Born Hunter 17,910 Posted May 3, 2013 Report Share Posted May 3, 2013 Well Im fat , short and have 28 inch legs SO YOU SHOULD HAVE NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT, Kettlebells are for chicks You're a para aren't you? Is there such thing as a short para? LOL Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Malt 379 Posted May 3, 2013 Report Share Posted May 3, 2013 if history is to be believed,the Roman army as well as ancient sailors and explorers who were all apparently much fitter than their modern equivalents would have eaten a very similar diet. Thing is food didn't have the calorific content that food has today and the marching thousands of miles carrying/wearing armour, shields and weapons would have made them fit in the case of the roman army. Sailing was all manual work with no mechanisation or aids. Not saying food didn't contribute, but I think the lifestyle is those cases would have had more of an effect on fitness levels than the way they ate. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TOMO 28,645 Posted May 3, 2013 Report Share Posted May 3, 2013 failed marines arnt they..... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TOMO 28,645 Posted May 3, 2013 Report Share Posted May 3, 2013 if history is to be believed,the Roman army as well as ancient sailors and explorers who were all apparently much fitter than their modern equivalents would have eaten a very similar diet. Thing is food didn't have the calorific content that food has today and the marching thousands of miles carrying/wearing armour, shields and weapons would have made them fit in the case of the roman army. Sailing was all manual work with no mechanisation or aids. Not saying food didn't contribute, but I think the lifestyle is those cases would have had more of an effect on fitness levels than the way they ate. do you not also think,,,,its highly unlikly ,that they were big men,,like is depicted in holywood films,,, gladiator ,,the 300, or this sparticus serries,,,, im sure they were lean and muscular,,, but i dowt they were 16 17 stone and full of muscle,,, 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,910 Posted May 3, 2013 Report Share Posted May 3, 2013 failed marines arnt they..... Tall aquaphobic commandos............? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Malt 379 Posted May 3, 2013 Report Share Posted May 3, 2013 if history is to be believed,the Roman army as well as ancient sailors and explorers who were all apparently much fitter than their modern equivalents would have eaten a very similar diet. Thing is food didn't have the calorific content that food has today and the marching thousands of miles carrying/wearing armour, shields and weapons would have made them fit in the case of the roman army. Sailing was all manual work with no mechanisation or aids. Not saying food didn't contribute, but I think the lifestyle is those cases would have had more of an effect on fitness levels than the way they ate. do you not also think,,,,its highly unlikly ,that they were big men,,like is depicted in holywood films,,, gladiator ,,the 300, or this sparticus serries,,,, im sure they were lean and muscular,,, but i dowt they were 16 17 stone and full of muscle,,, More than likely, the protein needed to build yourself to that size would have been immense and hard to come by back then I'd have thought.. They would have probably had extremely toned and hard muscles but I wouldn't have thought they'd have had any bulk to them. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,910 Posted May 3, 2013 Report Share Posted May 3, 2013 if history is to be believed,the Roman army as well as ancient sailors and explorers who were all apparently much fitter than their modern equivalents would have eaten a very similar diet. Thing is food didn't have the calorific content that food has today and the marching thousands of miles carrying/wearing armour, shields and weapons would have made them fit in the case of the roman army. Sailing was all manual work with no mechanisation or aids. Not saying food didn't contribute, but I think the lifestyle is those cases would have had more of an effect on fitness levels than the way they ate. do you not also think,,,,its highly unlikly ,that they were big men,,like is depicted in holywood films,,, gladiator ,,the 300, or this sparticus serries,,,, im sure they were lean and muscular,,, but i dowt they were 16 17 stone and full of muscle,,, More than likely, the protein needed to build yourself to that size would have been immense and hard to come by back then I'd have thought.. They would have probably had extremely toned and hard muscles but I wouldn't have thought they'd have had any bulk to them. Not to mention their knowledge of body building/fitness was probably very limited. You're always gonna get big lads that look like brick shit houses simply through manual labour but they're hardly common place. That coupled with a high carb, low protein diet would leave the majority less than what hollywood would have us imagine. I don't see why a BC Roman soldier would look much different to a 21stC British soldier in terms of physique? 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TOMO 28,645 Posted May 3, 2013 Report Share Posted May 3, 2013 i woder if back in them days there were fat people ? i bet they were thin on the ground forgive the pun,,, proberbly just the wealthier people of the time,, was there sugar back then?? i bet the diet was just fruit ,,nuts seeds ,,a bit of meat and fish,,and vedge Quote Link to post Share on other sites
nothernlite 18,260 Posted May 3, 2013 Report Share Posted May 3, 2013 a days plastering more than enough for me Quote Link to post Share on other sites
WILF 49,959 Posted May 30, 2013 Report Share Posted May 30, 2013 Well Im fat , short and have 28 inch legs SO YOU SHOULD HAVE NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT, Kettlebells are for chicks You forgot to mention that you are also a total melt !! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
neems 2,406 Posted May 30, 2013 Author Report Share Posted May 30, 2013 if history is to be believed,the Roman army as well as ancient sailors and explorers who were all apparently much fitter than their modern equivalents would have eaten a very similar diet. Thing is food didn't have the calorific content that food has today and the marching thousands of miles carrying/wearing armour, shields and weapons would have made them fit in the case of the roman army. Sailing was all manual work with no mechanisation or aids. Not saying food didn't contribute, but I think the lifestyle is those cases would have had more of an effect on fitness levels than the way they ate. I think it comes down to how we have evolved,once agriculture came about people had regular food and natural selection slowed right down. by that i mean we haven't adapted to this lifestyle of eating regularly through the day even after all this time. though I haven't tried this sort of diet/lifestyle,so i've yet to find out. but it makes sense theoretically to me. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TOMO 28,645 Posted May 31, 2013 Report Share Posted May 31, 2013 I'm still reading the book,, I'm half way though it,, and some parts are hard to get your head round,,,and I hate the way the author repeats himself constantly,,, In principle I like the sound of it all,,,, however if I read another book tomorrow ,, about another diet/ lifestyle I would like the sound of that,,, it's difficult for someone like myself who's been told time and time again to get protein in your body every 3 hours,, keep your carbs medium and fat low.. Mind you can't say as I've followed that lifestyle either for a few year,,,lol..... Do ginsters count as a protien hit.......... Although I have not tried it yet I'm quite confident I could handle the under eating phase during the day,, Manys the time I go all day without food,,, so long as you can keep busy, it's no probs,,,, but again I've not tried it yet. Another issue I have with it is,,, so far there's been little mention of red meat as a protien source,,, he talks of egg, dairy ,,fish,, then things like nuts yogurt seeds and beans as protein sources.... Once I've read the book l think I'm going to give it a shot,,,my problem is though I don't like eggs at all, unless there hiden in foods like cakes,,lol,, seriously though , I'm ok with eggs in porridge and things like that ,,, and I don't like nuts either. Very interesting book though ,,, cheers borderscot Quote Link to post Share on other sites
neems 2,406 Posted May 31, 2013 Author Report Share Posted May 31, 2013 You'll be ahead of me,post up here how it goes mate. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
paulsmithy83 567 Posted June 1, 2013 Report Share Posted June 1, 2013 Going to read up on this very interesting sounds more like you would have to eat it along with everything else at one sitting :laugh: surely its common sense that if you only eat once a day the body can only absorb so much before it passes through, couple this with excersize and you will loose weight, but what a waste of food however smaller portions split between sensible intervals and regular excersize would also achieve the same result without the waste No it been proven food hav dif digestion rates and the body will digest [BANNED TEXT] needed. That why body builder do intermitent fastin which is basically wat this is means you can eat your calorie surplus n stay leaner whist buildin ur muscleEdit it was protein company that help build the mith on anabolic Ratin sayin little n often speeds metaizum and make u more anabolic but science has prove it rong. That why warrior diet work in effect it I.f add that to trainin program n well away. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
paulsmithy83 567 Posted June 1, 2013 Report Share Posted June 1, 2013 I'm still reading the book,, I'm half way though it,, and some parts are hard to get your head round,,,and I hate the way the author repeats himself constantly,,, In principle I like the sound of it all,,,, however if I read another book tomorrow ,, about another diet/ lifestyle I would like the sound of that,,, it's difficult for someone like myself who's been told time and time again to get protein in your body every 3 hours,, keep your carbs medium and fat low.. Mind you can't say as I've followed that lifestyle either for a few year,,,lol..... Do ginsters count as a protien hit.......... Although I have not tried it yet I'm quite confident I could handle the under eating phase during the day,, Manys the time I go all day without food,,, so long as you can keep busy, it's no probs,,,, but again I've not tried it yet. Another issue I have with it is,,, so far there's been little mention of red meat as a protien source,,, he talks of egg, dairy ,,fish,, then things like nuts yogurt seeds and beans as protein sources.... Once I've read the book l think I'm going to give it a shot,,,my problem is though I don't like eggs at all, unless there hiden in foods like cakes,,lol,, seriously though , I'm ok with eggs in porridge and things like that ,,, and I don't like nuts either. Very interesting book though ,,, cheers borderscot Red meat more of a bulker meat normaly not as lean, venny excluded n has more natural creatine . in helps to hold more water even tho need to eat a hole cow to get the same as a creatine sup. [BANNED TEXT] wantin to look lean you dont want water retention makin you believ your fater then you are . eggs are good on for the warrior diet and i.f as a hole as its a form of trickle feed protein. Fish obviously for the oils/healthy fats and more direct protein n same for nuts. If dont like eggs buy casein powder it efectivly powder egg white buy 1 [BANNED TEXT] least aditive in and avoid any with melodexin fillers in. Also the powder mix well in poridge n can be drank obviously. Remem if increasin protein dropin carbs water needs to be increase dramatic as this type diet put more strain on liver kidneys and will help the body release any unused protein in ur piss Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.