Quote from: Monty on June 10, 2023, 02:29:17 PMQuote from: Brazilian Villain on June 10, 2023, 02:20:29 PMQuote from: Smirker on June 10, 2023, 01:41:28 PMWhat food could be served at half time? Maybe some 1870s food wouldn't be a bad thing. Quote from: BBCAccording to a study published in the Royal Society of Medicine, "How the Mid-Victorians Worked, Ate and Died", the combination of enormous amounts of physical activity (most people did physically demanding jobs which meant they were active for 50 to 60 hours a week) and a diet rich in fruits, whole grains, oily fish and vegetables meant that Victorians suffered less from chronic, degenerative diseases than we do.Dr Paul Clayton, one of the authors of the study, claims that they were "90% less likely to develop cancer, dementia and coronary artery disease than we are today". It certainly meant that diseases like type-2 diabetes, which plague modern society, were vanishingly rare. Doesn't the massively lower life expectancy back then rather undermine claims like 'there was less dementia'? Most people didn't live long enough to see if they developed it.The pedantic answer is it makes the claim more plausible. Would be interesting to know how much influence each factor has though.
Quote from: Brazilian Villain on June 10, 2023, 02:20:29 PMQuote from: Smirker on June 10, 2023, 01:41:28 PMWhat food could be served at half time? Maybe some 1870s food wouldn't be a bad thing. Quote from: BBCAccording to a study published in the Royal Society of Medicine, "How the Mid-Victorians Worked, Ate and Died", the combination of enormous amounts of physical activity (most people did physically demanding jobs which meant they were active for 50 to 60 hours a week) and a diet rich in fruits, whole grains, oily fish and vegetables meant that Victorians suffered less from chronic, degenerative diseases than we do.Dr Paul Clayton, one of the authors of the study, claims that they were "90% less likely to develop cancer, dementia and coronary artery disease than we are today". It certainly meant that diseases like type-2 diabetes, which plague modern society, were vanishingly rare. Doesn't the massively lower life expectancy back then rather undermine claims like 'there was less dementia'? Most people didn't live long enough to see if they developed it.
Quote from: Smirker on June 10, 2023, 01:41:28 PMWhat food could be served at half time? Maybe some 1870s food wouldn't be a bad thing. Quote from: BBCAccording to a study published in the Royal Society of Medicine, "How the Mid-Victorians Worked, Ate and Died", the combination of enormous amounts of physical activity (most people did physically demanding jobs which meant they were active for 50 to 60 hours a week) and a diet rich in fruits, whole grains, oily fish and vegetables meant that Victorians suffered less from chronic, degenerative diseases than we do.Dr Paul Clayton, one of the authors of the study, claims that they were "90% less likely to develop cancer, dementia and coronary artery disease than we are today". It certainly meant that diseases like type-2 diabetes, which plague modern society, were vanishingly rare.
What food could be served at half time?
According to a study published in the Royal Society of Medicine, "How the Mid-Victorians Worked, Ate and Died", the combination of enormous amounts of physical activity (most people did physically demanding jobs which meant they were active for 50 to 60 hours a week) and a diet rich in fruits, whole grains, oily fish and vegetables meant that Victorians suffered less from chronic, degenerative diseases than we do.Dr Paul Clayton, one of the authors of the study, claims that they were "90% less likely to develop cancer, dementia and coronary artery disease than we are today". It certainly meant that diseases like type-2 diabetes, which plague modern society, were vanishingly rare.
Quote from: London Villan on June 10, 2023, 05:56:11 AMIf this is true, it’s not too bad.Aside from the bell end in it yeh it’s nice
If this is true, it’s not too bad.
Seem that castore have a template that all their clubs have to use.
In the 90s we were quite efficient with new kits, especially the mid 90s, Collymore signing in May '97 wearing the new away kit springs to mind. In May 2001 against Coventry we even wore our new kit for 2001-2002 in the last home game (the day we relegated them). This all seems to be a Lerner era thing for some reason. I wonder did we get offered more money by Nike to keep the kits longer and it just sort of got us into this crap cycle we can't get out of?
My daughter wants to go to the Villa shop for her birthday. (June 14th). On one hand I’m happy that it will be full of sale items, on the other I don’t want her being upset when the new kit comes out just a few weeks later.
Quote from: Toronto Villa on June 10, 2023, 04:42:24 PMQuote from: London Villan on June 10, 2023, 05:56:11 AMIf this is true, it’s not too bad.Aside from the bell end in it yeh it’s nice Our 1995-96 kit was first publicised with the old Muller sponsor on the front so I am hanging on to this as a reason to think this beaut may well be the actual new kit!
Please donate to help towards the costs of keeping this site going. Thank You.
Author
Topic: Kits 23/24 (Read 99614 times)
