Backyard Aquaponics
A place to discuss aquaponics

That's true Rupe.

Nuts indeed, but correct nuts

Everyone else is doin it

Are nuts really that bad?

Only if the "nuttiness" sits outside narrow mainstream boundaries.
You can be a nut, only as long as it doesn't poke the status quo too hard

the walnut needs to be nearer to the bottom not at the top processed meat needs to be at the top

Thank God this forum isn't filled by loony anti vaccination people... It would mean I'd have to politely take my leave.

The real question is, is there a God and does he care that I just thanked him? Or is it her?

You do realise that in a mirrored universe... God would be a Dog....

The reason is because Walnuts are pretty high in omega-6 fatty acids. Gotta watch that Omega6/Omega3 balance.
It's not saying don't have it, just in moderation. Almonds have less and cashews have much less Omega6.
Meat and its fat (grass fed preferably) is very important. Meat has essential vitamins minerals and complete protein, fat is important for energy (notice there are almost no carbs).

Apart from that devon looking stuff, all that meat is not processed. Sausages etc don't have to be "processed". If it is salami, then its fine.

I would put honey at the top too, it might be the most natural way to get sugar, but it's still pretty much 100% carbs.

Since this thread has been derailed, I agree let's do properly.

I've been following this research for about 18 months and it seems the results are promising

and very exciting.


The only reason I'm posting this is that Michael Mosley's program aired tonight on SBS.



He produced a fantastic program on exercise a while back.


New research seems to show if

you want to loose weight

decrease cholesterol

decrease blood pressure

decrease blood sugar levels

decrease the probability of developing cancer

decrease the probability of developing dementia


all you need to do is fast.


One particular experiment ADF (alternate day fasting ) produced very good results.

and on the day you could eat, you could eat anything.

forget calorie counting or food pyramids.

So far there seems to be good science behind this.

If you think about it, cave men ate anything they could put in their mouths but they went days

without eating as well, ie when they didn't find any or could kill anything.


but best if you watch the program on SBS on demand

link: http://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/video/26 ... ive-Longer


it will be available till May 5


cheers Lou

It needed derailing - the descriptive words in use by some are counterproductive to conversation - food would seem a less provocative subject.

I think the less carbs we can have in our diet the better, but particularly the carbs coming from grains, processed or otherwise. Fats get a hard time in the media but it's sugar that is the demon and greatest cause of obesity. Fat can be stored easily and retrieved on need; sugars, particularly the modern version of high fructose corn syrup they want to put in everything, become a rather horrible looking puffy white fat that the body has major issues with retrieving - keep pumping the stuff in there and diabetes is the result.

The fasting is a good idea but also in AP we have an opportunity not often granted the man-in-the-street - fresh produce uncontaminated and in the right food groups. No better way to boost immunity than that.

Eat your greens everyone !!

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/healt ... ld-2991415

This is what happens when hippies stop vaccinating their kids

Actually you can't blame hippies at all.

Immunisation rates in '95/'96 were at 92% then in '98 the Wakefield research came out and barely made a dent in the public awareness. In fact, it wasn't until a resurgence of the Wakefield research in 2001/2002 that people started to not immunise. So with vaccination rates across the UK of 92% somehow there was an outbreak of measles larger than the current one in Wales...
Note that the 1999/2000 outbreak was BIGGER than the one now?

And you can't even blame this outbreak on the lack of vaccination...
As you can see, the drop was a blip and never fell below 80% - are we really going to believe that in a population with 92% or better uptake, a drop for 4 or 5 years followed by a swing back to even higher levels of vaccination will result in another outbreak?

Something smells in Swansea and it ain't the fish.

The protection offered by MMR seems suspiciously fragile, don't you think? It's not like, in the year after the Wakefield research was published, all the vaccination protection just vanished. So how is it there is another outbreak even though the vaccination rates are pretty much everything that could be hoped?

Yet the media on the subject has nice little statements like Most people unfortunately see such as evidence of the effectiveness of vaccines and totally fail to realise there has to be another cause - failing to immunise does NOT immediately cause the virus to jump into the population - it has to find a place to start and with 92% immunised, that is going to be very difficult.

In point of fact that is the very argument used by pro-vaccine sources - by immunising a large percentage of any population we prevent the virus from establishing and causing epidemics. In 2000 there was STILL a very large percentage of the population immunised, and yet the outbreak occurred.

Maybe the measles virus read the papers?