I’ve also suggested, on occasion, that exercise is good for you. But is there such a thing as over-exercise? A new study that appeared in The Journal of Applied Physiology and mentioned in The New York Times, suggests that you can go a little too far.The researchers studied a group of subjects who had all trained very extensively for Olympic and National competition as well as members of a group known as the 100 Marathon Club– membership, as the title suggests, is reserved for individuals who have competed in 100 marathons or more. The subjects were divided by age categories and compared to a group of older subjects, none of whom were endurance athletes.

Using MRI technology, the researchers found that the older group of endurance athletes showed some heart muscle scarring, known as fibrosis, that none of the younger athletes or older non-athletes had shown. The fibrosis can lead to a hardening of the heart muscle which can, in turn, create irregular heart function and heart failure.

In a related study, another group of researchers found that they could create the same results in mice. They also found that when they removed the mice from their training regimens, their hearts returned to normal and the scaring disappeared after a matter of weeks.

So does this mean you should stop exercising Absolutely not. The results are for endurance athletes who are training, over many years, for one endurance event after another. Casual exercise, two or three times a week, will still provide heart-healthy benefits.

I think the lesson to be drawn from the study is that, while cardiovascular exercise is beneficial for the heart, it is also necessary to rest and perceive rest as part of the normal training cycle. Think of it as a cardiovascular Yin and Tang effect– if you go in one particular direction, it is also necessary to go in the opposite direction in order to achieve balance. Rest is good.

Too much of a good thing isn’t necessarily a good thing.

Rock on!!

The latest blurb was in the New York Times, regarding a program developed by the US military to assign shoes based on the shapes of soldiers feet in order to avoid injury. As they could find no definitive study regarding shoe design with regard to injury prevention, they started their own practice of handing out shoes to recruits based on the shape of their arches. I found this especially amusing as one good friend who recently returned from serving in Iraq told me that most soldiers ignore the shoes given to them by the military and buy regulation footwear from outside sources. Leave it to the military to find brilliant uses for finances.

Of the three studies quoted last month in the American Journal of Sports Medicine, researchers found no connection between shoe choice and injury prevention. And, further more, a study in the British Journal of Sports Medicine found that the “corrective” shoes actually led to more injuries. Go figure.

I see corrective shoes like the old joke:

Me: “Doctor, it hurts when I do this.”
Doctor: “Don’t do that.”

Corrective shoes are doing nothing for the imbalances and weaknesses that exist in your lower body. Forcing you out of a position will just put more pressure on the weakened area and, eventually, that will cause injury. I believe that there are shoes that can help each individual. But, at the end of the day, it is very important to take a look at your weaknesses and imbalances and set out on a plan of strengthen those weaknesses to avoid injury.

Which brings me back to the Barefoot Argument. Many people believe that barefoot running is better for the foot because it helps to strengthen the entire foot. Injuries are a result of weakness and imbalance brought on by years of over-support.

Do I subscribe to this philosophy? I think its a good argument. And personally, I know that the shoes I use for EVERYTHING- running, boxing, cross training, weight lifting- are the same shoes with which I ran the 2007 NYC Marathon. I can’t be too sure but I would guess they have three or four thousand miles of use on roads, treadmills, stair machines and in the ring. And, as I use them, the calf pain that I use to feel after a particularly long run, has all but disappeared.

Go figure.

Rock on.

……not sure where to begin on this one…….

To Mr. Wright: of all the colossally boneheaded money manager stories about the misappropriation of funds and shear lack of integrity in your industry over the past couple of years, this one takes the canned cake. If it all proves true, I hope the punishment fits the crime: years of hard labor with nothing to eat but aluminum-wrapped Monte Cristos (prepackaged with a maple-syrup-like substance). Though I am very impressed that you were able to squeeze……deep breath…….$145 MILLION DOLLARS from investors, this thinking takes shallow to a whole new level.

To Mark Kirkland, the developer behind the Candwich idea: really?!? Pepperoni Pizza Pocket in a can?!? Really?!? This is keeping you up at night?!? If I were reading the Onion, I might get a good laugh, but this just makes me queasy. Is the dream to have a can of PB & J in the lunch box of every school child? This idea is to health and well being what the Snuggy is to formal wear. Please: drop it. Drop the idea before it is too late. Personally, beyond the thought of other humans eating such things, the thought that this might be part of our legacy as a people is a little overwhelming. Suddenly KFC and their bread-less chicken sandwich looks amazingly health conscious.

On the plus side: according to the Times, Mr. Kirkland believes the Candwich has a remarkable shelf like. Kinda like Soylent Green.

What does that mean?

It means that eating junk food is as addictive as any drug. I am so tired of hearing the high-and-mighty complain of a about the nation’s heavy population. But I am equally as fed up with the heavy lobby pushing the idea that being heavy is just fine. If you are addicted to these foods, there is only one way out: you have to admit your addiction and deal with it accordingly. But understand: its not personal weakness; its biochemical.

Junk food, sweets and the like are as addictive as tobacco, cocaine or any other substance that causes this sort of reaction in the receptors of the brain. I’ve been telling this to my clients for years. Though the resulting weight gain is frowned upon, for whatever reason the culprits, the horrible foods themselves, get away relatively free. Until this behavior is accepted as addictive and as dangerous as drugs or alcohol, the behavior will forever repeat itself.

But honestly……can you see the FDA restricting your access to Twinkies?

The only way out of the cycle?

The same way you’d have to quit drugs or alcohol. Go cold turkey. You’re going to go through a serious transition phase– the “sugar crankies” I call ‘em: you’ll be depressed, sluggish, irritable (I always recommend that you tell friends and family what you are up to because the mood changes can be intense) and you are going to crave a sweet– chocolates, orange juice, even baked goods.

It is especially important to keep in mind that, like any addiction, you are going to be prone to relapse. This behavior is one reason why people can lose a lot of weight and then put it back on. When an alcoholic quits drinking, that’s it. He or she knows that one drink can start the cycle all over again. And the same would be true of all the garbage that is out in the market place to gorge on. Companies can spend millions and millions of dollars designing foods that will specifically appeal to those cravings, and even more millions figuring out ways to get you to buy them.

And the percentage of the population most likely to feel the brunt of this “food science” and accompanying marketing genius? Our children.

We didn’t allow Joe Camel to pitch cigarettes to kids. How is it we’re okay with Ronald McDonald?

There ain’t no such thing as a healthy muffin top. And there ain’t no such thing as “just a little drink” when you’re alcoholic. Period.

Watch the video. Pass it on.

First, the linear thinking: if one pound of fat is 3500 calories, then wouldn’t it make sense to simple cut our intake by a small amount, say 100 calories, daily? That way, in a little over month, we would be down one pound, right?

Wrong. It’s an argument that I am sure many of you are tired of hearing from me. Nothing about the health and well-being of the complex systme known as your body is ever that linear. The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) notes that this line of thinking fails to take into account the body’s adaptive qualities. As you take in slighty fewer calories, you will lose a few pounds but then your body will adapt to function with a lower intake. As you take in a few more, it will adapt to function with the higher intake. The extra calories go to supporting the new extra weight.

But I still want you to think about the small steps.

Combine this with an increase in physical activity and the benefits increase. Now, start working out at a very high level, the “zero to 60″ theory of January 1st, and your body is going to crave the extra calories to support the new stress and strain of all the work. Fail to give the body the right materials and you are setting yourself up for breakdown. However, cut back slightly on the calorie intake, you can then increase your activity level slightly and start to roll back the dial on the scale. Then increase the activity level, then decrease the calorie intake…… you starting to get the picture?

The key is working intelligently and strategic and listening to your body. Cutting out 100 calories a day? You should be able to do that without blinking and without that horrible feeling of deprivation. Increasing the number of steps you take daily by 2000? Again, very easy to incorporate into your agenda if you know what to do.

But strict focus on calories in/calories out? Eventually your body is going to catch on and balance itself out……and then you are going to be frustrated……

…….and, of course, that’s not even taking into account what those calories are comprised of……..

I was shocked.

I had no idea there was a Major League Baseball Network.

Earlier on Monday, Brooklyn had lost one of its own. Joe Rollino had been struck and killed by a mini van as he went for his morning walk in the Bay Ridge section of Brooklyn. Mr. Rollino, Puggy to his friends, was 104 years old. Others called him Mighty Joe Rollino, for he had made a name for himself as a strongman. Not just any strongman, but, as an elloquent obituary in the New York Times points out, possibly pound for pound the greatest strongman to ever live. Frequently, he would swim in the water off Coney Island, at one time holding an eight year streak of swimming every day ( in 1974, the story goes, he braved a 6-degree day to go swimming.) Louis Scarcella of the Coney Island Polar Bears, a group that braves the cold waters all winter long, said of Joe: “He was known as the Great Joe Rollino, and he was great. You knew he was great just by standing next to him. He just had that humble confidence and strength. It shined.” A new member of the Guru community mentioned that he had once met Mr. Rollino a couple of years ago, when he was the ripe young age of 102, and his handshake was extraordinary powerful. He skipped red meat, alcohol and cigarettes. And of course, he had his daily walks.

I’d like to think that’s the way Mighty Joe would want to go: hit by a car during his morning walk while still feeling powerful.

McGwire? What can you say about him? He had a great start to his career, winning the Golden Glove in 1990. But then he had a couple of less-than-stellar seasons and, who knows, maybe he figured juicing would set him up for better performance, more accolades and more money. They say he and Sammy Sosa saved baseball from all the negativity of the strike a few years before. But at the end of the day, both he and Sosa will make it into the record books with asterisks next to their names. Sure, great achievements. Would they have been great players if they hadn’t juiced? Sure. For me, they would have been marginally better if they had avoided years of denial and simply admitted what they had done.

But they did, Blanche, they did use the juice. And then denied, denied, denied.

So a tip-of-the-hat to Mighty Joe Rollino: the Strongest Man in the World.

Sometimes strength is measured simply by integrity. And Mr. Rollino, 104 years old, shined.

Five Toys that didn’t make it to Christmas!

Make-Up “dangerous” for young girls.

Woman allergic to Christmas.

Surfing Santa video

Sugar “high” is a myth

Oh, and add some comments while your at it– the regular commentators seem a little humorless.

oooooh so Guru-like

The Fitness Guru meets the Frugal Traveler

Pour another cup of coffee, kick back and enjoy!

Co-Ed Dorms Fuel Sex and Drinking. And they funded this study….

Toxins in toys “feminize” boys so they play nice. Yup, funded this one too.

Percentage of adults smoking is on the rise.

How necessary is stretching? Once again, the linear thinking just pisses me off.

The Skinniest Winner. Dehydration, starvation, and over-exercising on The Biggest Loser. And, surprise, some contestants have a hard time keeping the weight off.