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
Friday, October 30, 2009
Monday, October 26, 2009
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
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
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Shape-Ups
Sketchers' new brand of shoes, Shape-ups, are making bold claims. They are designed, according to the web-site, to improve posture, promote weight loss, and tone muscles. Not only that, but they improve blood circulation, straighten the back, tighten the core, firm the glutes, and even reduce cellulite. Their "dynamic rolling bottom, soft foam insole and dual-density midsole can target and condition the postural and stability muscles of the hips and lower back."
They even have a clinical study to back this up. During a six-week trial, the participants wore these shoes and saw noticeable gains in gluteal strength, lost a few pounds of fat, and increased low-back endurance. Of course, and here's the rub, they maintained their "typical walking program" and diet. The study doesn't say what that includes, of course.
On the one hand, I support any shoe that replace high-heels, the worst kind of shoe that a woman could wear. They promote a more natural gait, and I can't complain about that. Testimonials say they are more comfortable than regular shoes.
However, fat gain is not a result of bad shoes. You will not lose or gain fat because you're wearing the wrong shoe. Wrong shoes can ruin your posture, cause pain, and even lead to injuries. The reason some people can't lose weight is because they aren't walking or moving at all. A woman who wears Shape Ups and sits all day is not going to lose weight. Another woman who wears normal shoes and actually walks several thousand steps per day is going to lose more weight.
All the claims regarding increased fat loss, caloric burn, firmer muscles, and a tighter core cannot be attributed to the shoes. The benefits are not a result of Shape-Ups, but rather the actual act of walking.
The instructional video says that you can avoid the gym with Shape-Ups. I didn't realize that shoes work the upper body as well. That's pretty remarkable.
There might be one more benefit to these shoes, however. They might encourage women to walk more. If women think they're burning more calories with these shoes, and walk more as a result, that's terrific. But the fat they lose is because of the extra walking, not the design of their shoes.
Verdict: Save your $110.
Stay tuned for my next post, which will be about the shoes everybody should be wearing.
Kevin
They even have a clinical study to back this up. During a six-week trial, the participants wore these shoes and saw noticeable gains in gluteal strength, lost a few pounds of fat, and increased low-back endurance. Of course, and here's the rub, they maintained their "typical walking program" and diet. The study doesn't say what that includes, of course.
On the one hand, I support any shoe that replace high-heels, the worst kind of shoe that a woman could wear. They promote a more natural gait, and I can't complain about that. Testimonials say they are more comfortable than regular shoes.
However, fat gain is not a result of bad shoes. You will not lose or gain fat because you're wearing the wrong shoe. Wrong shoes can ruin your posture, cause pain, and even lead to injuries. The reason some people can't lose weight is because they aren't walking or moving at all. A woman who wears Shape Ups and sits all day is not going to lose weight. Another woman who wears normal shoes and actually walks several thousand steps per day is going to lose more weight.
All the claims regarding increased fat loss, caloric burn, firmer muscles, and a tighter core cannot be attributed to the shoes. The benefits are not a result of Shape-Ups, but rather the actual act of walking.
The instructional video says that you can avoid the gym with Shape-Ups. I didn't realize that shoes work the upper body as well. That's pretty remarkable.
There might be one more benefit to these shoes, however. They might encourage women to walk more. If women think they're burning more calories with these shoes, and walk more as a result, that's terrific. But the fat they lose is because of the extra walking, not the design of their shoes.
Verdict: Save your $110.
Stay tuned for my next post, which will be about the shoes everybody should be wearing.
Kevin
Friday, October 23, 2009
Everything the Body Needs
I was writing about Nature's Way Alive! Energizer yesterday and I remembered a scene from the movie The Matrix. Keanu Reaves is talking with one of the other members on board the vehicle they're in. They're all eating something that looks like polenta or oatmeal. One of the other members says, "it has everything the human body needs." The person Keanu Reeves is speaking to says, "it doesn't have everything."
Fortunately, you don't have to eat gruel to get everything the body needs. All you need is one scoop of Alive! Energizer. Click on the link, and then look at the nutrient facts (or specs). It's mind-boggling to think that that many nutrients can be in one spoonful of powder. If you are pressed for time, or you are eating a hypocaloric diet (fewer calories to maintain your weight), then I highly recommend you add one scoop (130 calories in the rice/pea protein version) to a cup of milk or water each day. It tastes great and it gives just about everything your body needs. If it doen't cover all of your nutritional needs, it will certainly help you reach your quota.
Assuming the bio-availability is equal to whole foods, then I never again have to worry about iron or B12, two nutrients that are otherwise hard to obtain in a diet, especially a vegetarian one like mine.
I find my Alive! Energizer at Whole Foods, but I'm sure Wegman's or other natural-food stores carry it as well. If you travel a lot, then I recommend the individual packets.
Kevin
P.S.- Sorry I can't remember the names of the characters in the movie. It's an interesting movie, but it's not worth another two hours of my time.
Fortunately, you don't have to eat gruel to get everything the body needs. All you need is one scoop of Alive! Energizer. Click on the link, and then look at the nutrient facts (or specs). It's mind-boggling to think that that many nutrients can be in one spoonful of powder. If you are pressed for time, or you are eating a hypocaloric diet (fewer calories to maintain your weight), then I highly recommend you add one scoop (130 calories in the rice/pea protein version) to a cup of milk or water each day. It tastes great and it gives just about everything your body needs. If it doen't cover all of your nutritional needs, it will certainly help you reach your quota.
Assuming the bio-availability is equal to whole foods, then I never again have to worry about iron or B12, two nutrients that are otherwise hard to obtain in a diet, especially a vegetarian one like mine.
I find my Alive! Energizer at Whole Foods, but I'm sure Wegman's or other natural-food stores carry it as well. If you travel a lot, then I recommend the individual packets.
Kevin
P.S.- Sorry I can't remember the names of the characters in the movie. It's an interesting movie, but it's not worth another two hours of my time.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
What I'm Drinking
I told you in an earlier post that I have started a new liquid diet. I "eat" nothing but shakes until I have a big salad at night. Those are the only calories I chew throughout the day. You might be wondering what exactly I put into those shakes. Here's a list
-Ice
-Sweetener: Splenda, Stevia, or Truvia. I'd use nothing but Stevia if I had the money.
-Bananas
-Frozen fruit: mixed berries, strawberries, Wyman's Own wild blueberries, pineapple, cherries
-Plant-based milk: Enriched Almond Milk, 365 Unsweetened Rice Milk, Almond Breeze Unsweetened Vanilla Almond Milk, Living Harvest Unsweetened Vanilla Hemp Milk
-TerraAmazon Cacao Powder
-Planter's Mixed nuts: pistachios, almonds, cashews, hazelnuts, pecans
-Protein powders: Nutribiotic Plain Rice Protein Powder, Nature's Way Alive! Energizer (vanilla flavor. This contains rice/pea protein), Manitoba Harvest Hemp Pro 70
Enjoy
-Ice
-Sweetener: Splenda, Stevia, or Truvia. I'd use nothing but Stevia if I had the money.
-Bananas
-Frozen fruit: mixed berries, strawberries, Wyman's Own wild blueberries, pineapple, cherries
-Plant-based milk: Enriched Almond Milk, 365 Unsweetened Rice Milk, Almond Breeze Unsweetened Vanilla Almond Milk, Living Harvest Unsweetened Vanilla Hemp Milk
-TerraAmazon Cacao Powder
-Planter's Mixed nuts: pistachios, almonds, cashews, hazelnuts, pecans
-Protein powders: Nutribiotic Plain Rice Protein Powder, Nature's Way Alive! Energizer (vanilla flavor. This contains rice/pea protein), Manitoba Harvest Hemp Pro 70
Enjoy
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Liquid Diet
I'm experimenting with a new diet: the liquid diet. With the exception of my salad at night, all the calories I consume are in the form of shakes. I'd like to share with you the advantages and disadvantages.
The reason I started this diet was because I was tired of sitting down every 2.5-3 hours to eat something. One of the principles of a good a nutrition plan is to eat smaller meals more frequently. This keeps your metabolism high and it ensures that your body will never sense hunger. But sometimes this can be highly inconvenient, as I can attest. It's hard to eat when you have meetings, appointments, clients, errands, and other arrangements. I can't be working with a client and then stop everything to eat a burrito. It would be rude and unsatisfying. Unless you work in an office with access to a microwave, refrigerator, and other appliances, eating five or six meals per day is unrealistic.
So convenience and portability is the probably the number one advantage. Shakes are portable and they can go anywhere. You can sip them while talking with people, while walking through a store, training clients, or sitting in a meeting. It's not considered rude to drink in the presence of others, especially in this day and age of bottled water. They don't require utensils, napkins, or a place to eat.
Shakes are easy to make. All you need is a blender to make them. The only ingredients in my shakes are: various protein powders, frozen fruit, a few packets of Stevia or Splenda as a sweetener, ice, plant-based milks (hemp, almond, and rice) and some chopped nuts. It takes very little time to make a quality shake with a lot of nutrition. Every night I spend about 10-15 minutes making the shakes that I'll need to bring with me.
But don't liquid calories lead to fat gain? Yes and no. Liquid calories such as soda, sports drinks, energy drinks, and teas have little to no nutrition, and are not satiating. But shakes made with fruits, vegetables, powders, and other whole foods provide plenty of nutrition, hydration, and are thicker and more luscious than liquid calories. They're like complete meals in a liquid form.
There are a couple of disadvantages. It's inconvenient to urinate every 60-90 minutes, but this is better than being parched and dehydrated. Usually you'll be close to a bathroom so it's not a problem. It's only a problem when in the car, or when you really need to go to the restroom while talking with someone.
Another problem is keeping these shakes cool. You might have to put them in a cooler with plenty of ice if you don't have access to a refrigerator. Camelback's Chill Jacket doesn't seem to work very well. One solution is to fill one water bottle with ice, or stop at a Starbucks or 7 Eleven and put ice in the shake. As for water bottles, I prefer the 24-oz Camelbacks with the straw that flips.
Try this diet for a couple days and see how you like it. If you don't like shakes, then obviously that will be a problem. If you don't like fruit, that would be another problem. Some people don't consider shakes a meal, and would much rather eat something hot. That's fine, as long as it's convenient.
Kevin
The reason I started this diet was because I was tired of sitting down every 2.5-3 hours to eat something. One of the principles of a good a nutrition plan is to eat smaller meals more frequently. This keeps your metabolism high and it ensures that your body will never sense hunger. But sometimes this can be highly inconvenient, as I can attest. It's hard to eat when you have meetings, appointments, clients, errands, and other arrangements. I can't be working with a client and then stop everything to eat a burrito. It would be rude and unsatisfying. Unless you work in an office with access to a microwave, refrigerator, and other appliances, eating five or six meals per day is unrealistic.
So convenience and portability is the probably the number one advantage. Shakes are portable and they can go anywhere. You can sip them while talking with people, while walking through a store, training clients, or sitting in a meeting. It's not considered rude to drink in the presence of others, especially in this day and age of bottled water. They don't require utensils, napkins, or a place to eat.
Shakes are easy to make. All you need is a blender to make them. The only ingredients in my shakes are: various protein powders, frozen fruit, a few packets of Stevia or Splenda as a sweetener, ice, plant-based milks (hemp, almond, and rice) and some chopped nuts. It takes very little time to make a quality shake with a lot of nutrition. Every night I spend about 10-15 minutes making the shakes that I'll need to bring with me.
But don't liquid calories lead to fat gain? Yes and no. Liquid calories such as soda, sports drinks, energy drinks, and teas have little to no nutrition, and are not satiating. But shakes made with fruits, vegetables, powders, and other whole foods provide plenty of nutrition, hydration, and are thicker and more luscious than liquid calories. They're like complete meals in a liquid form.
There are a couple of disadvantages. It's inconvenient to urinate every 60-90 minutes, but this is better than being parched and dehydrated. Usually you'll be close to a bathroom so it's not a problem. It's only a problem when in the car, or when you really need to go to the restroom while talking with someone.
Another problem is keeping these shakes cool. You might have to put them in a cooler with plenty of ice if you don't have access to a refrigerator. Camelback's Chill Jacket doesn't seem to work very well. One solution is to fill one water bottle with ice, or stop at a Starbucks or 7 Eleven and put ice in the shake. As for water bottles, I prefer the 24-oz Camelbacks with the straw that flips.
Try this diet for a couple days and see how you like it. If you don't like shakes, then obviously that will be a problem. If you don't like fruit, that would be another problem. Some people don't consider shakes a meal, and would much rather eat something hot. That's fine, as long as it's convenient.
Kevin
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Sweet Surprise
The Corn Refiners Association (CFA) has launched a new campaign called Sweet Surprise. The intent is to counteract the negative publicity that high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) has gotten in recent years. The sweetener has been blamed for the rise in obesity in the last 35-40 years. It's only been used since the 1970s to sweeten almost every food in grocery stores. Is the CFA confusing the public, or does it have a case?
The prima facie evidence suggest the HFCS is a prime culprit in the rise of obesity. As its consumption has increased, so have rates of obesity. People who eat products with HFCS are usually heavier, which suggests a link.
As an advocate of clean eating and whole foods, I actually have to side with the CFA. Chemically, HFCS is the same as sugar, or sucrose: both are disaccharides (molecules composed of two kinds of sugar), and both contain almost equal amounts of fructose and sucrose. Most medical evidence shows that they are metabolized the same in the body. Both are completely "natural" as HFCS derive from corn. You can get all this information at the campaign's FAQ.
The problem is not HFCS itself. If you eat something with HFCS, it's not going to make you gain weight. In fact, if 90% of diet is clean, then HFCS is small amounts is not a problem. It's not as if it distorts your hormones and disrupts your metabolism.
The true problem is that a diet that is highly processed, and contains a lot of sugar and refined carbs will undoubtably lead to fat gain. Since HFCS is found in most packaged and processed food, it's easy to blame this one ingredient. But the problem is not one ingredient, but the processed food itself. Even if food manufacturers substituted HFCS for another sweetner, obesity rates would keep rising. The problem is the overall diet, not HFCS.
Somehow natural sugar and it's many variations have eluded the attacks of nutritionists and tax advocates. I don't see why. If sucrose substituted for HFCS, the food would not be any healthier. Excess calories, especially excess sugar, are the problem, not HFCS.
When everything somebody eats contains HFCS, then that person is eating a diet of refined carbs, sugar, and processed food: cookies, chips, crackies, cereals, dressings, frozen food, juice, candy, etc.
Should you absolutely avoid HFCS? No. But beware that food with HFCS is probably not healthy anyway. HFCS usually is found in foods with a long list of ingredients and that have little nutritional value. If you eat a clean diet, then HFCS is unlikely to sneak into your diet. Keep your diet real and simple and you won't have to worry about HFCS.
Kevin
The prima facie evidence suggest the HFCS is a prime culprit in the rise of obesity. As its consumption has increased, so have rates of obesity. People who eat products with HFCS are usually heavier, which suggests a link.
As an advocate of clean eating and whole foods, I actually have to side with the CFA. Chemically, HFCS is the same as sugar, or sucrose: both are disaccharides (molecules composed of two kinds of sugar), and both contain almost equal amounts of fructose and sucrose. Most medical evidence shows that they are metabolized the same in the body. Both are completely "natural" as HFCS derive from corn. You can get all this information at the campaign's FAQ.
The problem is not HFCS itself. If you eat something with HFCS, it's not going to make you gain weight. In fact, if 90% of diet is clean, then HFCS is small amounts is not a problem. It's not as if it distorts your hormones and disrupts your metabolism.
The true problem is that a diet that is highly processed, and contains a lot of sugar and refined carbs will undoubtably lead to fat gain. Since HFCS is found in most packaged and processed food, it's easy to blame this one ingredient. But the problem is not one ingredient, but the processed food itself. Even if food manufacturers substituted HFCS for another sweetner, obesity rates would keep rising. The problem is the overall diet, not HFCS.
Somehow natural sugar and it's many variations have eluded the attacks of nutritionists and tax advocates. I don't see why. If sucrose substituted for HFCS, the food would not be any healthier. Excess calories, especially excess sugar, are the problem, not HFCS.
When everything somebody eats contains HFCS, then that person is eating a diet of refined carbs, sugar, and processed food: cookies, chips, crackies, cereals, dressings, frozen food, juice, candy, etc.
Should you absolutely avoid HFCS? No. But beware that food with HFCS is probably not healthy anyway. HFCS usually is found in foods with a long list of ingredients and that have little nutritional value. If you eat a clean diet, then HFCS is unlikely to sneak into your diet. Keep your diet real and simple and you won't have to worry about HFCS.
Kevin
Fat Tax in North Carolina
North Carolina is making health insurance more expensive for state employees who are obese. It is the second state, after Alabama, to implement this policy. Rising health care costs have prompted this measure in a state famous for its bar-be-que. Is this right?
Proponents say that health care costs are rising. Health care costs are rising largely because of obesity and tobacco use. The idea is that obese people should pay more for health care. This makes sense, so what's wrong with this plan? The state government says it's trying to promote healthier lifestyles. It's only fair, it says, that people who require more health care pay more.
This is similar to another measure in the Congress to tax soda and other "unhealthy" food. What exactly is an unhealthy food? In fact, no food is unhealthy as long as portions are controlled. If a person eats perfectly healthy 99% of the time, but then drinks a Pepsi, should he pay a tax? How can we conclude that these foods are causing obesity, and not lifestyle factors? Which food would be targeted?
There are several reasons to oppose the North Carolina measure, however. First, what's the definition of obese or overweight? Do we use the BMI scale, or another arbitrary scale? Some people who are "overweight" are healthy, while some who are underweight are unhealthy. Because of genetics, many black people are considered 'overweight' on the BMI scale despite showing no ailments of syndrome X (a combination of symptoms, including high blodd pressure, high triglycerides, high LDL cholesterol, and type II diabetes). Michael Jordan would be classified as overweight according to the BMI scale.
The measure also assumes that people know what's healthy and what's not. If this were true, then the series of books called Eat This! Not That! would not be so popular. People aren't sure what to eat, when to eat, and how much to eat. They're uninformed and unaware. Proponents of fat-tax measures know much more about nutrition and exercise than the general population. With no program to teach people how to modify and change their lifestyles, then people will be confused and angry with a tax that penalize the lifestyle they've always known.
There are better ways to promote healthier lifestyle. One would be to provide incentives for joining wellness programs, or hiring a personal trainer. These programs will have better long-term effects on the cost of health care than punishing taxes. It's inconceivable that during a recession states are considering more taxes.
Another solution might be just to reduce the amount of people working for the state government, which employs 600,000 people in a state with a little more than seven million people. That's almost one employee for every ten citizens.
Proponents say that health care costs are rising. Health care costs are rising largely because of obesity and tobacco use. The idea is that obese people should pay more for health care. This makes sense, so what's wrong with this plan? The state government says it's trying to promote healthier lifestyles. It's only fair, it says, that people who require more health care pay more.
This is similar to another measure in the Congress to tax soda and other "unhealthy" food. What exactly is an unhealthy food? In fact, no food is unhealthy as long as portions are controlled. If a person eats perfectly healthy 99% of the time, but then drinks a Pepsi, should he pay a tax? How can we conclude that these foods are causing obesity, and not lifestyle factors? Which food would be targeted?
There are several reasons to oppose the North Carolina measure, however. First, what's the definition of obese or overweight? Do we use the BMI scale, or another arbitrary scale? Some people who are "overweight" are healthy, while some who are underweight are unhealthy. Because of genetics, many black people are considered 'overweight' on the BMI scale despite showing no ailments of syndrome X (a combination of symptoms, including high blodd pressure, high triglycerides, high LDL cholesterol, and type II diabetes). Michael Jordan would be classified as overweight according to the BMI scale.
The measure also assumes that people know what's healthy and what's not. If this were true, then the series of books called Eat This! Not That! would not be so popular. People aren't sure what to eat, when to eat, and how much to eat. They're uninformed and unaware. Proponents of fat-tax measures know much more about nutrition and exercise than the general population. With no program to teach people how to modify and change their lifestyles, then people will be confused and angry with a tax that penalize the lifestyle they've always known.
There are better ways to promote healthier lifestyle. One would be to provide incentives for joining wellness programs, or hiring a personal trainer. These programs will have better long-term effects on the cost of health care than punishing taxes. It's inconceivable that during a recession states are considering more taxes.
Another solution might be just to reduce the amount of people working for the state government, which employs 600,000 people in a state with a little more than seven million people. That's almost one employee for every ten citizens.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Extend Yourself...Slowly
At the Army 10-Miler last weekend I noticed that a lot of people shouldn't have been there. They were either unprepared or they were not conditioned enough to handle a 10-mile race. Many of them probably signed up for wrong reasons: somebody told them to; to see if they can run a two-digit distance without training; to say they did it.
A better reason to race would be to test your abilities and to see if you've properly trained for the race. Races are tests of mental and physical endurance. If you trained right, you'll succeed; if you didn't, you won't.
Many people have the idea that longer races are necessarily more challenging and more worthy of their time. I can't tell you how many stories I've heard of people who start running and then within a year are participating in long-distance events. I asked a woman the other day how many half marathons she had done. Zero, she answered. Yet she's running a marathon in Jacksonville in February.
At the two half-marathons I've participated in, I've seen marathoners walking around mile 10. I can't believe they have another 16 miles to go. Many marathoners overestimate their physical capabilities. Not only do they block other runners, but they get discouraged or injured, and end up ruining their running careers. Doing a marathon as one of your first races is a fast way to burn out, not a fast way to run.
Why is going longer and slower more worthy than going shorter but faster? Running long and slow for four hours is hard, but so is running fast and hard for 40 minutes during a 10k.
And why stop at marathons? What makes the marathon the Holy Grail of running? Why not do an ultra? Don't stop at 42k (marathon distance). Do a 50k. Do an 80k. Do a 100k. Do a 24-hour event. Do several marathons in a month. What makes 42k so special that runners think they have to do it?
I suspect many people gravitate towards the longer distances because they don't like the pain of shorter distances. Short distances are tough. They aren't long, but they hurt. Ask Roger Bannister or Steve Prefontaine, two great short-distance runners. Running long and slow, however, relieves some runners of the deep breathing and burning lungs that are always present during fast runs. Four hours of shuffling is just a mental test.
I wonder where the division is between "running" a marathon and "completing a marathon." Anybody can walk a marathon. That's 4 MPH for six or seven hours. Running a marathon means you are working hard for 2.5-3.5 hours, not walking or shuffling for several hours.
I wish runners would take a more gradual approach to running. Your first race should not be a half marathon. Your first race should be a 1-mile or 5k run. That's completely manageable for a novice runner who wants to participate in an event. Gradually novice runners can start running 10ks (the hardest distance in my opinion), then half marathons, and then marathons (if they ever choose to go that distance).
Get fast and fit in the shorter distances in order to run the longer distances. If you race long and slow, you'll always run slow. If you master the shorter distances and do a lot of speed work before you attempt a marathon, your results will be much better. You'll have a much stronger base of endurance and speed work. And your body won't be used to "long and slow."
Kevin
A better reason to race would be to test your abilities and to see if you've properly trained for the race. Races are tests of mental and physical endurance. If you trained right, you'll succeed; if you didn't, you won't.
Many people have the idea that longer races are necessarily more challenging and more worthy of their time. I can't tell you how many stories I've heard of people who start running and then within a year are participating in long-distance events. I asked a woman the other day how many half marathons she had done. Zero, she answered. Yet she's running a marathon in Jacksonville in February.
At the two half-marathons I've participated in, I've seen marathoners walking around mile 10. I can't believe they have another 16 miles to go. Many marathoners overestimate their physical capabilities. Not only do they block other runners, but they get discouraged or injured, and end up ruining their running careers. Doing a marathon as one of your first races is a fast way to burn out, not a fast way to run.
Why is going longer and slower more worthy than going shorter but faster? Running long and slow for four hours is hard, but so is running fast and hard for 40 minutes during a 10k.
And why stop at marathons? What makes the marathon the Holy Grail of running? Why not do an ultra? Don't stop at 42k (marathon distance). Do a 50k. Do an 80k. Do a 100k. Do a 24-hour event. Do several marathons in a month. What makes 42k so special that runners think they have to do it?
I suspect many people gravitate towards the longer distances because they don't like the pain of shorter distances. Short distances are tough. They aren't long, but they hurt. Ask Roger Bannister or Steve Prefontaine, two great short-distance runners. Running long and slow, however, relieves some runners of the deep breathing and burning lungs that are always present during fast runs. Four hours of shuffling is just a mental test.
I wonder where the division is between "running" a marathon and "completing a marathon." Anybody can walk a marathon. That's 4 MPH for six or seven hours. Running a marathon means you are working hard for 2.5-3.5 hours, not walking or shuffling for several hours.
I wish runners would take a more gradual approach to running. Your first race should not be a half marathon. Your first race should be a 1-mile or 5k run. That's completely manageable for a novice runner who wants to participate in an event. Gradually novice runners can start running 10ks (the hardest distance in my opinion), then half marathons, and then marathons (if they ever choose to go that distance).
Get fast and fit in the shorter distances in order to run the longer distances. If you race long and slow, you'll always run slow. If you master the shorter distances and do a lot of speed work before you attempt a marathon, your results will be much better. You'll have a much stronger base of endurance and speed work. And your body won't be used to "long and slow."
Kevin
Monday, October 5, 2009
What Not to Do at a Race
I ran in the Army 10-miler yesterday. I have a few observations that I'd like to share with you. I want you to know several things you shouldn't do at a road race. Just because everyone else is doing it, doesn't mean you should.
1. Static stretch before running. Evidence shows that static stretching before exercise will actually impede your performance and reduce elasticity. Instead, do some dynamic stretches or some mobility drills to get warmed up. I also recommend jogging slowly for 10 minutes, and then finish with 6-10 20-second sprints. Those seem to work for me.
2. Static stretch improperly before running. This is even worse. I saw plenty of people "stretching" their quads while yanking their thighs. Your thighs should be together when you hold the traditional quadricep stretch. Doing the quad stretch before a race is bad enough; doing it incorrectly is just plain stupid.
3. Wear an iPOD. This is a road race. This is not a training run.
4. Wear a large fuel belt for such a short distance. I saw some runners with four bottles of fluid around thier waist. I saw one guy with a granola bar, a bottle of juice, and a gel. It's 10 miles, folks. It's not a multi-day expedition. These runners lost more time with all that weight around their belt than they gained by being properly fueled and hydrated.
5. Overestimate your ability as a runner. There are no waves in running races. Everybody starts in one mass. When there are 30,000 runners like yesterday, that's one big mass. Don't go to the front if you run 9:00-10:00 per mile. Allow the fast runners to go up front. Placing yourself at the front when you know you're not a fast runner only blocks the faster runners behind you. You hurt their performance by becoming an obstacle. I had to go around dozens of people. I probably ran more than 10 miles.
6. Wait until the race starts to urinate. People were using the Don Jon's 1/4 mile into the race. Didn't they realize they needed to piss 1/4 mile earlier? Don't wait until the last minute.
7. Rely on the race organizers to provide breakfast for you. While there were boxes and boxes of bananas, and plenty of bottled water, the other post-race food was atrocious: 400-calorie muffins with tons of sugar and HFCS (high fructose corn syrup); bagels with similar ingredients; Kashi granola bars (acceptable); cookies; and soda. I can't believe I was the only runner who actually brought something to eat after the race. I wonder what these people drink or eat after they run at home. If you're going to race, bring your own nutrition. It'll be much healthier than anything they serve at the race.
8. Have casual conversation while you run. If you can talk, you're not running very hard. As the run progressed, I heard less and less talking.
9. Sign up for a 10-mile run if you can't run more than two. Some people simply didn't belong here. I think you should prove that you've completed a 10k before you can run a 10-mile race (16k). Likewise, I wish marathon organizers would require runners to prove that they've completed a half-marathon.
Follow these guidelines, and you'll be healtheir, you'll go faster, you'll save yourself hardship, and you won't slow down other runners.
Kevin
1. Static stretch before running. Evidence shows that static stretching before exercise will actually impede your performance and reduce elasticity. Instead, do some dynamic stretches or some mobility drills to get warmed up. I also recommend jogging slowly for 10 minutes, and then finish with 6-10 20-second sprints. Those seem to work for me.
2. Static stretch improperly before running. This is even worse. I saw plenty of people "stretching" their quads while yanking their thighs. Your thighs should be together when you hold the traditional quadricep stretch. Doing the quad stretch before a race is bad enough; doing it incorrectly is just plain stupid.
3. Wear an iPOD. This is a road race. This is not a training run.
4. Wear a large fuel belt for such a short distance. I saw some runners with four bottles of fluid around thier waist. I saw one guy with a granola bar, a bottle of juice, and a gel. It's 10 miles, folks. It's not a multi-day expedition. These runners lost more time with all that weight around their belt than they gained by being properly fueled and hydrated.
5. Overestimate your ability as a runner. There are no waves in running races. Everybody starts in one mass. When there are 30,000 runners like yesterday, that's one big mass. Don't go to the front if you run 9:00-10:00 per mile. Allow the fast runners to go up front. Placing yourself at the front when you know you're not a fast runner only blocks the faster runners behind you. You hurt their performance by becoming an obstacle. I had to go around dozens of people. I probably ran more than 10 miles.
6. Wait until the race starts to urinate. People were using the Don Jon's 1/4 mile into the race. Didn't they realize they needed to piss 1/4 mile earlier? Don't wait until the last minute.
7. Rely on the race organizers to provide breakfast for you. While there were boxes and boxes of bananas, and plenty of bottled water, the other post-race food was atrocious: 400-calorie muffins with tons of sugar and HFCS (high fructose corn syrup); bagels with similar ingredients; Kashi granola bars (acceptable); cookies; and soda. I can't believe I was the only runner who actually brought something to eat after the race. I wonder what these people drink or eat after they run at home. If you're going to race, bring your own nutrition. It'll be much healthier than anything they serve at the race.
8. Have casual conversation while you run. If you can talk, you're not running very hard. As the run progressed, I heard less and less talking.
9. Sign up for a 10-mile run if you can't run more than two. Some people simply didn't belong here. I think you should prove that you've completed a 10k before you can run a 10-mile race (16k). Likewise, I wish marathon organizers would require runners to prove that they've completed a half-marathon.
Follow these guidelines, and you'll be healtheir, you'll go faster, you'll save yourself hardship, and you won't slow down other runners.
Kevin
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
