In April, New York University medical students won $75,000 in an entrepreneurship competition at New York University's Stern School of Business. The startup judges deemed worthy of the investment: a clothing company called Skinesiology, which “offers functional fitness apparel that resists movement to help people tone muscle and burn extra calories during everyday activities.”
The 75G check was made out on 4/25/14, making it clear that this is neither an April Fool’s joke, nor 2010. Which brings us to a segment Seth Meyers and Amy Poehler first popularized on Saturday Night Live: Really!?
Really!? In 2010, Reebok’s EasyTone shoes were killing it. According to DailyFinance, the company generated an estimated $1 billion in revenue from global sales of sneakers the company claimed would work women’s glutes 28 percent more, and their hamstrings and calves 11 percent more than wearing regular shoes.
Other sports brands put out their own “toning” kicks as well. Fila had Sculpt and Tone sneakers. Skechers made Shape Ups. The world was crazy for gear that made doin’ your thang i.e. walking to the store, standing in a meeting, etc. a calorie-incinerating workout.
“Body toning apparel is a natural progression of the recent successes in the toning footwear market,” said Jon Epstein, President of Fila USA in a press release from October 2010. That’s when Fila announced the creation of its Body Toning System, or BTS clothes. The company was careful not to make any quantifiable claims, stating simply that “BTS apparel is designed to increase muscle exercise which improves the efficiency as well as recovery of an existing workout.”
Reebok launched a line of EasyTone clothes around the same time. Then researchers started looking into the toning clothes’ effectiveness.
The American Council on Exercise funded a study looking into Fila’s fluffy promise that a woman could “achieve amazing results in half the time” with Fila’s new $50 Toning Resistance Tight Capri. Researchers threw 16 women between the ages of 18 and 24 on a treadmill and had them walk for five minutes at different speeds while wearing the pants, and again with regular pants. The result? Here’s what ACE Fitness reported:
Although the research showed a slight increase in calorie burn while wearing Fila’s toning capris, in a real-world scenario that boost would be negligible…
In response to the claims of a 50-percent increase in muscle workouts, the researchers reported that the Fila capris didn’t deliver there either…
“In order to provide enough resistance to be beneficial, the pants would have to be so restrictive that you wouldn’t be able to easily move. To achieve a 50-percent increase in muscle activation, you’d have to be wearing something akin to a straight jacket.”
That last quote is from researcher John Porcari. On the up-side, Porcari’s fellow researcher Alexa Kleingartner told ACE, “I wouldn’t recommend buying them to make a difference in the effectiveness of your workout, but the extra compression and tightness may give you a butt lift and a better shape.” If looking good makes you feel like working out, that’s a plus. The pants, in other words, were like Spanx you could show off; they’d make you look skinnier, but they wouldn’t actually make you skinnier.
(Another study found that toning pants increased calories burned while walking up a 5 to 10-percent grade because the clothing resisted hip flexion. But that study was partially funded by a toning clothes company, making it difficult to take seriously.)
Meanwhile, ladies started stuffing their jiggly bits in to resistance pants hoping the clothes would be the miracle companies promised.
Then came the bombshell lawsuit. The Federal Trade Commission fined Reebok $25 million for making false claims about its toning shoes and apparel. The settlement barred Reebok from “making any health or fitness-related efficacy claims for toning shoes and other toning apparel unless the claims are true and backed by scientific evidence.”
Reebok discontinued their EasyTone clothes. Fila doesn’t appear to sell their toning line of clothes anymore either. The closest thing they currently stock is a $35 Chiseled Capri that says it’ll give a “body sculpting boost.”
So really!? NYU medical school students? In Skinesiology’s promo video, the students claim they’ve invented “clothes that work you out!” by naturally resisting the body’s mechanics, “kind of like moving in water which burns up to 50% more calories.” Fifty percent more than what? Sitting on your bum all day?
The video then goes on to state that the “average woman walks 1.5 hours per day, burning 280 calories.” Maybe in New York City? If that were true, nobody would need toning clothes—we’d be infinitely healthier already. According to the CDC, only 21 to 34 percent of US adults walk for 30 minutes five times a week.
But for argument’s sake, let’s say that yes, women walk 1.5 hours per day. That’s how long you’d have to walk, according to Skinesiology, to reap an extra 100-calorie benefit from wearing their tights. So if you’re already walking around a lot, maybe these pants can provide a small benefit. But if they’re as uncomfortable as researcher John Porcari thought they’d have to be to give you a workout, who’d keep them on all day to find out?
Live Science explains that Skinesiology’s claims come from the students’ own lab testing. It’ll be interesting to see what objective researchers find. Have these students stumbled upon a radical new resistance band design that neither Reebok nor Fila’s R&D teams could create?
I hate to lay into entrepreneurial youngsters, but it does seem like you’re repeating the errors of those who have gone before. Please prove me wrong.
You’re wrong about breakfast. And so is everyone else. Despite years of hype, two new studies point to a startling conclusion: skipping breakfast doesn’t necessarily lead to weight gain. Nor does eating breakfast boost your metabolism, suppress appetite, or reduce overeating later in the day. But it still might be one of the most important meals of the day (more on that later).
“Our findings are a bit of a reality check,” said nutritionist Emily Dhurandhar, an assistant professor in the Department of Health Behavior at University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), lead author of one of the studies. “It’s a broader question we’re trying to answer. As a message interpreted by the general public, just recommending people eat breakfast is not sufficient.”
While years of observational research have shown associations between eating breakfast and being leaner, none of the studies reach the gold-standard level of evidence of showing causation—randomized controlled trials—to show that breakfast was indeed responsible for weight loss, says James O. Hill, a professor of pediatrics and medicine at the University of Colorado, Denver, and co-author on Dhurandhar’s study.
At last, gold-standard research on breakfast has arrived. And the findings subvert years of nutritional advice while highlighting one often underestimated and under-hyped benefit of the morning meal. Dhurandhar’s trial randomized 309 overweight or obese adults who were given healthy eating advice to two groups. One group ate breakfast and the other skipped. Both groups lost a little weight, but there was no greater weight loss in the breakfast eaters as compared to the skippers. The researchers are careful to note that the study was not a controlled feeding trial and the subjects were not told what to eat at breakfast.
Another smaller study, led by James Betts, a senior lecturer in nutrition from the University of Bath, randomized 33 lean adults to either eat or skip breakfast for six weeks. The study found no appreciable difference in metabolic or cardiovascular health markers. “It is commonly stated that breakfast kick-starts metabolism and/or reduces snacking, etc. We saw little or no evidence of these things,” Betts said.
Insofar as testing has gone, the evidence hasn’t boded well for breakfast. But it wasn’t all bad news, Betts said. His study was also one of the first to measure how a feeding pattern influenced physical activity levels throughout the day using combined heart rate and accelerometry (think: sophisticated wearable tech, not just pedometers).
Betts sums up the results: “Specifically, the breakfast group was much more physically active than the fasting group, with significant differences particularly noted during light-intensity activities during the morning.”
In this case, this was causal evidence (not just correlation) that breakfast gets people moving—good reason to keep enjoying the most important meal of the day.
Our near-sacred regard for “don’t skip breakfast” is one of the most fundamental but oversold nutritional guidelines, and as we’re now discovering, there are plenty of other flawed recommendations in the nutrition world. So the problem isn’t with breakfast. It’s with a failure of skepticism, says the study’s senior investigator whose previous work began the attack on the conventional thinking, David Allison, director of UAB’s Nutrition Obesity Research Center.
“This goes back to the idea that we need to be more skeptical—we as scientists, as journalists, we as public health officials,” Allison said. “These platitudes sound good. You tend to believe them, but some might not be true.”
The perpetuation of pro-breakfast bias could be said to come in part by lobbying and funding of research by food companies keen on selling breakfast cereals and packaged breakfast foods. But diet myths are also often spread through shoddy reporting and writing. And they frequently come from public figures at the intersection of health and pop-culture. Take this line from the polarizing celebrity surgeon Dr. Oz. His site reads, “The fact is, when you’re trying to lose body fat, you can’t skip breakfast…” and “Boost your metabolic rate by 25%.”
Don’t trust Dr. Oz? How about this line from the Mayo Clinic’s site, “In fact, skipping breakfast actually increases your risk of obesity” or this quote from a researcher on Yahoo! Health, “Skipping breakfast may lead to one or more risk factors, including obesity, high blood pressure, high cholesterol and diabetes, which may in turn lead to a heart attack over time.”
Not only is the Internet rife with this kind of language, but so too is the scientific literature, Allison points out. And it’s not always in research that has received food industry funding, he says. There’s what he calls “white hat bias” largely found in observational or short-term trials that also suggest breakfast produces beneficial effects on metabolism and satiety. But, once again, these types of studies cannot demonstrate causation. These limitations are rarely addressed in the research or in the media hype. Plus, not all breakfasts should be considered equal; the timing and nutritional content (think: sugary cereal versus eggs) are both key.
“It’s tempting to assume that if something shows promise in a short-term study, or if it has some aspect on insulin or fat metabolism, that we can extrapolate from these. But I think that it’s important that we test these things,” Dhurandhar said.
If there’s one underlying message these researchers are giving, it’s just this: beware oft-repeated diet advice not rooted in evidence. Additional vague platitudes that perhaps deserve equal attention are “eat everything in moderation” and “eat only when you’re hungry.”
As made clear with the rigorously designed tests on breakfast, our presumptions don’t always hold true. But breakfast now has one new thing going for it: increasing physical activity.
“Whether or not you have breakfast can dictate how much activity you engage in, which directly impacts energy balance but also holds implications for health via the independent benefits of living a more active lifestyle,” Betts said.
Summer may seem like the best season for your skin. But under that well-tanned surface, the sun is actually wreaking havoc on your cells.
“When you leave lettuce in the sun too long, it wilts and turns brown because the light is causing oxidative damage. This is similar to your skin exposed to sunlight,” says Elizabeth Johnson, Ph.D., who researches antioxidants at Tufts University. On your skin, the damage manifests in the short term as a red-hot sunburn, but long-term, it can cause cancer.
Plus phytochemicals—a nutrient group that includes antioxidants—may ramp up your body’s natural protection systems against cancer-causing damage, adds Karen Collins, registered dietitian, Nutrition Advisor to the American Institute for Cancer Research. In fact, a 2010 study from Tel Aviv University found that participants who follow diet rich in antioxidants and omega-3 fatty acids, like that in the Mediterranean region where melanoma rates are extremely low, have lower incidences of skin cancer.
One of the best foods for protection? Tomatoes. A new British study found that people who ate ¼ cup of tomato paste—which offers high levels of the nutrient lycopene—for two weeks saw less oxidative damage. And a 2012 UK study found women who eat a tomato-heavy diet have 33 percent more protection against UV exposure than those who skip the fruit.
But since nutrients all have different functions and interactions, it’s important to eat all colors of the rainbow. “Many phytochemicals manifest as pigments, so eating fruits and vegetables of all colors guarantees that you’re diversifying your nutrient intake and better fortifying your skin,” says Johnson.
The best skin protectors include dark leafy greens, beta-carotene-rich carrots and cantaloupe, and polyphenol-packed berries and citrus fruit. And skip supplements in favor of whole foods. Most phytochemicals are bioactive, meaning they’re most effective coming from whole foods, and the high doses of most supplements can be harmful to your health.
Protection doesn’t occur overnight, Collins adds. In fact, most studies supporting nutrition’s benefit on sunburns or cancer prevention don’t see results until participants have been eating the food for at least 8 weeks, she adds.
Most importantly, there is no better protection against developing skin cancer than limiting your exposure to UV light, Collins adds. And, while a nutrient-rich diet can help fortify your cells, slathering on sunscreen as well will give your skin the best chances to stay healthy.
Single point-of-view shots are so old school. The future of adventure filmmaking lies in full-on 360-degree video, or at least that’s what Bill Banta believes. The pilot and avid skier is the CEO of CENTR Camera, one of a handful of 360-degree cameras due out in the next nine months that promise to revolutionize how we capture video.
“Over time, people have gotten to a point where they want to go back to living in the moment and experience things first-person,” says Banta, who was previously a part of Apple’s iPhone camera team. Because 360-degree cameras capture everything, “you’ll have the ability to relive those memories and share different pieces of them with different people.”
Perhaps even more important for adventure junkies is the camera’s versatility. “It allows you to much more easily capture the perfect shot,” Banta says. With some 360-degree cameras capturing up to 240-degrees of vertical as well, botched shots will be a thing of the past, and stories won’t be limited to what the people holding the camera see in front of them. “I can go flying and give you a video of what’s going on out the front of the plane, a picture of myself flying, and a picture of the passenger sitting next to me,” Banta says. “I can do all of that with one single shot.
The new crop of 360-degree cameras all work similarly, stitching together video from several small cameras. The CENTR, in particular, is a palm-sized disc that houses four high-definition cameras. The device patches all of the shots together in real time, so the video will be ready to share on a smart phone or computer immediately. No special viewing or video editing software required. And should you decide you want a single POV, CENTR lets you enable just one camera, so you don’t have to shoot in 360 all of the time.
The only drawback we've heard of so far? Battery life on some 360-degree cameras may be limited. Yahoo Tech reports that Giroptic’s 360cam battery lasts only an hour, though some may argue that’s more than long enough to capture what you want. (On the highest-power consumption setting, average battery life on GoPro’s HERO3 Black Edition is just an hour, too.)
Many 360 cameras promise to be as easy to use as a GoPro, and might even change the way we watch video, making entertainment a more immersive experience. The Oculus Rift virtual reality headset, for example, could allow viewers to look around as if they were actually in the video itself.
For now, we’ll take the expanded field of view on our normal screens—and the promise that every shot will be epic. “We’ve had beta tester videos of BASE jumping, wingsuit flying in Africa, paragliding, fighter jets, race cars,” Banta says. “The flexibility and ability to retell stories in creative ways is going to make 360-degree cameras a really powerful tool going forward.”
Excited for 360? Check out the cameras coming soon:
With its sleek design, the camera slides easily into a pocket. CENTR recently raised $607,628 on Kickstarter, falling short of its $900,000 goal. But Banta says he got valuable user feedback from the campaign that will influence the final design. CENTR’s currently working on widening the device’s vertical field of view from 56 degrees. As for battery life, the CENTR lasts "two hours with all four cameras recording at 720p HD resolution" on one charge, according to Banta. Expect to see the final product debut in early 2015 for $399.
Marketed as “the first 360-degree action camera,” the Geonaute is about the size of a baseball and at 255 grams, it’s more than twice the weight of the 360Fly. But tech pundits declare it’s the most market ready considering it was supposed to hit shelves this spring. It’s currently on sale for $499 as part of a “pre-launch offer,” with no official sale date listed.
The designers of this egg-shaped camera are currently raising funds through Kickstarter. (They’ve already blasted through their $150,000 goal, with backers pledging $776,568 with 31 days still to go.) The current starting price for the French camera is $329, with an estimated delivery of November.