by Joan Kent | Jul 21, 2014 | Health and Wellness, Master Instructor Blog
By Joan Kent –
It was, as the saying goes, déjà vu all over again.
There we were, toward the end of the day at a conference that featured lectures on health problems from eating gluten, health problems from free glutamate, and similar topics. The audience accepted the information enthusiastically — along with the slides that showed extremely long lists of foods that contain the offending substances. In other words, long lists of food to avoid.
Finally, late in the afternoon, I gave my presentation on sugar as a limiting factor in health. The previous speaker had run well over his limit, cutting my allotted time down to 32 minutes. It would be tight but still do-able; this was not a “tough room.” I began to go through my slides and deliver my teaching points.
A man in the audience asked if I was talking about “added sugar” or was including natural products like fruit. I answered that sugar did include fruit — and that fructose, the sugar in fruit, can cause a variety of health problems.
In fact, all of the negative health consequences of sucrose, a disaccharide that’s half fructose and half glucose, are attributed to the fructose in it, not the glucose. Even though you can find disagreements in science journals on virtually everything, no disagreement on this topic exists in the science lit. Researchers all seem to agree that fructose makes sucrose the junk that it is. (These points have been covered in my previous post, “Fructose: The Sugar No One Thinks Is Sugar”.)
Well, the man became angry and even left before the end of my short presentation. Believe me, I’d seen reactions like that before. Sugar is a topic I’ve presented on many times over the years (since 1990, in fact, when everyone was still obsessing about fats). Audience reactions to sugar information have often been strong, and that’s interesting because those were presentations, not personal consultations.
In a presentation, I have no idea what the audience members eat, so nothing can be taken personally. Or should be taken personally. But addiction isn’t rational or logical. One question in a short test for alcoholism is, “Have people ever annoyed you by criticizing your drinking?” The key word in the question is “annoyed”. Mess with someone’s addiction, and they get angry.
Maybe we should start asking fruit addicts if people have ever annoyed them by telling them fruit is sugar.
It has seemed lately that people don’t care about sugar addiction, including their own. Fairly recently, an obese woman told me that she knew she was addicted to sugar but was “okay with it.” That reminded me of the final criterion for substance dependence in the DSM-IV — which has been moved into first place in the DSM-V criteria for substance abuse disorder: Continued use despite adverse consequences.
The past decade or more has shown a nutrition awareness shift that actually harkens back to the 1970s. In the 1970s, science journals were filled with articles on the negative impact of sugar on health. Videos were available, and at least one popular book was written on the subject (Sugar Blues).
In the wake of this, the sugar industry — a powerful lobby in Washington — got busy, and, starting about 1983, three things happened.
1. Fat became the new dietary demon, and everyone started eating low fat this and nonfat that.
2. Sugar consumption between 1984 and 1999 increased by 25-45 pounds per person per year. (25-45 lbs represents the increase, not total consumption.)
3. Obesity in the U.S. became an epidemic.
No doubt the sugar industry was, and is, quite happy with those results.
Now we’re back to a more realistic evaluation of food. Fats are recognized as not being as bad as we used to think — and we know some of them are supremely healthful. Everyone knows that sucrose is junk. Researchers, at least, know that fructose is what makes sucrose junk.
But if all we’ve done over the past 15 years is switch our addiction to fruit, I’m not sure we’ve made any progress. Especially when people get just as angry when I advise them not to eat too much fruit as they used to get when I advised them not to eat sugar.
by John | Jul 19, 2014 | Deezer, Instructor Tech Help, iTunes & Spotify Training, Master Instructor Blog, Music, Spotify
I'm hearing from Instructors outside of the USA who are switching from Spotify, over to Deezer.
Hi,
I have had Spotify for a long time now and have created lots of different playlists. I have recently just converted into using Deezer, however, it would be much easier for my Spotify playlists to be on Deezer instead!
Is this possible? If so, how do i do it?
Thanks
Cydnie.
Cyndie we created an ICI/PRO playlist conversion tool for just this occasion 🙂
Here's the steps to convert your Spotify playlist to one Deezer can play.
Step #1 Open and log in to Deezer in a new tab – clicking this link will do that for you. Note: Deezer is different from Spotify in that Deezer is a web application, vs. Spotify, which is a program that you install on your computer. Yes I know that Spotify also has a web version… I never had much luck using it and suggest you install the full program if you want to run Spotify on a laptop.
Step #2 Clicking this link will open our conversion tool in another tab. Scroll down the page and you should see that you're logged in to Deezer and a Please enter Spotify URI dialog box like this:
If you don't see this click the Log into Deezer link or refresh the conversion tool page.
Step #3 In Spotify, Right Click the playlist you want to convert and select Copy Spotify URI.
Step #4 Back at the conversion tool, Paste the URI you copied and click Convert. It will look like this:
Step #5 Success! Click the link to see your new Deezer playlist 🙂
A few notes:
- Despite a lot of programming time, we weren't able to get Deezer to carry over the name of the playlist from Spotify. Renaming the Deezer playlist is a snap using the edit option shown below.
- Check your new Deezer playlists for accuracy > differences between each service's music library and Meta Data = not every playlist will convert perfectly.
Any other questions?
Feel free to contact us like Cydnie did – we're happy to help.
by John | Jun 28, 2014 | Correcting Form, Instructor Training, Leading Group Rides, Master Instructor Blog
Beyond the obvious fitness benefits Indoor Cycling provides to our outdoor riders, there's an overlooked skill that will make your participants smoother and safer riders in a pace-line… riding fixed-gear Indoor Cycles teaches us to pedal constantly – i.e. not starting and stopping while riding.
It's rare that you'll ever have your class stop pedaling. We start turning the cranks and don't stop until the end 45 minutes later. Not surprisingly this steady/consistent pedal stroke is the mark of an experienced cyclist. Pedaling without stopping will also prevent you from hearing me calling out from behind you, in a somewhat irritated voice; Pedal, Pedal, Pedal!
At this speed you only get one chance.
Riding in a paceline at speed is a magical experience. Sailing along at 20 mph with your wheel 12″ or less from the person ahead. You feel their draft dragging you along, as the group members take turns sharing the work of pushing through the friction of the air. As long as everyone rides smoothly and consistently, it's all good. But “things” happen over a 40 mile ride; dropped water bottles, lost or distracted concentration, garbage on the shoulder – lots of “things” that will cause one of the riders in front of you to slow suddenly. Exactly how you react can make the difference between just another “thing” that happened on today's ride or you painfully ending up on your head 🙁
I've seen a lot of rear-end collisions and nearly always it's the rider behind who gets the worst of it.
@ 20 mph you are travelling ~ 29 feet per second. That 12″ gap between you and the rider in front represents 1/29th or 0.034482 of a second. So let's say you're JRA (Just Riding Along) and everyone in front slows very quickly. There's very little time (just a fraction of a second) to; perceive the change in speed and then react, before you hit someone. A fraction of a second may sound like a short period of time, but your brain can do a lot – especially if you've conditioned/trained it to respond correctly.
Brakes are for slowing… Pedaling is for going
Spend as much time leading and riding with cyclists in a paceline as I do and you start noticing the small differences that identify experience levels. Observing how closely a rider is willing to follow, consistently maintaining the distance to the rider ahead, is what tells me if you've done this before. When I see someone who's not comfortable following closely, it's almost always because they are attempting to control their speed by first stopping their pedals. Trouble is that bicycles coast…
Bicycling.com has an article that describes what they call the 9 rules of riding in a paceline.
MICROADJUST It's nearly impossible for everyone to put forth equal amounts of effort, especially on undulating terrain. You need to make adjustments along the way to prevent what Ignosh calls the Slinky effect, where the line alternately bunches together and becomes strung out, with big gaps. “It's better to make two small undercorrections than one big overcorrection,” he says.
“Think of it like driving: You don't slam on the brakes, then hit the gas; you moderate your speed.” To do that in a paceline, try one of these techniques:
Soft pedal: If you feel like you're getting sucked into the rider in front of you, take a light pedal stroke or two to adjust your speed accordingly.
Air brake: An easy (and safe) way to trim speed is to sit up and catch some wind. It'll slow you down a notch without disrupting the rhythm of the line.
Feather brake: Gently squeeze the brakes while continuing to pedal. You can scrub speed while shifting up or down as needed to alter your pace.
Note that none of these 5 techniques involves stopping your pedals.
New/inexperienced/poorly trained riders typically do the following in a panic situation:
Sense the change in speed > {stop pedaling} > realise that wasn't enough > grab a handful of brake > overlap the wheel ahead or hit the rider's wheel. The time spent between the {stop pedaling} was their allotted 1/29th of a second to react and prevent the collision. Having survived this mistake a few times, the rookie rider will increase the gap {adding additional time} until they learn what's causing the problem.
Experienced riders have learned to skip the {stop pedaling } and instead quickly apply (feather) the brakes lightly, while soft pedaling. In a panic, their hands are already doing what their supposed to be doing and can continue to add pressure to the levers as needed. Collision prevented 🙂
I've discussed this in my classes and have used it to break up the monotony of a long long tempo flat at Threshold. I'll ask everyone to close their eyes and visualize the scenario I described above…
You're tucked into a fast group this morning. Your hands are lightly resting on the hoods, fingers at the ready on both brake levers. Sensing the lead rider slowing you feather the brakes just enough to maintain your 12″ gap between wheels, while softening the pressure in your feet just a fraction. Keep this level of effort until the group accelerates again – your response to this surge is perfect.
With any luck you'll have taught them a valuable skill that could keep them safer in a group ride. Or at least save me from have to call out; Pedal, Pedal,Pedal!
Riding a fixed gear bicycle is a common training technique among outdoor cyclists, for the exact reason.
by Joan Kent | Jun 23, 2014 | Master Instructor Blog
This post was originally going to be about the effects of sugar on the brain and our appetites. But I figured no one would care about that. Virtually everyone cares about babies, though. So I figured that they — you — would care about babies’ brains, too.
Much research has been done on rat pups and sugar. When rat pups are separated from their mothers, for example, they cry. When researchers give them sugar, they stop crying. Sugar triggers a release of beta-endorphin, which stops the distress and promotes a sense of wellbeing. Even in rat pups.
Did you know this information is being used on human infants?
Newborn infants are subjected to a variety of painful procedures — heel puncture for blood sampling and many more. The painful procedures are even more numerous and varied in pre-term neonates. Pain responses in the newborns are measured by heart rate, crying time, facial activity, and other behaviors.
Sedation was once the most often-used method for dealing with neonatal pain. That’s been replaced by non-pharmacological procedures for pain relief. Some of them include pacifiers, position changes, swaddling, cradling in the arms, and reducing tactile stimulation. It’s an area of disagreement and controversy.
Using sucrose has been recommended and studied fairly extensively. Sucrose has been tested as a stand-alone treatment and also paired with other treatments, such as pacifiers, human milk and anesthetic cream.
Bottom line: Sucrose seems to be effective by itself, and all other treatments seem to work better when paired with sucrose.
I started hearing about the work on newborns and sucrose while doing research for my dissertation. I also heard it presented in a couple of seminars I attended. I was worried then, and even more concerned that it’s ongoing.
It’s only possible to consider sugar a non-narcotic intervention for newborns if you ignore its properties as an addictive drug. What are the implications for the future? We have an obesity epidemic now. What might happen if the practice becomes so widespread that — from birth — whenever there’s pain, there’s sugar?
The VMH is the main satiety center in the brain. Satiety is the feeling we’ve had enough food and don’t need more. Beta-endorphin (typically called “endorphins”) inhibits the satiety effect of the VMH. That can increase food intake, particularly for someone who’s sensitive to the effects.
Sugar triggers beta-endorphin, as mentioned above. Sugar can also bring on cravings later that day or for the next day or two. Addiction to sugar — a result of beta-endorphin and other brain chemicals — virtually guarantees that sugar intake will continue long-term, and probably increase.
If you don’t take sugar seriously as an addictive drug, if you ignore its ability to increase appetite in several different ways, then this procedural stuff with infants seems harmless. And I seem like an alarmist crank. (No worries; I’ve been called worse.)
We would never even think of giving newborn infants any type of narcotic painkillers. I wish we were less cavalier about sugar. It’s as close to a narcotic as it can be, but easy to dismiss because it’s disguised as food. (Maybe in name only, but still.)
Ending babies’ pain is obviously a good thing. Sugar seems innocent and harmless when used in that way, but it isn’t.
by Joan Kent | Jun 16, 2014 | Health and Wellness, Instructor Tips and Tricks, Master Instructor Blog
Plenty of things about nutrition are important but, to me, kinda boring. This is one of those things. But the topic is health-related, so it seems like a viable one.
What’s great is many foods are said to be powerful disease fighters, and this post will cover several of them. Those who plan to object that I’ve left out a bunch will be right. This is not meant to be the definitive, exhaustive list of such foods.
As you probably already know, colorful pigments in foods often indicate the presence of phytonutrients that can fight cancer, heart disease, and other diseases associated with oxidative damage. Oxidative damage is caused by free radicals, molecules that have lost an electron. Free radicals can scavenge electrons from healthy molecules, which may then develop diseases, including cancer.
Free radicals occur during normal metabolic functions but can also be created by toxins, processed foods or pollution. Potential sources of free radical production are everywhere. Antioxidants in foods help guard us against the damage they cause.
Red/blue foods contain anthocyanins. Examples are cherries, blueberries, plums and strawberries. In addition to anti-inflammatory benefits, they can protect against memory loss and declining motor skills.
Yellow/orange foods contain carotenoids, which can fight lung cancer. Examples of these foods are sweet potatoes (a wonder food in themselves), pumpkin, carrots, winter squash, cantaloupe, and broccoli. The chlorophyll in broccoli masks the yellow/orange pigment.
Orange foods, such as mangoes, oranges and papayas, contain cryptoxanthin, which is said to reduce cervical cancer risk.
Lycopene is well known for its ability to fight prostate cancer and heart disease. Since cooked tomatoes contain lycopene, they sparked, as you may recall, an odd controversy on whether or not pizza is a health food. No comment needed.
The yellow pigments — lutein and xeaxanthin — can protect the eye from blue-spectrum light and guard against macular degeneration. Corn and spinach are foods that contain them. Again, the chlorophyll in spinach masks the yellow pigment.
Astaxanthin is an important antioxidant found in pink foods — wild salmon, shrimp, lobster and crab.
An often-overlooked produce color is white. White produce is said to protect against stroke. White produce includes cauliflower, parsnips, Daikon radish, cucumbers, apples, pears, and bananas. Apples and pears are also anti-inflammatory and may help reduce blood pressure.
Looking beyond colors, some high-ranking antioxidant foods are dried beans, blueberries, cranberries (not dried — those are sweetened), berries, artichokes, prunes, apples, pecans, cherries, black plums, and Russet potatoes.
Cancer-fighting foods include almonds (10 per day), apples, blueberries, cherries, Brazil nuts, chickpeas, lentils, red beans, oranges, green leafy vegetables, dark green vegetables, tomatoes, wheat grass juice, and cruciferous vegetables.
Those much-touted and healthful cruciferous vegetables include broccoli, cauliflower, Brussels sprouts, cabbage, spinach, arugula, bok choy, collard greens, Daikon radish and other varieties, horseradish, kale, kohlrabi, mustard greens, rutabaga, turnips, and watercress.
As you can see, several foods show up on more than one of the above lists. Those are nutrition powerhouses.
Despite the appearance of various fruits on all of the lists, my general recommendations are 6 to 13 servings of vegetables per day (a serving is ½ cup), plus 1 to 2 servings of fruit per day (a serving is ½ cup or 1 medium-size fruit). Choose your fruits and vegetables from the lists above, and above all, stay away from the 5-a-day approach. That can too easily turn into 5 servings of fruit with no vegetables.
Don’t forget to include nuts and beans. And, of course, avoid junky, processed foods to limit free radical formation in the first place.
by John | Jun 4, 2014 | Engage Your Students, Instructor Training, Master Instructor Blog, Promote and Build Your Class
I wish I had taken notes or recorded Barbara Hoots' presentation from WSSC last weekend. Barbara's session was entitled, ” Studio Design: Creating Emporiums to Increase Profits.” The room was filled with eager fitness entrepreneurs looking to open a new studio or remodel an existing one. What Barbara said in her introduction was priceless.
I'm paraphrasing her here:
Can we all quit bashing SoulCycle now? Without the excitement they've created, most of you wouldn't be sitting here, energized by the prospect of opening and running your own Indoor Cycling studio.
Now I don't have any firsthand experience with CrossFit, but I do understand that they have been similarly disparaged by various “fitness experts”, for a multitude of supposed sins toward their members. I came across this article CrossFit Bashers, Can You Be More Constructive? written by Eva M. Selhub, M.D. in the Huffington post today. As I read it, it became clear to me how you could easily interchange CrossFit with SoulCycle.
It opens with…
Apparently people like Erin Simmons, who hate CrossFit didn't read my article on how CrossFit saved my health, nor have they considered the broader implications of how this fitness program may be helping tens of thousands (and maybe more) of people get healthy and happy.
Erin is just one among many who have made headway bashing CrossFit as being a sport that causes too many injuries, is overwhelmed by poor coaching or thoughtless programming, and, oh yes, for being a cult. And though there is some validity to some of what I have read, and I am happy to stand corrected on any point, it seems to me that these opinions are personal, ego-based vendettas written by people who feel the need to shout out warnings on subjects that are not completely substantiated by research or fact.
It's really incredible to me. Really. I've been practicing medicine for close to 20 years and none of us have figured out a way not only to get people motivated to exercise and get fit, but to stick to it. CrossFit is not the problem folks, obesity is. We have an epidemic of obesity that is not only propelling the rising costs of healthcare, but also morbid problems like metabolic syndrome, heart disease, cancer and diabetes. The estimated annual medical cost of obesity in the U.S. was $147 billion in 2008 U.S. dollars. The medical costs for people who are obese were $1,429 higher than those of normal weight.
Dr. Selhub goes on…
Let's start with bashing factor number one: CrossFit (CF) is dangerous because of the injuries:
This seems to be the most popular, though there is no current literature that validates that CF causes more injuries than any other sport. You can get injured skiing, running marathons, playing football and yes, the new research is pointing to injuries from yoga.
I personally am more worried about the broad health implications of the increased morbidity and mortality associated with poor fitness and not being able to get up from sitting on the floor.
Perhaps it is more important to shine a light on the notion that injuries are occurring because people are actually exercising and talking about it? I don't know about you, but in my clinic, I hear more complaints of injuries people are sustaining from walking up the stairs because their knees can't handle carrying the heavy weight of their body.
If people actually like to run, do gymnastics, play basketball or become active in any sport, you are going to see more widespread injuries because being active and inactive come with risks, risks which can be avoided with proper education and learning to be mindful of one's abilities and the body's needs, instead of allowing the ego to run the show.
So if I were to pull out the value of this argument, I would surmise that the real concern is that novices and people who don't know their fitness levels are pushing too hard, too fast and getting injured. It seems to me that the solution is asking people to be more mindful and educated, to put their egos aside and understand their fitness level and set appropriate goals, and take into account that the fitness program also involves days of rest and recovery, appropriate sports and life nutrition, and self-care.
Oh wait a minute, CF already advocates that.
Read the rest here 🙂
