutate easily in nature- I have no idea if that is true or if the mutations can be harmful. I just try to avoid genetically modified (by humans) food generally...
Click to expand...

Rich,

The big problem is arriving at the truth as all research concerning soy is conducted by vested interests. The soy industry is one of the main antagonists in exposing the health problems of dairy. The dairy industry has counterattacked and done expose's on soy.

So imo all reserch in this area is biased on way or the other. (as is all research in any area...he who pays the piper calls the tune)

I couldn't put you onto the definitive truth in one site. It's a matter of investigation that I'm not satisfied that the full truth is available.

To me there is enough doubt to avoid ALL but traditionally fermented products. And these tend to be EXPENSIVE. (they also taste so much better than the engineered varieties)

Good luck with researching this.

Cheers
 
For anybody interested:

Information taken from John Robbins, Diet for a New America (Walpole, N.H.: Stillpoint Publishing, 1987)

There is no nutritional need for humans to eat any animal products; all of our dietary needs, even as infants and children, are best supplied by an animal-free diet. Our evolutionary ancestors were, and our closest primate relatives are, vegetarians. Human teeth and intestines are designed for eating and digesting plant foods, so it is no wonder that our major health problems can be traced to meat consumption.

The consumption of animal products has been conclusively linked with heart disease, cancer, diabetes, arthritis, and osteoporosis. Cholesterol (found only in animal products) and animal fat clog arteries, leading to heart attacks and strokes. A vegetarian diet can prevent 97 percent of coronary occlusions. The rate of colon cancer is highest in regions where meat consumption is high, and lowest where meat-eating is uncommon. A similar pattern is evident for breast, cervical, uterine, ovarian, prostate, and lung cancers.

Low-fat diets, particularly those without saturated fat, have been instrumental in allowing many diabetics to dispense with their pills, shots, and pumps. A study of more than 25,000 people over age 21 found that vegetarians have a much lower risk of getting diabetes than meat-eaters.

Osteoporosis, or bone loss due to mineral (particularly calcium) depletion, is not so much a result of insufficient calcium as it is a result of eating too much protein. A 1983 Michigan State University study found that by age 65, male vegetarians had an average measurable bone loss of 3 percent; male meat-eaters, 18 percent; female vegetarians, 7 percent; female meat-eaters, 35 percent

In addition to the problems associated with too much fat, cholesterol, and protein, consumers of animal products take in far greater amounts of residual agricultural chemicals, industrial pollutants, antibiotics, and hormones than do vegetarians. The absorption of antibiotics through meat-eating results in antibiotic-resistent strains of pneumonia, childhood meningitis, gonorrhea, salmonella, and other serious illnesses.

Meat contains 14 times as many pesticide residues as plant foods. Fish is another source of dangerous residues. The EPA estimates that fishes can accumulate up to nine million times the level of cancer-causing polychlorinated biphenals (PCBs) found in the waters in which they live.
Ecological Arguments

More than 4 million acres of cropland are lost to erosion in the United States every year. Of this staggering topsoil loss, 85 percent is directly associated with livestock raising, i.e., over-grazing.

Throughout the world, forests are being destroyed to support the meat-eating habits of the "developed" nations. Between 1960 and 1985, nearly 40 percent of all Central American rain forests were destroyed to create pasture for beef cattle. The rain forests are the primary source of oxygen for the entire planet; the very survival of the earth is linked to their survival. The forests also provide ingredients for many medicines used to treat and cure human illnesses, and these resources have yet to be explored for their full potential.

Much of the excrement from "food" animals (which amounts to 20 times as much fecal matter as human waste) flows unfiltered into our lakes and streams.

The production of one pound of beef requires 2,500 gallons of water. It takes less water to produce a year's worth of food for a pure vegetarian than to produce a month's worth of food for a meat-eater.
Humanitarian Concerns

Raising animals for food is an extremely inefficient way to feed a growing human population. The U.S. livestock population consumes enough grain and soybeans to feed more than five times the entire U.S. population. One acre of pasture produces an average of 165 pounds of beef; the same acre can produce 20,000 pounds of potatoes.

If Americans reduced their meat consumption by only 10 percent, it would free 12 million tons of grain annually for human consumption. That alone would be enough to adequately feed each of the 60 million people who starve to death each year.
Click to expand...
 
RichKid said:
Had a quick look, sounds a bit like Peter Sisco's stuff (static contraction training etc) where you train on fewer occasions but at a higher intensity in your strongest zone- also notes your progress mathematically.
Click to expand...

That is an interesting read. I've kind of already gone halfway there just with my own thinking. For the last couple of years after the warm up set I have done my heaviest set first and then decreased the weight for each successive set. eg.

DB Press
Warm up = 30KG
1 Set = 45Kg
2 set = 40Kg
3 set = 37.5Kg

My theory behind this was I was my strongest after the warm up but was wasting it on lighter weights as I progressed upwards in weight to my final set. I found the method I put above to increase my strength gains considerably compared to the old way. After reading the link above I'm thinking of just doing a warm up and 1 working set. That way I can do a 2 day split instead of 4 and effectively double my training. It will be interesting to gauge its effectiveness regarding muscle soreness. I'm still personally of the oppinion if there isn't muscle soreness (especially the delayed onset soreness on the second day after training) then the workout isn't effective enough or the muscle has grown accustomed to the weight.

Was just thinking a warm up and then one "drop-set" might be an even more effective technique, especially in the absence of a spotter.

Thanks for the read Smrt-Guy
 
If Americans reduced their meat consumption by only 10 percent, it would free 12 million tons of grain annually for human consumption. That alone would be enough to adequately feed each of the 60 million people who starve to death each year.
Click to expand...

WayneL,
If Americans reduced their meat consumption by 10% nothing would change because when people starve it's not lack of food thats the problem rather it's political decisions, economics you know micro ,level playing field rarararara...........
look at zimbabwe people are starving why?
Look in our own back yard, why?
 
visual said:
WayneL,
If Americans reduced their meat consumption by 10% nothing would change because when people starve it's not lack of food thats the problem rather it's political decisions, economics you know micro ,level playing field rarararara...........
look at zimbabwe people are starving why?
Look in our own back yard, why?
Click to expand...

Yes what you say is correct, but it could save a few thousand square miles of Amazonian rainforest.
 
David Susuki I think once stated that the ideal population for humans on this planet should be around 300 million .

Considering the present billions that live & consume each day ( me too ) we are all on the way to self genocide.

What is scary, like most I don't do anything about it ! :eek:

Regards Bob.
 
Jesse,

A big achievement in my mind is when you finally press your body weight. Given we're all different sizes this is a good leveller of performance. I got there a month back:

Age: 35
Weight: 69kg
Height: 168cm (5'6")
Bench: 70kg (barbell, don't press dumbells)

I've only started working out 6 months ago and have gone from a 30kg bench to a 70kg bench in that time. I used to use the assisted dip machine, but now I suspend 10kg from my belt on the free-dip.

Oh yeah, and I don't muck around with warm up sets, or pyramids or drop sets or any of that crap. I jump on the bench throw a plate and a bit on each side and start pressing. Straight to my max weight and three sets of 6-8 reps then move on to the next exercise and repeat. I do 6 exercises each workout for 3 sets each. So that's 18 sets each workout all at max weight with small breaks in between. I'm totally pumped and flogged afterwards so take a day off to recover then come back and repeat it again inching the weight up when I can do a full 3 set/8 reps with good form on the exercise.

And I haven't taken a single supplement. I just eat well and regularly. I have a cupboard full of healthy snacks at work like dried fruit, nuts, musli bars etc and keep the fire burning by eating regularly.

My body weight has actually dropped from 75kg to 69kg over this period but my shape has changed significantly. I've gone from about 30% body fat down to the low teens now. And all this on only 3 workouts a week! But they're hard ones and do the whole upper body. Don't do legs as I used to be a distance runner and these have always stayed pretty lean and defined.

Keep it up mate!

Michael.

PS Oh yeah, I've also done the Kokoda trail in 8 days. 120km over the Owen Stanley ranges in PNG. Loved it! :D
 
Estimator,

>It will be interesting to gauge its effectiveness regarding muscle soreness. I'm >still personally of the oppinion if there isn't muscle soreness (especially the >delayed onset soreness on the second day after training) then the workout >isn't effective enough or the muscle has grown accustomed to the weight.

From my own experience, I've hardly had any muscle soreness. My leg workouts were always the worst in terms of muscle ache (the good kind though ;) ) and that is a thing of the past. I started to question if it was effective or not, but the drop in body fat and increase in strength answered that soon enough.

I'll usually do between 15 and 60 minutes on a bike as a warm-up (depending on how busy I am with other commitments), stretch all of the major muscle groups, and then:
1x set shoulder
1x set chest
1x set biceps
1x set back
1x set triceps
1x set calves
1x set upper legs

I'll have a mouthful of water between each set and skip for 60 secs before moving on to the next exercise. I'll try and get down there each weekday, doing a different exercise for each group on alternating days (so maybe dips on Monday for triceps, overhead curls Tuesday, pull downs Wednesday, etc.). Back I'll usually alternate between lat pull-downs and rows each day

I don't seem to suffer any of the usual soreness or symptoms of over training, and have been incredibly lax in terms of taking supplements.

Obviously everybody is different, and I may plateau again with this and then have to find something new to invigorate the growth... but I'm rapt that I can do a full body workout in around 30mins and still see benefit.
 
wayneL said:
Rich,

The big problem is arriving at the truth as all research concerning soy is conducted by vested interests. The soy industry is one of the main antagonists in exposing the health problems of dairy. The dairy industry has counterattacked and done expose's on soy.

So imo all reserch in this area is biased on way or the other. (as is all research in any area...he who pays the piper calls the tune)

I couldn't put you onto the definitive truth in one site. It's a matter of investigation that I'm not satisfied that the full truth is available.

To me there is enough doubt to avoid ALL but traditionally fermented products. And these tend to be EXPENSIVE. (they also taste so much better than the engineered varieties)

Good luck with researching this.

Cheers
Click to expand...

Thanks Wayne, sorry for the late reply. I'll see if I can find some 'independent' scientists or nutritionists to get some unbiased info, thanks for the nexus link too. It's a shame that genuinely good food is expensive.
 
Top