What to Look for in Good Trainer

I don't work as a trainer, but I work with them, and I used to work as one. I also consult with and learn from other trainers. After watching Alywn Cosgrove's Program Design for the 21st Century, I've come to a few conclusions about training, and what good makes a good trainer.

1. Constant contact. The trainer should either have a newsletter, or at least contact his clients with e-mail once a week. Not talking with clients outside of the health club or studio is a mistake.

2. Not watching form. My first trainer used to watch SportsCenter while I was training. He would watch TV while I was lifting heavy weights. The trainer should always show the client certain cues and pointers to make sure the exercise is performed correctly. When the client works on his own, he'll be able to do it correctly after doing it right so many times.

3. Mobility work. If your trainer is still telling you to warm up with jumping jacks and 10 minutes of easy jogging on the treadmill, ask them when the last time he's actually questioned this protocol. Most good trainers these days recognize the importance of mobility work, or exercises that activate or and strengthen muscles that are underused or weak (think glutes), or are overtight (hip flexors). Skip the treadmill and do some mobility work.

4. Core work. Most people have weak cores. And by core, I don't mean just the abs. I'm talking about everything from the lats to the hips. A weak core means you're predisposed to back pain. A weak core means everything you do will be harder. A weak core means you'll run slower. Core work is not crunches. If you're trainer has you doing crunches, ask how that will help your back pain and improve your posture. Serious core work means rotational and stability exercises.

5. A reason for every exercise. Ask your trainer why you're doing a particular exercise. And the answer should be better than, "because it's cool," or "I saw someone else doing it." In fact, you should do an exercise because no-one else is doing it.

6. Continuing education. A good trainer will invest in conferences, seminars, DVDs, and books to help him develop a more functional, safer, and more effective program. Trainers who don't are slackers and are cheating their clients. They should be investing their income in educational products created by those with years of experience. The initial price might be high, but in the long run a good trainer will get more results, and more referrals. Good trainers are constantly finding new protocols, new exercises, or new routines. One of the main reasons people don't see results is that they don't get enough variety in their program. Continuing education means the trainer needs to analyze what he knows and what he's doing. At some point, he will have to admit that what he has known until now is wrong. A good example is Mike Boyle's recent admission that his core program in Functional Strength Training published in 2003 needs to be rewritten. Show some humility and admit that you were wrong. Just don't keep doing those wrong things.

7. Injury prevention and rehabilitation. Today's lifestyle predisposes us to injuries. We have so many weak and overused muscles, and asymmetries in our bodies that it's little wonder that 80% of our population suffers some kind of back pain. A good trainer prescribes exercises that not only make the client stronger, but also more functional.

8. Enthusiasm. A good trainer can transfer his passion for exercise science and anatomy to the client. Trainers know that strength and functional training benefits everyone, but their clients might not see the benefit or understand why trainers are so passionate. I'm not saying a good trainer is a cheerleader, but rather knows how to motivate and excite the client. This takes a particular personality and effective communication skills, and not everyone has it. It's probably the one reason why I would never be a top trainer.

9. Nutritional guidance. I can't tell you how many trainers I've seen that are out-of-shape or outright fat. Many trainer eat fast food, and food that is inconsistent with a healthy lifestyle. A good program is worthless without solid nutrition advise. You can't overcome bad nutrition. It's that simple.

10. Outsourcing. Good trainers need to learn that they cannot train every client. You cannot train a teenage athlete who's trying pack on 20 pounds of muscle, and a 35-year-old postnatal woman. It doesn't work. Too many people have disparate needs, and no trainer can properly create a program for every kind of client. So what does a good trainer who do when he confronts a potential client that doesn't fit his niche? He outsources to another trainer who does. A trainer who doesn't is cheating his client, and doesn't believe in the golden rule. If you outsource, other trainers will outsource to you. And if a trainer knows nothing about nutrition, then have the client talk to someone who does.

11. The right amount of variety. I've established that variety is good, but a trainer can go too far. Changing reps, weights, sets, rest time, exercises, routines, and equipment every day can actually stagnant growth. Why? Because your body never has time to adapt to an exercise. It's constantly exposed to new stimuluses, and never has a chance to adapt or improve. Subtle changes are okay, such as grip or stance, but frequent drastic changes will not lead to drastic results.

12. Assessing needs. Good trainers review a client's history, occupation, goals, abilities, and everyday activities. Every client should have a different routine. Some clients are trying to lose fat, some are trying to gain size, some are looking for functional exercises, and others simply can't or shouldn't do particular exercises. My old trainer pretty much gave me exercises that I know were totally inappropriate for my goals. Preacher curls, smith machine squats, and hamstring curls will not make you a faster runner! Band work will not add a lot of muscle! And 6o seconds of rest between sets will not help you lose fat!

13. The right mindset. This might be the most important of all, even more than enthusiasm. Why is a trainer training? Is he training clients to make extra cash on the side to pay for school? Is he training because he wants a free membership? Or is he training clients to help them reach their physical goals? It better be the last one. And a good trainer should expect
to be a trainer for the foreseeable future.

14. Behavior modification. A trainer works with his client, at most, three hours per week. The other 165 hours are critically important, because a client can completely reverse the benefits of his exercise program with bad posture, repetitive motion, poor diet, etc. A client has 23 hours per day to screw things up! If a client complains of shoulder injury, and wears his backpack on that shoulder all the time, then behavior modification is required. Behavior modification will probably account for 90% of results. Yes, 90%. 165/168 is 98%, so I'm actually underestimating!

15. Proper stretching. Forget static stretches that you learned in school. A few static stretches of 15 seconds at the end of the day might have some benefit, but a good trainer should teach his client how to use a foam roller or Trigger Point technology to smooth out adhesions in the muscles. Most people have very tight IT bands, hip flexors, and piriformis muscles (butt muscles). Active-isolated stretching also has been shown to increase range of motion. Active Release Therapy is a little more advanced, but a trainer should at least recommend this.

There you go. There are 15 things to look for in a good trainer. Notice that I never mentioned certification. I think a certification shows some level of knowledge and skill, but I'd rather work with a trainer who exhibits these 15 characteristics than one that read a textbook and answered 75% of the questions correctly on a test. Certification lends some credibility, but it can never replace enthusiasm, a desire to learn, and the ability to communicate effectively with the client.

Kevin

Summer Solstice and Vitamin D

Winter is here and the days are short. A lack of sunlight is not only depressing, but it’s actually unhealthy. Sunlight provides us with the greatest source of vitamin D, which is one of the most important vitamins for the body. It’s also a common deficiency. The benefits of vitamin D are still being discovered, and awareness of its deficiency is becoming more common. Trainers, coaches, dermatologists, and chemists are recommending that we get more. The American Academy of Pediatrics now recommends 400 IU per day and the FDA will more than likely increase its recommendations in 2010. But there are some myths, facts, and half-truths that you need to know before you start supplementing.

Claim: Vitamin D is a hormone
True

Vitamin D is actually a misnomer; it’s not a vitamin. Some doctors wouldn’t consider it a hormone, but calcitdiol (25D3) is the metabolic product of cholecalciferol, or D3, which is made at the skin. When sunlight hits the skin it converts 7-dehydrocholesterol to vitamin D3, which then turns into 1.25 d3 in the kidneys. Calcidiol (1, 25D3) is what’s actually measured in a drug test and is a prehormone. Calcitriol is made in the kidneys and a steroid hormone

Claim: 400 IU is enough
False

The government’s recommendation was made almost 40 years ago. 400 IU is just enough to maintain bone health and prevent rickets, but even this is probably far too low. Recommendations from most dermatologists are at least 1,000 IUs. The vitamin D council recommends 5,000 IU or 50 ng/dl. Robert Heaney at Crieghton University recommends 3,000 IU per day. A healthy level of vitamin is about 35-50 ng/ml, although the vitamin D council recommends up to 80 ng/dl. 3000 IU would be the minimum to reach 35 ng/ml. To find your level of vitamin D, measure 25-hyrdoxyvitamin D (calcidiol) in your next blood test. Reinhold Vieth, a leading researcher of vitamin D at the University of Toronto, recommends 4,000 IU.

Claim: Vitamin D can boost athletic performance
Maybe

German swimmers actually used sunlamps 80 years ago to increase performance. Athletes have used sunlamps since to increase endurance, speed, muscle strength, and improve reaction time. The American Council of Sports Medicine published a study showing that vitamin D enhanced athletic performance. Vitamin D, along with calcium, helps strengthen bones, which could help runners and prevent osteoporosis in swimmers, cyclists, and other athletes in non-weight-bearing sports. The Russians and German both showed improvements in their athlete’s performance in the 1930s and ‘40s. German children were given large doses of vitamin D showed improvements in strength and fitness. The theory is that vitamin D can increase protein synthesis.

Claim: Vitamin D can facilitate fat loss
Maybe

Dermatologist Shalamar Sibley says that vitamin D can help with fat loss on a reduced-calorie diet, and even preserve muscle mass. Preserving muscle mass would help prevent any decrease in metabolism. Vitamin D might also stabilize insulin levels and reduce cravings for junk food. Vitamin D can decrease the release of insulin and maintain blood glucose levels. UV-B and vitamin can regulate blood sugar and appetite. A healthy weight is correlated with adequate amounts of vitamin D. Obesity is linked with impaired production of vitamin D from UV-B radiation. The theory is that low levels can increase the production of free fatty acids. This means calories turn into fat. Vitamin D and calcium can help prevent fatty acid synthesis. Therefore, if you want to burn fat, get more vitamin D. However, most evidence for these roles comes from in vitro, animal, and epidemiological studies. Findings presented at the Endocrine Society's 91st Annual Meeting in Washington, DC, showed that higher levels of vitamin D were inversely related to weight loss. Researchers cautioned that “it is not clear whether or not inadequate vitamin D causes obesity or the other way around. Higher baseline vitamin D levels of both 25(OH) D and 1,25 (OH)2D were linked to increased loss of abdominal fat. UVB stimulates melanocytes to produce melanin and melanocyte--stimulating hormone, which is important in weight loss and energy production.

Claim: Vitamin D can be easily obtained in food
False

The best sources of vitamin D include eggs, halibut, salmon, mackerel, cheese, beef , and fortified milk. Just to get 400 IU, you’d have to drink four glasses of milk. If it’s so hard to get vitamin D through diet, then how did human ancestors obtain it? They used to eat shellfish, oily fish, and insects but today we don’t eat those foods for social reasons. Humans would eat the fur and skin of animals, which was loaded with vitamin D. They would eat the tissues and organs of their animals but organs are not a part of modern society’s diet. It also hurts that many people avoid egg yolks, which contain all the D in an egg. Vegetarians get almost no vitamin D naturally. Human ancestors, it is estimated, obtained 3000-6000 IU daily. Best sources per 100 grams:

Cod Liver Oil: 10000 IU
Pork fat: 2800 IU
Herring: 680 IU
Oyster 640 IU
Catfish: 500 IU
Sardines: 480 IU
Mackeral 450 IU
Smoked Chinook Salmon: 320 IU
Sturgeon Roe: 232 IU
Shrimp, canned and drained 172 IU
Egg yolk: 150 IU
Almond Milk: 100 IU
Orange juice, fortified 100 IU

Claim: Vitamin D can increase longevity
Maybe

The New England Journal of Medicine recently showed a correlation between several diseases and vitamin D deficiency. Other studies clearly show that a supplementing with vitamin D can reduce mortality. The vitamin D council says that a D deficiency is a factor in 17 forms of cancer. Vitamin D is inversely proportional to the rates of diabetes. High levels can reduce fatigue, depression and season affective disorder (SAD). Increasing vitamin D can also reduce your risk of Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s. A study in the Archieves of Internal Medicine linked vitamin D to lower mortality rates. In a miraculous study, Dr. Anu Prabhala treated five paralyzed patients with 50000 IU of vitamin D and all become mobile within six weeks. Vitamin D has also been show to contribute to immune health, muscle strength and hormone production. In the 2000s researchers have shown that vitamin D is one of the most potent antioxidents. Low vitamin D is associated with Sjogren’s syndrome, rheumatoid arthritis, thyroiditis and Crohn’s disease, all common auto-immune disorders. Breast, prostate, skin and colon cancer are linked to low levels of vitamin D. Vitamin D can improve fertility and increase production of dopamine, epinephrine, and norepinephrine, which means vitamin D can treat Seasonal Affective Disorder with just two hours of exposure to a light box. However, the Women's Health Initiative, in which 36,282 postmenopausal women of various races and ethnicities were randomly assigned to receive 400 IU vitamin D plus 1,000 mg calcium daily or a placebo, found no significant differences between the groups in the incidence of colorectal cancers over 7 years. However, more recently, a clinical trial focused on bone health in 1,179 postmenopausal women residing in rural Nebraska found that subjects supplemented daily with calcium (1,400-1,500 mg) and vitamin D3 (1,100 IU) had a significantly lower incidence of cancer over 4 years compared to women taking a placebo. The different result could be attributed to the higher doses in the Nebraska study.

Claim: Vitamin D can prevent heart disease
Maybe

Again, correlation is not cause. Research in the last ten years have shown that low levels of vitamin D can contribute to syndrome X, the combination of hypertension, obesity, diabetes, and heart disease. When high levels of calcium, but low levels of D are present in the blood, leads to calcification of arteries, joints, and kidneys. Deposition of calcium in the arteries can cause atherosclerosis. This might be the missing link between industrial society and high levels of cardiac disease. Even the Vitamin D council warns that associations are not causes. While there are correlations between vitamin D and a litany of ailments, it’s impossible to pinpoint a single deficiency as a cause of any disease.

Claim: Vitamin D Enhances Bone Health
True

If you are predisposed to osteoporosis, than calcium is not enough. It’s recommended that you supplement with vitamin D. Not only does it control calcium levels in the blood, but it also aids in absorption of magnesium, iron, and zinc, minerals that are commonly deficient in our diet. Without sufficient vitamin D, bones can become thin, brittle, or misshapen. Osteomalacia is the result of weak muscles and bones.
Claim: Tanning/sunlight is a good way to get vitamin DTrueLying in a tanning bed for just 10-20 minutes can provide several thousand IUs of vitamin D. Tanning too long can burn the skin and cause cancer if done repeatedly. Going outside to get your vitamin D is probably the easiest, cheapest, and most effective way to get vitamin D. Length of exposure ranges from 5-30 minutes, and depends on cloud cover, the color of your skin, and pollution. It’s important to get sunlight during the late morning and early afternoon to get UVB exposure. Brief exposure to the sun probably is not enough. Tanning beds usually contain UV-A and a little UV-B. UV-A is now linked to non-melanoma skin cancers. UV-B interacts with cholesterol to produce vitamin D. To get maximum exposure, 85% of the body needs exposure during midday. Dark-skinned people need up to two hours per day! During the winter UV-B is less prolific. Living above 34 degrees north or south (almost all of North America and Europe) means that for several months per year, exposure to sunlight isn’t enough. The key is to get moderate amounts on a consistent basis. Single bouts of intense exposure can cause burn and suppress the immune system. A Sperti sun lamp provides just the right amount of UV-A and UV-B. Make sure your tanning bed contains more UV-B than UV-A. Humans can make up to 10,000 units of vitamin D within 30 minutes of full body exposure to the sun.

Claim: You Should Supplement with Magnesium and Calcium along with Vitamin D
True

High levels of Vitamin D without calcium can lead to calcium leaching. That is, vitamin D will take calcium from the bone, not from the blood. Accumulation of toxic materials can occur without magnesium and zinc. Aim for at least 1200 mg of calcium and at least 600 mg of magnesium. Calcium and magnesium should be taken several times per day, not once. Limit your intake of polyunsaturated fats (found in vegetables oils) and eat some fat when you take vitamin D, as vitamin D is a fat-soluble vitamin (or hormone). Too little vitamin D can reduce the number of binding proteins

Claim: Too much vitamin D is bad
Maybe

Some dermatologists believe anything higher than 65 ng/ml is too much. Dr. Reinhold Veith, a nutritional scientist at University of Toronto, and one of the world’s leading authorities on vitamin D believes 20000 IU can be toxic and recommends an upper limit of 10000 IU. Chronic supplementation should not exceed 4000 IU. High levels of D can lead to heart rhythm abnormalities, raise blood levels of calcium , and increase the chance of kidney stones. Veith reports human toxicity probably begins to occur after chronic daily consumption of approximately 40,000 IU/day (100 of the 400 IU capsules).

Claim:
You Should Supplement with Vitamin D
True

This should be clear by now. Because most people spend most of their days indoors, live in northern latitudes, use excessive sunscreen, and eat foods that are poor in vitamin D, supplementation is necessary. The Vitamin D council now recommends about 50 ng/dl, but 35 ng/dl should be the minimum. The daily recommended value of 400 IU is far too little. Taking a supplement of at least 3-5,000 IUs in the winter, and making a habit of exposing most of your body outside between 10 AM and 2 PM during the spring and summer for at least 10 minutes, should give you adequate amounts of vitamin D. While research hasn’t proved that vitamin D will prevent any disease, the number of correlations is hard to ignore. It’s important to get regularly tested for 25-hydroxyvitamin D, not 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D.

Claim: Absorption is based on many factors
True

Recommendations regarding supplementation and exposure to UVB sunlight depends on the following:-Height-Weight-Race-Gender-Age-Location-Season-Pollution levelsTaller people need more. Heavier people need more. Black and Hispanic people need more. Females need more than males. Old people need more than young people. People in northern latitudes need more. Everybody needs more during the summer. And people in cities with pollution and tall buildings need more. Keep in mind that UVB cannot penetrate glass, so standing in a sunroom is not beneficial.

Kevin

P.S.- I just got my first tan yesterday. Tanning is a safe way to get vitamin D in the winter. Too bad Congress wants to tax it. Policy-makers obviously don't read this blog.

Get Rid of Trans Fat

If you’re going to eat a lot of sugar this holiday season, at least don’t eat trans fat. I can’t imagine putting this into your body. Trans fat, a.k.a. partially hydrogenated vegetable oil (the world partially is key. Don’t worry about the chemistry. Just avoid that word in the foods you eat) is designed to keep foods solid at room temperature for a long period of time. It’s also designed to increase your risk of type-II diabetes, heart disease, and atherosclerosis.

How can you avoid trans fat?

Do not eat anything fried in oil with trans fat (or anything fried for that matter). Pop your own popcorn, which can actually be healthy snack.

Avoid processed foods like chips, cookies, crackers, cereals, dairy products, deserts, and energy bars.

Avoid eating at restaurants. Even salads can contain hidden trans fat. Where is it? It’s usually in the sauce or cheese.

Boycott Dairy Queen. You want ice cream? Eat something natural at Whole Foods. Dairy Queen’s malts, shakes, and Blizzards all have trans fat. Try the Xtreme Blizzard with 6.5 grams of trans fat, three times what you should eat, and 165 grams of sugar. That’s more than 6 packs of M&Ms!

Boycott Denny’s. The double cheeseburger has 7 grams of trans fat an 1500 calories. But that can’t beat Bob Evans’ caramel banana pecan hotcakes with 9 grams of trans fat, 109 grams of sugar and 1500 calories! That’s before syrup, and bacon, and sausage, and…apple pie. Get the one at Bob Evan’s with 13 grams of trans fat.

Don't fall for claims on products that say "zero trans fat." The FDA permits that label as long as the product contains less than half a gram, so it could have .4 grams. Look for products that say "no partially hydrogenated oil." That's the key. Look at the ingredients. If you find that word, find another product.

It's really simple. Do what I say and you'll never worry about Trans Fat.

In Defense of Jogging

Trainers in the fitness industry have turned against steady-state jogging recently. Everybody these days is touting the benefits of high-intensity interval training (HIIT), which refers to a form of cardio that undulates between intense periods of exercise interspersed with moderate or easy periods. For example, you would run hard for 30 seconds and then run easy for 1 minute. Rest-to-work periods vary, but the principal is the same.

I’m not going to deny the benefits of interval training. I incorporate it myself and I find it beneficial to increasing my top speed. Everybody should include it, whether you are a recreational “jogger” or an elite runner, or whether you specialize in the one mile, the 10k, or the marathon.

Jogging gets a bad reputation for several reasons. It takes a lot of time. To get any kind of results, you have to run for a sustained period of time to accrue any kind of benefit. Despite the recommendations by the World Health Organization to get 30 minutes of exercise per day, that’s the bare minimum, and it seems more like an inducement to get people to exercise. If the WHO told people they had to do 45-60 minutes each day, people would say they don’t have enough time. The thinking is that 30 minutes is better than nothing.

Long, slow jogging can also be boring. Doing the same form of exercise at the same speed, at the same intensity every day can get monotonous. This might explain one reason why people can’t adhere to an exercise program.

Another reason is that the body adapts to any form of exercise and that benefits diminish. This is simply the law of diminishing returns. When you first start exercising, the benefits come right away. Then they slowly diminish over time. That’s why some people can’t seem to lose any more weight. Their bodies have adapted to the form of exercise they’re doing.

Jogging also doesn’t elevate metabolism long after the workout is completed. In other words, you only burn calories during the workout but nothing after the workout. So if you jog for 45 minutes, the caloric burn stops as soon as you end the workout. On the other hand, HIIT workouts elevate your metabolism well after the workout has ended. This is called EPOC, or excess post-oxygen consumption. So not only does HIIT burn more calories per minute, but the afterburn of the workout will burn more calories. Jogging has no such after effect.

So fitness professionals have been telling people to do nothing but HIIT. Forget jogging. It’s inefficient. Your body just adapts to jogging. It’s an ineffective way to burn fat. It’s so common in the fitness industry to take things too far. This is another example. Trainers completely abandon one methodology for another. A few studies show the after effects of HIIT and all the sudden HIIT is the latest rage.

I’m not denying the benefits of HIIT: more efficient, more calories burned afterwards, etc. But rarely do trainers ever discuss the downside to HIIT. People who are just new to jogging and haven’t ever exercised should not do HIIT. They should instead establish an aerobic base (which they don’t have). After they have established that base, then they can slowly incorporate HIIT into their program. Prescribing hit to someone who has never jogged or ran in their life is a recipe for disaster. It’s like taking a high-school pitcher and sending him to the major leagues. He needs to progress through single, double and triple AAA before he’s ready for the big leagues. Non-exercisers need to progress in the same way. They need to establish a routine first, and then start doing short intervals. Eventually they increase the speed, incline or time of the interval.

But it’s important not to completely disregard the benefits of steady-state aerobic exercise. Women’s Health had a great article just last month about the benefits of jogging. It reports the following:

Researchers at Stanford University discovered that regular runners have a 39 percent lower risk of dying an early death compared with healthy adults of the same age.

Running can help prevent cardiovascular disease, diabetes, metabolic syndrome, osteoporosis, and even cancer

Most recently, a 2009 study published in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research found that running is as good a bone-builder as strength training.

The Journal of Anatomy found that running does not increase your risk of osteoarthritis, the cartilage decay that causes pain and inflammation in hip and knee joints. Nor does it wreck your back, according to a research review in the Southern Medical Journal. Researchers suggest that because running builds stronger muscles and ligaments.

Tom Holland, an exercise physiologist in Darien, Connecticut. "The reason runners can sometimes appear weathered is that they're thinner— low body fat makes fine lines more visible— and they're out in the sun more. Jogging also relieves stress and forces you to focus. Believe me, some of my best ideas have come on the treadmill!

Opponents also criticize the lack of muscle that marathoners and joggers have. They are contradicting themselves when they say this. On the one hand, they say that jogging is an inefficient way to burn fat. On the other hand, they like to point out how joggers look frail and weak. You know why? Because running burns so many calories that it’s almost impossible to gain muscle! I know that first hand. I can’t tell you how many trainers have told me to limit my cardio to gain muscle. Limiting cardio would impair my performance in triathlon. But if jogging doesn’t burn fat, then why can’t runners gain muscle?

The physiques of marathoners and sprinters are often compared to convince people that HIIT is the only solution to burning fat. Marathoners look weak and skinny, while sprinters look muscular and sleek. First of all, unless you train like Olympic sprinters, you’re not going to look like one. You don’t have the time, genetics, or inclination to train like them. So you’re not going to look like them when you do HIIT. Marathoners look skinny, but they have extremely low amounts of body fat, which is what people want. It’s a myth that marathoners have higher percentages of body fat. Proponents of HIIT say it’s because their levels of a hormone called cortisol are higher. This is false. Most marathoners have extremely low percentages of body fat.

I’d also like to remind you of what marathoner Bill Rodgers said, “if you want to win something, win a 100 m sprint. If you want to accomplish something, win a marathon.” I don’t care how sleek and muscular sprinters look. I’d rather look weak and have the endurance to run for several hours than to run for 100 meters.

If jogging is such a poor way to lose fat, then why have so many people lost weight doing it? I’ve talked to so many people who say they lose weight simply by exercising. They didn’t do any kind of HIIT. They would have lost weight faster had they incorporated HIIT, but the extra jogging create the energy deficit they needed to lose weight.

Even seasoned runners spend much of their winter training establishing an aerobic base. While many have questioned this methodology as well, there aren’t many runners who don’t do a significant amount of “base” training during the offseason as well. In fact, a study of marathoners just a few years ago showed that more than 80% of the training was at an “easy pace” while the other 20% consisted of threshold runs, hill repeats and speed work.

The opponents of steady-state jogging also fail to realize that jogging burns a significant amount of calories. It burns more than swimming, cycling, rowing, and the elliptical because of its high-impact nature. So if somebody who has never exercised before starts to jog 30 minutes every day and doesn’t increase his caloric intake, then that person will lose weight. At first the amount of weight he loses will be significant, and will eventually reach a plateau. He will reach a plateau only when the body becomes so efficient at jogging for 30 minutes that it negates the original caloric gap between expenditure and intake.

Opponents of jogging say that once the body adapts, then you will have to jog farther at the same pace to get the same effect. But if you start jogging for 30 minutes at 6.0 MPH, then eventually you will be able to run farther in the same amount of time at the same intensity. In other words, running one mile today will be just as easy as running 1.5 miles in the future. A mile is insurmountable to people who have never jogged before. But marathoners can run an “easy” mile in 6:00 minutes, believe it or not.

HIIT also has the same limitations. Even though the EPOC of interval training is higher, if somebody does the same workout over and over, he will eventually stop losing weight because the body will adapt. This is what enthusiasts of HIIT never mention. The body will adapt to interval training too. That’s why it’s important to increase the speed, duration, or intensity of the interval. Joggers need to challenge their bodies in the same way.

So how do you incorporate HIIT? In depends on your history, available time, and frequency that you run. If you’ve just started to run, I’d start jogging at an easy pace for 3-4 weeks and establish a base. If you can’t run a mile, you have no reason doing HIIT. Once you feel comfortable jogging for 30 minutes, add some intervals to your program. A typical program would look like this for somebody who can run just three times per week:

Weeks 1-41.
1.30-40 minutes easy
2.30-40 minutes easy
3. 30-40 minutes easy

Weeks 5-8

1. 10 min warm up 10x (20 seconds hard, 60 seconds easy), 10 min cool down
2. 30-40 minutes easy
3. 10 min warm up 10x (20 second hill sprint, 60 seconds easy) 10 min cool down

Weeks 9-12
1.10 min warm up, 5 min moderate, 5 min hard, 10 min cool down
2. 40-50 minutes easy
3. 10 min warm up 10x (30 seconds hard, 60 seconds easy)

After you’ve been running for 12 weeks, you can then start to increase the length of the intervals, decrease the rest time, increase the speed or incline, and increase the duration of the entire workout.

I hope I’ve brought sanity to the argument about HIIT vs. jogging. HIIT is certainly sexy while jogging is not, but both have their place. Neither one will bring optimal results by themselves. They need to be incorporated into a program. Without HIIT, you’ll become a slow jogger. With no jogging, you’ll burn out and you’ll never increase endurance.

Kevin

The Health Conspiracy

I was reading Dave Soucy’s blog the other day and I saw a video of Bill Maher berating the health care industry (you can see the video here). Bill Maher is openly progressive. He voted for Ralph Nadar, loves Michael Moore and Arianna Huffington, and was vehemently critical of George W. Bush during the 2000s. His views on health care, drug legalization, war, and the role of government are obvious to anyone who watches him.

The thesis of his rant was that the health care industry wants people to be sick and frail so that they can make billions selling expensive drugs. If people were healthy and had no pain, they’d have no reason to buy drugs that lower cholesterol, kill pain, unclog arteries, etc. If people were healthy, they’d n ever buy drugs. The logic seems simple. If people didn’t buy drugs, then the companies who sell them would go out of business.

This argument is false for several reasons. Does Bill Maher really believe that the creators of these drugs and the people who market them wake up every morning and hope that people are sick and broken? Do they hope they don’t find alternative treatment? If so, then they truly are monsters who deserve to go to hell. But I don’t think these CEOs of these companies really believe that. They honestly believe that they’re selling a product that people need and that will make them better.

Maher’s right that we as people can take a lot of precautions. We can eat right. We can exercise regularly. We can do strength training. We can stretch, brush our teeth, drink tea, have a strong purpose in life, and have plenty of social activity. I agree that a healthy lifestyle can preclude the use of prescription drugs almost all the time. And I agree we should do everything we can before we resort to expensive pills and medications. But there are instances when we need drugs and prescriptions. Diet and exercise don’t seem to be doing much for my testosterone levels. Many women such hypothyroidism despite leading a healthy lifestyle. Some people are predisposed to heart disease. Just recently one of the best triathlete’s in the world ended his career due to a rare heart condition that could kill him. Some people are born with type-I diabetes and need to inject insulin everyday.

Not everyone will take care of themselves the way they should. Nobody does all the time. How many people overate on Thanksgiving? Was that healthy? How many people will get wasted on New Year’s Day? Is that healthy? How many people strength train like they should? How many people have more than one person to confide in? Nobody is perfectly healthy.

This debate can also apply to anyone. I asked a couple of physical therapists the other day at my health club about this argument. They said there will be always be broken people, bad posture, and injuries. They’re simply providing a solution to that problem. Do they hope people are sick and injured? No, but there will always be demand for rehab. Chiropractors don’t want people to have bad backs, but they know people will have bad backs. Do personal trainers like me hope people never lose fat? No. I want people to get results. But there will always be overfat people in our society. And even if they were in good shape, they’d want to be in better shape. People are never satisfied. The fitness industry is serving a need to get into better shape. Nobody is perfect shape. And until everybody is in perfect shape, the fitness industry isn’t going anywhere.

To take this argument to the extreme would be to say that grocery stores hope people don’t learn how to grow their own food. If they did, they’d never shop at a grocery store. But nobody grows all their food, and only a few people actually grow a fraction of their food. The car industry sells cars, but does it hope that people don’t start walking or riding a bike everywhere, even though that would be healthier?

Should pharmaceuticals therefore deny drugs to people who didn’t care of themselves properly? Who’s to define what is proper care? At one point does someone become responsible? I agree that responsibility and preventive health care is lost in this whole debate, but the defintion of preventive care is elusive and fuzzy.

Imagining a world in which people don’t’ need drugs is a fantasy. If everybody in this country started to take care of themselves as best as possible, the number of prescriptions would gradually fall. Pharmaceuticals would either cut staff, or adapt.

How could they adapt? When people are healthy and don’t need drugs, they would start to demand something else that would improve their lives: drugs that improve mental clarity; supplements; protein powder; multivitamins, drugs that improve intelligence; drugs that prevent fatigue. The idea that pharmaceuticals would go out of business assumes that people’s wants and needs are static. As soon as we satisfy our needs and wants of today, we’ll be perfectly happy.

If people’s wants and needs were static, our economy would never grow. As we accumulate and build wealth, our wants and needs expand to meet that available wealth. Our economy is predicated on consumption of goods and services. How many people want nothing? The answer is zero, even though the average person today is far wealthier than our forebears generations ago. People will always want something. Wants change, but there will always be wants.

Kevin

How I Learned to Love the "Dread"mill

Until last year you wouldn’t see me on a treadmill, which I often called the “dreadmill”. I called it that because I thought it was a monotonous form of exercise. I couldn’t stand running in one place for a long duration of time. I always preferred to run outside. Sometimes I still do, but I’ve learned to love the treadmill for reasons I explain below.

I understand negative attitudes to treadmills (or Stairmasters, ellipticals, Concept 2 Rowers, and stationary bikes). It can be dull and boring. It’s not as scenic. It’s not as “natural.” You don’t get to run through nature or see the neighborhood.

But I can counter all those claims, and then enumerate the benefits of running on a treadmill that running on land simply cannot replicate.

I’ve been riding my bike on a trainer for three years now, and I never had problem with riding for an hour or even two hours. The concept is the same as running on a treadmill. You stay in one spot for a long duration of time and tax your cardiovascular system. For some reason I never applied this rational to running in a stationary position. Somehow riding indoors was tolerable but running in place was not.

When I started to follow a plan to prepare for my triathlon this year, it called for a lot of treadmill running. At first I wanted to do these workouts on land as much as possible. But I realized that to get the full benefit of the proven program, I had to spend time on the treadmill.
Over time, I came to like and love the treadmill for the following reasons:-I never had to worry about the weather. I never had to worry about rain, lightning, wind, or worse, cold air. I hated running in freezing temperatures. I hated spending money on winter clothing that only made running outside tolerable at best. I hate running with a lot of clothes. On the coldest days, I could run in my tri-suit and still wipe sweat off my face. This is one of the best benefits of the treadmill. I never have to worry about the forecast (except on race day).

-I could do whatever workout I wanted. If a workout called for hills, I could increase the incline to any grade I wanted for any length of time. Since my goal is to live in Florida in the near future, I will have to like running on the incline on the treadmill. I could do endurance work, progressive runs, intervals, and anything else I liked.

-I could watch TV and run at the same time. Most gyms these days have Cardio Theater, which is a service that delivers television to all the cardio machines. My gym, XSport, has TVs on every one of the 140 machines we have. They don’t have as many channels as I’d like, but they have my favorite channels. I can now do two things at once: get the news and workout. Someday, I’d like to have my own treadmill in my home, and watch movies. Watching TV and movies can be a good distraction during stressful workouts. It usually removes any negative thoughts I might have.

-I don’t have to worry about what I will eat and drink during a run. When you run outside, you have to carry water and food (if you choose to carry any at all). There are no aid stations and nobody to give you rations. The treadmill has a convenient cup holder. I can also put small amounts of food there. I don’t have to stash anything in my pocket. When I run out of water, I simply refill at the water fountain.

-The treadmill is a controlled environment. Weather is never an issue. There are no dogs. No stop lights. No pedestrians. No leaf blowers or other lawn equipment. No cyclists. The treadmill is always your own. You never have to share it with anyone. You don’t have to pass anyone. There are no potholes or cracks into which you can trip.

Downsides

I will admit there are a few downsides to the treadmill. As running coach Jack Daniels notes, perceived exertion is higher at any given speed on the treadmill, even though oxygen update is lower. I can attest to this. When I run at 8:30 per mile outside, my heart rate might be 125-130 beats per minute. My heart rate would be 10-15 beats higher on the treadmill, and it would seem much harder to run at that speed. The world record for the marathon, held by Ethiopian Haile Gebrselassie, is just under 2:04. The world record for the marathon on a treadmill is 2:31. You can see that running on a treadmill means we have to run slower. Nonetheless, we can still get a great workout and run at any intensity or heart rate we want.

Another downside is doing long, endurance runs on the treadmill. I still can’t imagine running more than 90 minutes at one time. However, I couldn’t run more than 30 minutes on the treadmill last year. Until I have to run more than 90 minutes either outside or inside, I won’t worry about exceeding that length.

Running outside has a few perceived advantages, but I don’t think they’re really based on reality. One claim is that it’s healthier to run in nature and breath fresh air. First, the air outside isn’t necessarily healthier than it is inside. In fact, many times it is worse, especially if you live in the city. The air quality index in the summer time can be atrocious. There are tons of particles and pollutants in the air. Running indoors means we are running in filtered, air-conditioned air. How refreshing.

We often hear that running allows us to connect with nature. Many runners have dreams of running through forests and parks. But this image is based on myth more than reality. How many people have access to such beautiful areas? How many people actually live on a lake, or next to a trail that goes through pristine forests? The nearly trail to me isn’t very long. Not only is it treacherous, but it starts on a street and ends in a parking lot. The Washington & Old-Dominion Trail is about 10 miles from my house. It’s nothing more than a long bike path with shrubs and bushes along the side. It also crosses several major roads. My point is, unless you live in the middle of nowhere, or in a national park, we don’t really run with nature. We run along congested highways, through neighborhoods, or on busy city streets.

Running outside doesn’t necessarily make you a faster runner. The best runners and triathletes effectively use the treadmill to do workouts that they simply can’t do outside. Some have proposed that treadmills aren’t as effective as running outside. But clearly, if Olympians and the top runners in the world use them, then they are certainly effective for your average runner!

I do almost all my running on the treadmill now. In the winter, I hardly run outside, except when I run immediately after dismounting my bike (a brick run). Until it’s light and warm outside, you won’t see me running. Even then, I’ll do most of my key workouts on a treadmill.
If you don’t like the treadmill, at least try it. Try one run per week. I think you’ll find that you can tolerate it, and even prefer it. Do your long runs outside. But I highly recommend that you do your interval, hill, and speed work on the treadmill. It’s much easier logistically and nothing can interfere with your workout.

Happy training.

Kevin

Not so Splendid: Part II

Last week I shared with you my awful experience with Splenda and the effects it has had on me: weight gain due to water retention, and a increased desire for carbohydrates and sweets. This week I look at more anecdotal evidence that SPlenda and artificial sweeteners are associated with fat gain and overfatness.

I was at Giant, my local supermarket, the other day, and as I was leaving, the young bag lady asked me how I liked my SoBe water. Sobe water is flavored with PureVia, which is natural sweetener made from Stevia. I told her I liked it and that I prefered a beverage with no artificial sweeteners. I told her I upset my digestive system (it doesn’t, but it has affected my digestive patterns), and that it didn’t agree me. The lady next to me agreed, and said she couldn’t tolerate much sucralose.

The bag lady said she loved Splenda. She said it allowed her to eat her 100-calorie cheesecakes. I noticed that she was 30-40 pounds overfat. Clearly, adding Splenda to her diet hasn’t helped achieve her ideal weight. This could be for several reasons. She could be overcompensating. She could be eating more cheesecakes because each cheesecake has fewer calories than a typical cheesecake. Thus, she doesn’t feel guilty eating them, since they are calorie. If she ate regular cheesecakes, then she would only eat one, not several. But I have no evidence that she’s eating more of these cheesecakes.

I suspect two other things are happening that explain her overfatness. Using Splenda has increased her cravings for carbs and other foods that have a lot of sugar, or that taste like sugar. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that she eats cheesecakes and liberally uses Splenda.

I also suspect that Splenda is somehow interrupting her hormonal system, and disrupting her natural metabolism. Again, I have no scientific evidence for this, but I have read plenty of stories and have seen preliminary evidence that Splenda can negatively affect our hormonal systems.

Here’s another observations I’ve made. I’ve never seen anyone who uses a lot of Sucralose that is actually in good shape. Think about it. How many people do you know drink a lot of diet soda, use artificial sweeteners, and are good shape? I see a direct correlation between diet soda consumption (and regular soda consumption) and fat. People who drink diet soda are either overweight, or are futilely trying to lose weight. People who are in good shape rarely consume diet soda.

Here’s the bottom line. If you’re trying to lose fat, then quit drinking diet soda. Even if you don’t overcompensate when you drink diet soda, keep in mind that it could be ruining your metabolism and hormonal system. If you want to lose weight, then you need to do what healthy people do, and that’s not drinking diet soda. If you don’t want to be overfat, then don’t do what your overfat counterparts are doing: drinking diet soda!

Not so Splendid

I used to be very holistic regarding nutrition. I believed you shouldn't eat anything unnatural or processed. I was adamantly opposed to artificial sweeteners, including saccharine, sucralose, and aspartame. I would occasionally "splurge" and have a diet soda. I never noticed any negative side effects.



As you know I still believe in whole, unprocessed foods, a term open to interpretation. The best definition comes from ultrarunner Dean Karnanzes, who uses this question as a test: would our ancestors recognize the food? If the answer is no, then it's probably a man-made food. Ancestors would not recognize artificial sweeteners.



I started incorporating Splenda into my diet a few months ago. My rational was that most sports supplements contain small amounts of Splenda to mask the chalky and unpalatable flavor. Those supplements are designed to be mixed with water or juice, so they must taste good in order for athletes to consume them. I figured Splenda was the safest of the artificial sweeteners. I wasn't sure about aspartame, and saccharine (Sweet N' Low, the pink stuff) wasn't found in many products anyway.



I gradually started using more and more Splenda until I was using several dozen packets per day! I was even using granulated Splenda when I ran out of packets. Moreover, I was drinking V8 Fusion Light, with a small amount of Splenda, and calorie-free salad dressing. The reason I was using so much was because I was drinking up to 10 smoothies per day (see my previous post about the liquid diet, which I still adhere to).



Splenda had the advantage of being cheap. Stevia, Purvia, and Truvia are all a little more expensive. I could get 400 packets of Splenda for about $13, far more than I could get with the other natural sweeteners (which tasted better). Splenda was also available in most restaurants, Starbucks, gas stations, and 7 Elevens, so I could always grab some there when I put ice into my smoothies.



Yes, here I was, a personal trainer with one of the most regimented and structured diets, eating large amounts of an artificial sweetener. I would put my packets into a sandwich bag every day to make sure I would have enough Splenda to last until the evening. The experiment came to end last week. I was at work, role-playing a consultation between a fitness consultant and a prospect looking to lose weight. My co-worker weighed me, and to my splendid surprise, found that I had gained 17 pounds! I couldn't believe it. I couldn't see the extra weight anywhere. My clothes weren't tight. I didn't feel fatter. I didn't look different. My diet hadn't changed. All I could suspect was the introduction of this chemical into my system caused me to retain all the water I was drinking.



Could this benign sweetener cause such a drastic change in my body? According to my perfunctory research, possibly. Here's what I found:



According to findings published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, a 12-week feeding study conducted at Duke University, control animals experienced an increase in body weight of 93 per cent over the 12 week study The effect of Splenda on body weight is likely due to the combined elevation of both intestinal P-gp and CYP. Splenda also affected the expression of certain enzymes known to interfere with the absorption of nutrients and pharmaceuticals. At the end of the initial 12 weeks, significant reductions in the levels of so-called beneficial bacteria were observed

Eight years of data collected by Sharon P. Fowler, MPH, and colleagues at the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio showed that diet soda is linked with obesity. They report a 41% increase risk of obesity with every can of diet soda consumed.

Observational evidence shows that there are side effects of Splenda, including skin rashes/flushing, panic-like agitation, dizziness and numbness, diarrhea, muscle aches, headaches, intestinal cramping, bladder issues, and stomach pain.

While I didn't notice any of those side effects, I definitely noticed the weight gain, which could've been a result of excess water retention. Some scientists speculate that Splenda can interfere with proper metabolism of nutrients and lipolysis (liberation of fat for fuel). So I am anecdotal evidence that Splenda can interfere with fat metabolism and can cause weight. Other side effects include an increased craving for carbohydrates and sugar. I definitely noticed this! I have never craved sugar like I have in the last few months.

I have not cut out all Splenda. No drinks, no supplements, no packets, no granulated sugar. I want to see if Splenda is really causing this weight gain. It could be the liquid diet I'm on, or drinking too much fruit in the afternoon and evening. We'll see. But others have reported unexpected weight gain with Splenda.

Should everyone absolutely avoid Splenda? No. Small amounts in sports supplements or drinks are fine. One or two diet sodas probably won't kill you. A moderate amount of Splenda is less likely to kill you than excess sugar, which is associated with obesity, insulin resistance, and type-II diabetes. So I'd rather you eat a little Splenda than a lot of sugar. Just don't add Splenda to your diet. You shouldn't avoid a performance enhancer just because it has a little Splenda.

My experiment with Splenda has ended. I wish I hadn't conducted it in the first place. Now I'm back to using just Stevia, and occasionally some Truvia. Keep it real.

Kevin

PS- I should've listened to my Aunt Lori before conducting this experiment. I should have listened to her warnings!

How Many Minutes Do You Need?

One trend in the fitness industry is designing workouts that are so effective and hard that they only need to last several minutes. These programs promise results in as little as seven minutes per day. It's hard to believe, but do these workouts really produce the results they promise? They have some validity. The infamous Tabata intervals, first produced by the Japanese scientist Isha Tabata, show that eight 20-second maximum bursts of effort interspersed with 10 second rest periods produced dramatic improvements in both aerobic and anaerobic fitness.

This trend isn't new. Remember eight-minute abs? Remember Bowflex's claim that you could get a strong, lean body with 3 20-minute workouts? Remember that machine that promised results in as little as 4 minutes per day? It was so expensive that it never really took off. A couple recent examples of this trend come to mind. I saw the 7-Minute Muscle by Jon Benson. Fabrice Ribalde takes it to an extreme with his 1-Rep workout. Body by Jake promises results in 11-minutes per day. Some magazines offer awesome workouts with guaranteed results in just minutes a day.



It makes you wonder why anyone would train for an hour in the gym. Who would train that long when you get results in a fraction of the time?



These programs have a lot of appeal for a couple reasons. First, people just don't think they have the time to train. They have the time, they just don't make the time. That's the crucial difference. If their life depended on training, they'd find a way. These same people always find time for television, video games, happy hour and and one-hour commutes, but can't find the time to take care of thier bodies. That's why "minutes a day" sounds so appealing. They don't have to make any adjustments to thier lifestyle. They can do a few easy exercises at some piont in the day and think that they are going to get results.



Womens' magazines are the worst culprit of this type of nonsense. They promise thier readers "flat abs fast," "get fit fast," and "drop 20 pounds before Christmas." I'm not making these up. I saw them at the grocery store this morning. These claims are of course false but you can print almost anything you want as long as you don't slander somebody.



On the one hand, I think the trainers who design these programs actually care about people getting in shape. I don't think there are many trainers who don't want thier clients to get results. The trainers who promise fast results realize that many people will not even consider using thier program unless it requires minimal time and that results will come fast. If they said their program required hard work, sweat, time, effort, and commitment, they might not capture their audience. Hard work doesn't sell.



However, these trainers are doing a huge dis-service to their audience. They make them believe that they can get results in a few minutes per day, and that results will come quick. They never mention lifestyle factors, such as previous exercise history, injuries, nutrition, posture, or fatigue. They promise thier readers something they can't have: great results with minimal investment. How appealing. Have the strength of a warrior in less than an hour per week.



These workouts are of course ridiculously easy. More often than not they show a model with a beautiful physique. This model of course did not get this body with this workout. Sometimes, the model is even smiling. Let me tell you something. If you're smiling and laughing in your workout, you're not working!



Here's the reality. If you want to get into shape or lose fat, you're going to have to work to do it. There are no shortcuts in life. If something is too good to be true, it's false. You have to invest time and effort to get results. This applies in all aspects of life. I laugh when I hear "hard-earned" money. What money isn't hard-earned? Somewhere, somebody worked hard to create the value of that money.



You cannot have the body of an olympian or champion with minimal investment. If you could, there would be no such thing as an olympian. Olympians are what they are because of the time and effort they invested to achieve their goals. They pushed their limits and never quit. They overran their mind's protective mechanism and expanded their comfort zone. Few people have the inclination to go that far.



So what do you have to do to get into shape? First of all, don't say you want to get into shape. You have to visualize your goal, and then say, I'm going to get into shape. There's a huge difference. Tell somebody you know. Write your goal on an index card and put it in your wallet. Then you need a plan to take you to your goal. Whether you're trying to increase muscle or lose fat, you're going to have to commit for several weaks, maybe even several months.



You have to be consistent too. You can't be discilplined one day and then slack off the next. This has to be a consistent effort every day. Your life has to change. You can't commit to going to the gym for one hour per day and then not change anything for the other 23 hours. In fact, it's those 23 hours will determine whether or not your achieve your goals. You have to adhere to a strict, but palatable nutrition program. You'll have to commit to eight or more hours of sleep. You'll have to skip some social events to make time for workouts. Everything comes with a price.



If you're trying to lose fat, expect to work out every day. You will have to do both strength training, metabolic conditioning, steady state cardio, and high intensity cardio. You will have at most one day off. If you're trying to build muscle, you'll still have to workout several times per week. But the other 23 hours in the day will be just as critical. You will have to have a dedicated recovery and nutrition plan.



One reason why people don't get results is because these trainers keep peddling programs and products that promise maximum results with minimum work. People believe them and then wonder why they don't get results. Becaues results require time and effort! You have to work. You can't do a few sets of easy exercises, and a few wind sprints and then think you'll have the body you want.



I think these programs are a manifestation of one of the worst characteristics of modern society: a short attention span and instant gratification. We want things to happen instantly. We don't want to wait. We want what we desire now. Now, now, now. That's why so many books and magazines use words such as "quick," "fast," "simple", and "easy." Those words are so appealing. I sound pessimistic and cynical, but if our society really did think long-term, we wouldn't be drowning in debt like we are now. The debt that is burdening this nation is a result of our impulse for instant gratification at the expense of the long-term consequences.




Kevin

How to Avoid Holiday Weight Gain Forever- Part II

My first post was an attack against Thanksgiving. Again, I'm going to anger some people and I'm going to get angry responses. Just at least consider this post. This time I'm going to attack another cherished holiday: Christmas. But I'm not attacking the purpose of the holiday or the religous aspect. Instead, I'm just attacking one of its unhealthy traditions: the constant parties, dinners, and festivals that take place in the weeks before Christmas. I'm not going to say we shouldn't celebrate Christmas. It, along with the Fourth of July, are the two holidays I think actually matter and that warrant a day off.



Like Thanksgiving, Christmas is a time of abundance of unhealthy food that ends up on peoples' waists. The health "experts" continue to recycle their advise about how to avoid weight gain this winter. Their tips are always the same, and they never seem to work. They don't work because they don't attack the root cause of the problem, or the unhealthy and ingrained beliefs we have about Christmas feasts.



The root problem is that we think we should gorge ourselves on Christmas Day, and during the four weeks preceding the holiday too. For some reason, the adage "everything in moderation" is no longer applicable. Call me Scrooge or a miserable human being (I'm neither), but the real solution is to have fewer parties, less food at those parties, healthier food at those parties, and smaller Christmas meals.



For some reason we think that part of the Christmas spirit is to eat enormous amounts of food. If there isn't a lot of bad food, then Christmas just isn't Christmas. Let's take a look at all the traditions that make Christmas the most wonderful part of the year (except the cold!)



-Christmas trees are beautifully displayed with ribbons, ornaments, bulbs, and even glass bulbs with trains that spin around in them



-Christmas carols. Unless you work in retail, you won't get sick of them. All the stores and radio stations play them for the last five weeks of the year. There's no other holiday that has its own soundtrack.



-Giving gifts. While I think we spend too much time and money giving presents to each other, there's no other time in the year when we do this. Only one person receives a gift on a birthday. I could say much more about gifts, but this is a health and nutrition blog, not a personal finance one.



-Santa Claus and all the other whimsical tales we tell each other. I use to love watching old Disney Christmas cartoons.



-Decorations. Parking light posts, stores, and even homes are all decorated with a beautiful assortment of wreathes, manger scenes, ribbons, statues, and lights. Our towns and neighborhoods look much different in December than during the rest of the year.


Christmas has both a secular and religious purpose. Obviously you should already know the religious aspect. It's a celebration of the birth of Christ, but there's no indication in the Bible that he was born on December 25. We're not even sure which year he was born in, much less which day. His birthday wasn't even celebrated for some 300 years after his death. December 25, then, is an arbitrary date to coincide with the pagan holidays, such as Rome's Saturnalia.



The secular aspect has to do with the time of year. Many cultures have holidays that celebrate the harvest, or the end of the growing season. Western nations are no different. Our harvest festival comes at the end of the year, when the days are the shortest.



The purpose of Christmas then, is to celebrate Christ, the harvest, and the end of the year, as well as to have a chance to be together with family and friends. Christmas provides a reason for families to see each other. That's very important in today's hyper-mobile society.



But one tradition needs to go: the large, gargantuan meals. I'm not referring to the number guests either. A large gathering of family, friends, or even neighbors is wonderful. I'm referring to the food. For some reason, people tend to make high-caloric, nutrient-poor food at Christmas that they never make at other times of the year. Let's take a look at some of the usual suspects:



-Candied sweet potatoes (one cup): 400 calories

-Fruitcake (one slice) 165 calories

-Cranberry sauce (1/2 cup) 200 calories

-Stuffing (1 cup) 400 calories (nothing beats a bunch of bread crumbs and meat juice!)

-Breadroll roll 130 calories

-Shortbread Cookie 40 calories (nothing but butter, by the way)

-Ham (3 ox) 250 calories

-Duck (3 oz) 260 calories

-Eggnog (1 cup) 400 calories -This one blew me away. One little cup has 400 calories. That would be almost a half gallon of soy milk.

-Pecan Pie (1 slice)- 500 calories. Pecans are healthy, but not everything else it comes with.



Despite all the traditions of Christmas, our culture seems to think that it's all about food. Without all that food, Christmas just wouldn't be the same.



Just as some athletes and people have physical contraindications to avoid particular exercises (think baseball pitchers and bench presses), some cultures have contraindications to avoid particular activities. Our society is broken, overweight, and sedentary. There is simply no need to have five weeks of overeating. It's only making our problem worse.



Imagine for a moment that Russia, a country with a notorious epidemic of alcoholism, had a tradition of drinking parties that lasted an entire month. Wouldn't people think, "why do they do that? That's why they're always so drunk! They're always looking for excuses to drink!"



We've established a tradition in this country of over-eating at a particular time of year, even though we overeat during the rest of the year, except in smaller quantities. Weight gain is the steepest in November and December, but weight loss is not as steep in January and February. Perhaps people are overweight as a result of the fat that they have accumulated over the past holiday seasons.



Planned overeating is okay once in a while. Everyone has a "cheat" meal once in a while. I disagree with this term, but it refers to a meal that is high-caloric and nutrient-poor and that deviates from the typical diet. As I've said before, there's room for all food in a diet.



The problem planned overeating at Christmas is that we don't just overeat once, we overeat starting on Thanksgiving. Everybody has a party. And at every party you'll find the typical unhealthy fare.



As I've already shown, there's plenty more to Christmas than a lot of food. That's what we should focus on instead. Friends and family should be the focus of Christmas parties, not a lot of food, much of which will go to waste anyway.



You might say that I'm breaking a tradition. Yes and no. Having a constant stream of parties has not always been part of our culture. I suspect it's only been in the last 40 or 50 years that we've done this. It used to be that people would cook a few delicacies on Christmas Day, like a goose and a pie. Like I said before, not all traditions are good. Just because we've always done it doesn't mean we should always do it.



We eat a large amount of food for all the wrong reasons. We don't eat it to become healthier, that's for sure. We don't eat eat it because we actually need it, but only because we think we deserve it, or because it's there, or because it's free, or because it's what we've always done.



Let's be honest. Overeating, especially for several weeks, is self-destructive. It's grotesque and unhealthy. I can't find any rationalization for it yet people get angry whenever I suggest that we stop overeating during the holidays. "Just because you don't want a lot food, doesn't mean nobody else does," they tell me. "You don't have to have the cookies." I won't have those cookies, but just because other people want those cookies doesn't mean we should provide them. Then they'll tell me, "life is short. Enjoy it." To me, putting dirty, greasy food into you mouth that might provide a few minutes of pleasure is ridiculous when you consider that you will deal with that fat gain for the rest of your life. I enjoy life because I am healthy, and I feel the benefits of healthy living every day, not just for a few minutes.



No holiday or tradition can justify such a destructive and unhealthy behavior such as massive eating. Massive eating is no more acceptable than hot dog-eating contests. I find them just as gross. The thing is, at least the participants admit that they're disgusting. We have a hard time admitting that the five-week marathon of indulgence is okay just because it's part of the Christmas spirit.



I prefer not to feel overstuffed, glutinous, and fat after every holiday. I prefer not to look at those extra pounds of fat around my body on January 1. Just ask yourself, "is it worth it?" We have equated a lot of food with pleasure, and we pay dearly for it. If everybody were fit, healthy, strong, and at a normal body weight, then a few traditional treats wouldn't be a bad idea. The problem is, we're not fit, healthy, or strong, and we don't limit ourselves to a few treats. It's not just once Christmas dinner, it's a series of dinners.



What would a healthier Christmas season look like? Here's my proposal:



If you're going to host a party, banquet, or luncheon, then have the food catered. Tell the guests that they do not need to bring any food. All food will be provided. Instead of having dozens of trays of food and a ton of different cookies and desserts, it would be best to have Whole Foods or Boston Market provide all the food for you. Nobody will complain about your party if there are plenty of people there and if the atmosphere is good. In fact, some people might thank you for not having tempting treats and other high-caloric food.



If you're the boss of a company, plan to give your Christmas bonuses at a palatable restaurant. Reserve a room, and let everybody eat a regular meal.



Limit the number of parties you need to attend. Unless you're the head honcho, you probably don't need to go to every event you're invited to. Limit yourself to one business and one personal party over the course of a month.



When cooking Christmas dinner, you have a couple options. Go to Whole Foods or Boston Market a couple days before, and buy what you want. Everybody will get a plate of turkey, vegetables, and maybe a couple scoops of traditional stuffing. That's it. There are several advantages to this option: you don't have to cook anything; you don't have to clean anything; you won't be stuck with leftovers; and best of all, food will not be the focus of Christmas



You're second option would be to prepare your own food, but serve less than you think. Buy the smallest turkey possible. Cook a ton of vegetables. Skip the ham, the potatoes, the drinks, the cookies, the pies, the gravy, the sauces, the chocolates, and all the little extras that will linger in your refrigerator and your fat cells.



That concludes my analysis and diagnosis of Christmas. Other "solutions" to not overeating do not work because they don't even attempt to fix the cause, which is our misguided belief that Christmas justifies massive eating. It doesn't and shouldn't.



Kevin

How to End Holiday Weight Gain Forever

I was perusing the health and fitness magazines the other day at my local grocery store. Since it's the beginning of November, they all have at least one article telling thier readers how to avoid gaining weight in November and December. These articles never say anything new and they are more or less recycled versions of last year's article.
Typical tips include:

-Eat before you go to the party so you're full
-Eat plenty of fiber
-Stay away from the buffet table
-Choose what you'll eat before you grab a plate
-Hold a bottle of water so you're hands are occupied
-Eat mindfully and slowly

If these tips really worked, then why do they have to publish these guidelines every year? Clearly they don't work. If they did, then people would not gain an average of seven pounds in November and December. By the way, that's over 35,000 extra calories! It's hard to imagine such rapid fat gain. But consider that one cup of eggnog has 400 calories, one slice of pecan pie has 500 calories, and a little spoonful of stuffing (whole wheat or not) has 200 calories, and you can begin to see how 20,000 is achievable. But still, that's a lot of food.

In a previous post, I talked about how we need to modify Halloween. Trick-or-treating is fine, but we need to limit the amount of candy we give to kids, and the quality of the treats. I'm going to take another controversial stand and say that the holidays need to be modified as well. Let's begin with Thanksgiving. Thanksgiving was originally celebrated in 1621 in Plymouth, Massachusetts. The happy and whimsical story we teach our kids isn't true, but that's beyond this article. If you want to read what really happened, refer to Charles Mann’s article.

But I want to point out the context of the first Thanksgiving. The pilgrims were starving. It was a celebration of survival, and an attempt to forge an alliance, not a celebration of a lot of food. My point is that a large feast was a sign of gratitude and friendship. Today, we aren't starving. We don't have to worry about our next meal. We're not trying to make peace or finagle our neighbors. We have more than enough food. We could have Thanksgiving every day if we wanted to. And judging by the size of many people today, perhaps they do.

Thanksgiving wasn't even celebrated as a holiday until 1863. It's not as if it's an indelible part of our culture. Should we continue to celebrate Thanksgiving? I don't think so but it's not going away any time soon. Any person with faith should give thanks every day, or at least a lot more frequently than once per year. I give thanks before a good meal, or sometimes even after a hard workout. Thank you for giving me the ability to run today, God, because I might not have my legs forever.

Here's my prescription for a better Thanksgiving:

-If you're not celebrating with family, then consider it a work day. Don't worry, Christmas is only four weeks away and Veterans Day was just a couple weeks ago. It's not as if you're deprived of holidays.

-Rake up the rest of the leaves. If there are still leaves on your yard, then don't wait longer. You'll kill your grass and everyone will think you're lazy. Don't use a leaf blower either. It shows that you don't like yard work and they're too loud.

-Play flag football. Instead of watching football, why don't you actually play football? The weather in most of the United States is perfect for explosive sports like football.

-Put up your Christmas lights. -As for dinner, don't be extravagant. Imagine that Thanksgiving is just like any other dinner. You've invited some friends to your house, and you're going to share a meal together. The focus should be on the company and the people, not the food. Instead of having a seven-course marathon, have some turkey, stuffing (I'd skip it), and some vegetables. It's really that simple. If you make less, you'll have fewer leftovers, less cleaning, fewer dishes, and less preparation time. Skip the pumpkin pie, thick gravy, and other "traditional" foods.

-Make less than you think. I've been to parties where there was less food than normal and nobody complained. I suspect it's because people are more focused on conversation than food. -Do your Christmas shopping on Amazon.com and skip the mall tomorrow. In my next post, I'll talk about a modified Christmas. Don't expect recycled tips. Expect to be offended.

Kevin

A Natural Bias

I was watching Isabel de Los Rios' video blog about high fructose corn syrup. She's the creator of the popular Diet Solution Program. She's passionate about her product, and about good nutrition. I like her articles and her blogs but I have to take exception to her latest rant against chemicals.



Her first countercharge is that HFCS is not the same as natural sugar, or sucrose. She admits that HFCS is somewhat natural because it's derived from corn, but it goes through so much processing that it becomes a chemical. Thus, when we eat HFCS, we are ingesting chemicals (along with the thousands of other chemicals that are floating around in our body.) She calls HFCS a "toxin", a claim she doesn't back up.



She says HFCS and table sugar (a disaccharide) are not the same. In fact, they contain very similar amounts of glucose and fructose (monosaccharides). I'll tell you something: the effects of eating too much of either are the same. As I've said before, ingesting a lot of sugar, as natural as it is, will lead to rapid fat gain. De Los Rios admits, "even if they were the same, sugar is horrible for you too."

Here's the best part. She refutes the charge that HFCS and honey are the same. She says honey is "natural" and made by bees, while HFCS is made by evil chemists.


Her second and third charges completely contradict each other. She says we should avoid sugar on one hand, but then she says honey is a wonderful natural product. What is honey? Honey is straight sugar! One tablespoon has 15 carbohydrates. It's also very high on the glycemic load index (a measure that takes into account the volume of food as well as the rise in blood sugar). As natural as it is, it's still sugar, and humans were never designed to consume large amounts of honey. Our ancestors were rarely able to obtain it. There were no teddy-bear-shaped containers of honey back then.


De Los Rios is not really attacaking HFCS at all. In fact, she's part of a wider campaign to discredit anything that is not considered natural or organic. Anything man-made is bad, while everything from nature is good. Honey and sugar are good because they're natural, while Splenda, HFCS, and all the millions of other chemicals are bad


Is natural necessarily better? No. Honey is a concentrated source of sugar that should only be used in small quantities. The bees that produce honey can injure or kill people. Swine Flu is natural too. So is the common cold. Nature can be a brutal, nasty place. Humans used to die after 30 or 40 years. But in our "toxic" and man-made environment, we're living twice as long.

And what about medicine? If we aren't supposed to ingest chemicals, then I suppose we should never take man-made medicine. Instead, we should only use herbs and natural remedies from Andrew Weil's books to solve our medical problems.


Just 40-50 years ago everyone believed in "better living through chemistry." Man could perfect the world through the wonders of technology. At some point, chemistry and man-made chemicals become synonomous with evil. It was seen as tampering with nature. Natural now means good and benign.


Life is never so simple. We cannot create such simple distinctions. It's like saying some foods are "bad" and some are "good." In fact, some foods are only good until a certain point, and some are only bad beyond a certain point. We need to discard black-and-white thinking.


I think the natural movement is a testament to how spoiled we are. We have so many conveniences, comforts, and features these days that we forget how much they have actually improved our lives. The people who attack "man-made" chemicals or products fail to realize how much they benefit from the marvels of the modern world. Almost all of them use You Tube and laptops, drive cars, have iPods, expensive TVs, cell phones, and use the internet on a consistent basis. None of them actually live "naturally."

If they want to live naturally, they can. They just shouldn't expect to live as long or send text messages.

Kevin

Is Your Hand in the Cookie Jar?

That's the question that Smart for Life Cookies asks on its TV commercial. This is another fad diet that claims to have the solution to fat loss. Here's the concept in as few words as possible:

Eat specially-formulated cookies six times per day and lose weight. It's that simple. It was created in the early 2000s by Dr. Sasson Moulavi, a bariatric physician.

The diet, as silly as it sounds, actually has quite a few benefits:

-It’s cheaper than food. It costs as little as $10 per day to sustain your body on this program. Of course, that also depends on your nutritional needs, but if you ate nothing but cookies all day, you could certainly save money. You only save money on this program because you're eating so little. Want to really save money? Eat one fast food meal and take a multi-vitamin to cover your nutritional deficiencies. I guarantee rapid fat loss without expensive programs like this.

-Reduced hassle. I like this one. I like good meals, but I'm a busy person and I don't have time to cook a different meal every night, much less for every meal of the day. Even if you did, your life would be spent procuring ingredients and cooking them. We live in an age of convenience, and Smart for Life is certainly compatible with that.

-Good taste. According to the testimonials, they taste good. All diets must include food that is palatable to the person on the diet.

-Plenty of nutrition. It has no preservatives, and it somehow incorporates fruits, vegetables, dairy products, and plenty of protein and carbohydrates. It sounds like Alive! Energizer to me.

-High level of satiety. According to Smart for Life, a few cookies every few hours will keep you satisfied. I highly doubt this. Who actually feels full after a couple of cookies? I suspect people who eat these cookies count the hours and minutes before they can eat another cookie. If it does keep you full, it’s because it has fiber and a generous amount of protein. But you don’t have to eat expensive cookies to get fiber and protein.

-Support. Smart for Life has over 30 weight-loss centers to help and counsel their clients.

-Benefits. According to the web-site, a cookie diet will reduce your cholesterol, increase your insulin resistance and keep your insulin levels in balance, lower your weight and improve bone health. But I imagine this is due to the caloric deficit it creates. If you ate two pieces of cake everyday, you'd get all these benefits too (but also a sharp rise in insulin).

Of course, there are two big catches here. First, it's not really a cookie diet. Smart for Life sells shakes, muffins, supplements, and other food. Perhaps even they realize that the monotony of cookies is not sustainable for most people. So it's not really a cookie diet, but really a diet of Smart for Life products.

The other big catch is that the Lifestyle Program that they offer places the "patient" on a very strict diet of 800-1200 calories per day. Anything less than 1500 in my opinion is death. An old lady in a wheelchair would need more than that. Of course, if you're trying to lose weight, you have to create a deficit. Smart for Life says most people need 2500 calories per day (not true), and that if you ate only 800 calories per day, you'd create a 1700-calorie deficit per day, which would be one pound of fat per day. So they then calculate that you can lose 15 pounds in one month. Of course, they used the highest estimate for average intake the lowest estimate for caloric intake on the Smart for Life diet to come to their outrageous calculation.

If you want to get results like that, eat 800 calories per day of real food and skip the Smart for Life cookies. Good luck.

Kevin

Better Treats

I’m going to take a controversial stand today. Any time you attack a tradition you're going to receive flack for it. Halloween and Trick-or-Treating is almost a national pastime. It’s what defines the calendars of October. Stores are dressed in orange and black. Costumes are everywhere. Commercials advertise Halloween specials.

Halloween itself is fine, but the concept of Trick-or-Treating needs to be modified. Just because it’s a tradition doesn’t mean it’s a good tradition. The Mayans used to sacrifice hundreds of people just to satisfy the gods and to make sure the cycle of life continued. Trick-or-Treating isn’t as bad of course but you get the point.

Trick-or-Treating originated centuries ago in Europe when poor people would sing songs in return for food. I don’t know about you but I can’t remember the last time I heard Halloween carols. And I can’t remember the last time I gave a cake to a kid.

Why am I attacking Halloween? Almost one-third of children today are considered obese or overweight. Kids are getting less and less exercise. Type-II diabetes is appearing almost at birth these days. Even if kids were at a normal weight, I would still advocate against the avalanche of candy we give kids on one night.

I admit that I celebrated Halloween until I was about 13 or 14. I went out as Dick Tracy, Batman, a Ninja Turtle, and a hockey player. I even impressed everyone with my Bill Clinton mask and white stains on my pants in October 1998. My goal every year was to gather more candy than anyone else. I have vivid memories of my grocery-sized bag filled with candy.

It appears, then, that I’m trying to deny today’s generation what I once had. This is true, but kids also used to be able to work in coal mines and they used to smoke at a much younger age. Marijuana and cocaine were once legal, so should we make those drugs freely available to kids?

We call Trick-or-Treating a tradition but then we mock hot dog-eating contests as insane, gross, and even dangerous. But consider Trick-or-Treating as a candy-eating contest. Kids eat enormous amounts of candy over the span of several days, much of which is consumed on one evening.

Let’s look at the nutritional quality of a typical Halloween feast:
5th Avenue (1 full-size bar) -- 280 calories, 14g fat
Snickers (1 full-size bar) -- 280 calories, 14g fat
Twix Caramel (2 bars) -- 280 calories, 14g fat
Baby Ruth (1 full-size bar) -- 280 calories, 13g fat
Butterfinger (1 full-size bar) -- 270 calories, 11g fa
Milky Way (1 full-size bar) -- 260 calories, 10g fat
Mr. Goodbar (1 full-size bar) -- 210 calories, 14g fat

What can you give instead? There are plenty of options:
- Lolli-pops
- Chewing gum
- Baseball cards
- Raisins
- Cashews
- Sunflower seeds
- Microwave popcorn
- Small bags of crackers/chips

If you must give away traditional candy, then go with Starburst, Jolly Ranchers, Pixy Sticks, or Smarties. And whatever you give away, make sure you only give one piece to each child. Buy less than you think, and stop giving away candy after three hours. Kids who stay out late probably have more than enough.

I’m not saying you shouldn’t participate and be the Scrouge of Halloween. Don’t turn off your lights. Don’t ignore the knocking on the door. Just make wiser choices for the kids.

And what can you do with leftover candy? You have several choices:
-Eat it all and get fat
-Give it to co workers at work and let them get fat
-Throw it away
-Best option: take the candy out of the wrappers, and place the candy in a compost bin. If you don’t have a bin, go to Whole Foods and dump it. Next spring, that leftover candy will be the rich organic soil that brings May flowers.

Kevin

The Shoes You Really Should Wear

In my previous post I told you about Shape-Ups, and why they won't shape you up. Are there any shoes that I recommend? Actually there are.

They're called Vibram Five Fingers. They look like gloves for feet. They have individual sleeves for each toe. Vibram is a manufacturer of rubber soles. They actually designed the shoes for sailors, but ironically they have been adopted by strength athletes, runners, and other outdoor enthusiasts. According to the web-site: It puts you in touch with the earth beneath your feet and liberates you to move in a more natural, healthy way. FiveFingers stimulate the muscles in your feet and lower legs to build strength and improve range of motion. Our customers report an increased sense of balance, greater agility, and visibly improved posture." Again, these are mighty claims and we have to ask whether or not they're true.

As a runner I'm more interested in the benefits of minimalist shoes and barefoot running. Vibram and other proponents of barefoot running swear that these shoes allow them to run naturally, for longer distances and without injury. According to Vibram: “Running in FiveFingers improves agility, strength, and equilibrium, plus it delivers sensory feedback that allows runners to make immediate corrections in their form. This greatly improves running efficiency.”Again, bold claims.

There is plenty of research currently going on about the benefits and possible risks of running with minimalist shoes. In a future post, I will discuss the merits of barefoot/minimalist running, but I want to share my experience with you all.

I bought these shoes a few months ago. I loved the way they felt almost immediately. I started to wear them around the house, then in the gym, then on soft surfaces, and then finally on pavement.

What I love is the feel. I love wearing as little as possible. I hate excessive, bulky clothes. I feel almost imprisoned in clothes. That's one reason I hate winter, and envy people who live in countries where white dress shirts and khaki shorts are all you need. Anyway, I love the freedom of movement of the toes, and the compliments I receive about them. I certainly accept the claims of "feeling the earth" and improved sensory feedback. I would never wear anything else when I strength train. They feel great on soft surfaces. They also feel wonderful on grass and fields.

I will admit, however, that they have a couple of flaws. Walking on pavement for miles and miles has created a tear on the bottom of the third toe. I can feel the asphalt sometimes. I expected better quality from a $75 shoe.

As for running in these shoes, I don't recommend it. It's true that our ancestors ran barefoot, but not on concrete and asphalt. Some enthusiasts, like Barefoot Ted, featured in Born to Run, have run entire marathons with no shoes. So it's possible, but I suspect only for a few people.

I can't say my agility, strength, or posture have improved since buying them. If those components of my health have improved, it could be because of the training I do, not because of the shoes. I'm simply applying the same logic that I did to the Shape-Ups: does the training or the shoe improve conditioning? Perhaps the Five Fingers have improved my training, but it's hard to say. I think running itself improves strength, agility, sensory feedback, and balance.

I bought some Avia-Bolts this last summer. I wanted something that weighed less than 10 oz. The Bolts weigh 9 oz, and have minimal cushioning. They felt great until I developed retrocalcaneal bursitis. Bursae are sacs that surround the bones and tendons and provide cushioning and facilitate motion. The bursae in my heel became inflamed (hence, bursitis). I tried ice, heel inserts, and even considered acupuncture. The pain only subsided when I reverted to my old Brooks shoes, which provide a lot more cushioning. The reason the bursitis developed was because I am completely flat-footed. I have no arch at all. Many people are the same way. If you have no arch, buy shoes with cushioning.

Verdict: great shoes for everyday use. I use them to run (not literally) my errands, train clients, strength train, and to walk around the house. But I would never run in them. Go to your local outfitter, try them, and buy them. You might get a lot of stares, but you'll feel the ground in a way you've never experienced.

Kevin