A Look at Massage Therapy

Monday’s New York Times Fitness & Nutrition section recently featured an article titled Athletes take massage into their own hands. The article discusses the benefits to athletes of massage but more specifically we learn about self-massage methods and the tools for the job. The article states that ideally hard training athletes should get a massage once a week or every other week. For many athletes (pros or the wealthy among us) massage is as integral to their preparation as their time in the gym, on the bike, in the pool or on the court. However for many of us the price is somewhat prohibitive. Enter self-massage. We’re told tools such as foam rollers (available here, here, and here), golf balls, tennis balls as well as your own hands are useful in addressing tight, stiff muscles. DVDs on self-massage techniques are available and there are many demonstrations of these techniques on Youtube.

Over recent months, I’ve come to believe that these massage techniques are beneficial to athletes and everyone else who exercises. But on what do I base my evidence? Well, it’s just about all anecdotal. Massage seems to be beneficial (i.e. it feels good), various experts recommend it, and many athletes swear by it. What does science tell us? Much like everything in the world of science, the value of massage, and the mechanism(s) by which it works is debatable.

To that point, there are three articles on Science Daily that discuss different massage studies. Massaging Muscles Facilitates Recovery After Exercise profiles a study by the National Institutes of Health and Ohio St. University. The study suggests that massage indeed does facilitate recovery from strenuous exercise. The study was done on rabbits though, and both the “exercise” and “massage” was performed by machines which moved the rabbits’ limbs and performed the massage. This study may well indicate the recuperative value of massage, however we can’t be entirely certain that the same effects occur in humans.

In contrast, Massage After Exercise Myth Busted refutes some of the claimed effects of massage, namely that massage improves circulation and that it speeds removal of lactic acid. (Not to run away on a very different issue, but the common knowledge on lactic acid and its role and effects on muscle is inaccurate. Read about lactic acid, lactate and muscular fatigue here.) I don’t have full access to the Queen’s University study but apparently researches found that neither circulation nor lactic acid removal was facilitated by massage. Does this then mean that massage is not beneficial in aiding recovery from strenuous exercise? No. It simply means that in this study neither circulation was increased (it was actually decreased) nor was lactic acid removed any faster than without massage. It’s entirely likely that massage promotes recovery by other means. Perhaps the reduced circulation somehow aids in recovery. It’s also possible that another different study may find conflicting information.

The third piece, Massage Therapy May Have Immediate Positive Effect On Pain And Mood For Advanced Cancer Patients, tells of a National Institutes of Health study of 380 advanced cancer patients in which both pain and mood was improved through massage therapy. The article states:

“Researchers think that massage may interrupt the cycle of distress, offering brief physical and psychological benefits. Physically, massage may decrease inflammation and edema, increase blood and lymphatic circulation, and relax muscle spasms. Psychologically, massage may promote relaxation, release endorphins, and create a positive experience that distracts temporarily from pain and depression.”

So what conclusions should we draw? First, we can say that the mechanisms of massage are not fully understood. Far more study must be undertaken to determine the hows and the whys of massage. Second we might take note that there’s very little out there suggesting that massage is unhealthy or harmful. (The unskilled massage therapist may however pose harm. Further, there is probably a right and wrong time to employ a specific massage technique–relaxation vs. deep tissue for instance.) Though massage’s proposed mechanisms–increased blood flow as an example–may be in question the fact that it has been used effectively by so many for so long suggests strongly that there is something good to be had from massage.

Next, I’ll post three self-massage techniques you can use.

Artwork: St. Petersburg Times, FL

A day of severe gluttony is headed our way like a runaway chuck wagon. Therefore, how about a discussion of two articles on obesity? For the Overweight, Bad Advice by the Spoonful was published back in August of this year in the New York Times Health Guide. The other, Energy Gap Useful Tool for Successful Weight Loss Strategy is from early November in Science Daily. The two articles present very daunting insights into our fight against obesity. The Times piece tells us the following:

Weight control is not simply a matter of willpower. Genes help determine the body’s “set point,” which is defended by the brain.
Dieting alone is rarely successful, and relapse rates are high.
Moderate exercise, too, rarely results in substantive long-term weight loss, which requires intensive exercise.

The article further states:

“…the notion that Americans ever ate well is suspect. In 1966, when Americans were still comparatively thin, more than two billion hamburgers already had been sold in McDonald’s restaurants, noted Dr. Barry Glassner, a sociology professor at the University of Southern California. The recent rise in obesity may have more to do with our increasingly sedentary lifestyles than with the quality of our diets.”

Our bodies are remarkably stubborn in their ability to keep us at our current weight (discussed further here). We eat smart and healthy one day, a little less so the next. In contrast to the Times article, from everything I read and understand, the food component of weight loss is far more powerful than the exercise component (suggested here, and here). In fact the issue is poor eating plus a sedentary lifestyle that’s gotten our nation so heavy. Things like this are never isolated to one cause. (By the way, body weight isn’t the only measure of health. Look here for more on the issue of fit vs. fat.)

There are two things not mentioned in the Times article that we should consider. First regarding the way we ate decades ago vs. how we eat now is the presence of processed foods. I don’t have statistics but I think it’s safe to assume that in the 1960s we were eating more fresh, unprocessed food. We now eat gobs of food every day that is packed with calories but contains very little actual nutrition. For a sober, practical, in-depth look at our nation’s obsession with “nutritionism” you must read what Michael Pollan says in Unhappy Meals. Another comment on Pollan’s work is found at Disease Proof. (For truly fascinating insights into the American food system, you must read Pollan’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma and/or In Defense of Food.)

The second component of our eating we must consider is portion size. Portion size is a tremendous component of obesity. In recent decades past, our overall calorie intake was lower than it is now, thus there was far less obesity. The article notes the billions of McDonald’s hamburgers that were sold but do you know what those hamburgers looked like? You can still buy it today. If you look at a McDonald’s menu they actually have something simply called a hamburger; not a Big Mac, Quarter Pounder, Titanic Monster Burger, or whatever. It’s a small thing with one meat patty, pickles, onions and ketchup. A customer in the ’60s may have gotten fries and a soft drink, but the fries came in a small paper envelope, not a cardboard crate, and the soft drink was an eight ounce cup rather than an industrial drum.

For more on portion sizes and our consumption habits, the Centers for Disease Control provide a report called Do Increased Portion sizes Affect How Much We Eat? It’s amazing to see how we can unconsciously eat a lot more than we need to if it’s sitting there in front of us.

The Science Daily article tells us that once one is obese, the body fights extra hard to stay there. In contrast, one who never becomes obese seems far less likely to become obese. The article discusses the Energy Gap, a term used by the American Dietetic Association to estimate the change in energy balance (intake and expenditure) behaviors required to achieve and sustain reduced body weight outcomes in individuals and populations. We’re told that the energy gap to prevent weight gain is about 100 calories. That is, someone can prevent weight gain with a combination of reduced energy intake and increased physical activity that amounts to 100 calories. The news isn’t so good for those trying to lose significant amounts of weight. The energy gap may be 200-300 calories for someone looking to lose 10%-15% of their body weight. That means serious eating modification and quite a bit of time exercising.

According to James O. Hill, PhD,

“This analysis indicates that to create and maintain substantial weight loss (ie, obesity treatment), large behavioral changes are needed. This is in stark contrast to primary obesity prevention in which small behavioral changes can eliminate the small energy imbalance that occurs before the body has gained substantial weight. Because the body has not previously stored this ‘new’ excess energy, it does not defend against the behavioral strategies as happens when the body loses weight.”

What does all of this mean? First, obesity is much like any other disease in that preventing it is much easier than treating it once you’ve got it. (This makes the topic extremely relevant to the current health care debate. Preventing obesity will result in prevention of obesity related illnesses, and we’ll all spend less on health care.) Second, there’s much evidence to suggest that losing weight is a complex battle that is more than simply making a decision. We have a very tenacious system wired into us (likely rooted in some prehistoric survival strategy) that makes dropping pounds extremely difficult. It’s akin to telling the drug addict to just stop.

Just stopping–a conscious decision to change a behavior in other words–is still the heart of the issue. Weight loss still comes down to willful decisions to make changes. There’s no way around it. I learned a little bit about human psychology and behavior in graduate school. It seems that most of us adhere to changes if they’re made in small, gradual steps. Just one healthy decision made today is one more than was made yesterday. That’s a step toward whatever healthy goal we have in mind. Keep making healthier daily decisions and over the course of a year, two years, 10 years and you’ll have made a lot of them. Guess what’s around the corner though: the New Year’s Resolution.

We’re getting close to the time of year when many people will make the big decision to lose weight this year. Gyms will be packed with people exercising like they’ve never done before–at least not since the beginning of the previous year. They’ll make attempts to banish their favorite foods from their plates and replace it with food they’ve never much liked. Most of these noble attempts will be abandoned by the end of February. This is the perfect example of people making drastic lifestyle changes which cannot be maintained. As a personal trainer, I see this happen every year.

Speaking from personal experience, I look back to childhood, high school and college and see what I ate and/or drank–and in what amounts–and I’m amazed at the amounts of junk I once consumed. I’ve spent over a decade making changes here and there and I’ve found that it hasn’t been too terribly painful at all. Of course I can’t extrapolate my experience out to everyone else, but it seems to me a strategy of small changes in both eating and exercise made over time, plus the decision to stick with these changes is still the best strategy to lose weight and get healthy. If there’s a better strategy, please let me know.

Beyond that, here’s more to read on a variety of topics:

Are we Insane? Part II: the Cookie Diet. Does this even need any explanation? Cookies and dieting…. I think I’ll try breathing underwater later today, or maybe flapping my arms and flying. (Ever notice how everyone who was on a diet… WAS on a diet? No one stays on any of these things.)
To thrive longer, get stronger. The Washington Post discusses Consumer Reports’ findings on various clinical trials of strength training. Turns out picking up heavy objects is good for you in many ways.
Runners: Train less and be faster. OK, this will be controversial to some and I’m not saying this is true for everyone all the time. However the findings here help support some of the arguments made at Power Running that running fewer miles (low volume) while running faster (high intensity) may increase race performance. Science Daily profiles a report in the Journal of Applied Physiology on the topic of running less but running faster. Again, do not assume this is the be-all-end-all for everyone, but it might be exactly the strategy that will work for you.
Ice or Heat? The topic of icing or heating an injury is often debated. Like many issues of sports conditioning and rehabilitation, the jury is still out. The following is a reprint of a comment by the late Dr. Mell Siff from the Supertraining forum:
ICE OR HEAT?
by Dr. Mel C SiffThe use of ice treatment may not be universally superior to the use of heat
in enhancing recovery or rehabilitation.

THE PROBLEM

The use of localised or more extensive ice or cold treatment has been well
authenticated over the years and there is little doubt that, in many cases,
it is a highly effective and cheap method of restoration and rehabilitation.

However, any literature searches for definitive studies that compare the
effectiveness of ice cold versus very hot treatment of the same sort of injury are not as common as one would believe.

It seems as if we have all accepted that heat is contraindicated largely on
the basis of theoretical considerations or extrapolations form cases where
bleeding is apparent. We know that heat causes blood vessels dilatation,
temporary increase in inflammation and the decrease in blood viscosity, but
does this necessarily imply that it will be detrimental to the course of
restoration or rehabilitation of all sore, bruised and fatigued soft tissues?

Why I am saying this is because I have been experimenting, much against my
education and scientific traditions, with the use of very hot water as a
restorative means with myself and several other athletes, some of whom are
top pro footballers and basketballers.

Surprisingly, this seems to diminish muscle soreness and speeded up recovery
in many cases, especially if we use alternate hot and cold bathing. I have an
8 ft deep jacuzzi and long lap swimming pool and have my athletes alternate
between hot and cold immersion. Interestingly, I have found that the water
has to be almost unbearably hot (about 108 deg F or 41C) to be optimally
effective. Movement under these conditions also seems to be valuable
(‘cryokinetics’ for ice old immersion and ‘thermodynamics’ for hot
immersion).

Certainly my comments on this controversial topic merely constitute anecdotal
evidence at this stage, but I am curious to hear if anyone else has had
similar experiences or come across scientific research which legitimately
shows that dedicated ice treatment is significantly better than very hot
treatment or ice-heat contrast methods. Failing that, is there any evidence
that the use of heat is a general contraindication for musculoskeletal
recovery and rehabilitation, other than cases where there is obvious bleeding
or serious pathology?

Are we promoting ice therapy far too liberally to the exclusion of heat
therapy, when the latter may well also play a very helpful role in
musculoskeletal rehabilitation? Are we unfairly proclaiming that heat is
potentially harmful for treating any soft tissue repair? Does this attitude
go against our recent attestations to the value of ‘holistic’ treatment?

There have been a huge number of studies on the effect of stretching,
jogging, supplements, heat, cold, drugs, you name it …. and virtually
nothing has yet been found that appears to make some significant and
consistent difference to the dissipation of DOMS. Do a Medline search
and you will see what I mean. Many higher level weightlifters and
ppwerlifters rarely if ever suffer from DOMS even after very heavy
workouts, which afflicts mainly newcomers to a given exercise or
routine – or certain more susceptible individuals. For general recovery,
I have found it difficult to beat sensible program (or periodisation) design and
hot-cold contrast bathing, as I have written in previous letters. Your
recommendation to do some mild post-exercise activity probably is
a sound idea for general relaxation and recovery, but it has not been
shown to have any real effect on DOMS.

Artwork for the cover of Fantastic Four vol. 3, #52 (Apr, 2002). Art by Mike Wieringo.

I’m all over the place here! I’m tremendously excited over some new concepts that I’ve been learning; concepts concerning human movement and how we function. A lot of it has to do with stretching but not necessarily the type you automatically think of (more on that in a little bit.) My difficulty is in how to write about all this without putting out a some sort of treatise. Maybe I’ll make it more than one part… Here’s the start.

A recent Washington Post MisFit column tackles the issue of stretching. Is it beneficial or is one of those things that we do just because we’ve always done it? What’s the evidence that there is any benefit to doing it?

I’ll tell you that I’ve done just about a 360 and then a 180 back the other way on stretching. Like most people I was taught that stretching was important so I did it but I didn’t really understand it. Then, several years ago I was persuaded to change my view. I became convinced that dedicated (static) stretching was not effective and not safe. Now I will tell you without hesitation that stretching absolutely must be done–in fact no human movement is possible without it! Remember that fact because it’s enormously important, and I’ll discuss it more later.

First, let’s figure out what stretching is. Most people have an idea what it looks like to stretch but most likely there are other methods that might not come to mind immediately. So let’s look at what might qualify as “stretching.”

Static stretching: This is probably what first comes to mind when you think stretching. This involves moving a limb into a position to the point where a slight burning is felt in the muscle and the position is held for anywhere from several seconds to a minute or so. Static stretching addresses passive flexibility.
Dynamic stretching: This is stretching with movement. Maybe the best examples of dynamic stretching are found in the animal kingdom. Ever see a cat or dog wake up from a nap? Essentially, dynamic stretching involves moving limbs or the trunk through its available range of motion. You often see athletes do this prior to a game. Examples include kicking the legs, swinging the arms, twisting the torso, lunging and other such movements. Dynamic stretching often involves swinging an implement such as a golf club, tennis racquet, or baseball bat. Dynamic stretching addresses active flexibility.
PNF Stretching – Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation: I won’t go into much detail on PNF as there’s a lot to it and I’m not terribly well versed on the topic.

The popular perception of (static) stretching says it’ll reduce likelihood of injury, increase range of motion, decrease muscle soreness. Is any of this true? Well, the evidence is not entirely clear. There’s very little evidence that static stretching prior to exercise or competition decreases injury. In fact it very likely contributes to injury. Why? I won’t go into every single physiological detail of stretching here but I’ll try to explain the big ideas as best I can.

Static stretching actually weakens the ability of a muscle to contract. Though you may gain range of motion (ROM) from static stretching it also results in a less-active muscle and thus a less stable joint or joints which that muscle crosses. This phenomenon has been shown by testing athletes strength and/or jumping ability pre- and post-stretch. So if you stretch statically prior to your soccer or softball game what you’ve done is create weaker muscles and less stable joints. That’s not what you want. Dynamic stretching is safer and more pertinent to real-life situations.

Dynamic stretching is now generally recognized as an appropriate activity prior to a workout or athletic even, as research (see ch. 3 of Siff’s Supertraining) has shown that active flexibility is more closely correlated to sporting proficiency than is passive flexibility. In this way, you wake up the nervous system and prepare the body for action. A dynamic stretch routine should include movements that you will perform in the workout or game. Examples include body weight squats, various lunges, twisting the torso and swinging and reaching the arms in various directions.

How’s that for part I?

: http://www.flickr.com/photos/theowl84/
CC BY-NC 2.0

With the recent running of the New York City Marathon, some information on distance running seems appropriate. The Human Body is Built for Distance is a recent story in the New York Times Health section. Part of the discussion includes the theory that humans are unique among animals in our distance-running abilities. It seems that we might indeed be the fastest of earth’s land-based creatures over the long haul. Some of our advantages include our foot structure, spring-like connective tissue, our cooling system, our glycogen storage capacity, and even our sense of balance.

Of further interest is the discussion on running injuries and footwear. Christopher McDougal author of Born to Run suggests in the article that many of our ancestors as well as some of our less-advanced contemporaries ran and do run many more miles with far fewer injuries than we do with our fancy modern running shoes. The idea that primitive running is better running has been suggested here, and here. It’s also the driving idea behind shoes such as the Nike Free and Vibram Five-Fingers. About 90 percent of runners training for a marathon experience injury according to statistics in the article.

Sort of makes sense right? How long have modern running shoes been around? Nike started business in the late 1970s. Meanwhile, humans were running around a lot longer than that, their feet shod in some very minimal items. So what’s going on here? As our running shoes evolve are the wearers actually devolving?

I know enough to know that I definitely don’t know the answer to this question. I’ve gone back and forth on the issue and I’ve moved from running in Nike Frees to running in Nike Frees with Sole Supports in them. Isn’t that odd? From what I’ve read and experienced though, the issue of high-tech running shoes vs. low-tech running shoes vs. barefoot running is an extremely personal matter. What works miracles for one running may wreck havoc on another. It can be a maddening process trying to find the ideal way to address your feet.

If this topic is of any interest to you, I recommend strongly that you read the Science of Sport’s series on running. It’s remarkably in-depth in its analysis of shoes, feet, and running technique.

Drinkers More Physically Active Than Abstainers

Who’da thunk it?? Science Daily reports on a study in the September/October issue of the American Journal of Health Promotion indicates that drinkers exercised more than abstainers–and those who drank more exercised more!

“Among women, those currently using alcohol exercised 7.2 minutes more per week than those who abstained. Relative to abstainers, the more alcohol used, the longer the person exercised. Specifically, light, moderate and heavy drinkers exercised 5.7, 10.1 and 19.9 minutes more per week. Overall, drinking was associated with a 10.1 percent increase in the probability of engaging in vigorous physical activity. The results for men were similar.”

That outcome might be surprising to a lot of people. However, it’s interesting to note that for 2008 Colorado was the leanest state in the nation with an obesity rate of 18.4% yet a recent Men’s Health survey listed Denver as the most dangerously drunk city in the nation.

What does all this mean? It seems we might see parallels between alcohol and medicine. Too much of either will sicken and/or kill us but the right amount might be healthy. It certainly seems clear that some degree of alcohol consumption works well for a lot of people.

In my experience the drinking culture here in the Denver area is one that is strongly balanced with vigorous exercise. Hiking, skiing, kayaking, mountain biking, and/or running is often followed by a loosely reasonable amount of the region’s superb beer. Combine these habits and you get a fairly healthy and happy population.

What Do We Mean by “Fit?”

We may define the term “fit” any number of positive ways. Most of us though probably don’t allow the term “fat” to occupy the same high ground. The Denver Post Fitness Section for September 28, 2009 discusses the issue of whether one can indeed be both fit and fat. The article is a profile of a woman who is both obese and seemingly healthy. She is someone who is obese according to Federal guidelines, but who is also highly physically active, has good blood pressure and says she doesn’t miss work due to illness. She describes her bad experiences with diets and counting calories, as well as her difficulty in finally accepting her body shape and size. In the end, it appears she is happy with herself and in several ways, she definitely seems fit.

The big question here is can one be both fit and fat? Again, how do we quantify fitness? Do we mean looks? Do we mean weight? Are we talking body mass index (BMI), body composition or waist-to-hip ratio? I think it’s reasonable to say that most people exercise in order to look healthy/thin/muscular. A lean physique certainly is appealing on several levels. And while obesity is associated with various diseases, being overweight doesn’t always guarantee poor health; and conversely, a lean physique does not automatically equal good health. (Ever noticed how many supermodels smoke cigarettes?) The following quote says it well:

“There are many people living the ‘obesity paradox,’ says Paul Campos, a University of Colorado law professor and author of ‘The Obesity Myth.’ They are technically outside the government’s approved weight range but have bodies that are metabolically fit due to healthy eating and fitness routines. The notion that everyone can — and should — be thin is a product of political distortion and cultural panic over body diversity, he says.”

Gym Junk: Ditch the Machines and Get Fit

Boot camps and non-machine exercises are the gist of the New York Times Fitness Column for September 23, 2009. The article notes the growing popularity of fitness boot camps and group training. Frequent features of such classes are low-tech whole-body movements such as squatting, lunging, push-ups, pull-ups, jumping, running, crawling. These are the movements of life. Such movements are very effective for anyone wanting to improve not only their physique but also their ability to function in real life. The emphasis here is on movement and not on individual muscles. (Guess what, when you pull, you use your biceps, your back and shoulders. When you push, you use your triceps and/or your chest, and/or your shoulders. When you squat or lunge, you use your quads, glutes, hamstrings, and calves. There’s no need to think about all those little body parts when you move!)

In contrast, what do we typically see in gyms? Oceans of chrome coated weight-stack contraptions designed to work individual body parts. How do these machines work? First, typically you sit or lay down. (That’s nice and easy and very comfortable right? It’s also a great way to conserve energy—which is exactly what you don’t want to do when you exercise.) Then you have to figure out how to adjust any number of seats, back rests, chest rests, foot rests and/or handles. Confusing stuff. If you don’t adjust the machine properly then at a minimum you get a poor exercise; at worst you risk injury. So after sitting or laying down, adjusting a bunch of confusing pieces you then get to move one body part in one plane of motion only. Wow. A big, heavy, complex machine and you get one little exercise out of it… Meanwhile what does real life require of us? We must bend, reach, pick up, put up, throw, catch, pull, push, climb and sometimes even crawl. No gym machine really allows for much of this stuff.

In contrast, if you use your own trunk and limbs to run, lunge, crawl or climb—or if you get really wild and pick up a dumbbell, or a kettlebell, or a barbell, a medicine ball, a rock, a log, a sandbag, a chain or whatever in the world that’s heavy and just lying there—then a universe of movements is available to you. These movements look a lot more like real life. Through these types of movements the body is conditioned in an integrated fashion: arms working with legs and all of them working with the core while you stabilize yourself. You’ll use more energy. You won’t get the same workout twice and you’ll have a lot more fun. The article’s writer says it well:

“While such rough-hewn techniques and gear may look old-fashioned, they comport with a modern shift away from developing individual muscle groups and toward so-called functional fitness, which refers to overall strength and comfort in performing everyday activities, like lifting, walking and reaching, along with cardiovascular health.”

Exercise is Medicine

Exercise is medicine. Jake “Body by Jake” Steinfeld writing for the Huffington Post offers three points of advice to help improve the health of the nation. His advice goes to the point that above and beyond anything else, our personal choices have the greatest impact on our health. More than doctor visits, cutting edge disease treatments or the latest medicine we have the greatest power to either stay healthy or get sick. We decide what food to eat. We decide whether or not to exercise, and we decide whether or not to smoke. Those are the big three and that’s where health care begins.

Michael Pollan, author of the Omnivore’s Dilemma and In Defense of Food puts it very well in his op-ed piece for the NY Times:

“But so far, food system reform has not figured in the national conversation about health care reform. And so the government is poised to go on encouraging America’s fast-food diet with its farm policies even as it takes on added responsibilities for covering the medical costs of that diet. To put it more bluntly, the government is putting itself in the uncomfortable position of subsidizing both the costs of treating Type 2 diabetes and the consumption of high-fructose corn syrup.”

So there it is. We’re using tax dollars to subsidize a food industry that poisons us, while at the same time we’re looking to send our tax dollars to treat the resulting illnesses. Might it make sense to cut food subsidies so that we then can reduce spending on health care? And to the point of personal responsibility, if through our own actions we can avoid illnesses such as diabetes altogether–and thus never treat them at all–then isn’t that the best version of health care available?

(BTW, if you haven’t read Pollan’s In Defense of Food then you should go get it right now and start reading. As well, he was interviewed by Bill Moyers interviewed Pollan a few months ago. Go to PBS to watch it.)

Politicians very rarely suggest that we bear the most responsibility for our health. To do so would point out that we as a nation are failing miserably at controlling ourselves.

Denver Fitness Journal

All Things Health and Fitness by Kyle Norman, MS, CSCS, FMS, RRCA Running Coach

Health & Fitness News

A Look at Massage Therapy

Holiday Reading: Obesity, Wacko Cookie Diet, Strength Training, Running Research, Ice vs. Heat for Injuries

A Little Bit on Stretching: Part I

Distance Running and Human Evolution

Drinkers More Physically Active Than Abstainers

What Do We Mean by “Fit?”

Gym Junk: Ditch the Machines and Get Fit

Exercise is Medicine