Thursday, August 30, 2012

Our Philosophy

Make everyone welcome 

Design & deliver training that is fun, focused, functional & challenging.

Be innovative


Provide honest advise 

Lead by example


Encourage teamwork & camaraderie  


Motivate and build confidence


Develop dedication and discipline 


Build a never give up attitude  


Have a laugh 


Train Safely 


Protect the environment  


Encourage feedback 


Continually improve 

  
Deliver Real Results 

Saturday, August 25, 2012

Bootcamp Pg Schedule 27th Aug - 2nd Sep 2012 - Bring the ATTITUDE !!


Mon: 1830-1930hrs - Crystal Point 

Tues : 1830-1930hrs Youth Park

Wed: 1830-1930hrs Crystal Point ( Bukit Jambul)

Thurs: 1830-1930hrs Botanical Gardens ( Meet at the main gate)

Saturday: 0730 - 0830 hrs Botanical Gardens  (Running)


Wednesday, August 22, 2012

BENEFITS OF BOOTCAMP FOR RUNNERS AND CYCLISTS


Conventional wisdom tells us that we must train only at our own sport to get better. For example many runners spend most of their time only doing one thing running in the belief that other forms of training such as Bootcamp will be detrimental to their performance.


Unfortunately the realities of doing one type of sports activities is increased risk of injury & possibly plateau of performance. It is also true that most runners and cyclists are also for example in poor shape above the waist as they do little or no weight training because they believe it will slow them down.


In fact the opposite is true with the latest research showing that runners and cyclists will see performance benefits from Bootcamp training. Consequently coaches now recommend that you incorporate high intensity workout into your weekly program as it provides the right mix of strength & anaerobic training to develop lung capacity & powerful muscles. The other benefits are that it will also build core strength & reduce injury while making you more durable both mentally and physically.

So why not come along to our sessions you will see & feel the difference.

Signs your are over- training


Exercise is good for you but sometimes in our quest to improve we think the more the better and consequently do not allow our bodies enough rest and recuperation. The  outcome is that by over-training we actually do more harm than good and weaken our changes of achieving our goals. 

Some signs of over training to look out for: 
                     
  • Feel excitable, moody, irritable or lack concentration.
  • Heart rate is raised at rest and during exercise
  • Suffer insomnia or feel restless during sleep
  • Experience muscle aches or joint pain or chronic injuries
  • Your performance drops during workouts 
  • Pick up injuries
  • Feel excessively fatigued and demotivated
  • Falling ill more often 
  • Loss of appetite
  • Menstrual cycle disturbed in women. 

So what to do to prevent and treat: 
  • Listen to our body, train as you feel, if you feel tired or unmotivated , have an easy session or take a rest day. 
  • Rest days are critical factor them into your training plan. 
  • Get enough sleep it is the more critical part of your fitness training.
  • Eat a balanced diet, avoid alcohol and cigarettes
  • Cross Train,  do not focus on the same type of exercises regime all the time
  • Vary the intensity of your training, do not always train hard in every session, have easy days.
  • If you are sick or injured take time off to recuperate and see you doctor if necessary

Saturday, August 18, 2012

BOOTCAMP PG SCHEDULE 20th - 26th August 2012


Mon: 1830-1930hrs - No Class ( Public Holiday)

Tues : 1830-1930hrs Youth Park

Wed: 1830-1930hrs Crystal Point ( Bukit Jambul)

Thurs: 1830-1930hrs Botanical Gardens ( Meet at the main gate)

Saturday: 0730 - 0830 hrs Botanical Gardens  (Running)

Tuesday, August 14, 2012

Hey I want to look like that

Hey you know what it is more and more challenging to live up to the ideals of perfectionism delivered daily via media streams The modern world have been revolutionized by the internet , so now we are even more connected & pressurized by advertisers who drive us all to look a certain way.For previous generations they did have the constant daily drip feed of communications to like this or that , or buy this in order to look like this or eat that to become this.The bottom line is the advertisers objective is to sell  an image and unfortunately we buy into it and this can make us feel sometimes less than perfect.

The outcome is that the we suffer more eating disorders, undertake fad diets, pop unproven pills, & spend our  money on  useless quick fixes machines and programs. Unfortunately the fact is most of us will not realize the ideal even if we wrap , pop , drink , rub , think, kick , spin or vibrate our way to the advertisers ideals of what we should look like or how we can get there.


Hey now for a reality check just look at the Olympics , did you not notice something , all the competitors were of different sizes ,shapes,  age profiles, not air brushed but real human beings.Yes some look really good but we always have some people who look really good even in your office , unfortunately that's life.


My advise is forget the advertisers and ignore the path of least resistance. The best way to improve body image is to take up some form of physical exercise and eat a balanced diet. Go exercise in whatever way you enjoy, walk run, boot camp , dance, cycle , kick-box or whatever because it's GOOD FOR YOU. It will not cost you a bomb and you will get fit for life the caveat however being you must do it regularly at least 3 - 5 times a week.



As you get fit you will improve your health , quality of life you will  also feel more confident , have fun , make new friends , reduce stress , reduce body fat, look better,  have more energy, improve sleep, become mentally tougher, learn new sports and have new life experiences.  Whatever it is, just do it , you will have no regrets

By MC 

Sunday, August 12, 2012

Believing you are fat could lead to weight gain


HEALTHY teenage girls who mistakenly believe they are fat are twice as likely to become overweight in their twenties, a study has found.
Norwegian researchers found that six in ten teenage girls who felt too fat despite being of normal size went on to become overweight in their twenties, compared with three in ten who had no weight issues.
Among healthy-sized boys, six in ten of those who had felt fat in their teens became overweight in their twenties but so did half of those who had been happy with their body size, according to the study in the Journal of Obesity.
The stress of being unhappy with one's body, skipping meals such as breakfast and trying strict diets which prove too difficult to stick to could all lead to an increased risk of obesity, researchers said.
The team from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology used a survey of 1,200 normal weight adolescents aged 13 to 19, in which they were asked about their perception of their weight.
They compared the responses with a follow-up questionnaire eleven years later, examining how many had a Body Mass Index – a measure of weight relative to height – of 25kg per square metre (classed as "overweight") or 30kg per square metre and above ("obese").
The researchers also carried out a similar analysis of participants' waistlines, with a waist of 80cm for women and 94cm for men qualifying as overweight, and measurements of 88cm and 102cm respectively classified as obese.
Researchers noticed that the young men and women who in their teens had described themselves as "chubby" or "very fat" were more likely to have become overweight or obese.
Some 59 per cent of girls and 63 per cent of boys who had incorrectly perceived themselves as fat went on to become overweight as adults (according to their BMI), compared with 31 per cent of girls and 48 per cent of boys who had been happy with their weight.
When classed by waist measurement as opposed to BMI, 78 per cent of girls and 55 per cent of boys who had felt too heavy later became overweight, compared with 55 per cent of girls and 29 per cent of boys who had been unconcerned about their size as teenagers.
Previous studies have suggested that being anxious or stressed about one's body shape can cause weight gain, particularly around the waist, researchers said.
Teenagers who perceive themselves as overweight could resort to unhealthy eating habits, such as skipping breakfast, or adopting diets they cannot stick to, both of which are thought to raise the risk of becoming overweight.
The scientists wrote: "Girls in particular tend to consider themselves as overweight, even though they are not, which may lead to psychosocial stress and unhealthy weight control practices such as skipping meals.
"This study demonstrates that the adolescents, classified as normal weight though perceiving themselves as overweight, have a larger weight gain into young adulthood than those who do not experience self-perceived overweight."
Norwegian researchers found that six in ten teenage girls who felt too fat despite being of normal size went on to become overweight in their twenties, compared with three in ten who had no weight issues.
Among healthy-sized boys, six in ten of those who had felt fat in their teens became overweight in their twenties but so did half of those who had been happy with their body size, according to the study in the Journal of Obesity.
The stress of being unhappy with one's body, skipping meals such as breakfast and trying strict diets which prove too difficult to stick to could all lead to an increased risk of obesity, researchers said.
The team from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology used a survey of 1,200 normal weight adolescents aged 13 to 19, in which they were asked about their perception of their weight.
They compared the responses with a follow-up questionnaire eleven years later, examining how many had a Body Mass Index – a measure of weight relative to height – of 25kg per square metre (classed as "overweight") or 30kg per square metre and above ("obese").
The researchers also carried out a similar analysis of participants' waistlines, with a waist of 80cm for women and 94cm for men qualifying as overweight, and measurements of 88cm and 102cm respectively classified as obese.
Researchers noticed that the young men and women who in their teens had described themselves as "chubby" or "very fat" were more likely to have become overweight or obese.
Some 59 per cent of girls and 63 per cent of boys who had incorrectly perceived themselves as fat went on to become overweight as adults (according to their BMI), compared with 31 per cent of girls and 48 per cent of boys who had been happy with their weight.
When classed by waist measurement as opposed to BMI, 78 per cent of girls and 55 per cent of boys who had felt too heavy later became overweight, compared with 55 per cent of girls and 29 per cent of boys who had been unconcerned about their size as teenagers.
Previous studies have suggested that being anxious or stressed about one's body shape can cause weight gain, particularly around the waist, researchers said.
Teenagers who perceive themselves as overweight could resort to unhealthy eating habits, such as skipping breakfast, or adopting diets they cannot stick to, both of which are thought to raise the risk of becoming overweight.
The scientists wrote: "Girls in particular tend to consider themselves as overweight, even though they are not, which may lead to psychosocial stress and unhealthy weight control practices such as skipping meals.
"This study demonstrates that the adolescents, classified as normal weight though perceiving themselves as overweight, have a larger weight gain into young adulthood than those who do not experience self-perceived overweight."
Source :Telegraph.co.uk


BOOTCAMP SCHEDULE 13th - 19th August 2012


Mon: 1830-1930hrs Crystal Point ( Bukit Jambul)

Tues : 1830-1930hrs Youth Park

Wed: 1830-1930hrs Crystal Point ( Bukit Jambul)

Thurs 1830-1930hrs Botanical Gardens ( Meet at the main gate)

Saturday 0730 - 0830 hrs Botanical Gardens  (Running)

_________________________________________________

REAL TRAINING - REAL RESULTS

Tuesday, August 7, 2012

Death by sugar


Fat has long been considered the number-one health enemy in our diet, yet sugar is in lots of everyday foods -- and it could be killing us softly, says Suzanne Harrington

Guess what? The surge in diabetic death between 1900 and 1920 coincided with the sweeties and fizzy drinks industries properly taking off The cycle of addiction -- obsession and craving, caving in and using, remorse and shame, passage of time, more obsession and craving, more caving in and using -- happens with sugar too. 

Here's an experiment you may or may not wish to try at home. Instead of your evening meal, have a large bar of chocolate. Or something equally high in sugar -- ice cream, chocolate biscuits, sweets.

Note your mood before and after; chances are you'll have gone from feeling normal to feeling headachey, irritable, vague, lethargic, even a bit depressed.

The next morning you may even feel slightly hungover -- thirsty, grumpy, spaced out.
Welcome to sugar crash. We don't need our sugar to be fermented in wine bottles for it to adversely affect our minds and bodies.

Obviously, most people would not have a large amount of chocolate in place of a meal, nor is this about food guilt or self-flagellation for eating 'bad' food -- it's about the effect refined sugar has on us physiologically. It's not good.
And although brown-rice wholefood freaks have been saying it for years, it seems as though the rest of us might be finally waking up to the fact that (a) sugar is addictive and (b) sugar is harmful.

While the debate continues over whether it is ever accurate to call sugar a poison or a toxin, its link with so many of us being fat and diabetic is impossible to ignore.
We have long beaten ourselves up about the obesity crisis. It's our own fault for being greedy, lazy, sofa-bound pizza monsters.

We are so busy exercising only our fingers and thumbs on computer keyboards and games consoles, punctuated by cake breaks washed down with giant buckets of fizzy drink, that we have become a society of elephant seals, honking self-pityingly about our ballooning size as we do nothing about it.
Except this is not quite an accurate picture. Yes we are definitely fatter -- on average three stone heavier than we were in the 1960s -- but not necessarily less active.
Research done at Plymouth Hospital, a 12-year study, began monitoring 300 five-year-olds in 2000 and found that although one in five was at risk of developing Type 2 diabetes (previously a condition that affected older or middle-aged people), these kids were just as physically active as children 50 years ago.

So what was making them so prone to developing it?
Could it be sugar? Well, yes. The 1923 Nobel Prize winner for medicine who discovered insulin, Canadian physician Frederick Banting, began to notice that in societies where sugar consumption was low, diabetes was rare.

It used to be quite rare in the West, too, but this began to change around the turn of the last century.
There was a 15-fold increase in deaths from diabetes reported in New York between the American Civil War and the 1920s, according to research conducted at Columbia University; this escalated between 1900 and 1920, where some American cities saw four times more people dying of the disease.

And guess what? This surge in diabetic death coincided with a huge increase in sugar consumption, as the sweeties and fizzy drinks industries began to properly take off.
Fast-forward to now. Robert Lustig is Professor of Paediatrics at the University of San Francisco California, and director of WATCH -- Weight Assessment for Teen and Child Health.

He is, in other words, a world expert on fat kids, and is one of the very few medical professionals unafraid to use the word poison in connection with sugar.

Now, when we think of poison we probably think of arsenic, thallium or belladonna, which are all fast and dramatic, but what about a slower poison?

Alcohol has been called 'the slow poison' (by people like Shaun Ryder, who, it would be reasonable to say, knows his poisons).
But how can we include chocolate buttons or lemonade in that category? Isn't that the kind of hysterical hyperbolic labelling favoured by seaweed-eating macro-neurotics and food obsessives?

In 2009, Lustig gave a lecture called 'Sugar: The Bitter Truth'. Since it was posted on YouTube, it's had 2,602,506 viewings at the time of writing -- which is a lot for a 90-minute medical talk.

Lustig's point is not that sugar is full of empty calories -- we have known that forever -- but that it is metabolised differently from other foods. And not in a good way.
Not all calories are equal. The body treats fructose differently from glucose. In other words, starchy food -- potatoes, bread etc -- is not metabolised in the same way as the same calorific amount of sugary food.

Starch -- that is, glucose -- is metabolised throughout the whole body, whereas sugar -- fructose and glucose -- is dealt with only by the liver. Lustig calls this ''isocaloric but not isometabolic'': same calories, different chemical reaction in the body. And therefore different consequences.

The sugar to which Lustig refers is sucrose, the stuff we may or may not stir into our tea, and fructose, which is found in the food additive High Fructose Corn Syrup, HFCS, which is in lots and lots of the everyday foods we eat.

Once sugar has entered the body, it is dealt with by the liver. If you down a can of fizzy orange drink or a glass of orange juice, the liquid sugar hits the liver much faster than, say, eating the same amount of whole oranges to get the equivalent amount of sugar.

If the liver has to metabolise a sudden influx of sugar, this affects how it metabolises it. If the liver has to deal with a significant amount of rapidly incoming sugar, it does what we would rather it didn't -- it converts the sugar to body fat. Fast.

This results in something called insulin resistance, which is the underlying problem both in obesity and the development of Type 2 diabetes, and is also thought to be connected to the development of quite a few cancers.

No wonder Lustig is so adamant that sugar, far from being the sweet rewarding treat for children, is a deadly poison that's shortening the lives of millions of us.

But sugar has been around forever, hasn't it? Yet we have only been obese for a few decades. So it still must be our own fault for being greedy, super-sized fatsos. Isn't it?
Not according to British writer and broadcaster Jacques Peretti, who recently made a series unambiguously titled 'The Men Who Made Us Fat'. It's all about politics, economics and the massive amounts of HFCS added to our food.

You may not have heard of Earl Butz, but he is very much connected with the size of our, well, butz. He was a Nixon agricultural adviser who, in the early 1970s, suggested to farmers that they grow corn in industrial quantities, in the hope of bringing down the cost of food and therefore helping Nixon get re-elected. The farmers duly complied.

Powered by mega-production of corn, American food became cheaper: cows ate it and were turned into burgers, chips were fried in it. And there was loads left over. By the mid-1970s, America was up to its ears in surplus corn.

Butz went to Japan to investigate the processing of all this corn into a liquid sugar. This liquid was cheaper than cane sugar (the traditional food baddie we have long been told to avoid) and even sweeter.

As an only semi-indirect result of Nixon's re-election campaign, HFCS -- known as glucose-fructose syrup in Ireland and Britain -- began being manufactured and added to our foods on a vast scale.

Cheap and super-sweet, this stuff adds shelf-life, sweetness and even alters the appearance of baked foods (giving a sugary surface sheen), but its addition is not restricted to foods you'd normally associate with sugar, such as desserts or sweeties.

HFCS is squirted into everything -- processed meats, cooking sauces, coleslaw, bread, TV dinners, pizza, fizzy drinks, fast food, breakfast cereals, ketchup, yogurts, ice cream (even the premium stuff), salad dressing, cakes and biscuits, jam and an awful lot of low-fat food products. In fact, anything remotely processed.

Cheap added sugar made food taste better, last longer and sell cheaper -- from a food industry perspective, what was not to like?

Until the advent of mass-produced HFCS, fat was the number-one food enemy. Fat made you fat, raised your cholesterol levels, blocked your arteries and was generally bad.

Low-fat became the buzzword. Foods became prefixed with descriptions such as lo, lite and diet. Anything under 5pc was categorised as low fat. But fat makes things taste nice, as any butter-happy cook will tell you. So how to replace the fat?
With sugar. Lots of it. The soft drinks industry was already sugar-tastic when, in 1984, Coca Cola switched from traditional sugar to HFCS. Being the dominant brand, everyone else followed suit -- HFCS was cheaper and sweeter and nobody had ever heard of obesity crisis or sugar addiction.

While researching heart disease in the 1970s, one British academic, Professor John Yudkin, had made a case for sugar making us fat and getting us hooked. Nobody listened. Everyone was too busy demonising fat.

The food industry knew quite well that there was far more profit to be made from categorising fat as the enemy rather than sugar -- low-fat or fat-free was a far more enticing consumer option than anything sweetened with weird chemical stuff that was being linked to cancer in lab rats.

So we were sold the sugar good/fat bad equation.
These days, we have a situation where our food is saturated in sugar, our tastebuds have adjusted accordingly and we are carrying on average an extra three stone.

So the obvious solution would be to knock sugar on the head. Just give it up. Stop using it. Simple.

If only. The concept of food addiction is a new one. We can become addicted to substances -- drugs, alcohol, tobacco -- or behaviours such as gambling, but food? Yes, food -- specifically refined sugars, still a human diet novelty in evolutionary terms.

According to 2007 research from the University of Bordeaux, intense sweetness triggers more of a neurochemical pleasure response than cocaine.

Here's what the researchers said: ''In most mammals, including rats and humans, sweet receptors evolved in ancestral environments poor in sugars and are thus not adapted to high concentrations of sweet tastants.

''The supranormal stimulation of these receptors by sugar-rich diets, such as those now widely available in modern societies, would generate a supranormal reward signal in the brain, with the potential to override self-control mechanisms and thus to lead to addiction.''

At Princeton in 2008, Professor Bart Hoebel had a look at rats and sugar bingeing, and noted changes in their brain chemistry that were the same as changes produced by morphine, cocaine and nicotine.

''If bingeing on sugar is really a form of addiction, there should be long-lasting effects in the brains of sugar addicts,'' he said.

''Craving and relapse are critical components of addiction, and we have been able to demonstrate these behaviours in sugar-bingeing rats in a number of ways.''

Never mind rats. As a card-carrying sugar addict, I can vouch for the addictive response sugar causes which overrides good intentions, self-knowledge, willpower, the loss of self-esteem caused by weight gain, even threats to physical health, such as diabetes, cancers and heart disease.

The cycle of addiction -- obsession and craving, caving in and using, remorse and shame, passage of time, more obsession and craving, more caving in and using -- happens with sugar too.
Ask any diet breaker; nobody has these issues with broccoli. Nobody binges on tofu.

My own sugar addiction emerged when I stopped drinking and subsequently robbed my dopamine receptors of their major daily sugar intake. I am far from unique; overnight sugar-madness is a common trait in recovering alcoholics.

But glancing around shows that you needn't be sugar sensitive (as in, alcoholic) to be sugar-addicted -- the size of our bodies on any high street makes that obvious. We are all sugar addicts now. One nibble and you're nobbled.

''Sugar sensitivity turns a person into Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde,'' writes Dr Kathleen DesMaisons, author of 'The Sugar Addict's Total Recovery Programme'. ''It's like having two different people live in your body.

''From one moment to the next, your sensitivity and openness turns to moodiness and irritability. This emotional ping-pong remains inexplicable without an understanding of sugar sensitivity.''

Thankfully, knowledge is power. Just as recovering alcoholics avoid all alcohol so that they don't trigger a craving, the same wisdom applies to sugar addiction. Except it's miles harder.

While being a drug addict is socially unacceptable, and being an alcoholic less so -- because booze is a legal social drug -- being a sugar addict is not only acceptable but positively encouraged. Go on, have some. You know you want to.
And because sugar is so prevalent in food, radical diet change can be hard to instigate.

Food recovery groups such as Overeaters Anonymous and Food Addicts Anonymous advocate a diet free of refined sugar (especially when combined with refined flour, or 'cake' as it's also known), which requires constant dedication and vigilance.
Sugar, as you can see from the panel, is everywhere.
Only when the social and financial cost of our consumption of sugar outweighs the profits made by the high-sugar processed food industry might we see an emphasis on industry responsibility, rather than blaming the individual for being fat, stupid and lazy.

SOME OTHER NAMES FOR SUGAR
Alcohol
Artificial sweetener
Barley malt
Cane juice
Concentrated fruit juice
Dextrin
Dried/dehydrated fruit
Glucosamine
Glycerine
Honey
Jaggery
‘Light’, ‘lite’ or ‘low’ sugar
Malted barley
Maltodextrins
Malt
Molasses
‘Natural’ sweeteners
Nectars
Anything ending in -ol:
carbitol, glucitol, glycerol,
glycol, hexitol, inversol,
maltitol, mannitol, sorbitol,
xylitol, etc.
Anything ending in
-ose: dextrose, fructose,
glucose, lactose,
maltodextrose, sucrose
Sorghum
Sugars: Barbados sugar,
beet sugar, brown sugar,
cane sugar, confectioner’s
sugar, invert sugar, milled
sugar, ‘natural’ sugar, raw
sugar etc
Syrups: agave syrup,
barley syrup, brown rice
syrup, corn syrup, date
syrup, high fructose corn
syrup, maple syrup, raisin
syrup
Vanillan
Whey
Xanthum gum

Source: http://m.independent.ie

Saturday, August 4, 2012

Bootcamp Pg Schedule : 6th to 12th July 2012


Mon: No Class ( Holiday )

Tues : 1830-1930hrs Youth Park

Wed 1830-1930hrs Crystal Point ( Bukit Jambul)


Thurs 1830-1930hrs Botanical Gardens ( Meet at the main gate)


Saturday 0730 - 0830 hrs Botanical Gardens  (Running)


Sunday - White Water Rafting (Perak)


_________________________________________________

REAL TRAINING - REAL RESULTS

Fitness Trumps Metabolism Manipulation


I’m in London totally immersed in RW's coverage of the Olympic Games, but I just noticed today’s New York Times Phys Ed column titled “Diet vs Exercise for Weight Loss,” and it’s bothering me a little. I think it amounts to a straw-man argument in positing that we all believe exercise and weight-loss will lead to a higher basal metabolic rate.
We do? I don’t think so. Your basal (or resting) metabolic rate is directly tied to your weight. If you gain weight, your metabolic rate rises. If you lose weight, your metabolic rate falls. This is all part of the body’s elegant plan to keep your weight more or less stable, because stable is healthy. Or at least it was throughout most of our several million years on Earth.
For decades the weightlifting crowd tried to convince us that adding a few pounds of muscle would actually help you “burn calories all day and all night long” or some words to that effect. This has been roundly debunked in recent years. Muscles don't boost your metabolic rate, not to any meaningful degree. Of course, strength-training is still good for you.
Your basal metabolic rate is important because it does determine how many calories you burn all day long, whether sleeping, processing food (the thermic effect of food), or exercising. Most runners understand that a 200-lb runner burns roughly twice as many calories per mile as a 100-lb runner. That’s because metabolism is directly tied to your weight.
If the 200-lb runner then loses 50 lbs, he/she is also going to lose 25 percent of the calorie-burn per mile. Nothing can change this (except wearing a 50-lb backpack while you run.) Additional proof that losing weight decreases your metabolic rate. It just happens; don’t worry about it.
I do agree with The Times that cutting food calories is a more effective way to lose weight than adding exercise calories. I would note that doing both at the same time could be the most effective way of all. But you have to do both in such a manner that they become lifelong habits. Otherwise you’ll just yo-yo up and down.
Lastly it’s very, very important to point out that it’s okay—in fact, it’s great—to become a regular exerciser even if you don’t lose weight. Fitness is more important than fatness in its effect on many chronic diseases.
It’s not easy to be thin in today’s obesogenic western world environment. But it is easy to be fit, if you just work at it for 30 to 60 minutes a day on most days of the week. Walk, run, bike, swim, lift weights, etc.
The payoff comes from getting fitter, not from trying to manipulate your metabolism.

Thursday, August 2, 2012

Fiber-Added Foods Won’t Fill You Up


Fiber-enriched processed foods, once touted as a way to curb hunger, may actually do little to keep appetites in check.
Researchers conducting a small study found that women who tried chocolate breakfast bars with added fiber wound up eating the same and not feeling fuller over the course of  a day than women who ate similar breakfast bars with no added fiber.
"In general, added fibers don't work across the board" when it comes to helping you feel fuller longer, says senior researcher Joanne Slavin, a registered dietitian and professor at the University of Minnesota in St. Paul.
Slavin goes on to say study results shouldn’t steer folks from fiber-added products; this valuable digestive nutrient is one often missing from regular diets.