Greetings astute traveller, this website now exists for historical reasons.

Much has been learned since 2006. I urge you to keep exploring the evolution of information through other websites.

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - Matt Emery

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6
Website Info / Acceptable User Policy
« on: March 26, 2008, 05:58:50 PM »
Acceptable Use Policy
Membership on the Caveman Power forum indicates your reading of and consent to this policy:

No blatant profanity - this is a "family friendly" forum.

Posting under multiple identities is strictly prohibited.

The goals of the forum are to expand our understanding and knowledge of Paleolothic themes, and how such themes relate to health and modern society. If these are not your goals, you may find another discussion site more suitable.

Users of the Caveman Power forum are expected to adhere to the following guidelines. By posting to the forum you agree to abide by them.

While Caveman Power is not edited or censored, we do reserve the right to remove any postings that are considered inappropriate.

Examples of inappropriate posts are those that are massively off-subject or exist solely to advertise a product; contain pornography, obscene material, racist material, any hate group material, materials promoting violence, threats or illegal acts, etc. Any such postings will result in immediate and permanent banishment of the poster.

These guidelines are intended to help maintain a useful amount of order and to promote better posting. They may be revised without notice.

Users of Caveman Power should also understand that this is a privately owned site and that they are guests here. The owner reserves the right to revoke posting privileges and, when necessary, to permanently ban individuals.

We require a high level of respect to be shown at all times to other users of the board. Insults (either direct or indirect), bickering, and flaming of any kind will lead to suspensions and/or banishment from the board. Tolerance level for this behaviour is extremely low.

Polite dissent or disagreement is encouraged. Polite disagreement with well-reasoned arguments and evidence is even more encouraged.

Do lead by example - Nothing improves a forum more than posters who reason sharply, write well, and have some perspective about their subject. Be one of them.

Please don't use the board for profiteering. The board is not a place for organisations to advertise their programs.

The Caveman Power forum is not your personal soap-box for advancing whatever personal agenda or vendetta you may be on.

Don't be a whiner - If you really, really find the board not to your liking, learn to live with it, or move along.

Note: These policies are adapted from those used by I encourage you to visit their website if you're interested in elite fitness.

Fitness & Exercise / The one workout to rule them all?
« on: March 26, 2008, 05:42:03 PM »
The criteria:
Must be free, take less than 45 minutes, scalable for different fitness levels, functional, and target; strength, cardio, speed, balance, and as many other dimensions of fitness as possible (the more the better).

Here's mine;
Warm up/Minor Stretching for 10 minutes using callisthenics. Then..

3 rounds, as fast you can (time it);

  • 20 x Pull Ups
  • 20 x Push Ups
  • 20 x Sit Ups
  • 20 x Air Squats

Cool down with some PNF stretches for 10 minutes.

This workout works all the metabolic pathways, it uses large muscle groups to promote an effective hormonal response, and trains the neuromuscular system to recruit stabilising muscles with great efficacy.  It's a non-impact workout, so it's gentle on the synovial joints, and it augments the body's natural range of motion.

Additionally, doing resistance training at high speed, tends to increase your power (force x distance/time = power).  And it also illicits an anabolic response well after the exercise period has ended (24-48 hours).

In other words, you get the best of both worlds; cardio and strength - which is incredibly natural, as mother nature doesn't differ between the two, and why should we?


I'd love to hear about your ultimate workout  :)

I have not been training lately, instead, i've been swimming, riding, walking and body surfing.

You might be tempted to ask; "isn't that training"?  And I would say yes... but i'm talking about intense training - pull ups, push ups, sit ups, squats, Kettlebells, etc.

I've found that constant intense training is not sustainable - boredom, holidays, unrelated injuries and many other things can put me on hold for weeks, which can turn into months.  My training seems to follow a pattern of 8 months on/4 months off.

Client motivation as a Personal Trainer is arguably the hardest thing to maintain.  I've witnessed people fall of the wagon numerous times, and I don't blame them - fitness for the sake of fitness can get boring, especially if they don't compete in sports or athletics, or if they are not trying to impress a potential new partner (breeding instincts appear to be a great motivator for fitness).

Last year, I started doing circuit training and sneaky workouts, as a way to combat the ensuing tedium that usually occurs after months and months of intense training.  But sometimes even that gets... well, boring.  And once upon a time, to get back into training, I would plug into some vanity, or angst, or even fear.  Nowadays, that stuff doesn't work - so i've been experimenting with new ways to kick off a training season after having a long break.

The task:
To become motivated for training after a 3 month hiatus.

Methods used:
When i've been lost in the wilderness, i've had to enter a psychological state of 'incremental challenge and reward'.  That is; instead of focusing on getting out of the bush (which may be hours/days away), I focus on an achievable landmark that is only 30 minutes away.  And upon reaching the objective there seems to be a feeling of victory - which is evident in the way that team moral stays relatively high given the harsh situation.  This technique has kept others and I going, when frustration could easily set in and cause us to panic or blow our cool.

I got to thinking... "what if I apply the 'incremental challenge and reward' principle in other areas of my life"?

And that's exactly what I did.  I did a few push ups, and left it at that.... and then a few days later, I did the same thing, and so on.  But here's where it gets interesting... each time I did the push ups, I noticed a feeling inside me coming to life, as if I was rubbing a genie's lamp, or adding kindling to a fire - and it felt good, very good!

That was a few weeks ago, and now I am 80% back into training, the flame is burning again.  Which makes me wonder, how did that happen?

If you've been reading this forum, you'll know that I can't resist exploring this and learning how it relates to human biology... so here's my hypothesis and questions;

How is it, that humans seem to require obvious rewards in order to arouse motivation (Eg breeding, eating, security), yet rewards such as longevity and health through fitness seem to remain elusive... which is ironic as they support the propagation of our species very highly.... or do they?

What makes a human being want to be healthy?  Is it the forces of competition (natural selection) for a potential breeding partner?  Or is there something else too... something that demands we keep a state of physiological homoeostasis?

It seems that if you change the reward; motivation adjusts accordingly, and can be built upon organically, without the use of excessive psychological persuasion.  In other words; baby steps.  Interestingly, this is consistent with mother nature, as in the case of a tree -  a tree starts out as a seed, becomes a sapling and grows into maturity, like most things in nature.

An observation:
The organic process of building motivation via 'incremental challenge and reward' seems to to be effective and exponential - you can grow motivation by altering the reward at an equilibrium point.

Is motivation for fitness deeply linked to our biological need to compete for mates and resources?

An equation:
Consider this;
M = motivation
R = reward
O = output

M = R/O2

Anyone care to draw a graph?  Any mathematicians or physicists out there?

Anyway... sorry for the long winded essay, I'm just thinking out aloud and fooling around - don't take it too seriously :P

General Discussion / A poem
« on: March 25, 2008, 09:14:42 PM »
And living in a Brave New World,
marching towards our barren desires,
we descend to our deepest despair.

We are nature's creatures, the stuff of miracles,
hosts to ancient feelings of love;
squandered in dreams of utopia.

Lest we forget the smile of a child,
or the touch of a lover, content and delirious.
Forget not the tenderness of mother nature;
endless in love, relentless in grace.

Let us recall, such moments of truth,
defining our lives in whispers of passion.
And let us return to the parlour of love,
to greet our contentment.

............. end .......................

I wrote this during a brief moment of inspiration.  :P
It is a dirge; mourning the loss of soul in modern society.

Dr Martin Donohoe MD FACP has researched the body image problem that is ubiquitous throughout western civilisation.  He has uncovered some interesting statistics.

From the article:
As many as 66% of women and 52% of men have reported feelings of dissatisfaction or inadequacy regarding their body weight.[4] Sixty percent of girls in grades 9-12 are trying to lose weight, compared with 24% of boys.[4] The number-one wish of girls aged 11-17 is to lose weight.[5] Women are more likely to judge themselves as overweight when they are not, whereas men are the opposite.[6] Women who desire to lose weight are more likely to do so in the hopes of improving their appearance, whereas men who wish to lose weight are more likely to be concerned about their future health and fitness.[7]

Body-image distress is now classified as a psychological disorder. Five percent to 10% of females have an eating disorder such as anorexia nervosa or bulimia.[4] Male and female high school athletes are especially at risk for unhealthy weight-control behaviors, such as restricting food intake, vomiting, overexercising, using diet pills, inappropriately taking prescribed stimulants or insulin, and using nicotine.[8] Some adolescents dehydrate by restricting fluid intake, spitting, wearing rubber suits, taking daily steam baths and/or saunas, and using diuretics or laxatives.[8]

Consequences of abnormal weight-loss behaviors include delayed maturation, impaired growth, menstrual irregularities or loss of menses, increased rates of infection, eating disorders, and depression. Alternatively, such behaviors can be a sign of depression or verbal, physical, or sexual abuse.[9,10]

Media images have contributed to a misguided perception of the "ideal" body. Today, models weigh 23% less than average women; in 1986 it was only 8%.[11] Modeling schools for teens create unrealistic expectations. Only a very "select" few models achieve financial success (of these select few, beginners earn $1500 per day, those in the top tier $25,000 per day, and supermodels $100,000 or even more per day).

4. Labi N. Girl power. TIME. June 29, 1998.
5. Maine M. Stop the madness, stop the body wars, stop the commercial exploitation of kids. Stop Commercial Exploitation of Kids.
6. Chang VW, Christakis NA. Self-perception of weight appropriateness in the United States. Am J Prev Med. 2003;24:332-339. Abstract
7. Levy AS, Heaton AW. Weight control practices of US adults trying to lose weight. Ann Intern Med. 1993;119:661-666. Abstract
8. Kuehn BM. Pediatricians warned about student athletes' risky weight-control tactics. JAMA. 2006;295:486-487. Abstract
9. Donohoe MT. Violence against women: Partner abuse and sexual assault. Hospital Physician. 2004;40:24-31.
10. Donohoe MT. Individual and societal forms of violence against women in the United States and the developing world: an overview. Curr Womens Hlth Reports. 2002;2:313-319.
11. Jeffery C. Why women can't win for trying. Mother Jones. 2006;(Jan/Feb):22-23.

The full story:

Further Reading:

General Discussion / The sport of gluttony
« on: March 25, 2008, 07:48:31 PM »
Seriously, this not a joke...

The International Federation of Competitive Eating
"The International Federation of Competitive Eating, Inc. supervises and regulates eating contests in their various forms throughout the world. The IFOCE helps to ensure that the sport remains safe, while also seeking to achieve objectives consistent with the public interest -- namely, creating an environment in which fans may enjoy the display of competitive eating skill."

24" Pizza
7 1/2 Extra Large Bacci Pizza Slices
15 Minutes/ July 9, 2005
Richard LeFevre

Baked Beans
Six Pounds Baked Beans
One Minute, 48 Seconds
Don Lerman

7 quarter-pound sticks, salted butter
5 minutes
Don Lerman

11 pounds Downtown Atlantic Cheesecake
9 minutes/ Sept. 26, 2004
Sonya Thomas

Chicken Nuggets
80 Chicken Nuggets
5 Minutes
Sonya Thomas

1 lb, 15.5 oz Chicago Chocolate Hearts
7 minutes/Feb. 13, 2006
Patrick Bertoletti

49 glazed doughnuts
8 minutes
Eric Booker

65 Hard Boiled Eggs
6 minutes, 40 seconds
Sonya Thomas

46 Dozen Acme Oysters/ Acme Oyster House
10 Minutes/ Mar. 20, 2005
Sonya Thomas

.......... end ..............

More records here:

And just when you've thought you'd seen it all....  how about a t-shirt?

I hope to see this sport in the Olympics - a biathlon where the participants (athletes?) gorge themselves with 48 deep fried Mars Bars and then run for 4 kilometres...  awesome  8)

The Voting Booth / Are you anthropocentric or biocentric?
« on: March 25, 2008, 06:20:30 AM »
Anthropocentric: regard humans as the central element of the universe.
Biocentric: believe that all forms of life are equally valuable and humanity is not the centre of existence.

General Discussion / Seven different types of intelligence
« on: March 25, 2008, 05:35:01 AM »
The originator of the theory of multiple intelligences, Howard Gardner,  a  professor  of  education  at  Harvard  University,  defines intelligence as the potential ability to process a certain sort of information.  The  different  types  of  intelligence  are  for  the  most  part independent of one another, and no type is more important than the other.

In  all,  Gardner  identifies  seven  different  types  of intelligence. These can be summarised as follows:

1. Verbal = linguistic, e.g. lexical skills, formal speech, verbal debate, creative writing.

2.  Body = kinesthetic (movement), e.g. body language, physical gestures, creative dance, physical exercise, drama.

3.  Musical = rhythmic,   e.g.   music   performance,   singing,  musical composition, rhythmic patterns.

4.  Logic = mathematic,   e.g.   numerical   aptitude,   problem solving, deciphering codes, abstract symbols and formulae.

5.  Visual = spatial, e.g. patterns and designs, painting, drawing, active imagination, sculpture, colour schemes.

6.  Interpersonal   (relationships   with   others),   e.g. person-to-person communication, empathy practices, group projects, collaboration skills, receiving and giving feedback.

7. Intrapersonal (self-understanding and insight), e.g. thinking strategies, emotional processing, knowing yourself, higher order reasoning, focusing=concentration.

Form the book "THE COMPLETE BOOK OF INTELLIGENCE TESTS" by Philip Carter, Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd 2005.

........ end .............

I remember running into this a few years ago, I was very intrigued at it's premise.  I have long suspected that the classic IQ test is inadequate - I have certain friends that are brilliant with their hands, or amazing musicians, yet the classic IQ test rates them as not-so-intelligent.

I assert; that the classic IQ test is a dangerous touchstone because of it's authoritative position in society - some people score well and can erroneously conclude that they are of superior intelligence (which is a classic characteristic of incompetence), yet other people may score low on the test and internalise an inferior sense of competence.

I favour Howard Gardner's proposal, as it accounts for relevant variables that the class IQ Test dismisses.

General Discussion / From the Dept. of: I can't believe it's free!
« on: March 24, 2008, 09:34:31 PM »
This free website has a goldmine of logically structured and well researched material relating to exercise.  It is essentially; an Encyclopaedia of exercises.

I have the site bookmarked, and quite often refer to it as a source of authoritative information.  It helped me with my fitness instruction studies too - just quietly  ;)

Check it out:

General Discussion / PatientsLikeMe - community web site for patients
« on: March 24, 2008, 09:16:13 PM »
The website uses the wisdom of crowds to help patients make informed choices regarding their health, it's based on the real-life experiences of patients around the world.

You can learn from other patients, and you can document your own experiences and progress.

I recommend taking a look;

The Voting Booth / 3 days without television, can you do it?
« on: March 24, 2008, 06:25:10 PM »
I rarely watch television - and I think that TV is the opiate of the masses, and TV ads make my skin crawl.

Who's keen for a 3 day boycott of television?

Edit:  television as in; free-to-air, cable and other commercial television.  Basically, anything with advertisements, or that which is blatantly influenced by corporate sponsorship.

Philosophy / Quotations from Lasch's "The Culture of Narcissism"
« on: March 24, 2008, 02:32:14 AM »
Page 31 [quoting Erich Fromm] "We live in a historical period characterized by a sharp discrepancy between the intellectual development of man... and his mental-emotional development, which has left him still in a state of marked narcissism with all its pathological symptoms."

Page 72 "...the modern manufacturer has to 'educate' the masses in the culture of consumption. The mass production of commodities in ever-increasing abundance demands a mass market to absorb them."

Page 72 "In a simpler time, advertising merely called attention to the product and extolled its advantages. Now it manufactures a product of its own: the consumer, perpetually unsatisfied, restless, anxious, and bored. Its 'educates' the masses into an unappeasable appetite not only for goods but for new experiences and personal fulfillment. It upholds consumption as the answer to the age-old discontents of loneliness, sickness, weariness, lack of sexual satisfaction; at the same time it creates new forms of discontent peculiar to the modern age. It plays seductively to the malaise of industrial civilization. Is your job boring and meaningless? Is your life empty? Consumption promises to fill the aching void..."

Page 87 "Overexposure to manufactured illusions soon destroys their representational power. The illusion of reality dissolves, not in a heightened sense of reality as we might expect, but in a remarkable indifference to reality. Our sense of reality appears to rest, curiously enough, on our willingness to be taken in by the staged illusion of reality."


There are more fascinating insights here;

Philosophy / Why Europeans conquered the world
« on: March 23, 2008, 10:54:35 PM »
JARED DIAMOND, a researcher at UCLA, has been doing fieldwork in New Guinea for over 25 years. New Guinea is home to some of the last hunter-gatherers in the world. A long time ago, one of his New Guinea friends asked Diamond why white people had so much and New Guineans had so little...

From the article:
The answer is, because they happened to live on the Eurasian continent, so they were lucky enough to start agriculture earlier than any other place on earth. Just by luck, they were at the right latitude with the right combination of available animals and plants that could be domesticated. And with a head start of thousands of years, their technology was more advanced. And because of their close association with their domesticated animals, they carried many diseases to which they  had resistance but people from other continents did not. Because of their head start, Europeans possessed guns, germs, and steel and they conquered the world with them.

Much of the global inequality seen today comes from this original source.

Read More:
Read more of this excellent article here;

General Discussion / Free Audio Lectures
« on: March 22, 2008, 06:15:49 PM »
Here is a brilliant RSS feed/Podcast from the London School of Economics and Political Science.  The range of topics is incredibly broad, current and relevant.  You can download individual lectures from the website, or subscribe via Itunes or your favourite RSS reader.

Check it out;

Here is the RSS feed;

This is a great resource, I thoroughly recommend it.

General Discussion / Monogamy - is it biologically natural?
« on: March 22, 2008, 10:50:11 AM »
Among human societies, polygyny is by far the most common marital system (Ford and Beach, 1951). George Murdock's (1967) Ethnographic Atlas presents a categorization of 849 societies. Of these, 709 are polygynous and only four are polyandrous (women being permitted more than one husband).  As noted above, in officially monogamous societies like our own, men are usually recognized as being more attracted to the idea of extra-marital sex than women, and many socially powerful men maintain mistresses as well as legal wives.

The Guinness Book of Records lists sixty-nine as the greatest number of children ever produced by a woman, compared with an official male record of 888 contributed by the last Sharatan Emperor of Morocco. Had he been inclined towards monogamy, his genes would have been much rarer in the world today.
Glenn Wilson, The Great Sex Divide, pp. 51-53. Peter Owen (London) 1989; Scott-Townsend (Washington D.C.) 1992.


Anthropologists report that the overwhelming majority of human societies either are polygynous or were polygynous prior to the cultural homogenization of recent decades. They also suggest that individuals are mildly polygynous, having evolved in a system in which one man maintains a harem. This, incidentally, helps explain the persistent sex appeal of successful, dominant men, whether they be high-ranking politicians, movie or rock stars, glamorous athletes or wealthy entrepreneurs. Power, as Henry Kissinger once noted, is the ultimate aphrodisiac.

We are imbued by Western culture with monogamous ideals. Yet, like other living things, we're often compelled by our biology to depart from monogamy.
David P. Barash, professor of psychology at the University of Washington in Seattle from his book, "The Myth of Monogamy".


My opinion:
I think that sexual monogamy is a social construct, designed by humans in order to encourage social harmony.  And although I take the position that sexual monogamy is inconsistent with our biological tendencies, I do think that it can be extremely complimentary to a sustainable kinship between two individual humans.

It would appear (from anthropological perspective) that it is indeed natural to want to breed with many different people, and in my opinion; that is far from evil or wrong (which are human philosophical concepts that do not exist elsewhere in nature).  However, polygynous actions leading to the betrayal of a monogamous kinship 'pact' do tend to arouse biologically natural emotions such as jealousy, anger and disgust.... which creates quite a conundrum.

In conclusion; kinship is natural, monogamy is not.  But ironically, both of these are inextricably linked.

Any thoughts? ...apart from moralistic viewpoints  ;)

General Discussion / website downtime - all good now....
« on: March 22, 2008, 10:22:56 AM »
Sorry folks, the website went off the air for a few hours last night, thanks to my hosting provider.  Everything should be fine now  ;)

I've been following the lectures on TED for a couple of years, and I highly recommend it to all members (and visitors) of this forum.

TED is an organisation that holds lectures by innovative thinkers, where you'll often see people of notable prestige in the areas of science, health, and education.  TED releases videos (almost daily) to the public, for free.  These videos; although only 15 minutes in length, are sure to get you thinking about relevant issues and interesting new solutions.

What I like about TED is the fact that they are focused on 'solutions'  - which is something I wish to maintain on this website as well.

Check it out:

General Discussion / Can cosmetic surgery make you happy?
« on: March 20, 2008, 04:25:56 AM »
As people generally seek cosmetic interventions to feel better about themselves, one would anticipate that cosmetically successful procedures would lead to enhanced self-esteem, mood, and social confidence.

 ??? the image below for the results of a rather interesting study.

General Discussion / Obesity debates in television news
« on: March 20, 2008, 04:16:49 AM »
From the The Medical Journal of Australia

To examine whether television news and current affairs coverage of overweight and obesity frames obesity in ways that support or oppose efforts to combat obesity.

While individual lifestyle is crucial to controlling weight, the research community now recognises the importance of sociocultural and environmental factors as drivers of the obesity epidemic. However, television news portrays obesity largely as an individual problem with individual solutions centred mostly on nutrition. Media emphasis on personal responsibility and diet may detract attention from the sociopolitical and structural changes needed to tackle overweight and obesity at a population level.

Within the 50 television items, a total of 256 solutions to overweight and obesity were presented. The most common single solution (18.8% of total solutions) was a healthier diet. Two-thirds of dietary solutions made no mention of physical activity. Ten per cent of solutions advised following special diets. Just over 6% of solutions advised reducing the intake of soft or sweet drinks, alcohol and fatty coffee drinks. Eating less overall made up only 5.5% of solutions, almost 3% called on parents to be better diet role models, and 1.5% suggested reducing portion sizes.

Surprisingly, controversial proposals to curb advertising of foods with high fat and sugar contents to children — an approach championed by Australian health organisations, but so far rejected by the Australian Government and industry — were rarely mentioned. Reducing intake of calories in drinks and cutting back on sedentary pursuits were also neglected, making up less than 8% and 2% of solutions, respectively.

Medical and surgical solutions made up 9.8% of the solutions proffered. These included a stomach “pacemaker” to tell the brain the stomach is full, lapband surgery, liposuction, and an anti-hunger spray.

... end .....

Download a PDF file of the full report below.

General Discussion / The Australian Freedom Fighters
« on: March 19, 2008, 09:10:05 PM »
I have started a political party called "The Australian Freedom Fighters" (abbreviated AFF), with an aim to elect a candidate for the Australian federal senate.

Check it out here;

General Discussion / The Lunch Box Challenge
« on: March 17, 2008, 10:13:52 PM »
In this event at the CI World Congress, 12 children were asked to choose the contents of their lunch box from a range of healthy and unhealthy options.

The results speak for themselves.

You can visit the Consumer International website here:

From the website:
Children are vulnerable to advertising. They are less able than adults to fully understand that the purpose of advertising is not to inform but to persuade, and to ultimately sell a product.

Studies show that children are much more likely to want to eat food that comes in branded packaging than food with no branding – even if it is the same product.

A study of 3 to 5 year olds showed that over 75% of children preferred French fries in McDonalds branded wrapping, compared to the just over 10% who preferred fries from plain packaging.  See here;

The food was exactly the same!

The same study also showed that children with more TVs in their home were more likely to prefer the McDonalds-branded food packaging.  An extensive survey of the evidence from the World Health Organization (WHO) confirms this. The WHO report on Marketing of Food and Non-Alcoholic Beverages to Children explains that advertising promoting foods high in fat, sugar or salt directly influence children’s attitudes and behaviour – they want and ultimately eat these unhealthy foods.  This can be a direct influence with children buying the foods, sweets and drinks themselves or asking their parents for these foods.

Visit the website here:

...... end of article .......

Check out the attached file if you want more details, it's a report from the World Health Organization.

Louise Baur, Professor of the Discipline of Paediatrics & Child Health at the University of Sydney and Consultant Paediatrician at The Children's Hospital at Westmead, says that parents are struggling to be heard over the bombardment of marketing aimed at their children.

From the article:
"Every week, in my weight management clinics at the hospital, I see parents who are trying their very hardest to look after the health of their kids" says Professor Baur. "By now, everyone has heard the alarming childhood obesity statistics. Parents are much better informed about healthy eating, and are trying to teach their children good nutritional habits. But how can they compete with slick, multi-million dollar marketing campaigns?

She dismisses suggestions that advertising doesn't play a significant role in the diets of children. "Advertising does influence what kids want and therefore what parents buy - of course it does. Companies wouldn't spend millions on it if it didn't!"

Professor Baur points not only to television advertising, but to a range of marketing strategies from sponsorship of kids' sporting events to "endorsements" of products by popular cartoon characters. She says that all levels of government have a role to play in supporting parents by introducing measures to restrict these marketing practices - and she isn't alone. The World Federation of Consumer Organisations, Consumers International, has this week released a new International Code on Marketing of Food and non-Alcoholic Beverages to Children, which is supported by the International Obesity Taskforce.

The Code calls for new government regulations to protect children and parents from the pressures of junk food marketing practices.

"This isn't about being the "fun police", banning chocolate or soft drinks, or outlawing all forms of advertising" she says. "All we are asking is for some balance. Limiting the marketing of unhealthy food and drinks will give parents a better chance to teach their kids about responsible, healthy eating. We want to give children back to their parents. And that's going to lead to happier families and healthier kids."

Full article here:

..... end of article....

Thank you Louise, for bringing this information to the attention of the public, I hope you get plenty of support.

General Discussion / The revolution - is it coming?
« on: March 17, 2008, 08:31:49 AM »
My assertion;
In 20-30 years time there could be a violent revolution held by the common people, targeted towards government and private industry.  I expect this revolution to start in a particular city that has been afforded a high standard of living for two or more generations, and I expect the revolution to spread to neighbouring cites, and finally; globally.

My argument;
In modern civilisation, particularly in democratic capitalist societies, there has been an increasing number of people who are able to afford a high standard of living.  This high standard of living is largely based upon resources which are finite, and human capital, which is also finite.

America, Britain, Europe, and Australia have enjoyed a high standard of living for several generations, and have come to depend on luxurious lifestyles - which can be defined as; anything above basic subsistence.  Industrialisation and constitutional democracy have kept productivity rising, and as a result; individual persons consume more goods and services - which keeps productivity moving upwards because people need wages - and businesses offer wages.

As China, India, and Russia, and an increasing range of developing countries evolve to democratic political systems with capitalistic economies, they will develop real wages for their workers; ending their viability as cheap human capital - and more importantly, raising demand for the same finite resources that developed countries also demand.

Thus, developed countries will have to pay more for natural resources and human capital in order to sustain their current lifestyle, which increasingly becomes dearer due to the situation mentioned above.  This is happening now, and it is happening exponentially.

Compounding this modern conundrum is the fact that; the goods and services we depend upon are generally the type that condition people to live in a way that diminishes the skills and abilities required for subsistence.

Nowhere in history have enormous populations been so profoundly separated from basic subsistence, as we are now.  And, as the characteristics of subsistence lifestyles in a society lowers, it's fear of losing goods and services rises because those goods and services are now psychologically viewed as critical for survival.

So we have a situation where; consumers think they need 'product X' in order to survive, but 'product X' comes from a short supply of finite resources so it's price is shockingly high - so high that consumers become volatile.  Consumer are likely to squander their liberties working extra hours in order to afford to purchase 'product X', or will perhaps resort to crime, or settle for demoralising work and/or work conditions.

There's a clear pattern that can be deduced from the above mentioned factors, and I would like to put forth a hypothetical scenario for your consideration based on those factors.

Imagine if you will....
2011 AD
Oil prices continue to sky-rocket upwards due to China and India placing enormous demand upon it.   They have evolved their political system to allow an economy that pays good wages, which effectively raises the price of human capital - ending the availability of cheap labour and manufacturing for western society.

2013 AD
The US dollar crashes, Iran is now trading oil in Euros and other countries follow suit, because they're frightened that they may absorb the sting of the falling US dollar.

Meanwhile, households in western society are paying historically high prices for electricity, oil, gas, food and clothing.  These people are becoming increasingly malcontent as prices rise, but politicians are powerless to stop the price hike, because they hitherto have been relying on the finite resources such as oil and cheap human capital to sustain their economies, whilst neglecting education and infrastructure - there's no back up plan.

2019 AD
The people become increasingly frustrated by the lack of support from their governments.  Jobs become scarce,  private businesses are liquidating because they have no access to financial capital, credit, or resources.

2022 AD
Developing countries keep the pressure of demand up (and the availability of supply down), as they become accustomed to more luxurious lifestyles - they are living wealthier than ever before, and there's no plan to go back, they're hooked, just like western society is.

2025 AD - 2028 AD
In western society, recessions lead to depressions, and the ensuing poverty creates ghettos and slums that are packed with people who have no subsistence skills - they're cold, frightened and becoming increasingly agitated.  There are those who still live in moderately comfortable conditions; they are the 'haves', who had enough savings to survive the financial disasters.

December 24th, 2029 AD
On a cold night in down-town Los Angeles, the citizens living in ghetto number #9 are watching CBS news on an old television from within their abandoned squat, the news reports a story of a woman who has been shot down and killed by military police as she tried to rob a wealthy Beverly Hills home.  The word is spread amongst the ghetto about a woman was killed whilst trying to get food for her children, who are now orphans, and the citizens of Ghetto #9 react... violently.

They storm the heavily fortified Beverly Hills suburbs in mobs, fuelled by the anger and misery that has kept them living like rats for years - when they were once voting citizens who went to college and paid their taxes in order to achieve the American dream.  Their hatred is that of pure white rage, and their viciousness is nothing short of primal.

A battle ensues between the citizens and the military police who are protecting the affluent suburbs, and more citizens from other ghettos join the fight, they've witnessed the angry mobs and are keen to express their frustration alongside their fellow citizens.  Disastrously, the situation is reported live via news satellite across the globe...

In a down-town industrial park, inside an old factory that has long been deserted, a group of Australian people calling themselves the "Freedom Fighters" are holding one of their regularly held political party meetings.   A young women rushes in and tells them the news "there's a rebellion in California!".  The people leave the building to watch the community television (the only one available in the entire suburb) and as they exit the building they notice large numbers of people running and shouting, as if they were delirious with happiness.  Except, they're not happy, their shouts are actually war cries - and they're taking a war to the doorstep of Parliament house, the office of the Prime Minister.

Similar occurrences break out in London, New York, Paris and Barcelona, whilst other nations rapidly follow suit.

December 25th, 2029 AD
Martial Law is declared in most countries.  The citizens are commandeering military equipment and raiding all the wealthy suburbs and homes.  The war of the citizens is disorganised, frantic and bloody.  And nobody stops for christmas...

January 1st, 2030 AD
Presidents, Senators and Aristocrats hide out in nuclear bunkers, but the wealthy 'haves' and their affiliates aren't so lucky.  They are publicly and summarily executed by the mobs of angry citizens.  The year is 2030, and the bodies are piling up.

Whilst the citizens scramble for food, a new age is dawning... an age where mankind realises that he cannot eat Ipods or Nike Shoes or Rayban sunglasses or countless other so-called necessities in order to survive... an age where once again mother nature is the provider and the caretaker, and he returns to her; like a sobbing child who became lost at the supermarket.

The University of Sydney has released the results of a study, confirming that eating foods the body quickly converts into blood glucose - such as highly processed breakfast cereals and most white breads - leads to a greater risk of diabetes, heart disease and some types of cancer.

Although we here at at the Caveman Power forum have been exploring the merits of this theory for some time now (with great results), it's interesting to note that the researchers have found more even reasons to avoid High GI foods.

From the article:
The study, conducted by Alan Barclay, Joanna McMillan Price, Professor Jennie Brand-Miller and colleagues, found high blood glucose led to high risk of type 2 diabetes and heart disease, and is also linked to gall stones and some types of cancer.  In the study, published in the latest edition of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Barclay and his colleagues looked at the diets of nearly two million (1,950,198) healthy men and women worldwide in a systematic analysis of 37 key studies.

He was more surprised by the "strong relationship" between GI and some of the other common diseases. "There's good evidence from the studies that have been done that high GI diets are linked to cancer as well. This is because constant spikes in blood glucose that cause the body to release more insulin also increase a related substance called 'insulin like growth factor one' (IGF-1).

"Both these hormones increase cell growth and decrease cell death, and have been shown to increase the risk of developing cancer.

"Other research shows that a high GI diet tends to reduce 'good' HDL cholesterol levels and raise triglycerides levels; bad news for cardiovascular diseases. And people with low HDL cholesterol and high triglyceride levels are more prone to gall stones. Up until now, people have considered fats and salt, not carbohydrates, to be the major contributor to heart disease.

"Low GI foods have benefits for everybody - they can keep you feeling full longer, help you maintain a healthy weight, and provide you and your brain with more consistent energy throughout the day. They can also have a major effect on whether or not you develop health problems."

Full article here:

"The key message from this study," says lead author Alan Barclay, "is that the GI of your diet is a powerful predictor of disease risk. Grandma was right, you are what you eat."

.......... end of article ..................

Er, I think he means "Primal Man was right"  ;)

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6