How to build muscle when 60 years+?

[robblok]

34 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

rob, it's been scientifically proven for over 40 years that eating meat products is a correlation and possible causation towards the risk of contracting at least one of the top three serious diseases known to modern society - arterial blockage, strokes, and cancers. The mortality rates have been annually increasing - can't blame plant based foods for that.

 

The reason why the gigantic food industries continue to extensively promote meat and dairy products is that there's no money to be made promoting Broccoli or other plant based foods. It's also factual, in that they have the clout and power to 'persuade' Congress/government politicians to avoid upsetting the gravy train, even though thousands are risking health by eating such products. . 

Correlation... causation.. that is not science. One could easily say that eating bad meats is the reason of this not normal meat. But then again of course vegans wont go foor that.

 

I will keep eating meat and dairy and be far healthier then those vegans who have to do all kind of rotation of proteins and other stuff to get their right amounts nutrients to not be deficient.

 

Nothing wrong with eating a 200-300 grams of meat a day if not processed its actually healthier as being a total vegan.  What is wrong is eating processed meats and other processed foods. That is what your causation shows it does not prove what you want it to prove. 

[BritManToo]

10 minutes ago, robblok said:

Nothing wrong with eating a 200-300 grams of meat a day if not processed its actually healthier as being a total vegan.  What is wrong is eating processed meats and other processed foods. That is what your causation shows it does not prove what you want it to prove. 

Agreed,

As a meat eater, I've never had to take vitamin supplements/injections, or looked as pale, weak and unhealthy as many of the vegetarians I've encountered. If meat is so bad for us, why does it make us look and feel so good?

[stephenterry]

1 hour ago, BritManToo said:

There was me thinking it was because I like the taste of meat and dairy, and dislike the taste of broccoli, cabbage, cauliflower, etc.

 

Did I mention the vegan group I sometimes cycle with, who need to inject vitamins to help them get through the day, that doesn't seem very healthy to me.

Maybe you like the taste of meat because the animals ate the plant based foods. A secondary processed meal perhaps? However, it's the antibiotics and hormones the animals are injected with, that isn't healthy for humans. And probably resulting in contracting serious diseases in due course.

 

Why it is difficult to 'sell' healthy diets is that the human body works miracles to try and keep you healthy, and serious diseases are slow to cause symptoms that need medical treatment. Cancers take decades to grow, in some cases.  

 

I follow a whole food plant based diet with Vit B12 from nutritional yeast, and I certainly have no need to inject any nutrients because they're all-in my foods. I suspect your vegan group are eating junk food like chip butties and junk foods or similar.

 

[robblok]

39 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Agreed,

As a meat eater, I've never had to take vitamin supplements/injections, or looked as pale, weak and unhealthy as many of the vegetarians I've encountered. If meat is so bad for us, why does it make us look and feel so good?

Meat is not bad vegans just use junk science grouping unhealthy consumption of highly processed meat and other vices and then making a case for not eating meat.

 

The fail to understand (probably understand but don't want to admit) that is perfectly ok to eat meat if you eat your veggies and fruits and don' t process your meat that much. There is a difference between a pizza with salami and other highly processed meats and some normal pork or chicken with a plate of vegetables. 

 

Its just junk science to make a false point nothing more. 

[stephenterry]

55 minutes ago, robblok said:

Correlation... causation.. that is not science. One could easily say that eating bad meats is the reason of this not normal meat. But then again of course vegans wont go foor that.

 

I will keep eating meat and dairy and be far healthier then those vegans who have to do all kind of rotation of proteins and other stuff to get their right amounts nutrients to not be deficient.

 

Nothing wrong with eating a 200-300 grams of meat a day if not processed its actually healthier as being a total vegan.  What is wrong is eating processed meats and other processed foods. That is what your causation shows it does not prove what you want it to prove. 

Wrong again. Correlation and causation are scientific terms used to determine the results of a health study. And there have been many hundreds of thousands of these. From these scientific studies the consumption of meat has been proven to be a long-term health risk - but if you think otherwise and continue to consume it, that's your choice. 

 

 

 

 

 

[robblok]

14 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

Wrong again. Correlation and causation are scientific terms used to determine the results of a health study. And there have been many hundreds of thousands of these. From these scientific studies the consumption of meat has been proven to be a long-term health risk - but if you think otherwise and continue to consume it, that's your choice. 

 

 

 

 

 

No mate you are totally wrong correlation and causation are the lowest proof in any study. Its often not counted as proof at all. You should educate yourself a bit more. Its your chose. 

 

The consumption of meat has NOT been proven to be health risk at all. You can't prove anything with correlation as correlation is not causation. You can think it does but after that you need to prove it with other tests. So far that has not been done. 

 

Below an example from someone who can explain it better then I can

Quote

 

Arguably the most well known and important example of a correlation being clear but caustion being in doubt concerned smoking and lung cancer in the 1950s. There had been a sixfold increase in the rate of lung cancer in the preceding two decades. Nobody disputed that there was a correlation between lung cancer and smoking, but to prove that one caused the other would be no mean feat.

There might be a confounder that was responsible for the correlation between smoking and lung cancer. The increased rate could have been the result of better diagnosis, more industrial pollution or more cars on the roads belching noxious fumes. Perhaps people who were more genetically predisposed to want to smoke were also more susceptible to getting cancer?

It took a study involving more than 40,000 doctors in the UK to show conclusively that smoking really does cause cancer.

 

 

So correlation can point to something but the proof is not yet there. So far your meat thing is that there is only correlation and that can be explained in different ways too. Now real studies must prove that the correlation is causation and so far that has not been the case.

 

So please stop lying with saying that there is proof as there is no proof, there is an indication that there MIGHT be a problem with meat consumption. Now they need to prove it. So far they cant prove it

https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2752328/unprocessed-red-meat-processed-meat-consumption-dietary-guideline-recommendations-from

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/30/health/red-meat-heart-cancer.html

 

 

[BritManToo]

11 minutes ago, robblok said:

The consumption of meat has NOT been proven to be health risk at all. You can't prove anything with correlation as correlation is not causation. You can think it does but after that you need to prove it with other tests. So far that has not been done. 

You've lost me now ............

BUT, it doesn't matter, I do lots of stuff that might damage me because I like doing it.

Just think how many serious diseases we could miss if we never had sex?

 

I like eating meat, I'm already in my 60s, if it kills me I've had a good run.

Now for a glass of milk, and a big chunk of cheese.

 

Back to the OP,

I'm in my 60s and have plenty of muscle.

Mostly from hiking up mountains 2x-3x a week.

The best way to build muscle is to exercise.

[robblok]

1 minute ago, BritManToo said:

You've lost me now ............

BUT, it doesn't matter, I do lots of stuff that might damage me because I like doing it.

Just think how many serious diseases we could miss if we never had sex?

 

I like eating meat, I'm already in my 60s, if it kills me I've had a good run.

Now for a glass of milk, and a big chunk of cheese.

I mean to say that correlation can point to a certain thing in this case meat consumption being bad. However after correlation giving you an indication that something might be damaging real studies need to prove it. So far there have not been studies that really prove it.  

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/30/health/red-meat-heart-cancer.html

 

I take enough dairy myself, not as much meat.. but sometimes i got periods i eat a lot more. I got loads of cheese too.. sometimes i eat a lot sometimes less. 

 

I never had any serious (or other) disease from sex. 

[robblok]

I will try to explain how correlation can work in an fictitious example about cars. 

 

Someone looking at what cars are involved in accidents and finds out that black Fortuner are often in accidents. So there is a correlation between driving in a black Fortuner and getting in accidents. Now step 2 is to give possible reasons for it.

 

You could say that the black Fortuner s an unsafe car or you could say that black Fortuners get bought often by people who drive unsafe. 

 

Then step 3 is to prove what is the real reason of the Fortuners being often in accidents. So step 3 is to prove your case with more studies and real studies.

 

That is what a correlation study does it looks at links and then makes suggestions of what could be the cause without actually proving anything. That is the status of the meat studies, they found something that could indicate meat is bad but there could be other reasons too. More studies are needed nothing has been proven. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[gamesgplayemail]

hello, do you think that it can be useful to do in the same session:

 

- heavy 8 reps

- lighter 20 reps ?

 

or we should do the same amount of reps in the same session ?

 

And the real question is to know if anything that we can do is useful, or should we really follow a strict program ?

Anyway, whatever we do, nutrition is 80% of the results, so why bothering trying to train the best when we still eat like pigs ?

 

I just want to exercise to avoid being sick quickly when getting old...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[EricTh]

On 12/20/2019 at 12:05 PM, simon43 said:

 

Chicken is not vegetarian but I do admire your low heart rate.

 

My heart rate is 90-100, almost double yours. What did you do to make it low?

[brokenbone]

58 minutes ago, gamesgplayemail said:

hello, do you think that it can be useful to do in the same session:

 

- heavy 8 reps

- lighter 20 reps ?

 

or we should do the same amount of reps in the same session ?

 

And the real question is to know if anything that we can do is useful, or should we really follow a strict program ?

Anyway, whatever we do, nutrition is 80% of the results, so why bothering trying to train the best when we still eat like pigs ?

 

I just want to exercise to avoid being sick quickly when getting old...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the pyramid is far superior, like after warm up 10 7 5 3 5 7 10 reps with progressively heavier then lighter weights.

at 60 years it would almost certainly be needed to add steroids, im surprised rob didnt bring that up, oxandrolone are about as harmless as chocolate milk to the liver and the rest,

and its pills. it also doesnt ferment into female hormones

rest is as important as building, dont use the muscles for two days after a training

 

on correlation i saw a funny graph with correlation between ice cream sales

and shark attacks, while the causation that wasnt presented was

warm days that made people eat ice cream and swim in the sea

 

[mike787]

Quality nutrition, food, work out and testosterone, but consult your MD.

[sirineou]

8 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

the pyramid is far superior, like after warm up 10 7 5 3 5 7 10 reps with progressively heavier then lighter weights.

at 60 years it would almost certainly be needed to add steroids, im surprised rob didnt bring that up, oxandrolone are about as harmless as chocolate milk to the liver and the rest,

and its pills. it also doesnt ferment into female hormones

 

on correlation i saw a funny graph with correlation between ice cream sales

and shark attacks, while the causation that wasnt presented was

warm days that made people eat ice cream and swim in the sea

 

I have a small book that I keep track. I do legs one day, Upper body the other and If I feel too achy  a day off for recovery.  I do three reps of each muscle group , let's say "biceps"  two sets of 10 reps  at a particular weight and last set 20 lbs more as many as I can do.  When the last set becomes 10-15 easy reps, it becomes my normal first two and I increase my last set another 20 lbs.  I always start my  session with 15 min of cardio on the treadmill at 4-5 MPH. Please correct me  me if I am doing anything wrong.

[brokenbone]

40 minutes ago, sirineou said:

I have a small book that I keep track. I do legs one day, Upper body the other and If I feel too achy  a day off for recovery.  I do three reps of each muscle group , let's say "biceps"  two sets of 10 reps  at a particular weight and last set 20 lbs more as many as I can do.  When the last set becomes 10-15 easy reps, it becomes my normal first two and I increase my last set another 20 lbs.  I always start my  session with 15 min of cardio on the treadmill at 4-5 MPH. Please correct me  me if I am doing anything wrong.

if that works for you its ok, its very much what you can appreciate.

if you one day feel in generally good shape and mood you could

on that day increase weight more then normally,

to test your mettle. i dont believe in aiming for a single rep any more tho,

injuries can completely ruin things.

 

[stephenterry]

18 hours ago, robblok said:

I will try to explain how correlation can work in an fictitious example about cars. 

 

Someone looking at what cars are involved in accidents and finds out that black Fortuner are often in accidents. So there is a correlation between driving in a black Fortuner and getting in accidents. Now step 2 is to give possible reasons for it.

 

You could say that the black Fortuner s an unsafe car or you could say that black Fortuners get bought often by people who drive unsafe. 

 

Then step 3 is to prove what is the real reason of the Fortuners being often in accidents. So step 3 is to prove your case with more studies and real studies.

 

That is what a correlation study does it looks at links and then makes suggestions of what could be the cause without actually proving anything. That is the status of the meat studies, they found something that could indicate meat is bad but there could be other reasons too. More studies are needed nothing has been proven. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rob, I am also well read and aware of the differences between causation and correlation, so please don't patronise me (or others) with an explanation. Or to promote the misguided impression that you are an expert on nutritional matters, because you're not. No offence meant and, for clarity, neither am I.

 

So, let's look at this from a different perspective. It is scientifically evidenced and proven, by a consensus of opinion from Qualified nutritional scientists and recovered patients, that a Whole Food Plant Based nutrition regime actually reverses arterial heart blockages, diabetes, and some cancers - three of the highest causes of disease and mortality in modern society.  

 

On the acceptance that nutrition plays a major role in the causation of these diseases, without the possible adverse correlation effect of environmental indicators, genetics, and toxic carcinogens, the ABSENCE of meat and dairy products should be admissible evidence that the WFPB is a healthier human diet.

And as at today, there is no scientific evidence to support that the inclusion of meat and dairy would also bring about a serious disease reversal. You could argue correlation, but hey, humans don't need meat and dairy to remain healthy.

 

To move on. It is also acknowledged that nutrition science is way too complicated to ascertain for certain, causation of meat consumption effect on the human body. That is, without funding billions to carry out a wide-ranging human research study. The closest to this has been the China Study by Colin T Campbell four decades ago. It's well worth reading as the science is strong enough, as at today, because the study was carried out on whole populations of humans, not rats.

 

BTW - I have read this new study, and the feedback. It is highly controversial, and fails to address the  adverse environmental consequences of eating meat. Which has a far greater impact on world health. There is also the question whether the lead researcher was funded by the beef industry - 14 of the 19? panelists were omnivores, which is a biased panel split. I would obviously expect that their recommendations would be to continue to eat meat. 

 

To be fair, attached is a non-biased review of this study in this link: https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/whats-the-beef-with-red-meat

 

Now, can we agree to conclude this interlude to the main OP request?  

 

 

 

 

[brokenbone]

2 hours ago, stephenterry said:

 Or to promote the misguided impression that you are an expert on nutritional matters, because you're not.

 

 

from my observations, bodybuilders are nutritional experts by default.

this is because it is needed or they would never ever transform into belgian blue monster bulls. there is not a single activity that places such extraordinary demands on everything as that to promote this transformation.

rob is, imo, a nutritional expert, as is many other bodybuilders in thailand and elsewhere,

vegan activists are not anywhere near their level.

im not, but i have seen enough to adhere to their expertise without hesitation

except if it isnt tasty, i still take their word for it tho

[BigStar]

1 hour ago, brokenbone said:

i have seen enough to adhere to their expertise without hesitation

except if it isnt tasty, i still take their word for it tho

Really?

 

If man makes it, don't eat it. If it tastes good, spit it out.

     --Jack LaLanne

[brokenbone]

1 hour ago, BigStar said:

Really?

 

If man makes it, don't eat it. If it tastes good, spit it out.

     --Jack LaLanne

yes, i happened to get professionals as coaches, one of them was at one point 2nd mr olympia,

i seriously could not get interest in food beside of how tasty it is,

but those bodybuilders is like walking library of nutritional facts,

straight out of necessity to grow that big with no visible fat at all,

it leaves no room for error

[robblok]

20 hours ago, stephenterry said:

Rob, I am also well read and aware of the differences between causation and correlation, so please don't patronise me (or others) with an explanation. Or to promote the misguided impression that you are an expert on nutritional matters, because you're not. No offence meant and, for clarity, neither am I.

 

So, let's look at this from a different perspective. It is scientifically evidenced and proven, by a consensus of opinion from Qualified nutritional scientists and recovered patients, that a Whole Food Plant Based nutrition regime actually reverses arterial heart blockages, diabetes, and some cancers - three of the highest causes of disease and mortality in modern society.  

 

On the acceptance that nutrition plays a major role in the causation of these diseases, without the possible adverse correlation effect of environmental indicators, genetics, and toxic carcinogens, the ABSENCE of meat and dairy products should be admissible evidence that the WFPB is a healthier human diet.

And as at today, there is no scientific evidence to support that the inclusion of meat and dairy would also bring about a serious disease reversal. You could argue correlation, but hey, humans don't need meat and dairy to remain healthy.

 

To move on. It is also acknowledged that nutrition science is way too complicated to ascertain for certain, causation of meat consumption effect on the human body. That is, without funding billions to carry out a wide-ranging human research study. The closest to this has been the China Study by Colin T Campbell four decades ago. It's well worth reading as the science is strong enough, as at today, because the study was carried out on whole populations of humans, not rats.

 

BTW - I have read this new study, and the feedback. It is highly controversial, and fails to address the  adverse environmental consequences of eating meat. Which has a far greater impact on world health. There is also the question whether the lead researcher was funded by the beef industry - 14 of the 19? panelists were omnivores, which is a biased panel split. I would obviously expect that their recommendations would be to continue to eat meat. 

 

To be fair, attached is a non-biased review of this study in this link: https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/whats-the-beef-with-red-meat

 

Now, can we agree to conclude this interlude to the main OP request?  

 

 

 

 

I am no expert but you have done NOTHING to prove anything. I am 100% right with what i said about causation and correlation. There is no proof yet just something pointing towards something with experts not agreeing. You say there is consenses while the article i show shows that there is not. So that is an other thing that is wrong with what you say.

 

So I can't agree with you that the concensus is that meat is bad as this consensuses is not there and there is no proof. 

 

Also saying that SCIENTISTS can't apply science because they eat meat and so are bias is a lot of vegan brainwashing. Lets agree to disagree because you do nothing but discredit yourself.

 

Also saying that people dont require dairy is true.. but that does not mean its bad. Again your vegan views are too oppressive. You admit that there is no proof of causation. So there is just no proof. How can there be consensus when there is no proof. 

[stephenterry]

17 hours ago, brokenbone said:

from my observations, bodybuilders are nutritional experts by default.

this is because it is needed or they would never ever transform into belgian blue monster bulls. there is not a single activity that places such extraordinary demands on everything as that to promote this transformation.

rob is, imo, a nutritional expert, as is many other bodybuilders in thailand and elsewhere,

vegan activists are not anywhere near their level.

im not, but i have seen enough to adhere to their expertise without hesitation

except if it isnt tasty, i still take their word for it tho

Regretfully, many pro-bodybuilders fall into the category of non-qualified amateur nutritionists. I suggest you read this link before extolling the expertise of bodybuilders in respect of nutritional health. 

https://physicalculturestudy.com/2018/10/27/bodybuilders-who-passed-away-too-young/

 

BTW, I'm not a vegan, but follow a Whole Food Plant Based nutrition regime. IMO, I am better qualified to engage on a nutritional advice topic. 

 

 

 

 

[robblok]

Just now, stephenterry said:

Regretfully, many pro-bodybuilders fall into the category of non-qualified amateur nutritionists. I suggest you read this link before extolling the expertise of bodybuilders in respect of nutritional health. 

https://physicalculturestudy.com/2018/10/27/bodybuilders-who-passed-away-too-young/

 

BTW, I'm not a vegan, but follow a Whole Food Plant Based nutrition regime. IMO, I am better qualified to engage on a nutritional advice topic. 

 

 

 

 

Bodybuilders in general know more about food then the general public. Sure there are idiots that pass away too young but that is usually not food related but related to drugs. 

 

If you look what bodybuilders do and in what kind of shape they get you can only do that if you know about food. I would say they know how to transform their body much better then the general public. You can't do that without knowing about food. It such a big part of the sport without it you fail.

 

I would say your brainwashed and I will keep saying that because you yourself have admitted that there is no proof yet you keep saying there is proof. Sorry that I am not nice about how i say it but vegans are driving me mad with their lies. 

 

Proof is when there is consensus and there is not.

 

You even stated that because someone eats meat he is bias as a scientist. Then surely it works the other way too and vegans are bias too. So who will do the tests then ? You really lost credibility. 

 

I wish vegans would stick to facts instead of making things up. Also the remark that it has other impacts besides health is true but has NOTHING to do with if something is healthy or not. Just more vegan brainwashing. 

[stephenterry]

3 minutes ago, robblok said:

I am no expert but you have done NOTHING to prove anything. I am 100% right with what i said about causation and correlation. There is no proof yet just something pointing towards something with experts not agreeing. You say there is consenses while the article i show shows that there is not. So that is an other thing that is wrong with what you say.

 

So I can't agree with you that the concensus is that meat is bad as this consensuses is not there and there is no proof. 

 

Also saying that SCIENTISTS can't apply science because they eat meat and so are bias is a lot of vegan brainwashing. Lets agree to disagree because you do nothing but discredit yourself.

 

Also saying that people dont require dairy is true.. but that does not mean its bad. Again your vegan views are too oppressive. You admit that there is no proof of causation. So there is just no proof. How can there be consensus when there is no proof. 

Your comments are noted. When you have had time to plough through the research as I have done, you could have a broader perspective on why qualified nutritionists in the USA and UK are in consensus that a WFPB regime - without animal products - is an optimum health diet. 

 

Bear in mind the latest study was observational, and while I favour such an approach it falls into the category you describe - i.e. no scientific biochemistry evidence that the results are causal. 

 

[robblok]

15 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

Your comments are noted. When you have had time to plough through the research as I have done, you could have a broader perspective on why qualified nutritionists in the USA and UK are in consensus that a WFPB regime - without animal products - is an optimum health diet. 

 

Bear in mind the latest study was observational, and while I favour such an approach it falls into the category you describe - i.e. no scientific biochemistry evidence that the results are causal. 

 

I would like it when you stop and stick to facts instead of acting like there is proof when there is not.

 

The studies are still in the causation - correlation phase (like you yourself admitted). No scientist in his right mind would ever accept that as proof as its the least secure of all studies. So your remark about consensus is a total lie.

 

I would also like it if you stop sprouting stupid remarks about studies just based on the fact of if someone eats meat instead of looking at his qualifications as a scientist. That is really typical vegan behavior.

 

Then all of a sudden you lump dairy with meat while those are two totally different things. Sorry but you really look like a tinfoil head man the way you approach things.

 

If you were truthful and said I am a convinced vegan but there is no proof yet just some things pointing towards the possibility of meat being bad but no definite proof. Then perhaps I would take you more serious.

 

The difference thing between vegans and normal people is that I would never tell you to eat meat (your own choice) while vegans want to make that choice for others. 

 

Again you come with your consensus.. while there is NO consensus as the proof is just not there. Once if the expensive studies are done then there might be proof. But there is NO proof. Could you please admit this. 

 

 

[stephenterry]

3 minutes ago, robblok said:

Bodybuilders in general know more about food then the general public. Sure there are idiots that pass away too young but that is usually not food related but related to drugs. 

 

If you look what bodybuilders do and in what kind of shape they get you can only do that if you know about food. I would say they know how to transform their body much better then the general public. You can't do that without knowing about food. It such a big part of the sport without it you fail.

 

I would say your brainwashed and I will keep saying that because you yourself have admitted that there is no proof yet you keep saying there is proof. Sorry that I am not nice about how i say it but vegans are driving me mad with their lies. 

 

Proof is when there is consensus and there is not.

 

You even stated that because someone eats meat he is bias as a scientist. Then surely it works the other way too and vegans are bias too. So who will do the tests then ? You really lost credibility. 

 

I wish vegans would stick to facts instead of making things up. Also the remark that it has other impacts besides health is true but has NOTHING to do with if something is healthy or not. Just more vegan brainwashing. 

Your comments are noted. Just read the China Study Solution if you're demanding consensus of scientific evidence. The entire project was overseen through a partnership between Cornell University, Oxford University, and the Chinese Academy of Preventative Medicine. The research is legit. It includes over 8,000 statistically significant associations between lifestyle, diet, and disease variables. 

 

Again, it's correlation, but I'd rather follow a proven health benefit of a WFPB regime, than risk my health by consuming animal products. I would suggest that 50 years without any meat consumption is a testament to its nutritional virtues.   

 

 

 

 

 

[stephenterry]

2 minutes ago, robblok said:

I would like it when you stop and stick to facts instead of acting like there is proof when there is not.

 

The studies are still in the causation - correlation phase (like you yourself admitted). No scientist in his right mind would ever accept that as proof as its the least secure of all studies. So your remark about consensus is a total lie.

 

I would also like it if you stop sprouting stupid remarks about studies just based on the fact of if someone eats meat instead of looking at his qualifications as a scientist. That is really typical vegan behavior.

 

Then all of a sudden you lump dairy with meat while those are two totally different things. Sorry but you really look like a tinfoil head man the way you approach things.

 

If you were truthful and said I am a convinced vegan but there is no proof yet just some things pointing towards the possibility of meat being bad but no definite proof. Then perhaps I would take you more serious.

 

The difference thing between vegans and normal people is that I would never tell you to eat meat (your own choice) while vegans want to make that choice for others. 

 

Again you come with your consensus.. while there is NO consensus as the proof is just not there. Once if the expensive studies are done then there might be proof. But there is NO proof. Could you please admit this. 

 

 

Rob, there scientific  - and human survivors' - evidence that the WFPB diet prevents serious disease and can also reverse arterial, diabetes and some cancers diseases. That's factual, and is the consensus of nutritional scientists opinion. 

 

 

 

 

[robblok]

1 minute ago, stephenterry said:

Rob, there scientific  - and human survivors' - evidence that the WFPB diet prevents serious disease and can also reverse arterial, diabetes and some cancers diseases. That's factual, and is the consensus of nutritional scientists opinion. 

 

 

 

 

You totally avoid all things i said. It shows that your too set in your opinion to learn.

 

1) is it true that there are only observational studies about meat being bad ? (Yes or No)  I know this to be yes and you admitted it already. 

 

So we only got the weakest of proof, that is NEVER consensus. Then we got a new study overturning it all and all you can do is moan that the scientists were not vegans.

 

Now you come with evidence that is again anecdotal and not consensus. Could you please stick to facts. If eating veggies could cure cancer then why is it not done by all ? Why is there no real proof. I can still remember people dying because they followed advise like yours and did not go to real Dr's. Thankfully these treatments were closed and Dr's prosecuted for withholding help. 

 

You do know what consensus means ? It means that all scientists agree on something. 

 

[robblok]

15 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

Your comments are noted. Just read the China Study Solution if you're demanding consensus of scientific evidence. The entire project was overseen through a partnership between Cornell University, Oxford University, and the Chinese Academy of Preventative Medicine. The research is legit. It includes over 8,000 statistically significant associations between lifestyle, diet, and disease variables. 

 

Again, it's correlation, but I'd rather follow a proven health benefit of a WFPB regime, than risk my health by consuming animal products. I would suggest that 50 years without any meat consumption is a testament to its nutritional virtues.   

 

 

 

 

 

Yes again you start to tout correlation the weakest of all studies as something that has credibility. All correlation does is point towards something and then warrants further study. 

 

Why do you call it proven when only observational studies show this and nothing else. That is not proven. You should really really learn more about science. 

 

If you say it points towards and I believe it then your right.. using the word proven is just false. 

 

 

[gearbox]

On 1/7/2020 at 12:38 PM, GarryP said:

If you are responding to the OP, you are wrong. Many people who are fit and active have resting heart rates between 50 and 60 bpm. In fact many very fit athletes have resting heart rates as low as 30 or 40. Many specialists in the field now say that the ideal resting heart rate is between 50 and 70 bpm. There are also claims that those with lower heart rates tend to live longer (assuming no other illnesses arises). 

I went to my GP a few years ago suspecting bradycardia - my pulse was in lower 40ties and body temperature around 35.9. The doctors did heaps of tests and found nothing wrong. They said it could be normal if you do quite a bit of endurance and high intensity training.

[vogie]

On 1/2/2020 at 2:15 PM, tonray said:

Get yourself a Power Twister. They are fantasic to add definition and keep muscles firm. This in combination with swimming 1 KM 3 times per week keeps my upper body in pretty decent shape (I'm hitting 62 this summer). Same as you legs not an issue because I walk a lot and take stairs whenever possible. many available on Lazada. I use a 30 KG tension...you may want to try 30 or 40 depending on your body type and how much muscle you want to build. Or get two...30 and 40 and use 30 where 40 is too much to work with

 

Yeah just bought one from Big C, does anyone know the strength of them. When I get to about 30 reps that is enough for me, really start to feel the burn.