The Diet

[Whispering_Jack 30,674]

It's been mentioned around here before but does it work?

Melbourne players to adopt radical paleo diet in 2015 AFL season

[Bonkers 994]

It works, the main thing that helps with dropping weight is cutting out the processed foods which slow your digestive system & cutting out sugar & processed wheat/complex carbs. They say these foods are not good for the body & can be hard for the digestive system to break down. As long as they are keeping protein in their diet they will maintain their muscle mass & lose fat.

[AzzKikA 2,371]

What is the benefits of this? Just seems like a fad, surely they din't think it's their diets that is the issue?

[DemonFrog 1,356]

[old dee 23,872]

What is the benefits of this? Just seems like a fad, surely they din't think it's their diets that is the issue?

Funny I was thinking the same.

Wonder if it will improve McKenzie's kicking!

[Webber 10,538]

Not really a 'radical' diet, just the removal of 'rubbish' carbohydrates, being simple sugars and processed foods (bread, pasta, and any sugar based junk). The removal of dairy food is a big positive in paleo eating also, another food with way more cons than pros. What it is not, is a ketogenic diet, which IS radical, and ultimately unhealthy, on account of being the absence of carbs and overdose on protein.

[Demonland 73,161]

It worked for him.

[ignition. 1,477]

Not really a 'radical' diet, just the removal of 'rubbish' carbohydrates, being simple sugars and processed foods (bread, pasta, and any sugar based junk). The removal of dairy food is a big positive in paleo eating also, another food with way more cons than pros. What it is not, is a ketogenic diet, which IS radical, and ultimately unhealthy, on account of being the absence of carbs and overdose on protein.

What are "rubbish" carbohydrates? and they're also not simple sugars, they actually incredibly important and can be quite complex. So please look up the extensive field of "glycomics" and you'll soon realize.

As for you're "simple sugars" you're thinking of monosaccharides like glucose (high in raw sugar, but also the prominent sugar in our blood stream), fructose (high source in fruit), and galactose (high source in dairy). Now because scientists coined them as "simple sugars" based on their simple chemical structures does this mean they're "rubbish" or bad?

The Paleo diet is a well marketed fad that tries to use complex scientific terms and theories to support their shallow and radical claims. The only merit it has is that it's drawn more attention to modern societies over-indulgence of sugars (predominantly raw sugar) in our foods and drinks, however it goes over the top as individuals try to "cut out" or drastically cut down on certain nutrients or "rubbish" "simple sugars" so it generates a statement and makes itself known.

My favorite example is their suggestion that the prehistoric evolving man went without and so we must revert back to those ways. What they fail to mention is that their lifestyle was far more active and their brains were far less developed, figuratively the size of a pea. So as our brains developed and became larger and more complex they've required more energy and what is the predominant energy that fuels our brains... that "simple sugar" glucose.

Edited November 24, 2014 by ignition.

[Satan 2,881]

Will our kick outs improve?

[Brayshaw Self 847]

What are "rubbish" carbohydrates? and they're also not simple sugars, they actually incredibly important and can be quite complex. So please look up the extensive field of "glycomics" and you'll soon realize.

As for you're "simple sugars" you're thinking of monosaccharides like glucose (high in raw sugar, but also the prominent sugar in our blood stream), fructose (high source in fruit), and galactose (high source in dairy). Now because scientists coined them as "simple sugars" based on their simple chemical structures does this mean they're "rubbish" or bad?

The Paleo diet is a well marketed fad that tries to use complex scientific terms and theories to support their shallow and radical claims. The only merit it has is that it's drawn more attention to modern societies over-indulgence of sugars (predominantly raw sugar) in our foods and drinks, however it goes over the top as individuals try to "cut out" or drastically cut down on certain nutrients or "rubbish" "simple sugars" so it generates a statement and makes itself known.

My favorite example is their suggestion that the prehistoric evolving man went without and so we must revert back to those ways. What they fail to mention is that their lifestyle was far more active and their brains were far less developed, figuratively the size of a pea. So as our brains developed and became larger and more complex they've required more energy and what is the predominant energy that fuels our brains... that "simple sugar" glucose.

Google glycolysis and gluconeogenesis. You don't need to literally consume glucose to fuel your brain.

[Its Time for Another 4,292]

My neighbour, in his mid 50's went on this diet two years ago. After a period of time he went to his Dr for his regular check up as he had high blood pressure and was on medication. The Dr told him it was amazing but his blood pressure had stabilised so well he was going to be able to reduce the medication. He said have a guess what Doc, I stopped the medication completely a couple of months ago and then explained he had gone on this diet. So it had a direct medical impact. I'm not suggesting that self medicating like that was smart but it had that direct impact on his blood pressure. He also had bad arthritis in his fingers and it's gone. He dropped 15kg's in the first few months and has kept it off effortlessly for 2yrs.

I decided to give it a go a week ago and I've dropped a couple of kg's in the first week. I definitely have more energy, especially while cycling which I do with a solid level group. I find that having protein for breakfast instead of cereal means I don't get hungry at all until lunch, it also so far is taking away those mid afternoon post lunch lags we all get. It is also clearly having a positive impact on my digestion.

I haven't been really radical yet, like no dairy and no fruit but so far I'm a fan. I finally got prompted to have a go after a read an article a week or so ago about some of the Aus Cricket tam going on it. Shane Watson was swearing by it and also Dr Peter Bruckner, the team Dr who was also the team Dr for the Aus Olympic team in London and at one stage for the Dees.

[ignition. 1,477]

Google glycolysis and gluconeogenesis. You don't need to literally consume glucose to fuel your brain.

*FACE PALM

Where does glucose and glycogen originate from?

Edited November 24, 2014 by ignition.

[Its Time for Another 4,292]

Google glycolysis and gluconeogenesis. You don't need to literally consume glucose to fuel your brain.

What do you need to fuel your brain? Whatever it is I need it.

Edited November 25, 2014 by It's Time

[Brayshaw Self 847]

*FACE PALM

Where does glucose and glycogen originate from?

You are embarrassing yourself, mate.

The body can synthesise glucose from protein and fat via gluconeogenesis.

Excess glucose can be stored as glycogen and then broken back down in to glucose again.

Face palm.

Edited November 24, 2014 by Brayshaw Self

[Sir Why You Little 37,134]

Is the long term plan for this diet to give the team more energy in the last quarter of a game and or the back end of the season?

[ignition. 1,477]

You are embarrassing yourself, mate.

The body can synthesise glucose from protein and fat via gluconeogenesis.

Excess glucose can be stored as glycogen and then broken back down in to glucose again.

Face palm.

Hahahahaaaa no.

Glucose the monosaccharide is predominantly derived from higher order saccharides / sugars like carbohydrates, if it's not consumed directly.

[beelzebub 23,383]

might have to give this a go...maybe not 100% but a near to .

Interesting... thanks chaps !

[Melbman2 226]

Depends.

If they are talking high meat content then nature provides plenty of examples where meat eaters have little endurance while their prey, the vegetarians can run and leap all day.

The China study, the largest study by a long shot of human nutrition, also comes to the conclusion that a vegetarian diet is more healthful and conducive to longevity. (plenty online bagging the China study but none that really debunks it)

Plenty of examples when people from high carbohydrate (plants as grown as opposed to processed carbs) low fat culture become ill and overweight when moving to a western country where they adopt the SAD diet. there are also examples where a twin has moved to a western diet while the other remained in their own country (low fat Japan I think was one example)

One positive of the paleo diet could be that by cutting out starchy foods like bread and potatoes, the meat consumed no longer ferments due to poor food combining and less energy is consumed in digestion. Plenty of evidence for people who don't drink getting cirrhosis of the liver which could be attributed to poor food combining. Just remember, there is no sandwich in nature (to borrow a quote). Meat is eaten with meat and fruit only with fruit.

I've experimented on myself with the above over 30 years with Pritikin diet (mainly an unprocessed cooked vego diet), food combining, raw low fat vegan and SAD all complete with blood tests and various athletic pursuits and have found that a high meat diet for me just does not work. It kills my energy, raises my cholesterol, bilirubins & uric acid resulting in bone density loss, psoriasis, worsening of osteo arthritis I developed from heavy lifting in primary school (things were different back then ;-).

Anyway, my eldest is a DR and its amazing that things Pritikin espoused 40 years ago are year by year becoming mainstream. (he had to argue in the 60's that his heart disease was not a genetic fault and that he must be able to reverse it which he did)

One thing I have found is that medical training is great at pointing out conditions and drug therapy required to "fix" but lousy at root cause analysis. Point in fact is diabetes. There have long been claims that fat in the blood stream prevents insulin from escorting sugar into the cells which is why they end up with high blood sugar. Ever noticed there are no natural foods that are high in fat AND sugar? Durian would be the closest but if eaten on its own causes no issues.

Anyway, just my 2¢ worth

[The Reverend 1,736]

It worked for him.

It's made him taller!

[Brayshaw Self 847]

Hahahahaaaa no.

Glucose the monosaccharide is predominantly derived from higher order saccharides / sugars like carbohydrates, if it's not consumed directly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluconeogenesis

Just read it FFS.......

[What 18,810]

It worked for him.

the good old Hollywood cocaine diet

works every time

[DeeSpencer 26,083]

Anyone who's ever played footy will tell you a game of footy requires a bucket load of energy. Running 15km with all the other movements, copping big hits etc.

So I'd prefer to fuel my body with some carbs before a game to have that quick and easy energy on hand. From a very simplistic view I don't want to be playing footy and at the same time having my body converting fats to energy, one thing is enough!

I get that processed grains can be unhealthy and Western society has gone too far with them. But at the same time I'd be surprised if fruit is evil!

I also don't want our players chomping on fats all day and not getting enough fibre. Obviously making good choices with veggies there is key.

I'm glad we are being innovative. But I hope we aren't pushing the line too far with something that may be experimental.

This doctor we have (Dr Zee) did come to us via the same clinic as Dr Bates who had us going down the Dank path.

His resume is also light on compared to the experienced sports medicine doctors we have had in the past.

[AzzKikA 2,371]

I know people are saying that this is a diet from 10000 years ago but im pretty sure they have changed it to suit our bodies now, i am also sure they have altered it from 40 years ago also.

Edited November 24, 2014 by AzzKikA

[Jesse Christ 2,884]

Intermittent fasting is where it's at- you have an eating window each day that is typically 4-6 hours and eat all your calories in this "window". The rest of your hours you only intake water. It's the way the body was designed to work and how nature intended us to eat. Back in the caveman days we thrived in survival mode and ate when we got a kill- there was no Maccas or breakfasts in juice form.

[daisycutter 29,743]

What are "rubbish" carbohydrates? and they're also not simple sugars, they actually incredibly important and can be quite complex. So please look up the extensive field of "glycomics" and you'll soon realize.

As for you're "simple sugars" you're thinking of monosaccharides like glucose (high in raw sugar, but also the prominent sugar in our blood stream), fructose (high source in fruit), and galactose (high source in dairy). Now because scientists coined them as "simple sugars" based on their simple chemical structures does this mean they're "rubbish" or bad?

The Paleo diet is a well marketed fad that tries to use complex scientific terms and theories to support their shallow and radical claims. The only merit it has is that it's drawn more attention to modern societies over-indulgence of sugars (predominantly raw sugar) in our foods and drinks, however it goes over the top as individuals try to "cut out" or drastically cut down on certain nutrients or "rubbish" "simple sugars" so it generates a statement and makes itself known.

My favorite example is their suggestion that the prehistoric evolving man went without and so we must revert back to those ways. What they fail to mention is that their lifestyle was far more active and their brains were far less developed, figuratively the size of a pea. So as our brains developed and became larger and more complex they've required more energy and what is the predominant energy that fuels our brains... that "simple sugar" glucose.

the paleolithic period ended approx 10,000 years ago and at that time the human brain size was much as it is today

the neanderthals actually had a bigger brain than current hominids

the human brain has actually been shrinking (marginally) over the the last 28,000 years

just saying....

Edited November 24, 2014 by daisycutter