It's time to give an update on the goings on with Fatal Fitness.

Fatal Fitness Trainer Certification Program
First and foremost, the Trainer Certification Program we've been working on forever is finally coming to fruition, with an estimated time of arrival in early November! We anticipate releasing the first of three certification levels. Level 1, which will be released first, will be an entry-level certification program (Apprentice Trainer), something right around the level of proficiency for other personal training certifications. The other two Levels (2 and 3) will be forthcoming. We have no ETAs on either of those at the moment.

Pricing for the Level 1 Certification will be $325, and it will be a distance-learning course, which will include current CPR certification, a written exam, a demonstration portion, and a fitness evaluation as requisites. Once certified, Trainers will be able to add their contact info to our Find a Trainer database as well as join the group on Linkedin. We also plan to offer a live Level 1 Trainer cert, which will be available for people currently certified by other agencies (because we don't believe 1-2 days is sufficient to provide the level of proficiency we prefer).

Seattle Location
Plans to open a Seattle physical location will also come to fruition early 2009. From there we will plan to launch a specialized video program. We'll have more info on that once we get the gym opened. Plans also include parkour instruction from the Pacific Northwest Parkour Association and mixed martial arts/catch wrestling classes.

Desent in the UK
Ptossing has made a slight impact in the UK. Thanks to Aaron Bennett, the UK has their own terminology for Ptossing, which is called Desent. Their terminology is rather catchy.

Fact: Over the past three decades, the childhood obesity rate has more than doubled for preschool children aged 2-5 years and adolescents aged 12-19 years, and it has more than tripled for children aged 6-11 years. (Institute of Medicine, 2004).

Obesity: For our purposes, the term obesity is used to refer to children and youth between the ages of 2 and 18 years who have body mass indexes (BMIs) equal to or greater than the 95th percentile of the age-and gender-specific BMI charts developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Negligence: It can be generally defined as conduct that is culpable because it falls short of what a reasonable person would do to protect another individual from a foreseeable risks of harm. (Wikipedia). Another word for negligence is carelessness.

It is a parent or guardian's duty to ensure the safety of their children. The bottom line is that, under any other circumstance, a child would be taken into the custody of the state under circumstances of negligence. Examples of this include leaving a child inside a vehicle unattended, failure to properly restrain a child in a moving vehicle, leaving a firearm within access of a child. There are a million examples where a parent neglects their responsibilities. In every account, the child is put at risk of something harmful. Here are some of the consequences of childhood obesity:

Physical Health
· Glucose intolerance and insulin resistance
· Type 2 diabetes
· Hypertension
· Dyslipidemia
· Hepatic steatosis
· Cholelithiasis
· Sleep apnea
· Menstrual abnormalities
· Impaired balance
· Orthopedic problems
Emotional Health
· Low self-esteem
· Negative body image
· Depression
Social Health
· Stigma
· Negative stereotyping
· Discrimination
· Teasing and bullying
· Social marginalization
(source: Institute of Medicine)

Why not just give your child a carton of cigarettes and a bottle of whiskey and be done with it? I see no difference. A child's health is the sole responsiblity of the parent, and not owning up to that responsibility is criminal. Any other circumstance involving injury of another would result in prosecution under the law. Why is this any different? In many cases, the effects of childhood obesity stay with the individual for life. Children are the future. We spend millions of tax dollars on children each year. We believe their education is important. People place their child's happiness over things like discipline and character development. Children are supposed to be the future. If children are so important, why are we treating them so terribly? It's like saying, "here, son, happy birthday!" "What is it, dad? Is it a bicycle?" "No, Joey, it's diabetes."

How can you get your act together? Start educating yourself on nutrition, quit giving your kids so many snacks and fast food, engage them in physical activities (this goes beyond telling them to , "go outside and play"--you might try involving yourself in these activities, you know, something called "quality time"), limit time watching television and playing video games, and educating your children on fitness and nutrition. Make it a whole family endeavor. Studies have shown kids are more likely to eat and live healthily if their parents also do so. So come on. Set the example. It's your job. You are the first line of defense against childhood obesity; it is your responsibility. Don't screw your kids. That's incest. And that's criminal, too.

There is now reason to believe that the physiological make-ups of the sexes are not all that similar.

I am reading this article now on MSNBC.com.
It continues on to detail how yes, we've known for decades how men are bigger and have more muscle and testosterone than women. But this article then offers even more shocking proof that further widens the differences between the sexes: researches are learning that men and women also have different energy metabolisms, lung function, and the way women lose weight is also different.

Say what? This is news?

"We're not the same. Our physiological systems are not identical," says Earl Noble, director of the school of kinesiology at the University of Western Ontario. Danielle Day, an assistant professor of exercise and sport performance at the University of New England, says research also confirms that females have a harder time losing weight through exercise than men. This is probably due to an evolutionary response requiring that women stay healthy for child-bearing.

Yet again, I ask, is nobody else seeing the obvious here?

The reasoning is because estrogen helps women burn more fat as fuel during exercise, as opposed to carbohydrates that men torch away. What may at first appear to be a blessing, turns out to not even matter in the grand scheme of things (save for the fact that women don't need to carbo-load as fervently as men do for endurance events). What really matters--let's keep this in perspective--is to remember that it doesn't matter what you're burning, but that there is a caloric deficit. Somehow, these findings are being described as a "tough pill to swallow," even though we've known that tidbit for years (Google "myth of the fat burning zone"). But wait, there's more:

"Women are probably going to have to work a lot harder and incorporate interval training to challenge them more," says Day. The article also mentions cross-training to keep the body challenged in different ways. Where have I heard that before? High-intensity interval training? Cross-training?

About the only thing I found useful out of the article was that it went on to explain that, because women have smaller lung capacities than men, exercise of the same intensity will feel much harder for the woman than for the man. But, as with anything "shocking," the climax comes at the end of the article:

"As researchers learn more, they envision a day when people will be given an 'exercise prescription' based on their age, sex, overall health and fitness level."

What do I have to say for that? If the workout is challenging, intense, and scalable, nothing else matters. It will work for anyone, regardless of whether they're male, female, obese, athletic, Canadian, or Scientologist.

We believe in equal opportunity here.