So this morning I decided to go down to the Paleo den cafe after my gym work out to check it out. And of course I saw a bunch of the boys there enjoying their paleo diet. Viney, Salem, Toumpas, Petracca, Brayshaw, Frost, Newton and Stretch were all there. Seem like a good bunch of guys.

Edited November 28, 201410 yr by Is Dom Is Good

So this morning I decided to go down to the Paleo den cafe after my gym work out to check it out. And of course I saw a bunch of the boys there enjoying their paleo diet. Viney, Salem, Toumpas, Petracca, Brayshaw, Frost, Newton and Stretch were all there. Seem like a good bunch of guys.

I hope they were plotting how to win a premiership together in 2018!!

Someone explain this diet to me in one sentence please

Does it basically just mean no bread, but lots of meat?

Edited November 29, 201410 yr by hogans_heroes

And a good 2 cents it is. The China Study presents inconvenient truths from an epidemiological perspective, and is just too confronting for the larger meat fixated populus. It remains the definitive large scale study into diet and its relationship to disease and mortality, but peeps just don't want to listen, really. The taste allure of sugar and fat is a mighty power, and 'food' production companies will exploit it without mercy. The result is what we have now, with related diseases (diabetes etc) and pharmaceutical juggernauts to give symptomatic relief. Massive profitting off human frailty. So what else is new though?

but currently with the high rotation explosive game style, the high protein is handy whilst we are in transition & trying to build size & strength, as the players approach the prime, (25 - 27) then they could go to a balanced diet

with the kids, feed them meat (protein), hold the pretties. big breakfast a favourite...

but currently with the high rotation explosive game style, the high protein is handy whilst we are in transition & trying to build size & strength, as the players approach the prime, (25 - 27) then they could go to a balanced diet

with the kids, feed them meat (protein), hold the pretties. big breakfast a favourite...

Have a Google on 'vegan bodybuilders', dee-luded, and you'll see that 'feed them meat' is a fallacious notion. We need the protein that we need, not the mountains of animal flesh that Australians chow down currently, and that includes young professional footballers trying to build size.

Someone explain this diet to me in one sentence please

Does it basically just mean no bread, but lots of meat?

high protein, low carbs

Have a Google on 'vegan bodybuilders', dee-luded, and you'll see that 'feed them meat' is a fallacious notion. We need the protein that we need, not the mountains of animal flesh that Australians chow down currently, and that includes young professional footballers trying to build size.

I think you can go either way, but with the amounts of running we do, I don't think body builders is a good example. to put on size with the running is the difficulty, & we also need to put on 'aggression' to work that back into our culture.

caveman is fine by me at this point in time.

Have a Google on 'vegan bodybuilders', dee-luded, and you'll see that 'feed them meat' is a fallacious notion. We need the protein that we need, not the mountains of animal flesh that Australians chow down currently, and that includes young professional footballers trying to build size.

It's becoming a very interesting debate at the moment on diet 'Webber', it seems the ground shifts on this a bit.

I get the low carb idea and as with every new or rehashed idea there is a degree of logic that you can grab hold of. However I wonder if it will lead to other problems that haven't been studied yet like an increased likelihood of cancer. These things could take 20 to 30 years of research before results are known, then someone puts their hand up and says sorry, we got it wrong. One of the main guys leading the low carb diet was previously pushing carb loading, go figure.

I know you come from a scientific background but I think often the science lets us down with people using whatever study suits to push their current agenda. I've been around sport and fitness for long enough to have seen many ideas come and go over the years, sometimes I think a big problem is the almost evangelical approach backed up by a bunch of fanatical disciples.

It's becoming a very interesting debate at the moment on diet 'Webber', it seems the ground shifts on this a bit.

I get the low carb idea and as with every new or rehashed idea there is a degree of logic that you can grab hold of. However I wonder if it will lead to other problems that haven't been studied yet like an increased likelihood of cancer. These things could take 20 to 30 years of research before results are known, then someone puts their hand up and says sorry, we got it wrong. One of the main guys leading the low carb diet was previously pushing carb loading, go figure.

I know you come from a scientific background but I think often the science lets us down with people using whatever study suits to push their current agenda. I've been around sport and fitness for long enough to have seen many ideas come and go over the years, sometimes I think a big problem is the almost evangelical approach backed up by a bunch of fanatical disciples.

Fanaticism is very frustrating, and comes with faddism, sadly. The long term studies of dietary trends you speak of has been covered in the previously mentioned 'The China Study' by Dr. Colin Campbell. This is an audit of the disease and mortality outcomes of hundreds of thousands of people over a number of decades. It is by an enormous margin the most comprehensive study of diet relationship to disease ever done. It is NOT changing people's eating and seeing what happens, but simply a retrospective review. You are right when it comes to poor science being used to push biased agendas, but there is such a thing as good science rjay, and it's the reason we live longer healthier lives than ever. If you're prepared to engage with the findings of the China Study, and many people are not, then I suggest you read it. To put it too simply, animal protein at levels greater than 5 % of the diet is directly associated with increasing disease. Food is emotional, many people see meat and dairy as manly, australian, blah blah, so reject even the idea that we eat too much. Like Climate Change, the science is secure, but it doesn't stop the ignorant masses claiming bull***t.

As to the Dees, the benefit they're primarily looking for from Paleo, is to improve their body's use of fat as fuel. It is also scientifically justified, just all sorts of wrong over the long term.

Someone explain this diet to me in one sentence please

Does it basically just mean no bread, but lots of meat?

high protein and fat, very low carb especially processed carbs i.e. containing flour etc...

I think you can go either way, but with the amounts of running we do, I don't think body builders is a good example. to put on size with the running is the difficulty, & we also need to put on 'aggression' to work that back into our culture.

caveman is fine by me at this point in time.

Sorry dee-luded, but the idea of 'amounts of running' being adverse to muscle growth unless you eat s***loads of meat is nonsense. I presume you're joking about 'aggression'. I eat only fish once or twice a week, but if you pi*s me off, I'll happily beat the cr*p out of you

It's becoming a very interesting debate at the moment on diet 'Webber', it seems the ground shifts on this a bit.

I get the low carb idea and as with every new or rehashed idea there is a degree of logic that you can grab hold of. However I wonder if it will lead to other problems that haven't been studied yet like an increased likelihood of cancer. These things could take 20 to 30 years of research before results are known, then someone puts their hand up and says sorry, we got it wrong. One of the main guys leading the low carb diet was previously pushing carb loading, go figure.

I know you come from a scientific background but I think often the science lets us down with people using whatever study suits to push their current agenda. I've been around sport and fitness for long enough to have seen many ideas come and go over the years, sometimes I think a big problem is the almost evangelical approach backed up by a bunch of fanatical disciples.

If I was doing a high Protein, no Carbs diet, I would take a lot of metamucil

Sorry dee-luded, but the idea of 'amounts of running' being adverse to muscle growth unless you eat s***loads of meat is nonsense. I presume you're joking about 'aggression'. I eat only fish once or twice a week, but if you pi*s me off, I'll happily beat the cr*p out of you

natural aggression is fine Webber & can be modified, but there is a theory about vegetarians to be less aggressive. we need to increase into our club more aggression & less passiveness, partly cultural...

at this level of sport things are done collectively to make small improvements where needed.

If you have issues with over aggressiveness, can point you in the direction of some great anger management counselors.

Edited November 29, 201410 yr by dee-luded

high protein and fat, very low carb especially processed carbs i.e. containing flour etc...

y

i think though in their modified paleo diet they will in fact carbo load just before games (or so i heard somewhere)

y

i think though in their modified paleo diet they will in fact carbo load just before games (or so i heard somewhere)

I was just wondering that same thing. if its possible to gain best of both worlds, 6 days a week paleo, then load carbs night before game & game day.?

Fanaticism is very frustrating, and comes with faddism, sadly. The long term studies of dietary trends you speak of has been covered in the previously mentioned 'The China Study' by Dr. Colin Campbell. This is an audit of the disease and mortality outcomes of hundreds of thousands of people over a number of decades. It is by an enormous margin the most comprehensive study of diet relationship to disease ever done. It is NOT changing people's eating and seeing what happens, but simply a retrospective review. You are right when it comes to poor science being used to push biased agendas, but there is such a thing as good science rjay, and it's the reason we live longer healthier lives than ever. If you're prepared to engage with the findings of the China Study, and many people are not, then I suggest you read it. To put it too simply, animal protein at levels greater than 5 % of the diet is directly associated with increasing disease. Food is emotional, many people see meat and dairy as manly, australian, blah blah, so reject even the idea that we eat too much. Like Climate Change, the science is secure, but it doesn't stop the ignorant masses claiming bull***t.

As to the Dees, the benefit they're primarily looking for from Paleo, is to improve their body's use of fat as fuel. It is also scientifically justified, just all sorts of wrong over the long term.

This is the bit I have a problem with 'Webber', the debate on this is being skewed to the short term gains. These have included weight loss and performance, 2 things that are bound to get headlines.

Half (Daniel Harford) had one of the proponents of this diet on the other day so I SMS'd a question on the long term effects and specifically on cancer. The answer was he believed this diet helped with inflammation in the body which he suggested was a major cause of cancer. Whilst in his field he is supposedly an expert on inflammation in this case being an expert and having no real facts or studies to back it up didn't add up to me.

Unfortunately not all angles have been taken into account and if they have been considered the answers lack the science to back them up.

Thanks for the info on 'The China Study', I will have a look at it.

This is the bit I have a problem with 'Webber', the debate on this is being skewed to the short term gains. These have included weight loss and performance, 2 things that are bound to get headlines.

Half (Daniel Harford) had one of the proponents of this diet on the other day so I SMS'd a question on the long term effects and specifically on cancer. The answer was he believed this diet helped with inflammation in the body which he suggested was a major cause of cancer. Whilst in his field he is supposedly an expert on inflammation in this case being an expert and having no real facts or studies to back it up didn't add up to me.

Unfortunately not all angles have been taken into account and if they have been considered the answers lack the science to back them up.

Thanks for the info on 'The China Study', I will have a look at it.

Spot on, rjay.

natural aggression is fine Webber & can be modified, but there is a theory about vegetarians to be less aggressive. we need to increase into our club more aggression & less passiveness, partly cultural...

at this level of sport things are done collectively to make small improvements where needed.

If you have issues with over aggressiveness, can point you in the direction of some great anger management counselors.

Either you're joking, or that's the stupidest thing I've heard in eons. I hope for your sake it's the latter.

Either you're joking, or that's the stupidest thing I've heard in eons. I hope for your sake it's the latter.

He's not joking.

Either you're joking, or that's the stupidest thing I've heard in eons. I hope for your sake it's the latter.

Webber, meet dee-luded.

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.

Of course it's a fad. This is another disgraceful episode in MFC's recent history of foolish behaviour. A balanced diet is healthy and good for you whether you play sport or sit on the couch. Overloading on fat will cause long term atherosclerosis and increases the risk of several diseases in later life.

Webber, meet dee-luded.

Thanks Nasher, I have seen the random ramblings of dee-luded before, but this seemed to take the ramble into a new sphere of 'WTF'. Ah, the rich tapestry that is Demonland.

Fanaticism is very frustrating, and comes with faddism, sadly. The long term studies of dietary trends you speak of has been covered in the previously mentioned 'The China Study' by Dr. Colin Campbell. This is an audit of the disease and mortality outcomes of hundreds of thousands of people over a number of decades. It is by an enormous margin the most comprehensive study of diet relationship to disease ever done. It is NOT changing people's eating and seeing what happens, but simply a retrospective review. You are right when it comes to poor science being used to push biased agendas, but there is such a thing as good science rjay, and it's the reason we live longer healthier lives than ever. If you're prepared to engage with the findings of the China Study, and many people are not, then I suggest you read it. To put it too simply, animal protein at levels greater than 5 % of the diet is directly associated with increasing disease. Food is emotional, many people see meat and dairy as manly, australian, blah blah, so reject even the idea that we eat too much. Like Climate Change, the science is secure, but it doesn't stop the ignorant masses claiming bull***t.

As to the Dees, the benefit they're primarily looking for from Paleo, is to improve their body's use of fat as fuel. It is also scientifically justified, just all sorts of wrong over the long term.

but would the correlation between those diets and disease be as strong as the correlation between disease and being overweight? So for the normal people amongst us, if this type of diet gets people to a healthier weight, then I'd imagine this is better for them than eating less meat at a heavier weight...?

I was reading about the outcomes of some new research released recently... obviously there are lots of studies, and you could almost find one to justify anything, but these are pretty big claims they're making... and they seem to fit in with the paleo style diet...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/11246112/High-fat-diets-not-as-dangerous-as-high-carbohydrate-plans-claim-scientists.html

as an aside note, I've made a conscious effort at the start of the week to be eating better... thought i'd base that loosely around the paleo diet after reading the coverage earlier in the week, and I've already started to drop weight i wanted to lose. i've been avoiding bread, and eating more fatty foods including meats (particularly bacon), avocado, etc. along with larger amounts of veg, and I think it's definitely making a difference...

but would the correlation between those diets and disease be as strong as the correlation between disease and being overweight? So for the normal people amongst us, if this type of diet gets people to a healthier weight, then I'd imagine this is better for them than eating less meat at a heavier weight...?

I was reading about the outcomes of some new research released recently... obviously there are lots of studies, and you could almost find one to justify anything, but these are pretty big claims they're making... and they seem to fit in with the paleo style diet...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/11246112/High-fat-diets-not-as-dangerous-as-high-carbohydrate-plans-claim-scientists.html

There's no doubt

as an aside note, I've made a conscious effort at the start of the week to be eating better... thought i'd base that loosely around the paleo diet after reading the coverage earlier in the week, and I've already started to drop weight i wanted to lose. i've been avoiding bread, and eating more fatty foods including meats (particularly bacon), avocado, etc. along with larger amounts of veg, and I think it's definitely making a difference...

There's no doubt wOOdy that paleo does go with weight loss. It's proven. There is also no avoiding the long term problems associated with high animal protein intake, and fat, for some of the same and some different reasons, regardless of weight. More overweight also equals more disease, but the levels of overweight/obesity in people eating plant based wholefood diets are radically diminished compared to the alternative. Don't forget also that sugar is a huge factor. If you're cutting that out, you're already winning. There's more than one way to skin a cat, but there's also the best way. Not that I could EVER skin a cat, I love the little beasts.

Someone explain this diet to me in one sentence please

Does it basically just mean no bread, but lots of meat?

Grain and dairy free.

Grain foods (carbs) spike insulin which triggers the body to hold onto it's fat stores.

Dairy is seen as an inflammatory food group so people believe the body will work better without it. Some dairy can also be reasonably high in lactose which would unnecessarily increase carb consumption.

Paleo still allows carbs but in natural sources. Honey, fruit (some are better than others), maple syrup, molasses etc.

As long as the high protein and high fat foods are consumed with fruits or vegetables, the fibre helps the food to digest slower which allows for limited insulin release and a feeling of fullness for a longer period of time.

It takes a couple of weeks for the body to adjust to a state of fat burning but once it does, energy levels are even, moods are apparently more even and fats are burned more easily.

Carb loading will still occur in athletes that require bursts of energy or those that operate above 70% maximum heart rate for extended periods of time as the anaerobic (glucose/carb sourced energy systems) are required in these situations. For non-athletes or those that operate in more endurance type sports, the diet can be unaltered.

Primal is a similar idea although this diet allows for more dairy products.