Hey everyone check out this jumprope workout!

April 28, 2010 By Aaron Gonzales Leave a Comment

Jump-Rope Cardio

Burn three times as many calories with the single best piece of equipment

by Jon Hinds

 Print Article   Email to Friend

Old-time boxers knew what they were doing. According to the Compendium of Physical Studies, jumping rope for 10 minutes can burn as many calories as jogging at an eight-minute-per-mile pace. No wonder many fitness experts call the jump rope the best all-around piece of exercise equipment you can own. Here are five reasons to learn the ropes:

1.) Cost. Unlike a treadmill, elliptical, or other high-tech cardio machine, jump ropes sell for about $15, and a good one should last for years — if not decades.

2.) Portability. You can take it anywhere and use it indoors or out.

3.) Strength gain. Jumping builds bone-mineral density and improves total-body power. Athletes have used it to improve their vertical jump height.

4.) Improved coordination. The jump rope forces you to keep a rhythmic pace and use proper form, otherwise you trip.

5.) Fat loss. Jumping rope involves nearly every muscle. Some people report that it’s the only cardio they need to lose fat.

THE WORKOUT 
This beginner’s routine will jump-start your conditioning

Jump for 30 reps swinging the rope forward. If you trip up, it’s OK, just continue until you hit 30. Rest 30 seconds, and then do another 30 reps, swinging the rope backward. (Hint: it’s harder.) Rest again. That’s one set. Perform four to eight sets depending on your endurance. If you have never jumped rope before or haven’t for a while, imitate a jump-rope workout for a few days—pretend you’re using a rope and rotate your wrists in time with your jumps. It may feel silly, but you’ll learn timing and condition your body to use the rope.

Filed Under: Blog

Running on treadmills

April 24, 2010 By Aaron Gonzales Leave a Comment

Step Away From the Treadmill
by Lou Schuler, Cassandra Forsythe, and Alwyn Cosgrove
The following article was excerpted from “The New Rules of Lifting for Women,” written by Lou Schuler, Cassandra Forsythe, and Alwyn Cosgrove:

This is the part of the book where you start to wonder if maybe I’m the victim of too many protein shakes. I’m going to argue that steady-pace endurance exercise — what most of us refer to as “cardio” or “aerobics” — is overrated as a tool for fat loss. But before I do, let me point out that I’m not disputing any of the facts that are indisputable. Does endurance exercise burn calories? Sure. Does it contribute to a longer, healthier life? Absolutely.

I’m not out to demonize anyone’s favorite type of exercise. I just want to make the case that a comprehensive strength-training program — such as the one Alwyn Cosgrove designed forThe New Rules of Lifting for Women — gives you plenty of exercise, including exercise at high levels of intensity, and thus delivering all the benefits you want from endurance exercise without requiring very much of it.
Defining the Problem

“Aerobics” is a made-up word, coined by Dr. Kenneth Cooper, a former college track star, to promote steady-pace exercise. Here’s what he wrote in Aerobics, his 1968 bestseller:

“I’ll state my position early. The best exercises are running, swimming, cycling, walking, stationary running, handball, basketball and squash, and in just about that order. Isometrics, weight lifting and calisthenics, though good as far as they go, don’t even make the list, despite the fact that most exercise books are based on one of these three.”

 

Cooper believed that endurance training was the key to everything. It was a counterintuitive idea, but unlike so many other leap-of-faith notions that arose in the 1960s (“tune in, turn on, drop out”), it gained a permanent foothold in science and practice. I call it “counterintuitive” because the human species isn’t really designed for long-distance runs. We evolved to walklong distances — that’s how our ancient ancestors put food on the table, before they figured out retailing — and to run really fast when we must. We’re good at start-stop activities involving lots of different speeds and changes of direction, which is why human children instinctively play games like “tag,” why human adults invent games like basketball and soccer, and why fighting sports like boxing and tae kwon do have rounds of several minutes, rather than continuous action until one fighter wins.

 

What we aren’t good at, by nature, is jogging or swimming at a steady pace for longer than a few minutes.

And yet, that’s what Cooper and many who followed his example have spent four decades telling us we should do.

To be fair, it’s hard to make the argument that our species evolved to do sets of bench presses or deadlifts, either. So maybe it’s facetious to take any aspects of modern life, including our exercise routines, and put them into a prehistoric context. I’m just trying to make the point that the ability to do anaerobic exercises — lifting heavy things, running fast, jumping, climbing, fighting — was vital to the survival of our species. Being able to jog for an hour at a specified percentage of your maximum heart rate wasn’t.

The word “aerobic” refers to the aerobic energy system, one of three ways your body can fuel movement. You use your aerobic system constantly, whether you think about it or not. As long as you’re breathing easily, whether you’re working, sleeping, doing chores, or exercising, you’re using it. That is, you’re using oxygen to burn a combination of fat and glycogen (the form of carbohydrate your body uses for energy) to keep your body functioning.

Generally, the healthier you are, the higher the percentage of fat you’ll burn at rest. If you’re obese and/or diabetic, you’ll burn more glycogen and less fat. A perfectly healthy woman would burn just under 60 percent fat and just over 40 percent glycogen most of the time. During exercise, as your heart rate quickens and you start breathing harder, the ratio will shift. All-out exercise is anaerobic — your body can’t use oxygen to burn fuel, so it uses chemicals inside your body to generate the energy it needs. When your body needs to fuel movement without oxygen, it uses glycogen, rather than fat, to keep you moving. It has two systems for this: one for very short sprints, up to perhaps 10 to 15 seconds, and the other for longer dashes that last about a minute.

 

Given what I just wrote, you’d think that exercising with the aerobic energy system must be superior to using either of your two anaerobic systems, since you burn more fat with aerobics. That’s where we got the now-very-much-discredited idea that there’s a “fat-burning zone” in which we should all exercise.

The amount of fat you burn during exercise matters less than the amount you burn when youaren’texercising. And that’s where you start to see some of the hidden benefits of strength training.
Killer Calories

If you compare the number of calories burned during endurance exercise to the number burned during strength training, endurance wins pretty easily. Let’s say you weigh 140 pounds. If you ran six miles in an hour — a 12-minute-mile pace — you’d burn an estimated 512 calories. (That’s including the 100 or so calories you’d burn in that hour if you didn’t go running, but that’s the same no matter what type of exercise we’re looking at.) An hour of serious strength training would burn an estimated 384 calories, or 25 percent fewer. If you’re a talented runner clocking eight-minute miles, you’d burn 800 calories, or more than twice as many as you’d burn in the weight room for that same hour.

At first glance, it’s easy to see why strength training doesn’t slay calories the way endurance exercise does. You spend more time resting in between sets than you do actually lifting, and you certainly aren’t burning fat while you’re pushing and pulling weights. If you’re challenging yourself at all, you’re shifting from your fat-using aerobic energy system to your anaerobic systems, which by design run on glycogen.

 

However, there is more going on.

First is the afterburn — the calories your body continues to burn after the workout is over. Intensity is the most important factor determining post-workout metabolism, so the harder you work in the weight room, the more calories your body will burn afterwards. Let’s say that afterburn accounts for an additional 50 calories.

Calories aren’t the only consideration. Serious strength training also signals your body to burn a higher percentage of fat calories for many hours after you leave the gym. A really intriguing University of Colorado study, published in the Journal of Applied Physiology in 2003, measured post-workout fat oxidation. (“Fat oxidation” is what happens when your body uses oxygen to turn fat into energy, as it does when you’re using your aerobic energy system.) The researchers had a group of men and women do a weight workout one day and an aerobic workout another, with each workout burning about 400 calories.

Fifteen hours after the weight workout, the men and women were burning 22 percent more fat than they did 15 hours after their aerobic workout. The researchers concluded that the exercisers would’ve needed to burn twice as many calories during their aerobic workout — 800, instead of 400 — to reach the level of post-workout fat oxidation achieved by the lifters.
“Burn More Calories While You Sleep!”

I haven’t yet mentioned resting metabolic rate (RMR), which is the speed at which your body burns calories regardless of whatever you happen to be doing at the moment. With men, it’s pretty clear that weight lifting increases RMR. The workouts themselves speed up metabolism, in part because the body needs to work harder to repair and rebuild muscles, connective tissues, and bones.

There’s also a cumulative effect that comes from adding new muscle tissue. It isn’t anything close to the “50 calories per pound of muscle” that some people claim (and I say that knowing full well I’ve used that figure in articles going back a few years). But muscle is metabolically active tissue, and having more of it certainly forces your body to burn more calories throughout the day and night. The real key, though, is the workouts. The harder they are, the more calories you burn in the next day or two as your body recovers.

 

Women seem to get a slight increase in metabolism from lifting. It’s still in the neighborhood of just 50 calories a day, which isn’t a fifth of a Snickers bar. But it shows that the weights are doing something that probably won’t happen with endurance exercise.

So if you add it all up, weight workouts give you two and possibly three important advantages over endurance exercise:

1 The afterburn, which might be an extra 50 calories.

2. A higher percentage of fat calories used for energy after the workout.

3. A possible increase in resting metabolic rate, in the neighborhood of 50 calories a day.

Having said all that, I’ll acknowledge that you could equal these benefits of resistance training simply by doing more endurance exercise, or doing it at a higher intensity. You’d burn more calories, you’d get a greater afterburn than you would by exercising at an easier pace, and you’d train your body, over time, to use a higher percentage of fat calories during your runs or swims or rides, and to tap into those fat stores earlier in the workout.

Can strength training compete with that? Let me explain why I think the answer is yes.
The Power of Perturbation

Let’s slow down for a moment, and ask ourselves why strength training has a bigger effect on metabolism and post-exercise fat-burning than endurance exercise. I think there are two key reasons.

First, there’s the inefficiency factor. When you hear your boss use a word like “inefficiency,” you know someone in the office will soon be using monster.com as her home page, and you hope it’s not you. But when we talk about inefficient exercise, we’re talking about routines that require more effort. Your body isn’t used to the exercises yet, or hasn’t fully adapted to the exercise parameters, and thus has to work harder to get through the routine. Harder work means better results — you’ll burn more calories during the workout, and you’ll burn more afterwards, when your body is recovering. In other words, inefficiency is the ideal.

The problem with a repetitive routine, like running or cycling, is that your body makes adaptations and gets progressively more efficient. Those adaptations allow you to go farther and faster in your runs or rides, which is good if your goal is to be an endurance athlete who goes farther and faster. If your goal is to be leaner, then greater endurance isn’t really to your benefit; the increased efficiency means you use fewer calories per unit of exercise.

 

Here’s an example:

Back in 1990, researchers at the U.S. Department of Agriculture published a study that compared the effects of diet and exercise, vs. exercise alone, for overweight women. The diet was extreme, cutting the women’s daily calorie intake by 50 percent. Both groups of women did six days a week of steady-pace endurance exercise, 35 to 40 minutes a day. The diet-plus-exercise group lost a boatload of weight, as you can imagine — 29 pounds in 12 weeks, on average. Unfortunately, a third of it was muscle, which meant their resting metabolic rates slowed down by an average of 9 percent. The exercise-only group also lost weight, about 13 pounds per person, but only 14 percent of it was lean tissue, and their metabolic rates stayed the same.

But the really, really startling finding is that the first group became so efficient at endurance exercise that they burned 16 percent fewer calories when doing it at low intensities. The exercise-only group also got more efficient, but only burned 8 percent fewer calories. (I should note that the effect disappeared at higher intensities of exercise, which gets back to what I said earlier about the importance of working harder, vs. working longer.)

One more negative effect of chronic endurance exercise:

Your body will adapt to the increased efficiency by selectively shrinking your Type I muscle fibers. Yes, literally, those fibers get smaller as they get better at running or riding. The effect may not be dramatic, but it illustrates how endurance exercise makes your body more efficient, which is to say better at going longer distances with less fuel. If you’re trying to get your body to burn morefuel, you can see the problem here.

The same problem arises with strength training, if you forget the “strength” and focus on the “training.” Doing high-repetition work with light weights simply makes your muscles more efficient at lifting light weights, which is a surefire way to shrink your muscles and reduce their ability to burn calories.

Heavier lifts, as you can imagine, are inherently less efficient than lighter lifts. They require a bit more energy to perform, but consume a lot more energy as your body recovers from them.

 

Imagine a lower-body workout that includes leg presses, vs. one in which you do squats with a barbell on your shoulders. For the leg press, you’re merely straightening your legs by pushing on a platform that, by virtue of its 45-degree angle, is designed to be easy to push. Contrast that with barbell squats, in which most of your body’s muscle fibers are involved in either lifting the weight or keeping your body upright while you lift it. The squatting movement is natural — we do it every time we jump or get up from a chair — but the heavy weight and the difficulty of keeping it balanced on your shoulders make it extraordinarily inefficient.

That inefficiency flips all the switches on what’s called your sympathetic nervous system. Again, forget that the word “sympathetic” has warm and fuzzy connotations in most of its uses. When we’re talking about our nervous system, “sympathetic” involves the heavy-duty stuff, the stress hormones that trigger our fight-or-flight responses. It’s your body’s internal equivalent of a smoke detector.

Activating the sympathetic nervous system means your adrenal glands are kicking out adrenaline and other stress hormones, your heart rate and blood pressure increase, and your bronchial passages widen. Your body’s core temperature increases, your sweat glands open, your pupils dilate, and you might even get goose bumps.

 

We’re conditioned to think that all these things are bad, but in the context of a workout, they’re actually good, since without this festival of stress, you wouldn’t be able to work as hard in the weight room. And your body wouldn’t burn as many calories, or use as much fat for energy, while you’re recovering.

In other words, the real key to successful strength training is metabolic perturbation. You’re shaking things up in your muscle cells, your nervous system, and your hormones. The calories you burn while throwing so much of your body into the spin cycle can be modest or substantial, but they’re only part of the effect. What your body does afterwards, when it’s trying to recover, has at least as big an impact on your physique as the calories used while you’re actually lifting.

Could you shake things up with endurance exercise? Sure, if you do intervals, which are a mix of all-out and easy efforts, rather than running or riding at a steady pace. But at that point you’re shifting away from your exclusive use of your aerobic energy system, and using one or both of your anaerobic systems. In other words, you’ve stopped doing “aerobics” and started doing something that resembles strength training, at least in terms of energy. You’re selectively using glycogen-fueled movement with the goal of forcing your body to use more fat while it recovers.
A Decent Interval

I’m not going to get into the particulars of Alwyn’s workouts in this excerpt, except to explain why he emphasizes intervals over steady-state endurance.

First, there’s metabolic perturbation, which we just discussed. Since it’s harder to run or ride or swim fast, it’s also more inefficient. That means you shake things up more than you would at a steady pace, which leads to a bigger post-exercise response.

Second, it takes less time. You’d be hard-pressed to go longer than 20 minutes in an interval workout. Thirty minutes is a pretty good interval workout even for an advanced athlete. So you’re in and out faster.

As with any type of anaerobic exercise, you force your body to use carbohydrates for energy during the high-intensity intervals. Then you use more fat when you’re recovering.

You can do intervals any number of ways, with any combination of work and rest. Alwyn uses a 1:2 ratio here, so you’ll go hard for a minute, say, and then rest two minutes. In his experience, that’s the most effective protocol for rapid fat loss in women who aren’t either elite athletes or absolute beginners. (It’s kind of an obvious point, but I’m journalistically obligated to say it anyway: Intervals aren’t a good choice for someone who hasn’t exercised since high school gym class.)

 

Now, if you actually enjoy endurance exercise, and would miss it if you couldn’t do any, we don’t want to discourage you from that. But Alwyn has come up with a unique way of making it more effective.

Do intervals first, to work off some of the glycogen in your muscles. Then step off the track or treadmill or get off the bike or out of the pool. That is, stop altogether for five minutes. Then get back on or in and do some steady-speed exercise at an easy pace.

Why bother? Because after you stop exercising, your body will immediately flood your bloodstream with triglycerides. Women’s muscles use more of these fat molecules for energy than do men’s. When you start exercising again, you’ll have more fat readily available for energy, which means you’ll burn more of it than you would if you’d done nothing but steady-pace work.

Does it work? Alwyn says the female clients he trains typically lose two pounds of fat in a week, and six to 10 pounds in a month.
Adapted from The New Rules of Lifting for Women by Lou Schuler, Cassandra Forsythe, and Alwyn Cosgrove. Available at Amazon.com and wherever books are sold.

 

© 1998 — 2008 Testosterone, LLC. All Rights Reserved.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: Fit-Nex training, Kettlebell in Redondo Beach, Personal Trainer in Redondo Beach, Redondo Beach Fitness Tips

Breakfast cereals

April 24, 2010 By Aaron Gonzales Leave a Comment

I know a lot of you like to eat cereal so here is another article I found that give some more insight to the best and worst cereals.

Best & Worst Breakfast Cereals

By David Zinczenko, with Matt Goulding - Posted on Mon, Apr 19, 2010, 12:19 am PDT
 
Let’s face it: We’re rushed. Especially in the morning. Often we’re running out the door a few minutes behind schedule as we stuff our bags and pray that we haven’t left anything behind. (Did I pack my lunch? My gym clothes? Do I have that file I’m supposed to give to Roger? Wait! My pants!) Yeah, mornings are messy, which is why breakfast is so often placed on the back burner. The problem is we sometimes forget to ever turn that burner on.

We’ve all heard the studies that show breakfast consumption is related toweight loss. For those who haven’t, the results are pretty clear: Breakfast eaters carry less body fat than non-eaters. Yet surprisingly, nearly 40 percent of us still skip breakfast, according to a poll conducted by ABC News. For those who do eat breakfast, about a third choose cereal. That makes it America’s favorite breakfast food. But whether that’s a good thing or not pivots on the choices we make in the supermarket. 

Every box of cereal lives in one of two worlds: the world of fiber or the world of sugar. The first world pairs perfectly with freshly sliced fruit, while the second is already pushing the sugar threshold through a combination of marshmallows, sticky oat clusters, and frosting. Obviously you want to choose a cereal from world No. 1, but with all the marketing hype on cereal boxes, that’s not always easy to do. Especially when you’re speed-walking through the grocery store in the usual hurry to get home. (Why is everything so rushed these days?)

But fear not; we’ve got you covered. Here are the grocery store’s worst cereals and their more nutritious counterparts. Get your bowls and spoons ready.

Bonus Tip: Learn to improve lunch, too, by avoiding these 30 Worst Chicken Dishes in America.

WORST ICONIC CEREAL
Kellogg’s Raisin Bran (1 cup)
190 calories
1.5 g fat (0 g saturated) 
7 g fiber
19 g sugars

It’ll be hard to find a more sugar-loaded cereal than Raisin Bran. It’s sweeter than even Lucky Charms, Reese’s Puffs, or Cocoa Krispies. Some of that sugar can be attributed to the raisins’ natural blend of fructose and glucose, but the real culprit is the sticky white armor of sucrose that enrobes each piece of fruit. Both Kellogg’s and Post are guilty of this raisin mistreatment, so what should be a legitimately healthy bowl of fruit and grains pours out closer to a candy-coated dessert.  

Eat This Instead!
Kellogg’s All-Bran (1 cup) with a tablespoon of raisins 
150 calories
0.5 g fat (0 g saturated)
7 g fiber
13 g sugars

Bonus Tip: Dive deeper into the world of nutritional blunders with the 30 Worst Sandwiches in America.

WORST CHOCOLATE CEREAL
General Mills Chocolate Chex (1 cup)
174 calories
3.5 g fat (0 g saturated)
1 g fiber
11 g sugars

First, let’s get this out of the way: Chocolate-flavored cereals should rarely be part of your morning routine. That said, they can make decent desserts. One study published by the American College of Nutrition found that among late-night snackers, those who chose cereal took in fewer calories than those who made other choices, and ultimately they wound up losing nearly half a pound of body fat per week. That doesn’t mean you should switch to an all-cereal diet, just that cereal is a better evening snack than you might think. Of course, not all are created equal, and surprisingly, the worst of them is the one that seems geared toward mature eaters. So the rule is, if you’re going with chocolate cereal, let your inner kid free. Per bowl, Chocolate Chex packs in more calories than Cocoa Puffs, Cocoa Krispies, or Cookie Crisp.  

Eat This Instead!
Cookie Crisp (1 cup)
133 calories
1.5 g fat (0 g saturated)
1.5 g fiber
15 g sugars



WORST HIGH-FIBER CEREAL
General Mills Chex Multi-Bran (1 cup)
210 calories
2 g fat (0 g saturated)
8 g fiber
13 g sugars

Chex might seem harmless, but it’s the only brand that holds down two spots on this list. The slip-up with this box is the heavy load of sugar. (Notice that it’s even sweeter than the chocolate-flavored Chex.) General Mills calls it a “hint of sweetness,” but really it’s on par with some of the most indulgent boxes on the shelf. In fact, one bowl of this cereal has more sugar than a scoop of Edy’s Slow Churned Fudge Tracks Ice Cream. We applaud the fiber, but the sugar won’t cut it.

Eat This Instead!
Post Shredded Wheat Original Spoon Size (1 cup)
170 calories
1 g fat (0 g saturated)
6 g fiber
0 g sugars



WORST VITAMIN-ENHANCED CEREAL
Kellogg’s Smart Start Original Antioxidants (1 cup)
190 calories
0.5 g fat (0 g saturated)
3 g fiber
14 g sugars

Of all the cereals on this list, this is the best example of inflated marketing. This box is littered with words that attempt to make you think you’re getting a wholesome breakfast, but in reality you’re getting a run-of-the-mill bowl of highly sweetened cereal with a multivitamin tossed in on top. Don’t let the added vitamins persuade you into thinking that the sugar isn’t a problem. It most certainly is.

Eat This Instead!
Kashi Vive (1 cup)
135 calories
2 g fat (1 g saturated)
10 g fiber
8 g sugars

Bonus Tip: Save calories, time, and money by signing up for our FREE Eat This, Not That! newsletter. You’ll get nutrition and weight-loss secrets delivered daily to your inbox!


WORST HOT CEREAL
Quaker Oatmeal Express Golden Brown Sugar (1 cup)
200 calories
2.5 g fat (0.5 g saturated)
3 g fiber
18 g sugars

Sure it’s convenient to have your oatmeal pre-packaged with a serving bowl, but is it really worth the love handles? Because that’s the likely result of eating this much sugar every morning. Sure, there’s a small shot of fiber, but in terms of the sweet stuff, this bowl is worse than eating a Little Debbie Marshmallow Pie for breakfast. Instead, leave an old coffee cup at work, and every morning load it with a packet of Quaker’s High Fiber Cinnamon Swirl. With that swap you’ll earn more belly-filling fiber and eliminate the blood-sugar surge. You’ll never even miss the plastic serving bowl.

Eat This Instead! 
Quaker High Fiber Cinnamon Swirl (1 packet)
160 calories
2 g fat (0.5 g saturated)
10 g fiber
7 g sugars

Bonus Tip: Eliminate even more superfluous calories by avoiding this crazy list of  The Worst Drinks in America. Your waistline will thank you.



WORST GRANOLA
Quaker Natural Granola, Oats, Honey & Raisin (1 cup)
420 calories
12 g fat (7 g saturated)
6 g fiber
30 g sugars

You’re in big trouble if your mornings include a bowl of this stuff. One cup eats up 20 percent of your day’s energy needs and saddles you with as much sugar as a Snicker’s bar. That’s indulgent even by dessert standards. The culprit in this box is the combined impact of brown sugar and coconut oil, which together add loads of calories with scarcely any nutrients. What you want to do is switch to a lighter granola like Kashi’s GoLean Crunch!, and then instead of eating it by the bowl, use just a handful as a topping for unsweetened whole grain cereal or oatmeal. Now that’s a recipe for a good breakfast.

Eat This Instead! 
Kashi GoLean Crunch! (1 cup)
200 calories
4.5 g fat (0 g saturated

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: Fit-Nex training, Kettlebell in Redondo Beach, Personal Training in Redondo Beach, Redondo Beach Fitness Tips

VIbram shoes

April 4, 2010 By Aaron Gonzales Leave a Comment

Did you know that running barefoot is best for your feet. Vibram shoes are the closest your going to come to being barefoot. Here is a link to their website. They have some really great articles about the benefits of running barefooted and you can check out their shoes if anyone is interested.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: Fit-Nex training, Kettlebell in Redondo Beach, Personal Trainer in Redondo Beach, Redondo Beach Fitness Tips

Cereals

March 22, 2010 By Aaron Gonzales Leave a Comment

This is for those of you who love to eat cereal in the morning, here is a list of some healthy cereals.

 

  • Post Grape-Nuts Trail Mix Crunch
  • Fiber One Bran Cereal: 
  • Fiber One Honey Clusters
  • Quaker Oatmeal Squares:
  • Shredded wheat: 
  • Frosted Mini Wheats
  • Raisin Bran
  • Kashi Heart to Heart Honey Toasted Oat Cereal
  • Uncle Sam

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: Fit-Nex training, Kettlebell in Redondo Beach, Personal Trainer in Redondo Beach

Running barefoot

March 19, 2010 By Aaron Gonzales Leave a Comment

I researched this article about running barefoot and I have to say I agree that running barefooted has many benefits. 

Running debate: Bare or in shoes?
By Ashley Fantz, CNN
February 12, 2010 11:28 a.m. EST
A new study shows that barefoot running causes less impact to the body than wearing shoes.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Study: Runners with shoes experience collision two to three times their body weight
The study has sparked buzz amongst runners — both praise and skepticism
Podiatrist and scientist: Ease into barefoot running or risk injury
Another study suggest walking heel-to-toe is most efficient
(CNN) — Terry Chiplin didn’t need a Harvard study to tell him what he’s known for years.
“Barefoot running, for me, is a lot less painful than wearing running shoes,” said the 55-year-old Brit, who competed in high school in thin-soled leather shoes and would run shoeless whenever he could.
After taking a break in early adulthood from the sport, Chiplin returned to it by buying a fancy pair of running shoes.
“I’d come home with blisters, my feet killing me,” he said. “So one day, I just said to myself, ‘Who cares what anybody thinks? I’m putting sole to earth.’ ”
Chiplin now teaches running and outdoor fitness in Estes Park, Colorado, and does it shoeless as often as possible.
He’s among many runners on blogs and list-servs who’ve been debating new studies about the most efficient running form. Should you go barefoot ? Land heel-first or on the balls of your feet? Are those fancy shoes hurting more than helping you?
The study stirring the most buzz was led by Harvard evolutionary biologist Dr. Daniel Lieberman.
It’s the first to compare how much impact the body takes when a runner is wearing shoes or is barefoot. Using high-speed video, the study revealed barefoot runners strike with their forefoot and suffer less jarring to their bodies. When you’re barefoot, you’re going to land with the portion of your foot that is most springy. And think of the barefoot run as a game of hot potato — if you know you have rocks and glass on that surface, you’re going to move more carefully and pick your feet up quicker.

Shoe wearers strike with their heel and deliver a shock to their overall body that is two to three times their body weight. Lieberman’s test subjects were Kenyan runners who had spent their lives running barefoot and the Harvard track team, which runs in shoes.
Watch the difference between barefoot and shoe running
“Runners are responding because they are always interested in the latest science of their sport, and they have a personal reaction to being told that their shoes are going to be taken away,” said D. Leif Rustvold, a Portland, Oregon, runner with a masters in anthropological biology who works for a health care provider.
Though he switched to barefooting a few years ago and saw an improvement in his efficiency, he predicts barefooting will remain a practice of a minority.
Video: ‘Shoes are the devil’
RELATED TOPICS
Track and Field
Exercise and Fitness
“Runners are concerned first about injuries, and barefoot running can seem, at first, like it’s going to lead to injury,” he said. “Besides, we’ve been wearing shoes for years. No one is going to roll that back.”
The other study, focusing on walking form, comes from University of Utah biology professor David Carrier.
Carrier is well-known among distance runners for trying to run down a herd of antelope a few years ago to prove that humans were built to run great distances, their survival dependent on their ability to persistence hunt.
He found that while humans have evolved to run great distances, we’ve also evolved to become more efficient walkers than our ape ancestors by doing the very thing Lieberman’s study warns against — landing heel first. His test subjects were volunteers who were triathletes, runners and soccer players.
Most mammals — dogs, cats, raccoons — walk and run around on the balls of their feet, the study says. Few species land on their heel: bears, humans and great apes — chimps, gorillas, orangutans.
“Our study shows that the heel-down posture increases the economy of walking but not the economy of running,” says Carrier. “You consume more energy when you walk on the balls of your feet or your toes than when you walk heels first.”
So, run on your forefeet and walk on your heels?
“It can be complicated, but I don’t think what Lieberman concluded and what our study found conflicts at all with each other,” Carrier told CNN. “If anything it shows how complex our feet are, and how much we’re learning about the mechanics of movement.”
Lieberman said his study is not meant to be an argument for barefoot running.
“I’m afraid people have misunderstood me,” he said. “I’m not in the business of telling people what to do, what shoes to wear or whether to wear shoes at all.”
Amanda Musacchio, 35, of Wheaton, Illinois, is a member of one of the biggest running list-servs in the country. She and many other runners have interpreted the story as a round-about way to cheer barefoot running.
Musacchio wore thin-soled shoes when she was a sprinter in high school without injury. But when she started running longer distances in adulthood, she thought wearing a heavy-cushioned shoe would help. Instead, she racked up injuries. So she went bare again.
“I started barefoot running five minutes at a time,” she said. “I feel almost as good now as when I did 20 years ago when I was a sprinter. My feet seem to remember how to land properly, on my forefoot, and that improved form has changed my running tremendously.”
Among the skeptics is self-described “proud shoe wearer” runner Spurgeon Hendrick, who regularly hits the trails outside Atlanta, Georgia, for long runs.
He points out that Lieberman’s study was partly sponsored by Vibram USA, information that is clearly disclosed on every page. The company makes Vibram 5 Fingers, a thin latex shoe with individual toes that mimics barefoot running. The shoe has sold like hot cakes this past year after they and Lieberman’s work were featured in the 2009 best-selling book “Born to Run.”
“I couldn’t run barefooted, or in Vibrams, even if I wanted to,” Hendrick said. “I stub my toes on roots and rocks too much, and at my age, I don’t have time to wait on a broken toe to heal.”
Lieberman is adamant that Vibram sponsorship had nothing to do with the outcome of the study, which was also funded by the American School of Prehistoric Research, the Goelet Fund and Harvard University.
But many runners are saying that apart from the nitpicking about whether the studies are on the money is one basic lesson: Be more aware of your unique movement.
“I think it’s very hard, if not impossible, to change body mechanics,” said Dr. Perry Julien, a podiatrist who has treated Olympic runners and serves as the co-medical director of the world’s biggest 10K, the Atlanta Peachtree Road Race. “And people who try, or try too quickly and without care, are going to wind up in my office.”
If you’re a walker, being more conscious of how your feet hit the ground may make you more efficient. If you’re a 200-pound guy who hits the treadmill a couple times a week, barefoot running might not be worth the work necessary to build up the calf and Achilles strength to prevent injury, he said.
Stress fractures, tendonitis or plantar fasciitis, a hard-to-heal tissue inflammation that feels like needles driven into your foot, are likely to result for runners who dash out the gate barefoot without gradually working up to it.
The podiatrist pointed out that there are many examples of people who heel strike without problems, most famously Joan Benoit.
Benoit won the first women’s Olympics marathon in 1984, the same era of the record-breaking South African Zola Budd, who ran barefoot.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: Fit-Nex training, Kettlebell in Redondo Beach, Personal Trainer in Redondo Beach, Redondo Beach Fitness Tips

Here is some information on ingredients on labels

March 11, 2010 By Aaron Gonzales Leave a Comment

If any of you are curious about what enriched really means on a label and what organic really is, this article I found on the South Beach Diet website will give you a little insight.

Aaron

Fit-Nex

Walk into any grocery store and you’ll find products making different food and health claims. Some foods are labeled “enriched” while others are labeled “organic” or “all-natural,” which is appealing to health-conscious consumers. But what do they really mean? While some food-label claims are regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), others are just gimmicks to get you to buy the product.

Decoding Food Claims at the Grocery Store 
Before purchasing a product, be sure to read all the ingredients, regardless of what the label says. All healthy food products should use whole ingredients and not list any processed flours, additives, or added sugars such as high fructose corn syrup. Take whole-wheat crackers, for example. The first ingredient listed on the box should be whole-wheat flour — not to be confused with wheat flour, which is a form of white flour. The South Beach Diet recommends preparing meals using fresh whole foods and ingredients and limiting your use of packaged convenience foods. But chances are, you may be purchasing pre-packed foods from time to time. So to help you make the best food choices, here are the facts on some of the most common food claims:

Enriched
The facts: “Enriched” means the nutrients that were originally in the food were lost during the refining process and have been replaced to make it more nutritious. Enriched foods don’t compensate for the natural nutrients and fiber that were lost during processing.
Common examples: Breads and pastas that are enriched with B vitamins and iron

Fortified
The facts: Foods that are “fortified” have nutrients added to the food that were never present in the original product. Fortified foods still have their natural ingredients, and in most cases have added health benefits, such as vitamins. Fortified can also mean that the food must contain at least 10 percent more of the daily value for a particular nutrient, such as fiber, potassium, or antioxidants.
Common examples: Cereals fortified with heart-healthy omega-3 fatty acids; margarine spreads, soy milk, and low-fat/nonfat milk with vitamins D and A

All-Natural
The facts: Beware of foods labeled “all-natural” or “100% natural.” The FDA and USDA don’t regulate products with these claims. The labels “all-natural” and “100% natural” suggest that the food is nutritious and wholesome, but they may contain hydrogenated oils and chemical preservatives, all of which are not natural ingredients. Foods that are “made from concentrate” are also not considered all-natural. However, the USDA recognizes poultry and other meat products labeled “all-natural” or “100% natural,” even if they have added chicken or beef broth.
Common examples: Fruit juices, canned goods, and frozen meals

Organic
The facts: All food products that have the “USDA Organic” seal must contain at least 95 percent organic ingredients. Products that have the “made with organic ingredients” label consist of at least 70 percent organic ingredients.
Common examples: Cereals, milk, juices, fruits, vegetables, etc.


Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: Fit-Nex training, Kettlebell in Redondo Beach, Personal Trainer in Redondo Beach, Redondo Beach Fitness Tips

The worst salads

March 10, 2010 By Aaron Gonzales Leave a Comment

I know many of us think when we order a salad we are eating something healthy. Not all salads are healthy, once we start to add toppings , cheese, dressing and all the extras, the salad can be just as bad as a cheeseburger and fries. I found this article that I think you will find interesting.

Aaron

Fit-Nex

The Unhealthiest Salads in America

By David Zinczenko, with Matt Goulding - Posted on Wed, Mar 03, 2010, 11:13 am PST

Eat This, Not That 

by David Zinczenko, with Matt Goulding a Yahoo! Health Expert for Nutrition

 

 

If you’re looking to eat healthfully at your favorite restaurant, don’t automatically turn to the salad menu. Turns out, restaurant salads can often be as bad as—or worse than—any burger or steak on the menu. Sure, salads may contain a fresh produce base, but those leafy greens are too often weighed down with cheese, deep fried croutons, and high-calorie dressings. In fact, one salad from a popular chain restaurant contains over 1,500 calories! Surprised? Then check out this list of the Worst Salads in America, culled from the new book Eat This, Not That! 2010.

 

 

#6. Quizno’s Honey Mustard Chicken Regular Chopped Salad
920 calories
65 g fat (20 g saturated, 0.5 g trans)
1,685 mg sodium

The secret to this salad’s salacious calorie count is in the sauce. A general rule of thumb when you eat at Quizno’s: Serving sizes are often not what they seem. This “Regular Chopped Salad” accounts for nearly half your day’s caloric allotment. Even most of the small chopped salads pack over 500 calories. Unless you order the Pan Asian small, consider a salad at Quizno’s a meal unto itself, not a side dish. 

Bonus tip: Want to make sure your lunch doesn’t destroy your diet? Familiarize yourself with this indispensable list of the 30 Unhealthiest Sandwiches in America. It’ll help you keep your waistline from ballooning.

Eat This Instead!
Pan Asian Small Chopped Salad
270 calories
11 g fat (2.5 g saturated, 0 g trans)
1,190 mg sodium

 

 

#5. Romano’s Macaroni Grill Parmesan-Crusted Chicken Salad
960 calories
16 g saturated fat
1,990 mg sodium
49 g carbohydrates

Here’s a little menu magic for you: Anytime you see the words “parmesan-crusted,” assume the dish has been slathered in cheese and given the frying treatment. Which is probably why this Parmesan-Crusted Chicken Salad has nearly a full day’s worth of sodium and half a day’s worth of calories. One of the biggest problems with Mac Grill’s menu items—though we love it in general—is the sodium content. We’d say order the Warm Spinach Salad, but it’s packed with as much salt as you’ll find in five large orders of McDonald’s french fries. Your only smart salad side dish selection at this chain is the Fresh Greens or Caesar.

Bonus tip: Order anything from the 20 Best Restaurant Foods in America and leave the restaurant feeling satisfied with your healthy and delicious dish. Or lose your belly fat fast by making all your favorites yourself with the new book Cook This, Not That! Kitchen Survival Guide.

Eat This Instead!
Fresh Greens
320 calories
5 g saturated fat
300 mg sodium
20 g carbohydrates

 

 

#4. Chili’s Quesadilla Explosion Salad
1,400 calories
88 g fat (26 g saturated)
2,370 mg sodium

This salad is explosive all right. Here’s a tip: At most Mexican restaurants, the salads are actually the absolute worst items on the menu. For example, with burritos and tacos, the amount of high-fat, high-calorie fillers is limited to what will fit in the shells. But there’s no built-in portion control with salads. So it’s no surprise that this Quesadilla Explosion Salad contains a full day’s worth of salt and nearly three-quarters of your day’s calories (it’s the caloric equivalent of 172 Cheetos, in fact). Unfortunately, Chili’s offers only three salads with less than 500 calories. Stick with the Guiltless Grill options, or the salad mentioned below.

Bonus tip: Corona may taste great with Mexican food, but is it the smartest beverage option? Read The 40 Best and Worst Beers to find out. (Otherwise it’s nearly impossible to tell the difference between a bottle of beer with more than 300 calories versus one with just 100—knowing the difference and choosing the smarter swap can save you 20 lbs of fat a year!)

Eat This Instead!
Small Caribbean Salad with Grilled Chicken
490 calories
24 g fat (4 g saturated)
420 mg sodium

 

 

#3. Applebee’s Oriental Chicken Salad with Oriental Vinaigrette
1,430 calories

This salad starts out with a bed of “Fresh Asian greens,” according to the menu. Unfortunately, these greens serve as a bed for deep-fried chicken tenders and carbohydrate-heavy crispy noodles. Without dressing, this dish rings in at 840 calories—already more than in an Applebee’s hamburger. But factor in the super-heavy dressing and you’re adding another 590 calories to the mix. To put that in perspective, a lunch sandwich shouldn’t pack more than 500 calories, tops. At Applebee’s, the only salad that won’t sink your entire meal is the Paradise Chicken Salad, which cuts back on calories by using grilled chicken instead of fried and actual produce instead of noodles. (Note: Applebee’s refuses to disclose their nutrition information, so you just might be consuming days’ worth of sodium as well!)

Bonus tip: For full nutrition information for all of your favorite chain restaurants and thousands of foods, download the bestselling Eat This, Not That! to your iPhone. It’s like having your own personal nutritionist in your pocket at all times, and will help you avoid the caloric calamities and guide you to the best ways to lose your belly fast.

Eat This Instead!
Paradise Chicken Salad
340 calories

#2. Cheesecake Factory Caesar Salad with Chicken
1,513 calories
16 g saturated fat
1,481 mg sodium
23 g carbohydrates

The top three words you never want to see sharing a space with “salad” on a menu: tuna, taco, and yes, the mighty Caesar. Consider that tangle of romaine a hapless vehicle for the troubling trinity of croutons, Parmesan cheese, and viscous Caesar dressing. This Cheesecake Factory version is the worst; the elephantine portion yields a salad with more calories than 10 Twinkies! If you’re looking for a salad meal at Cheesecake Factory, choose from the Weight Management varieties—every other salad tops 500 calories.

Bonus tip: Save calories, time, and money with your FREE Eat This, Not That! newsletter. Sign up today and you’ll receive the free Eat This, Not That! guide to shopping once and eating for a week!

Eat This Instead!
Weight Management Pear & Endive Salad
479 calories
4 g saturated fat
1,509 mg sodium
31 g carbohydrates

 

#1. California Pizza Kitchen Waldorf Chicken Salad with Blue Cheese Dressing (full)
1,570 calories
30 g saturated fat
2,082 mg sodium

CPK is no stranger to the title of “Worst Salad in America”—in fact, last year’s Thai Crunch Salad from California Pizza Kitchen won this dubious distinction for having over 2,000 calories. CPK has since downgraded the Asian-inspired leafy disaster (to a more modest 1,399 calories). Unfortunately, the rest of their salad lineup is still sorely lacking in smart options. This Waldorf Chicken Salad takes the title this year—the blue cheese dressing certainly doesn’t help, and neither does the oversized plate this salad is served on. Believe it or not, your best bet at CPK is to order two slices of thin-crust pizza with any toppings you want. But if you’re set on a salad, choose a half-size of the Moroccan Chicken, below.

Eat This Instead!

Moroccan Chicken Salad (half)

412 calories

4 g saturated fat

309 mg sodium

————

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: Fit-Nex training, Kettlebell in Redondo Beach, Personal Trainer in Redondo Beach, Redondo Beach Fitness Tips

Good fats

February 19, 2010 By Aaron Gonzales Leave a Comment

Hey I thought everyone might find this article helpful.

By Arthur Agatston, M.D. , Dr. Arthur Agatston is an associate professor of medicine at the University of Miami Medical School and author of The South Beach Diet (Rodale Inc., 2003).

 

The South Beach Diet can’t be classified as a low-carb diet, a low-fat diet, or a high-protein diet. Its rules: Consume good carbs and good fats, and learn to snack strategically. The South Beach Diet has been so widely successful because people lose weight without experiencing cravings or feeling deprived, or even feeling that they’re on a diet. It allows you to enjoy “healthy” carbohydrates, rather than the kinds that contribute to weight gain, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease.

You can eat a great variety of foods in a great variety of recipes. This prevents repetition and boredom, two obstacles to long-term success. Our goal is that The South Beach Diet becomes a healthy lifestyle, not just a diet.

Good Fats, Bad Fats

Fats are an important part of a healthy diet. There’s more and more evidence that many fats are good for us and actually reduce the risk of heart attack and stroke. They also help our sugar and insulin metabolism and therefore contribute to our goals of long-term weight loss and weight maintenance. And because good fats make foods taste better, they help us enjoy the journey to a healthier lifestyle. But not all fats are created equal–there are good fats and bad fats.

 

“Good fats” include monounsaturated fats, found in olive and canola oils, peanuts and other nuts, peanut butter, and avocados. Monounsaturated fats lower total and “bad” LDL cholesterol–which accumulates in and clogs artery walls–while maintaining levels of “good” HDL cholesterol, which carries cholesterol from artery walls and delivers it to the liver for disposal.

Omega-3 fatty acids–polyunsaturated fats found in coldwater fish, canola oil, flaxseeds, walnuts, almonds, and macadamia nuts–also count as good fats. Recent studies have shown that populations that eat more omega-3s, such as Eskimos (whose diets are heavy on fish), have fewer serious health problems such as heart disease and diabetes. There is evidence that omega-3 oils help prevent or treat depression, arthritis, asthma, and colitis and help prevent cardiovascular deaths. You’ll eat both monounsaturated fats and omega-3s in abundance in all three phases of the diet. “Bad fats” include saturated fats–the heart-clogging kind found in butter, fatty red meats, and full-fat dairy products. “Very bad fats” are the manmade trans fats. Trans fats, which are created when hydrogen gas reacts with oil, are found in many packaged foods, including margarine, cookies, cakes, cake icings, doughnuts, and potato chips. Trans fats are worse than saturated fats; they are bad for our blood vessels, nervous systems, and waistline.

 

The FDA ruled that by 2006, food manufacturers must list the amount of trans fats in their products on the label. (The natural trans fats in meat and milk, which act very differently in the body than the manmade kind, will not require labeling.) Until then, here are a few ways to reduce your intake of trans fats and saturated fats, South Beach Diet style.

Go natural. Limit margarine, packaged foods, and fast food, which tend to contain high amounts of saturated and trans fats.

Make over your cooking methods. Bake, broil, or grill rather than fry.

Lose the skin. Remove the skin from chicken or turkey before you eat it.

Ditch the butter. Cook with canola or olive oil instead of butter, margarine, or lard.

Slim down your dairy. Switch from whole milk to fat-free or 1 percent.

Carbs, foods that contain simple sugars (short chains of sugar molecules) or starches (long chains of sugar molecules), have been blamed for our epidemic of obesity and diabetes. This is only partially true, because there are both bad and good carbs.

The good carbs contain the important vitamins, minerals, and other nutrients that are essential to our health and that help prevent heart disease and cancer. The bad carbs, which have been consumed by Americans in unprecedented quantities (largely in an attempt to avoid fats), are the ones that have resulted in the fattening of America. Bad carbs are refined carbs, the ones where digestion has begun in factories instead of in our stomachs. The good carbs are the ones humans were designed to consume–the unrefined ones that have contributed to our health since we began eating. Unrefined carbohydrates are found in whole, natural foods, such as whole grains, legumes, rice, and starchy vegetables. They’re also called complex carbohydrates, so named for their molecular structure. Besides being packed with fiber, vitamins, and minerals, good carbs take longer to digest–a good thing, as you’ll soon see.

 

Refined carbohydrates, on the other hand, are found in packaged processed foods, such as store-bought baked goods, crackers, pasta, and white bread. Refined carbohydrates are made with white flour and contain little or no fiber. In fact, many products made with white flour are advertised as fortified with vitamins and minerals, because the process of turning grain into white flour strips away its fiber and nutrients. One of our South Beach Diet rules is to avoid foods labeled as “fortified.” Current evidence reveals that fortification with vitamins does not recreate the benefits of the natural vitamins that have been removed.

Despite the fact that good carbs are a critical part of a healthy diet, the typical American diet is filled with the bad kinds. And when we’re overweight as a result of a diet laden with bad carbs, our bodies’ ability to process all carbs goes awry.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: Fit-Nex training, Kettlebell in Redondo Beach, Kettlebells in Redondo Beach, Personal Trainer in Redondo Beach

When your on the go!!

February 18, 2010 By Aaron Gonzales Leave a Comment

When your on the go, eating healthy can be difficult especially when you are not sure what choices are the healthiest ones. There are lots of foods you have to watch for salads for example ,we all think are vegetables so they must be healthy, wrong.  Salads can be just as bad as a cheeseburger once you start to add toppings and salad dressing. Read the labels on the salad package if your buying the salad at a store or ask for nutritional information if in a restaurant. I was on the go one day and stopped at the supermarket for a salad, well after I started to look at the labels I changed my mind. I noticed some were loaded with 20 grams of fat once you added the dressing. Also some come with bacon bits and turkey and ham which can be loaded with sodium. I settled for some chicken and fruit instead that day. There are some things you can when on the go for one I use to be a driver and in my car I would carry travel size light balsamic vinegar salad dressing . Also pack your snacks or lunches if you know you will be on the go. Packing your food for lunch and snacks will help yo be more successful in losing weight. Trader Joe’s has some pre packaged nuts   and they are already packaged in separate servings these are a great snack. Also string cheese is a great snack . Now if you are going to eat in a restaurant the plates we are served on are usually huge!! So what you can do to portion your food is half it and put it in a to go container as soon as you get it. Also when eating salads try and choose a light balsamic vinegar dressing if they do not have one another option is to order the dressing on the side and dip your fork in it. Now below I have posted some information I found   about some food options if you are going to eat at a fast food place.

Wendys:

  • Grilled Chicken Fillet
    – no mayo, try the honey mustard for a few extra calories
  • A Jr. Hamburger or Jr. Cheeseburger
  • Side Salad
  • Spring Mix Salad
    with honey pecans and 1/2 the salad dressing packet
  • Small (8 oz) Chili

Taco bell:

  • Tacos
  • Taco supreme
  • Soft beef or chicken taco
  • Any of the Gorditas
  • fresco items

subway

Choose a 6-inch sub or a deli round topped with lots of veggies and ham, roast beef, or turkey breast for less than 300 calories. Use mustard or vinegar as a topping and for additional 45 calories, add 1 tablespoon of light mayo.


Burger King

If you keep it simple and order a small burger — the Whopper Jr. or the Chicken Whopper Jr. without mayo and with lettuce and tomato – you can keep it around 310 calories.

The real treat is the chicken tenders that are only 210 calories for a 5 piece serving, and if you dunk it in barbeque or sweet and sour sauce, you can still come in under 300 calories.

MCDONALD’S: WHAT TO ORDER

Enjoy a small hamburger without the mayo and with lettuce and tomato or a California Cobb Salad (with or without the chicken) with half a packet of the balsamic vinaigrette, and you can keep your intake to about 300 calories

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: Fit-Nex training, Kettlebell in Redondo Beach, Kettlebells in Redondo Beach, Personal Trainer in Redondo Beach, Redondo Beach Fitness Tips
« Older Posts