Tuesday, December 30, 2014

Anorexia for Men?

This is one way to defeat anorexia. But there are better ways!

I don't see anything new or earth shaking here. Of course males also have body image issues. The media promotes a lean "six pack" image for men and has for quite some time. I think the images for women are maybe more complex as there is a dichotomy between what is considered "feminine" and what is strong and healthy. But men are certainly bombarded with body images that are not realistic or even healthy as well. As the article below alludes to, the male mental processes are also complex and multi-factored, but it is no secret that boys want to have "muscles" and will try a lot of different methods to get them. That is why it is important to teach our young people sound and correct methods so that they can be healthy, fit, and have a positive and realistic self-image.

Anorexia is typically associated with women, but a new report finds that men -- especially men obsessed with muscularity -- can develop the eating disorder, too.

The Canadian researchers noted that an estimated 10 percent or more of anorexia patients are thought to be male, though the actual number may be significantly higher. There was also a slightly larger proportion of gays with anorexia than is seen in women with the illness, the study found.

"We know that anorexia does touch more women, but even though many parents, and even medical professionals, don't realize it, it's also among boys and men," said study lead author Dominique Meilleur, an associate professor of psychology who studies adolescence and eating disorders at the University of Montreal.

"The problem is that the subject hasn't been studied enough among men, so we don't even know if the symptoms we use to measure for anorexia are appropriate for men, because they are mainly developed for women," Meilleur added.

One big gender difference: While female patients tend to place an excessive focus on food control and/or food rejection, male patients tend to focus more on excessive exercise and muscle gain.

In their research, Meilleur's team focused on 24 studies conducted in English or French between 1994 and 2011. Together, the studies included 279 male anorexia patients between ages 11 and 36 (at an average age of 18). All had been hospitalized for severe malnutrition.

In some but not all of the studies, patient characteristics were noted. Viewpoints on weight were collected from about a quarter of the male patients. Among those patients, nearly half said they were afraid of gaining weight and becoming fat and about the same number said they were unhappy with their current weight and wanted to lose more.

About a third of the men and boys studied were asked about their sense of "body image." Nearly two-thirds of them said that their dissatisfaction with their body stemmed from a desire for increased muscle mass and lower body fat.

Sexual preference was noted for roughly a fifth of the patients, and 13 percent identified as homosexual -- a larger number than is seen in the spectrum of women with anorexia, the authors said.

Other mental issues also often played a role. Meilleur's team were able to ascertain data on mental health for about a quarter of the men and boys studied, and they found that more than one in four struggled with depression, while nearly 18 percent suffered from some form of obsessive disorder. Substance abuse was seen among more than 11 percent.

All of this opens up new questions about the causes and potential treatment of anorexia in males, Meilleur said. "We need to explore the question of sexuality and muscularity," she said. "Because with women, at least, becoming thinner and thinner is the goal they're working towards. With men it's a paradox, because the thinner they become the less muscle they have -- so they don't get to their goal."

All of this means that "there is more going on here than we can see so far," Meilleur said.

Lona Sandon, a registered dietician and assistant professor of clinical nutrition at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, stressed that "eating disorders are a psychiatric issue, not a food issue."

"But when it gets under way, a psycho-social struggle may end up manifesting in how a person eats or views their body," she noted. "And this kind of struggle, like body dysmorphia [poor body image], certainly does apply to both sexes."

"Perhaps the reason we don't think of young men as having body image issues is that the criteria we now have in place for diagnosing anorexia probably doesn't fit young men as well as it fits young women," Sandon said. "Men may want to be 'ripped,' not emaciated. They're not necessarily going after very low body weight. But if we want to know for sure we need a big sample size of male patients, and some better quality research."

The study was published recently in Neuropsychiatry of Childhood and Adolescence.
No body image issues here.

Thursday, December 25, 2014

He is the Gift

 Merry Christmas !

Tuesday, December 23, 2014


Erin Parker

Erin Parker started weightlifting competitively about a year ago when she saw that other women in her weight class were small, too. “I realized this is a sport I can actually be really good at it,” she says.

Saw this article recently in U.S. News & World Report. There have been no myths here in Kayenta, Arizona for at least the past 25 years, but it seems some myths still persist in other places.
NEWSFLASH: Weightlifting is good for both men and women!!! 
Wishing you a happy and healthy 2015!!!!

Erin Parker can squat the weight of the average man, plus 10 pounds. She can hoist a 127-pound barbell over her head. If she wanted, she could lift most people she meets.

By all accounts, Parker, a 25-year-old weightlifter in San Francisco, is strong. And at 102 pounds and only 4 feet 11 inches tall, she’s also tiny.

“I think people are surprised,” says Parker about the typical reaction to her involvement in the sport, which brought her to the District of Columbia to compete in USA Weightlifting’s American Open Championships last weekend. The truth, though, is that “weightlifting is a sport for everyone,” she says. “You can be any weight or size and there’s a weight class for you.”

Myth No. 1, debunked.

You can also be a "girly girl," says Megan Gallagher, a 26-year-old communications director in the District of Columbia who sports makeup when lifting. “You don’t have to fit a certain mold to show up to the gym and try to be strong. You don’t have to be a certain kind of person.”

Myth No. 2, shot down.

Here are some other myths – and why their grounding is weak:

Myth No. 3: Weightlifting is not a sport.

Over half of USA Weightlifting’s national event competitors are women, says Phil Andrews, the organization’s director of events and programs. That wasn’t always the case. “It’s been a huge growth on the female side,” he says.

Much of the surge is attributable to the popularity of CrossFit, which has drawn women to heavy weights and competitions, says Cara Heads Slaughter, a weightlifting coach and owner of CH Fitness and Performance in Arlington, Virginia. The annual televised CrossFit Games – promoted as a competition to find "the fittest on earth" – make these women even more visible, she says.

“[People] are able to sit there and go, ‘Hey, I want to do that’ in the same way that someone does that when gymnastics is on television, or basketball,” says Slaughter, who competed in the 2000 Olympics in Sydney, the first time weightlifting was open to women. “We’ve had so much more exposure through CrossFit that it’s creating interest and opportunity for young girls and women to compete with barbells.”

Still, plenty of people don’t know exactly what women who lift actually do. “Nobody really understands it,” says Leah Cochran, a 29-year-old competitor at the 2014 American Open who works at the U.S. Department of Energy. “All the people at work think I’m a bodybuilder, which is completely different from what we do.”

While​ bodybuilders usually​ train to sculpt their physique, the goal of Olympic weightlifters is to perform​ two specific movements: the “snatch” – raising the weight from the floor to above the head without pause – and the “clean and jerk,” or lifting the weight from the floor to the shoulders before pushing it up over the head. (Powerlifting, which doesn’t have an Olympic track, includes the squat, deadlift and bench press.)

“I want more people to know that weightlifting is a sport and that powerlifting is a sport because most people think lifting weights is for aesthetic reasons only and for bodybuilding, but it’s not,” says Parker, who co-founded Spitfire Athlete, a health and fitness company​ that builds products like apps that promote strength among women. “That’s just one sliver of what you can do.”

Myth No. 4: Weightlifting makes women “bulk up.”

When Slaughter first started weightlifting in high school in 1991, her family was supportive. But some of her friends’ parents wouldn’t have allowed it, reasoning that they didn't want their daughters to become "big and bulky," or that weightlifting "is not what girls do,” Slaughter says.

That’s a bad reason, since women don’t have the hormonal makeup that supports excessive muscle growth, Slaughter says. Plus, it takes plenty of hours, dedication and seriously heavy weights to get significantly stronger. A new client of Slaughter, for instance, might take a year to meet her goals – and the work will likely result in fat loss in addition to muscle growth.

“The female body will only transform to the extent that you put the hours and the work, the volume, the weight [and] the repetitions into it, but we’re limited by our hormones,” Slaughter says.
It’s only when women alter their hormonal makeup ​that they can pack on the muscle like men. “That’s where weightlifting or bodybuilding got a bad name: When some women chose to use drugs and then it altered their physique so dramatically that [those bodies] became the main image of what women lifting weights will produce,” Slaughter says.

Even if women weightlifters do develop visible muscle, what’s it to you? How women look is beside the point in the sport, lifters say.

“The focus is the technique – what can I get over my head? What can I lift up?” says Emily Baskin​, a group exercise instructor and coach at​ CrossFit Balance gym in the District of Columbia. “And sure, our bodies change along with it, but I’m not really paying attention to how my body changes – I’ll notice it, but that’s not my goal.”

For Nicole Tennant​, a 16-year-old American Open competitor from Leavenworth, Kansas,​ comments about her strong stature are taken as compliments. “I normally get the ‘Oh, you’re big and muscular,’ but to me, that’s good,” she says. “People always say, ‘Strong is the new sexy,’ and I agree.”

Myth No. 5: Weightlifting is intimidating.

Gallagher’s gym has two areas: One with typical gym equipment and one with a CrossFit studio. Some of her friends steer clear of the latter, but she wishes they wouldn’t.

“The community is very, very friendly, even though there are loud noises, and it gets scary at times,” she says. In one recent training session, for example, the gym went silent when Gallagher attempted a new personal record. When she landed the lift, everyone cheered and offered hugs.

“It’s just so cool how everyone’s invested in each other and wants each other to do really well, even though it can kind of seem like this isolating, weird culture,” says Gallagher, who competed in the powerlifting segment of last weekend's competition​. “That’s a misconception that I wish wasn’t there because I think, especially for women, it has so many benefits.” Those benefits include a sense of mastery and control, a boost in confidence and simply being more physically capable.

The supportive weightlifting community also extends beyond the gym walls to social media. Gallagher posts videos and photos on Instagram, Reddit and YouTube, and Parker helped launch a Facebook group​ to encourage strong women – whether they're weightlifters, cyclists or martial artists – to inspire each other with their accomplishments.

“The understanding that strength is a beautiful thing just didn’t gel for the longest time before we were a really connected society,” she says. “Now you can join a Facebook group or any fitness community and see so many strong women who are … setting records and then you think, ‘Oh, if they did that, then I can do it, too.' It makes you realize that it’s possible.”

Ariel Stephens earned gold for her 115-kilogram “clean and jerk” in the 2014 American Open.

Thursday, December 18, 2014

Weightlifting for Masters

Matt Foreman's new book.
Master's weightlifting in the United States of American refers to lifting for those who are past their physical prime. It is one of the largest demographic groups in USA Weightlifting.  In the U.S. you can officially enter Master's competitions when you are in the 35th anniversary of your birth. There are categories for every 5 year increment, 35-40,40-45,45-50....etc. The competitors are a mixed bag. Some are lifters who just got old and want to continue to compete despite the fact that there abilities are deteriorating. The fun of training, competing, and being around the sport is rewarding enough for them.
 Another group are those who were athletes in some form and discovered the fun of competitive lifting later in life. Yet another group is people who were never very athletic, but started lifting for exercise and were drawn to the sport, often discovering talents they never knew that they had.
Matt does a great job of giving information and guidance to all of the above in his humorous and straight forward way. Matt's years of experience as a high level competitor along with his excellent writing skills make this book invaluable reading for any aging athlete.
I loved his first training book, Bones of Iron, which we featured in an earlier post. This is a great companion to that book, even if you are not in the Masters age category yet. One fact that none of us can escape, is that time passes and if we are tough enough, smart enough , and lucky enough, we will get older until we pass our physical prime.  The reality is that there is only one alternative to getting older. So, unless you are ready to be the guest of honor at a funeral, it is best to enjoy journey.
As I am entering my 60's this year, and have trained consistently since I was 12 years old, I can concur with Matt's advice. (although I have not always been smart enough to follow it) I enjoy training so much that I tend to over do it. As the years pass, less becomes more. "Progress" becomes slowing the decline rather than setting new PRs. Training still enriches my life and allows me to live better.
I highly recommend Matt's book to anyone who plans to train for the long haul.

Matt Foreman Snatching

Clean at Catalyst
Matt doing cleans.

Tuesday, December 16, 2014

So what are Chicken McNuggets made of?

There has been a lot of rumors about the contents McDonalds chicken McNuggets. I've heard that they were made from pink slime, feathers, and feet. This mythbusters video gets to the bottom of it. While I still wouldn't recommend a study diet of them, it seems that chicken nuggets are not as bad  as we may have thought they were.

Powered by Chicken McNuggets?
Don't bet on it!!

Wednesday, December 10, 2014

The Downside of Resilience

Sometimes genetic potential is obvious!

We have always said that no two people will  respond to the same training stimulus in the same way. While the article below is not specifically about weight training, it gives evidence to the concept of individually differentiated response to the same stimulus. This concept has always been obvious to me. If everyone responded to each stimulus in the same way, then coaching would be easy. Give everyone the same program and the same drills and they will all improve. However any coach or athlete knows that it isn't that simple. This article also makes the point that sometimes, no matter what we do, results will come hard and be scarce. Genetics, in the end, determines the ultimate potential. There is always reason for optimism though, as we never really know what our genetic potential is until we have persisted for a long time.

BEHIND a half-century of policies to promote child development, there lies an assumption: that children are essentially equally affected by the environments they grow up in, and that positive interventions like preschool education should therefore help all children. But what if this isn’t true?

Evidence suggests that some children are — in one frequently used metaphor — like delicate orchids; they quickly wither if exposed to stress and deprivation, but blossom if given a lot of care and support. Others are more like dandelions; they prove resilient to the negative effects of adversity, but at the same time do not particularly benefit from positive experiences. In this sense, resilience, long thought to be an exclusively beneficial characteristic, is actually a double-edged sword.

State, local and federal governments, as well as parents and schools, spend a great deal of money trying to help kids succeed and keep them out of trouble. Research should help us understand why some children come out of development programs with enhanced capabilities and fewer behavioral problems, while others don’t seem to be affected very much — or at all. Eventually, we may be able to identify the children who will benefit the most, and consider investing extra resources in them.

What distinguishes children who prove more versus less susceptible — for better and for worse — to developmental experiences? There is no single factor, but genetics seems to play a role.

Every gene contains two so-called alleles — one from each parent. There is evidence that people who carry certain variations of these alleles have a greater chance of developing particular disorders. For instance, short alleles of the gene 5-HTTLPR, which transports serotonin, have been linked to depression, while long alleles of the dopamine-receptor gene DRD4 have been linked to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Intriguingly, these “risk” genes also turn out to be associated with heightened sensitivity to environmental conditions. Children who carry either or both of them appear to be most adversely affected by negative experiences, and seem to benefit most from supportive ones. Children without them seem relatively immune to the effects of both supportive and unsupportive environments.
Seven new studies provide powerful evidence of children’s so-called differential susceptibility to their environments, as does a meta-analysis of behavioral research on genetics and the effectiveness of interventions. This body of work, supported in part by the Jacobs Foundation of Switzerland, will be published next year in a special section of the journal Development and Psychopathology, which I edited along with Marinus H. van IJzendoorn of Leiden University.

One randomized controlled trial in the forthcoming special section examines the effect on adolescent substance abuse of the Adults in the Making Program, a project led by Gene H. Brody and Steven R. H. Beach of the University of Georgia. Nearly 300 rural African-American youths and their families participated in the program, which involved six consecutive weekly group meetings. Parents were taught to provide emotional support and to encourage responsible decision making. Youths were taught to plan for the future. The program succeeded in preventing increases in drug use over a period of more than two years among teenagers growing up in the most troubled families — but only if those teenagers were carrying DRD4 long alleles (which the researchers tested for with a saliva sample).
Another study, led by Stacy S. Drury of Tulane University, looked at children living in Romanian orphanages who were severely deprived emotionally. The serotonin transporter gene, 5-HTTLPR, emerged as critical for understanding why only some children benefited when randomly assigned to high-quality foster care. Children who carried short alleles of the gene and went to foster care proved the least disobedient and aggressive by 4.5 years of age, while those who remained in the orphanage displayed the most such behavior. Children without the genetic variation behaved somewhere in the middle, regardless of where they lived.

Perhaps even more compelling are the much longer-term results of the Fast Track Project, developed by Kenneth A. Dodge of Duke University and colleagues. Beginning in kindergarten, at-risk white students in some schools were provided 10 years of extra academic and social support, involving teachers, parents and peers. The participants were interviewed and tested when they turned 25. Those carrying one variant of the glucocorticoid receptor gene NR3C1, which plays a role in how our bodies respond to stress, displayed the least psychopathological behavior (measured by drug use and other factors) if they attended the program, but the most if they had no extra support. The behavior of children carrying other variants of the same gene was unaffected by the extra support.

What are the implications of these results? One is that we should not be surprised if even well-designed programs fail over all, because children vary in their susceptibility to environmental influences.

This brings up a challenging ethical question: Should we seek to identify the most susceptible children and disproportionately target them when it comes to investing scarce intervention and service dollars?

I believe the answer is yes. Of course, we have a lot of research to do before that is possible. We need to understand that many genes and even environmental factors are likely to affect how susceptible children are to environmental influences. Thus, we need to move beyond investigations of single genes to examine multiple genes simultaneously, which is becoming possible thanks to advances in DNA sequencing. Some work of this kind already reveals that instead of thinking only in terms of certain children being susceptible and others not, it is more accurate to say that some children are highly susceptible, some are moderately so and some are far less so.

Those who value equity over efficacy will object to the notion of treating children differently because of their genes. But if we get to the point where we can identify those more and less likely to benefit from a costly intervention with reasonable confidence, why shouldn’t we do this? What is ethical, after all, about providing services to individuals for whom we believe they will not prove effective, especially when spending taxpayers’ money?

One might even imagine a day when we could genotype all the children in an elementary school to ensure that those who could most benefit from help got the best teachers. Not only because they would improve the most, but also because they would suffer the most from lower quality instruction. The less susceptible — and more resilient — children are more likely to do O.K. no matter what. After six or seven years, this approach could substantially enhance student achievement and well-being.

Let me say clearly that even if targeting can be done effectively, it doesn’t mean abandoning those who appear less responsive. Every child deserves a decent quality of life, no matter the cost or long-term payoff. Furthermore, money saved by restricting interventions to those most likely to benefit should be used to explore different and conceivably radical intervention alternatives. After all, we don’t know if the children who seem unsusceptible to interventions truly are, or whether they’re simply not affected by what is currently being provided. The ultimate goal should not be to save money, but rather to spend it more wisely.

For now, after half a century of childhood interventions that have generated exaggerated claims of both efficacy and ineffectiveness, we need to acknowledge the reality that some children are more affected by their developmental experiences — from harsh punishment to high-quality day care — than others. This carries implications for scientists evaluating interventions, policy makers funding them and parents rearing children.

Jay Belsky is a professor of human development at the University of California, Davis.

A version of this op-ed appears in print on November 30, 2014, on page SR4 of the New York edition with the headline: The Downside of Resilience. Order Reprints| Today's Paper|Subscribe
Sometimes not so much....

Tuesday, December 9, 2014

“Should women train the same way as men do?”

Elbows that hyper-extend are more common among female lifters.

Below is a nice article from Charles Poliquin. I find it interesting and valid. However, I have found that in my 35 years or so of training male and female teenagers (few of which are really athletes, although they are trying to be), that there are more similarities than differences in programming their training. In practical terms, both genders need the basics of bending their legs (most conveniently addressed by squatting in various forms), pushing with their arms (best implemented with various forms of pressing), and lifting things off of the floor (we like cleans and snatches along with their variations). I agree with Charles that generally females are more coachable and easier to teach technique to, but also need more encouragement and, maybe, a feeling of acceptance for doing something that is not as culturally encouraged; here in the United States at least. Of course the obvious anatomical differences of the knee angles, elbows more prone to hyper-extension, and smaller wrists require some attention in loading and frequency, but each individual is different. There are some girls who have thicker wrists than some boys and some boys with a greater Q angle than some girls, so generalizations always have to leave room for individual circumstances. One thing is certain though, both genders benefit from training and both get excited and motivated by seeing improvements. as my French teacher used to say, "Vive la difference".

I get this question of a weekly basis: “Should women train the same way as men do?”

There are different schools of thought on this, so I’ll weigh in on this using physiology and my experience with training a great number of champions in various disciplines for both sexes.

The short answer is yes, women should train diffently than men, especially initially. As levels of strength rise, those differences tend to level off. After 2 years of training, there is no difference between males and females.

There are however, many key characteristics to take into account when writing a training program for a female. Here is a list of observations to optimize your strength training design for women:

1. More training frequency is important initially for females. Most females need at least a frequency of 3 days a week per muscle group for optimal gains in the early stages. The Chinese have been very successful at training weightlifters at the international level both in males and females. Upon analyzing their training system, what stood out is that they use much more training frequency with the females than the males.

2. Because of the lower endogenous levels of androgens, volume per training unit should be smaller in terms of sets and number of exercises. In most instances, the training volume per training unit should be about 20-35% lower. Most females get the major part of their hypertrophy in the first year of training. It then plateaus dramatically, even though strength still comes on mainly through neural adaptations.

3. It is harder for females to gain hypertrophy, not only because of lower androgen endogenous levels, but also because women only have 60% of the number of nuclei per muscle fiber than males. This makes them less prone to muscular hypertrophy than males of the same age with equivalent training experience.

4. The stronger the female, the more her training should look like the one of her male counterpart. Strength is the great equilizer, not only on the field but also between the sexes. The neural drive and muscle fiber make-up needed to develop strength tends to make a female react to training more like male would, hence the differences are much less the stronger a woman is.

5. Biomechanical issues and cultural issues should be considered. For example, North American women athletes are often weaker in relative terms in the vastus medialis muscles, hamstrings, erector spinae, and scapulae retractors than athletes from other countries. In short, get to know the biological make-up of your client in their cultural context.

6. Pound for pound, females will have actually have stronger legs than males (i.e. of course, if they properly trained.) This is important for sports where maximal and relative strength ratios play a large part, such has gymnastics. It will also affect the development of females in cross-training sports. Point in case: ever noticed the leg muscle development of elite Crossfit female competitors compared to their upper body? I know you did

7. Contrary to popular belief, the upper body lift that females can approximate the most to the performance of males is in the chin-up or the pull-up (i.e. if they are properly trained.) In fact, I use this exercise to evaluate the quality of knowledge of a personal trainer/strength coach. A competent one will get a female to do 12 chin-ups in twelve weeks. That is of course assuming that the client is not clinically obese. In a regular-weight client, 12 weeks is the time it takes a female to 12 strict chin-ups.

8. Female clients are far easier to coach than male clients, as they don¹t let their ego spoil the methodology and follow instructions far better than males. In 1994, I had seven woman clients who were World Champions in their respective sports. What they all had in common was the good sense to communicate to me on a regular basis, so that I could finely tune their training loads.

Interestingly, the worst individual to coach is the nineteen-year-old male, who usually goes through this phase of life as if he believes he is born with infinite knowledge.

Stay strong,


If you lift like this you will hurt hurt your wrists no matter who you are!

Thursday, December 4, 2014

Sugar Effects

How much sugar do you think these guys ate?

The Navajo Nation recently passed a law that would tax "junk food" on the reservation. The income generated by this tax will be used to fund fitness centers and programs. While I am quite certain that this tax will not significantly impact the consumption of unhealthy snacks, (people do the majority of their shopping in off-reservation border towns and for those who want a snack right now, a few cents added on in price will not be deciding factor) I do hope that the money generated will be used wisely and benefit the people.
I also hope that education, not taxes, will make an impact on the food choices on the Rez. Below is an interesting article about the effects of a high sugar diet......

Following in the footsteps of Morgan Spurlock, who ate only McDonald’s food for one month in the film Super Size Me, an Australian man has undergone a sugar-heavy diet for 60 days to explore the ingredient’s impact on his health.

In the upcoming That Sugar Film, Damon Gameau, a filmmaker and TV actor, vows to follow a strict diet of “healthy,” low-fat food with high sugar content, News.com.au reported.
Within three weeks, the formerly healthy Gameau became moody and sluggish. A doctor gave him the shocking diagnosis: He was beginning to develop fatty liver disease. According to the Mayo Clinic, the most severe outcome for fatty liver disease is liver failure.

“I had no soft drink, chocolate, ice cream or confectionery,” Gameau told Yahoo. “All the sugars that I was eating were found in perceived healthy foods, so low-fat yogurts, and muesli bars, and cereals, and fruit juices, sports drinks ... these kind of things that often parents would give their kids thinking they’re doing the right thing.”
Gameau reportedly consumed 40 teaspoons of sugar per day, or slightly more than the average teenager worldwide, according to News.com.au. According to the American Heart Association (AHA), the average American consumes 20 teaspoons of sugar daily.

The AHA’s daily recommendations for sugar consumption are 6 teaspoons for women and 9 teaspoons for men.

In That Sugar Film, Gameau observeed that the additive impacted his physical and mental health. Doctors called his mental functioning “unstable,” and the father-to-be reportedly put on nearly four inches of visceral fat around his waist. He was on the fast track to obesity.

Gameau said his sugar-laden diet left him feeling hungry, no matter how much he ate.

His final meal— which consisted of a juice, a jam sandwich, a bar, and a handful of other snacks— is similar to an ordinary child’s school lunchbox.

“Sadly, it was very easy to do and fitted comfortably into the small plastic container,” Gameau wrote on his blog documenting his experiment.

“The last meal was for all the people out there, especially parents, who are led to believe they are doing the right and healthy thing for their children. They are making an effort yet are horribly let down by the lack of integrity in marketing and packaging strategies.”

Gameau told News.com.au that the experiment’s findings don’t suggest a need to completely cut sugar— but rather a need for more awareness about how much sugar has been added to perceptibly healthy food.

“Sugar’s now in 80 percent of the processed food we’re eating,” he said. “If we can remove that, that’s the first step towards making a change.”

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 29.1 million Americans, or 9.3 percent of the population, have diabetes. In adults, type 2 diabetes accounts for about 90 to 95 percent of all diagnosed diabetes cases.  Research has shown that sugary drinks are linked to type 2 diabetes.

Consuming excess added sugar is also associated with a higher risk of developing cardiovascular disease—the leading cause of death for men and women in the United States, according to the CDC. Heart disease accounts for one in four deaths in the United States, or about 600,000 annual deaths.

That Sugar Film will be released in Australian movie theaters in February 2015. A U.S. release date has not been listed on the film’s website.
The future depends on you.

Monday, December 1, 2014

The village of Asola-Fatehpur Beri is the strongest in India.

Very interesting article and video. I love the way that working out has become a village tradition and that they are finding a way to improve themselves without the "benefit" of commercial gyms or expensive equipment. Heck, they don't even have much inexpensive equipment. Great job and more power to them.....

Asola-Fatehpur Beri, India (CNN) -- The village of Asola-Fatehpur Beri is the strongest in India.

For generations, men have held two-hour workouts every morning and evening in this countryside community on the southern rim of Delhi.

From pre-teens to men nearing 50, bodybuilders sweat it out at one of the most popular training spots, Akhada, which is a Hindi word that means wrestling arena.

This is where brawny men wrestle in mud, climb ropes and perform a few hundred sit-ups and push-ups, balancing their hands on bricks.

They carry each other on their shoulders -- all part of the traditional Indian way of working out. One lifts a 350 kilogram (771 pound) motorcycle up to his chest.

    The Indian village of Asola-Fatehpur Beri is filled with men who are bodybuilders.

The village is a farming community by tradition, but nearly all the men have a passion for wrestling and bodybuilding.

Posing everyday in front of the mirror is a ritual. The men say it gives them confidence.

To train, the men lift motorcycles weighing 300 kilograms (about 660 lbs).

The men pray to the Hindu God Hanuman, known as a symbol of power and strength.

Sonu, 19, wakes up at 5 a.m. every morning to train. He hopes to be a "great wrestler."

Fifteen years ago, Vijay Tanwar did not make the Indian Olympic wrestling team and decided to become a bouncer instead.

"I was the first bouncer from this village," Vijay Tanwar says. "Then everyone followed my path." Now, musclemen from Asola-Fatehpur Beri are ubiquitous in the clubs and bars of New Delhi.

Bodybuilding spans generations as guru Lekhraj, age 75, poses with Vijay Tanwar and his son.

"If we get the child interested in physical exercise and good health, bad behavior will not be an influence," says Lekhraj.

All these men come from the same community and most have a common last name, Tanwar.
The group of about 40 males exercises outside, each wearing a simple loincloth.

"They eat healthy and on time, they practice here everyday, and that's why they are so strong," says Vijay Tanwar, the head-trainer at Akhada.

The musclemen of Asola-Fatehpur Beri are capitalizing on their brawn by working as bouncers in New Delhi's clubs and bars.

As more nightspots open in India's capital, there's a greater need for men to guard the doors, and the musclemen from this rural village are filling most of that demand.

Profitable muscle

Tanwar is credited with starting this new trend.

Fifteen years ago, he missed out on a place in India's wrestling team for the Olympics. He says he was looking for an opportunity where he could use his muscle and power, and so took a job as a bouncer.

"I was the first bouncer from this village," he claims. "Then everyone followed my path. More than 300 musclemen work as bouncers in New Delhi's clubs and bars now."

They've learned that pumping iron is a way to stay fit and earn a living.

"As they say health is wealth. We are healthy but we're also earning good money, able to send kids to good schools, eat well -- what else does one need in life?" he says.

Building muscle isn't only about becoming a bouncer in Delhi.

Disciplined training is very important for these men and part of a tradition in the village.

"There are few modern gyms in the village, but most men prefer the traditional style of working out," Tanwar says. "It makes your body flexible and the risk of injury is less as well."

The musclemen don't drink or smoke. And the majority of them are vegetarians with diets that consist mostly of fruit, nuts, yogurts and lots of milk.

"We do not consume any muscle enhancing supplements," Tanwar says.

Building muscle in a new generation

Urged by his parents, Sonu Tanwar, 19, gets up at 5 a.m. to go running and then to the Akhada.

Tanwar, who represents the younger generation of bodybuilders, says: "I want to be a great wrestler and make my parents proud. I play in the 66 kilogram category and have won several championships."

Instilling a habit of working out in young males is important, says Guru Lekhraj, a 75-year-old native of the Asola-Fatehpur village.

"Children are prone to bad behavior between the age of 17 and 27, but if we get the child interested in physical exercise and good health, bad behavior will not be an influence. This is what our ancestors have taught us as well. Who will teach if not the elders?"

Lekhraj comes to the Akhada often to observe the men working out. He's a respected figure among the musclemen, and is considered the bodybuilding guru of the village.

Due to Lekhraj's age, he cannot participate in training anymore but says he is very happy the young generation is continuing the legacy.

"What mother doesn't want her son to be strong, well-built, handsome and smart?" Lekhraj says.

In the case of Asola-Fatehpur Beri, bodybuilding also means building a legacy.

CNN's Sumnima Udas, Omar Khan and Kunal Seghal contributed to this report.