The Formosa Fitness site has gotten a badly needed makeover. Please check it out and make comments here. I'm getting ready for January and the rush it will hopefully bring. Now I have a site that doesn't embarass me so I can send potential clients there. Banner ads are next.
Comments greatly appreciated.
I've looked around for the program that I feel will be the most practical for clients and Precision Nutrition is it. Weight loss, weight gain, gout management, etc. are all covered under the progam. It's practical because it uses foods you can get most anywhere. It's very clear on the requirements, making is easier to follow than some other programs.
As far as I know, I'm the only one in Taiwan offering the program so I can provide a great service for clients. Nutrition is really the missing piece of the puzzle in modern fitness. What people do the other 23 and a half hours outside my studio is more important than what they do in it. Precision Nutrition will help people get that part of their lives in order.
If weight loss or gain is your goal, come talk to me about this great program today!
I see this a lot in relation to fitness and nutrition systems, I saw iT when I got my master's in international relations, and I saw it a lot in martial arts: something isn't perfect so it gets seen as useless. Great example here. We love to toss those babies with the bathwater.
Why?
NO system that any human has developed is perfect. If there was a perfect piece of software, a perfect fitness routine, a perfect anything, then we'd all have it or be doing it. But they don't exist. Humans are imperfect and imperfectable beings. Everything has benefits and costs. It's simply a matter of weighing the costs vs. benefits.
By that measure, some systems are clearly better than others considering what we are aiming for. If you have a goal, find the path that will get you there safely and efficiently.
When those conditions are satisfied, I quit picking at it. If it's getting you what you want, they why keep looking around? Why keep being skeptical? Because it can't be proven mathmatically every time or isn't quantifiable 100%?
Who cares?
Sometimes we need to turn the nerd inside off and go to work. If it's working, leave it the alone. :)
Sometimes we stare so hard at the trees, that we get disappointed with the forest.
For example, weight loss clients are usually initially delighted with the weight loss they see on the scales. But eventually the weight stabilizes and gains need to be looked for beyond numbers. If lean muscle mass is replacing fat, then fat is still declining even if the weight isn't changing. This is excellent news, but not for people used to seeing progress only in numbers. Quality must eventually replace quantity as a measure.
Another example happened yesterday. I did 17 pullups last week -- the most I've done in a very long time. Not bad for someone about to turn 39. Last month I also did 100 burpees, a personal goal for the first time. So I did the Cindy workout (5 pullups, 10 pushups, 15 body weight squats in a circuit for 20:00) yesterday with high hopes. But I hadn't done it for two months prior.
I crashed at 12:00 with ten reps of the circuit. And my form wasn't very good. What the heck happened? When I did it last, I went a full 20:00 and managed 18 reps with good form.
If I only looked at this result, I would be very depressed. But in terms of my overall performance, I've reached a lot of highs recently. Staring at this particular tree from yesterday would make me depressed. But looking at the forest of overall health and performance, I'm feeling fairly happy.
So don't depress yourself if the numbers don't show what you want. Quality is not always quantifiable.
One of the ideas in yesterday's New York Times piece that really bugs the hell out of me is this idea that exercise alone won't help you lose weight. It will, if done correctly. The overall idea to keep in mind is calories in, calories out.
In the documentary "I Want to Look like that Guy" the would-be bodybuilder McDonald lost 6% bodyfat with no change to diet whatsoever. This was a brillant move by his trainer Jeff Willet. Willet started McDonald with exercise alone and got him used to working out with good form. As the form got better, the weights increased and the cardio got more intense. But Willet told McDonald to not change the diet, meaning McDonald didn't suffer any food withdrawal problems or cravings. But here's the key: his caloric expenditure went UP over time. More calories burned with no diet changes = negative energy state. McDonald WAS burning fat. Again, he lost 6% bodyfat. A noticeable difference.
But this process is NOT what was talked about in the article. The article made is seem like you have to cut back on calories through dieting or you're doomed. That's not true. What you have to do is get into a negative energy state by: a. buring more calories through exercise, b. cutting calories, or both. That range of options wasn't explored.
I've seen this in my own clients. I just have them work out hard at first and get used to it. The trick is to have them NOT increase the amount of food they consume.They will lose fat if they stick to that idea.
Now again, the criticism that could be made is that diet is still important in this equation because it's important that you not consume more calories for the exercise to burn fat. That's true and it may look like I'm splitting hairs. But it's an important hair and not clear at all from the NYT article. People reading that article will be greatly discouraged.
Additionally, let me interject that this will only get you so far. Eventually diet must be addressed for additional fat loss to take place.
And to stick my foot in it even more, I would highly advise people get their training advice from trainers, not scientists (or reporters). People are NOT mice. That should be obvious. Scientists have no idea how to train people. That isn't their job. Science is nice and all but it isn't the end of the story. Trainers are the people that take the theory and put it into practice. If you want to get into shape, you want a trainer not a guy in a white lab coat.
If you want proof of the process, get "I Want to Look Like That Guy" and watch. You will be surprised.
Here we go again. Read the mass media and be even more misinformed than if you didn't.
So here we have another New York Times article that gets almost everything wrong. As usual. You couldn't stack this one with more nonsense if you tried. It's all here: exercise doesn't help weight loss, the fat burning zone exists, etc., etc. The research talked about in the piece looks set up purposely not to burn fat and then....surprise, surprise.....the participants didn't lose much weight. Therefore extra post-exercise oxygen consumption (EPOC), otherwise known as afterburn, supposedly doesn't exist. Brilliant. The researchers quoted even said they deliberately made the exercise easy -- cycling at 55% capacity. Yes, 55%!!! No wonder the exercisers didn't lose weight. How could they?
If any friends or relatives read this garbage then you'e going to have to spend a lot of your time showing them the fallacies of the piece. Every time this happens we get taken back a notch in fighting obesity. As if it wasn't hard enough already.
Sorry for the negativity. Hopefully the next post will be more positive.
We've got a good thread going over at the IKFF forum on kettlebell training and internal martial arts. Look for lots more of this stuff from the IKFF. Afterall, there's the offical IKFF qigong set -- a sure sign that this isn't your grandpa's physical culture. As I keep saying, things have changed. Surf that wave, baby. :)
Anyway, join us there for some great discussion.
There's a swing challenge going on for November. The challenge is 200 swings of your choice a day for the entire month of November. I'm late to the party on this but I started yesterday. I did 8x25 with the 24kg and a ladder 1-10-1 today with the 12kg. You can do any combo of one hand or two hand and using any weight or workout method you want. Using a lite kettlebell to do 200 swings as a warmup is permitted.
Granted it's a lot of hamstring and lower back work but with some deloading this could be quite a learning experience.
And if you don't know what the kettlebell swing is, come by my studio and I'll show you!
Maybe, maybe not but it's the best protein shake I've ever had. I thought EAS was good but this is soooo much better. Mocha cappucino is great. It blends very well, no after taste, no powdery taste, and best of all no digestion problems. I can't wait to try out some of the other flavors.
If you're looking for a solid all-around protein, this one should be very high on your list.
Get your hand out of the kid's candy pumpkin. And how do I know it's in there? Um....er..... :)
But seriously, Halloween candy shows one good thing that can help people control cravings and move towards a better diet: small serving sizes.
Halloween candy comes in those convenient bite sizes allowing you to better control your intake of these morsels. Having to un-wrap each one means you have a second or two to actually think about what you're doing. That pause gives you time to consider if you're satiated or not. The idea is to get re-sensitized to where one or two will satiate you instead of a whole bag.
Second, many of us grew up with the idea of finishing your meal or something you opened. Bigger candy bars or bags of M&Ms work against you greatly when you have that mindset.
Third, buying bite size candies are more expensive and we need to start making these junk food purchases more expensive, not less. We need to see these things as indulgences, not staples. Luxuries must be expensive.
Finally, the volume of a container of bite size candy will always be lower than non-bite size due to the extra packaging. Unless of course the bag/box is even bigger to make up for that fact (think Costco). So you'll be keeping less junk food in the house, period. That's a good thing.
So if you're weening yourself off chocolate or just looking for a way to enjoy yourself without totally wrecking your diet, learn from Halloween and buy bite size candies if you must. A half measure is better than no measure.
