Alright, so here is one heading that I, as an exercise professional, just. can’t. stand. It is “Lose Weight Fast”.
Lets talk again why, if you are losing weight, your goal shouldn’t be to lose it fast:
You shouldn’t aim for more than 1-2 lbs lost a week, because that pace is realistic long term. Remember, to lose a lb, thats a deficit of about 3500 calories – which means about an hour of high intensity exercise everyday. Doing more than that isn’t realistic for anyone, unless you’re an olympic athlete.
You don’t want to just lose weight, you want to improve your body composition, which means gaining muscle mass and losing fat mass. When you lose more than a lb a week, you are probably losing muscle and water in addition to some fat, which is going to slow down your metabolism in the long run, and make it harder to keep weight off.
Which leads me into point number 3, you need to do a particular resistance workout (aka lifting weights) and then recover from that workout 16 times before you start to see changes in muscle structure. ACSM recommends resistance training 3-4 days a week, so it will take you at least a month of sticking with it before you start to notice some changes.
So bringing it back to the Women’s Health Magazine website, I stumbled across some tips to “lose weight in 7 days.” The goal of the slim down is to stick to one of these tips each day. What bothers me about these tips, is that they’re not necessarily unhealthy – they’re actually really good advice – but Women’s Health decided to frame them in the usual “Lose Weight Fast” mindset, rather than encouraging healthy lifestyle changes. Lets take a look at these tips:
Sunday: Eliminate processed foods
Monday: Eliminate alcohol
Tuesday: Increase your fiber intake
Wednesday: Snack throughout the day
Thursday: Load up on fruits and veggies
Friday: Sip on water throughout the day
Saturday: Focus on protein intake
Why is this a “Lose Weight Fast” article Women’s Health?! Why isn’t this a “Eat Healthier to Improve Your Lifestyle and Reduce Your Risk of Cardiovascular Disease” article?! Reframe your content Women’s Health!
First things first: I have been MIA because its my LAST month of grad school! Woohoo! World, hire me.
But anyways, I decided to branch out from Brooks world yet again, and try a new shoe for my marathon training. After discussing what I looked for in a shoe (neutral, well-cushioned, wide toe box), it was decided that my next shoe would be New Balance’s 890 v4. I got this grey, blue and yellow shoe:
Just for some context, here is what I personally look for in an acceptable running shoe for my training:
Stability – I am a neutral runner, so my ankles don’t roll inwards and I don’t need medial posting.
Cushion – I’m a distance runner, and not about the minimalist lifestyle (I like to baby my knees, okay?!), so I like a could amount of cushion underfoot. I’m a mid foot to heel striker depending on the terrain and my fatigue levels, so I like some heel cushion in there as well.
Squish – While some people like a firmer shoe, I’m more of the squishy type. I like to feel like I’m walking on clouds.
Toe box– I have lost enough toenails to know that I like a nice wide toe box so that I have plenty of room for metatarsal splay.
Here are my thoughts:
Stability – Neutral. Check.
Cushion – Okay. You can see in my picture below, theres these huge nodules on the shoe, which I think are supposed to serve as the majority of the cushion, but they are too spaced out, in between those theres not much foam underfoot. Without some other mechanism to cushion besides foam (like the Mizuno wave plate), I don’t see this shoe lasting very long, cushion wise.
Squish – None. This shoe just felt hard. In addition, the crash pads underfoot were too spaced apart (see picture below), so I could feel each nodule underfoot. Not very comfortable, and ended in some tarsal spasms towards the end of a short run.
Toe box – This shoe ran short. I am consistently an 8.5 in running shoes, across brands. This is the first time I’ve gotten an 8.5 where my toes reach the top of the shoe. In addition, theres not much of an arch/instep to the shoe, so I found that when I ran downhill, my foot slid forward and crunched my toes up in the front even more.
Overall impression: This shoe looks pretty. Thats about it. I definitely won’t be running in it, and honestly anyone who runs in this shoe hasn’t worn something like the Brooks Ghost, because it is a world of a difference. I ended up keeping the shoes because I didn’t get a return receipt, so I wear them with my scrubs at cardiac rehab, to the weight room when I know I’m not running, and as a pair of sneakers to wear around instead of my actual running shoes.