ANVIL Posted August 1, 2007 Share Posted August 1, 2007 Im going to ban Oysters and Mussels next as they contain abnormal amounts of Zinc and Magnesium Ask AJ on here, he eats too much zinc and it results in his abnormal behaviour round town Sorry Anvil back to the topic please sir. But that's my point - if you ban everything that's bad for you, then everything's banned! so what is/what should be the criteria for banning something? just something that i'm unclear about - i certainly don't have any answers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carcass Posted August 1, 2007 Share Posted August 1, 2007 But that's my point - if you ban everything that's bad for you, then everything's banned! so what is/what should be the criteria for banning something? just something that i'm unclear about - i certainly don't have any answers! Well, I tried to make a distinction in my previous post - what're your thoughts on that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANVIL Posted August 1, 2007 Share Posted August 1, 2007 Could you provide some sources please Anvil? Having too much of anything can be bad for you - in the case of tuna and mackerel I doubt that it is a pure protein overload causing the problem; it might even be heavy metal poisoning. I wasn't suggesting that we should abn everything that can be bad for you - last I checked, contact sports were pretty bad for some people's health too, haha. I still think that a definitive line between 'dietary' and 'metabolic/endocrine' supplementation would be the best boundary. Things that simply provide a pure form of nutrition for the sake of convenience (e.g. protein shakes) and naturally occurring analogues (creatine) found in such foods should be allowed (especially since their banning would be impossible to enforce). However, drugs that target the endocrine system such as anabolic steroids, which do NOT form part of a normal, healthy diet should be banned if they are shown to give an unfair advantage. The legality and research into the safety of such drugs/supplements should also be taken into consideration. the soruce that i'm thinking of is Patrick Holford - i'm pretty sure he refers to too much tuna being dangerous in his book 'optimum nutrition', but i'm pretty sure that you're correct in saying it's not the protein content, rather the metal. i agree pretty much with what you're daying, but i would contend that we really don't know how well the current ban is enforced, as we only know who gets caught and not those who don't... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANVIL Posted August 1, 2007 Share Posted August 1, 2007 Well, I tried to make a distinction in my previous post - what're your thoughts on that? you did, but i'd posted before i read your post the distinction you propose seems sensible based on my limited knowledge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carcass Posted August 1, 2007 Share Posted August 1, 2007 The latest issue of Fighters Only has a good article by Grant Waterman about the lack of testing in MMA. Also, Dana White has now promised to 'B*tch slap' any of the UFC's fighters who test positive from now on, along with a 1-year ban. http://www.sherdog.com/news/news.asp?n_id=8454 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.