One Size Fits All

In exercise and fitness training, a “one-size fits all” approach does not work.

This is one of my favorite aspects of being a personal trainer and health coach.

Every single day, I encounter something new. Whether it’s a client’s specific goal, preference, injury, or condition, everyone has different wants and needs. This requires alterations, to say nothing of completely different programming.

My oldest client is 91. My youngest is 13. I have middle-aged clients trying to lose weight. I have young men playing soccer at division 1 colleges. I have new mothers that want to return to their favorite sports. I have seniors reversing rheumatoid arthritis and regaining balance and energy. Some of my clients want to get off a long list of medications. Others just want a fun and challenging workout a few days a week.

These differences between individuals contribute to my hesitation to recommend routines based entirely around weight machines.

Machines allow you to adjust the height of the seat, and sometimes make an adjustment for leg length, but beyond that, you’re pushing or pulling in a pre-determined range of motion. Different people will need to move differently based on their build and body mechanics. And, just as importantly, these types of actions won’t transfer as effectively to real life.

When you pick something up, push a heavy object, or take a very high step up, there is nothing guiding your body through space. Your muscles and joints will be working on their own, free of outside influence.

Machines are useful to isolate a muscle group, and help an individual develop a mind-body connection with that muscle, but they should not be where you spend the majority of your time.

I start most my clients with a series of assessments, performing different movements that are common in everyday life. Their ability to execute these actions, along with the goals they have stated, will specify exactly what we must do together.

These assessments usually consist of a gait analysis, squatting down into a chair and back up, bringing the arms overhead, and holding a plank or pushup position. But, as previously mentioned, I may omit some of these, use alternatives, or do something completely different based on the client.

The same mistake of using a “one-size fits all” approach is apparent in our nations nutritional recommendations. The USDA recommends that everyone consume 45-65% of their calories from carbs, 10 to 30% from protein, and 25 to 35% from fat.

This is akin to recommending that 15% of all calories come from dairy…or that 5% of calories come from peanuts. What if an individual is lactose intolerant or allergic to peanuts?

As evidenced by our current diabetes and obesity rates, most Americans cannot tolerate upwards of 50% of their calories coming from carbs. Through years of trial and error, I’ve learned that if I average more than 40% carbs, more than 4 days a week, I start to gain fat, even in a calorie deficit.

Remember, carbs are fuel for high intensity activity, while dietary fat is truly essential for optimal health. After a lifetime of consuming more carbs than the body can safely store and burn, it loses its “insulin sensitivity”. This means that the sugars last too long in the blood (causing inflammation and cardiovascular disease) and are eventually forced into fat storage.

I work with my clients to find the most sustainable and healthy nutritional path for them. I base my nutritional recommendations not only on their dietary restrictions, activity level, and current conditions, but also their preferences and lifestyle.

I personally cook a few big meals on weekends so I have leftovers available on weekdays. However, I may have to suggest a different approach for clients that don’t have the time to, or interest in, trying this. Some of my clients are vegans or vegetarians that require more vitamin supplementation and creative protein options. If a client has sugar or chocolate cravings, we’ll work to find the healthiest options and optimal timing for indulgences.

Some foods are healthier than others, but I’ve never insisted that a client consume a certain food or avoid another. I merely work within their parameters, to find out what will guarantee them success in the long term.

These examples show the importance of individual personalization. Personal trainers, and health professionals of all kinds, must be able to tailor the theories learned through education, to best serve each client.

No two people are the same, so why should their exercise and diet be the same?

diverse

Review of New York Times Article

How has your sleep been in the past week? Any of the tactics from my last post help?

This week I’ll review an article I came across on the New York Times website.

Initially, I wanted to post a lot more news articles. I also wanted to include a lot more in-line citations and references. I tried this in earlier posts but, ultimately, scrapped those attempts. I found it led to biased cherry-picking of studies and data.

Obviously I have my opinion, and I’m sure that comes through at times but, ultimately, I want to provide reliable and verifiable information for everyone…not convince people that what I do is best.

The news article, titled “Dietary Report Card Disappoints”, discusses many of the shortcomings of our nation’s health. The real thing that stuck out to me (maybe because of my opinion! haha) was the following quote:

 “There’s been a huge increase in grains in the last 30 years — bread, cereal, pasta, rice, burritos, pizza crust, panini, muffins, scones — mostly made from white flour,” she said. “We’ve been blaming the obesity epidemic on sweets, and we are eating too much sugar, but we need to pay more attention to grains.

“It would not be great to simply replace refined grains like white flour and white rice with whole grains,” she added. “We need to cut back on grains, period.”

This is the first time I’ve seen a mainstream source acknowledge our nations over-consumption of grains.

This report also discusses over-consumption of sugars, primarily high-fructose corn syrup. The article recommends fruit which is a perfect, more nutritious alternative to fulfill a sweet-craving.

Early on in this piece, saturated fat is lumped into the same category as “heart-damaging trans fats” and lists margarine and shortening as sources of saturated fats. Fortunately, we all know that saturated fats may be the safest for the heart and that margarine is dangerous because of its trans-fat content (occurring through the process of hydrogenation).

Another flaw is when the nutritionist quoted in the article, Liebman, reports that consuming beef and pork, as opposed to chicken and fish, is a problem. Fish is certainly the best protein source but, believe it or not, beef is preferable to chicken. One ounce of chicken has 8 grams of fat (1500mg Omega 6 and 100mg Omega 3), while one ounce of grass-fed beef only has 3.6 grams of fat (120mg Omega 6 and 25mg Omega 3). Crunching these numbers, the O6/O3 ratio of chicken is 15/1 while beef is 5/1. Clearly beef is leaner and has an O6/O3 ratio closer to the optimal 2/1 range.

One protein source the article recommends is frozen fish and farm-raised mussels…a timely callback to my recipe post two weeks ago!

Dairy is discussed within this article but again, critical details are overlooked. Liebman approves of the “decline in whole milk consumption and the booming popularity of mostly low-fat yogurt”. However, dairy is problematic for many people due to lactose intolerance and the inflammatory nature of its primary protein – casein. Also, the majority of dairy in the U.S. is pasteurized and homogenized. This means that a raw food, with living enzymes, vitamins, and minerals, is heated and processed into a dead substance. Manufacturers must then add synthetic vitamins and minerals and stamp it with a short shelf life.

The final topic covered is portion sizes, particularly in restaurants. This is a very valid point. Restaurants, along with food processing companies, have increased the palatability of certain foods. By tinkering with man-made forms of sodium, sugar, and fat, they have found a way to completely override our bodies natural hunger signals. An interesting comparison: one 16-ounce soda contains the same amount of sugar as FOUR FEET of the sugarcane plant. Imagine how much fibrous and inedible plant matter you’d have to gnaw through to ingest that amount of fructose naturally.

To limit my intake of unhealthy portion sizes of processed food, I merely treat eating-out as an indulgence. Also, considering the cost of one meal at a restaurant, I cannot frequently justify going out to eat. By eating nutrient-dense, homemade meals 99% of the time, going out to eat every month or so is far more enjoyable and doesn’t negatively affect my health and performance.

Well, that’s all I have for my review of this New York Times article. If you ever see reports, studies, or anything else you’d like me to break-down for you, don’t hesitate to e-mail me directly…it’s always fun for me. Thanks!