Tuesday 140826


Row 1250m


4x 21-KB Swings (44 lbs M / 35 lbs F) 15-Goblet Squats (use the same KB) 9-HR Push-ups

From The Atlantic

Rich People Exercise, Poor People Take Diet Pills

Robert Bejil/Flickr

Poor people—and poor women in particular—are more likely to be overweight and obese. But what makes the obesity epidemic such a tough problem to solve is that the poorest Americans are also less likely to use proven weight-loss strategies, relying instead on quick fixes like diet pills.

For a new study published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, researchers from Concordia University looked at the incomes and health habits of more than 3,000 children and teens between the ages of 8 and 19 and more than 5,000 adults over the age of 20.

At least two-thirds of the study subjects reported attempting to reduce food intake or exercising in order to lose weight in the past year. Despite these efforts, the adults in the study gained an average of three pounds, while the youths gained about 12 pounds. The people in the lower income brackets gained about two pounds more than those in the highest one.

One reason for the disparity might have to do with the tactics they used to try to shed pounds: Compared to adults making $75,000 or more, those making less than $20,000 were 50 percent less likely to exercise, 42 percent less likely to drink a lot of water, and 25 percent less likely to eat less fat and sweets. And adults making between $20,000 and $75,000 were about 50 percent more likely to use over-the-counter diet pills, which aren’t proven to work.

The data for the young people were similar: The poorest among them were 33 percent less likely to exercise, but they were twice as likely to skip meals as the richest ones. Skipping meals, too, isn’t a sure-fire way to slim down.

Healthy food is more expensive than junk food, and as our colleagues at Quartz reported, people on food stamps tend to purchase cheap, unhealthy products in an attempt to stretch their food budgets. But as the authors of this study point out, it’s not always a financial issue. Water is (mostly) free, after all, but the low-income people drank less of it. Meanwhile, diet pills cost money.

Instead, it might be that the stressful lives of poor people make sticking to a diet and exercise plan more difficult. It’s hard to exercise when you live in an unsafe neighborhood. Stress leads to emotional eating. You can’t plan for gym time when you only know your work schedule three days in advance.

An emerging body of research helps explain how the stress of poverty hampers the decision-making process. A study in Science last year found that poverty equates to a mental burden similar to losing 13 IQ points. Another study just published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology found that people who experienced economic uncertainty gave up on solving a difficult puzzle faster.

As Maria Konnikova wrote in the New York Times, living an unpredictable, erratic life can erode self-control: “If we’re not quite sure when the train will get there, why invest precious time in continuing to wait?”

Often, low-income people aren’t sure what tomorrow will bring. So why waste time trying to diet?

Monday 140310


Dead Lift – 80% x5, 4, 3, 2 and 1


Use 155 lbs or 69% of your max for the math and complete:

21/15/9 of:
Games Push-ups
200m Run

from The Pittsburgh Post Gazette

Springing forward for daylight saving time triggers debate

By Richard Webner / Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

One morning in 1784, Benjamin Franklin was sleeping in his house in Paris when a ray of sunshine woke him up.

Instead of closing the shutters and resuming his slumber, Franklin dwelled on the virtue of waking up with the sun, calculating that Parisians wasted 64 million pounds of candle wax every six months by staying up after sunset. In a half-serious essay, he proposed waking up the city with church bells and cannons at sunrise and taxing the use of candles at night.

Now, 230 years later, Franklin’s idea of toying with the public’s sleeping hours for the sake of efficiency has taken hold.

At 2 a.m. Sunday, daylight saving time will go into effect, springing clocks forward an hour in an effort to save energy. The change will deprive you of a precious hour of sleep, or give you more time to enjoy the sunshine after work, depending on how you look at it.

Carol Ash, director of sleep medicine for Meridian Health in New Jersey, said daylight saving time has a serious impact on sleep rhythms.

“There is a clock in your brain. That clock keeps your internal environment in sync with your eternal environment, and the most important signal for that clock is the light,” Dr. Ash said. That internal clock isn’t flexible enough to adjust quickly to the time jump, she said.

Dr. Ash recommended avoiding naps and easing into daylight saving by going to bed 15 minutes earlier every night in the days before the change. Eating cherries or drinking cherry juice also helps, she said, because they contain melatonin, which makes it easier to shift sleeping patterns.

Daylight saving time has spirited opponents who decry the confusion and loss of sleep it causes. In recent years, legislators in Alaska, Florida, Nevada and Tennessee have made unsuccessful attempts to opt out of it.

Opponents have mobilized on the Internet, gathering more than 2,000 signatures on petition2congress.com to end the practice. A Facebook group, “Movement to End Daylight Saving Time Nationwide,” has almost 1,000 likes.

Some academics have questioned the energy-saving aspect of daylight saving time. A study by Matthew Kotchen of Yale University and Laura Grant of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee found that it has increased residential electricity use by about one percent.

In spite of this opposition, the reign of daylight saving time has actually grown in recent years. In an effort to conserve energy, the federal Energy Policy Act of 2005 moved the start date from the first Sunday of April to the second Sunday of March, and the end date from the last Sunday in October to the first Sunday in November.

Among those milling around Market Square Friday afternoon, opinions of daylight saving ranged from ambivalence to tepid support. Tiffany Parker of Churchill didn’t have an opinion.

“I lived through it all my life, so it’s just part of life,” she said.

Others, such as Kara Nelson of South Side, supported the practice. “I’m excited,” she said. “I can come home from work with actual daylight, and not darkness all day long.”

The thought of losing an hour Sunday morning didn’t bother her. “It’ll just give me an extra reason to sleep in longer,” she said.

Our use of daylight saving time dates back to World War I, when Germany moved its clocks back to conserve coal. The United States followed in 1918, thanks in large part to Pittsburgh City Councilman Robert Garland.

Garland lobbied Congress for daylight saving, saying it would give workers more leisure time and help people cultivate war gardens. President Woodrow Wilson recognized his effort by giving him the pens used to sign the bill putting daylight saving into effect, according to Western Pennsylvania Historical Magazine.

When Congress repealed daylight saving in 1919, Garland began a crusade to reinstitute it, earning him the title “Father of Daylight Saving Time.” The practice resumed during World War II and has been followed since then in most states.

Monday 140224


Row 2000m


21 – 225 lbs DL
42-HR Push-ups

15-225 lbs DL
30-HR Push-ups

9-225 lbs DL
18-HR Push-ups

From The Atlantic

How to Save Marriage in America

Traditional matrimony—he brings home the bacon, she cooks it—is dying. But college-educated couples are pointing toward a new model with children at the heart of the union.

What’s happening to American matrimony? In 1960, more than 70 percent of all adults were married, including nearly six in ten twentysomethings. Half a century later, just 20 percent of 18-29-year olds were hitched in 2010. Marriage was the norm for young America. Now it’s the exception.

American marriage is not dying. But it is undergoing a metamorphosis, prompted by a transformation in the economic and social status of women and the virtual disappearance of low-skilled male jobs. The old form of marriage, based on outdated social rules and gender roles, is fading. A new version is emerging—egalitarian, committed, and focused on children.

There was a time when college-educated women were the least likely to be married. Today, they are the most important drivers of the new marriage model. Unlike their European counterparts, increasingly ambivalent about marriage, college graduates in the United States are reinventing marriage as a child-rearing machine for a post-feminist society and a knowledge economy. It’s working, too: Their marriages offer more satisfaction, last longer, and produce more successful children.

The glue for these marriages is not sex, nor religion, nor money. It is a joint commitment to high-investment parenting—not hippy marriages, but “HIP” marriages. And America needs more of them. Right now, these marriages are concentrated at the top of the social ladder, but they offer the best—perhaps the only—hope for saving the institution.

The Marriage Gap

Matrimony is flourishing among the rich but floundering among the poor, leading to a large, corresponding “marriage gap.” Women with at least a BA are now significantly more likely to be married in their early 40s than high-school dropouts:

During the 1960s and 1970s, it looked as if the elite might turn away from this fusty, constricting institution. Instead, they are now its most popular participants. In 2007, American marriage passed an important milestone: It was the first year when rates of marriage by age 30 were higher for college graduates than for non-graduates. Why should we care about the class gap in marriage? First, two-parent households are less likely to raise children in poverty, since two potential earners are better than one. More than half of children in poverty—56.1 percent, to be exact—are being raised by a single mother.

Second, children raised by married parents do better on a range of educational, social and economic outcomes. To take one of dozens of illustrations, Brad Wilcox estimates that children raised by married parents are 44% more likely to go to college. It is, inevitably, fiendishly difficult to tease out cause and effect here: Highly-educated, highly-committed parents, in a loving, stable relationship are likely to raise successful children, regardless of their marital status. It is hard to work out whether marriage itself is making much difference, or whether it is, as many commentators now claim, merely the “capstone” of a successful relationship.

Three Kinds of Marriage                 

The debate over marriage is also hindered by treating it as a monolithic institution. Today, it makes more sense to think of “marriages rather than “marriage.” The legalization of same-sex marriages is only the latest modulation, after divorce, remarriage, cohabitation, step-children, delayed child-bearing, and chosen childlessness.

But even among this multiplicity of marital shapes, it is possible to identity three key motivations for marriage—money, love, and childrearing—and three corresponding kinds of marriage: traditional, romantic, and parental (see Box).

Traditional marriage is being rendered obsolete by feminism and the shift to a non-unionized, service economy. Romantic marriage, based on individual needs and expression, remains largely a figment of our Hollywood-fueled imaginations, and sub-optimal for children. HIP marriages are the future of American marriage—if it has one.

1. Traditional Marriage: Going, Going…

The traditional model of marriage is based Read more Monday 140224