3 reasons why it's good to give up bottled water

It's almost gone unnoticed by most of us, but when the $%#$ did we have to start paying for water? If you went back to 20, or even at little as 10 years ago and told someone in the near future he/she would be buying water in bottles, they would have probably laughed at you. However, with a combination of clever marketing, our susceptibility to marketing, and over-exaggerated claims, we've been sold on the idea of paying for something no one (in reality) can actually own - water. I admit I fell pray to this too and have been an avid consumer, buying into all of it. But with some research, I've decided to go another way from now on (which I will explain at the end).

Here are 3 reasons why it might be good to give up the bottle.

1. You aren't getting what you think you are.

Recent statistics show 25 - 40 percent of bottled water is just regular tap water. You read that right. Yes, I know it has a picture of a mountain or a stream on it and looks healthy, but unless explicitly written spring water on the label and lists the source, then its probably purified (filtered) tap water or perhaps not even filtered. It's hard to say since bottled water is much less regulated than municipal tap water. Cities test their public water supply like 3 times a day and periodically submit reports online that anyone can see. Bottled water doesn't have this same inspection or disclosure process. In fact, the FDA only gets involved in checking water that crosses state lines and, unfortunately, 70% or more tends to be consumed within the state in which it was sold. Many brands are vague about the exact source citing "public water sources" or lists multiple possible spring locations. Just take a look at the label (which is a good practice in general, BTW).

I know that despite frequent testing, there are many harmful substances that can show up in tap water. You can find out what they are by looking up your municipality's water report online, or else have an in-home test done. So I am not saying tap water is fine and drink up as is, just that if a large percentage bottled water is either just plain tap or else filtered tap (which is a largely untested or unregulated process), why pay $2 dollars a bottle for that? Doesn't it seem to be a waste of money? Do you really think these huge soft-drink manufacturers have your health interests at heart, above their own profit? Think about it.

"But it's purified that means it's good for me, right?" Not so fast ...

2. It's bad for your health.

In the case that the water you are drinking is actually filtered/purified, there are health concerns related to water that undergoes that process. Water purification uses a process called reverse osmosis (RO) and its really good at getting viruses, cysts and smaller matter that carbon filters can't. However the process de-mineralizes the water and you end up with a water with an acidic PH. The same thing happen with distilled water. So what happens when you ingest something that is acidic? Since the body wants its blood to be in a very narrow PH range, it has to alkalinize the water (re-minerlaize) the water somehow. The minerals from this (calcium, magnesium, copper..etc) are unfortunately leeched from your bones, muscles and tissues and the end result is a mineral deficiency. Do this long enough, for years, and you can imagine can become a serious problem.

The other health concern is in the plastic used in PET (polyethylene terephthalate) bottles. Scientists are Goethe University in Frankfurt found that estrogenic compounds leach from the plastic into the water, a similar concern as with BPA (Bisphenol A) which is more widely known. Endocrine disruptors such as this can wreak havoc with the hormonal system which affects hunger, metabolism, weight-gain, not to mention brain function, emotional disorders, fertility, and breast and prostate cancer. So if you had concerns about BPA, add PET bottles to that same list. Perhaps the easiest and safest thing to do is just assume most plastics are toxic and to avoid them as much as possible.

"OK, I see it might be bad for me, but its recyclable so it wont harm the environment, correct?"

3. Plastic water bottles harm our land, water and wildlife.

I just learned that there exist huge floating masses of plastic in the ocean: The Great Pacific Garbage Patch and North Atlantic Garbage Patch. Nice, huh? They are twice the size of texas each. Sunlight breaks down the plastic and their toxins leech into the ocean, not to mention fish and birds are eating them. We eat fish so you do the math. Here are some fun facts that may shed some perspective.

- Americans alone discard 80 million plastic bottles per day.
- 17 million barrels of oil are used in producing bottled water each year.

What about recycling? Well, it turns out that only 50% of people have access to curb-side recycling. But even with that 50%, how many people actually bring their empty plastic bottle back home  when outside the home (which is when bottles are used most)? Very, very few in our convenience society. States that have bottle deposit on return have much higher recycling rates, but water bottle companies fight this initiative every chance they get because they lose a penny profit per bottle. Michigan, for example, has the highest deposit (10 cents) and a 97% recycle rate.




"So how can i get safer water and not add to the ruin of the planet, which includes us?"

Some options to bottled water

They are some ways to avoid the environmental, financial and health concerns and still get hydrated, but each have their own advantages and disadvantages. Here are a few...

1. Carbon Filters:
Most people have heard of carbon filters and its the commonly found in popular filtered pitchers like Brita, PUR..etc. Pros: Carbon traps a lot of bacteria and sediment, least expensive option and no demineralization of the water. Cons: can't filter viruses, cysts, fluoride, and smaller matter. The filters must be changed quite often since the bacteria and sediment are trapped and can recontaminate the water.

2. Ionized or Alkalinized Water
There are some home filtration systems that use both carbon and reverse osmosis, just like with purified bottled water. But remember purified water is deionized and could cause mineral deficiencies. Options to put back lost minerals include adding sea salt, electrolyte packets, or special ionizers that 'recharge' the water and give it (supposedly) higher mineral and antioxidant properties. Pros: Being double filtered (carbon and RO) means not only bacteria and metals, but viruses, cysts, fluoride, and smaller matter are also removed. Cons: RO filtration adds considerable cost and just like carbon filers, have to be well maintained. Some experts feel that its not possible to 'akalanize' once water it's been demineralized and health claims are exaggerated or just plain false. Ionized water systems, like Kangen, are the most expensive and can cost upwards of several thousand dollars.

3. Gravity filtration systems
This technique uses a series of very, very small pores and is said to filter 99% of impurities and using gravity instead of reverse osmosis. Pros: most of the harmful elements are removed, but minerals are not lost through deionization. Cons: Cost can range from $100 to $400 dollars depending on the size of the unit and just like other methods, filters and unit must be maintained often to assure protection.

4. Find a local spring
Go right to the source and bottle up at a local spring. This website lists springs across the country (www.findaspring.com). Pros: no filters or maintenance to deal with. Cons: Inconvenience of driving perhaps.

All things considered, I will be opting for options 3 or 4 since I feel they are the healthiest with least amount of fuss for the dollar and don't make wild claims. Just remember that with any these options, use stainless steel or glass bottles for taking your cleaned water mobile. Using plastic bottles could add those plastic toxins right back in!

For a great documentary on the issue of bottled water, check out 'Tapped' which you can view online for free here. Here's to clean, safer water!

Glycemic Index & Glycemic Load: A simple guide

Most who have started to eat Paleo, Primal, Zone, Atkins or any other low/no carb style of eating are probably familiar with the term Glycemic Index. I'm sure even folks not doing these plans have at least heard the term at one point or another.  I'd like to cover what the Glycemic Index is, its limitations, and a much better way to gauge the relative amount of glucose in foods: Glycemic Load.

The Glycemic Index (GI) measures how quickly blood sugar levels rise after eating a particular food comparing it with eating pure glucose, which ranks 100 on the scale. The more quickly blood sugar rises, the more drastic is the insulin response need, which is vitally important info for diabetics. Its a measure of the quality of the carbohydrate in a given food. Foods are tested and compared based on 50g of available carbs (i.e. no fiber) of that food. Foods that score 55 or less are considered low GI foods and scores of 70 and above are considered high and to be avoided.

Simple, right? Just eat foods with low GI values and avoid the high GI. Not so, it turns out. While it may be a good starting point when deciding what kind of carb-containing food to eat, its far from perfect for a few very important reasons. This is what makes Glycemic Load a much better guide. So what's wrong with the Glycemic Index?

Lots, actually. For one, you will notice that earlier I mentioned it's based on 50 grams of carbs of that food. That's great for a test, but that doesn't take into account the amount in how much we actually eat in a normal portion! Lets use beets and whole wheat pasta as an example. Beets have a relatively high GI of 64, but how many beets would one have to consume to get to 50g of digestible carbs? about 5 cups. Unless you are a serious beet addict, I doubt anyone is going to eat that much in a serving. Whole wheat pasta has a GI of 37. Pretty low. However it only takes 1 cup of pasta and 1/2 cup of spaghetti sauce to get to that 50g. That's not a a big portion. In the end, the beets would have less of any effect than the pasta, despite the higher GI number.

Other factors GI doesn't account for are cooking method, ripeness, amount of fiber or water in that food. Cooking can raise sugar content in fruits and vegetables and the more ripe they are, the more sugar they contain. Foods that have lots of water are going be less dense in the sugar per serving, such as watermelon. Watermelon has a high GI (72), but has only 9g of sugar in an actual serving (1 cup, diced) due to the fact they are mostly water.

Here is where Glycemic Load (GL) comes to the rescue. It is much more accurate since it not only takes the GI information (quality), but also the normal serving size (quantity). There are GL charts online but its easy to to figure out by just multiplying the Glycemic Index of the food by the amount of carbs in a serving (excluding fiber) then divide by 100. The formula is below...

GL = amont of carbs in serving (minus fiber) x Gi /100

Foods with a low GL would be in the 0-10 range and high would be over 20, with 11-19 being moderate. Let's compare the glycemic load for beets and whole wheat pasta and sauce example earlier.

For the beets, we would multiply the GI of 64 by 7grams of carbs (1 cup serving) equals 448. Dividing by 100 gives us 4.48, a very low GL number. The pasta is GI of 37 x 37grams of carbs (1 cup) and dividing by 100 equals 13.7. Tomato sauce would be GI of 64 x 20g of carbs (1/2 cup) and divide by 100 yields 12.8 Add them up and the GL total is around 26.5 which is considered high.

 Lastly, here is a chart to use to look up the GI and GL of foods for reference. If you cant find it on there, it  should be easily findable with a search engine.

Hope this helped and feel free to contact me with any questions!

Core: Facts and Myths

Core is one of those buzzwords you seem to hear every 5 minutes these days, yet it's also one of the most misunderstood. What exactly is your 'core' and why is it so important anyway? I hope to shed some light on that, as well as show some wasy to work your core effectively and safely inside and outside the gym. Let's get to it ...

Q: Where is it and what is it's function?

Core consists mainly of the abdominals, external obliques, hip flexors and muscles of the lower back. It's true of course these muscles function (as all muscles do) to move parts of your body around. The previously mentioned muscles rotate your spine forward and backwards (flexion and extension), side to side (lateral flexion) and raise your thighs (hip flexion). But they also act as stabilizers to just about every large body movement we do. All compound (multi-joint) movements need a base of support from which to launch, just as a house needs a solid foundation. I like the phrase "You can't shoot a canon out of a canoe" and I think that's a great example of how your core works. In short, your core muscles are movers and stabilizers. Pretty darn important, I'd say.

Q: What exercises are a waste of time for working the core?

It used to be thought that lots of sit-ups, side bends and leg raises were the answer to a strong midsection, but recent findings show that these exercises are not only ineffective, but potentially dangerous. For one, traditional sit-ups (with legs straight or else coming up all the way until bent at the waist) works mainly the hip muscles (which are already overly contracted from how much sitting we do) and don't really engage the abdominals (which need the work) except for maybe the first few inches off the ground. More than that, straight leg sit-ups put a dangerous load on the lumbar discs which can cause lower back problems.

A much safer variation of the sit-up is the 'crunch', which is keeping legs bent at 90 degrees and only coming off the ground a few inches, but again its only working the upper abdominals which tend to be less in need than the lower in most people. For a safer version of leg raises, which work lower abs, keep one leg bent 90 degrees and on the ground while raising and lowering the opposing leg. That will unload lower lumbar by taking pressure off of the discs.

I am doing to digress just a bit here to rant about a pet peeve of mine which you see at every gym: side crunches while holding a dumbbell in opposing hand. Where to begin? For starters, let's clear up an even more universal misconception which is "to have a six-pack, you need to do lots of crunches, sit-ups and side bends and with weights. Yes and no, but mostly no. Yes, you might build some midsection muscle, but without considering the most critical six-pack revealing element (your diet), you are just making your waist larger and bulkier since that layer of fat is still on top of your now enlarged midsection beefcake. This ties in with another myth, 'spot reduction' which is the idea that you can lose fat on a specific part of your body by doing exercises in that region. Ladies, you can't lose fat on your arms by doing arm exercises. Sorry. When talking about body fat and getting cut, its 99% diet folks. Sorry for the rant and back to the topic at hand ...

Q: So what's the most effective and safe way to work the core? 

Pretty much any position that forces you to use the midsection to keep the body in a straight line and not sag or collapse in the middle while maintaining a wide base of support. Probably the most famous example of this is the simple "plank". I recommend keeping it simple in the beginning to the two basic variations below since if they are done with good form, can make an enormous difference. I see lots of folks doing planks, but few doing them correctly.

Note in the images above (1) the spine is in a straight line from the head to the feet. If your butt is in the air or stomach hitting the ground, that's not a plank. (2) The pelvis is "tucked" under while squeezing the glutes. All this means is your hips are rotated slightly forward (think of how you would prepare if you challenged someone were going to hit you in the stomach to get a rough idea) and your butt is clenched. That's what the command "engage your core" means.

Before going on to more advanced postures (like the one at the top of this post), try to master these 2 first. That extra element of raising or moving limbs while keeping the body straight ramps up the intensity exponentially. To make it a bit easier if you are just starting out or struggling, try using your knees instead of feet or try to just maintain a push-up position for as long as you can. Start with 30 seconds and try to work up to a minute or two.

Just quickly I'd like to wrap up with a really important tip for working core which can have an even greater effect than these exercises in the long run and you don't even need to go to the gym. Posture. That will be another post for another day since it's so important, but for now just know that you can work your core by just noticing and correcting your posture throughout the day. When walking, try to keep the shoulders down and back while keeping the pelvis parallel to the ground (as opposed to tilted forward). You should feel a slight tightening in the lower abs and more 'solid' as you move about. Another tip is to make sure to get up out of your chair and move around throughout the day. Sitting long periods results in weakened abs, overly tight hip muscles and a weak, over-streched lower back so try to get up least once an hour if not more.

I am really glad to see this neglected area which is so critical to our strength and vitality finally getting its proper due. Plank it out people!

Thursday Motivation

Extreme Post-exercise soreness: DOMS gone wrong

DOMS stands for "Delayed Onset Muscle Soreness" and it refers to the period 24-48 hours after a tougher than normal workout where it hurts to even stand up or brush your hair. I used to think this was a good thing, but latest studies show its a sign that waaaay too much muscle damage has been done and can actually be very serious or even fatal in extreme cases. That condition is called Rhabdomyolysis and its basically your kidneys shutting down because there is so much muscle tissue damage from the workout that the amount of waste products are too much. It's very serious stuff.

Yes, every workout involves some breakdown of muscle tissue. It's part of hypertrophy (enlargement of rebuilt damaged muscle fibers) and is a normal sign of progressively overloaded workouts. But in this case, too much of a good thing is not good. 

BTW, it was thought that lactic acid was the reason for the soreness in DOMS however is turns out that its just the reaction of localized damaged muscle tissue. Lactic acid (waste products in the blood from sustained muscular contractions) might account for AOMS (acute onset muscle soreness) which is the "burn" you feel during exercise, but would be long gone by the time DOMS sets in.

Check out this article by the ACSM to learn more about DOMS and warning signs you've gone too hard.

Great Shoulder Rehab and Injury Prevention Routine

As I've been trying out different rehab exercises for my rotator cuff issue, I came across this one which i just love by the Diesel Crew. I gave it a whirl the other day and found it on point. Most rotator cuff exercises a PT would give you are included in here in one form or another (ie shoulder external rotations and abductions in both horizontal and vertical planes), but you will notice there is an emphasis on retracting the scapula at the beginning of each movement which work the stabilizer muscles of the scapula (trapezius, rhomboids) which create a strong foundation for all overhead work. 

It also reinforces good shoulder mechanics since rotating and raising the scapula upwardly (for overhead work) or retracting it (for rows, etc) helps to avoid shoulder impingement and rotator cuff injuries by giving more space between the acromion and the humeral head. 

There are two schools of thought on overhead shoulder form. One is called 'active shoulders' (favored by CrossFitters, Ripetoe...) and is the act of rotating the scapulae upwardly in overhead movements. The other is referred to as 'packed shoulders' (favored by the kettle-bell crowd, Pavel...) which is keeping the scapula down and retracted at the top of the movement. Depending on the shape of your acromion, packed shoulders in overhead movement could lead to Rotator Cuff trouble by impinging the supraspinatus muscle or sub-acromial bursa so my opinion would be to avoid that. But you might have a forgiving shoulder anatomy so it might not be a problem for you, but better safe than sorry since it's a rough way to find out!

Thanks again to the Diesel Crew for the great routine and the Metallica :P

Passed the ACSM CPT exam! : )

I guess all that studying paid off! Whew! The certification is for the certified personal trainer with the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM). It's one of the harder ones to get and carries some weight with it, but I decided to go for it since I'm in this for the long haul. : )

I scored 718 out of 800 (550 is passing), so I'm really happy with that. It was a lot of information and I felt the test needed solid prep so for those of you out there thinking of taking it, prepare and study well! I did take an ACSM weekend study course which I very much recommend as it helps you focus on what areas (KSAs) you need to know for the test. A good deal of the questions were in the other study material (not the workbook you get in the course) so I recommend supplementing your study with those other books. There were a few questions not covered in the material, but those are 'beta' questions and wont affect your score if don't get them correct. I would say for sure to learn spotting techniques for specific exercises since that wasn't anywhere in the material. I learned it from some NSCA books but you can find on the internet with some focused searching.

Again, I really recommend taking the weekend course. I think without that one could spend many more months studying material that might not be entirely relevant or perhaps not even covered. I studied hard for about 4 weeks after the course and it worked out well.

Good luck to anyone preparing for the test and know that if you are studying using the current workbooks and material, after Jan 1 the test will change so the material you have wont be 100% tied to the test so make sure to take before the end of the year!