|
On March 16 2012 02:04 solidbebe wrote:
Does anyone here do one handed pushups? I can do about 50 two handed but a one handed pushup I just fall flat down on my face, before I even attempt the pushup...
I can do 20, the trick is to put each of your leg far from the other so you have more stability. If you keep your legs stuck together it's really hard, I can do 3 but it's painful as hell and I don't think it's working anything.
Thanks for all the advice, seems I'll have to invest in some equipment :D
|
On March 16 2012 02:04 solidbebe wrote:
Does anyone here do one handed pushups? I can do about 50 two handed but a one handed pushup I just fall flat down on my face, before I even attempt the pushup...
How did we end up discussing this in the nutrition thread. Anyway, I am left handed, but I can now do a one handed push up with my right hand but not with my left. Freaks me out somehow. I have heard sometime that the other arm can very well be stronger, but the muscles work together less coordinated (something like this). Don't really know if that is true, but I feel so much stronger doing with my right hand.
Since I cannot really bench press any more, I kind of have become obsessed with push-up variations, so much stuff you can do. And one handed are definitely pretty badass 
|
On March 17 2012 05:41 Malinor wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2012 02:04 solidbebe wrote:
Does anyone here do one handed pushups? I can do about 50 two handed but a one handed pushup I just fall flat down on my face, before I even attempt the pushup... How did we end up discussing this in the nutrition thread. Anyway, I am left handed, but I can now do a one handed push up with my right hand but not with my left. Freaks me out somehow. I have heard sometime that the other arm can very well be stronger, but the muscles work together less coordinated (something like this). Don't really know if that is true, but I feel so much stronger doing with my right hand. Since I cannot really bench press any more, I kind of have become obsessed with push-up variations, so much stuff you can do. And one handed are definitely pretty badass
Hmm :o. Yeah someone mentioned something about pushups and I just asked away I thought this was health and fitness xd. I'm left handed aswell but my left arm is definitely alot stronger than my right. Even though I train them both exactly the same.
|
On March 14 2012 19:55 Crawler wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 12:49 eshlow wrote:On March 14 2012 08:14 NeedsmoreCELLTECH wrote:On March 14 2012 07:43 GoTuNk! wrote:On March 14 2012 06:44 solidbebe wrote:On March 14 2012 06:32 kaisr wrote:On March 14 2012 05:42 solidbebe wrote:On March 14 2012 02:07 NeedsmoreCELLTECH wrote:
I'm feeling really @#!*% tired most of the time, which for someone with no sleep issues is a little weird. I figured it might be puberty (I'm 18), but it might be my diet. I think it has too few carbs and fat, and too much protein. Could anybody make a guess?
Breakfast: 6 eggs, 1 bell pepper 1 tomatoe, 50grams of smoked salmon. On workout days I also have four small slices of bacon.
Lunch: 700ml %2 milk + 1\2 cup of oats + 2 scoops of whey + 1 balanan. Double the amount on workout days.
Dinner: 500grams~ of chicken breast/700grams of lean fish + a broccoli/250grams of green beans.
I don't think I'm undereating. I think it's a lack of veggies/fruit. I'm super strict and virtually never deviate from this. Any suggestions? I haven't really changed this set-up in the three-four months. You don't have anything in there that straight up gives you carbs. Throw in potatoes or brown rice man. You're just eating pure protein atm lol. Pretty sure oats have a lot of carbs. Do you take vitamin D? vitamin D deficiencies can lead to general fatigue. That's true, not sure if it's enough though. You can add more fat alternatively. Do you guys have any concrete examples? Replace chicken/broccoli with pasta/rice +stuff every night? White rice, potatoes, or sweet potatoes, are all relatively safe starches Avoid pastas/grains/brown rice/etc. Why white rice instead of brown rice? :O Usually everyone says that brown rice is healthier. For example brown rice is really high in magnesium but white rice doesn't have much of it. I have been on full paleo for 2months and 14 days (0 grams of any rice) and biggest flaw is that I can't really get cheap foods with magnesium in it. Nuts and seeds are quite expensive compared to normal food for their value.
Because the bran and whatever else in the brown rice can be irritating to the gut just like gluten.
If it doesn't bother you ok perhaps
On March 15 2012 15:05 TanTzoR wrote:
To get bigger lifting is a must? Because I'm to the point where I can make 175 push ups straight up and I'm not sure doing more would help. I'm ripped, but not getting heavier. Even when eating a lot.
Need to work less reps... 5-8 reps for strength and hypertrophy with harder exercise
ANd to put on muscle you also need to eat more
On March 16 2012 02:04 solidbebe wrote:
Does anyone here do one handed pushups? I can do about 50 two handed but a one handed pushup I just fall flat down on my face, before I even attempt the pushup...
That's because anything more than 20-30 pushups is ENDURANCE.
You need lower reps with harder exercises to build strength and/or hypertrophy
|
|
|
The problem with the studies in general is they don't differentiate by what is unprocessed and processed red meat. And they also don't differentiate between unprocessed GRAIN FED meat vs GRASS fed meat.
Grass and grain fed meat, even unprocessed, have significant differences in fatty acid composition trending towards proinflammatory for grain fed as opposed to anti-inflammatory for grass fed.
As you know, cancer, CVD, diabetes, etc. are all pro-inflammatory diseases so it would stand to reason that adding to the inflammation is harmful.
This is why all Paleo proponents suggest supplementing fish oil if you do not have access to grass fed meat products.
Fish is naturally more rich in omega 3s, though fish can still have bad O3/O6 ratios if they are factory farmed too.
Make sense, yes?
|
Zurich15359 Posts
|
This critique is basically on a lobby site, the site lives on selling Paleo books and Paleo supplements (I have to include this everytime because it is so damn funny). A study which shows fruit is bad for you reviewed on a vegan/vegatarian website would result in a similar kind of review.
I read most of the review a couple days back. Of courrse they find some real problems (as most smart people do when they review something, sadly science is never perfect) and exaggregate a lot of stuff. The author goes on and on about this being only a "observational study" and these by definition cannot prove anything, you would need experiments with test groups and such. But that is basically proposing "We are gonna feed these 10.000 people a lot of red meat throughout 30 years, and you other 10.000 people don't eat red meat, plus a third group with only unprocessed red meat. And then we look which of those groups lives longest." It is simply impossible to conduct such a thing. Mortality studies can hardly be any other then observatory, if you are not dealing with cancer-patients (which test new medicaments and otherwise would die anyway) or something similar.
I don't think the study single-handily debunks paleo, as probably a lot of happy vegans now spill around, eshlow has given some reasons two posts above mine. But it challenges the view that you can basically eat unlimited meat. And if the meat-heavy Paleo school only works with grass-fed cows, then there is probably only a small percentage of people on this planet which have the financial means to sustain a risk-free paleo-diet.
But for what it is worth, I assume that the hundreds of liter of coca cola I drank in my life will eventually shorten my life way more than those two steaks and the one package of bacon I eat within a month.
|
Zurich15359 Posts
Just because the critics have an agenda doesn't mean the obvious weaknesses they pointed out are incorrect.
I got suspicious first when I read in the summary that the people in the study could have lived longer if they had replaced one daily serving of red meat with chicken, nuts, and a whole list of other shit. How could you possibly come to such a conclusion from a, yes, observational study? That's just bad science.
And if you look at the methods they used they ARE badly conducted, and really not conclusive at all. But anyway, I don't think anyone here would argue that unlimited processed red meat is only healthy for you.
(BTW according to the study results the people who ate the least red meat were worse of than the ones with moderate consumption).
|
Sorry, just don't go to lobby sites when looking at such a study. Marksdailyapple is not some non-profit moderately paleo blog, it is a brand. I don't go to cocacola.com to read about sugar.
The phrase "bad science" is getting around so carelessly, I find it hard to respond to that. They did somewhat of a meta analysis of studies and included 100.000 thousands of people. This is a vast scope project, there is so many problems in such an undertaking, and which are probably dealt with in the text (in the sense of awareness, not necessarily in "we solved all those problems").
The media-reception was just in a way that you could read everywhere "RED MEAT KILLS YOU", I assume the authors were not to thrilled about that either (if they were, they should be crucified).
Anyway, there were possibly a sizeable group of researches working on this study for several months or longer, at a reputable university, and then they got published in a reputable magazine. I can only find it a little naive to go about this like: "observational study, lol bad science" (sorry for the exaggeration, but I assume that you did not read the whole study yourself to review all the other methodical flaws they conducted. If you did, then much respect to you).
|
Zurich15359 Posts
OK I am not sure what you are trying to tell me.
There are a number of flaws with the study. Two especially stuck out to me: The first being the methods (like a questionaire every FOUR years where you log your meat intake). The second is that rather arbitrary fudge factor with which they tried to isolate meat consumption from lack of exercise, smoking, drinking, etc which all also correlated with higher mortality.
And given these weaknesses I find it ridiculous to suggest that the study concludes replacing 40g of red meat per day with chicken would have resulted in 5% less mortality, which is what the original authors did in their summary.
I couldn't care less about Denise's droning on about observational vs experimental study when there are way more obvious weaknesses.
|
Fair enough, those seem like valid concerns. I don't feel qualified enough to say anything indepth about the study, I would have to invest way more time into that. Anyhow, the only thing I really wanted to say is that the source that you linked before ("Denise") is in my opinion highly quesitonable to use in this context, and I stand by that. Weightlifters will defend weightlifting, runners will find running most beneficial for everything, corn-sirup.com will defend sugar, and a Paleo (brand) website will not post a review of a study which would allow to question one of the basic assumptions of their approach to nutrition. Though, obviously it would be hard to come by reviews from people that don't have an agenda, because nearly everyone has.
Anyway, my point was that I don't like your source, anything else is just bantering about a topic where other people are most certainly more qualified.
(Obviously I feel that people are way too fast in jumping on some bandwagon like "bad science" with limited information, as in abstracts, online reviews and forum posts, but this wasn't my main point and mainly a maybe unneccessary side rant)
|
Regardless, we can all agree that it would be preferably to eliminate refined / processed sugar products from the diet before removing any meat.
I'm also not sure which statistical methods they did in teasing out the differences between say "meat" consumption in terms of hamburgers from fast food and the usual fries and soda you get with that too. That will obviously make a SIGNIFICANT difference if most of the "unprocessed meat" (as they said hamburger meat was for some reason) was significantly correlated with mortality.
Whatever the case, what this tells us is that with a standard american diet the "meat" that were consuming is related to an increased risk of mortality. I think everyone already knew that for the most part.
That doesn't mean red meat or whatever is bad on a different type of diet.
|
infinity21
Canada6683 Posts
On March 21 2012 23:49 eshlow wrote:
Regardless, we can all agree that it would be preferably to eliminate refined / processed sugar products from the diet before removing any meat.
I'm also not sure which statistical methods they did in teasing out the differences between say "meat" consumption in terms of hamburgers from fast food and the usual fries and soda you get with that too. That will obviously make a SIGNIFICANT difference if most of the "unprocessed meat" (as they said hamburger meat was for some reason) was significantly correlated with mortality.
Whatever the case, what this tells us is that with a standard american diet the "meat" that were consuming is related to an increased risk of mortality. I think everyone already knew that for the most part.
That doesn't mean red meat or whatever is bad on a different type of diet.
Probably something like multivariate linear regression. In the study, they mention that factors like "age, body mass index, physical activity, family history of heart disease, or major cancers" but I wonder if they looked at something as simple as total calorie consumption. It just irks me when researchers say stuff like "provides clear evidence" in a biased observational study where they called people and ask how much they ate in the last two years or w/e.
edit: To be fair, I read up on their methodology and it's not completely retarded but I still disagree with some of their choices and they still can't get around the obvious biases that occur with self-reporting studies.
|
that is interesting. especially the part about cholesterol and how this is never mentioned in the media. usually journalists are all over cholesterol-related stuff!
|
On March 22 2012 23:26 Zafrumi wrote:that is interesting. especially the part about cholesterol and how this is never mentioned in the media. usually journalists are all over cholesterol-related stuff!
Meh, I have the idea that the whole cholesterol crazy died down a bit.
|
question: ground/mince meat is classified as processed food, right? so, which is better (from a health standpoint): "high quality" (i.e. organic) ground beef or low quality steaks/pork chops?
because high quality non-processed meat is pretty expensive here whereas ground beef is reasonably priced but i'm worried I eat too much of it...
|
Hmm, I suppose they could mix in some fats or whatever with the actual ground beef to make it more profitable but I mean, the only thing you do with the meat itself it ro run it through a meat grinder, which wouldn't really qualify as processing assuming that's the only thing they do with it. Not sure about their process though but for myself I just run it through a grinder.
|
On March 29 2012 19:47 Sneakyz wrote:
Hmm, I suppose they could mix in some fats or whatever with the actual ground beef to make it more profitable but I mean, the only thing you do with the meat itself it ro run it through a meat grinder, which wouldn't really qualify as processing assuming that's the only thing they do with it. Not sure about their process though but for myself I just run it through a grinder.
I see. but isnt the meat in mince beef pretty crappy? just the waste like in sausages etc?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
