Searching for the evidence to support diagnosis and treatment reveals one important observation: Perhaps only 20% of what is done in medicine is supported by solid scientific evidence. The remaining 80% is based on, at best, reasonable assumptions based on an understanding of anatomy, biochemistry and physiology and, at worst, anecdote, dogma and myth.

 

The great tragedy of Science — the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.

-

–Thomas Henry Huxley

-

They are among medicine’s most widely held beliefs – drinking eight glasses of water a day is essential for health, shaving hair makes it grow back coarser, reading in a dim light ruins eyesight. Despite their popularity, they are myths.

 

Medicine is littered with false beliefs because doctors assume if they have been held for long enough they do not need re-examination. The power of belief is one of the most important reasons why medicine works, underlying the placebo effect and providing a key weapon in the doctors’ arsenal.

 

In a review of widely held medical beliefs – by public and professionals alike – two doctors in the United States selected seven for critical examination and searched for evidence to support or refute them. The results suggest the beliefs are built on sand.

 

Rachel Vreeman of the Indiana University School of Medicine and Aaron Carroll of the Regenstrief Institute, Indianapolis, say they could find no evidence to confirm the beliefs, or found evidence that proved them wrong.

 

Writing in the Christmas issue of the British Medical Journal, they say: “Physicians would do well to understand the evidence supporting their medical decision-making. They should at least recognise when their practice is based on tradition, anecdote or art. While belief in the described myths is unlikely to cause harm, recommending medical treatment for which there is little evidence certainly can.”

 

Source: Fox News, Monday December 24, 2007

 

Here is a synopsis of the seven great myths:

-

People should drink at least eight glasses of water a day

 

The advice to drink at least eight glasses of water a day can be found throughout the popular press. One origin may be a 1945 recommendation that stated: A suitable allowance of water for adults is 2.5 litres daily in most instances. An ordinary standard for diverse persons is 1 millilitre for each calorie of food. Most of this quantity is contained in prepared foods. If the last, crucial sentence is ignored, the statement could be interpreted as instruction to drink eight glasses of water a day.

 

Another endorsement may have come from a prominent nutritionist, Frederick Stare, who once recommended, without references, the consumption “around 6 to 8 glasses per 24 hours,” which could be “in the form of coffee, tea, milk, soft drinks, beer, etc.” The complete lack of evidence supporting the recommendation to drink six to eight glasses of water a day is exhaustively catalogued in an invited review by Heinz Valtin in the American Journal of Physiology. Furthermore, existing studies suggest that adequate fluid intake is usually met through typical daily consumption of juice, milk, and even caffeinated drinks. In contrast, drinking excess amounts of water can be dangerous,resulting in water intoxication, hyponatraemia, and even death.

 

We use only 10% of our brains

 

 

The belief that we use only 10% of our brains has persisted for over a century, despite dramatic advances in neuroscience. In another extensive expert literature review, Barry Beyerstein provides a detailed account of the origins of this myth and the evidence disputing it. Some sources attribute this claim to Albert Einstein, but no such reference or statement by Einstein has ever been recorded. This myth arose as early as 1907,propagated by multiple sources advocating the power of self improvement and tapping into each person’s unrealised latent abilities.

 

Evidence from studies of brain damage, brain imaging, localizations of function, micro structural analysis, and metabolic studies show that people use much more than 10% of their brains. Studies of patients with brain injury suggest that damage to almost any area of the brain has specific and lasting effects on mental, vegetative, and behavioural capabilities. Numerous types of brain imaging studies show that no area of the brain is completely silent or inactive. The many functions of the brain are highly localized, with different tasks allocated to different anatomical regions. Detailed probing of the brain has failed to identify the “non-functioning” 90%. Even micro-level localization, isolating the response of single neurones, reveals no gaps or inactive areas. Metabolic studies, tracking differential rates of cellular metabolism within the brain, reveal no dormant areas.

 

Hair and fingernails continue to grow after death

 

 

Morbid information about the body captures the imagination and reinforces medical mythology. In All Quiet on the Western Front, the author describes a friend’s fingernails growing in corkscrews after the burial. Johnny Carson even perpetuated this myth with his joke, “For three days after death hair and fingernails continue to grow, but phone calls taper off.” To quote the expert opinion of forensic anthropologist William Maples, “It is a powerful, disturbing image, but it is pure moonshine. No such thing occurs.”

-

This myth does have a basis in a biological phenomenon that can occur after death. As Maples and numerous dermatologists explain, dehydration of the body after death and drying or desiccation may lead to retraction of the skin around the hair or nails. The skin’s retraction can create an appearance of increased length or of greater prominence because of the optical illusion created by contrasting the shrunken soft tissues with the nails or hair. The actual growth of hair and nails, however, requires a complex hormonal regulation not sustained after death.

 

Shaving hair causes it to grow back faster, darker, or coarser

 

Another common belief is that shaving hair off will cause it to grow back in a darker or coarser form or to grow back faster. It is often reinforced by popular media sources and perhaps by people contemplating the quick appearance of stubble on their own body.

 

Strong scientific evidence disproves these claims. As early as 1928, a clinical trial showed that shaving had no effect on hair growth. More recent studies confirm that shaving does not affect the thickness or rate of hair re-growth. In addition, shaving removes the dead portion of hair, not the living section lying below the skin’s surface, so it is unlikely to affect the rate or type of growth. Shaved hair lacks the finer taper seen at the ends of unshaven hair, giving an impression of coarseness. Similarly, the new hair has not yet been lightened by the sun or other chemical exposures, resulting in an appearance that seems darker than existing hair.

 

Reading in dim light ruins your eyesight

 

 

The fearful idea that reading in dim light could ruin one’s eyesight probably has its origins in the physiological experience of eye strain. Suboptimal lighting can create a sensation ofhaving difficulty in focusing. It also decreases the rate of blinking and leads to discomfort from drying, particularly in conditions of voluntary squinting. The important counterpointis that these effects do not persist.

 

The majority consensus in ophthalmology, as outlined in a collection of educational material for patients, is that reading in dim light does not damage your eyes. Although it can cause eye strain with multiple temporary negative effects, it is unlikely to cause a permanent change on the function or structure of the eyes. Even in patients with Sjögren’s syndrome (an autoimmune disease that features inflammation in certain glands of the body), decreased functional visual acuity associated with strained reading improves when they stop reading.

 

One review article on myopia concludes that increased use of one’s eyes, such as reading in dim light or holding books too close to the face, could result in impaired ocular growthand refractive error. The primary evidence cited was epidemiological evidence of the increased prevalence of myopia and the high incidence of myopia in people with more academic experience. The author notes that this hypothesis is just beginning to “gainscientific credence.” In the past reading conditions involved even less light, relying on candles or lanterns, so increased rates of myopia over the past several centuries does not necessarily support that dim reading conditions are to blame. In contrast to that review, hundreds of online expert opinions conclude that reading in low light does not hurt your eyes.

 

Eating turkey makes people especially drowsy

 

The presence of tryptophan in turkey may be the most commonly known fact pertaining to amino acids and food. Scientific evidence shows that tryptophan is involved in sleep and mood control and can cause drowsiness. L-tryptophan has been marketed as a sleep aid.

 

The myth is the idea that consuming turkey (and the tryptophan it contains) might particularly predispose someone to sleepiness. Actually, turkey does not contain an exceptional amount of tryptophan. Turkey, chicken, and minced beef contain nearly equivalent amounts of tryptophan (about 350 mg per 115 g), while other common sources of protein, such as pork or cheese, contain more tryptophan per gram than turkey. Any effects of the tryptophan in turkey are probably minimized by consuming it in combination with other food, which would limit its absorption according to expert opinion. In fact, consuming supplemental tryptophan on an empty stomach is recommended to aid absorption. Other physiological mechanisms explain drowsiness after meals. Any large solid meal (such as turkey, sausages, stuffing, and assorted vegetables followed by Christmas pudding and brandy butter) can induce sleepiness because blood flow and oxygenation to the brain decreases, and meals either high in protein or carbohydrate may cause drowsiness. Accompanying wine may also play a role.

 

Mobile phones create considerable electromagnetic interference in hospitals

 

 

No cases of death caused by the use of a mobile phone in a hospital or medical facility can be found or verified. Less serious incidents, including false alarms on monitors, malfunctions in infusion pumps, and incorrect readings on cardiac monitors, have occasionally been reported. Although no references or dates are given, one government website published an anecdote in 2002 describing how use of a mobile phone in an intensive care unit resulted in an unintended bolus of adrenaline (epinephrine) from an infusion pump. After publication of a journal article citing more than 100 reports of suspected electromagnetic interference with medical devices before 1993, the Wall Street Journal published a front page article highlighting this danger. Since that time, many hospitals banned the use of mobile phones, perpetuating the belief.

 

Despite the concerns, there is little evidence. In the United Kingdom, early studies showed that mobile phones interfered with only 4% of devices and only at a distance of <1 meter. Less than 0.1% showed serious effects. At the Mayo Clinic in 2005, in 510 tests performed with 16 medical devices and six mobile telephones, the incidence of clinically important interference was 1.2%. Similarly rigorous testing in Europe found minimal interference and only at distances less than 1 meter. Recent technological improvements may be lessening even this minimal interference. A 2007 study, examining mobile phones “used in a normal way,” found no interference of any kind during 300 tests in 75 treatment rooms. In contrast, a large survey of anaesthesiologists suggested that use of mobile phones by doctors was associated with reduced risk of medical error or injury resulting from delays in communication (relative risk 0.78; 95% confidence interval 0.62 to 0.96).w

 

Conclusions

 

Despite their popularity, all of these medical beliefs range from unproved to untrue. Although this was not a systematic review of either the breadth of medical myths or of all available evidence related to each myth, the search methods produced a large number of references. While some of these myths simply do not have evidence to confirm them, others have been studied and proved wrong.

 

Physicians would do well to understand the evidence supporting their medical decision making. They should at least recognize when their practice is based on tradition, anecdote, or art. While belief in the described myths is unlikely to cause harm, recommending medical treatment for which there is little evidence certainly can. Speaking from a position of authority, as physicians do, requires constant evaluation of the validity of our knowledge.

 

Source: British Medical Journal

 

Editors Comment: The following article is from cbcmarketplace. I am putting on here in its entirety because they did a great job both on television and their website with exposing how many calories are actually in your foods.

 

If you think restaurant meals are healtjier than the drive through’s, you might be in for a shock. Most people underestimated by about 1/2 the calories and were completely caught by surpise when told the truth.

 

So why is restaurant food information so hard to come by? Is there a reason certain information is left out on menu’s from family restaurants? You bet there is, and the following article tells you what it is. Read on to educate yourself if in the habit of eating out.

 

——————————————————–

 

You’ll Never Guess How High Calorie Foods Are At The Popular Sit-Down Chains

 

CBC.ca Marketplace, November 7, 2007

 

We’ve all been trained to think of fast food as junk food. We understand that burgers and fries and “breakfast sandwiches” are not good for us. Most of the burger chains publish detailed nutrition charts on their websites, and they hand them out at the counter if you ask. Maybe a lot of the choices are unhealthy, but at least the information is out in the open.

 

Here’s a surprise. The food served at your neighbourhood casual-dining chain restaurant is positively loaded with fat and calories and sodium, in amounts far surpassing those usually found in fast-food meals.

 

We had nutritional analyses done on 16 popular items from sit-down chains (see below for some charts). As Wendy Mesley reports, a single meal at one of these restaurants could actually contain more calories than most of us should eat in a whole day.

 

How To Stay Healthy Eating Restaurant Foods

 

Restaurant meals will probably always be a little richer than what you would make at home. Here are some ways to make healthier choices when dining out.

 

• When you get to a restaurant, ask for nutrition information before you order.

 

• Ask yourself: How frequently do you eat food away from home? The more often, the more you need to make healthy choices.

 

• Ask for a doggy bag: If you’re trying to lose weight, set aside half or nearly half your meal right when it’s served.

 

• Don’t be afraid to request food the way you want it: ask for dressings, sauces, gravy, butter and mayonnaise on the side.

 

• “I’ll start with the salad, please.” Research shows that you consume fewer calories when you begin your meal with soup (not cream-based), or salad (with lower-fat dressings). If you partially fill up on foods packed with nutrition, you’re less likely to overeat on the stuff that may not be so good.

 

• Look for cooking terms: Order baked, roasted, poached, grilled, broiled or steamed.

 

• Beware of battered, fried, or in sauces of butter, alfredo, cream, rich cheese, rose, Bearnaise, Hollandaise or pot pies, hash and creamy casseroles. They are synonyms for one thing: fat.

 

• Hold the salt: Soups and cold cut sandwiches are often high in sodium, as is restaurant prepared rice.

 

• Beware liquid calories: Instead of choosing pop, alcohol or designer coffee, opt for real juice, milk and especially water.

 

• Parents don’t want unhappy, unruly children at a restaurant. Chances are if you give them pop, a chicken fingers and fries, they’ll be happy and behave.

 

• Nutritionists worry children will associate junk food with having a good time. Not so bad when you’re only eating out occasionally. When you dine out twice a week (the average), it heavily influences their attitudes to food.

 

• While kids’ meals might offer milk or veggies, the main dish is often deep fried. And they’re pretty much the same from restaurant to restaurant. For any kid regularly eating out, it’s hard to eat healthy. Instead of pop, let them have chocolate milk. Stick to skim milk if your child’s over two years of age. At least they’ll get some calcium. If you order juice, dilute it with some water to cut down on sugar content. Also, try to get some steamed veggies with their dishes, and cut down on the fries.

-

What Does That Work Out To In Hamburgers?

 

A McDonald’s Quarter Pounder measures out like this:

 

• 420 calories
• 20g fat
• 619 mg sodium

 

So, OK, burgers are a sometimes food. But you may be surprised to learn that a number of the most popular menu items at Canada’s casual-dining restaurants make those burgers look puritan by comparison. Here are Marketplace’s test results, from an independent lab, compared with the Quarter Pounder.

 

KELSEY’S:

 

Classic Chicken Wings		How many quarter-pound burgers that equals
Calories	1581	3.7
Fat (g)	102	5.1
Sodium (mg)	2907	4.7

Cajun Chicken Caesar Salad		How many quarter-pound burgers that equals
Calories	720	1.7
Fat (g)	56	2.8
Sodium (mg)	1930	3

Chicken Fajitas		How many quarter-pound burgers that equals
Calories	1484	3.5
Fat (g)	46	2.3
Sodium (mg)	4582	7.5

-

MONTANA’S:

-

Firecracker Sizzling Shrimp		How many quarter-pound burgers that equals
Calories	549	1.3
Fat (g)	25	1.3
Sodium (mg)	2030	3.3

Country Cobb Salad		How many quarter-pound burgers that equals
Calories	521	1.2
Fat (g)	34	1.7
Sodium (mg)	1433	2.3

Big Sky Burger		How many quarter-pound burgers that equals
Calories	866	2
Fat (g)	47	2.3
Sodium (mg)	1406	2.3

Vegetable and Feta Burger		How many quarter-pound burgers that equals
Calories	778	1.85
Fat (g)	35	1.75
Sodium (mg)	1397	2.2

Add fries to that…		How many quarter-pound burgers that equals
Calories	440	1
Fat (g)	23	1
Sodium (mg)	1193	2

 

MILESTONE’S:

 

Baked Goat Cheese & Slow-Roasted Garlic		How many quarter-pound burgers that equals
Calories	729	1.7
Fat (g)	27	1.35
Sodium (mg)	1408	2.3

Squash Ravioli		How many quarter-pound burgers that equals
Calories	865	2
Fat (g)	27	1.3
Sodium (mg)	1024	1.6

Fire-Grilled Wild Coho Salmon		How many quarter-pound burgers that equals
Calories	660	1.6
Fat (g)	30	1.5
Sodium (mg)	955	1.5

 

APPLEBEE’S:

 

Spinach and Artichoke Dip		How many quarter-pound burgers that equals
Calories	1161	2.8
Fat (g)	75	3.8
Sodium (mg)	2234	3.7

Southwest Philly Rollup with Fries		How many quarter-pound burgers that equals
Calories	1593	3.8
Fat (g)	90	4.5
Sodium (mg)	3926	6.4

Applebee’s House Sirloin with mashed potatoes and vegetables		How many quarter-pound burgers that equals
Calories	682	1.6
Fat (g)	34	1.7
Sodium (mg)	1549	2.5

 

RED LOBSTER:

 

Pan-Seared Crab Cakes		How many quarter-pound burgers that equals
Calories	456	1
Fat (g)	31	1.6
Sodium (mg)	1413	2.3

Crab Linguini Alfredo		How many quarter-pound burgers that equals
Calories	1330	3.1
Fat (g)	53	2.7
Sodium (mg)	2999	5

Honey BBQ Shrimp & Chicken		How many quarter-pound burgers that equals
Calories	714	1.4
Fat (g)	12	0.6
Sodium (mg)	3443	5.6

 

What is shocking is the amount of calories in foods like salads, with certain dressings. Notice also the high sodium content in most meals. These are the type of things consumers need to know in order to make sensible eating choices when going to a restaurant.

 At the beginning of the century, a Dr. William Harvey Hay hypothesised that the healthy diet was one in which carbohydrates and proteins were not eaten together. He reasoned that digestive enzymes are secreted in very specific amounts and at very specific times, and that different food types require different digestive secretions. For example, carbohydrate foods require carbohydrate-splitting enzymes, whereas protein foods require protein splitting enzymes, etc.

-

Armed with this knowledge, many health practitioners have promoted food combing to improve overall health. However, it is my belief, coupled with research and practical experience through hundreds of clients, that food combining is essentially bunk. This diet is a perfect example of the vexing tendency of consumers to buy and believe in schemes severely disconnected from reality and plain sense. It seems to me that the more outlandish, unlikely and even punishing the diet, the more fascinated we become with it.

 

The rules of food combining are inherently contradictory, and the whole idea is nutritional nonsense. It is possible to lose weight observing the regimen but this is because it greatly increases the intake of fruit and vegetables at the expense of more calorie dense foods. it also considerably restricts the types of food eaten, which may make it more difficult to meet nutritional needs.

 

The food-combining theory actually preaches the opposite of what research shows about digestion. Doctors can use fiberoptic gastroscopes to look into the body and observe digestive processes as they take place in the stomach and intestines. The “neutralized digestion” food combiners caution you about does not exist. Digestion occurs when we eat, period–not during some time sensitive day shift or when we combine foods in haphazard ways.

 

The textbook, Nutrition: Concepts and Controversies points out, “…what the advocates of food combining don’t tell you is that almost all foods, even when eaten individually, are combinations of fat, protein and carbohydrates to begin with.”

 

In other words, very few foods are exclusively one of the 3 macronutrients. This kind of nonsense works best with people who have little idea of what constitutes food and how their bodies work. They don’t understand how a common food like bread is a combination of starch, protein, a number of minerals and vitamins including most of the B vitamins. If you eat the whole grain (the brown wheat kernel with the germ that can sprout), you’ll also get considerable fiber from the outer brown layers and some fat and vitamin E from the germ. Other ingredients in bread usually include some sugar, fat, and salt. Thus foods are combinations of nutrients and many other natural chemicals. (Source: UC Berkeley Wellness Letter, April 1996, p. 6,7)

 

It turns out that such a combination of nutrients and other food components can often improve absorption. For example, the vitamin C in the orange juice can enhance the absorption of the iron in cereals. Variety aids digestion rather than making it more difficult. That does not mean people will not have trouble with certain foods and/or combinations therof. Each of us are different and scientific studies of food absorbtion and utilization have shown some forms of combination do make a difference.

 

However, there may be reasons other than stated. Remember that a food combiner is not only combining food differently, but also eating different types of foods, and maybe healthier and less foods. All these factors weigh in heavily with proper digestion.

 

I just can’t buy into an all encompassing magical formula for “better” nutrition when nothing is backed by sound science, nor empirical evidence. Remember, “every major cuisine in the world combines protein and carbohydrates on the same plate, from the traditional meat and potatoes, to Asian stir fry chicken with rice, Middle Eastern couscous with lamb and the Mediterranean use of bread with all meals. (burkesbackyard.com)

 

Most people today have digestive troubles because of the low quality of foods ingested. Refined high sugar foods are a new invention as far as your digestive system is concerned. Very few naturally occurring foods contain the kind of concentrations of fast-releasing sugars that modern food can provide. The body is simply not adapted to deal with a combination of low nutrient and fibre, but high in sugar foods which feed potentially undesirable micro-organisms that can occur in the gut.

 

The fact is, most human digestive systems are equipped to handle foods in any combination, if the colon, if fed with a fibrous, unrefined diet. It does an excellent job of eliminating waste in those circumstances. So the overwhelming evidence is on the side of a varied, balanced and natural diet, not a philosophy out of the mind of one man’s imagination.

So here’s a study well worth the money invested. The American Journal of Public Health says the more TV you watch, the fewer steps you take. No kidding? What did researchers think people do when they recline to watch re-runs of Seinfeld – wind sprints?

 

Anyways, 500 people wore pedometers and recorded how much TV they watched over a five day period. For every hour they spend in front of the TV, it was found that they took an average of 144 fewer steps.

 

I guess this should be common sense, but many people don’t get the math. With the avaerage person watching 4.5 hours of TV daily, that’s over 18,000 less steps taken per month.

If you have a habit of becoming anxious, a study in the American Journal of Psychiatry states that walking may be your best medicine.

 

How did they come up with the conclusion? Researchers injected an amino acid molecule that produces panic attacks into 15 healthy volunteers after they had rested or walked on a treadmill for about 30 minutes.

 

The resting group did not fare too well, with 12 of 15 experiencing panic attacks. The group which walked had only six volunteers experience the symptoms. This led researchers to conclude that exercise may have a tranquilizing effect on patients with panic disorders.

 

While the therapeutic benefits of exercise are well known, and I firmly believe the conclusions are correct, I still find it hard to believe that such a small scale study could lead to firm conclusions in the scientific community. As trainers, we have thousands of patients we can draw upon for our conclusions. Why don’t they ask us for a more in-depth understanding of the matter? Because small scale studies in orthodox circles are deemed more relevant than practical, field level experience from supposedly untrained personnel. Go figure.

Nuts are a wonder food. There is an increasing amount of research to suggest that nuts should not only be part of a healthy diet, but moderate consumption is also being linked to heart health.

 

While nuts have received a bad rap in the past for being high in fat, it’s actually that same fat content that is thought to be responsible for their health benefits — specifically their link to heart health.

 

“Nuts in general contain as much as 80 per cent fat. However, the type of fat found in nuts is unsaturated fat — specifically monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fat. Both of these unsaturated fats are known for their ability to reduce low-density lipoprotein (LDL), also called “bad” cholesterol, when consumed in moderation.” (CBC News, October 5, 2007)

 

In 1996, the Iowa Women’s Healthy Study found that women who ate nuts four times a week were 40% less likely to die of heart disease. Two years later, another study conducted by the Harvard School of Public Health found a similar result in another study. The same potential heart health benefits of nuts were also found among men. In 2002, the Physician’s Health Study found that men who consumed nuts 2 or more times per week had reduced risks of sudden cardiac death.

 

The Adventist Health Study, which examined the diets of more than 31,000 Seventh Day Adventists, found that participants who consumed nuts more than four times per week experienced 51 per cent fewer heart attacks compared to those who consumed nuts less than once per week. These findings were published in the Archives of Internal Medicine in 1992. (CBC News, October 5, 2007)

 

Here is a quick breakdown of the heavyweights:

 

• Pistachios – contain a plant cholesterol which can produce a 10 point drop in your triglycerides and a 16 point decline in your LDL (bad) cholesterol, according to the Journal of the American College of Nutrition.

 

Contain: 3 grams of fibre, 6 grams of protein, 7 grams of monounsaturated fat, and 61 mg of phytosterols.

 

• Walnuts – contain 2.5 g omega 3s per 1 oz serving. Getting more omega 3s in your diet may help ward off depression and heart attack, according to Harvard research.

 

Contain: 2 g of fibre, 4 g of protein, 2.5 g of monounsaturated fat and 2542 mg of omega 3s.

 

• Brazil nuts -pack an amazing amount of selenium, a mineral linked to prostrate cancer protection. University of Arizona scientists found that selenium may also prevent colon cancer in men.

 

Contain: 2 grams of fibre, 4 grams of protein, 7 grams of monounsaturated fat, and 544 micrograms of selenium.

 

• Pecans – pack the most antioxidants of any nut. Help to reduce the risk of cancer, heart disease and Alzheimer’s disease.

 

Contain: 3 grams of fibre, 3 grams of protein, 12 grams of monounsaturated fat, and 144 millimoles of antioxidants per oz.

 

• Hazelnuts - eating a handful of the daily boosts HDL (good) cholesterol levels by 12 percent, according to a study in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

 

Contain: 3 grams of fibre, 4 grams of protein, 13 grams of monounsaturated fat, and 27 mg of phytosterols.

 

Seeds are also great. Research shows flax, pumpkin and sunflower seeds may offer the same heart health benefits.

 

As with all things, moderation is the key – limit your intake to 1 to 2 oz daily to reap the numerous health benefits.

Editors Comment: I often hear about Personal Trainers needing the proper credentials, but little about actual experience. The following article from shapeshiftermagazine.com pretty well sums up my thoughts on the subject.

-

There are many cookie cutter trainers and spandex queens being churned out with certifications today, but unless you know what it’s like to have a bar bend under the weight of 600-700 pounds on your shoulders, please don’t train others to do so. Unless you understand what the body goes through with your own gut busting workouts, no matter what type of training method or modality you employ, don’t push others into that zone. That’s like the blind leading the blind. Book knowledge will give you no idea of what to expect, how to handle it or bust through it.

-

On the other hand, there are a lot of trainers with high level credentials, but still with no practical experience — and some don’t even look like they train properly. Baggy t-shirts with pencil arms sticking out of sleeves do not inspire client confidence. Live it or leave it.

 

Another thing that bothers me is the new age of trainer/marketing guru. Now we are seeing all these fancy new training systems pop up on the internet, with sayings like, “10 Exercises You Have Never Done Before.” Get a grip! Many of us have already been training clients with these techniques for years, albeit under different system names. You are simply marketing to exercise virgins. Most of this stuff is rehashed and regurgitated onto a website with an $80 price tag for an e-book with poor pictures and 100 rep sets. That’s fine if it works for you and you are a living, breathing example of your system. But if you can’t do more than 30 reps without fainting yourself, don’t be a hypocrite and make others do it.

 

If you haven’t been in the trenches, you can’t properly inspire and lead. Credentials are great, and I’m a big fan of knowledgeable trainers, but without practical application skills garnered through experience, observation, and hands-on experience, half the equation is missing.

 

What’s left are too many clients working solely on stability balls, balance boards or an oversize rubber-band. This is great stuff for rehabbing a client or improving balance for sport related activities. But if you’re pushing for any type of aesthetic change, you won’t get it pressing small, rubber 7.5 lb dumbells while standing on a balance board. And let’s face it, most people do want to look buff – at least in a lean way.

 

Some of the new breed of trainers are under the notion that anything new is automatically better, and without a grasp of the concepts training veterans have had for years, they turn what is supposed to be a life altering experience into an hour of wasteful exercises and boring small talk. What a colossal waste of time for the client! If you want to fully understand new school material, take the time to understand the old school first.

 

Having said all that, there are certain trainers out there who are razor sharp in their skills and practical knowledge. You can see it in their physique, which is their bread and butter. I respect and admire these guys, and hey, I even buy their material. That’s how I stay on top of my own game, by picking the brains of the best. I live by an old adage: “To be a great teacher, one must first learn to be a great student.”

 

Functional, Density, or Strength training, CrossFit, Bodyweight, or Plyometrics — there are many approaches and aspects of training to allow for informed decision on what protocol is most applicable to a particular situation. A trainer with stale material and no fire in the eyes is a brutal stab at the profession.

 

Anyways, check out the following article – it says a bit more than my rant here.

 

———————————————————–

 

What it Really Takes to be a Trainer

by Aidan Nafzger

-

Nowadays it seems as though everybody wants to be a personal trainer. What are my thoughts on that? More power to them! The fitness movement is taking off and there is definitely a demand for high quality information and strategies to improve athletic ability, physical appearance, and overall good health. If you think you’ve got what it takes, then by all means, step up to the plate! So, what will it take to bring the training industry to the level of credibility it needs to be at to earn the respect of our colleagues in the fields of science and medicine? We must up the anti on the criteria we expect from a stellar training/nutrition expert and so far the current organizations providing certifications are simply not cutting it. I will say in fairness that some are better than others. A CSCS certification from the National Strength and Conditioning Association does lend more credibility than an ACE personal trainer certification no doubt. At least they cover some form of practical application skills during the testing procedure.

-

My problem is this. I know plenty of eggheads with a degree who were able to wing their way through just about any of the current certification procedures who don’t possess the least remnant of a clue about actually training people. Some of them have never picked up a weight in their life (at least not with proper technique). These newbies are easily identified. You will see them using a Swiss ball on nearly every exercise their clients do and saying things like, “if you really want ripped abs, you must perform at least 50 reps each set and feel the burn”. We send these poor eggheads out into our little universe of trainers and strength coaches possessing a very false sense of confidence about their ability to produce top notch training clients. Suddenly a book is very different than the real world… hmmm, imagine that.

-

So what do we do to remedy our current state of affairs in the industry? For starters, I think we need to define a minimum amount of practical experience one should possess before they begin commanding the high price tags that some of these newbies are demanding. Screening the experience of these trainers would likely be a difficult task, but perhaps if they incorporated hands-on experience as an intern with a truly qualified trainer as part of the certification process, the world would be a better place to live in… uhhh, or at least train in.

-

Secondly, I see many people being attracted to the potential income a good trainer or strength coach is able to command. If your in it solely for the money, do us all a favor and perhaps consider a more viable career choice. If you are not truly passionate about being the best at something, you will never be the best. However, if you have the aptitude and passion for your work, the money will come in time.

-

And lastly, I think we should set a defined body-fat limit for trainers. How can you be 27% body-fat and go around telling people how to be in shape or perform optimally as an athlete? I think some of you (you know who you are) need to figure out how to get yourself in shape before you can be deemed as qualified to tell others what it takes to get the most out of their bodies. Is this a harsh statement? Maybe slightly but not nearly as harsh as taking peoples’ money and leaving them with nothing but an empty sack of false expectations. Learn to lead by example.

-

So what are the most important criteria to assess when seeking a trainer or strength coach for your own needs? Well, first and foremost I’d say that their track record should hold more weight than just about any other factor. If the majority of their clients that have been training with them for more than a year are still fat and unhealthy looking then it is probably pretty safe to say that their other credentials are about as worthless as the twenty bucks Bill Gates found on the ground while strolling out of his office the other day.

-

Also, consider the individual’s forte. Some top notch coaches and trainers are multi-talented, but 9 times out of 10 a distance runner isn’t going to be the ideal choice for learning how to maximize your powerlifting competition totals and vice-versa. Pick a trainer that excels at what you hope to achieve in your own training. Theoretical knowledge means nothing without the experience to back it up.

-

Training certifications and degrees are all fine and great, but please for your own good, use them as a stepping stone to the knowledge one should hope to amass through hard work, careful observation, and good ol’ hands-on experience. How do you think learning institutions were developed in the first place? They were initiated by the great thinkers and observationists throughout time. I assure you Thomas Edison had no degree in electrical engineering, Henry Ford was never “taught” how to build the first car in history from scratch, and Alexander Graham Bell did not have a Masters Degree in telecommunications. Just remember where all this information came from in the first place before you go getting to high on your horse about your degree or certification. Talent, aptitude, passion, and hard work are qualities that cannot be bought.

Reader Question: Will ab exercises trim my mid-section.

 

Editor’s Response: Bodybuilders have said for decades that this was so, but in fact, cut ab muscles are the result of a low overall body-fat percentage.

 

Sure, sit-ups will contribute to razor sharp abs, but not if you consider chips to be a food group.