Crossfit is still a thing??
@antiquity competes at a high level!
2 Likes
Thank you for the support, and your loose definition of “high level”.
3 Likes
Seemed to have fizzled out …
It’s not currently winning any PR battles for sure
2 Likes
Small bowel lesions.
This too, lesions dont sound very good either…
I disagree . . I don’t think eating should be a pleasurable (or non-pleasurable) event . . food is simply fuel for our bodies . . not that I don’t think you should try and make what you’re eating taste good but the obesity epidemic in America can partly be linked to people eating for pleasure instead of performance (and the fact that most ‘food’ in grocery stores in America is not food but food-like products)
1 Like
I did not take that to be what @QuadQueen was expressing there. Between “choking down food” and “pleasurable experience” lies a WIDE grey zone wherein I feel her statement operated within.
1 Like
very possible, yes
2 Likes
Yes, this. I’m not advocating for donuts, pizza and ice cream all day, every day - but you should definitely not dread eating something.
3 Likes
Red cabbage has been a recent superfood. Unlike most here, I don’t seem to get any gas issues and I go through a head of it every 2-4 days. The crunch is great and satisfies my need to chew for 30 mins straight to feel satiated
From my understanding, it’s the exact opposite when it comes to wheat. Wheat was modified to better withstand direct contact with roundup/glysophate which made spraying with planes a standard practice versus spot spraying weeds during the initial growth period. There’s some that argue the rise for intolerance for gluten is actually due to long term glysophate exposure damaging the gut lining/microbiota. It’s one of the reasons for why so many people can eat bread and pasta in Italy without issues but struggle with the same products in the US.
It’s also entirely possible I’ve gone WAY too far down too many conspiracy rabbit holes so take that for what it is…
6 Likes
Lol, yeah I have no idea. I’ve read some nasty things about Monsanto but along the lines of dangerous pesticides railroaded through approval processes.
Lots of plants, even before the genetic modification era, have been bred for specific traits and outcomes. For the record, so have animals. Grafting plants for desired outcome and even new products has been a thing long before genetic modification science.
In any case, it’s impossible for me to objectively buy in to the idea that plants provide zero nutritional benefit complimentary to meat. Todays Carnivore Diet is yesterdays low fat diet with lots of other packaged and sold nutrition propaganda in between.
Supportive science was available, adherents were just as bought in and…… desired results were achieved, at least initially. Because it was a system of calorie management. The key will always be getting the right nutrient intake within the right caloric limit, and I haven’t seen anything that legitimately refutes a well balanced diet with a bias for high protein in weight training crowds, no matter how much viral koolaid is poured around.
2 Likes
Or is that just what they want you to think…?
7 Likes
Something to consider… only humans eat a “well balanced diet”… it lacks context and seems to be repeated without actually unpacking it.
No other species does it and no other species has human issues.
We simply lack some of the biological machinery to digest, assimilate, etc… without running into a myriad of issues the nutrients found in other foods outside of animals, eggs.
Animals know instinctively what they thrive on but will eat for survival as well. Humans stopped doing that and instead do this “balanced” thing
3 Likes
Especially considering many have been true
1 Like
These are interesting points to consider, but religious based naming conventions aside, we are animals. Specifically omnivorous mammals. This is a class (or maybe genus??) of animals with a balanced diet.
Bears, for example, will eat nuts, roots, berries, honey, fish, meat et cetera.
One of my dogs legit loves baby carrots, broccoli and blueberries.
Squirrels eat bugs, worms, birds, eggs, mushrooms, nuts, fruits, roots, seeds, leaves et cetera.
The list of animals similar to us with “balanced” diets is pretty massive.
Animals are also opportunists so they eat what’s available, and what they can successfully catch/hunt/gather..
Carnivore diet, to me, evokes images of wolves, lions, tigers, and erroneously bears as they’re strong and intimidating and so is the gist of results from the diet. But this is such a limited scope, and even maned wolves eat a lot of plants. Grey wolves don’t, but they do eat some.
We are not carnivores. The diet’s shortcoming is in its own name.
Humans do digest plants and assimilate nutrients from plants to a degree. We don’t fully digest them, but we don’t fully digest animal protein either. Not being sarcastic, but I assume you poop?
We extract what can/need and the rest of the waste is eliminated.
In fact we have the same intestinal bacteria types that degrade plant cell walls as herbivores: Humans have intestinal bacteria that degrade the plant cell walls in herbivores - PMC
This doesn’t mean we should live off of plants alone as we are omnivores, but there isn’t a lot of factual support to back up claims that we don’t utilize plants, or that animals don’t have balanced diets. Especially other mammalian omnivores.
Carnivore is the mismatch.
Plus, you can’t properly utilize celery on the Carnivore diet, so there’s that.
2 Likes
One thing to consider, though, is that the average human lifespan has been in the 20’s and 30’s for nearly the entire existence of mankind. Only very recently in the scheme of things (1800’s or so) has this increased into the 40’s and beyond. And our obesity and industrialization of hyper-processed foods has happened within the lifespan of many on these very boards.
So, we really have no idea how eating like a “caveman” or human from another historical period would have faired in terms of disease or “issues” had they lived into their 60’s, 70’s, and beyond. Of course I realize there are many other aspects of this - availability of fresh water, medicines and vaccines, sanitation - but we can’t pretend that our ancestors were thriving compared to us.
2 Likes
That is because of the high infant mortality. When it is accounted for Paleolithic man could live into their 60’s or 70’s.
Life expectancy actually went down in the Neolithic and was lower in the 1800’s due to the dependence on agriculture among other things which led to less variety and poor nutrition/health and diseases.
People were also shorter.
1 Like