New Study: Interval Training Helps Reduce Belly Fat
By Craig Ballantyne
Conventional wisdom says you can't spot-reduce belly fat. But new wisdom says you can lose that spare tire -- and not the way you think. Forget crunches. A new report says that "high intensity intermittent exercise may result in greater fat loss in the abdomen." In other words, interval training burns stomach fat first, over all other sources of fat on the body.
Professor Steve Boucher, the study's Australian co-author, and his colleagues put young women into two groups:
Group 1: Three workouts per week of 20 minutes of intervals (8 second sprint followed by 12 second recovery) for 15 weeks
Group 2: Three cardio workouts per week of 40 minutes for 15 weeks
Group 1, the interval group, lost a significant amount of abdominal fat.
So why do the intervals work so well?
Boucher believes it has something to do with the increase in hormones called catecholamines (adrenaline is a catecholamine hormone). These increase after intervals, but not after slow cardio. Catecholamines are a fat-burning hormone and there are a lot of catecholamine receptors in belly fat. He thinks the elevated fat-burning hormones from intervals ends up leading to targeted belly fat burning.
Interesting theory. We'll see if more research is able to confirm that hypothesis. Regardless, it's great to see studies showing intervals to be more effective for losing stomach fat than slow cardio workouts.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Best practice for wealth learn and priactice a 'financially valued" skill
He saw my point. I gave him a quick rundown of an idea we've talked about often in ETR - that the best way to make good money and keep making good money (i.e., keep your job) is to learn and practice a "financially valued" skill. It doesn't matter what skill you choose to develop, so long as it's one that will make it easy for you to eventually charge $100 an hour for your time.
The best way to get rich is to own your own business and invest in real estate. But the best way to avoid penury - now and, more important, when you reach "retirement" age - is to be very good at doing something that people will pay good money for.
A hundred dollars an hour is a good minimum number to shoot for. If you worked 50 hours a week at that rate, you'd be making $250,000 a year. Yes, you can make a lot more money than a quarter million bucks a year if you have your own successful business, but in terms of having a reliably high income (one you can earn regardless of how old you are or where you choose to live), having a financially valued skill is the way to go. You can even retire and work on a very-part-time basis... and still have a good income to live on.
Here's a short list of financially valued skills:
knowing how to market
being able to sell
being capable of creating a positive bottom line Those are the premium skills, the ones that - combined with being able to work well with people - will put you at the very top of almost any organization and assure your employment for pretty much as long as you want it.
But there are other, less-valued but still valuable, skills - and I reminded Bruce that he has one: developing information technology.
"That's a liability," he told me. "All the good tech jobs are in India. First, the entry-level jobs - the data-input and basic programming jobs - went. Then, the middle-level jobs. Now, even jobs at the top level are over there. American technicians just can't compete."
I thought of my eldest son, who, despite my warnings, got his degree in computer programming. He recently got his first real job, working for a company in L.A. that does special effects for movies. And I'm sure his bosses love him. But he's a technician - and, from a business point of view, a technician is a necessary expense, not a vital asset.
"Even the most qualified engineer," I told my son, "is viewed by the CEO and shareholders as a cost of doing business. He may be providing a very necessary function in a highly skilled way - but until he can find a way to position himself on the profit side of the ledger, there will always be the risk that he can be replaced by someone cheaper."
The situation that Bruce is in right now proves that point.
Bruce is too strong, too smart, too gifted a person not to be able to find a good job. But in order to do that, he's going to have to make some changes. Instead of continuing to search for a high-paying position where he can "work with people," he's going to have to perfect (maybe even learn from scratch) a financially valued skill. When he sends out his next resume or has his next interview, he'll have to be able to answer one or several of the following questions:
"How will you increase our revenues?"
"How will you reduce our costs?"
"How will you expand our customer base?"
"How will you increase our profits?"
Bruce can make the transition. I hope he does.
The best way to get rich is to own your own business and invest in real estate. But the best way to avoid penury - now and, more important, when you reach "retirement" age - is to be very good at doing something that people will pay good money for.
A hundred dollars an hour is a good minimum number to shoot for. If you worked 50 hours a week at that rate, you'd be making $250,000 a year. Yes, you can make a lot more money than a quarter million bucks a year if you have your own successful business, but in terms of having a reliably high income (one you can earn regardless of how old you are or where you choose to live), having a financially valued skill is the way to go. You can even retire and work on a very-part-time basis... and still have a good income to live on.
Here's a short list of financially valued skills:
knowing how to market
being able to sell
being capable of creating a positive bottom line Those are the premium skills, the ones that - combined with being able to work well with people - will put you at the very top of almost any organization and assure your employment for pretty much as long as you want it.
But there are other, less-valued but still valuable, skills - and I reminded Bruce that he has one: developing information technology.
"That's a liability," he told me. "All the good tech jobs are in India. First, the entry-level jobs - the data-input and basic programming jobs - went. Then, the middle-level jobs. Now, even jobs at the top level are over there. American technicians just can't compete."
I thought of my eldest son, who, despite my warnings, got his degree in computer programming. He recently got his first real job, working for a company in L.A. that does special effects for movies. And I'm sure his bosses love him. But he's a technician - and, from a business point of view, a technician is a necessary expense, not a vital asset.
"Even the most qualified engineer," I told my son, "is viewed by the CEO and shareholders as a cost of doing business. He may be providing a very necessary function in a highly skilled way - but until he can find a way to position himself on the profit side of the ledger, there will always be the risk that he can be replaced by someone cheaper."
The situation that Bruce is in right now proves that point.
Bruce is too strong, too smart, too gifted a person not to be able to find a good job. But in order to do that, he's going to have to make some changes. Instead of continuing to search for a high-paying position where he can "work with people," he's going to have to perfect (maybe even learn from scratch) a financially valued skill. When he sends out his next resume or has his next interview, he'll have to be able to answer one or several of the following questions:
"How will you increase our revenues?"
"How will you reduce our costs?"
"How will you expand our customer base?"
"How will you increase our profits?"
Bruce can make the transition. I hope he does.
Salary rankings for the US overall, top 1% has as much wealth as bottom 30%
Where Do You Stand on America's Wealth Spectrum?
by Lee Eisenberg
Thursday, November 1, 2007
The best way to give people a sense of where they stand is to lay out some data. Every three years the Federal Reserve Board conducts a national survey that tracks the financial health of American households.
The Fed slices and dices this stuff with the vigor of an Iron Chef; the result is a rich, if dry, array of offerings on household net worth, pension and income levels, plus other demographic side dishes.
Whenever I slip these tidbits into cocktail party chatter, people are surprised to realize how little money it takes to win a gold star from the Fed. If you and yours are bringing in $40,000 a year, you're doing better than half the households in America.
Or, as a Washington think tank recently pointed out: If you're a teacher married to a policeman, your combined household income puts you in the top 25 percent of all households in the nation.
Below you'll find the average income picture sliced into income levels. Think of this chart as a parking ramp. If your household income is $170,000, you're among the nation's top 10 percent wage earners and get to park on the top floor.
Anything in six figures means you're in the top 20 percent and get to park on the floor right below.
Annual income parking ramp
Income level (percentile) Median income (rounded)
Level VI (90 to 100) $170,000
Level V (80 to 89.9) $99,000
Level IV (60 to 79.9) $65,000
Level III (40 to 59.9) $40,000
Level II (20 to 39.9) $24,000
Level I (less than 20) $10,000
Source: Before-Tax Family Income, 2001 Federal Reserve Board Survey
So does making $170,000 a year make a person rich? Last year a plurality of respondents (29 percent) in a survey by The New York Times said that "rich" was making between $100,000 and $200,000 a year. Unfortunately, the survey didn't break out how many people in that salary range considered themselves rich. If the people I talk to are any indication, very few do.
Of course, income is only one part of the equation defining where you stand. Net worth is more telling. Net worth, as every financially precocious schoolchild knows, is the sum of one's assets -- home equity, investments, savings accounts, retirement funds, cars, furnishings and such things as jewelry, furs, wine collection, old baseball cards -- minus all outstanding liabilities such as mortgage balance, revolving and credit card debt, college loans and so on. Across all households, the national median net worth is $86,000. Half of your fellow citizens have more than that, half less. As you see, there's a massive disparity between the haves and have-nots.
Net worth parking ramp
Net worth (percentile) Median net worth (rounded)
Level VI (90 to 100) $833,600
Level V (80 to 89.9) $263,100
Level IV (60 to 79.9) $141,500
Level III (40 to 59.9) $62,500
Level II (20 to 39.9) $37,200
Level I (less than 20) $7,900
Source: Family Net Worth, 2001 Federal Reserve Board Survey
We live in a country that once celebrated itself as egalitarian, yet 1 percent of the population -- nearly 3 million people -- currently has as much money as the 100 million people at the bottom of the ramp.
Yet when I ask those at the top of the ramp how they feel about the future, whether their fortunate place on the ramp gives them a measure of confidence about it, they shake their heads. They give me a look that says, "What planet do you park on?"
by Lee Eisenberg
Thursday, November 1, 2007
The best way to give people a sense of where they stand is to lay out some data. Every three years the Federal Reserve Board conducts a national survey that tracks the financial health of American households.
The Fed slices and dices this stuff with the vigor of an Iron Chef; the result is a rich, if dry, array of offerings on household net worth, pension and income levels, plus other demographic side dishes.
Whenever I slip these tidbits into cocktail party chatter, people are surprised to realize how little money it takes to win a gold star from the Fed. If you and yours are bringing in $40,000 a year, you're doing better than half the households in America.
Or, as a Washington think tank recently pointed out: If you're a teacher married to a policeman, your combined household income puts you in the top 25 percent of all households in the nation.
Below you'll find the average income picture sliced into income levels. Think of this chart as a parking ramp. If your household income is $170,000, you're among the nation's top 10 percent wage earners and get to park on the top floor.
Anything in six figures means you're in the top 20 percent and get to park on the floor right below.
Annual income parking ramp
Income level (percentile) Median income (rounded)
Level VI (90 to 100) $170,000
Level V (80 to 89.9) $99,000
Level IV (60 to 79.9) $65,000
Level III (40 to 59.9) $40,000
Level II (20 to 39.9) $24,000
Level I (less than 20) $10,000
Source: Before-Tax Family Income, 2001 Federal Reserve Board Survey
So does making $170,000 a year make a person rich? Last year a plurality of respondents (29 percent) in a survey by The New York Times said that "rich" was making between $100,000 and $200,000 a year. Unfortunately, the survey didn't break out how many people in that salary range considered themselves rich. If the people I talk to are any indication, very few do.
Of course, income is only one part of the equation defining where you stand. Net worth is more telling. Net worth, as every financially precocious schoolchild knows, is the sum of one's assets -- home equity, investments, savings accounts, retirement funds, cars, furnishings and such things as jewelry, furs, wine collection, old baseball cards -- minus all outstanding liabilities such as mortgage balance, revolving and credit card debt, college loans and so on. Across all households, the national median net worth is $86,000. Half of your fellow citizens have more than that, half less. As you see, there's a massive disparity between the haves and have-nots.
Net worth parking ramp
Net worth (percentile) Median net worth (rounded)
Level VI (90 to 100) $833,600
Level V (80 to 89.9) $263,100
Level IV (60 to 79.9) $141,500
Level III (40 to 59.9) $62,500
Level II (20 to 39.9) $37,200
Level I (less than 20) $7,900
Source: Family Net Worth, 2001 Federal Reserve Board Survey
We live in a country that once celebrated itself as egalitarian, yet 1 percent of the population -- nearly 3 million people -- currently has as much money as the 100 million people at the bottom of the ramp.
Yet when I ask those at the top of the ramp how they feel about the future, whether their fortunate place on the ramp gives them a measure of confidence about it, they shake their heads. They give me a look that says, "What planet do you park on?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)