Articles worth reading!
Hey everyone - thought I'd start a new thread for good articles - that way instead of looking through a kajillion threads we could just come here, right?
Here's one I found today...from www.deborahlow.com - she wrote a super book called "The Quest for Peace, Love and a 24-Inch Waist". Check it out :) It's from her online newsletter. Quote:
|
Foods that make you look good nekkid
By popular demand...
http://www.testosterone.net/nation_a.../172food2.html Quote:
|
Why the scale lies
Here's an article that is referred to at L&S quite a bit... worthwhile reading, especially for the newbies here who might have a teeny weeny scale addiction :lol:
http://www.primusweb.com/fitnesspart...ight/scale.htm Quote:
|
The front page of today's San Francisco Chronicle featured this article...
****************** Fat makes comeback after 3 lean decades Kim Severson, Chronicle Staff Writer Wednesday, March 12, 2003 ©2003 San Francisco Chronicle URL: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...2/MN184374.DTL For years in the test kitchens of Cooking Light magazine, virtually every recipe started with low-fat cooking spray. If a little more fat was needed, readers were advised to use margarine. But no more. The nation's largest-circulation food and fitness magazine still preaches the value of lower fat cooking, but now recipes call for healthy amounts of canola oil, olive oil and -- egads -- even butter. "We now know the kind of fat is more important than the quantity," said food editor Jill Melton. "We have loosened, and so have our readers." All over the country, and especially in the food-sophisticated Bay Area, fat, in all its glorious, slick incarnations, is coming back. After three lean decades, chefs, home cooks and even the nutritionists who persuaded us to board the low-fat bus in the first place are rejecting the notion that fat is what makes us fat. "We're beginning a new kind of balance," said Clark Wolf, a food and restaurant consultant in San Francisco and New York who works with New York University's Department of Nutrition and Food Studies. "In the '80s, we really had food phobias. People were afraid of cheese and butter and eggs." "In the '90s, we told the nutrition police to go stick it and ate everything but really didn't feel too well," he said. "Now, we have better information about fat." That is, that although fat should still be consumed in moderation, people still need fat -- a balance of all kinds of healthy fat, including some types of saturated fat. As a result, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's fat-restrictive food pyramid -- its guide to healthy eating -- is crumbling, partly from the fact that fat is just as critical to health as complex carbohydrates and protein. Within the last year, the federal government declared that no level of a synthetic fat called trans fat (think shortening) is safe to eat. Research on diets laced with olive oils and healthy fats, championed by experts like Dr. Walter Willett, chairman of the Department of Nutrition at Harvard School of Public Health, has shown that the U.S. health policy on fat consumption is flawed. APPROACH IS OUTDATED Many dietitians now admit their one-size-fits-all approach to fat consumption is outdated, even going so far as to endorse such former pariahs as highly saturated coconut and other tropical oils. The shift is driven as much by changing social attitudes as by stark epidemiological evidence: Despite a 30-year low-fat frenzy, Americans are fatter than ever, more than 65 percent classified as overweight or obese. The nation's obesity rate began to skyrocket in the mid-'80s -- about the same time national low-fat public health campaigns were in full swing. In one year alone -- 1998-99 -- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention figures show that the nation's obesity rate rose an astonishing 6 percent. Why didn't the low-fat campaign work? Researchers say many low-fat diets can be high in sugar or simple carbohydrates and low in protein. Too many carbohydrates and not enough fat and protein can throw the body's metabolism out of whack, causing weight gain and disease-producing insulin resistance. Plus, meals loaded with carbs generally aren't as satisfying as meals balanced with fat. To feel full -- what scientists call the satiety index -- people tend to eat more carbohydrate-heavy foods than their body needs. Overall caloric intake goes up, and people gain weight. So even though the USDA reports that Americans have cut back on fat from 40 percent of calories in 1968 to 33 percent today, the average daily intake has increased from 1,989 to 2,153 calories, according to a joint survey by the National Center for Health Statistics and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 'UNHEALTHY IN ITS OWN RIGHT' "A lot of people did not try to reduce the amount of food consumed, they just leached the fat out of it," said Dr. Stanley Rockson, head of consultative cardiology at Stanford University. "This was a well-intentioned attempt to get healthy but was unhealthy in its own right." There are plenty of other culprits in the fattening of America, mainly too much time spent in front of TV and computer screens and not enough time exercising. Soda consumption has increased from 22.2 gallons per person a year in 1970 to 56 gallons per person a year in 1999. And we like big portions. Still, doctors say a new approach to fat is an important weapon in the obesity battle. The body needs a balance of healthy fats -- polyunsaturated, monounsaturated and saturated -- to function well. Fats do a lot of work, from cushioning organs against shock and insulating tissue to controlling hormones that help with appetite control and cognitive performance, among other things. Too much of one kind of fat -- or simply not enough fat at all -- can throw a person's metabolism out of kilter. Individuals also need different types of fats in varying ratios. People who don't have special medical considerations such as heart disease can eat a balanced diet that includes a good measure of healthy fats, such as olive oil or oils with a mix of polyunsaturates and mono-unsaturates, like canola. Even the much-dreaded saturated fats, in measured amounts, are important. "I do think Americans can deal with good fats versus bad fats and good carbs versus bad carbs, but it takes a little bit of learning," said Dr. Walter Willett, chairman of the Department of Nutrition at Harvard School of Public Health and a leading critic of the USDA food pyramid. He argues that saturated fats are not the deadly poison they have been made out to be. THE 'MEDITERRANEAN PYRAMID' Willett, the spokesman for the Nurses' Health Study, the longest-running, most comprehensive diet and health study in the nation, involving more than 300,000 people, calls his strategy for healthy eating the "Mediterranean pyramid." Although based on the largely vegetable-, nut- and legume-based meals of the traditional Mediterranean diet, it suggests daily consumption of plant and vegetable oils. The USDA pyramid, which Willett considers a failure, groups all oils and fats together and suggests they be used sparingly. Other researchers believe tailoring fat intake to specific body types is the wave of the future. At UC Davis, food science Professor J. Bruce German and his colleagues are working on diagnostic tools that would recommend which types and amounts of fats individuals should eat based on a host of factors, including exercise levels and blood lipids. It's a far cry from the USDA's blanket approach to nutrition recommendations, German said. The modern case against fat began in 1957, when the American Heart Association proposed that modifying dietary fat intake would reduce the incidence of coronary heart disease, which had become the leading cause of death in the United States. A decade later, the group recommended that Americans lower fat intake to about 30 or 35 percent of daily caloric intake. In 1972, two doctors put fat at the center of America's dietary plate. Dr. Robert Atkins championed a high-fat, low-carb diet in his book, "The Diet Revolution," at the same time that Dr. Dean Ornish came out with an American Heart Association-endorsed diet that promoted just the opposite. Although a few researchers were arguing that a diet laced with healthy fats was key to good health, most experts continued to hammer a simple message: eat less fat. The nation was off on a torturous diet run fueled by dry Melba toast and low-fat cottage cheese. By the early '90s, low-fat became the nation's fastest-growing food category even as a more sophisticated fat message began to circulate. Research showed the health advantages of fatty acids like omega-3s. The detrimental effects of trans fat, in the form of shortening used in nearly 40 percent of crackers, cookies, pies and other processed food on grocery store shelves, became clear enough that the National Academy of Sciences announced last year that consumers should avoid it entirely. 'ATKINS FOR LIFE' DIET And Atkins came back with a vengeance. His diet, which allows plenty of foods like steak, cheese and butter, has become undeniably popular, and his new book, "Atkins for Life," is a best-seller. Restaurants that in the low-fat '80s put little heart symbols next to low- fat "spa" entrees are now cooking no-carb meals with plenty of protein and fat. At One Market in San Francisco, chef Bradley Ogden points out that a new section of the menu, with strip steaks, double-cut racks of pork and sturgeon with butter-rich bearnaise sauce but no starch, is homage to Atkins. The low-fat failure gained more popular attention last summer, when Gary Taubes wrote a controversial article for the New York Times Magazine blasting decades of science on which much of the nation's nutrition recommendations are based. Although some of his scientific reasoning has been questioned, the package forced a new level of debate about the quality of diet research. And the pro-fat revolution continues to make plenty of nutritionists nervous. They worry that the public will interpret fat's re-emergence as an excuse to eat as much as they want. "The problem is that moderation seems to be the answer, and that is not a great subject for America, home of the all-you-can eat restaurant," says public health researcher Sarah Samuels of Oakland, who in the 1980s helped design a national, $3.5 million low-fat education campaign. Others are simply bored with the whole thing. 'LOOKING FOR ANSWERS' "I have this visceral loathing for the swinging -- you can or can't eat this or that," says Gourmet magazine editor Ruth Reichl. "We're all looking for answers, and every couple of years they tell us something else. We don't know what we're doing with this stuff. I think we're all total nutritional idiots." But doctors and researchers say we'd better wise up and learn the difference between the bad fat in a super-sized order of fast-food fries and a healthy dose of olive oil over a plate of greens. Fran McCullough, a food and diet expert and cookbook author who in January released "The Good Fat Cookbook," says people will eat better as they return to traditional ways of cooking with unadulterated foods like butter and olive oil. "There's still a certain amount of 'What the ****, I'm going to eat whatever I want,' and there's a huge amount of anger for how manipulated we've been," she said. "But it's starting to kick in. People who care about what they eat are getting it." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NEW THINKING ON FAT: -- Mix it up: Strict low-fat diets are dead. Instead, researchers say, eating a mix of healthy fats is key to a good diet. -- Go tropical: Old devils, including highly saturated coconut and palm oils, are actually healthy fats for many people. -- Balance it out: Most Americans consume a disproportionate amount of polyunsaturated oils, which can keep the body from absorbing beneficial omega- 3 fatty acids. -- Buyer beware: Products sold as healthy, cholesterol-free vegetable oils are often so altered by processing that their inherent healthy properties have been stripped away. ******************** And from today's Chronicle Food Section... ******************** The bullies of the fat world: The food industry's muscular polyunsaturates are overpowering those healthful omega-3 fatty acids Carol Ness, Chronicle Staff Writer Wednesday, March 12, 2003 ©2003 San Francisco Chronicle URL: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...2/FD181277.DTL All the contradictory advice about good and bad fats is enough to make you stick your fingers in your ears and look for answers in a gallon of Ben & Jerry's Chunky Monkey. But when it comes to omega-3 essential fatty acids, the entire fat universe agrees: Everyone needs more. And evidence is growing that you may also need to cut down on soybean, safflower and corn oils -- popular, widely used polyunsaturated vegetable oils -- because they flood your body with competing essential fatty acids called omega-6s. Our bodies need them both, and the new thinking is that we need roughly balanced amounts -- what nature once provided. But, Americans are way out of balance, in large part because we've eating way too many of the modern-day polyunsaturates. Don't let the scientific lingo throw you off. Essential fatty acids, EFAs, are the building blocks of butter, oil, all the fats we eat. There are many different EFAs, and we need them all. Many fats have lots of omega-6s and a few have substantial amounts of -3s; some have both and some have almost none of either. Omega-3s and -6s are the body's yin and yang. The two vie for space in our cells, brains, nerve endings, and they produce different hormone messengers. They compete for the same enzymes, so a flood of -6s can keep the -3s from doing their job. Omega-6s stimulate inflammation; omega-3s put out the flames. Omega-6s raise blood pressure; omega-3s lower it. Omega-6s make your blood clot; omega- 3s keep it from clotting. Omega-6s oxidize the cholesterol in your arteries and clog them; 3s are anti-oxidants. The more omega-6s we eat, the more they dominate our cells. Consuming more omega-3s has been associated with preventing heart disease and fatal heart attacks; improving brain and vision development (so much so that infant formulas have been changed to add omega-3s); lowering blood pressure and fighting inflammation, arthritis and asthma, maybe even cancer; helping the body use insulin and fend off obesity; relieving depression and maybe reducing violent behavior. That's why even the most conservative medical authorities urge Americans to eat a couple of omega-3-rich fish dinners a week or pop daily fish oil capsules. And they're following their own advice. The idea of reducing omega-6 polyunsaturates, on the other hand, is controversial, and many health authorities encourage their use for healthy hearts. Those who advocate cutting down on omega-6 polyunsaturates point out that Americans, on average, consume 17 times more of the omega-6s than omega-3s. "This is a very excessive intake," says Dr. Artemis Simopoulos, an expert on fatty acids, nutrition and metabolism. Her 1998 book, "The Omega Diet," lays out the scientific basis for her call to reduce omega-6 polyunsaturates. "Except for the last 70 years, we never had such high amounts omega-6 fats in our diet because we didn't know how to make oils out of grain," said Simopoulos, Once food processors figured out how to use solvents to extract oil from soybeans and seeds, American consumers have been swimming (or drowning) in omega-6 polyunsaturates. They make up more than three-quarters of the oils and fats we eat. French fries, bottled salad dressings, processed foods all are full of omega-6s. Our main proteins are too, now that livestock, chickens and even farmed fish are raised on corn and soy instead of naturally omega-3-rich grasses or algae. Simopoulos, lipids expert Mary Enig and many other scientists believe an overbalance of omega-6s fuels insulin resistance and is a big reason Americans are so obese, suffer so much diabetes and have clogged arteries -- despite decades of the no-saturated-fat regime. They recommend an omega-6-to-omega-3 ratio of 4-to-1 or even 2-to-1. (1 TO 1?) Simopoulos' research showed that a Mediterranean diet -- from ancient Crete -- was more than a license to swill olive oil and wine. Among other things, the Cretan diet included omega-6 and -3 fats in equal amounts. Now, science is catching up with her. Most convincing have been the Lyon heart study in France and the GISSI study in Italy, two landmark studies that showed that added omega-3s prevented heart attacks. It's no surprise that U.S. sales of fish oil, flax oil and other omega-3 supplements almost doubled from 1997 to 2001 -- rising to $231 million, according to the Nutrition Business Journal of San Diego. And everyone from the American Heart Association to the federal government is urging Americans to eat more fatty fish, which are high in the most easily used omega-3s. Walnuts, flax oil and flax, seed, purslane and other leafy greens are good sources too, though omega-3s from plants aren't as easily used by the body. Grass-fed meats and canola oil also are rich in 3s. But we're not hearing so much about the other half of the equation. Part of the reason is that it's easier to run tests by adding omega-3s to people's diets and seeing if health improves. It's harder to prove that all the omega-6s people are eating are making them sick. Still, epidemiological studies are suggestive -- if by no means conclusive. The Israeli paradox shows what happens when too many omega-6 oils are consumed, writes food journalist Susan Allport in the winter 2003 issue of Gastronomica magazine. Israelis eat fewer calories and less total fat than Americans, but they consume far more omega-6 polyunsaturates while eating less animal fat. And they "are more obese than Americans and have similarly high rates of diabetes, cardiovascular disease and the cancers generally accepted to be related to fat consumption and obesity," Allport writes. All those diseases are associated with insulin resistance syndrome, usually blamed on too many carbohydrates. Allport points out that omega-6s seem to have a role too. Many nutrition and medical authorities are still waiting to be convinced. Both the USDA and its most prominent critic, epidemiologist Walter Willett at Harvard, see nothing wrong with high-omega-6 polyunsaturated fats in moderation. Willett, who has proposed an alternate food pyramid, agrees that people need more omega-3s, but he doesn't buy the idea that omega-6 polyunsaturates are suddenly the bad guys. "This is speculation unsupported by human evidence," he says. Eating polys instead of saturated fats "has probably been responsible for much of the major decline in heart disease and increase in life expectancy between 1960 and 1990 in the U.S." At Stanford University School of Medicine, Dr. Stanley Rockson, head of consultative cardiology, wholeheartedly recommends that his heart patients take omega-3s. But like Willett, he also thinks polyunsaturates are good for us. Any kind of "fats in excess are inherently capable of leading to undesirable health consequences," he says. While science figures it out, Willett, Rockson and everyone else is making sure to get plenty of omega-3s every day. Supplements are the easiest way, but they're not necessary. Mary Enig, author of "Know Your Fats" and a proponent of whole fats, not modern processed ones, gets all the omega-3s she needs from foods, with some cod liver oil thrown in. Plant forms (called alpha-linoleic acids or ALA) differ from the kinds you get in fatty fish (EPA and DHA). The plant forms must be converted by the body into EPA and DHA, and the conversion isn't efficient. Some studies have shown that EPA and DHA are far more effective in improving human health. "You need both kinds," says Enig. "The best way is to get it from a variety of sources." One gram a day of EPA and DHA combined is a conservative recommended dose. Willett gets his from canola oil, walnuts and flax. Enig eats fish and grinds flax seeds and mixes the meal into juice, cereal or muffins. She uses the cod liver oil to boost her dose. Rockson takes daily EPA/DHA supplements. Finding both plant- and fish-based omega-3 supplements is as easy as walking to your grocery store. Markets like Whole Foods, Rainbow and Berkeley's new Elephant pharmacy devote more than 40 feet of shelf space to them, with more in refrigerated cases. As far as omega-6s go, Enig thinks you get plenty from the few in olive oil and meat. Simopoulos recommends canola oil as a good basic oil, because it has a relative balance of omega-6 and -3 fats. Simopoulos, who spent nine years heading a nutrition committee of the National Institutes of Health, is happy that at least that part of her message has gotten out. It's been 18 years since she helped stage the first international conference on omega-3 fats. If she's so right, and the studies back her up, why haven't federal and medical authorities responded? Simopoulos laughs and points out that 59 countries added omega-3s to infant formula before the United States came around, despite studies showing that formula with only omega-6s impaired brain and vision development. "Industry does not want to pull in the (omega-6) oils," she says. Look how long it took the thinking to change about trans fats, she adds. She wrote one of the first papers recommending that trans fats be pulled from the diet -- in 1979. They have yet to be listed on food labels. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- GOOD SOURCES OF OMEGA-3S Here's where to get your gram-a-day of omega-3s. -- Fatty fish deliver the best omega-3 punch. They provide EPA and DHA (eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid), which many believe are the most effective of the 3s. Salmon, sardines, mackerel, herring and trout have the most. A 6-ounce cooked piece delivers 2-4 grams of omega-3s. Farm-raised fish, though, have a lot more omega-6s than their wild cousins because they're raised on grain. -- Plants provide an omega-3, called ALA (alpha-linolenic acid). The body must convert it for use -- which some say means it takes more to be effective. Flax seed is an important source of omega-3, pressed into oil or ground. Flax oil can be added to salads (don't cook with it). Ground flax works well in smoothies, muffins, pancakes and cereal. It should be ground fresh, because it spoils easily. Purslane, a relatively obscure leafy green vegetable, provides 400 mg of omega-3s if you eat about 3 ounces. Add it to salads or saute briefly. Chard and kale also have some ALA. Walnuts pack a lot of omega-3s, alone among common nuts. Other sources: Dried beans, omega-3-enriched eggs (from chickens fed flax seeds or fish meal) and even meat, especially lamb. -- Supplements are widely available. Read the fine print to figure out which give you the most for your money. Fish oil comes in every grade and price, from "molecularly distilled" 100 percent virgin Arctic cod liver oil to orange-flavored emulsions to big, transparent capsules. Some have a fishy taste; others don't. Some cause fishy burps. Evening primrose and borage supplements offer omega-3s, but some experts believe they're not a very usable kind. -- Omega-3s spoil easily, so they should be kept away from heat and light (some need to be refrigerated), used quickly and thrown out if they start smelling bad. Rancid oils are oxidized, full of nasty free radicals. (Can you ingest too much? The most important thing is to keep omega-6 and omega-3 fats in balance. Extremely high amounts of omega-3 raise concerns about bleeding-type strokes. The FDA draws the line at 3 grams a day, but some doctors recommend more -- and take more.) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOASTED WALNUTS WITH OREGANO Just 1 ounce of walnuts packs 2.5 grams of alpha-linoleic acid, an omega-3 fatty acid. This recipe comes from Fran McCullough's "The Good Fat Cookbook." Ingredients: 2 1/2 tablespoons olive oil or unsalted butter, melted 2 teaspoons dried oregano, crumbled 1 teaspoon salt 1/2 teaspoon cayenne 2 cups fresh raw walnuts INSTRUCTIONS: Preheat the oven to 350 degrees. Mix everything except the walnuts together, then stir in walnuts, coating them well. Scatter the nuts on a baking sheet. Roast for about 10 minutes, stirring once. Remove from the oven when they smell good. Let cool before serving or storing. The nuts will keep for a few days in a tightly sealed tin if made with butter, longer if made with oil. Yields 2 cups PER 1/4-CUP SERVING: 200 calories, 4 g protein, 5 g carbohydrate, 20 g fat (2 g saturated), 0 cholesterol, 293 mg sodium, 1 g fiber. PAN-GRILLED SALMON ON A BED OF ASIAN GREENS Nothing could be easier than this poached salmon served on a bed of mixed Asian greens. The salmon-poaching liquid, a tart-spicy blend, acts as a hot dressing for the greens. From Georgeanne Brennan. Ingredients: 1 teaspoon butter 2 skinless salmon fillets 1/4 teaspoon salt 1/2 teaspoon cayenne or other chile powder 1/4 cup fresh lemon juice 1/4 cup dry white wine 1 1/2 cups mixed young greens (mizuna, red mustard, tatsoi, spinach) INSTRUCTIONS Melt the butter in a small, preferably nonstick frying pan over medium-high heat. Add the salmon and sear for 1 to 2 minutes on each side. Sprinkle with salt and cayenne. Turn the fillets, then add the lemon juice and wine. Reduce heat to low, cover, and cook for 2 to 3 minutes, or until the salmon is just tender and flakes easily. Divide greens between serving plates. Pour half of the pan juices over each, and top with a salmon fillet. Serves 2 PER SERVING (using 4-ounce fillets): 255 calories, 24 g protein, 4 g carbohydrate, 14 g fat (4 g saturated), 80 mg cholesterol, 370 mg sodium, 1 g fiber. |
I just got this cool article and thought I would share.
Bodypumpgirl Aerobics and Static Contraction Training Aerobic training and strength training are the yin and yang of the exercise world. They are two fundamentally different concepts that meet in a “harmony of opposites.” To be clear, when talking about “aerobics” I’m referring to low intensity, long duration exercise that is intended to expend calories and burn fat. I’m not referring to the term “cardio” which, properly used, should refer to strengthening the heart muscle. Many people use “cardio” and “aerobics” interchangeably but they really shouldn’t. Aerobic training is low intensity. Strength training is high intensity. Combining the two into an effective, efficient training regimen can be greatly simplified by using rational training principles. The Biggest Mistake The biggest mistake people make when trying to combine aerobic training with strength training is that they employ a progressive overload methodology to their aerobic training. For example, they start out walking a few days per week, then they increase the intensity to jogging, then they mix intervals of jogging with running. Then they run hills, and so on. That method increases intensity to the point where the body needs extended recovery time. Which means more days off without training…which means fewer calories burned and less fat loss. The key to effective aerobic training that burns of maximum fat is long term consistency. Pop Quiz Which burns more calories? a) Running 1 mile b) Jogging 1 mile c) Walking 1 mile It’s a trick question. They all burn exactly the same number of calories. And in that little fact lays some truly great news! If you go for a walk seven days a week you will burn more calories than going for a run six days a week. (Technically a runner will get an extra benefit because his metabolism will continue to operate faster after running…but there is another piece of information that trumps that!) Build Muscle and Burn Fat 24/7! Muscle is called “active tissue” because it requires a lot of energy to maintain itself. In fact, every pound of new muscle you add to your body will burn about 60 calories per day. That can really add up. The Fat Burning Effect of Muscle The Fat Burning Effect of Muscle LBS of LBS. OF FAT BURNED New Muscle Per Month Per Year 1 .05 6 3 1.5 19 5 2.6 31 10 5.1 62 12 6.2 74 15 7.7 93 20 10.3 123 By adding just 10 pounds of muscle to your body, it will burn off 62 pounds (!!) of fat over the next year. (If you keep your calorie intake constant.) And it will keep burning those extra calories year after year! Than means when you’ve lost the fat you can eat more (a lot more) and not gain back the fat. Also, with less fat and more muscle your body will have the lean, toned, fit look that everyone wants! So by combining aerobics with strength training you can transform your body in the shortest possible time then keep it lean and muscular year round without starving yourself on a low calorie diet. Opposite Principles The important characteristics of a sustainable aerobic training program are: a. Low intensity muscular output b. No progression of intensity from workout to workout c. Fixed frequency The important characteristics of a sustainable strength training program are: a. High intensity muscular output b. Progressive intensity from workout to workout c. Variable frequency (to allow for full recovery as intensity increases) So combining a high intensity strength training system such as Static Contraction Training (SCT) with a regular aerobic program might look like this for the first two months: Week 1 Week2 Week3 Week4 Week5 Week6 Mon SCT WALK WALK WALK WALK SCT Tues WALK SCT WALK WALK SCT WALK Wed WALK WALK WALK SCT WALK WALK Thurs SCT WALK SCT WALK WALK WALK Fri WALK WALK WALK WALK WALK WALK Sat WALK SCT WALK WALK WALK WALK Notice how the days off between the SCT workouts increase? That’s because each workout (if properly engineered) involves lifting heavier weights and creates extra demands on your body’s recovery system. Yet you can fill in all the other days with low intensity, longer duration aerobic training. So every day you are doing something to burn fat and keep it off long term! This combined aerobic/strength training program will transform your body the maximum amount in the shortest possible time. Have a great workout! Pete Peter Sisco is co-author of Power Factor Training, Static Contraction Training and other books. He is also the editor of the five-book "Ironman's Ultimate Bodybuilding" series. www.PrecisionTraining.com |
From this week's Dave Draper e-newsletter...
This is SUCH a long article that I'm just going to insert the link: http://davedraper.com/chris-mcclinch-guide-to-diet.html There's a link on the page above that'll take you to a .pdf file - called "10 Commandments to Getting Cut: Losing Fat, Not Just Weight". GOOD stuff!!! |
Not really an article - but a post from Jeremy Likness that he posted at another board awhile back...I'm posting it here for future reference...
*********************************** The first place I always look when someone is having an issue with losing fat is their nutrition. [Y]ou mentioned cutting back on calories, etc, but my question for you is this ... when you eat "BFL-style", what does that mean, exactly? Are you eating a lot of fruits and vegetables and whole foods? Are you eating the exact same meals each day, or are you incorporating variety? Are you making sure to have a carb portion before bed? Are you taking a free day? Believe it or not, for some people, the free day in and of itself can be the single most limiting factor. Some people thrive on free day and plunge towards their goals, others must eliminate it. Let's face it. There is no "free meal." Calories do count. And for a woman, especially so. Most women can only lose about 0.5 - 1.5 pounds of fat per week. At the low end, that is a net equivalent of 1,700 calories deficit. Keep in mind that one free day can accumulate close to 10,000 calories and totally negate that! So that is one place I would look as well. The fact is, there is no magic formula or combination for fat loss - regardless of BFL, BodyRx, McDougall's, vegetarian, raw food, whatever, the same law applies - to lose fat, you need to take in less calories than you burn. So the problem must be tackled on two sides, one with nutrition, the other with training. Don't get too caught up in the calorie "count" for nutrition, because different foods have different effects. You can get away with more grams of protein than carbohydrate because it takes more energy for the body to process protein. You can get away with more omega-3 fatty acids than other types of fat because they stimulate metabolism. The list goes on and on. If you are already eating a balanced, healthy diet, then the next thing to look at is training. One huge issue with people is simply intensity. For example, I know a lot of women who don't train intensely with weights because they are afraid of gaining too much muscle. If you fall into this category, RUN FROM IT AS FAST AS POSSIBLE! If gaining muscle were easy, there would be more female bodybuilding competitors. The fact of the matter is, building muscle is HARD work and you are not going to gain pounds and pounds of muscle over night. So if you aren't training intensely, weight training is one of the KEYS - you must train INTENSELY and really push those 10s to not only burn more calories during the session, but also to keep your metabolism elevated afterwards to burn more fat. As for adding the extra cardio, sure, it can help. Heck, I'm up to 65 minutes of cardio per day in addition to my 3 weight training workouts. But I am keeping it balanced. I do 3 20-minute high intensity sessions, and the rest is simply uphill walking. The goal is to burn more calories, but not to burn myself out. If you suddenly add intense sessions or too much volume of jogging, you are risking injury and burnout. In fact, your body is so adept at adapting to new training, your best bet is to ramp it. Is your current load not working for you? Add a 20 minute session. Stick with it. Then wait a week or two, and add another 10 minute session .. like that. Ramp it up, don't jump into the extra cardio all at once. There's really, from my experience, two approaches to weight loss. If you are eating a truly disciplined, clean nutrition plan and not taking cheat meals etc (and by disciplined, I mean ALL WHOLE FOODS - this means whole grains, whole beans, nothing in a package, nothing processed like bread, etc) then you probably could concern yourself less with calories and more with quality of exercise. If, on the other hand, you are taking cheat meals or eating processed foods (look at my diary - I eat packaged burritos, corn chips, etc, so I fall into the latter category) then sometimes it is critical to get a handle on your portions. I can't tell you how many people I know think they're doing fine, but as I alluded to before, their fist or palm gets bigger when they're more hungry. Or they snack on one bite of a cookie because surely one bite won't hurt (but then you add that one chip that won't hurt and that one pretzel that doesn't hurt and suddenly you're taking in another 200 calories a day or 1400 per week!). Or they find the most convenient meal possible - say, cottage cheese and yogurt and chicken breast in a pita pocket, and then they eat that exact same meal each day. This in itself can wreak havoc. I know ... I'm eating fairly static from day to day, and therefore I must increase my cardio each week to make up for the deficit. When I'm eating more variety, lo and behold, my metabolism increases. It's an individual game but the bottom line is that no one is special. I know that [it was] mentioned being "doomed to be fat." You can certainly be doomed, but it is you who are dooming yourself, not genetics. If your family is struggling with weight management, then that is a very strong answer for you - it's something psychological embedded in your brain. Unless you are a lottery winner, only 1 in millions of people actually have a genetic inability to effectively lose fat. The rest are accosted by a myriad of complications ranging from the availability of food, the levels of processed food in our typical diets, to the psychological issues that we associate food with happiness and think every social event should be marked by a "reward" of unhealthy food. I see the journals of progressive tiredness, frustration, etc, and it tells a tale - you are exhausted, you are struggling, you are tired of being trapped, and your faith in the process is faltering. Make no mistake, it is tough and this is the key to successful weight management, but you MUST have faith. It IS in your mind ... it is the psychological aspect working against you. The only solution is to FORCE A RESOLUTION and find that right combination of understanding and self motivation to DECIDE you will make the change and follow it through. See, it is easy to get frustrated at lack of progress and then slip. I know, I struggled for 9 months before I finally made the decision that I would do 12 weeks WITHOUT SLIPPING. I had to do those intial challenges because no one is perfect ... we focus on progress. But for me, to progress required cleaning it up. It meant absolutely refusing to give in until free day, and then listening to my body on free day. It meant no longer stuffing myself until I couldn't walk and going out in search of unauthorized foods, but rather eating things I was tempted by - ice cream, etc - but in moderation and without overeating. It meant giving up alcohol for the entire 12 weeks. It meant deciding that health was more important than the temporary gratification of food, that when I went to a barbeque I wouldn't talk myself into cheating because "well, I've got to LIVE" because I changed my definition of living from beer and ribs to being healthy. It takes a lot, but you can do it, you've just got to KEEP TRYING until the time is right and it clicks, and the change WILL come. Hope that helps. I went off on a tangent, but bottom line ... yes, extra cardio is sometimes warranted, but it depends on your situation and many times it is the nutrition, not the exercise, that needs to be set under control. Jeremy |
From Tom Venuto - The Truth About Stubborn Body Fat...
And he says what *I've* maintained all along...losing SLOWLY is the best way! :)
******************** THE TRUTH ABOUT STUBBORN BODY FAT, PART TWO In part 1, you learned that “stubborn fat” is really a misnomer. It’s also a self-limiting belief that turns into self-fulfilling prophecy. The truth is, each person inherits a unique pattern of fat storage. When you lose fat, you lose it all over your body and the first place you’re genetically prone to deposit it will be the last place it comes off. Spot reduction IS a myth. Most people simply set themselves up to hit a plateau before the last bit of localized body fat is gone. This is due to negative thinking, faulty dieting, and lack of exercise (especially weight training, which is essential to optimize your lean body mass and metabolic rate). In this second installment, you will learn exactly how to get rid of the last bit of localized fat. It’s NOT complicated! It’s more like common sense than anything. All it takes is a hard work ethic and a little patience. (If you have neither of these qualities, then sorry, this article isn’t for you). SIX FLAB BUSTING STRATEGIES THAT NO FAT CELLS CAN RESIST There are six strategies you must use to lose every bit of flab - the natural way - without plateaus, metabolic slowdown or lingering fat pockets: (1) LOSE FAT VERY SLOWLY Here’s where most of the problems begin: Most people have no patience. How many times have you been told to lose no more than two pounds per week? How many times have you ignored that advice? All the time, right? The American College of Sports Medicine told you this, your trainer told you this, your dietician told you this, your doctor told you this, etc. Almost everyone agrees – 1.0 to 2.0 pounds per week is usually the maximum rate for safe, permanent weight (fat) loss. But few people want to listen – they’re ecstatic when the scale registers a 5 or 7 pound weekly weight loss. I advise my clients to lose 1-2 lbs per week. Naturally, most go for the two pounds (and often ask if three is okay). Personally I go for 1 lb per week before competitions. If I lose more than one pound per week, I eat more. Losing too much weight too quickly always causes muscle loss, which in turn causes metabolic slowdown. Don’t ever confuse weight loss with fat loss. You can lose weight quickly, but you can’t lose fat quickly. If you think you can outwit Mother Nature and you’re dead set on losing 4, 5, 10 pounds a week, you’re going to lose fat in the beginning, but not all of it – you will plateau and rebound before the last “fat pockets” are gone. Set your goal to lose one or two pounds per week, but also set your goal to lose this fat weight consistently every week. When there aren‘t any plateaus, this really adds up over time. 2) REFEED REGULARLY - DON’T STAY ON LOW CALORIES ALL THE TIME I GUARANTEE you are going to hear a LOT more about the refeeding concept in the near future. It’s not a new idea, however. Fred “Dr. Squat” Hatfield was writing about this in the late 1980’s! He called it “Zig Zag” Dieting. “Carbing up”, “Cyclical Dieting,” “zig-zag” dieting, “re-feeding”, call it whatever you want; to me, it’s so obvious that increasing calories for a short periods while you’re dieting is the best way to avoid metabolic downgrade, that I can’t see how anyone would dispute it. But of course, die hard academics often demand concrete undisputable scientific evidence before anything is deemed true. I would suggest you do not wait for such “evidence” and you begin using this technique immediately! All you really need to understand is this basic principle: If staying on very low calories for a long time is what causes your metabolism to slow down… and if the slowdown in metabolism is the reason you have a difficult time losing that last bit of “stubborn” localized fat, then it’s only logical that the way to lose the “stubborn fat” is to avoid metabolic slowdown by not staying on low calories all the time! The re-feeding concept can all be boiled down to this simple advice; just raise your calories every few days instead of staying on low calories all the time. This is the method smart bodybuilders use to diet all the way down to low single digit body fat and lose the last fat pocket without hitting a single plateau. 3) DIET IN “CYCLES” OR “SEASONS” USING “NUTRITIONAL PERIODIZATION” - CHRONIC DIETING IS DANGEROUS Everyone knows someone who is ALWAYS on a strict diet. Maybe you’re one of them. As paradoxical as it seems, chronic dieting is a great way to get fatter! You see, everything in life has a certain rhythm or seasonality to it: Winter- Summer. Tide comes in – tide goes out. Sun goes up – sun goes down. To lose fat for good, you have to diet in seasons. “All sunshine makes a desert.” In sports training, a big buzzword is “periodization.” This refers to a cyclical approach to training an athlete, so the athlete peaks at his or her best performance level on the day of an event, or maintains optimal performance for the duration of a season. In periodization training, there is an off-season and an in-season. Training continues year-round, but the programs are quite different during these two cycles. The long major cycles are called macrocycles. Smaller weekly and monthly cycles within the larger cycles are called mesocycles. There are even tiny day-to-day variations in sets, reps, poundage, intensity, duration and tempo called microcycles. Nutrition can be periodized too, and this is another topic I predict will become very hot in the near future. Re-feeds are like nutritional mesocycles while the annual seasons are like nutritional macrocycles (the muscle building phase versus fat burning phase). I’ve always claimed that the bodybuilder’s method to fat loss is the superior one, and isn’t cyclical dieting exactly what bodybuilders do? Don’t they diet strictly in a deficit for a period of months, then train for muscle growth for a period of months? Doesn’t a really astute “physique artist” cycle the calorie levels throughout the year? Of course. That’s why bodybuilders who use this strategy are the supreme examples of effective permanent fat loss. Bulk too long, you gain too much fat and get completely out of fat burning mode. Diet too long, you lose muscle and downgrade your metabolism. Cycle the two every year in a seasonal fashion, whether you compete or not, and you have the perfect balance. Three time Mr. Olympia Frank Zane continued to diet once a year after he retired, exactly as if he were still going to compete. As a personal challenge to himself, each year he continued to attempt to beat his previous best – or at least he strived to be the best he could be at any given time of his life. Smart guy. And now in his 60’s, he has a body that would make men half his age green with envy. Cycle your nutrition and your training. Diet strictly at times and relax your diet at times. Train with everything you’ve got at times, and train to maintain at other times. Don’t listen to “experts” who constantly warn of overtraining and say things like “daily cardio is catabolic and unnecessary.” Daily cardio, as part of a short term fat loss cycle, supported with the proper nutrition and weight training, is the best way in the world to lose body fat. Of course you can do cardio daily! What you can’t do is continue with a high volume of daily training all year round. There’s no such thing as a “double winter,” so why put your body through severe dieting “weather” two seasons in a row? Diet strictly for a while, then slowly ease back for a while... eat more… relax… then go back at it even harder, pushing this time for an even higher peak. Be like the athlete trying to beat last year’s record. And continue with this approach for the rest of your life. 4) DEVELOP A LONG TERM TIME PERSPECTIVE AND SET LONG TERM GOALS You need patience and the right mental attitude to lose body fat. If you have a lot of fat to lose and you want to lose it permanently, you need to set up some long-term goals for your nutritional “seasons.” Otherwise, your body is going to fight back. I know dozens of people who did phenomenally well on before and after “transformation programs,” only to quickly gain back all of the fat they lost. Do YOU want to diet for 12 weeks, look great for a week or two then slip right back where you started from, or do you want to get lean and stay lean? Here are the reasons why so many people re-gain the weight: They only had a 12-week goal... Short-term time perspective... No long-term goals... Failure to develop goal setting as a lifelong continuous discipline... Failure to develop nutrition and training disciplines as habits… All fatal errors. Every season or "nutritional macrocycle", you must strive to improve on your previous best by setting new goals. Goal setting is not an event; it’s a never-ending process. Isn’t this what any world-class athlete does? Doesn’t the Olympian strive to beat his record at the last Olympics? Run faster, throw farther, jump higher? Doesn’t that require a very long-term time perspective? Can’t you apply this concept in your own training – even if its just for health, fitness and recreation? Wouldn’t this keep you motivated for years at a time instead of just doing ONE “12 week program” and then slipping backwards to square one? Couldn’t this mindset for constant and never ending improvement in a seasonal fashion keep you motivated for LIFE? Of course. 5) RE-SET YOUR SET POINT (AKA, TURN DOWN YOUR “FAT THERMOSTAT”) When I was in college, my body fat usually hovered around 15-16%. (Yes, I confess… I DID drink my share of beer in college). I lost the “beer belly,” of course, dropping my fat all the way down to the mid single digits. However, I always seemed to slide back where I started (16% or so). It seemed like that was a natural “set point” for me…kind of like my fat thermostat had the dial locked in at 16%. One day, I finally got wise and I decided to set a LONG TERM GOAL to get better every year and MAINTAIN a lower off-season body fat every year. First 14%, then 12%, then 10%, and finally, today, I don’t allow myself over 9.9% at any time. I refuse to go to double digits and I'll tighten up my diet or add cardio the second I notice myself slip. In contest season, I decided that 6-7% wasn’t lean enough, and I strived to beat that, which I did, hitting 6%, 5%, 4% and eventually as low as 3.4% body fat. Basically, I raised my standards of what body fat level was acceptable to me during the off season and for competitions. I vowed to improve both. I disciplined myself and stopped "bulking up." After I made this commitment, then each year it got easier to lose the fat because I wasn’t putting myself under prolonged periods of dieting stress to get there; I was already close, and starting closer every year because what I had done, unbeknownst to me at the time, was to re-set my set point. I’m sure you’ve heard of the “set point” theory before. This is the genetically pre-determined body fat level towards which you tend to gravitate. The good news is, you can lower your set point (your “fat thermostat”) through nutritional discipline, increasing your lean body mass, dieting in seasons/cycles, setting long term goals, and raising your standards in terms of how much body fat you are willing to carry. A lowered set point won’t happen over night. It doesn’t happen by the day or week, it happens by the month and year and is achieved by setting higher standards for how lean you stay over prolonged periods of time. 6) WATCH YOUR INTERNAL DIALOGUE: YOU BECOME YOUR “I AM’S” Be careful what you call yourself and what you say to yourself. It’s a psychological truth that you become your labels – you become your “I am’s.” If you want to lose body fat, then why on Earth do you walk around all day long saying over and over again, “I cant, I cant, I cant, I can’t lose this stubborn fat?” Why say, “I’m fat?” Why affirm the negative?Why would you do that to yourself? Over and over the tape plays in your head… programming your subconscious… building your belief systems… forging your paradigms… directing your behavior… creating your own reality. Why not visualize your ideal and affirm the positive?: “I am getting leaner and leaner every day!” Do not dwell on your present condition. Dwell on your future vision. Refuse to use the term “stubborn fat” again. Never say, “I can’t lose this fat.” Do not look at localized fat as any different than other fat on your body. Understand that it was the first place on, and will be the last place to come off – but it WILL come off – IF you do it the right way. CONCLUSION Usually articles on “stubborn fat” discuss “breakthroughs” in transdermal delivery systems, adrenergic agonists, alpha-2 receptors and lots of other scientific stuff. I’ve read papers on this subject that were so scientific, you'd need a medical dictionary to translate them. The so-called experts list dozens of references and write overly technical articles for an audience they know damn well has only a seventh grade reading level and couldn’t give a whiff about anything except seeing their abs. However, they do it anyways to make themselves look like almighty, all-knowing “gurus” and to sell worthless products. The reality is, these really aren’t even articles – they're advertisements for “spot reducing” gimmicks Listen; there is nothing complicated or overly scientific about the process of fat loss – even the last 10 pounds. Sure, there are proven products such as thermogenic supplements, but they don't work miracles, nor are they spot reducers. There’s no such thing as spot reduction. There’s no such thing as stubborn fat – it only appears that way for lack of understanding about the way the human body and mind work. You can do this naturally with nothing more than exercise, proper nutrition and the right attitude. To lose fat steadily without plateaus - right down to the very last fat cell - all you have to do is work with your body’s inherent nature, not against it. It may not be easy, but it’s incredibly simple and 100% predictable. Embrace the challenge, expect success, use what you've just learned, and in the long run, you’ll agree that the rewards were well worth the effort. |
I keep referring to this one...a snippet from Michael Fumento's book The Fat of the Land...
Quote:
|
I though about adding this to the "getting started" thread but it was closed. Anyways, I thought this is a great summary of "getting started" that breaks things into manageable ideas for the beginner. Makes it easier to make a weekly goal of 1 step if thats how you want to do it, or just take a look at what would most affect your progress.
From the Dave Draper newsletter, Jan 14 2004 Eating right, a list of steps to choose from: Make the commitment to press toward your fitness goal in one or more ways each and every day. Take your time and apply no pressure. Add this ‘n that, here ‘n there until a life-giving habit is formed. When we try too hard we set ourselves up for disappointment and early defeat. Try and try again. Begin by sweeping your refrigerator and cupboards clean of the foods you know are wrong: soda pop and chips and candy and cake. They are bad for you. This is a major and painless move -- out of sight, out of mind. Eliminating. Make fewer trips to the fast-food joints and eat less when you’re there -- half the chips, half the pop, half the goop. Weaning. Sugar kills, protein gives life. As you decrease your intake of empty foods (foods high in sugar offering no nutritional value), increase your consumption of protein-rich foods: meat, fish, poultry, milk products, some nuts and legumes. Exchanging. Make it a plan to eat in a more sensible, orderly manner: smaller meals more frequently throughout the day, and begin with a small protein-high breakfast. Arranging. Avoid random caffeine and sugar-high snacks. Replace them with mini-meals of yogurt, cottage cheese and fruit or an MRB (meal replacement bar). Replacing. Add living food to your menu. Plenty of fresh salad and steamed vegetables and ample amounts of fruit daily should be eaten for vitamin, mineral, enzyme value and roughage. Adding. Add a high-quality daily vitamin and mineral formula to your diet to assure adequate system-enhancing nutrients. Supplementing. Your health and fitness reflect who you are and play a decisive role in where you're going. It’s your responsibility to exercise daily to prepare your body and mind for the ordinary yet demanding routine of daily living. Fail to exercise and we age and weaken sooner and more certainly. Exercising. Tidey |
Some of you gals here know Kristi Larsen, a buddy of mine who is a certified personal instructor and has done a heckuva lot of research on nutrition and exercise in weight training. (If you don't know who she is, she has a website at www.kristilarsen.com with a ton of info and her journal - you can also subscribe to her e-newsletter as well).
This article is from her latest newsletter... Quote:
|
This article pretty much sums up why I DON'T recommend that people go on a 'competition diet'...the horror of the inevitable 'rebound effect'.
(thanks to Kristi Larsen for pointing this article out on her website!) Quote:
|
A good one from T-Mag!
Read this and HAD to post it. Kind of an updated "Foods that Make You Look Good Nekkid". :)
Of course I have issues with some of the recommendations - specifically the cheese - and I do note the lack of stuff like yams and oatmeal on the list, but perhaps that's going to be covered in Pt. II! Quote:
|
Mrs. Jim,
I just wanted to post and say thank you for all the wonderful articles and information that you share. :) |
Train like a WOMAN!
Train Like A Woman
By Kristin Reisinger When I was asked to write a response article to an article entitled, 'Train Like A Man,' I envisioned myself writing a highly charged rebuttal piece to a sexist rant chock full of testosterone, andro and a bit of GH thrown in for good measure. After much thought about the topic at hand, I realized that a lot of the author's attitudes and beliefs towards training apply to everyone. Especially us women! Let me explain. Through the years I have seen many women in the gym lifting these rinky-dink, pink and purple hand weights barely breaking a sweat. I see the same girls do three cardio classes in a row and spend countless hours on the treadmill like hamsters on a habitrail pondering why their bodies look exactly the same as they did six months ago. These are the same girls that come up to me and ask me repeatedly what I do to look the way I do or what do I eat or do I even eat. I even overheard a girl once say, "I'm doing so good today... I only had a bagel and a salad." The list is endless and it is endlessly frustrating. I wish I had a megaphone right now. Ladies... you need to lift HEAVY to have a physique like the chick from Terminator! When you feel like you can't squeeze out any more reps... do two more! Get calluses on your hands... your man will love it. So many of you comment on how much you'd love to have a body like Madonna or Angela Bassett or Gabrielle Reece but most of you don't do anything to get it! Do you think these women work out with tiny little dumbbells and their bodies look like that by mistake? Do you even know how hard it is and how much meticulous planning and preparation (and testosterone!) it takes to put on muscle and "bulk up" like a professional bodybuilder? I've been lifting as hard and heavy as any guy I know for two years and I keep getting smaller and leaner! I look sexier and more feminine than ever before, too. By really lifting weights and stressing your muscles you will increase your lean mass, and since it is this lean mass (muscle tissue) that burns fat, you will have the capacity to burn more fat even at rest. Combining this with a moderate amount of cardiovascular activity (not three step classes in a row) will turn your body into a fat burning machine. Too much cardio works against you and will eventually begin to utilize your hard-earned lean muscle tissue for energy which is NOT the desired goal. You also need to EAT. Your need to fuel your body with the appropriate foods for energy as well as protein for the build up and reparation of muscle tissue. Starving yourself is NOT the answer and is more detrimental than most of you realize. It will slow down your BMR (basal metabolic rate) and hang on to every last bit of bagel you consume as stored energy (fat). By eating small, low-fat meals throughout the day incorporating a protein source with good sources of fibrous and complex carbohydrates will stabilize your insulin levels and sustain your energy levels. This will prevent your body from going into starvation mode while giving you all the building blocks you need for developing and shaping your muscles. Plus, you actually get to eat more! "It's all about ATTITUDE," says the author, and I agree wholeheartedly. I would even venture to say us women need to dish out even more of it than men. If I had a nickel for every time I witness some girl feeling intimidated in the gym because of the presence of a man or give up a machine or a bench because some dude is waiting for it, I'd have a bank account like Arnold. I have gone up to girls in the gym and yelled at them for doing that. Where's your damn backbone?! Self-esteem, confidence and an all-around, I don't give a s--t attitude are all part of the package that go along with my philosophies on training like a woman which is far more attractive than a whole heap of mascara, lip gloss and eye liner. And the gym is our domain as much as any man. Training like a woman is a synergistic framework allowing everything else in life to fall into place that much smoother including relationships, career or whatever you allow it to flow into. Having a great body is merely a fringe benefit. So ladies, to quote a very wise person, "Go hard or go home," especially if you're a woman. |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:15 PM. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.