In 2013, a scientific report on fat and cancer baffled scientists and physicians. A usual, the nightly news had a field day with the findings. A massive analysis of all available studies assessing weight status and survival revealed that being overweight or mildly obese was associated with longer survival in a group of individuals.¹ Some evidence even suggested that overweight individuals may have been the healthiest with the lowest risk of cancer. Many, like myself read and watched this in disbelief. Have we been wrong all this time? Was a new French Paradox emerging?

Much like the French Paradox – which is no paradox at all, as many cultures that eat a high fat diet are healthier and live longer than the rest of the world – there was a simple explanation for this finding. Categorizing individuals by body mass index, or BMI, simply divides their body-weight by height squared. This tells us nothing about an individual’s muscle mass, fat mass, or metabolic function. In other words, someone can have a tiny amount of fat, but if they are blessed with substantial muscle, can expect to be labeled in the obese category just the same as someone with minimal muscle mass and a whole lot of fat. While the same on paper, the muscular individual could expect significantly healthier metabolic function, lower circulating blood sugar, insulin, and inflammation, and a much easier time lowering blood sugar after a meal, as their healthy physique leaves them more insulin sensitive. As a result, their pancreas spends less time under stress throughout the day as it does not have to over-perform to balance blood sugar.

In reality, the muscular individual is generally expected to be healthier than someone with a lower BMI and equivalent amount of body fat, as our muscles are more than just push and pull robots embedded around our joints and bones. Muscles make up, in reality, a potent organ that secretes chemicals and hormones that help regulate our metabolism and impact our health. LINK When summoned to lift heavy weights and propel us around the curves of the local track as we run sprints on Saturday mornings, these muscles do more than mobilize. They secrete anti-inflammatory hormones to help lower our risk of cancer, burn sugar to help our pancreas perform its best, and lower the amount of insulin our body needs to keep its sugar levels in check. These changes leave our body more metabolically healthy, more capable of fixing the daily wear and tear on our cells, and with an immune system that is more able to fight disease, infection, and cancer.

Fat, on the other hand, is more than a gooey substance that surrounds our organs and muscles, providing them a blanket of heat and a fuel source between meals. Fat, like muscle, is an endocrine organ that secretes hormones and messages to the rest of the body as a feedback mechanism to let it know how things are going in adipose tissue land. Fat also directly impacts the cells surrounding it, along with the rest of the body.

And this is where the trouble begins…

The Manchurian Cell – The Relationship Between Fat and Cancer

It is as if an innate biological switch is permanently flipped into the “on” position. The cell begins to grow, and then continues to grow. And grow. Throughout the process, it sprouts new blood vessels to provide inroads for additional fuel and nutrition in preparation for even more growth. Hormones, or cellular command messengers, are released, demanding that local cells secrete even more hormones, igniting a chain reaction that attracts vascular cells to blood vessel seed-like agents, eventually sprouting vascular extensions that creep along like the roots of a tree. These roots then extract further fuel and nutrients for the ever-growing cells.

A chain reaction is ignited; the cells eventually secrete more and more hormones until organs located in distant locations are affected. The cells begin to interfere with normal cellular function and all hell breaks loose. The insulin circuit becomes rewired, making it less effective at lowering blood sugar. The decrease in insulin sensitivity eventually leads to a rise in blood sugar, sounding several alarms as the body attempts to fight this dangerous state of hyperglycemia. Stress hormones and inflammation are released, and accumulate throughout the body as it begins to experience metabolic mayhem. This cellular Manchurian candidate acts swiftly to take control of a once normally functioning body. The pancreas is stressed into overdrive as it is required to pick up the slack and produce more insulin than it can handle. The increase in insulin pulls the excess sugar out of the blood and into the expanding cell, supporting further growth and replication, creating a dangerous feedback loop that spirals out of control. The body feels as though it is starving as all the nutrients begin to fill this cellular pandora.

As mayhem is in clear view, the cells are consuming so much of the hosts food that she continually feels hungry, eating more and more. Yet, the cells continue to engorge themselves with no attempt of stopping. She feels as though she is dying of hunger, yet these cells continue to grow massively as she eats more and more food. These cells eventually cause so much disruption that she loses significant muscles mass, and her metabolism begins to fail as her blood sugar rises higher and higher, creating more and more free radical and oxidative damage in her cells, further damaging her normal DNA. This feedback mechanism calls on the pancreas to secrete even more insulin. Eventually, counter to any logic, the havoc wreaked from these cells eventually takes the life of their master.

These fickle cells appear to have turned on their master. But what made them this way?

By the time this cancerous chain of events becomes a systemic problem it is difficult, if not impossible to treat. Chemotherapy, radiation, surgery? Not this cancer, because this cancer is no cancer at all. This cancer is normal fat tissue that has been sent countless commands to stop behaving normally, go rogue, and behave like a cancer. The signal was so consistent that, eventually, it threw in the towel, followed command, and became a Manchurian candidate. The massive number of checks and balances set up to avoid the excessive growth of fat tissue – adipose cells – were finally overwhelmed leaving it no other recourse.

Fat and Cancer are Remarkably Similar

The description above only approaches some of the issues with excess fatty tissue, known as adipose tissue. Fat tissue in our body contains a diversity of unique vessels, cells, and structural components which, together, comprise what is now known as the adipose tissue microenvironment. This environment produces inflammation and sends varying signals to the rest of the body, interfering with immunity, metabolism, and the body’s ability to fight cancer.

As I described this terrible process, you likely contemplated just how terrible cancer can be, and just how much havoc it causes throughout the human body. You would, of course, be wrong. These necessary fatty cells within our body, when turned loose, can unexpectedly closely resemble the deadly disease known as cancer, yet few have ever considered the analogy.

I have come to view fat as, much like cancer, a normal part of our body that goes rogue for some reason. The connections between the description of fat gone awry and cancer, as described above, comes full circle from the multiple studies that reveal an increased risk of cancer in those individuals with excess adipose tissue.² As obesity not only continues to rise, but also presents at an earlier age, perhaps most frightening is the finding that excess bodyfat in children and adolescents increases the risk of cancer later in life.³

Perhaps sealing this connection, is the sinister ability of fat cells to provide nutrients to rapidly growing cancer cells, feeding their expansion and, ultimately, their own demise.^4,5 Furthermore, fat tissue in close proximity cancer cells appears to promote blood vessel formation in those cancer cells, one of the main hallmarks of cancer.⁶ When fat is not acting like cancer, it is acting as its accomplice, helping cancer to survive, grow, and spread.

The Good News – Fat and Cancer

Whereas many of the environmental and internal genetic risks of cancer are difficult to impact, we do have the power to affect our levels of fatty tissue. Furthermore, we have an antidote to the metabolic mischief fat imparts on our body: muscle.

Muscle is an antidote to this fatty cancer. You read that right. Muscle is that antonym to fat, and having excess amounts will help prime our metabolism to lower inflammation and blood sugar, and help reduce potentially cancerous free radical damage. Additionally, exercising those muscles by lifting heavy things forces them to secrete beneficial chemicals that improve our body’s ability to counter harmful inflammation.⁷

While the similarities between cancer and fat are frightening, the differences are encouraging, as they empower us and provide us with an Achilles’ heel where we can strike to improve our overall health and reduce our risk of cancer. Cancer, once established, may leave us with a limited number of viable options to treat it. Excess fat, on the other hand, may be difficult to treat, but we are completely able to rid our body of it while increasing our muscle mass through a healthy lifestyle. Higher amounts of muscle and muscular strength are even associated with lower risks of cancer and better outcomes in those who are battling cancer.^8,9

The benefits of more muscle include:

• Improved insulin sensitivity (less insulin needed to remove sugar from our blood)
• More sugar extracted from our blood by skeletal muscle during exercise and used for energy
• Less cancer-promoting sugar and insulin within our system
• A decrease in the levels of hormones that, over a prolonged period, can lead to cancer. For instance, resistance training increases IGFBP-3, which binds to insulin-like growth factor (IGF), decreasing its ability to promote cancer (growth factors are normal within the human body, but too much can lead to excessive cellular growth, including cancer growth)¹⁰
• Decreased inflammation (which serves as a fertilizer for cancer)
• Increased antioxidant defense, which helps fight potential cancer-causing free-radicals
• Less inflammation-producing bodyfat

Muscles help us edge out the issues with excess fat:

• Adipose-derived Tumor Necrosis Factor (TNF) is inflammatory, while muscle-derived IL-6 is anti-inflammatory.
• Muscle-derived IL-6 signals to our body to break down lipids and burn fat.¹¹
• Adipose-derived TNF causes insulin resistance and impairs glucose uptake by our cells (both leading to increased blood sugar).¹²
• While serious and often fatal events like septic shock cause a sudden release of TNF, excess adipose tissue chronically releases small amounts of harmful TNF.
• Muscle-derived IL-6 helps regulate AMPK (while muscle contraction directly activates AMPK), promoting the breakdown of fat and cholesterol, stimulating our mitochondria, and potentially reducing the risk of cancer.¹³

For more information on how muscles help us edge out the issues of fat, check out the article Muscles Fight Cancer – The Science Behind Outmuscling Cancer. I hope this article has provided some food for thought and insight into the metabolic issues with having too much fat. If you are concerned and looking for somewhere to go to try to lose weight and reduce your amount of excess fatty tissue and risk of cancer, check out the guide I made for my patients A Basic Lifestyle Guide after Breast Cancer Treatment LINK. Otherwise, follow an Intentional Lifestyle, lift heavy weights periodically (regardless of your age, sex or anything else), fast periodically, eat vegetables that promote a healthy immune system, and stick to real nutrient-dense and vitamin-rich foods. If you are looking for an enjoyable way to keep the fat off and stay healthy, The Mediterranean Ketogenic Lifestyle has worked well for me and many of my friends, family members, and patients.

Want more? Subscribe to my monthly newsletter

Fat and Cancer References:

1. 1. Flegal KM, Kit BK, Orpana H, Graubard BI. Association of All-Cause Mortality With Overweight and Obesity Using Standard Body Mass Index Categories. JAMA. 2013;309(1):71. doi:10.1001/jama.2012.113905
   2. Calle EE, Kaaks R. Overweight, obesity and cancer: epidemiological evidence and proposed mechanisms. Nat Rev Cancer. 2004;4(8):579-591. doi:10.1038/nrc1408
   3. Berger NA. Young Adult Cancer: Influence of the Obesity Pandemic. Obesity. 2018;26(4):641-650. doi:10.1002/oby.22137
   4. Nieman KM, Kenny HA, Penicka C V, et al. Adipocytes promote ovarian cancer metastasis and provide energy for rapid tumor growth. Nat Med. 2011;17(11):1498-1503. doi:10.1038/nm.2492
   5. Meyer KA, Neeley CK, Baker NA, et al. Adipocytes promote pancreatic cancer cell proliferation via glutamine transfer. Biochem Biophys Reports. 2016;7:144-149. doi:10.1016/j.bbrep.2016.06.004
   6. Arendt LM, McCready J, Keller PJ, et al. Obesity Promotes Breast Cancer by CCL2-Mediated Macrophage Recruitment and Angiogenesis. Cancer Res. 2013;73(19):6080-6093. doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-13-0926
   7. Pedersen BK. Muscles and their myokines. J Exp Biol. 2011;214(Pt 2):337-346. doi:10.1242/jeb.048074
   8. Ruiz JR, Sui X, Lobelo F, et al. Muscular strength and adiposity as predictors of adulthood cancer mortality in men. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2009;18(5):1468-1476. doi:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-08-1075
   9. Caan BJ, Cespedes Feliciano EM, Prado CM, et al. Association of Muscle and Adiposity Measured by Computed Tomography With Survival in Patients With Nonmetastatic Breast Cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2018;4(6):798. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.0137
   10. Izquierdo M, Ibañez J, González-Badillo JJ, et al. Differential effects of strength training leading to failure versus not to failure on hormonal responses, strength, and muscle power gains. J Appl Physiol. 2006;100(5).
   11. Hall G van, Steensberg A, Sacchetti M, et al. Interleukin-6 Stimulates Lipolysis and Fat Oxidation in Humans. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. July 2013. http://press.endocrine.org/doi/abs/10.1210/jc.2002-021687.
   12. Plomgaard P, Bouzakri K, Krogh-Madsen R, Mittendorfer B, Zierath JR, Pedersen BK. Tumor necrosis factor-alpha induces skeletal muscle insulin resistance in healthy human subjects via inhibition of Akt substrate 160 phosphorylation. Diabetes. 2005;54(10):2939-2945. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16186396.
   13. Shackelford DB, Shaw RJ. The LKB1-AMPK pathway: metabolism and growth control in tumour suppression. Nat Rev Cancer. 2009;9(8):563-575. doi:nrc2676 [pii]10.1038/nrc2676

© 2019 CDR Health and Nutrition, LLC. All Rights Reserved.

The post The Manchurian Cell – The Relationship Between Fat and Cancer and Why Muscle Matters appeared first on Caveman Doctor.

Read More

The hypothesis that blood cholesterol levels are positively correlated with heart disease (the lipid hypothesis) dates back to Rudolph Virchow in the mid-1800s.

One famous study that supported this hypothesis was Ancel Keys’s Seven Countries Study, conducted between the 1950s and 1970s. This study eventually served as the foundation on which much of the advice that we receive today from doctors is based, even though several other studies have been published since that provide little support for the lipid hypothesis.

The graph below (from O Primitivo) shows the results of one study, involving many more countries than Key’s Seven Countries Study, that actually suggests a NEGATIVE linear correlation between total cholesterol and cardiovascular disease.

Now, most relationships in nature are nonlinear, with quite a few following a pattern that looks like a U-curve (plain or inverted); sometimes called a J-curve pattern. The graph below (also from O Primitivo) shows the U-curve relationship between total cholesterol and mortality, with cardiovascular disease mortality indicated through a dotted red line at the bottom.

This graph has been obtained through a nonlinear analysis, and I think it provides a better picture of the relationship between total cholesterol (TC) and mortality. Based on this graph, the best range of TC that one can be at is somewhere between 210, where cardiovascular disease mortality is minimized; and 220, where total mortality is minimized.

The total mortality curve is the one indicated through the full blue line at the top. In fact, it suggests that mortality increases sharply as TC decreases below 200.

Now, these graphs relate TC with disease and mortality, and say nothing about LDL cholesterol (LDL). In my own experience, and that of many people I know, a TC of about 200 will typically be associated with a slightly elevated LDL (e.g., 110 to 150), even if one has a high HDL cholesterol (i.e., greater than 60).

Yet, most people who have a LDL greater than 100 will be told by their doctors, usually with the best of the intentions, to take statins, so that they can “keep their LDL under control”. (LDL levels are usually calculated, not measured directly, which itself creates a whole new set of problems.)

Alas, reducing LDL to 100 or less will typically reduce TC below 200. If we go by the graphs above, especially the one showing the U-curves, these folks’ risk for cardiovascular disease and mortality will go up – exactly the opposite effect that they and their doctors expected. And that will cost them financially as well, as statin drugs are expensive, in part to pay for all those TV ads.

Read More

The release of the new cholesterol guidelines on Nov. 10, 2018, shows that the American Heart Association and Co. have doubled down on the cholesterol theory of heart disease and the related notion that statins are the solution to everything.

The new guidelines say we should aim for lower LDL numbers—“as low as possible, in some cases less than 70”, said GMA’s chief medical correspondent Dr. Jen Ashton. When asked if statins were safe, Ashton replied emphatically, “One-hundred percent!” adding that we should use statins even more aggressively in pursuit of lower cholesterol numbers—“at whatever dose is necessary”, says Ashton)

It’s the greatest marketing plan for a drug I’ve seen in my lifetime. And it will undoubtedly work.

The AHA has evidentially learned the lesson of modern-day politics: double down and play to your base. In this case, the “base” consists of doctors and patients who have never shown much inclination to question the party line on cholesterol, and seem blissfully unaware of the raging debate about the continued relevance of cholesterol lowering as we know it.

The debate on cholesterol and heart disease affects their life about as much as the Russia investigation impacts the life of a farmer in Iowa, which is to say not at all. The overworked docs get a lot of their info from pharmaceutical reps and from studies sponsored by Big Pharma. And the patients listen to the doctor. It’s a nice solid base from which you can control the narrative (and the policies) on heart disease and the drugs that treat it. Modern-day politics shows that if you have an enthusiastic base that supports a policy—like lowering cholesterol because it “causes heart disease” — your policy can win the day, even when it’s completely wrong.

As Upton Sinclair said, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it”.

Screening should start at age 2. On what planet was that, again?

The new guidelines also suggest screening for cholesterol at as early as two years old.

Let’s look at that one for just a sec, shall we? Fact one: Cholesterol is absolutely essential to brain development. You need it for memory and thinking. Without cholesterol, your brain is pretty much screwed. Fact two: Your kid’s brain doesn’t get fully developed until about age 25 when the cerebral cortex finally comes online.

Now put those two facts together and do the math.

We still have free speech in this country, so let me say this very clearly: In my opinion, putting a child with a developing cholesterol-dependent brain on a cholesterol lowering medication is medical malpractice.

Statins in the water supply?

As far as statins being safe for everybody, that’s patently and demonstrably false. How do we know? From groundbreaking peer-reviewed research by Beatrice Golumb of Stanford University.

Statins produce a laundry list of side effects—from muscle pain to memory loss to plunging libido—and, as Golumb’s research shows, about 65% of doctors don’t report these ADR’s (adverse drug reactions) to the FDA.

Why, you ask? The doctors don’t “believe” these side effects were caused by statins, (which, of course, is exactly what the statin manufacturers say! Quelle surprise!) Research shows that most doctors strongly believe they themselves are not susceptible to drug- company marketing influences, though the research shows the exact opposite.

The next era in personalized medicine? Not so fast…

The new guidelines are being marketed as the “next phase in personalized medicine”. Not even close. What the AMA and Co. is doing here a classic marketing ploy—take a buzzword everyone is talking about (personalized medicine) and slap it on your product so it seems relevant, even if your product is as unrelated to the buzzword as a peacock is to a salamander.

Personalized medicine—which nearly everyone agrees is the future of medicine and nutrition—involves very specialized and detailed genetic testing that can help suggest the proper dose of any medicine or nutrient for a given individual. The new cholesterol guidelines have zero to do with cardiometabolic genetic testing, and everything to do with giving this old, tired package of recycled and outdated ideas the appearance of being “current” and “cool”.

Did someone mention triglycerides?

It’s worth noting that, in this 120-or-so page report, no guidelines were provided for the treatment of triglycerides. This is a clue to the real agenda of the AHA, a clue that’s hiding in plain sight. Here’s why.

Triglycerides—a form of fat that can be measured in the blood—are a serious risk factor for heart attack and stroke. The very telling Triglyceride: HDL ratio—which you can calculate yourself from any blood test (just divide HDL number into Triglyceride number)—is an extremely important indicator of your risk for cardiovascular disease (as well as other cardiometabolic diseases like diabetes). We want triglycerides to be low, and since the guidelines are, after all, about lowering blood lipids (both cholesterol and triglycerides fit into that category), you’d think someone would address the triglyceride problem.

Nope. No recommendation from the committee on how to lower triglycerides.

Here’s my guess as to why. There’s no good drug for lowering triglycerides.

However, there is a treatment for high triglycerides that’s effective close to 100% of the time. It’s called a low-carb diet.

In study after study after study (just Google Professor Jeff Volek) triglycerides drop like a rock on a very low-carb diet, and with it the risk factors for heart disease.

Will the real agenda please stand up?

It’s my opinion that the main agenda of the committee wasn’t lowering the risk for heart disease. The main agenda of the committee was expanding the market for statin drugs.

And they couldn’t have written a better business plan to accomplish that than the new cholesterol guidelines. Congratulations, boys. Statin shareholders, get out your kazoos. The rest of us should start getting second opinions from doctors trained in functional medicine, and others—like licensed NDs—who are not in the powerful shadow of statin drug makers.

And please—if you want my opinion– run the other way if your doctor suggests a statin for your two-year-old.

Read More

Beautycounter Spring Sale // 15% OFF SITEWIDE

With it being Spring and all, we tend to use this season to “clean up” our life is some way or another. Often we think about incorporating more fresh foods, increasing our amount of movement outdoors, and purging our closets. But what about our personal care products? It seems to me like this area of our lives is often forgotten. When you actually stop and read the ingredient labels on your products (yep, they have labels like food), you will probably be quite shocked by what’s lurking in your daily go-tos. Due to the lack of regulation in the beauty industry, toxic and potentially harmful chemicals are allowed in your products without a bat of an eye. The words “natural” and “organic” don’t carry much significance when it comes to the safety of personal care products.

So what can you do? Download the EWG’s Healthy Living App or use their Skin Deep Database to research the safety of your cosmetic and personal care products.

This is one of my all-time favorite resources for helping to select products, especially when the ingredient labels are difficult to dissect. You can scan the product directly on your phone and it will rate its safety based on the ingredients. Keep in mind that not all products are listed in the app because companies are not required to disclose their ingredients (really, the lack of regulation in the 62 billion dollar beauty industry is unreal!).

Here are 5 ingredients to watch out for when reading ingredient labels on your skincare products:

1. Parabens

Parabens are a preservatives commonly used to prevent the growth of bacteria and mold. Parabens are endocrine (hormone) disruptors, which may alter important hormone mechanisms in our bodies. Methylparaben, isobutylparaben, propylparaben are the most common in personal care products and are concerning as they have estrogen-mimicking properties that may play a role in triggering certain cancers.

2. Phthalates

3. Fragrance 

4. Formaldehyde

Formaldehyde is used in cosmetic products as a preservative and to prevent bacterial growth. This chemical was deemed as a human carcinogen by The International Agency for Research on Carcinogens and has also been linked to asthma, neurotoxicity, and developmental toxicity.

5. Oxybenzone 

Oxybenzone is a chemical sunscreen agent and ultraviolet light absorber which was added to nearly 65 percent of the non-mineral sunscreens in EWG’s 2018 sunscreen database. Oxybenzone may cause allergic skin reactions and possible hormone disruption. Hawaii just passed a bill banning sunscreens containing oxybenzone and octinoxate because studies have shown they have been linked to the bleaching of coral reefs.

All in all, I think it’s just a matter of picking your battles and finding out what changes make sense for you. A whole lifestyle change can be overwhelming, but making little changes one at a time adds up in the long run. For example, switch out your body moisturizer and body wash first (those that you use on your entire body) and then, as your products run out, try a new shampoo, cleanser, moisturizer, etc. Any change you can make is a positive one.

Safer Option: Beautycounter

Beautycounter is committed to a health and safety standard that goes well beyond what is legally required in the United States. Beautycounter excludes more than 1,500 questionable or harmful ingredients. Their high-performing, indulgent products are made mostly from responsibly sourced, plant-based ingredients and are rigorously screened to avoid potentially health disruptive ingredients on The Never List. This list includes the five ingredients above along with thousands of other ingredients that have been associated with a variety of health disturbances.

Beautycounter Spring Sale // 15% OFF SITEWIDE 

My Spring Must-Haves:

Overnight Resurfacing Peel – a.k.a. the miracle worker! The texture of my skin has improved so much since using this peel 3-4x a week. It’s gentle, but high-performing with 15 botanically-derived acids that both exfoliate and sooth the skin.

Dew Skin Tinted Moisturizer – I am obsessed with the sheer, dewy, lightweight coverage of this tinted moisturizer with SPF 20. This is my daily face sunscreen/makeup that also provides moisture and a bit of color.

Satin Powder Blush in Nectar – I have been loving this peachy blush to add a pop of color to my minimalist makeup routine. I plan to wear it all spring and summer with my favorite Luminous Powder Highlighter in Halo.

Questions?

If you’re not sure what products would be best for your skin type, fill out this quick questionnaire and I’ll send you an email with personalized recommendations.

Keep in mind that Beautycounter has a 60 day return policy. I have confidence you will love what you get, but if you don’t for any reason, you can return products for a full refund.

Cheers to spring cleaning & safer skincare!

#mc_embed_signup{background:#fff; clear:left; font:14px Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; }
/* Add your own Mailchimp form style overrides in your site stylesheet or in this style block.
We recommend moving this block and the preceding CSS link to the HEAD of your HTML file. */

Disclosure: Please keep in mind that I’m not an esthetician. This information is based on my own research, personal experiences and training as a Beautycounter Consultant. 

Read More

The post #218: Unsupportive Family and Friends, Supplement Timing, & Anxiety About Pregnancy and Weight appeared first on Coconuts & Kettlebells.

Read More

Deep section wheels can make a significant difference to triathlon race times but are they always the right choice for race day Janine Doggett looks at the pros and cons

Read More

Lets start by addressing the elephant in the room…at £225, this trainer is PRICEY. That’s more than the Nike Vaporfly 4% or in fact any other running trainers that I know of. And why is it so expensive? Well the…

The post Asics Metaride Trainer Review appeared first on The Runner Beans.

Read More

“It’s my personal goal to expose 1 Million+ people to firearms safety training.” -Aaron Forum, Owner/Operator Shoot Center Back in 2017, we stopped by Fort Myers to say hi to longtime friend and cadre, Aaron, and check out the progress on building his new indoor shooting range, Shoot Center. Now, almost 2 years later we …

Read More