• Keep up to date with Ausbb via Twitter and Facebook. Please add us!
  • Join the Ausbb - Australian BodyBuilding forum

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

    The Ausbb - Australian BodyBuilding forum is dedicated to no nonsense muscle and strength building. If you need advice that works, you have come to the right place. This forum focuses on building strength and muscle using the basics. You will also find that the Ausbb- Australian Bodybuilding Forum stresses encouragement and respect. Trolls and name calling are not allowed here. No matter what your personal goals are, you will be given effective advice that produces results.

    Please consider registering. It takes 30 seconds, and will allow you to get the most out of the forum.

Food pyramid

Bazza20 said:
I want mick to tell chocchilli that chocolate is not a real food to see what happens.
Click to expand...


come at me with that one LOL

I'd be more expecting that he does have chocolate.
the number of times I've locked horns with paleo nuts about
their making excuses for that particular processed food because they can't bear to be without it.

what ever happened to moderation in all things and enjoy food,
and just avoid food that makes you sick if you have an allergy/intolerance/whatever.
 

the nutritional value is identical for both. What is different is the feeling of fullness for longer because with the quick oats, your digestive system has a little less work to do in order to break the oats down to digest them.
 

I'm asking if there is a possibility.

If someone (and you are hard work) who is not aware of good diet, low intelligence and low activity is not eating a balance of food stuffs, could there be a tendency to overcompensate ( without being aware) by eating more of something else low in the nutrients they need to operate?

In essence their body is telling them to eat more, if their source of....I don't know thiamine, niacin or vitamin B is from food that is not available, just to name a few?
 
chocchillimango said:
the nutritional value is identical for both. What is different is the feeling of fullness for longer because with the quick oats, your digestive system has a little less work to do in order to break the oats down to digest them.
Click to expand...

Look, you could be right, but as with everything it's not just black and white.

Choc, do you think that and oat that is steamed and then rolled and cut into even smaller pieces would have the same nutrient value as an oat the is not steamed and cracked open by a stone mill?

Would the germ be better preserved?
 

I agree, in fact, I said as much in an earlier post.
I don't know.
it's the same thing with calories, Goose. even if you know the calorie amount in a given food, once it enters your body, it's a whole new ball game and often differs from person to person.

none of it is black and white.
but I do agree that refined starches are not good for us, mostly because they don't have much nutritional value.

quick oats are not refined, but they are partly processed. Steaming will affect the nutrional count somewhat but mostly for micros that are vapour soluble like vit C and iron.

It's a complex issue when you get down to the chemistry of it, for sure.


LOL about Arnie though...he's a good boy from Graz. he grew up on schwarzbrot
 
I think a lot of people miss the point that our ancestors did not have to worry about a lot of the conditions we see today like heart attacks and strokes because they all died young, before these diseases manifested. Their diet may work great if you only live till 30, it's hard to say what it does to someone after 70 years.

In saying that I dont think there is enough evidence either way which makes me weary of people who are 100% adament about their position.

I'm especially weary of people who base their opinions on ideas purely because they seem intuitive, not because they have looked at the research (and I don't think relying on other peoples interpretation of research counts either).

I guess that may make me a bit of a fence sitter but I thought I may as well put in my 2c.

Edit: TED lecture already posted
 
Last edited:
Choc, I find it interesting to see that more often than not, a kid hates the taste of broccoli, all it wants is meat and bones, and that sort of reverses as we age.

We feed our kids veg because we think they need it.

Think about how that can effect you and how it could effect our health.
The body is in a constant anabolic/catobolic state, nutrients are needed for so many reasons and ultimately neede to repair DNA.

Sometimes we just can't explain why one day we feel off, then the next fantastic?
It's a mystery, anyone who has an answer is a fool.
 
Last edited:

I have no idea, I wasn't there, though my kids would disagree.

I think it wise to keep an open mind.
 
flame13 said:
Paleo lecture for those that are a fan of the TED series.
Click to expand...

I posted that video link below


Yep, I've actually just started to listen to what my body craves. I rarely crave sugar/sweet things but if I do, I let myself have it because my body knows better than my brain what it needs.

some days I crave veg, other days it's bacon. It's easy to overthink this stuff.
the human body is a complex machine. to survive and thrive we don't need to dissect all the processes ... sometimes just being in tune with how we're feeling is the best guide.

Kids need food to grow...fast. As we get older, we need that less and the foods we need more of, or the balance of foods, changes.
 
Very interesting discussion..

I've been looking at the "paleo" thing in more detail a little bit lately and find myself really unconvinced. The majority of the justification behind the food decisions, for most of the people following it, is "did cavemen eat it?" - that's not to say that some haven't researched in more detail and formed an educated opinion, but I would suggest those form the minority in paleoites.

To eliminate a food choice based purely on whether it was eaten thousands of years ago seems ludicrous. Our progression from hunters/gatherers to ... whatever the hell we are now ... involved a lot more than just dumping everything in a deep fryer (although I guess that is how many people live now haha). What benefit is there in ignoring all of the advances in agriculture and food processing techniques? Seems to be a very short-sighted approach.

Using the same logic applied by a lot of paleo followers, I would expect those people to be cooking only over open fire and living in caves/under trees. If the cavemen had it so right, why pick only their diet to emulate?
 
This what the "the health and fitness" industry does so well, is to (and it's human nature) pick the thing that stands out we are drawn to it.

If you look at the tree line of a forest, you are drawn to look at the tallest trees.

What's fascinating is if you take a swimming meet for an example, from start to Finnish you'll see the swimmers bodies change dramatically over the course of the day, a particular body has emerged that is best suited for swimming.
Competition, it can be said, is simply accelerated evolution.
 
Goosey said:
The debate I think is, has processed food like white flour contributed like to the obesity and health problems we are faced with today?
Click to expand...


Yes and No

Yes - in that they possibly lead people to eat more... Increase hunger and lower satiety...

No - in that people spend to much time vilifying particular food groups, fast foods / take aways/ carbs/ fats etc etc... In addition to this popular diets point to a long list of anecdotal evidence that offer increased fat burn or weight loss advantages...

The fact is obese people eat to much....

Don't blame the pizza... Blame the person eating it...

Society needs to be more calorie focused and get away from vilifying food groups or types...... Obesity comes from eating far too many calories....

Using paleo to arrive at a calorie deficit by default is fine... If cutting an entire food group from your diet works for you... That's fine too... But the focus always needs to be calorie based...

Not saying everyone needs to count calories... Cause most approaches will put you in a deficit by default anyway... It's just about recognising it as the number one driver for weight loss and then figuring out a style of eating that gets you in a deficit...
 
ted talks cant be trusted, its a form of advertisement, and costs the speaker 8 thousand dollars to perform, yes its just that, a performance

who says paleo means calorie deficit, thats crazy, you can easily reach thousands of calories with fruits, veges, nuts, eggs and meats

and the nutritional content is insanely better than eating your processed cereal and chocolate and taking that vitamin pill to compensate

i personally dont like the word paleo

i much prefer mike dolce advice of EARTH GROWN NUTRIENTS

i trust an international life coach that walks the walk and has elite athletes as clients over someone sitting behind a pc with google open spouting an opinion based on studies payed for by the unethical food companys we are now surrounded by

back to bacon and eggs for me, you can have your oats and rice and sugar breads that keeps starving people alive, doesnt make them into elite athletes
 
^ exactly the sort of post that puts me off "paleo".. if you need to talk like some fanatic arseclown to convince people of its worth, then you're doing something wrong.
 


Who said non Paleo eaters need a vitamin pill. I know I don't take any.

International life coach. Lol ok. Ted talks can't be trusted but what about your life coach. Does he not do that for money?

Also you talk about earth grown nutrients and then demonize oats and rice. Fill me in again where grains are grown.
 
i was referring to the chicken and rice people needing a vitamin pill

not the people eating a balanced diet of fruit, vege, nuts, eggs and meats.

don't get me started on how bad the traditional bodybuilding diet is...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register