10 Bears

Mr B - you are entitled to your opinion of course, however, you have clearly misread and don't understand my commentary, you don't have a clear grasp of the terminology used, of the processes involved, or indeed of the context of the program that was under discussion. Yes, being in a Ketosis state is the process of using fat as a primary fuel source (dietary fats first, then stored body fat) due to depleted glycogen levels, often caused by low consumption of carbohydrates, or as another response to glycogen depletion e.g. being ill. We agree on that point so there is little to say further. However, the Dr. in the program that was the subject of some very loose 'experimentation' entered a catabolic state through not being ketogenically adapted. The definition of being in a catabolic state, which you so clearly mis-understand is "any destructive process by which complex substances are converted by living cells into more simple compounds, with release of energy" Source here. Now, during the experiment, this twin was subject to prolonged zero carb and high fat consumption - which is not the Paleo approach as I discussed earlier (reread my other post for more information), this is the Atkins method. The twin also endured periods of full exertion eg cycling in a race uphill after an hours strenuous warm up. His blood glycemia was measured before and after. Now in a fully depleted glycogen state (at the bottom of the hill after warm up), his blood sugar levels were taken, he completed the race ( ), and they were taken again at the top. The big surprise being that his blood sugar levels did in fact rise. So how did this happen? Very simply, he had entered a catabolic state where his body had started to digest the muscle tissue through amino acids and the citric cycle in order to provide the required glycogen. This is absolutely not ketosis. Rather then take my word for this process, a commentary by a writer for the Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition provides some quite clear text on this: "Fats Burn in a Carbohydrate Flame, Right? It has been claimed that carbohydrates serve as a primer for fat catabolism ("fats burn in a carbohydrate flame"). However, as pointed out by Robergs and Roberts [22], this is an incorrect contention. In skeletal muscle, fat certainly does not burn in a carbohydrate flame, as skeletal muscle does not have sufficient quantities of the enzymes to convert glycolytic intermediates into molecules that can be transported into the mitochondria to supplement citric acid cycle intermediates. Further, the production of acetoacyl CoA, a substrate of ketone body formation, can occur only in the liver and thus does not apply to skeletal muscle metabolism. Human skeletal muscle can oxidize at least seven amino acids: leucine, isoleucine, valine, glutamate, asparagine, aspartate and alanine. Of these amino acids, however, oxidation of only the branched chain amino acids (leucine, isoleucine and valine) appears to be increased during catabolic states such as exercise. When muscle glycogen and blood glucose concentrations are low, the incorporation of the carbon skeletons from amino acids into the citric acid cycle is important for maintaining the concentrations of the intermediates, and therefore a high rate of mitochondrial respiration. Thus, both muscle fat and carbohydrate burn in an amino acid flame. As discussed by Robergs and Roberts [22], amino acid catabolism during exercise is important for three reasons: 1) for free energy during exercise to fuel muscle contraction; 2) to increase concentrations of citric acid cycle intermediates and therefore support carbohydrate and lipid catabolism; and 3) to serve as gluconeogenic precursors. It has also been claimed that carbohydrate provides the only macronutrient substrate whose stored energy generates ATP non-aerobically. This is not the case, however, since several studies have shown that amino acid catabolism also provides a source of anaerobic energy production [23], Aspartate, for example, can be fermented to succinate or propionate [24]. Interestingly, Ivy et al. [25] and Saunders et al. [26], reported that the addition of protein to a carbohydrate supplement enhanced endurance performance above that which occurred with carbohydrate alone." In the conclusion to the program, it was found the twin that had eaten very high dietary fat had lost some levels of body fat, presumably as he had passed through some levels of ketosis, but moreover, he had lost significant levels of muscle mass (3.5Kg lost overall, 1.5kg from fat but 2kg, or 57% from muscle mass) - as a result of being in a catabolic state caused by eating zero carbs ie the Atkins approach. This would have released very high levels of protein into his bloodstream and contributed to his near diabetic condition as he had become insulin resistant due to the high level of fat consumed (without carbs - again not Paleo). His blood glucose level rose overall during the experiment from 5.1 to 5.9 - just 0.2 away from being diabetic, because he consumed no carbs. The blood glucose has to come from somewhere - and because of everything I have stated earlier - he was in a catabolic state and digesting his own muscle tissue. The key point that they surmise is the simple fact that a single solution is not going to work ie cutting out all sugars, is not the answer. Even on higher fat, moderate protein and lower carbs ie Paleo, you have to have the carbs in there otherwise your body will cease to function correctly. Like in his case, become insulin resistant and close to diabetes. So Mr. B, I hope I have helped you understand what I discussed in a little more detail, and that you can reasonably see that I am not in fact, "wrong" as you stated.

Unfortunately it was another media stunt (despite the participants being Doctors - one of tropical medicine as I recall, cant remember the other but I did think it wasn't specifically related to the study of human physiology). Their diet strategy wasn't a like for like comparison with Paleo and their experimental approach was seriously flawed from a scientific method perspective. The main concept of eating Paleo is to remove refined sugars and processed food from your diet. Something that in evolutionary terms, humans are simply not adapted to otherwise we would not have the physiological response that we do when we consume carbohydrates. In the summing up, one of the Dr.'s said something akin to - well extreme diets are not the answer. In fact, it was the chap that had consumed the high fat diet who was on the edge of diabetes. The diet plan he had followed ie gorge on fats and consume zero carbs is not Paleo. It is in fact the Atkins Diet, which has been studied several times and has been shown to repeatedly cause a catabolic state in its participants - which is essentially when the body breaks down at a cellular level to feed itself and cause the release of energy - commonly from muscle tissue. Approximately speaking, Paleo folk still eat roughly 100g of unrefined carbs a day, and avoid the worst negative health affecting foods such as Hydrogenated Trans Fats or High Fructose Corn Syrup. These actions alone will give the Paleo eater significant health benefits over their non-paleo/Atkins counterparts. I have been on Paleo for about 5 years now, and received bi-annual blood tests, including glucose and liver function (a 2 year MOT!) as I was keen for my doctor to document what is actually happening in my body as a result of this lifestyle choice. He stated that he has never seen as good results as mine in men of a similar age - so it seems something is going right. Trying to suggest that Paleo and Atkins are somehow similar is like comparing chalk and cheese -they are just not the same. Your thoughts that Paleo will lead to diabetes based on watching that programme, are somewhat misplaced as Paleo was not the subject of the study.

Rather than relying on rules of thumb/best guesses as to the extent of the canker and the likelihood of failure, why not attempt to quantify your concerns through a measurement of the potential strength loss? t/R was mentioned earlier, and while it is too rough a procedure to provide an assessment of likelihood of failure with any degree of accuracy (Naysayers, see Kane & Ryan, 2004), you could use it to give you an idea of potential strength loss. If you don't know what t/R is, there is a reasonably helpful document on the Arbtalk pages from another discussion here although what isn't said in great detail is that t/R is not particularly useful in open cavity assessment (despite the document suggesting that additional work was done - it wasn't completed to the same level of study so loses on reliability). Also, there may be some compensation by the tree in reaction wood which will not be considered in this assessment, so remember use any 'result' with necessary caution. Either way, this approach may be better than just guessing how much strength loss has occurred. There are other approaches to use that are better in this situation - its just they are more complicated to explain in a forum...

Well, that's your opinion, however the Forestry Commission don't agree with you. Please see table 3 of this document http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/fcin29.pdf/$FILE/fcin29.pdf The shade tolerances of seedlings, saplings and mature stock are all different, but it is well known that the species you identify will grown in heavy shade in their younger years.

Holly is always a possibility - but Ill throw in a couple of others to give you some choice. All suggested on the basis of good shade tolerance: Yew - good for berries/birds (my preference) Beech - retains leaves in winter form Hornbeam - much underrated, but can be good in hedges Field Maple - smaller, interesting leaves/bark

I've not measured it at the farm, but I would estimate between 35-40 metres... Of course I could potentially set up in other locations on a slightly longer run (limited only by the rope - I thought around 60m)

Some may disagree, but potentially, its a legal minefield. Nothing is stopping you from surveying a tree and writing a report about it, presumably as that is within your scope of experience and knowledge, but as soon as you do so you are professionally accountable for the information contained in the report, and due to the statute of limitations, will remain legally accountable for a period of years after. Typically between 3-12 years depending on the circumstances. Now, you should bear in mind that ultimately, when writing consultancy style reports, your duty is to the court of the land as this is potentially where your report could end up being reviewed following any dispute (of course this is rare, but you should always consider it). Now one question that will definitely be asked at court is, 'how valid is this report?' and one way to verify that, will be to consider the qualifications and experience of the author. So, simply put, if you only have a level 2 qualification, and I have a level 7, it is likely that my opinion will be viewed more favourably. You could put a case forward based on many years of experience and few qualifications, but human nature being what it is, most people are swayed by rafts of certificates. A final point to think about is the insurance issue. As soon as you are giving professional advice, then you need professional indemnity insurance. 3rd party/employers will not cover this. Pro. indemnity insures your advice or professional opinion, as you may make a bad judgement and your client decide to sue you for loss of value etc. There are also some types of Arb. related reports that I have to specifically advise my insurers that I am writing - otherwise if I don't, then they wont be covered by the indemnity. Insurance is a big issue to consider here. There is also an argument to say that all tree workers (even climbers) should have this Pro. indemnity insurance in any case as everyone gives out advice all day, and this insurance covers the advice given - but many people operate without it happily. Disputes do arise though... So what is your situation? What quals do you have and what are you intending to do?

Oh - my thoughts drifted to rope again. I saw this on another post, and it seems like a suitable candidate. Any thoughts? Sirius 12mm Bull Rope | Clark Forest : Rigging Ropes

Thanks Pete - there's some useful things to think about there. I could add in some more details to explain further: I will be setting it up at my mates farm just down the road, and it will only be left in place while we are there and using it, which may only be for an afternoon, which is why I was thinking of a quick timber hitch option (but now wont use following your advice). The lie of the land is pretty straight forward, some trees slightly higher up on a bank, over an open space/field area then onto other trees which are on the flat, but with some slightly higher branches to allow an upturn in the low end of the rope - again for braking. I wasn't thinking of a particularly taught line over the distance as I want it to be relatively slow descent - my children are aged 4-7. I also wasn't planning too high or long either for the same reasons. Could you explain in more detail your comment about "a means of applying and adjusting tension but this should always be backed up by the main line, in the event of release of the tensioning rig". I know if I use a slacker line this may be redundant, but Id like to know more for future reference - the kids have this awful habit of getting bigger and very quickly too!

I'm thinking of getting my kids more interested in climbing and I have plans to buy some kids harnesses, helmets etc., but one thing I was unsure of was the best/safest way to rig a zipline. My thoughts were to use a timber hitch at the base of the spar tree, send the rope up with a twist or two around the main stem for added friction, over a reasonable branch, off into the void, and something similar at the other end with enough slack in the line near the lower tree/branch to act as a brake, perhaps with a krab/rope attached as a manual brake as well. Other idea was to set up whoopie slings as the anchors, but to rig it more or less in the same way. Have I missed anything obvious or is there a better/safer way that you know of? I have also had some thoughts about the line itself. I was going to just use a climbing rope as there shouldn't be too much load at any given time, but presumably, a bull line would be better due to higher abrasion resistance? So to recap. Could you advise on: Safest zipline rigging technique, any other necessary kit you think I may have missed, best type of rope for the job I hope that the collective knowledge and experience out there can help, as I don't want to make a mistake when trying to let my children enjoy something that most of us take for granted. I don't mind dropping a log, but not one of the kids! Thanks in advance...

Its amazing how kids will respond to a copy of the Forestry Journal/Essential Arb. It calms my kids right down too!

I just spotted these this morning. What drew my attention to them was the size, as from a distance I knew they were quite big. It was easy to tell they were from the ink cap family, but in all honesty, despite their name, I also knew I hadn't spotted them before. A little bit of research tells me why... Apparently for Common Ink Caps (Coprinus atramentarius), these are what you would call pristine specimens as the 'deliquescence' process, where the fungi putrefies - turns to ink, happens within 24 hours or so from emerging. So, its a case of blink and you'll miss it. They are common from the perspective that they have a wide distribution across Europe, but personally speaking, not common to me as I have only ever seen Shaggy Ink Caps before as obviously these are more persistent. These are best considered poisonous because of the very unpleasant and dangerous reactions in conjunction with alcohol even when the alcohol has been consumed some time previously. Some people may get nasty reactions in absence of alcohol. Symptoms include, redness in face, swelling and skin itching which seems relatively minor, but in some people, can cause heart attacks! Best not to have in the mushroom risotto with a nice bottle of red then... Anyhow, if you have seen these before - fair enough. New to me through, so I thought I would share...

That's a fair shout - I've checked a couple of my resources and noticed the same errors. I would be still inclined to use Ped for the same reason as stated earlier meaning, "with a Peduncle" it just makes more sense. I have a theory on this though - essentially its just because its in print - it doesn't make it right! I believe that its one of those easily replicated errors that have just proliferated over time, even through 'experts'. I have published various reports/articles over the years, and despite going through a vigorous peer review process with 5+ reviewers, errors still make it through. Im sure this is the same case here. So, Peduncle. Final answer!

Yes, its ped after peduncle.

Isn't there a trainee card (I think), or an affiliated occupation one? I don't have it personally - just looked into it a few years ago

Not Ash. Id be more inclined to say Oak.

I would advise against cheat days until people are well adapted to the lifestyle. It is far too easy to go back - even just for a few days - and see a months hard work undone. I'm a bit late into this thread as it got away before I read it and there seemed to be a couple of people who had some good info so I stayed on the sidelines. I first started lo-carb about 5 years ago, and swapped to Paleo about 2 years ago. The main differences are on lo-carb you have higher protien content, and when you particularly want to cut up, you significantly reduce the dietary fat. Which works really well - but is a quite expensive way to eat if Im honest. Just an observation on a few of your earlier comments (its taken me a few days to read through the 39 pages of thread!), is that quite a few of the converted are still eating things like sausage, ham (eg from a packet - not the bone), salami or other processed meat. This will work in the short term, whilst you are becoming properly fat adapted, but longer term, you will become more sensitive to the elements that are mixed in with the meats and you will start getting plateaus or reversion of any gains you have made. The reason is that sausages/ham/processed meat usually contain a series of additives such as: rusk, dextrose, dextrin, glucose, sorghum, xylose etc etc. (see this link for a fuller list of words used on packaging which essentially mean sugar), which as your body becomes more insulin sensitive as it should over a period of time, issues like genetics etc aside, you will find that you will stall from eating smaller and smaller amounts of these foods - so over a more prolonged period, physiologically speaking, you have to eat cleaner. Over the period I have done this, and made the most improvements, I have also exercised. Weights, because Ive been a bit of a gym rat since a kid and I just enjoy it (grew up watching Arnie and Stallone films), but also with very specific cardio training. High Intensity Interval Training (HIIT) has been undoubtedly the best companion with the lifestyle for those moments when you stop making progress towards a goal (if that is what you are trying to do). Ill explain HIIT. First I train on weights for 20/25 mins (not to do with HIIT - just what I would do anyway in the gym), then Id go to the bike as I cant run anymore due to no cartilage in an ankle following a bad running injury, and cycle like this: 2 mins warm up - half pace 20 secs - flat out 10 secs - half pace 20 secs - flat out 10 secs - half pace 1 minute recovery - half pace Repeat from 20 secs flat out x 3 Total 10 minutes CV training. What this does is removes the glycogen from your muscle, and causes a major demand. Your body responds by freeing up stored fat to be shoved in your muscle quick smart to be used as instant energy and to aid repair. Dont be fooled though, it sounds easy enough, but the flat out sprint sections done back to back are really quite tough. When you get better at this you can increase the time under sprint eg remove some of the half pace etc. If you do HIIT regularly, you will see many benefits ie improved CV fitness, lower BF etc. and for me personally I always feel invigorated after. Now, what I described above was my personal HIIT method - but I watched a program last night, that showed you can do HIIT and get the benefits for only 3 minutes a week! link can be found here Loads of you have made great progress, so good luck with it all, but if you have any questions about longer term or anything like that just let me know...

You will be fine with a non-combustible floor and installing it straight on to that. I have done full renovations of 2 houses and done this very thing. The Building Regs chap from the LPA says its perfectly within the rules.

Another competition that the UK doesn't seem to win - Its a tree Eurovision!

Im surrounded with Hazels in my local area, and I haven't seen this before. My guess would be as a response to a boring insect - but it is just a guess.

I think you are spot on with that Coprinellus call. Being found near a rotting stump ties in with the species too...

Thanks for the offer Ivan - but its sorted now ie it has been done.

Heee - you beat me to it!

I judge it as appropriate to the audience. So, if I am doing woodland felling, its Forester, climbing - Surgeon, or consultancy erm, Consultant! I experimented once with a catch all term of Tree Expert, and to be honest I immediately felt pretentious, irrespective of whether or not it was true! I agree with the idea that Arborist is mainly an Americanism and Tree Surgeon is much widely more understood, if not a wholly accurate description, in the UK. While we're on the issue of nomenclature, the other word used (and often misspelt) is Arboriculturist not Arboriculturalist - as the latter does not follow the rules of the English language - but its an easy mistake to make! For example: Pianist, Dentist, Acupuncturist, Agronomist, Cosmetologist etc...

Interesting insight which was omitted from the programme. Had to admit, another tingly feet moment watching those videos!