This week, as you can see below, the Fitness Destinations Product of the Week will now be taking you to the First Coast Wellness store. The entire First Coast Wellness site has been updated to reflect the latest details of that business model - both for local Jacksonville area people, as well as the rest of the Internet world!

If you have a health and fitness related product or service that you would like to have featured via the First Coast Wellness services, please contact First Coast Wellness today! All local as well as long-distance meeting attendees will be getting access to the growing list of health resources endorsed by First Coast Wellness.

Second, we are pleased to announce that the Fitness Destinations Podcast will be resuming very shortly! We appreciate the patience of all of the loyal listeners, and the comments that were sent in via email! The podcast should be up and running again within 1 or 2 weeks!

We have two very interesting articles for you to check out this week, both written by a great author - Will Brinks of http://www.brinkzone.com. Will has some great insight and tips to help you with everything from proper nutrition to craving Cheez-its! Check out both of his articles below!

Enjoy and have a great weekend!

Please forward this email to anyone in your circle who can benefit from any of the information contained in the Fitness Destinations Journal, or who can utilize the site itself to help them with their health and fitness goals!

Pharmanex
Product of the Week

Pharmanex Lifepak Nano

Free Fitness Analysis     Free Carbohydrate Calculator

Fitness Article - Brink's Unified Theory of Nutrition

When people hear the term Unified Theory, some times called the Grand Unified Theory, or even "Theory of Everything," they probably think of it in terms of physics, where a Unified Theory, or single theory capable of defining the nature of the interrelationships among nuclear, electromagnetic, and gravitational forces, would reconcile seemingly incompatible aspects of various field theories to create a single comprehensive set of equations.

Such a theory could potentially unlock all the secrets of nature and the universe itself, or as theoretical physicist Michio Katu, puts it "an equation an inch long that would allow us to read the mind of God." That's how important unified theories can be. However, unified theories don't have to deal with such heady topics as physics or the nature of the universe itself, but can be applied to far more mundane topics, in this case nutrition.

Regardless of the topic, a unified theory, as stated above, seeks to explain seemingly incompatible aspects of various theories. In this article I attempt to unify seemingly incompatible or opposing views regarding nutrition, namely, what is probably the longest running debate in the nutritional sciences: calories vs. macro nutrients.

One school, I would say the 'old school' of nutrition, maintains weight loss or weight gain is all about calories, and "a calorie is a calorie," no matter the source (e.g., carbs, fats, or proteins). They base their position on various lines of evidence to come to that conclusion.

The other school, I would call more the 'new school' of thought on the issue, would state that gaining or losing weight is really about where the calories come from (e.g., carbs, fats, and proteins), and that dictates weight loss or weight gain. Meaning, they feel, the "calorie is a calorie" mantra of the old school is wrong. They too come to this conclusion using various lines of evidence.

This has been an ongoing debate between people in the field of nutrition, biology, physiology, and many other disciplines, for decades. The result of which has led to conflicting advice and a great deal of confusion by the general public, not to mention many medical professionals and other groups.

Before I go any further, two key points that are essential to understand about any unified theory:

* A good unified theory is simple, concise, and understandable even to lay people. However, underneath, or behind that theory, is often a great deal of information that can take up many volumes of books. So, for me to outline all the information I have used to come to these conclusions, would take a large book, if not several and is far beyond the scope of this article.

* A unified theory is often proposed by some theorist before it can even be proven or fully supported by physical evidence. Over time, different lines of evidence, whether it be mathematical, physical, etc., supports the theory and thus solidifies that theory as being correct, or continued lines of evidence shows the theory needs to be revised or is simply incorrect. I feel there is now more than enough evidence at this point to give a unified theory of nutrition and continuing lines of evidence will continue (with some possible revisions) to solidify the theory as fact.

"A Calorie Is A Calorie"

The old school of nutrition, which often includes most nutritionists, is a calorie is a calorie when it comes to gaining or losing weight. That weight loss or weight gain is strictly a matter of "calories in, calories out." Translated, if you "burn" more calories than you take in, you will lose weight regardless of the calorie source and if you eat more calories than you burn off each day, you will gain weight, regardless of the calorie source.

This long held and accepted view of nutrition is based on the fact that protein and carbs contain approx 4 calories per gram and fat approximately 9 calories per gram and the source of those calories matters not. They base this on the many studies that finds if one reduces calories by X number each day, weight loss is the result and so it goes if you add X number of calories above what you use each day for gaining weight.

However, the "calories in calories out" mantra fails to take into account modern research that finds that fats, carbs, and proteins have very different effects on the metabolism via countless pathways, such as their effects on hormones (e.g., insulin, leptin, glucagon, etc), effects on hunger and appetite, thermic effects (heat production), effects on uncoupling proteins (UCPs), and 1000 other effects that could be mentioned.

Even worse, this school of thought fails to take into account the fact that even within a macro nutrient, they too can have different effects on metabolism. This school of thought ignores the ever mounting volume of studies that have found diets with different macro nutrient ratios with identical calorie intakes have different effects on body composition, cholesterol levels, oxidative stress, etc.

Translated, not only is the mantra "a calorie us a calorie" proven to be false, "all fats are created equal" or "protein is protein" is also incorrect. For example, we no know different fats (e.g. fish oils vs. saturated fats) have vastly different effects on metabolism and health in general, as we now know different carbohydrates have their own effects (e.g. high GI vs. low GI), as we know different proteins can have unique effects.

The "Calories Don't Matter" School Of Thought

This school of thought will typically tell you that if you eat large amounts of some particular macro nutrient in their magic ratios, calories don't matter. For example, followers of ketogenic style diets that consist of high fat intakes and very low carbohydrate intakes (i.e., Atkins, etc.) often maintain calories don't matter in such a diet.

Others maintain if you eat very high protein intakes with very low fat and carbohydrate intakes, calories don't matter. Like the old school, this school fails to take into account the effects such diets have on various pathways and ignore the simple realities of human physiology, not to mention the laws of thermodynamics!

The reality is, although it's clear different macro nutrients in different amounts and ratios have different effects on weight loss, fat loss, and other metabolic effects, calories do matter. They always have and they always will. The data, and real world experience of millions of dieters, is quite clear on that reality.

The truth behind such diets is that they are often quite good at suppressing appetite and thus the person simply ends up eating fewer calories and losing weight. Also, the weight loss from such diets is often from water vs. fat, at least in the first few weeks. That's not to say people can't experience meaningful weight loss with some of these diets, but the effect comes from a reduction in calories vs. any magical effects often claimed by proponents of such diets.

Weight Loss Vs. Fat Loss!

This is where we get into the crux of the true debate and why the two schools of thought are not actually as far apart from one another as they appear to the untrained eye. What has become abundantly clear from the studies performed and real world evidence is that to lose weight we need to use more calories than we take in (via reducing calorie intake and or increasing exercise), but we know different diets have different effects on the metabolism, appetite, body composition, and other physiological variables...

Brink's Unified Theory of Nutrition

...Thus, this reality has led me to Brink's Unified Theory of Nutrition which states:

"Total calories dictates how much weight a person gains or loses; macro nutrient ratios dictates what a person gains or loses"

This seemingly simple statement allows people to understand the differences between the two schools of thought. For example, studies often find that two groups of people put on the same calorie intakes but very different ratios of carbs, fats, and proteins will lose different amounts of bodyfat and or lean body mass (i.e., muscle, bone, etc.).

Some studies find for example people on a higher protein lower carb diet lose approximately the same amount of weight as another group on a high carb lower protein diet, but the group on the higher protein diet lost more actual fat and less lean body mass (muscle). Or, some studies using the same calorie intakes but different macro nutrient intakes often find the higher protein diet may lose less actual weight than the higher carb lower protein diets, but the actual fat loss is higher in the higher protein low carb diets. This effect has also been seen in some studies that compared high fat/low carb vs. high carb/low fat diets. The effect is usually amplified if exercise is involved as one might expect.

Of course these effects are not found universally in all studies that examine the issue, but the bulk of the data is clear: diets containing different macro nutrient ratios do have different effects on human physiology even when calorie intakes are identical (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11).

Or, As The Authors Of One Recent Study That Looked At The Issue Concluded:

"Diets with identical energy contents can have different effects on leptin concentrations, energy expenditure, voluntary food intake, and nitrogen balance, suggesting that the physiologic adaptations to energy restriction can be modified by dietary composition."(12)

The point being, there are many studies confirming that the actual ratio of carbs, fats, and proteins in a given diet can effect what is actually lost (i.e., fat, muscle, bone, and water) and that total calories has the greatest effect on how much total weight is lost. Are you starting to see how my unified theory of nutrition combines the "calorie is a calorie" school with the "calories don't matter" school to help people make decisions about nutrition?

Knowing this, it becomes much easier for people to understand the seemingly conflicting diet and nutrition advice out there (of course this does not account for the down right unscientific and dangerous nutrition advice people are subjected to via bad books, TV, the 'net, and well meaning friends, but that's another article altogether).

Knowing the above information and keeping the Unified Theory of Nutrition in mind, leads us to some important and potentially useful conclusions:

* An optimal diet designed to make a person lose fat and retain as much LBM as possible is not the same as a diet simply designed to lose weight.

* A nutrition program designed to create fat loss is not simply a reduced calorie version of a nutrition program designed to gain weight, and visa versa.

* Diets need to be designed with fat loss, NOT just weight loss, as the goal, but total calories can't be ignored.

* This is why the diets I design for people-or write about-for gaining or losing weight are not simply higher or lower calorie versions of the same diet. In short: diets plans I design for gaining LBM start with total calories and build macro nutrient ratios into the number of calories required. However, diets designed for fat loss (vs. weight loss!) start with the correct macro nutrient ratios that depend on variables such as amount of LBM the person carries vs. bodyfat percent , activity levels, etc., and figure out calories based on the proper macro nutrient ratios to achieve fat loss with a minimum loss of LBM. The actual ratio of macro nutrients can be quite different for both diets and even for individuals.

* Diets that give the same macro nutrient ratio to all people (e.g., 40/30/30, or 70,30,10, etc.) regardless of total calories, goals, activity levels, etc., will always be less than optimal. Optimal macro nutrient ratios can change with total calories and other variables.

* Perhaps most important, the unified theory explains why the focus on weight loss vs. fat loss by the vast majority of people, including most medical professionals, and the media, will always fail in the long run to deliver the results people want.

* Finally, the Universal Theory makes it clear that the optimal diet for losing fat, or gaining muscle, or what ever the goal, must account not only for total calories, but macro nutrient ratios that optimize metabolic effects and answer the questions: what effects will this diet have on appetite? What effects will this diet have on metabolic rate? What effects will this diet have on my lean body mass (LBM)? What effects will this diet have on hormones; both hormones that may improve or impede my goals? What effects will this diet have on (fill in the blank)?

Simply asking, "how much weight will I lose?" is the wrong question which will lead to the wrong answer. To get the optimal effects from your next diet, whether looking to gain weight or lose it, you must ask the right questions to get meaningful answers.

Asking the right questions will also help you avoid the pitfalls of unscientific poorly thought out diets which make promises they can't keep and go against what we know about human physiology and the very laws of physics!

People that want to know my thoughts on the correct way to lose fat should read my ebook Diet Supplements Revealed, see this website http://www.aboutsupplements.com

If you want to know my thoughts on the best way to set up a diet to gain weight in the form of muscle while minimizing bodyfat, consider reading my ebook Muscle Building Nutrition (AKA Brink's Bodybuilding Bible) at this web site: http://www.musclebuildingnutrition.com .

BTW, both ebooks also cover supplements for their respective goals along with exercise advice.

There are of course many additional questions that can be asked and points that can be raised as it applies to the above, but those are some of the key issues that come to mind. Bottom line here is, if the diet you are following to either gain or loss weight does not address those issues and or questions, then you can count on being among the millions of disappointed people who don't receive the optimal results they had hoped for and have made yet another nutrition "guru" laugh all the way to the bank at your expense.

Any diet that claims calories don't matter, forget it. Any diet that tells you they have a magic ratio of foods, ignore it. Any diet that tells you any one food source is evil, it's a scam. Any diet that tells you it will work for all people all the time no matter the circumstances, throw it out or give it to someone you don't like!

-------------------
Article References:
-------------------

(1) Farnsworth E, Luscombe ND, Noakes M, Wittert G, Argyiou E, Clifton PM. Effect of a high-protein, energy-restricted diet on body composition, glycemic control, and lipid concentrations in overweight and obese hyperinsulinemic men and women. Am J Clin Nutr. 2003 Jul;78(1):31-9.

(2) Baba NH, Sawaya S, Torbay N, Habbal Z, Azar S, Hashim SA. High protein vs high carbohydrate hypoenergetic diet for the treatment of obese hyperinsulinemic subjects. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1999 Nov;23(11):1202-6.

(3) Parker B, Noakes M, Luscombe N, Clifton P. Effect of a high- protein, high-monounsaturated fat weight loss diet on glycemic control and lipid levels in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2002 Mar;25(3):425-30.

(4) Skov AR, Toubro S, Ronn B, Holm L, Astrup A.Randomized trial on protein vs carbohydrate in ad libitum fat reduced diet for the treatment of obesity. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1999 May;23(5):528-36.

(5) Piatti PM, Monti F, Fermo I, Baruffaldi L, Nasser R, Santambrogio G, Librenti MC, Galli-Kienle M, Pontiroli AE, Pozza G. Hypocaloric high-protein diet improves glucose oxidation and spares lean body mass: comparison to hypocaloric high- carbohydrate diet. Metabolism. 1994 Dec;43(12):1481-7.

(6) Layman DK, Boileau RA, Erickson DJ, Painter JE, Shiue H, Sather C, Christou DD. A reduced ratio of dietary carbohydrate to protein improves body composition and blood lipid profiles during weight loss in adult women. J Nutr. 2003 Feb;133(2):411-7.

(7) Golay A, Eigenheer C, Morel Y, Kujawski P, Lehmann T, de Tonnac N. Weight-loss with low or high carbohydrate diet? Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1996 Dec;20(12):1067-72.

(8) Meckling KA, Gauthier M, Grubb R, Sanford J. Effects of a hypocaloric, low-carbohydrate diet on weight loss, blood lipids, blood pressure, glucose tolerance, and body composition in free- living overweight women. Can J Physiol Pharmacol. 2002 Nov;80(11):1095-105.

(9) Borkman M, Campbell LV, Chisholm DJ, Storlien LH. Comparison of the effects on insulin sensitivity of high carbohydrate and high fat diets in normal subjects. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1991 Feb;72(2):432-7.

(10) Brehm BJ, Seeley RJ, Daniels SR, D'Alessio DA. A randomized trial comparing a very low carbohydrate diet and a calorie- restricted low fat diet on body weight and cardiovascular risk factors in healthy women. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2003 Apr;88(4):1617-23.

(11) Garrow JS, Durrant M, Blaza S, Wilkins D, Royston P, Sunkin S. The effect of meal frequency and protein concentration on the composition of the weight lost by obese subjects. Br J Nutr. 1981 Jan;45(1):5-15.

(12) Agus MS, Swain JF, Larson CL, Eckert EA, Ludwig DS. Dietary composition and physiologic adaptations to energy restriction.Am J Clin Nutr. 2000 Apr;71(4):901-7.

About the Author

Will Brink writes for numerous health, fitness, medical, and bodybuilding publications. His articles can be found in Life Extension Magazine, Muscle n Fitness, Inside Karate, Exercise For Men Only, Oxygen, Women's World, The Townsend Letter For Doctors and many more. His website is http://www.brinkzone.com

Fitness Article - The Simplest Weight Loss Tips No One Follows

Copyright © 2006 Will Brink
Diet Supplements Revealed
http://aboutsupplements.com

I have a Cheez-It problem. You're not listening, I really have a Cheez-It problem! I have never met a Cheez-It I didn't like.* Some people can't resist chocolate or ice cream, some people it's pizza or some other food or sweet. While I enjoy all of those foods on occasion, Cheez-It's are the food equivalent of crack cocaine for me.

It takes all my willpower to pass up the isle where the Cheez- It's reside on the shelves at my local grocery store. My ever- loving girl friend Kimberly rolls her eyes at me in shear disgust when she sees how weak I am to the power of these little crackers, which draw me in like a cheese flavored black hole. 'But you have given advice on nutrition to millions of people Will, how could you of all people be so weak willed about some little cheese flavored cracker?!?' she says. I hang my head in shame and avoid eye contact with her for the rest of the day.

The point of this introduction is to point out we all have our weaknesses and we are all human'even me. I find Cheez-It's to be cheese flavored morphine!

This small problem got me to thinking. If there is one thing I have learned after all these years of doing nutritional research, writing countless articles on the topic of nutrition, and working directly with people on their diets, it's this: it's rarely one single thing a person does that is sabotaging their efforts to lose fat and or gain muscle, but a bunch of little things that have an accumulated effect.

There are some amazingly simple behaviors and strategies we can all add to our nutritional goals and workout plans that will have a positive effect. Using my own addiction to Cheez-It's as the primary example, I am going to cover a few of these surprisingly simple yet effective strategies. A few issues to keep in mind:

(1) Taken alone, these simple tactics will have very little effect. Used alone without any other dietary changes and an exercise plan, these strategies wont amount to much. However, as I mentioned, it's often many minor mistakes adding up to a lack of results for people, and taken in that context, these are some simple mistakes that can be avoided, hopefully resulting in an accumulated effect in a positive direction.

(2) I didn't invent any of these tips. They are some of the oldest and simplest tips you will ever read. I don't even know who first came up with them, and I bet most people have seen these strategies in other places, such as various diet books, articles, or web sites. I do however think that they may be so old and so simple that most people with the best of intentions about their nutrition and exercise plan, don't follow these simple concepts.

These tips are more about behavior changes and psychology then nutritional science, study results, or research. I have written many articles based on the later topics, but this is not one of those. If you are looking for more in-depth science oriented information about nutrition, supplements, and fat loss or gaining muscle, I suggest reading my ebooks on the topic and the many free article on my web site.

Tip #1: Never Ever Go Food Shopping Hungry

This is one of the most effective strategies I know of to avoid unwanted junk and various snacks from finding their way into your shopping cart, which ends up in your home, which ends up on your butt!

Make sure to eat something before you go food shopping and you will be able to resist the junk that often finds its way into your cart. If I go food shopping without a good meal in my stomach, I often come home with a family sized box of Cheez-It's and feel like sh*t for days after eating the entire box!

Human hunger and appetite are regulated by a phenomenally complicated set of overlapping feedback networks, involving a long list of hormones, psychological factors, and others way beyond the scope of this article. Suffice to say, we often make snap decisions and impulse purchases with certain foods due to one or more of these feedback loops being activated due to an empty stomach while we shop.

Translated, your 'willpower' to resist junk foods will be much greater if you eat something healthy at least 20-30 minutes before you go food shopping. You can either plan your meal schedule so that one meal is eaten before you go shopping, or have a snack (at least 20-30 minutes before shopping) which will have the desired effects.

A yogurt with some flax oil mixed in is a good choice, as is a half cup of cottage cheese and a handful of walnuts or some other nut. A protein shake or MRP will suffice, but solid food tends to be more satiating.

Tip # 2: Never Keep Snack Foods In The House

This tip is a logical extension of tip number one. If it does not make it into your cart at the food store, it's not in your house. However, many people use excuses like 'I have snack foods for the kids' or 'my spouse keeps a box of Oreo cookies in the kitchen cupboard' as reasons they can't avoid the snacks that sneak into their diets and sabotage their efforts.

Many of the foods we eat that we know we should not be eating are based on an impulse. Impulse control goes a long way here but no one will deny it's far harder to resist that impulse if your favorite junk food is under your nose. That's human nature. When I have an impulse for some Cheez-it's, I wont resist it well if it's only a few steps to the kitchen vs. having to get in the car to go get a box.

The former I can't resist, the latter I can. Remember an impulse is defined as 'a sudden desire, urge, inclination.' That means it's short lived and will go away given sufficient time, so it's a matter of not having foods in your house that allow you to act on the impulse while it lasts.

As for the excuse of the spouse, kids, etc. That is more an issue between your kids and or your spouse. Should the kids be eating that stuff anyway' No! I had a client tell me one day 'I keep eating hot dogs 'cause I keep them in the house fort the kids.' I said 'so you're Ok with feeding your kids foods you know to be unhealthy for you and them?' She stopped feeding her family hot dogs shortly after'.

...Bottom line here is, those foods should be occasional treats for both kids and adults, not staple foods that can be found in your kitchen. It's more an issue of teaching the kids good dietary habits young so they don't end up overweight unhealthy adults.

As for the spouse, I like to have some chips in the house, which I can resist without a problem. That is, unlike the Cheez-it's, I can walk past the chips without having to eat them all. I can regulate myself with them. However, Kimberly can't. Chips are to her what Cheez-it's are to me, so I make it a rule not to keep chips in the house.

Point being, your spouse needs to support your efforts by making some small sacrifices. If you were an alcoholic trying to avoid alcohol, you would (or at least should!) expect your significant other to not keep booze in the house. If they wont support your efforts here, then relationship counseling is in order or a long talk, and I can't help you there; sorry!

Tip # 3: Eat Off Of Smaller Plates

The first two tips are common sense, this one is less so. However, I find it helps, albeit not to a great extent. Again, how much we eat is based on many variables. One of them is the visual cues we get looking at the food we are about to eat. We are extremely visually oriented creatures and part of deciding how large an object is must be compared to other objects, in this case, the food we put on the plate in comparison to the size of the plate we put the food on. Some of you may remember this little visual test from grade school.

Looking at these two horizontal lines below, which one is longer?

Answer: both lines are identical in length. As you can see, the bottom "plate" looks longer then top "plate", yet they are the same length. It's a visual illusion that shows how our brains are set up to interpret certain visual cues. It is my experience that people will put less food on their plate if they eat from smaller plates as a smaller plate full of food looks like much more to eat then a large plate with the same amount of food on it.

I know for myself I tend to put 2 slices of pizza on a small plate and three on a large plate! Now this is only one minor cue we have to self regulating how much food we eat, and other feedback loops (i.e., hormonal, psychological, etc.) can kick in and easily offset this strategy.

For example, you could simply come back for a second helping using the smaller plates. However, it's my hunch (and it's only a hunch as research is lacking here) that over the course of say a month, a person may end up taking in fewer total calories using this strategy as has been my (admittedly anecdotal) experience with both myself and the many people I have given advice to over the years.

Again, as already mentioned, taken alone, this strategy will probably have no effects on your efforts to lose fat if there is not a specific diet and exercise plan involved in the overall equation. It is however one simple small change that may improve compliancy to your efforts. It would be interesting to see a study on this, but whatever effects it may have, would be subtle and fairly small I suspect. Even so, over the course of a year say, it may help.

Tip #4: Know Thy Self

Lesson here is, we are all human and we all have our weaknesses. Trick is to know your weakness and develop strategies for coping with them. How well do you know yourself' That is, do you know what cues/triggers tend to set you off' Have you examined that issue for yourself' It's essential to recognized the cues that sabotage your efforts. We all have them. Find yours and take steps to avoid them where possible.

For example, try making a list outlining the things you know tend to set you off and how you react to the, then add a column for how you could deal with it. For example you might write 'talking to my crazy mother makes me anxious and I eat things I shouldn't immediately after the phone conversation' which would be followed by a suggestion of steps to change it, such as 'always eat a meal right before talking to mom' and 'only take calls from mom when I am ready and able to deal with her' and 'go for a walk immediately after talking to mom to distress and give me time to get over impulse to eat junk' and so on.

Develop coping strategies to your known triggers. I know for example going food shopping on an empty stomach means I will most probably end up with a large box of Cheez-it's in my house. I have also found if I go shopping irritated over something I will buy more foods I don't need as food is one of many ways we self medicate looking for some comfort. Hence the term 'comfort foods' which is commonly chocolate, ice cream, and so on.

Bottom line:

* Learn what your hot buttons are that lead to a negative behavior

* Learn to identify when it's happening

* Develop strategies for coping with it.

How do you go about doing that' As entire books have been written on that topic, my advice will fall short here. That journey is also highly individual. For some it's working with a therapist or behavioral specialist, for some it's reading a few good self-help type books, and for some it's activities such as meditation, joining support groups, and others. It's also a life long journey.

Conclusion

The purpose of this article is not as much to supply tips for success in your fat loss endeavors but to actually remind people of what is stated in the intro to this article: most people fail in their fat loss/diet goals not due to a single mistake they are making (with exceptions) but many small events that have an accumulated effect that sabotages their efforts. If the tips in this article help, all the better.

Some people are amazed how many extra calories slip into their diet from snack foods that they are not accounting for, or the fact they tend to take the elevator when they could take the stairs, and so on. 99 out of 100 times the person that says 'I have tried everything and nothing works' actually translates into 'I have not stayed on any one plan long enough for it to have an effect and sabotaged it with small unaccounted for negative habits and behaviors.' Now, if I can just get the funding for that adult Cheez-it rehab center I want to have built'.

* Cheez-It's are a cheese flavored cracker made by Sunshine foods and can be found on the shelves of any major food store in the US.

About the Author

Will Brink writes for numerous health, fitness, medical, and bodybuilding publications. His articles can be found in Life Extension Magazine, Muscle n Fitness, Inside Karate, Exercise For Men Only, Oxygen, Women's World, The Townsend Letter For Doctors and many more. His website is http://www.brinkzone.com