How cool would it be if we could prevent sunburn and skin cancer without sunscreen—just by eating certain natural foods? It’s a really attractive idea, which explains why it’s all over TikTok. Too bad it doesn’t actually work.
Can we quit it with the “sunscreen is toxic” bullshit already?
The food-as-sunscreen TikToks don’t always come out and say it, but they’re trading on the established myth of sunscreen being somehow bad for us. (You don’t want to know how many “akshully, sunscreen causes cancer” statements I had to scroll through while researching this article.)
As I’ve written before, this is not some kind of sensible risk management messaging. It’s complete nonsense. The harms of UV exposure are concrete and well-documented. The harms of sunscreen are unproven, mostly guesswork, and the occasional legitimate concern is on the level of “hey, it would be helpful to have more research to know if some types of sunscreen are safer than others.” This stuff is absolutely not on the level of “avoid sunscreen because it’s bad for you.”
What the science actually says about food and sun damage
The TikToks about natural sun protection give a laundry list of foods, saying vaguely that they protect from sun damage. Sometimes they’ll recommend a specific supplement. But they never go into detail about the things that are important to know when recommending a preventative treatment, like:
What dosage is needed to get the intended results?
Has this actually been tested in humans?
How much protection does the food or supplement give you, and how was that measured?
Does the protection start working immediately, and if not, how long does it take?
Does the effectiveness vary from person to person?
Does the protective ingredient break down over time, and is there a way to refresh its protection (equivalent to reapplying sunscreen)?
What are the downsides to the food or supplement when used in the recommended dosage?
For actual, FDA-approved sunscreens, there are answers to all of these questions. For the foods recommended on TikTok, there are not. Instead of this fully fleshed-out information, we just get statements like “Eat watermelons, tomatoes, walnuts, carrots…”
If you look into the research, none of it really supports the claims the TikTokers are making (or implying). For example, here is a study showing that an antioxidant found in walnuts can protect human skin cells from some of the effects of UV damage. Sounds promising, until you realize that the skin cells were not in humans, but rather are a human-derived mutant cell line (sounds weird, but it’s a very normal thing in science labs). The researchers made a walnut extract and combined it with the cells in cell culture plates, which are basically teeny-tiny test tubes. So to review: This study did not involve people, eating, walnuts (as a food), sunlight, or sunburn.
Here’s a more relevant study: Light-skinned, non-smoking volunteers ate 40 grams of tomato paste (about three tablespoons) along with 10 grams of olive oil every day. After 10 weeks, they showed less reddening of the skin in response to exposure to a UV lamp. That’s promising! Very cool! Heck, if you felt inspired and wanted to start eating tomato paste (going through a little can of it every 4 days), I wouldn’t stop you.
But pay attention to what the study didn’t find. It doesn’t tell us what results people with lighter or darker skin tones would get. It doesn’t tell us how this protection changes (or doesn’t) over time—would you get the same results at the end of the summer as at the beginning, if you used this as your only sun protection?
And, most importantly, it only found that the people who used tomato paste got less reddening of the skin. The tomato paste didn’t completely prevent sunburn. The TikTokers are talking about these foods as if they are magic potions, or get-out-of-sunburn-free cards. Even the most promising studies don’t back that up.
And of course everybody is selling a supplement
If there’s one thing wellness TikTokers love, it’s selling supplements. Supplements are cheap for manufacturers to make, easy to ship, straightforward to explain (“X is good for Y”) and anybody can throw up an affiliate link in their bio to get a cut of the profits.
And so it is with these allegedly sunburn-preventing supplements. The hot one right now is Heliocare, which of course has a “brand affiliate” program. It’s made from a fern called Polypodium leucotomos, and there is actually research (!) supporting the idea that it may help a little bit to lessen sunburn.
But, as with the tomato studies, the results are at the “hmm, kind of interesting” level. This isn’t something that will let you ditch your sunscreen if you’re being at all responsible about it. I’m looking at the graphs in the paper’s results, and honestly I’m not sure if I can see a difference in redness at the later timepoints. If the supplement only delays how long it takes for a sunburn to show up, that doesn’t seem very useful. (I might actually wonder if it’s worse, since that could lead you to stay out longer before you realize how bad a burn you’re developing.)
Again, a statistically detectable difference in redness is not the same as completely (or even mostly) preventing sunburn. It’s also worth noting that the dosage of Heliocare (one 240-milligram pill per day) is less than what was used in the study (7.5 milligrams per kilogram of bodyweight, which works out to be 528 milligrams for a 154-pound person, or over two pills’ worth). If you take three pills per day, that $34.99 bottle will only last you 20 days. I’m not seeing the advantage over just applying sunscreen normally.
Sunscreen does a great job of protecting our skinfrom rays that can cause skin cancer, as well as thickening and wrinkling of the skin as we age. But it also feels kind of greasy and goopy sometimes, especially when applied to the face, leaving many of us wondering if there might not be a better way to apply it. Sunscreen powders sound like a promising development. But do they work?
Sunscreens usually come in a lotion or spray format, but you can also find them in powder form. These products often come in a container with a built-in brush (kind of like a big floofy foundation brush) and tend to be more expensive than traditional sunscreens.
They're sometimes marketed alongside makeup, so you can use them as a setting powder with the extra benefit of SPF. Sometimes they're marketed toward parents of young kids, as an alternative to getting little ones to sit still for a lotion or spray application.
The ingredients are still legit sunscreens, and are typically mineral-based, with something like zinc oxide as the main active ingredient.
Powder sunscreen isn't effective on its own
Ultimately, the problem with any form of sunscreen is that you need to apply a lot of it to get the protection listed on the label—and you need to reapply it according to the directions, which usually means every two hours. A sunscreen lotion is the easiest to apply this way, even though most of us don’t come anywhere near meeting the recommended amounts. (That’s okay, though—if the SPF is high enough, we still get decent protection.)
That brings us to the problem with nontraditional sunscreens. Are you really going to apply enough of it that it can actually work as intended? This is especially unlikely when it comes to combination products. Will you really slather on a thick layer of sunscreen-infused bug spray every two hours? How about a thick layer of SPF-containing foundation?
I think you see where I’m going. Are you going to apply enough powder sunscreen to get the protection you’re looking for, and then reapply it when it’s time? It’s unlikely, especially if the powder is your main form of sunscreen. Below is a video of chemist Michelle Wong applying sunscreen powder to her hand to show how much you would need to get the labeled SPF.
When powder sunscreens make sense
So you won't be able to get the labeled protection from a comfortable layer of powder—does that mean sunscreen powder is useless? Here I must return to the one enduring rule of sun protection: The best sunscreen is the sunscreen you will wear. Powder sunscreens are a better-than-nothing option for reapplying sunscreen over your makeup, and many people will skip reapplying if they don’t have something that works on top of makeup.
Dermatologists recommend applying a layer of normal (cream) sunscreen first, then putting on your makeup; consider powder to be a tool for touch-ups. Unfortunately, it can’t be considered a replacement for your primary sunscreen.
Similarly, for kids, if powder is truly the only way you can get some sunscreen on your squirmy toddler, then a powder is better than nothing. But there are other ways to make sunscreen application easier on little ones—so don't just buy a bottle of powder and consider the problem solved.
To lift weights at home, first you need the weights. That’s simple enough—if you’re into barbell lifts, just buy a barbell set.
But your next problem is figuring out how you squat. Squatting typically involves a squat rack, and that’s a luxury many home gymmers don’t have. THat doesn't mean you have to forgo squatting altogether though. Let’s look at your options.
Before I get into it, note that none of the options I'll be discussing include safeties, which a real squat rack would have. That’s okay, because they all assume that you are either working with light enough weights that you won’t fail your lift, or that you know how to bail out by dumping the weight if you can’t complete the rep. This is a learnable skill, and it won’t damage your equipment if you use bumper plates—keep that in mind if you’re living the no-rack life.
Get squat stands instead of a rack
A solid squat rack is an investment, so I understand not wanting to splurge on one right away. (Heck, my own pandemic home gym went without a squat rack for about a year—not because I decided against one, but because it didn’t occur to me that a squat rack might be affordable or feasible in my small garage.)
The truth is, supports for squatting aren’t nearly as expensive as you might think. You can order a pair of lightweight but strong squat stands like these for $50 to $60, or make your own out of concrete and 2x4s. I've gone on the record saying a good squat rack is worth the investment, but I also believe that makeshift stands like these are an excellent stopgap if you aren’t ready to take that step.
Pros: Cheap, lightweight, can move out of the way for storage. The only limit to the amount of weight you can squat this way is the limit of the equipment
Cons: Not free. You also don’t get to learn any strange new skills, like the options below.
Clean the weight and do front squats
Olympic lifters and Crossfitters will probably be most comfortable with this option: Instead of squatting with the bar on your back, clean the bar into a front rack position. That means you grab it while it’s on the ground, launch it upwards, and catch it on your shoulders, just in front of your neck.
The ending position of a clean is the same as the starting position for front squats, so you can then do as many reps of front squats as you like.
The main problem with this approach is that if you aren’t a weightlifter or Crossfitter, you probably aren’t very good at cleans. It takes time, practice, and ideally some good coaching to get efficient enough at cleans to be able to handle a realistic weight for front squats. If you’re committed to lifting without a squat rack, this is a skill worth learning. Otherwise, you might want to check out the other options.
Pros: Easy if you know how to do it. Lets you make the most of a small amount of weight (front squats are harder than back squats at the same weight).
Cons: Requires you to be pretty good at cleans. Also, this doesn’t give you a way to do heavy back squats.
Zercher squats
The zercher is often seen as esoteric—an odd lift only done by odd people. But it’s actually a solid option for squats, whether or not you have a rack available. Sometimes called a “low bar front squat,” it lets you go a lot heavier than a regular front squat, but you don’t need to know how to clean a barbell to get the weight into position.
How to do zercher squats:
Stand in front of the bar with your feet wider than your arms (same idea as a sumo deadlift, but you don’t have to get as wide as sumo deadlifters do).
Deadlift the bar.
Bend your knees so that you’re in a squatting position, and set the bar down into your lap.
One at a time, slip each arm between your legs and under the bar.
Now that the bar is in the crooks of your elbows, stand up. You’ve completed your first rep.
For subsequent reps, just bend and straighten your knees as you would in a normal squat. (No need to return the bar to the ground each rep, although you can if you want.)
If your first thought is “ow, that would hurt my elbows,” well, you’re right—at first. Turns out the elbows adapt; people who zercher squat regularly find that it’s not really a problem. You can always wrap the bar in a towel or barbell pad, or wear elbow sleeves for extra cushioning. If I haven’t zerchered in a while, I’ll sometimes wear a sweatshirt and slip my knee sleeves over my elbows. Anyway, you get used to it.
Pros: Free. No special skills required. Heavy weights are possible. You get to do a deadlift with every set.
Cons: Elbows might hurt. You have to do a deadlift with every set.
Steinborn squats
Alright, now this one is an odd lift for odd people. You could become one of those people, though.
To do tit, you’ll need a clear space around you, non-slip flooring, and just enough bravery and stupidity to think “sure, what the hell, I probably won’t die.” (It will not surprise readers to hear that I check all three boxes, and thus have gone on to set a national record in my weight class in this lift.)
To be fair, it’s not as dangerous as it looks. You do need a little bit of practice to know how to stabilize the bar and center yourself underneath it, but I found it easier to learn than the Olympic clean discussed above. Would this be my first pick for somebody who wants to squat and doesn’t have a squat rack? No. But is it a viable option for a person who thinks it’s cool? Absolutely.
Pros: Free. Heavy weights are possible. Impress your friends, scare your neighbors.
Cons: Requires plenty of space and nerves of steel. Scares your neighbors.
Squat alternatives I don’t recommend
The following things are not replacements for barbell squats, in my opinion:
Barbell hack lifts are behind-the-back deadlifts. They involve the quads a little more than a regular deadlift, but they’re not squats.
Trap bar deadlifts, ditto. Great as a deadlift variation, but not a squat.
Goblet squats. These are a fine exercise, but if you’re strong enough to do barbell squats, goblets probably aren’t going to cut it as a main lift.
Lifting the bar over your head and onto your back: If you can do this, the weight is too light for a heavy set of squats.
Not-quite-squat options that are still great
The following are exercises that aren’t the same as normal barbell squats, but they’ll still build strong legs and are worth considering as you explore your options.
Bulgarian split squats: these can be done with lighter weights than regular squats, so dumbbells or a relatively light barbell can do the job.
Leg press machines, any kind (I’m including the hack squat machine here). If your gym has a leg press but no squat rack, these would be my first pick for a squat replacement.
Pistol squats: I find these to be too hard on the knees to fully replace squats, but they’ll certainly give your legs a serious challenge.
Lunges and step-ups: This type of single leg work is always challenging to the quads, and doesn’t require as much weight as two-legged squats.
I’d also like to give an honorable mention to Arthur lifts. This is where you hack lift the bar until you can get it onto your lower back, then bounce it up to your shoulders. From there, you can squat it normally. Honestly, this only didn’t make the main list because I don’t personally like it. I consider it more painful than a Zercher and scarier than a Steinborn. But if you are intrepid enough to try it, knock yourself out.
When it comes to soothing sore muscles, I have two go-tos: heat, and massage. I’ve always had to enjoy those things separately, though. For a quick and easy "massage," a foam roller does the trick; and for heat, I use a heat pad or, on my way to and from the gym, the heated seats in my car. But now there’s a product that combines them, and it’s genius: the HotRock heated roller.
Technically it’s not a “foam” roller, because it’s not made of foam. It’s a hard plastic cylinder, hollow inside, that plugs into the wall. One end has a little screen (to display the temperature) and four buttons to turn it on and control it. The other end has a door, inside which you’ll find the attached power cord.
So, yes, you need a wall outlet to use this thing. (Sort of. More on that in a minute.) It’s the size of a pretty standard mini foam roller, a little under 13 inches long. The heated area, supplied by wires that wrap around it underneath the cover, is about the middle 6 inches of the roller. If you’re hoping to warm up a wide area, say your upper back, you’ll need to make multiple passes.
The outside of the roller is encased in faux leather (“marine-grade vinyl,” they call it) and it’s allegedly removable—although it seems to be a pretty tight fit. Dirt and debris wipe off, so you don’t need to remove the sleeve for cleaning.
How to use the HotRock heated roller
Credit: Beth Skwarecki
HotRock sent me a roller to test. Following the manufacturer’s instructions, I opened the little door, pulled out the power cord, and plugged it into the wall. The HotRock came with a drawstring bag that’s supposed to hold heat in while it’s warming up, so I used that as instructed.
Here’s the basic procedure:
Plug the cord (found inside the little door) into a wall outlet.
Press the power button to turn on the LCD screen.
Select the temperature (between 125 and 175 degrees, in 10-degree increments).
If you want to use it for more than 30 minutes, press the timer button and use the up and down arrows to set the time (up to 180 minutes).
Optionally, slip the drawstring bag around it while it warms up.
When the roller is up to temperature, take it out of the bag. You can use it while it’s still plugged in.
How long does it take the HotRock to heat up?
The HotRock is advertised as heating to 175 degrees in just five minutes, but I found it took a bit longer—around eight minutes with the drawstring bag. (The company says that it will feel like it’s up to temperature a few minutes before the internal sensor reports the same number.)
If you want a lower temperature, it will get there more quickly. I found it got to 130 degrees in about three minutes.
How hot should I set the HotRock?
The top setting of 175 was great for rolling my back through layers of clothes, but that was definitely too hot to be comfortable on bare skin. I found the lowest setting of 125 to be perfect to roll a bare leg.
There are other heated massage tools out there, like this microwaveable MojiHeat, but they don’t get as hot—MojiHeat gets up to 140 degrees for 30 minutes. If you want the higher settings or the longer time, the HotRock is a better option—but it’s nearly double the price, and you have to deal with the power cord.
Is the power cord a problem?
You would think the cord would get twisted or tangled if you use the roller while it’s plugged in, but I didn’t find that to be a problem. Usually you’re rolling it back and forth in a small area, and the cord has enough room to move to withstand that just fine. The cord is also long enough that I didn't feel tethered to the wall; nine feet is plenty.
Conveniently, the roller is big enough on the inside that you don't have to wrap or fold the cord carefully. Just stuff it in, it'll be fine.
But since not every location has a wall outlet within nine feet, I wondered if it was possible to use the HotRock after unplugging it. I heated it up to 175, then put the cord away and started a stopwatch. The roller maintained a nice level of heat for several minutes, and around five minutes it was pleasantly warm but no longer anything I’d describe as “hot.” That would be enough for a quick warmup session, if you don’t have access to a wall outlet in the place where you do your foam rolling.
Are there any health benefits to the HotRock?
It’s really just another massage tool, so the benefits are “it feels good.” The evidence on massage for recovery and health is mixed; some sources find it helps recovery or aids in mobility. Most experts would say to use heat and/or massage if they feel good to you.
My only real complaint about this type of device is that when I’m in the mood for heat on a muscle (ahh, relaxing), I’m usually not in the mood to get on the floor and move around, maintaining appropriate pressure on the body part I’m rolling (so much work!). But I know that some of you love your foam rollers, so this might be a welcome addition.
The HotRock website has testimonials from athletes, and honestly the one I found most compelling was the Crossfit coach who gets to the gym before 5 in the morning, and it’s so cold in the winter. She turns on the building heat, makes herself a coffee, and does a rolling session with her heated foam roller. That sounds heavenly.
Pros and cons of the HotRock
Pros
Combines heat and self-massage
Cord stows away easily in the center of the roller
Adjustable heat up to 175 degrees F
Auto-shutoff timer
Cons
No beep to let you know when it’s up to temperature
Need to be near an outlet to use it
Pricey compared to microwaveable rollers
Specs
Temperature settings: 135, 145, 155, 165, 175 degrees
Not everybody has the same reaction to noticing a new muscle pop up on their body. Some love it: “Great, I’m getting jacked!” Some are discouraged: “Oh no, I’m getting bulky.” But everyone should know that building muscle has its benefits, beyond looks and in spite of looks.
Here are seven ways your newfound muscle is a big plus, both for your health and your fitness goals.
Strength and muscle size go together
We’ve all met people who are stronger than they look, and vice versa. This has led to a myth that there are different “kinds” of muscle or strength, as if bodybuilders’ muscles are full of water or fat instead of contractile tissue. (I’m not sure exactly where this myth comes from, but it’s absolutely not true. Muscle is muscle.)
Think of it this way: The bigger the muscle, the harder it can contract. But what you do with that muscle is a matter of skill. Gymnasts are strong, but not every strong person can do a backflip. Boxers are strong, but not every strong person will be able to deliver a knockout punch.
If you train to build muscle size, you will end up increasing your strength. And if you train to build strength, chances are you will end up increasing your muscle size. That doesn’t mean you have to become huge if you don’t want to be; your diet is the main thing that determines whether you look “bulky” or not. But it's reasonable to expect at least a little bit of muscle gain anytime you're challenging your body to get stronger and fitter.
Muscle burns more calories
Muscle’s effect on our metabolism is one of the most frequently-cited benefits of gaining muscle mass, and honestly, I think it’s one of the least important. But let’s dive in, because I know you’re wondering about it.
Yes, the more muscle you have on your body, the more calories you burn, even at rest. Muscle is a metabolically “expensive” tissue, using a lot of your food as fuel, which means that you can eat more food, and thus get more vitamins, protein, fiber, and other useful nutrients. The more you burn, the better you can eat.
Every pound of muscle you gain will burn an extra 10 or so calories each day—so if you gain 10 pounds of muscle over the course of a few years’ strength training, you’re burning an extra 100 calories each day. This may not make a huge contribution to your daily calorie burn, but it’s something. What’s less appreciated is that the more muscle you have, the more likely you are to take on harder workouts, thus burning even more calories.
I burn about 500 more calories each day now than I did years ago, when I was sedentary, and I certainly haven’t gained 50 pounds of muscle. But the more muscle you have, the more work you can do, and that snowballs. Remember, exercise is good for your health, so the more of it your body can handle, the healthier your heart and your metabolism can become.
Muscle benefits your health even if you don’t lose weight
Losing weight is often said to benefit our health, especially for people who have diabetes, other health conditions, and/or a high BMI. Losing weight can be tough, though, and gaining muscle can help those same health outcomes whether you end up losing weight or not.
For example, this study found that having more muscle mass is associated with lower mortality rates, lower body fat, and a lower likelihood of having diabetes. People with high BMIs and high muscle mass were, in this study, healthier than people who had similarly high BMIs but low muscle mass.
So even if gaining muscle doesn’t come with reduced body fat, it’s still helping you to be healthier. The researchers also speculate that some of the health outcomes we associate with high body fat may actually have more to do with low muscle mass.
This isn’t just an issue for the grey-haired crowd: We lose 3-8% of our muscle every decade starting around age 30, if we don’t train to keep it. The rate of loss typically speeds up after age 60—but, again, people who strength train tend to hang onto their muscle. You might even build more than you had in your youth.
Even if you haven’t hit age 30, think of yourself as putting muscle in the bank that you can use later. Somebody who is strong at age 25 is building the muscle (and the habits that keep them exercising!) that will keep them from being frail at age 75.
Strength training improves bone density
Besides sarcopenia, osteoporosis (a loss of bone mineral density) also contributes to the risk of devastating fractures and to a loss of independence, especially as we age. Muscle loss and bone density loss have been referred to as “musculoskeletal aging,” and it’s at least partially preventable with strength training.
Bone grows stronger when you put stress on it, which is why “weight bearing” activities are commonly recommended for people at risk of osteoporosis. That doesn’t refer specifically to weight training, but rather to activities where you’re supporting your own weight. Walking, running, and jumping are weight bearing. Swimming is not.
But weight training does also improve bone density. Unless you’re great at walking or even jumping on your hands (which, I must note, requires a lot of strength and muscle), a good way to get healthy stress on the bones of your upper body is to do plenty of resistance training. That could include training with barbells, dumbbells, resistance machines, or other tools.
Strong muscles may prevent injury
Injury prevention is a big and nebulous topic, so it’s hard to point at specific evidence that strength training in general reduces injuries in general. But ask any good coach, or any good physical therapist, and they’ll tell you that they encourage their players and patients to build strength to prevent injuries and to recover from them when they happen.
Strength training gives you stronger muscles, bones, and connective tissue like tendons. In a sports context, stronger athletes seem to be more resistant to injury. And even in everyday life—let’s say a person who might slip and fall—being strong and agile makes it easier to avoid unexpected obstacles. You may also have an easier time catching yourself when you begin to fall.
There’s also evidence that exercise, including strength training, is a useful tool in managing back pain, arthritis, and other conditions.
Muscle makes you better at running, yoga, and other activities
Maybe you’re cool with exercise, but still a bit skeptical of the benefits of strength training specifically. You just want to run the trails, take a barre class, maybe do some yoga. Well, muscle helps with those things, too.
If you’re a runner, for example, strength training helps to prevent injuries (including those nagging “overuse” injuries like shin splints and achy knees). More muscle in your legs also means a better ability to run up the hills of those trails and dodge rocks and tree roots on the way down. Stronger runners tend to be better runners.
Or let’s say you’re more into yoga. More strength and muscle will help you to be able to do more advanced poses, to do the medium-difficulty ones more confidently, and to do the easy ones with true ease. Or to put it another way: nobody ever thinks, in the middle of a yoga class, “I wish I had less core strength.”
You get the idea. Rock climbing is more fun when you’ve got more upper body muscle. Cycling is more fun when you have powerful legs. Even outside the formal sports world, muscle helps you to carry mulch in your garden, to load your suitcase overhead without endangering your fellow airplane passengers, to help a friend move without spending the next two days on the couch popping Advil. So when you notice your body gaining a little bit of muscle, just think of all the opportunities it opens for you—not just how it looks.
Zero exercise is not enough. Going for a walk every day is probably a good thing. And if you’re training for a marathon, you’ll be on your feet for a couple hours of hard workouts every week. But what is the benchmark for a human being just trying to squeeze enough healthy exercise into their life? Let’s break it down.
The basics: 150 minutes of cardio and two days of strength training every week
At least 150 minutes per week of moderate intensity (cardio) exercise like walking or easy jogging, or 75 minutes per week of vigorous exercise like running, or a combination. (If you can easily meet that, more is better.)
At least two days per week of muscle strengthening activity, like lifting weights or doing other strength training like pushups, resistance band exercises, or even heavy manual labor like shoveling.
A previous edition of the guidelines said that you need to do your cardio for a minimum of 10 minutes at a time for it to count, but the current recommendation is to get it in however you can, even if that includes some shorter bursts here and there.
What do "moderate" and "vigorous" cardio mean?
If you need help telling these two levels apart, moderate cardio is the kind you can do continuously without feeling too tired. Vigorous cardio is the kind where you find yourself hoping that you'll get a break soon, because oh god I can't keep this up much longer. Or if you're used to exercising with a heart rate monitor, moderate cardio is often considered zone 2 cardio, and vigorous is anything harder.
When you're doing moderate cardio, you'll be a little bit sweatier or breathing a little harder than when you're at rest, but the activity is sustainable: You can speak comfortably in full sentences—think of going on an easy jog with a friend while telling them how your week has been.
Here are some examples of moderate cardio:
A brisk walk (but if this feels too easy, you may need to jog to meet the same level of effort).
Jogging, if you're able to find an easy pace. Alternating between jogging and walking also counts.
Commuting or doing errands by bike, on relatively flat ground.
Using a spin bike or other cardio machines like the elliptical, so long as you do it at a low intensity, steady pace.
By contrast, vigorous cardio includes activities where you're working hard and breathing hard. You might not be able to keep it up very long. This could include:
Running fast
Bicycling uphill
Pushing yourself to finish a Crossfit WOD with a good time
Swimming laps
Playing a game of soccer or basketball
Can I combine moderate and vigorous cardio?
You can mix and match these two intensities. The math is simple if you think about 150 minutes as your target, and consider every minute of vigorous cardio counting double. Here are some examples:
A 20 minute brisk walk every weekday morning (20 minutes x 5 days = 100 minutes moderate cardio) plus a 30-minute spin class that has you working pretty hard (30 minutes counted double is 60; add that to the 100 and you're at 160 minutes).
An hour of hiking, three days a week (60 minutes x 3 sessions = 180 minutes moderate cardio)
Three 30-minute jogs (30 minutes x 3 = 90 minutes moderate cardio) plus a workout with 10 minutes easy jogging for a warmup and then 20 minutes of hard running, followed by a cooldown of another 10 minutes easy. (20 minutes vigorous x 2 is equivalent to 40 minutes moderate cardio, plus we can add the warmup and cooldown for another 20 moderate minutes). That gives you 150 total.
Go for a 30-minute easy bike ride on Monday. Try a 45-minute water aerobics class on Wednesday. Take a short hike on Saturday. Mow the lawn for an hour on Saturday. (30 + 45 + 30 + 60 = 165 moderate cardio)
If you’re pretty athletic, the above won’t sound like much. Good news! The WHO has set a secondary goal for folks like you. It’s simple: just do double the above. So you can aim for 300 minutes of moderate cardio, or 150 minutes per week of vigorous activity. Here's what that might look like:
An intense, hour-long martial arts class three times a week (60 x 3 = 180, but this is vigorous cardio, so the minutes count double)
Run 30 miles per week at an easy pace (if you're fit enough to run your easy pace at about a 10 minute mile, that's 300 minutes moderate cardio)
Commute to work, 20 minutes each way (40 minutes per day x 5 days per week = 200 minutes moderate cardio) and play rec league soccer for two matches per week (50 minutes each game, for some combination of moderate and vigorous cardio, definitely puts us over 300).
Can you get too much exercise?
What about an upper limit on how much exercise you get? There isn’t one, from a public health point of view. More is better. (And even if you are doing less than the recommendations, anything is better than nothing.) That said, it is always possible for you, as an individual, to do more exercise than your body is ready for. Don’t jump from a life of occasional strolling to a marathon training plan. (And if you are on that marathon training plan and you’re feeling worn down, take a break already.)
Strength, Flexibility, and More
So far we’ve been talking about aerobic exercise, which is the kind where you’re continuously moving (or, perhaps, doing quick work/rest intervals) and your heart rate is up. But there are other important forms of exercise, too. The WHO and other organizations recommend two days per week of “high intensity muscle strengthening activity,” which includes anything where you’re thinking in terms of sets and reps. (Three sets of eight to 10 reps is a good structure to start.)
That activity can be anything that challenges your muscles, and where the 10th rep is a lot harder than the first: lifting weights, or resistance band exercises, or bodyweight exercises like push-ups. So if you run three days per week but have time for more, don’t just fit in extra runs; try adding two days in the weight room instead.
The strength training recommendations are for two days per week, per muscle group. If you like to work your upper body and lower body separately, that would mean two upper body days and two lower body days. If you prefer workouts that work all your muscles, you only need to do those twice a week at minimum.
Roller skating has always felt like freedom to me. When you're going fast, you're flying. Even when you're tootling around in a small space, doing little pivots on your wheels, you're moving on your feet in ways that the rest of the world, clad in their sad little shoes, could never. So how can you join the ranks of the roller skaters? It will take a little investment of time and practice, but soon, this could be you.
I used to play roller derby, so I spent years getting comfortable on my skates. In my spare time, I'd practice figure skating moves like turns and jumps, and silly little tricks like "shooting the duck." (During the pandemic lockdowns, I briefly dabbled in skate dancing, which it turns out I am not very good at.) Today I'm going to break down the most essential beginner tips so you can get started as quickly as possible.
Get some skates
When we're talking about "roller skating," I assume that you and I are both thinking of quad skates, the kind that have four wheels, two in the front and two in the back. (I also hear there is something out there called a “roller” “blade”? No idea about those.)
There are two types of quad roller skates you’ll see around. The ones with heeled boots that lace up the ankles are made for doing figure skating moves like jumps and spins, and they work well for casual skating as well. These are your classic retro-style roller skates.
The other type is a low-cut skate that looks more like a sneaker. These give you zero ankle support, but more flexibility. They’re great for the fancy footwork of jam skating, and this is also the style preferred among roller derby players.
Either type is fine to start with, and I’m not gonna judge you if you pick your skates based on what looks the cutest. Just a word of warning: While it’s often a good idea to buy the cheapest option first and upgrade when you wear it out or surpass its abilities, with skates you want to make sure you don’t go too cheap. Anything below $80 or so is suspect.
Some skates are too flimsy or don’t have proper equipment. To spot what's wrong with them, it helps to know a little skate anatomy. Under the boot (the shoe part), we have a plate. The plate needs to be strong enough to support your weight. And then, connecting the wheels to the plate, we have the trucks. These are a moving part that allows some movement between the wheel axle and the plate. It has cushions and is attached to the plate at an angle. Here's a video that explains the anatomy:
So as you're looking at skates, make sure your chosen pair actually has these parts. For example, if the area connecting the wheels is just a smooth piece of plastic, like on these kids’ skates, you don't have trucks at all. That means you can't adjust your trucks, which means you're really limited in the type of movement you can get out of them. You also don't have a way of replacing the trucks without replacing the entire skate.
Another thing to watch out for: Nylon (soft plastic) plates tend to flex too much for people who weigh over 200 pounds or so. Kids and lightweight adults will find these work just fine, but everyone else should look for aluminum or fiberglass plates instead.
Until you fully develop your instincts for falling safely, it’s smart to wear safety gear while you practice. You will fall on your knees, so get kneepads. The skater kind with hard caps are best, but if you want to live a little dangerously, I sometimes use thin dancers’ kneepads like these. If you fall with these on, it will still hurt, but the pad kinda takes the edge off. Get a helmet to protect your head, and consider elbow pads and wrist guards.
There’s a couple things you’ll need to do with your skates to keep them rolling smoothly. First, be able to tighten or loosen the nuts on your wheels. Often, skates will come with the nuts too tight. Make sure they’re loose enough that when you hold the skate up and flick the wheel, it spins freely.
A basic skate tool (like this one) will include a socket for the wheel nuts and a socket for the nuts on your trucks. Looser trucks will steer more sharply, but they’ll feel more wobbly. You’ll need to adjust your trucks to match your skill level and suit the type of skating you want to do.
If you mainly skate on hard indoor floors, you’ll want hard wheels (with a durometer rating in the 90s, such as 90A). If you skate outdoors, softer wheels will give you a smoother roll over rough pavement; the durometer rating for those will usually be in the 80's. Many skaters have a set of outdoor wheels and a set of indoor wheels, and swap them out accordingly.
Your toe stops are another thing to check. Some dance moves work best with no toe stops, so you might want to take yours out and replace them with little nubs called jam plugs. On the flip side, if you skate outside a lot, you may find yourself using your toe stops so much you wear them down. Toe stops can be replaced, and some types allow you to adjust the height, which usually requires an allen wrench.
Get comfortable on your skates
The first step in learning (or relearning) to skate is simply training your body in how to move when you have wheels under you. The fastest way to accomplish this is to just wear your skates at home, whether your house contains good places to skate or not.
That said, use common sense: Don't practice in an area where sharp or delicate things are within reach. Never try to go up or down stairs or navigate tricky terrain until you’re very sure of your skills.
Even if all your floors are carpeted, you’ll get the sense of where to place your weight on your foot as you walk around. Perhaps you’ll find yourself popping up onto your toe stops to get up from a chair. And when you wear your skates in a small space, like in your kitchen while you’re washing dishes, you’ll discover all kinds of ways to pivot and maneuver on your wheels while you’re standing still. All these skills will serve you well when you move out to the rink or the dance floor or the street.
Skate without falling down
You only need a small space to practice the basics. First up, your body position: Always bend your knees at least a little. This helps you to keep your balance, since now you can shift your weight as needed. (Locked knees are a no-no, at least until you're more advanced.)
Learn to stand in a T-stance: Put one foot perpendicularly behind the other. This is very stable, and is how you should stand when you aren't intending to roll anywhere. You can also push off from the sideways skate to get moving. For example, if the side of your right foot is behind your left heel, you can push from your right foot and skate gracefully forward on the left.
Steer on your skates by leaning to the side. With practice, you'll be able to skate in a circle on one foot. (The looser your trucks, the smaller the circle.) To stop, have all your weight on one foot, and slowly bring your other foot behind in that T position. To keep your ankles safe, make sure you're dragging all four wheels of the back foot on the ground, not just the two wheels closest to the moving skate.
Learn some moves
Now we get to the fun part! What are you going to do on your skates? If you plan to head outdoors, remember your helmet and kneepads and start with smooth, flat areas.
Indoors, you can do a lot in a small space. The video below shows some fancy-looking dance moves that are made out of basic steps, like sliding your feet back and forth.
Whatever you choose, stay safe, know your skates, and don’t be afraid to get creative. Support your instructors with a donation anytime you can, and post your moves to social media to encourage others. Happy skating!
A home gym can be anything you want it to be—even a yoga mat in a corner of your bedroom counts. But if you’d like to build out a full-featured home gym, here are some tips (and my picks for equipment) to get you started. Because ultimately, while fancy equipment is nice, you want a home gym you’ll actually use.
Start slowly rather than buying everything at once
First, don’t think you have to buy everything at once. If you have a limited budget, just pick up the essentials, rather than trying to hunt down every component of your dream gym right now at rock-bottom prices. You can always add to it as you go.
If that means you have to go without a particular item for a while, that's OK: Cheap gym gear isn’t always bad, but there’s a lot of stuff out there that’s not built well, or that’s so gimmicky it isn’t worth it, and you'll be better off waiting until your budget allow you to buy the right thing. For example, you’ll be a lot more likely to use a normal spin bike like this $369 Sunny than this $58 folding gadget that doesn’t have a comfortable seat or offer any serious resistance.
So if you don’t have a huge budget, build out your home gym in pieces. Maybe buy a bar and weights now, a squat rack and bench later, and a cardio machine next year. This lets you choose better quality stuff at each stage, and also gives you time to look for sales and find good deals on used gear.
Designate a space and choose the right flooring
Your home gym could be a part of one room, or it can take up an entire basement or garage. Outdoor gyms are also absolutely an option, as long as you make sure your stuff can stand up to the elements. (Consider some kind of roof for your outdoor space, and/or storing your things indoors when not in use.)
In a typical garage gym, you’ll want some durable flooring that isn’t going to develop dents if you drop a deadlift. A platform made of multiple thicknesses of plywood is a great idea; the wood distributes the impact along a larger area than just where the weight hits.
Whether you use a wooden platform or not, you’ll probably want some rubber flooring. Skip those cheap foam tiles that are sometimes advertised as home gym flooring (they don’t last, and are better suited to a playroom for your kids) and treat yourself to some horse stall mats. Yes, the classic choice here is literally the same thing people use in horse stalls. You can buy them from places like Tractor Supply for about $50 for a 4x6 foot mat. These are what I have in my home gym: several in the garage making a more or less wall-to-wall floor covering, and then two more out in the driveway for when I do lifts outdoors. I even drive over them, and they’re fine.
Get a good squat rack
If you train with barbells, don’t cut corners: Get yourself a nice squat rack, not just one of those bench press stations with the bench attached. (You will not be able to use it safely for squats or overhead presses, no matter how hard you try. Sorry.)
Make sure your rack has actual safeties or spotter arms. A lot of budget squat stands (like these) have a tiny little nub that the manufacturer implies you can use to set the bar down…sometime, somehow. That’s not good enough. The safeties on a squat rack are there for when you have 300 pounds on your back, you can’t make it up from your last rep, and you need to get out from under the bar ASAP. You’re not going to carefully set the bar down on a six-inch long shelf, even if the manufacturer calls it something like a “security structure.”
(That said, you can just drop the bar onto the floor if your space and equipment allow, and if you’re comfortable with that maneuver. I do it all the time at my weightlifting gym. But in the confined space of a garage gym, I far prefer having a rack with good safeties.)
With a lot of racks, the safeties or spotter arms are sold separately. Make sure to budget for that if needed.
A lot of weight sets marketed for home gyms are too small, too flimsy, too much of a pain in the butt to use, or aren’t expandable beyond the weights that come in the box. For example, this is technically a barbell, but once you can lift more than 54 pounds it will be of no use to you at all, and suddenly you’re out $129 and have to go barbell shopping again.
Instead, look for barbells that are listed as “Olympic” (this means they have a normal two-inch sleeve, to match a two-inch hole in the plates). Get one that is a regular, seven-foot-long, 20-kilogram (or 45-pound) barbell. If you want an ez-curl bar or some other specialty bar, that can be a secondary purchase for later.
The only time I’d recommend getting anything other than a normal 20 kg bar as your workhorse is if you do a lot of snatches (hello, weightlifters and Crossfitters) and prefer a 15 kg women’s bar.
Make sure you get enough plates
When it comes to loading up that bar, you'll need a reasonable amount of weight. I’d say a basic starter set should include:
At least one pair of 45-pound plates (you can buy more later as you get stronger)
A pair of 25-pound plates
A pair of 10-pound plates
Two pairs of 5-pound plates
A pair of 2.5-pound plates
Optionally, a pair of 1.25-pound plates.
The two pairs of 5-pound plates are so you can make every reasonable weight jump from 45 pounds on up. If you only had one, you’d have no way to load 85 pounds. It’s actually okay to get either two pairs of 5-pound plates or two pairs of 10-pound plates; the plate math works out the same but the 5-pounders are usually cheaper.
Don’t bother with 35-pound plates, by the way. You can just load a 25 and a 10.
If you want to do Olympic lifts or if you like to drop your deadlifts, consider buying bumper plates rather than iron ones. These are a consistent diameter no matter the weight, and they’re safe to drop (even from overhead) so long as your floor is reasonably sturdy.
Buy enough dumbbells
It’s okay to skip the barbells (for now, at least) and build a dumbbell-based home gym. Just make sure you get enough weight. You’ll outgrow a pair of 25-pound dumbbells pretty quickly, for example. If you’re a beginner or a smaller person, dumbbells that go up to 50 pounds will be enough for a while. If you’re bigger or more experienced, you’ll want to look at sets that go up to somewhere around 100 each.
Adjustable dumbbells are a popular option to save space, but the good ones are often expensive. Watch for sales—they’re often available at deep discounts on big sale days like Black Friday.
If you’re building your gym piecemeal, you may prefer traditional rubber dumbbells; buy some now that meet your current needs, and then add to your collection as you get stronger. Whichever you choose, do yourself a favor and get a nice rack to hold the dumbbells.
Finally, there’s the other type of adjustable—the old school way of just loading your barbell plates onto a set of handles. If you choose this option, you’ll want a decent sized collection of five- and 10-pound weights (in multiples of four) and you probably won’t want to load anything bigger in diameter than a 25-pound iron plate. This is the cheapest and most versatile option, but probably the least enjoyable to use.
Consider a cardio machine
If you can’t afford a cardio machine yet, lace up your shoes and go for a jog (or put on some music and dance). But pretty soon you’ll find yourself wondering if you couldn’t just stay indoors on rainy or cold or sweltering days. If that option is calling you, treat yourself to a nice cardio machine.
A spin bike would be my pick, but if you’re a runner, you might get more mileage (metaphorically) out of a decent treadmill. Remember to check the specs: some cheap treadmills don’t have a powerful enough motor to let you run at a reasonable speed, and are really just for walking.
Here are some picks to get you started:
For a bike: here’s a solid Sunny ($369), or shell out for a Peloton (currently $1,200).
When it comes to bonus items like bands, kettlebells, sliders, and all the rest, keep the same strategies in mind. Buy the things you know you’ll use (or that you’re willing to put energy into learning) and aim for decent quality stuff rather than whatever looks like it offers the coolest gimmick or that folds up the smallest.
If you like calisthenics and bodyweight moves, you’ll definitely want a pullup bar, whether that’s something you bolt to the wall, slip over a doorframe, or install on your squat rack. Gymnastics rings would be another good purchase. A bench (adjustable or flat) is a natural purchase for anyone who loves to bench press.
One last thought on these smaller items: They’ll often be the first things you pick up when you step into the gym. I like to warm up with a kettlebell, and do some band pull-aparts before beginning my barbell workout. Having some things you can start using immediately—without having to load or adjust anything—can make a home gym a lot more welcoming.
Protein shakes can end up chunky or lumpy if you don’t mix them right. That’s why a shaker bottle does a better job of mixing whey into milk than simply stirring with a spoon. A blender works even better, if you’re up for cleaning a blender when you’re done. But there is a better option: a handheld frother.
To be clear, this is for drinks where you are mixing a powder into a liquid. (If you want ice and fruit in your protein shake—a smoothie, rather than a simple drink—you’ll still need a blender. But you knew that.) As far as I can tell, it works with any powder and any liquid. I’ve tested the frother, and found it gives excellent results with:
Embarrassingly, I didn’t think of this on my own. Supplement companies like MUD\WTR and Beam include a handheld frother in their starter packs. In fact, the only reason I own a frother in the first place is that MUD\WTR sent me one with some samples once in hopes I would review the product. (My review: I don’t like it.)
How to use a frother to mix your protein powder
First, get yourself a frother. These are simple handheld gadgets that are priced about the same as a shaker bottle, about $7-10 on the low end, and going up to roughly infinity since these are a Fancy Coffee Accessory. The cheap ones will do fine for our purposes. Get one that is powered by AA batteries or that you charge over USB.
Next, get your liquid ready. The first time you do this, make sure to use an oversized container. The liquid will rise as you turn the frother on. But if you use, say, eight ounces of liquid in a 16-ounce container, you'll avoid a surprise mess.
Add the powder to the liquid, insert the frother, and turn it on. (Unless you’re using clear whey, which tends to gum up the frother; better to insert the frother first and then add the powder.) If you hold the frother in the center of the cup, you’ll get a whirlpool effect that sends the liquid up toward (or over) the rim of the container, hence my warning. Once you’ve done this a few times, you’ll figure out how to do it with less mess. Angling the frother and holding it against the side of the cup tends to keep the waves down. You can also pulse the frother a few times instead of having it on continuously, which cuts down on the waves even further.
It only takes five to 10 seconds to mix yourself a smooth, creamy protein shake—or hot cocoa, or whatever else your smooth-beverage-appreciating heart desires. Take a few more seconds to wash the business end of the frother; a brief swish with a soapy sponge under running water is usually all you need. And then enjoy your perfectly mixed drink with nothing besides your cup to clean up later.
If you’ll permit me a rant—I promise to make it fact-filled and interesting—I am sick of the articles that seem to pop up every few months claiming that we are all eating “too much” protein. They convey an inaccurate picture of how the body uses protein, and they demonize perfectly healthy meals that happen to be high in protein. It’s time to set the record straight.
How can these articles be so wrong? I think the authors are usually well-meaning, but their facts don’t support the conclusion. They tend to bolster their argument with statements that are true, like the fact that the RDA of protein is set at 0.36 grams per pound of body weight, that protein-boosted foods are trendy, and that it is possible to get plenty of protein while eating a vegan diet. But the framing and the conclusions don’t follow, because eating more than the minimum doesn’t mean that you’re getting “too much” protein.
What foods contain protein?
As a refresher, protein is one of the three calorie-containing macronutrients (fats, carbs, protein) that make up our diets. Proteins are made of amino acids, and they are required for the growth, repair, and functioning of our body.
We can get protein from a variety of sources. Meats are particularly protein-dense; a chicken breast contains about 35 grams of protein. Other animal products, like milk and eggs, are also rich in protein. Plant-based foods tend to have less protein, but it’s not hard to meet or exceed protein requirements even on a vegan diet. Beans, grains, and soy products like tofu contain significant amounts of protein, for example.
If you’d like a cheat sheet on how much protein you’re supposed to eat based on your activity level, you can find one here. And that’s a good place to start dissecting this “too much protein” myth, because before we can declare an amount of protein to be “too much,” we need to understand how much is “enough.”
The RDA is meant to be considered a minimum
The government communicates targets for different nutrients to encourage us all to eat a healthy, balanced diet. These targets are the basis for the “% daily value” labels on the back of packaged foods, and for the nutrient makeup of school lunches. The RDA, or recommended daily allowance, is defined as “the average daily dietary intake level that is sufficient to meet the nutrient requirement of nearly all (97 to 98 percent) healthy individuals in a group.”
So how is that “nutrient requirement” determined? For protein, it is based on nitrogen balance. Humans break down proteins, excreting nitrogen, as part of the body’s daily function. If you eat enough protein (which contains nitrogen), the amount of nitrogen you excrete will be the same as, or more than, the amount you eat. In other words, if you aren’t breaking your own body proteins down (in excess of what you eat), then whatever you’re eating must be, in some sense, enough.
In this way of thinking, the RDA is the minimum to stay healthy. More is fine; less would mean that you may not be getting enough. For some nutrients, there is also an UL, or upper limit, telling you that more than a certain amount is too much. Upper limits are calculated for vitamins and minerals; there is no upper limit defined for protein.
Therefore, there is no official definition for “too much” protein. If somebody eats more than the RDA, they’re not eating too much; they’re just eating more than the minimum. You’re supposed to eat more than the minimum.
How much is the RDA for protein, and how much is the average American actually eating?
The RDA for protein is set at 46 grams per day for a 125-pound woman, and at 56 grams per day for a 154-pound man. That’s based on an RDA of 0.8 grams of protein per kilogram bodyweight, which works out to 0.36 grams per pound. So a 200-pound person would need 72 grams of protein per day.
This USDA report found that most adult men average between roughly 90 to 100 grams of protein per day, although men aged 70 and up only get about 80 grams of protein per day. Women tend to average around 70 grams per day, with those aged 70 and up averaging 62 grams.
Above the RDA? Yes. Too much? I don’t see any way of arguing that. And before you say that we’re getting almost double the recommendation, let's check the math. Those RDA numbers are for 125- and 154-pound people. On the other hand, the averages for what we eat are based on actual people, not ideals. The average American man is 200 pounds, and the average American woman is 171 pounds. That puts their RDAs at 72 and 62 grams per day, respectively. Relative to those numbers, the average woman is just barely beating the minimum; the average man is 20-25 grams over.
Again, there’s no need to stick to the minimum; going 25 grams over is fine. It’s probably better to go over than to just scrape by, and many of us arguably don’t get enough. Let me explain.
Many older adults don’t get enough protein
Let’s start with older adults. Not only does protein intake tend to decrease with age, older adults are vulnerable to issues that stem from a loss of muscle mass. People tend to lose 3-5% of their muscle mass per year starting at age 30, but strength training and protein intake can support maintaining our muscle, and thus likely prevent or reduce that decline.
The Dietary Guidelines include a note that “About 50 percent of women and 30 percent of men 71 and older fall short of protein foods recommendations.” Meanwhile, a study found that older adults who don’t meet the recommendations are “more likely to be limited when stooping, crouching, or kneeling, standing or sitting for long periods, walking up 10 steps, preparing meals, and walking for a quarter mile.”
So even if it’s true that the average adult gets more protein than recommended, there are clearly a lot of elderly folks who don’t. These are the same people who have more issues functioning in everyday life. This may be a chicken-and-egg situation—was the functional decline a cause or an effect of the change in their diet?—but this sure does not seem to be a group of people who should be eating less protein.
You need more than the default RDA if you’re pregnant or lactating
There’s another large group of people who benefit from more, not less, protein: people who are pregnant or lactating. Instead of 0.36 grams of protein per pound of bodyweight (62 grams for a 171-pound person), the RDA for people who are pregnant or lactating is 0.5 grams/pound (so, 86 grams of protein per day).
When you’re pregnant, you also have higher caloric needs, so the increased total amount of food makes it easier to get the higher protein amount. Still, it makes more sense to spend your energy on making sure you’re getting enough protein, rather than worrying about getting too much.
Higher-protein diets support healthy exercise and muscle mass
You knew we heading in this direction (I say between reps of barbell squats, wiping protein shake off my lips): People who exercise should get more protein than just the RDA.
While the fear-mongering “too much protein” articles sometimes mention that bodybuilders or elite athletes need their protein, they tend to hand-wave this away as a special concern that doesn’t apply to normal people. But I think it’s worth a closer look—and honestly, this situation applies to a lot more people than just a few athletes.
Officially, there isn’t an RDA for athletes; people who exercise can stave off malnutrition with the same 0.36 grams per pound as everyone else. But that doesn’t mean that the RDA is the best target to aim for.
The International Association of Athletics Federations, which governs track and field competitions, recommends that most athletes who are maintaining or gaining weight eat 0.59 to 0.77 grams of protein per pound of bodyweight per day. That’s 101 to 131 grams for the average 171-pound woman, and 118 to 154 grams for a 200-pound man.
A group of organizations including the American College of Sports Medicine largely agrees, recommending a range from 0.54 to 0.9 grams per pound for all athletes whose weight is stable or gaining. That includes people who do endurance training like distance running, as well as strength athletes whose exercise involves mainly lifting weights. Those ranges would go as high as 153 grams for our 171-pound woman, and 180 grams for our 200-pound man.
You don’t need to be an Olympian to consider yourself an “athlete” in this sense. If you’re training for a half marathon, you’re doing plenty of distance running, and should fuel accordingly. And if you’re “just” lifting weights in the gym, but taking it seriously enough that you’re training regularly and working hard, you should consider eating in these ranges as well.
Higher-protein diets support healthy weight loss
Dieting to lose weight is not only a popular American pastime, it’s also arguably good for at least some of your health. If you’ve been on a diet recently, or if you’re planning to go on one, you aren’t a person who should settle for the RDA either.
Research shows that protein intake (and strength training—they go together!) is important to maintain muscle mass when we’re losing weight. After all, you’re aiming for fat loss, not trying to get your muscles to waste away.
For example, this study found that diets ranging from 0.48 to 0.72 grams of protein per kg of body weight (that’s 82 to 123 grams for our 171-pound woman, 96 to 144 for our 200-pound man) resulted in less weight regain after the diet, and helped people to maintain muscle mass and feel more full while they were dieting.
And if you’re losing weight and exercising? The IAAF recommends that athletes who are “undertaking high-quality weight loss” need at least 0.72 grams per pound of bodyweight, and possibly as much as 1.09 grams per pound. That would be 186 grams for a 171-pound athlete, or 218 grams for a 200-pound athlete. Most people won’t need to go that high, and it’s unclear whether athletes need to go that high. But I’m including these numbers so you see how high the ranges actually go.
Ultimately, weight loss is widely understood to be more effective and have healthier results with higher protein intakes rather than lower ones. When people focus on just eating less, without thinking about what their diet actually consists of, it’s easy to forget about protein. But the evidence suggests that you should increase protein when you’re decreasing overall calories.
Does “too much” protein turn into fat?
This is a common talking point in those articles about “too much” protein, and it’s sort of true—but it also doesn’t mean what you think it means.
When you eat more food than your body needs, your body can store it as fat. That’s true no matter what the excess is made of—protein, carbs, fat, or even alcohol. The protein you eat gets used for many different things in your body. You can build it into muscle tissue, use it for growth and repair of different kinds of cells, and so on. You can also use it for energy—basically, burning it for the calories.
So if you were eating a perfectly balanced diet, and then decided to add an extra 100 grams of protein per day, then sure, a lot of that protein would be used for energy, and since we’d have excess energy, it would get stored as fat.
But if you ate more protein, and that protein replaced other foods in your diet, then there would be no excess calories to store. Nobody is saying you should chug a couple of protein shakes on top of your regular diet. They’re saying (I’m saying) that you should plan your meals and snacks to include more protein.
For example, if your regular lunch is a turkey-and-cheese sandwich with a side of chips, you could improve the protein content of your diet by adding more turkey to the sandwich and replacing the chips with an apple. Same total calories, but more protein. As long as your total calories for the day aren’t in excess of your needs, the “extra” protein won’t get stored as fat.
Is it bad to get too much protein?
In general, high protein diets don’t have any serious health consequences. There’s a major exception, though: in some medical conditions, you may be told to limit your protein intake to protect your health.
For example, people with chronic kidney disease are often advised to use the RDA (0.36 grams per pound of body weight) as a maximum rather than a minimum. Your kidneys play a role in processing protein for excretion, so a lowered protein intake reduces the amount of work that a damaged kidney has to do. That said, once a person with chronic kidney disease begins dialysis, they may be advised to increase their protein intake for better health now that their body has help to handle the higher levels.
People with certain other disorders, like phenylketonuria and homocystinuria, may also be advised to eat a low protein diet. Obviously, if you have one of these conditions, you should be getting your dietary advice from your medical team (ask for a referral to a dietitian!) rather than from general articles on the internet.
Wasn’t there a study that said too much protein is bad?
Besides those known medical issues, the occasional findings about eating “too much” protein tend to fit into the “X is good for you/X is bad for you” ricochet news cycle. They’re not holistic assessments of protein in general on health in general, but rather specific research questions that are still being figured out.
For example, this study found that a high protein (and high fiber) diet seemed to slightly worsen one measure of insulin resistance; but it also improved metabolic health and body composition. The researchers concluded that the subjects’ body chemistry was probably just responding appropriately to the changed nutrient content of their diet. A few years later, a study of high-BMI women with insulin resistance saw improvements to their insulin resistance on a high protein diet.
So are these results interesting, and worth further study? Definitely. Worth changing protein recommendations? Only if this effect turns out (1) to actually lead to worse health outcomes, and (2) to outweigh the known benefits of higher protein. The body of evidence doesn’t support lowering protein recommendations, nor adding an upper limit.
There’s no urgent health problem that lowering our protein intake will solve
So if protein is good for us, and most of us can’t really get “too much,” why are so many people arguing that we’re overdoing it?
I think part of the reason is just misunderstanding (the writers don’t tend to have a background in nutrition and especially not in sports nutrition), but more often, I think they’re talking about a different issue entirely.
Often the “too much protein” stuff is just a way of talking about the environmental effects of meat consumption or dairy farming. People making this argument are trying to pry the double cheeseburgers out of our hands and reassuring us that we’ll be okay. I don’t think an attack on protein is an appropriate way to make that point, since plant-based proteins exist and are a fine alternative. But I understand where they’re coming from.
Ultimately, if you’re trying to make the argument that we’re eating “too much” protein for our health, you really can’t do that without some evidence that we’re eating so much protein that it’s harming our health on a widespread level. And that evidence just doesn’t exist.
To understand that point, just look at the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. This is the master document that tells us what we should be eating and what government programs should be funding. The goals include reducing rates of heart disease and diabetes, and making sure people get enough vitamins. There are Key Recommendations to limit certain nutrients—specifically sugars, saturated fats, sodium, and alcohol. There is no recommendation to reduce your intake of protein.
TikTok loves a pithy rule for weight loss, and one of those is the 30-30-30 "rule" or "diet" (no relation to the 12-3-30 treadmill workout). As a morning routine, it’s not bad, actually—but as a weight loss hack, it makes bigger promises than it can deliver on.
What is the 30-30-30 rule?
Even though people call it a “rule,” 30-30-30 is just a routine that includes breakfast and a short workout. The idea of 30-30-30 goes like this:
Within 30 minutes of waking up,
You eat 30 grams of protein,
And then do 30 minutes of low intensity cardio.
The current trend may have gotten its biggest boost from a Gary Brecka video—the guy all over TikTok with TED Talk-style lecture clips who we last saw trying to convince us that vegetables are poison. He says that he got the idea from The Four Hour Body by Tim Ferriss. It’s been a while since I’ve read that book, but a handout on Ferriss’s “slow carb diet” only mentions the first two bullet points, and he calls it the “30 in 30” rule. (To be clear, neither Ferriss nor Brecka are great sources of dietary or fitness advice. They both excitedly promote questionable weight-loss schemes—Ferriss’s diet cuts out bread, rice, potatoes, and all fruit—with only anecdotes to back up the claims that they work.)
Brecka says he’s “never seen anything in my life strip fat off of a human being faster than” 30-30-30, and while I can't comment on what Brecka has seen in his life, there is nothing special about 30-30-30.
Why eat 30 grams of protein?
I do like the advice to eat 30 grams of protein. Many people, when losing weight, focus on calories and forget about protein, which is important for maintaining muscle if you’re losing fat, and it’s important for keeping your body healthy in general.
Protein alone doesn’t maintain muscle, though. To maximize those benefits, you need to do some kind of strength training as well. That could mean working out with weights a few times a week or doing bodyweight exercises at home–so long as you choose exercises that are actually challenging enough to build muscle.
The amount of protein recommended here is good: 30 grams is roughly a third of what you’re going for if you want to get about 100 grams total over the course of the day. As I’ve explained before, 100 is a good number for most people to shoot for as a minimum when trying to build or maintain muscle. (Here is a more detailed guide, if you’d like more specific numbers based on your goals and body size.)
Why eat protein in the morning?
Do you need to eat your first 30 grams of protein first thing in the morning? No, you can get your protein at any time of the day. But there are some advantages to the schedule.
The most important thing, if you aren’t used to eating a lot of protein, is to just actually start doing it. If you have a breakfast with basically no protein and only about 15 grams at lunchtime, then you’ll have to stuff a ton of protein into dinner–and at that point, maybe it’s been a long day and you’re like, forget it, I’ll do better tomorrow. But starting with 30 grams of protein in the morning means you’ve got a head start on the day’s intake. Many people also find protein to be more satiating than other foods, meaning that you’ll have an easier time sticking to your plan for a healthy lunch.
One more advantage, even for people who find it easy to get enough protein, is that it can be good to spread your protein throughout the day. In theory, each protein-rich meal gives your muscles a signal to build (or maintain) muscle tissue, so the more of those meals you get in a day, the better. In reality, it probably doesn’t matter much as long as you get enough protein in total, but starting out with a high-protein breakfast can help with the total amount, too.
What if I can’t easily eat within 30 minutes of waking up?
If you can't easily eat within 30 minutes of waking up, then don’t. There is no magical protein-consumption window that kicks off when you wake up each morning. You can eat breakfast whenever you like. And if eating a protein-rich breakfast doesn’t work for your schedule or tastes, you’re not missing out on anything important.
How much is 30 grams of protein?
Here are a few examples of foods that contain 30 grams of protein:
Five eggs (scrambled, in an omelet, etc) or about a cup of liquid egg whites
A scoop of whey protein powder in a cup of skim milk
You can mix and match, of course; an omelet with three eggs and a small handful of chopped chicken (plus some veggies) would fit the bill perfectly. And remember, there’s no law saying you have to eat “breakfast” foods at breakfast. If you have some leftover chili from last night, that’s a fine breakfast too.
As with the protein, there's no special reason to exercise in the morning (and certainly not within some specific timeframe after waking up or after eating). But morning exercise works well for a lot of folks. Even I, a very-not-morning-person, get a definite mood and energy boost from a morning workout or a walk. And again, there’s that strategy of front-loading the stuff you don’t want to slip off your to-do list. Get your exercise in first thing in the morning, and it’s already done.
The exercise in the 30-30-30 “rule” is usually understood to mean low intensity cardio, specifically. This is what’s called “zone 2” cardio, or what used to be called the “fat-burning zone.” The advantages of keeping your cardio at a lower intensity include:
You’ll hate it less
It won’t make you as hungry as intense exercise
It won’t make you as tired as intense exercise
It’s best to do both easier and more intense exercise in general, but the lower-intensity stuff is great as a foundation, so if you can only do one or the other, start there. You’ll have an easier time building the habit, and you can sprinkle in the higher intensity stuff as an addition.
What are the downsides of 30-30-30?
I see two downsides to the 30-30-30 routine. One is obsessing over the specifics, since there's absolutely no reason for any of the numbers to be exactly 30 or for the routine to be done in the exact way described. The other downside is the danger that you might believe the nonsense being used to justify it.
Let’s talk about the specificity first. I’ve seen people asking on Reddit what to do if they wake up at 4 a.m. but don’t actually get out of bed and begin their day until 6 a.m., or what they should eat because they can’t cook their usual breakfast within 30 minutes of waking up. The answer to all these questions is: It doesn’t matter. The 30-minute timeframe is made up to sound catchy. Nothing bad happens if you don’t make the deadline.
The same goes for the exact amount of protein. If you have 20 grams (just the yogurt, without the half-scoop of protein powder), are you ruining the weight loss magic? You're not, because there is no weight loss magic. You can move the other 10 grams to lunch, if you think it will be easier to get in your day’s protein that way.
And that brings me to the claims about why 30-30-30 is a weight loss hack. (It is not a weight loss hack.) Brecka’s video about 30-30-30 contains a number of dubious assertions:
It claims that you burn through your muscle glycogen (stored carbs) in 20 minutes. This may be truth-adjacent if we’re talking about extremely high-intensity exercise, done fasted, but it’s not going to be relevant to weight loss in any meaningful way. If you're an athlete who needs to do high-intensity exercise for more than 20 minutes, you’ll be paying attention to your fueling strategy anyway, most likely eating carbs before the workout to spare glycogen. The rest of us don't need to worry about this.
It claims that it takes three minutes to “liquify” lean muscle. I cannot come up with a single way of reading this claim that corresponds to known facts about human biology.
It claims that it takes five hours to turn fat into energy. Well, we’re constantly turning fat into energy (it’s our main fuel source while we sleep and when we’re sitting or resting), so it doesn’t really matter how long it takes to start up the fat-burning machine; it’s always running.
These numbers are thrown out as an explanation for why fasted cardio is bad for weight loss, but they don’t add up; even if we were burning muscle by doing an OrangeTheory class first thing in the morning, that doesn’t mean we’re putting on weight or failing to lose weight. Our bodies use many fuels throughout the day, and weight changes result from the total energy balance we’ve created (burning more than we eat, or vice versa)—not from which fuel we’re using at which time.
If 30-30-30 works, it’s likely because it’s helping you form a more sustainable habit. Half an hour of low-intensity exercise is easy to stick to, as we saw with “cozy cardio,” and it meets the guidelines for cardiovascular health. Eating protein with breakfast helps you get started on your protein for the day, which is also good for health. So if 30-30-30 fits your personality and your schedule, it’s a fine way to build some healthy habits. Just don’t expect it to melt the pounds off. Weight changes come from adjusting how much you eat relative to the calories you burn. And there are plenty of ways to do it that don’t involve following a specific morning routine.
If you’re a beginner runner, you’ve probably heard the advice that you’re running too fast and you need to slow the heck down. I’ve told you this. Our resident marathoner Meredith Dietz has told you this. But today I’d like to present the counterpoint: all the ways that running fast—maybe even “too fast”—can benefit you.
Why everybody says you should run slower
To recap, everybody tells beginner runners to slow down because most beginners haven’t yet figured out how to run easy. Easy pace runs are the bread-and-butter of training. They're low-fatigue and allow us to accumulate more mileage each week than if we were always pushing the pace.
If the only speed you know is an all-out sprint, you’ll never find your easy pace. You’ll never figure out how to jog. You’ll spend every run gasping for breath, and you’ll increase your chances of experiencing shin splints and a sense of dread at the thought of your next run.
Those points aren’t wrong, they’re just not the whole picture. You should definitely work on finding your slower paces, and aim for most of your runs to feel easy-ish rather than treating every one of them like a breakneck race. But now that we have that caveat out of the way, let’s talk about why faster running also has its place.
If your running pace is really slow—let’s say 13 to 15 minutes per mile, or around 4 m.p.h. on a treadmill—you’re doing a great job at keeping your overall effort easy, and that’s a huge accomplishment.
But look at how you’re moving: Your feet are moving in sort of a slow shuffle, rather than a sprightly run. Now, shuffling isn’t bad—every ultramarathoner counts it among their trustiest paces—it just shouldn’t be the only type of running you do.
After all, running is a skill that takes practice, not just a source of zone 2 aerobic stimulus. When you’re a little bit faster and fitter, you can check both boxes at once. But until then, try to mix in some faster running, even if it comes in small doses.
Try strides: A “stride” is a very short interval where the idea is to move your feet quickly, and then slow down and stop before you’ve done enough work to get tired. You could do this at the end of a run, or even in the middle to break up the monotony. Accelerate to a fast pace, hold it for just a few seconds, and then slow to a stop. Rest a minute or two before going again. As running coach Jason Fitzgerald told us, “strides are a wonderful way of practicing running fast without making that fast running difficult.”
Intervals build fitness, too
Steady, slow-paced runs are great for building your aerobic fitness, but they’re not the only way. Tons of studies (and plenty of real-world experience) support the idea that interval work helps beginner and intermediate runners to get faster. To do intervals, you alternate working hard (a fast run) with easy work like walking or even complete rest.
Some running coaches advise that beginners should get some experience under their belt before scheduling in structured intervals. But that’s not a universal sentiment: others believe that intervals can be added at any time, so long as you start with small doses.
Try these: Here are some interval schemes that have been shown in research to benefit beginner and intermediate runners. Either set up an interval timer app, or go old school and just watch the clock. Take at least five minutes to warm up, and then dedicate the next 10 or 20 minutes to one of the following:
30-20-10: Walk (or jog very slowly) for 30 seconds, then run at a medium pace for 20 seconds, then run fast for the last 10. Note that each round will take you exactly one minute. Do five, then rest for two minutes, and repeat as many times as you like.
30/30s: This one is even simpler: 30 seconds fast, 30 seconds rest, repeat. After several rounds, take a few minutes’ break. (Experienced athletes will do 8-10 rounds, and then repeat this block multiple times; feel free to start with fewer.)
Short “VO2max” intervals: Traditionally, intervals focused on improving your VO2max (one measure of cardio fitness) are three to five minutes, with an equal amount of rest. But you can also improve your VO2max with shorter intervals, like one minute on/one minute off. Ten one-minute intervals will take you 20 minutes; again, feel free to start with fewer.
The key with all of these is not to run all-out during the work segments, but to hold back a bit, knowing that you’ll only get a short rest before going again. The first few intervals should feel like they’re almost too easy; by the end, you’ll be feeling them a lot more.
You’re allowed to have fun
Running slow can be frustrating and boring. (That is, I think, the main reason why it’s so hard to learn to run slow in the first place.) All the focus on zone 2, and easy running, and building your aerobic base and all that jazz, leaves out the fact that it’s fun to run fast.
You’re allowed to have fun. You don’t have to “earn” the right to run fast by achieving a certain cardio fitness level. You certainly don’t have to spend every run with your eyes glued to your watch, policing your heart rate or your mile pace.
Try fartleks: The word is Swedish for “speed play,” but I’ll understand if you take it to mean, “lick my farts, I’m going to do what I want.” The only rule for a fartlek run is that there are no rules. Want to charge uphill and jog down? Or walk up because you’re tired, and run down because wheeeeeee? All fair game. If you use Strava, look up a few local “segments,” which are short bits of road where people unofficially race each other. Get to the start of the segment any way you like, then speed to the finish. Even if you don’t crack your local top 10, you can still see how you fared relative to your own previous performances. Whatever approach you choose, have fun with it.
Putting it all together
You don’t have to do all of these faster workouts, and you definitely don’t need to dump the slower runs. To build your fitness, try to keep at least half of your training at an easy-enough effort that you could keep up a conversation without getting out of breath. But it’s fine to include some of these ways of running faster, whether that’s a few strides at the end of an easy run, or a dedicated interval day.
And finally, it’s fine to alternate between walking and running for any run, so long as you’re also working on the ability to keep up a steady pace. If you have to walk/run on those “easy run” days, aim to keep the running slow and the walking brisk; over time, they will meld together into a single, easier pace.
Ever since the New York Times bought Wordle, they’ve stuck with its simplicity—one word per day, five letters, that’s it. It occupies one tile in the NYT Games app, unlike the Crossword and Spelling Bee where users can scroll sideways to play previous days’ games. But now, that’s changing: subscribers will soon be able to access an archive—plus WordleBot is coming to the Games app as well.
There are free archives, but NYT keeps killing them off
If you wanted to play past Wordles, you used to be able to go to this unofficial Wordle archive—but the NYT asked the creator to shut it down, and they did. Discussions on forums like Reddit mention that other archives have been shut down in the past.
So far, the unofficial free archive Wordle Replay is still up, and appears to be fully functional. Another free archive, Wordle Archive, works but doesn’t accept the full range of legal guesses—it told me my trusty starter, ARISE, was not a legal word.
Where you can find the official Wordle archive
The NYT says that they are “rolling out” the archive on mobile and desktop, starting May 7. I don’t see it on the NYT Games website, even though I’m a subscriber. Maybe you will be more lucky.
The archive is supposed to roll out to the NYT Games app in “coming weeks.” Once again, I don’t see it on mine, but I’ll keep looking.
WordleBot is coming to the NYT Games app
The other big announcement from the NYT this week was that WordleBot will now be available from the Games app. Currently, when you solve a Wordle puzzle on the web, there’s a link to compare your performance with WordleBot’s. (As I’ve written before, this is a bot that solves the puzzle with computer precision, and then grades you on skill, luck, and how many guesses you took to find the answer.)
Until now, the WordleBot link has been missing from the Games app, which means I never bother to go and look it up. If the link were right there, I might take a look after finishing each day’s puzzle—which might ultimately make me a better Wordle solver. Again, I don’t see the bot in my app yet, but the NYT has promised that it’s on the way.
Lawns, mowed short, give us space for dogs and kids to play. They also keep our neighbors from making complaints to the town government or homeowners’ association. But a closely-cropped lawn is a flower-free monoculture. Some organizations are encouraging a “No Mow May” to allow wildflowers in the grass to bloom—benefiting pollinators—before we start cutting grass down for the season.
There’s a huge caveat worth noting here: Ecological organizations say that No Mow May doesn’t do much for pollinators if all you do is let your grass grow for a month and then get back to your usual lawn care. (It can even be bad for your grass.) Instead, consider how you can help pollinators in your yard with other approaches, like a “slow mow summer.”
What is No Mow May?
Originated by Plantlife in the UK, No Mow May is described as a movement that aims to “Provide a feast for pollinators, tackle pollution, reduce urban heat extremes, and lock away atmospheric carbon below ground.”
Plantlife asks people to pledge not to mow their lawn during May, and they encourage participants to discuss plant diversity with their neighbors and on social media. Lawns have taken over areas that were once meadow, leaving pollinators with fewer flowers to feed on. People should really be cultivating gardens and meadows, not just lawns, the argument goes. No Mow May is a step toward that.
Is it actually good to stop mowing your grass in May?
According to most U.S.-based conservation organizations: no. The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation writes in a blog: “Let’s be honest, if all you’re doing is letting dandelions and other weeds bloom, that’s not good quality [pollinator] habitat—and any benefits will be canceled if you power up your mower and restart as if nothing has changed once June arrives. We can’t pat ourselves on the back and say, ‘Yay, we saved the bees.’”
The Bee Lab at the University of Minnesota agrees: “People should not take the catch phrase ‘No Mow May’ literally.”
Minimal environmental benefits aside, No Mow May can potentially harm your grass. Lawns are healthiest when you only trim off some of their height, so you don’t want to let your grass get a foot tall and then chop it down to nothing. (That end-of-May cut isn’t good for your mower, either.)
Conservation organizations appreciate the sentiment of No Mow May, but prefer that we channel our energy into more holistic approaches like a Slow Mow Spring or Slow Mow Summer, extending the mission of No Mow May across an entire season.
Here are a few things that can help your yard to provide more food for pollinators, and more beneficial habitat for other living things like birds:
Mow less often throughout the season, and use a higher blade height on your mower. Longer grass keeps the soil moist, and the taller mowing height allows small flowers to bloom.
Plant native and beneficial flowers in your lawn, like clover, selfheal, and violets.
Grow a mini-meadow or wildflower garden that is separate from your lawn.
Grow other pollinator-friendly plants besides just the ones that grow in grass. Shrubs, garden plants, and window boxes can all contribute.
The Bee Lab also points out that careful timing of mowing can help, depending on what grows in your yard. For example, you can allow weeds like dandelions to flower, and then mow them before they go to seed. That allows pollinators to visit the flowers, but stops those particular weeds from spreading.
I’ve previously shared the Good News about mosquito dunks, which stop mosquitoes from being able to breed in standing water. Recently I used dunks to create what’s sometimes called a “mosquito bucket of doom,” a trap that entices mosquitoes to breed in standing water that you have (muahahaha) poisoned against them.
Not only is a bucket of doom easy to create—it took about five minutes, and my elementary-aged daughter did most of the work—it’s also more effective than other mosquito control attempts, like mosquito foggers.
Why the bucket of doom is more effective than other types of mosquito management
There are three main ways of dealing with a mosquito problem in your yard:
Keep the mosquitoes away from you personally, with box fans, bug spray, and barriers like screening. They’re still out there, but at least they aren’t biting you.
Kill adult mosquitoes, for example with foggers. Those individual mosquitoes won’t be able to bite anymore, since they’re dead, but the small amount you’ve managed to kill is not much of a dent in the mosquito population. This is the least effective strategy.
Kill larvae or interfere with breeding. This is where the bucket of doom comes in. You’ll eliminate breeding sites in your yard, except for that very special bucket. The bucket will kill the baby mosquitoes before they can grow up.
The first and third options are the ones that will make a difference: box fans and bug spray for yourself, mosquito breeding control for your yard. If you’re interested in trying to kill adult mosquitoes, read up on adulticides. They can be toxic to other insects like bees. They also don't tend to help mosquito problems unless you can manage to kill a lot of the adult mosquitoes, which can be difficult and expensive.
The bucket of doom is an easy and effective form of breeding control, but be aware that it works best in places where there aren’t other breeding sites for the mosquitoes. If you live next door to a swamp, the bucket may not help much. On the other hand, if you’re in a place where you and your neighbors are good about cleaning up stagnant water, the bucket will be more effective.
How a mosquito bucket of doom works
First, you need to understand the mosquito life cycle. (There are different species, with different preferences about who to bite and where to breed, but the same basic facts apply.)
Just as butterflies have a larval stage (the caterpillar), mosquitoes also have a larval stage and an adult flying stage. Females lay their eggs in or near water, and the larvae are aquatic. If you’ve ever looked into a bucket or pond and noticed wriggling wormy things near the surface, those were mosquito larvae. They hang upside down, breathing through a tube in their butts (I promise I am not making this up) but can swim around to hide or to look for microscopic bits of food to eat.
They pupate (like caterpillars) and emerge from the water as adult mosquitoes. Male and female adults drink flower nectar (!!!) which is enough to keep them alive, but when a female is ready to breed, she needs protein. That’s where the biting comes in. She needs a “blood meal” to be able to build those little baby mosquito eggs. So she bites you, drinks a drop of your blood, and then a few days later she lays her eggs. Then the cycle can begin again.
The entire life cycle only takes a few weeks, so mosquitoes will breed (and bite) continuously all season. We’re going to disrupt this process by poisoning the water that the larvae live in. The eggs will hatch, but the larvae will die.
Is a mosquito bucket of doom safe?
One of the things I love about the bucket of doom is that it targets mosquitoes and doesn’t affect most other insects, nor people and animals.
The “poison” that we’re using is actually just a naturally occurring bacterium with the scientific name Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis (often abbreviated Bti). This type of bacteria makes a toxin that can kill mosquitoes, fungus gnats, and blackflies, but Bti is nontoxic to mammals, birds, and fish. Insects that don’t breed in water aren’t affected by dunks, so butterflies and bees are safe.
A bucket of water can be a safety hazard for small children and for animals, just because they could fall into it and drown. If your bucket of doom is in an area where children or pets could access it, consider covering the bucket with a barrier. Chicken wire makes an easy DIY cover, but if you want something a little neater looking, use a hydroponic basket that snaps onto the top of the bucket.
There’s an area of my yard where we often have a bucket or two around, and those buckets tend to fill up with rain. Obviously I dump them when I notice, but every now and then I’ve seen mosquito larvae in one of those buckets. Gross. So that’s where I decided to set up my first bucket of doom.
I’ve seen the larvae even when there wasn’t any obvious source of nutrients in the bucket, but the instructions from university websites usually mention adding some hay, straw, or other organic matter. I asked my daughter to gather up some dry leaves from the corners of the yard and driveway. Then we filled the bucket partway with water, before adding the magic ingredient. Here are the steps so you can follow along:
Add plant matter (hay, straw, leaves) to the bucket.
Add water to the bucket, making a nice little pond for the mosquitoes.
Drop in ¼ of a mosquito dunk, or the amount indicated on the package.
In case you were wondering how big these things are.Credit: Beth Skwarecki
How to maintain your bucket of doom throughout the summer
My package said a quarter of a doughnut-shaped dunk is appropriate for controlling mosquitoes in one square foot of surface area, so we used a quarter dunk for our bucket. (Some photos online show people using a full dunk per bucket; that’s probably overkill.) You will need to add a new dunk monthly.
I got my dunks for a little under $20 for a pack of 20, so let’s say I’m paying 25 cents per month to reduce the mosquito population. Add the cost of the bucket ($4.99 if you don’t already have one sitting around at home) and that’s less than $7 for a summer’s worth of mosquito protection.
Make more than one bucket if you have a big yard or just want to cover your bases in multiple locations (maybe one in the backyard, one by your front porch). And remember, you still need to dump out all of your non-poisoned standing water. The bucket of doom works best when it’s the mosquitoes’ only option.
People who use these buckets tend to report that they noticed far fewer mosquitoes in the months that followed. Mosquitoes take a few weeks to go through their life cycle, so don’t expect results instantly—but if you maintain your bucket and take care to eliminate other sources of standing water, you should notice there aren’t as many mosquitoes around this year as usual.
Cardio and weights are both key components of any fitness program, whether you’re trying to stay healthy, lose weight, or excel in athletic competition. But how do you combine the two? That’s the question we’re tackling today—and I’m sorry to say that the answer is “it depends.”
Is it OK to train strength and cardio together?
For most people, it doesn’t really matter whether you train strength and cardio in the same session, in different sessions on the same day, or on different days throughout the week. If you have a routine that fits your life, you’re better off than somebody who keeps trying and failing to do the “optimal” thing. As I’ve written before, optimal is optional.
But to give you some general tips:
If you’re trying to be really good at one type of fitness, your most important workouts should get their own dedicated time.
If you’re trying to be good at a type of fitness that combines strength and cardio (like Crossfit, or many team sports), it’s okay to combine them most of the time. You may still want to do some focused weights-only or cardio-only sessions.
If you’re just trying to stay healthy or lose weight, go ahead and do your workouts whenever you can. If you don’t end up gaining quite as much strength as an elite powerlifter, I’m guessing you’ll be fine with that.
Why you might want to do strength training first
You’ll be fresh for your strength work
To get the most out of strength training, you’ll want to show up ready to put in some serious work. For the same reason we rest several minutes between sets, we also don’t want to show up to a strength workout already pooped from a long session on the exercise bike.
If you’re fatigued at the start of a strength session, you won’t be able to lift as much weight. You also might find yourself more likely to get bored or tired and say “fuck it” and go home. Starting your strength workouts fresh will help you to get the best strength and/or muscle gains for your effort.
Easy cardio doesn’t suffer (much) at the end of a workout
You might think the argument for showing up fresh would apply to all workouts, but that’s not really the case. A lot of your cardio should be fairly low intensity stuff (that “zone 2” you keep hearing about) and it’s not a big deal to do zone 2 work when you’re already fatigued.
Let’s say you aren’t up for a strong running performance after you’ve finished five sets of heavy squats. So what? You can do an easy jog, or even a brisk walk, and still get in a perfectly good zone 2 cardio workout.
If you’re a strength athlete, you’ll want to get right to the point
I hate a lengthy warmup, and maybe you do, too. If you’re more of a strength training person, it may feel better to treat your cardio as an afterthought, something that gets done after your real work for the day. Instead of hopping on the bike and wondering how much cardio might affect your day’s workout, you can sit on the bike after you’ve done your squats for the day, and pedal away mindlessly without worrying about performance.
Why you might want to do cardio first
You have a hard workout you want to be fresh for
While your easy cardio sessions can kind of go anywhere, most cardio-focused athletes will have key workouts that deserve their full attention and effort. If you train with weights on the same day as track intervals or a long run, you’ll definitely want the weights to come last.
You’re getting used to a new cardio routine
Beginner runners know that running can be hard at first; the same might be true of any other form of cardio you just started doing. Showing up fatigued is not going to make these workouts any more fun. Better to get your easy run in, then follow it up with a quick strength workout, than do it the other way around and find yourself discouraged because you need to take more walk breaks than usual.
Strength work is truly an afterthought for you
If you love running (or cycling, etc) and don’t care much for lifting, your post-cardio time might be your best option for getting a lifting session in. You’ve got a bit of a mood boost going from that great run you just had, you’re nicely warmed up, and—let’s be honest—you probably won’t head to the gym just for a strength workout.
This doesn’t describe everybody, but be honest with yourself if this sounds familiar. The risk in leaving strength work for last is that you might end up skipping it entirely. But if you need to budget the time somewhere, ask yourself if you can commit to a post-cardio strength routine twice a week or so.
How to choose whether cardio first or lifting first makes sense for you
The easiest way to choose is to do the most important workout first. Runners should usually run first, powerlifters should usually lift first, and so on.
If you aren’t able to pick a side, another good rule of thumb is to do the hardest workout first. Deadlift day followed by an easy 20 minutes on the bike, for example; or an evening of 400 meter repeats on the track followed by a few sets of lunges and pushups.
If you truly cannot decide, and you want me to flip a coin for you: most people should do weights first. It’s hard to get the benefits of strength training without putting effort into it, and it’s hard to put effort in when you’re fatigued.
Is it bad to do cardio to warm up before lifting?
A warmup of 10 minutes or so is a great way to get ready to lift, especially if it’s mostly low intensity work (in other words, it feels like a warmup) and it’s relatively short. I wouldn’t count that as a full cardio “workout,” but I would count it toward my total minutes or miles of cardio for the week.
What if I’m super tired after my first workout?
You should only stack workouts if you’re able to put in a good-enough effort for the second one. If your first workout leaves you exhausted, that might not be a good day to tack on a whole second workout. Consider doing that other workout on a different day, or even later the same day.
That said, try having a snack between the first and second workouts—even a sports drink or candy bar will help. Carbs (including sugar) make for an excellent energy boost during long workouts. If the first workout is long (60-90 minutes or more), carbs are likely to help. If the first workout is short but really intense (like 20 minutes), you may just need to sit around a rest a little bit before diving into the next chapter. Carbs won’t hurt in this case, though.
Should I always do my workouts in the same order?
No, you don’t have to! It’s totally fine to swap the order as needed. For example, a weightlifter might tack on cardio after lifting most days, but then have a day that’s dedicated to cardio where they might do a few lifting accessories afterward.
And if you have a set routine, but something disrupts it—you have to finish early to take your kid to an event, or whatever—feel free to move things around as needed so you get in as much of the important work as you can.
How much time should I wait between my workouts?
You can jump straight off the leg press machine and head to the elliptical, so there’s no minimum time. But if you find yourself scheduling separate workouts, the rule of thumb is that 6 hours gives you a decent amount of recovery time. Eat a good meal with plenty of carbs after the first workout if you can—that replenishes glycogen stores so that you’ll have more energy going into the second workout.
Five years ago I split my first apple in half, inspired by a video clip on the internet and the audacity to think that maybe, if I really believed in myself, I might be able to join the ranks of the apple-splitters. I achieved glory and success (the apple did in fact break in my hands) and I've been riding that high ever since. Today, I return to retell that story and provide an innovation: a way to cheat if your apple-splitting is not going as well as you hoped.
What do you mean, split an apple?
I mean you break it in half, in a way that looks like it could have been cut with a knife. Right down the middle. Here's a video of Paul Rudd wowing the internet with this feat (and, be warned, using some adult language in the process). Amazing! What human being can do that? Surely nobody but Paul Rudd!
I love a good feat of strength and/or skill. In fact, the only thing I love more is hearing that it may be more accessible than at first I assumed. (See also: my brief obsessions with bending nails and flipping kettlebells.) So I was intrigued when strength coach Adam Fisher provided a different perspective:
I don’t mean to diminish the accomplishment of cracking open an apple. It is a feat of strength, and not everybody can do it. But far more people can do it than probably suspect they can. It turns out, Adam is right.
I saw his tweet while I was at a conference, and there was a giant basket of apples in the lobby, so I could test out the apple-splitting trick ASAP. I watched a few YouTube videos on apple splitting, but ultimately it is the apple that teaches you.
How to crack that apple
First, if you have small hands, choose a small apple. And make sure the apple is a crunchy one; a fresh Honeycrisp works well. (My first try was a medium size Gala, and it was tough but I got it.) Consider removing the stem, not for any mechanical advantage but just so it won’t poke you as you are squeezing.
Then:
Locate the squishy, meaty muscle at the base of your thumb. Wedge the thumb meat of both hands into the divot at the top of the apple.
Compress the apple top to bottom as hard as you can. It may help to press the apple against your knee or another convenient surface.
While doing this, pull the apple apart, like opening a book.
If you run into trouble, try a smaller or crispier apple.
And don’t get discouraged. I grabbed three Gala apples from the basket at the hotel, and was only able to crack one of them. Later, when I got home, I bought a bag of small Honeycrisps and was able to split them so easily that I did a few in a row for my kids and then encouraged them to try. None of them quite managed, but I told them all to try again next year when they have grown a bit bigger. Then, suddenly nobody wanted to eat any of the apples, so I’m over here gnawing on them all by myself. Anyway. Give it a try—you might surprise yourself!
How to make the apple easier to split (aka how to cheat)
Look closely—there are two fingernail gouges on the top surface of the apple.Credit: Beth Skwarecki
I sat down with an apple today, thinking my only job was to take a new photo to update this post. But the apple I had on hand--a Kanzi--wasn't cooperating. What to do? I could get some different apples at the store. I could treat this as a strength performance (which it kind of is) and schedule an apple-splitting session for a day I was better rested. Or maybe I could just cheat.
I know from experience that the apple-splitting phenomenon starts with a small, audible crack. You'll hear a soft noise as it begins to split apart, and if you keep applying pressure, all of a sudden the rest of the apple will give.
So what if I give that initial split just a little bit of help? I didn't have a knife within reach, so I dug my thumbnail into the top of the apple, along the line where I imagined it would break. Then I returned to my apple-splitting efforts.
As I predicted, the cracking noise began almost immediately. My cheat didn't make the apple easy to split, but it seemed to get my foot in the door, so to speak. I kept the pressure on, and soon the apple cracked in half just as I was hoping. A few fingernail gouges would be easy to apply surreptitiously if you're doing this trick in front of friends, and honestly you're still splitting an apple in half with no tools other than your bare hands. I hereby deem this a not-too-cheaty-cheat. So go forth and split an apple, ya cheater.
With some products, like phones, you have a myriad of options to sort through. But if you want to buy one of Peloton's spin bikes, you only have two choices: the Bike or the Bike+ (pronounced “bike plus”). That little “+” costs an extra thousand dollars, so is it really worth it? Let’s dive in.
Overview of the important features
I’ll go over the details below, but here’s the short answer: if you just want “a Peloton,” the regular Bike is the original. It’s the one most people have, it’s cheaper, and it does the job just fine. I have a regular Bike and I’ve never felt like I’m missing out. The regular price for a Bike is $1,445, but with a good sale you can find it closer to $1,000. If you're willing to look at used models, they can often be had in the mid to high triple digits.
The Bike+ costs significantly more, so what are you paying for? The tech components are nicer, so the on-screen experience will feel a bit faster and smoother. Other than that, the big features are auto-resistance (the bike will follow along with classes without you having to turn the knob) and a swiveling screen so you can turn it to the side for things like strength workouts and guided yoga sessions. List price on the Bike+ is $2,495, with deals sometimes bringing it as low as $1,995. Refurbished and used models will, of course, cost a bit less.
Most of the differences between the two bikes are tech-related, and we’ll get into those in a minute. But first, you should know what’s the same between the two bikes.
First, they’re the same size. Both have the same footprint, 4 feet by 2 feet—Peloton recommends that you allow 24 inches on each side of the bike, and that you put it in an area with at least 8-foot-high ceilings. This allows even tall riders to be able to stand up and pedal. (If you don’t care about standing, or if you’re shorter, you might be able to squeeze into a tighter space. I’m 5’6” and never had an issue with my attic’s 7-foot ceilings.)
The controls and the frame are the same, with the exception that the original Bike had a seat post recall, and the Bike+ did not. (If you’re buying used, make sure that the seat post was replaced.) Both have a hard wired 3.5mm headphone jack, although it’s probably more common to use the onboard speakers or a bluetooth headset rather than plugging in a pair of headphones.
Both flavors of bike can accommodate a rider who is anywhere between 4’11” and 6’4” and weighs up to 297 pounds. The Bike itself weighs 135 pounds, and the Bike+ weighs 140, due mainly to the hefty flywheel (with spin bikes, the heavier the flywheel, the better).
Both the Bike and Bike+ have access to the same subscription options. For the $44/month All-Access subscription, you get:
Classes on the bike—these are the classic offering, with a charismatic instructor leading you through a structured workout (and often peppering it with motivational speeches).
Scenic rides on the bike, with “Peloton radio” for music (I usually mute it and just play my own music from my phone).
Lanebreak (a sort of ride-along video game) on the bike.
Access to classes through the Peloton app on your phone.
The ability to create multiple profiles for family members, so you can all share the bike without additional subscriptions.
Besides cycling classes, the bikes and the app can also provide follow-along classes for strength, stretching, yoga, and more. You can take bike classes on the phone app as well, a handy feature when you have access to a spin bike but it’s not a Peloton (for example, at a gym).
Now that we know what’s the same, let’s dig into the differences.
The Bike+ has a swiveling screen, but don’t buy it just for that
The first thing you’ll notice about the Bike+ (and arguably its only visually distinctive feature) is the fact that its screen is on a swivel. This lets you set up a space next to the bike, perhaps with a mat and dumbbells, to do other types of workouts. Hop off the Bike+, point the screen toward your mat, and you can do a yoga class without having to crane your neck to see over the seat.
The screen on the regular Bike doesn’t swivel, but it does tilt. This lets you adjust it for the most comfortable angle or to avoid glare while you’re riding. If you want that swiveling feature, though, you don’t have to pony up an extra grand for a whole new bike—an aftermarket swivel mount is only about 50 smackers.
The Bike+ has auto-resistance and a real power meter
If the Bike+ has a killer feature, it’s this. When an instructor tells you to set your resistance to 30, you don’t need to touch the knob—the Bike+ will adjust the resistance for you.
You can turn this feature on or off during a ride by tapping the lock icon next to the resistance numbers. On regular rides, the Bike+ will adjust the resistance whenever the instructor announces that the resistance is changing; on power zone rides, it will adjust as needed to keep you in your power zone.
The catch is that auto-resistance only works for rides where “target metrics” are programmed. This includes most rides from Peloton’s back catalog, but it does not include rides where you’re following along with an instructor in real time. After those live rides, Peloton will add the target metrics, but they say it can take up to 24 hours for that feature to become available for a given ride.
The Bike+ also has a power meter built in, so that it can tell exactly how many watts your output is. (The regular Bike will show you an estimated wattage, but Bikes can become miscalibrated and the wattage may be off.) While you can calibrate a regular Bike, the Bike+ always knows how hard you are actually pedaling, and you may appreciate this extra accuracy.
The Bike+ has better quality tech in its tablet
The screen on the front of your Bike or Bike+ isn’t just a screen; it’s a whole tablet computer with its own processor, RAM, and other electronic components. An under-appreciated part of the Bike+ upgrade is just that everything in the tablet is nicer, better, and faster. The screen itself is larger: a 23.8” diagonal instead of 21.5”. The Bike+ also has:
4 gigabytes of RAM instead of just two
A 2.5 gigahertz Qualcomm processor instead of a 2.0 GHz Mediatek
A 26-watt sound system with front- and rear-facing speakers instead of a 16-watt system with just rear-facing speakers
Bluetooth 5.0 instead of 4.0
A USB-C port so you can charge your devices while you ride (the regular Bike has a charging port, but it’s micro-USB, so most of us would need to get an adapter).
A smudge-proof, reduced-reflection coating on that big ol' screen.
There are also two features that are better on paper but that won’t matter to most of us. First, the Bike+ supports GymKit, a protocol for connecting your Apple Watch to the Bike+ for heart rate data. (They briefly stopped supporting GymKit, since there’s a Peloton Apple Watch app that does most of what GymKit does, but got enough complaints that they brought it back.)
Second, the Bike+ has a nicer selfie camera, 8 MP versus 5 MP (and a privacy cover for said camera). Wait, the Peloton has a camera?? I hear you say. Yep, and according to Peloton its only use is for taking a selfie to use as your profile picture. (You can also just take a photo on your phone and add it to your profile through the app.) That said, Peloton users have said they’ve used the camera for video chat—but nobody seems to actually like that feature.
Ultimately, these features mean that your experience will be just a little bit faster and smoother. Some Peloton riders say that the nicer tech means that Lanebreak is less likely to have that occasional lag when you change “lanes” during the ride, and that the interface is just generally a bit more responsive.
The bottom line: Peloton Bike vs. Bike+
The Bike is a solid choice that will fulfill pretty much all your Peloton dreams. The Bike+ has some features that are nice-to-haves.
Buy the Bike if:
You just want a dang Peloton.
You don’t want to pay an extra $1,050 for minor upgrades.
Buy the Bike+ if:
You want the fastest and smoothest tech experience.
You’d like the Bike to adjust itself during (most) classes.
You’re a numbers nerd and want to know your exact wattage and know that the bike is perfectly calibrated.
Ultimately, both are good choices. The exact price differential between the two models will depend on whether you can find your chosen bike on sale, used, or as a rental (I crunch the numbers for those scenarios here).
There are plenty of reasons to buy shoes at your local running store instead of online or at a big box store, including a more knowledgeable staff and the fact that you’re supporting your local running community. But another biggie is the fact that many will take returns even after you’ve gone for a few runs in your shoes.
In case you don’t have a local store with this policy, it’s good to know that some larger brands and online stores will also take returns of lightly-worn shoes. Fleet Feet and Running Warehouse are among the bigger stores that offer this perk; some online running shoe stores will include it as part of a membership (like Roadrunner). But several running shoe brands offer a no-questions-asked return policy themselves, so if you know that you love (say) Nikes, you can buy from the brand directly.
Do not feel bad about taking advantage of this policy. The whole idea is that you can trust your body to tell you whether the shoes are working, rather than stressing during a brief try-on about whether you think these shoes will work for you. If you can't help but feel guilty, you can make it up by buying your next new pair of shoes from the same place. They do it because they're trying to win you as a loyal customer.
Adidas asks for shoes to be unworn for most returns, but it has a separate policy for its "performance" running shoes, which include all its popular running shoes, from the $65 Runfalcon on up.
Altra prominently advertises "30 day trial runs, guaranteed." It ships a return label with your shoes and allows returns "for any reason" during those 30 days.
Brookswill accept returns within 90 days, even if you’ve run in the shoes: "Run in it, sweat in it, inside, outside, in the rain - if it doesn’t perform the way it should, send it back."
Hoka has a 30-day return policy (60 days for members), even if you've worn the shoes. "Try them out, that's what our 30-day Guarantee is all about."
Newtonaccepts returns within 30 days "for any reason with as much or as little wear and tear on them" as they happen to have.
Nike will let you return shoes, even if they’ve been worn, within 60 days of purchase. It specifically says you can return shoes, including custom sneakers, "for any reason" within that time period. There are exceptions, including items purchased at Nike Clearance stores.
Please note that policies can change, and that they often vary by country. Customer service staff can sometimes help you out even if you fall outside the official policy, but don't count on it. Still, if you’ve bought shoes, run in them, and weren’t happy, it can’t hurt to ask.
You’ve probably heard the advice that running shoes are only good for about 300 to 500 miles, and after that, the cushioning is so broken down that they’re an injury waiting to happen. But that’s not always true, and there are more ways to figure out when to throw out your shoes than just counting the miles.
How do running shoes break down?
When you put in the miles, your shoes undergo wear and tear. The first thing you’ll notice is that the tread on the bottom wears down, but that’s okay; there should be more than enough rubber under your feet to last the lifetime of the shoe.
Another place you’ll see visible wear is on the upper. Maybe you tend to get a hole in the toe box where your big toenail rubs; maybe you run on trails and tend to scuff up the sides. But these scrapes are usually a cosmetic issue, not a functional one. You can patch them up or just run in them despite the holes.
What really matters is the cushioning on the inside. It gets compressed with every step, and the more it gets squished, the less it bounces back. There will come a time in the life of every running shoe when it provides substantially less cushioning than it did when it was new. That’s when it’s arguably time to replace them.
How fast do running shoes break down?
The “300 to 500 miles” rule benefits running companies, since it requires you to replace your shoes while they still might look like new. But it’s true: 300 to 500 miles really is the range where cushioning tends to reach the end of its useful life.
That said, a lot of different factors are at work here besides just mileage—the runner's weight, for instance. If you’re a heavier runner, your shoes will wear out faster. And if you’re a lighter one, you may get more mileage out of your shoes than you’d otherwise expect.
Another factor is how the shoes are made. Some shoes are more durable and will last well beyond 500 miles. Others are light and flimsy to start with, and you might be lucky to break 300. I sometimes buy kids’ running shoes if I can find them in a size that fits me, but they tend to be less sturdy and their cushioning doesn’t last as long.
How long can you wear your old running shoes?
I remember running in the same pair of Nikes for literal years without issue. I bought them around the time that barefoot running and minimalist shoes were all the rage, and in fact I bought them because they had less cushioning than other models—so I figured that if I wanted the least cushioning possible, why would I worry about replacing shoes just because the cushioning was wearing down?
I did eventually get a new pair for other reasons, but the logic is sound: If you don’t need the extra cushioning, and your beat-up shoes are still comfortable, you can keep running in them for as long as they feel good.
On the other hand, not all shoes break down uniformly. I’ve had shoes where one sole starts to feel a bit lumpy or weird, and that can definitely lead to discomfort (or potentially even injury) over time. The most recent models of my favorite Nikes (the Free Run) seem to break down quickly. I've since switched to the Downshifter, a model that fits similarly but has more durable cushioning.
All of this is to say: just because you can keep running in old shoes doesn’t mean you should. Your experience will vary with the brand of shoe, the age of the shoe, and other factors like how heavy you are and what kind of surfaces you run on.
When do you really need to replace your running shoes?
Runners debate this issue amongst themselves, and they don't always come to the same conclusion as the running shoe companies. For example, see this discussion in a running forum on Reddit. Some people do track their miles, but they learn from experience instead of trusting a number just because they read it on the internet somewhere. One runner says, “Yep, my running shoes become lawn mowing shoes somewhere between 700 and 800 miles.” Another uses a range of 600 to 800 kilometers (roughly 400 to 500 miles). Another gives a more detailed explanation:
Theaveragemaryjanie says: "In fact, I started going off of mileage on some brands because [a gradual pain in the knee] went from it’s fine it’s fine it’s fine to oh-my-god-my-knee-how-long-am-I-out-is-this-serious. After about three scares at near the same mileage I figured it out and now replace 50 miles sooner. I would rather buy one extra pair per year than injure myself."
Others go by feel. "I retire shoes not at a mileage but when they either don’t feel comfy to run in any more or if they fall apart," says Layric. I generally get 1,000 miles at least out of pairs. At this mileage the soles are going to be nowhere near as cushioned as when they were new but I don’t suffer any injuries keeping them going this long. I own about half a dozen pairs and rotate through them."
Rotating through a shoe collection reportedly helps to extend the life of shoes. (Pro tip: if you do this, make sure to track shoe mileage in your running app, because otherwise it will be difficult to remember how much you’ve run in each shoe.)
One redditor, MakeYourMarks, has the receipts: "The fact that you rotate them is certainly a boon to their longevity," they say. "The foam/insulation/support gets compressed from the constant banging and pressure of running. Giving them time to “rest” (fully dry out and re-expand) adds a not-insubstantial amount of life to them. I have found that I get around 500 miles of amazing cushioning out of Hokas when rotating every other day as opposed to only about 350-400 when using every day. That’s at least a 25% increase, and at $100+ for a pair of shoes, the savings add up quickly over time."
You can also combine these approaches, and rotate between an older and a newer pair of shoes. The nice thing about this approach is that you’ll be able to feel the difference between good cushioning and worn-down cushioning just by comparing the two, without having to make a trip to the shoe store. Comparing new and old shoes is my own preferred method.
Vitamin D is hugely important to your health, and I don’t just mean bone health. Humans need vitamin D for immune function, cell growth and repair, and many other things. We get vitamin D from sunlight and from food, so let’s take a look at which foods have the most vitamin D.
You don’t have to get all of your vitamin D from food
Before I discuss food sources, I do want to address the issue of where vitamin D comes from in the first place. The primary sources are sunlight and food (and supplements), so if you get plenty of sun, you don’t need to worry about meeting your needs through food, and vice versa.
How much sun do you need to get enough vitamin D? That depends on your latitude on the Earth and how dark or light your skin is. For a benchmark, consider this study that compared sun exposure in Miami and Boston. In Miami in the summer, it only takes a few minutes for a person with a medium skin tone (the kind that tans easily but is still capable of sunburn) to get their vitamin D for the day. In Boston in the winter, bundled up, that same person might take two hours to get the same amount of vitamin D.
Health professionals generally agree that if you aren’t sure if you’re getting enough vitamin D from food and the sun, to just take a supplement. That’s going to be safer than trying to meet all your needs through sunlight, since the vitamin-converting rays of the sun are the same rays that can potentially contribute to skin cancer.
Getting more vitamin D through food is also an option—so let’s dig in.
The daily value on nutrition labels is based on a target of 800 IU (the recommendation for elderly folks) so most of us can actually get away with just 75% of the daily value, instead of making sure we hit 100%.
Those international units exist because there are different forms of vitamin D found in food, and some have a stronger effect on the body than others. In general, 600 IU is equivalent to 15 micrograms of vitamin D, but using IU means you don’t have to keep track of which type of the vitamin is present in food.
Oh, and the recommendations of 600 or 800 IU assume that you are getting minimal sun exposure—they’re for the bundled-up person in Boston, not the sunbather in Miami.
Easy ways to add vitamin D to your diet
Eat more fatty fish
Fish carry tons of vitamin D in their fat, so fatty fish like trout and salmon tend to be great sources of the vitamin.
If you'll allow me a small rant: Cod liver oil always tops lists of vitamin D sources, as if people are buying cod liver oil and taking spoonfuls of it like in old cartoons. (Maybe people do. If this is you, you can stop reading now.) I am going to proceed with my list as if cod liver oil did not exist. That said, if you really want to get your vitamin D this way, by all means, buy some one Amazon.
If you'd rather enjoy eating the fish you're consuming, here’s how much vitamin D is in different types of fish. All of these listings are from the USDA, and indicate the levels in a three-ounce portion of cooked fish.
Trout (rainbow, farmed): 645 IU
Salmon (sockeye): 570 IU
Tuna (light, canned): 229 IU (or 460 IU for a small can)
Tilapia: 128 IU
Fish sticks: sadly, only 1 IU
Other animal products that are good sources of vitamin D
Several land animals also make enough vitamin D to be worth considering as a good source of vitamin D.
Chicken eggs: 37 IU each (the vitamin D is in the yolk)
Beef liver: 48 IU in a three-ounce cooked portion
Milk is famously a good source of vitamin D (the carton often says “vitamin D milk”). There is some vitamin D naturally present in the milkfat, so skim milk doesn’t usually have much vitamin D, but whole milk does—and it’s often fortified to bring those levels up even more.
Whole milk: 124 IU per cup
Heavy cream: 19 IU per ounce
Eat more fortified foods
A food is “fortified” with vitamins if those vitamins have been added to the food. A lot of people don’t drink milk, so several similar beverages are sold with vitamin D added.
Fortified plant milks: Check the label, but it’s often similar to whole milk. here’s a Silk brand soy milk with 120 IU per cup.
Fortified orange juice: Check the label, but here’s Simply Orange with 200 IU per cup.
Fortified cereals: Check the label, but even a sugary cereal like Cinnamon Toast Crunch has 240 IU per serving.
You get the idea. Plant-based foods don’t naturally have much vitamin D, but many common items like these are fortified. Between food, sunlight, and the “I don’t want to think about it” approach of just taking a vitamin D supplement, it shouldn’t be too hard to meet your needs.
Login
