Obesity And Chronic Disease- Is It Genes Or Lifestyle?

While there is a clear correlation between physical inactivity and bad dietary habits to most chronic diseases in the world today, many offer up genetics and not lifestyle as the major reason for our higher incidences of obesity and the metabolic syndrome that tends to accompany it. Almost 60% of the adult American population is either overweight or obese [1, 2,3] and it is becoming increasingly common to hear genes blamed as the root of our current health crisis. In many ways this rather defeatist attitude would lead one to believe that the leading causes of death in Western society (coronary heart disease, hypertension, stroke Type 2 diabetes and cancer) are not preventable and that to succumb to the ravages of these diseases is simply a normal part of the aging process. Taken as a whole, these diseases combine to account for almost 70% of all of the deaths here in the United States [4], and few realize that that these health problems have been for the most part non-existent in many underdeveloped countries for decades, but rise as Western diet and lifestyles become more popular in those countries. [5]

Do Other Cultures Have The Same Problems With Obesity & Disease That  We Do?

To fully understand the impact that our genes have on our health it is useful to observe how other cultures fare when Western diet and relatively sedentary habits are not a factor in daily life.  Studies on the Tarahumara Indians of Northern Mexico, (best known for their running ability), the Pina Indians of Southern Arizona and the Machiguenga Indians of Peru give us interesting insight as to just how much Western lifestyle seems to adversely affect our health. The Pina Indians living on the Indian reservation in Arizona have one of the highest incidences of diabetes known, with approximately 50% of them being Type 2 diabetic. However a group of Pina Indians with the same genetic background as their reservation-living counterparts following a more physical indigenous life in Mexico eating the traditional diet of natural foods have an incidence of Type 2 diabetes of only 10%.[6,7] Similarly when the Tarahumara Indians consume a mostly Western diet they rapidly experience a rise in their blood lipids when compared to their native counterparts. [8]. The Machiguenga Indians, due to the physical requirements for survival without the luxuries of supermarkets and packaged foods expend one third more calories than the average American [9] and chronic diseases as we know them are simply non-existent in modern hunter gatherer societies, highlighting the role of lifestyle in the development of obesity and metabolic disease. [10]

Genes Cannot Be The Only Answer To Obesity & Metabolic Disease

In a paper published in the Journal of Applied Physiology by Frank Booth et al. called, Waging war on modern chronic diseases: primary prevention through exercise biology, researchers note that

“100% of the increase in the prevalence of Type 2 diabetes and obesity in the United States during the latter half of the 20th century must be attributed to a changing environment interacting with genes, because 0% of the human genome has changed during this time period.” [11]

In essence, we have not changed. Our genes have not changed, but our way of life and the foods we eat have changed and this more than anything else explains the problems faced by in Western societies. We all inherit the same genome that makes us designed for daily physical activity and a high fiber diet[12] thus sedentary life, processed foods combined with other factors such as smoking alcohol consumption, stress and hazardous elements in our environment inevitably bring about the onset and progression of chronic disease. [10] Most of these factors are easily modified and therefore are realistically preventable through proper diet, exercise and a lifestyle of moderation or abstinence from smoking and excess alcohol consumption. Within the framework of our own society it has been observed that Seventh-Day Adventists have higher life expectancies than other Caucasian groups in the United States thanks in part to choices regarding their diet, patterns of regular exercise and avoidance of cigarettes and alcohol. Research funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health has shown that the average Seven Day Adventist in California lives 4 to 10 years longer than the average Californian. Similarly Mormon studies show that they have a low standardized mortality rate compared to the general U.S. population attributed to their close to the earth lifestyle.[13]

Lifestyle & Environment Not Genes Create Our Health Problems- Not Genes

What does this mean? It means that for the most part genes don’t cause metabolic disease. In some individuals genetic factors may predispose them, but environmental and lifestyle factors are what determines whether disease manifests itself or not [10]. It also means that we are indeed the masters of our own destiny, captains of our own ships and that an individual’s choice to incorporate exercise into their daily life, manage stress and avoid modern processed foods makes far more of a difference in our susceptibility to the cocktail of chronic disease than the genes that we are born with. Make your choice today.

References:

1. Flegal KM, Carroll MD, Kuczmarski RJ, and Johnson CL. Overweight and obesity in the United States: prevalence and trends, 1960–1994. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord

2. Mokdad AH, Bowman BA, Ford ES, Vinicor F, Marks JS, and Koplan JP. The continuing epidemics of obesity and diabetes in the United States. JAMA 286: 1195–1200, 2001.

3. Mokdad AH, Ford ES, Bowman BA, Dietz WH, Vinicor F, Bales VS, and Marks JS. Prevalence of obesity, diabetes, and obesity-related health risk factors, 2001. JAMA

4. Arias E, Anderson RN, Kung HC, Murphy SL, and Kochanek KD. Deaths: final data for 2001. Natl Vital Stat Rep

5. Diet, nutrition, and the prevention of chronic diseases. World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser

6. Bennett PH. Type 2 diabetes among the Pima Indians of Arizona: an epidemic attributable to environmental change? Nutr Rev 57: S51–S54, 1999

7. 1Valencia ME, Bennett PH, Ravussin E, Esparza J, Fox C, and Schulz LO. The Pima Indians in Sonora, Mexico. Nutr Rev

8.  McMurry MP, Cerqueira MT, Connor SL, and Connor WE. Changes in lipid and lipoprotein levels and body weight in Tarahumara Indians after consumption of an affluent diet [see comments]. N Engl J Med 325: 1704–1708, 1991

9. Montgomery E. Towards representative energy data: the Machiguenga study. Fed Proc

10. Roberts CK, Barnard RJ.  Effects of exercise and diet on chronic disease. J Appl Physiol

11. Booth FW, Gordon SE, Carlson CJ, and Hamilton MT. Waging war on modern chronic diseases: primary prevention through exercise biology. J Appl Physiol

12. Eaton SB and Konner M. Paleolithic nutrition. A consideration of its nature and current implications. N Engl J Med

13. Enstrom JE. Health practices and cancer mortality among active California Mormons. J Natl Cancer Inst

Kevin Richardson is the creator of Naturally Intense High Intensity Training 10 Minute Workouts™ and one of the most sought after personal trainers in New York City. Get a copy of his free weight loss ebook here.

Sign up for our Email Newsletter

Nuts Will Not Make You Gain Weight 

You can’t have your cake and eat it as the expression goes, but you can have nuts and not worry too much about weight gain even thought they are high in calories and fats! One of the most interesting observations that I have made over the years is that people are able to eat peanuts and tree nuts in significant quantities and still lose weight in spite of the significant amount of calories that come with every handful. Nuts of all kind (what we categorize as nuts are not actually nuts at all- almonds, walnuts and pecans are technically fruits, cashews are seeds as are candlenuts, pistachios and pine nuts, macadamias are kernels and peanuts are actually legumes) are high in many valuable nutrients and have tremendous health benefits. Many nuts are rich sources of vitamins E and vitamin B2, and are rich in high in protein, making them quite popular among those who choose to avoid or limit their meat intake. Nuts are also high in folate, fiber, and vital minerals such as magnesium, phosphorus, potassium, copper, and selenium. Nuts are also very high in fats namely essential fatty acids linoleic and linolenic and most of the fats found in nuts are unsaturated and include monounsaturated fats which are extremely beneficial. Studies have found that people who consume nuts on a regular basis are less likely to suffer from cardiovascular disease¹ and that certain nuts such as almonds and walnuts can lower LDL cholesterol levels (the bad cholesterol)^2,3. In addition to their heart friendly benefits, nuts are also recommended foods for individuals with Type 2 diabetes thanks to their very low glycemic index. The problem is that because of their high caloric nature, many are afraid to add them to their diet for fear of gaining weight. Interestingly enough there are several studies that have validated what I have seen for several years now, namely that you can ingest a significant number of calories from nuts and not gain weight.

Studies On Nuts And Weight Gain

During a thirty week study of fifteen healthy normal weight adults at Perdue University participants added approximately 2000 kJ worth of peanuts to their regular diet for eight weeks and then for the next eight weeks peanuts replaced an equal amount of other fats in their diet. Researchers found that the subjects compensated for 66% of the energy provided by the nuts and body weight gain was far lower than expected with an average gain of only 3.6 kg. However when customary dietary fats were replaced with calories from peanuts body weight was maintained perfectly. Resting energy expenditure was increased by 11% after regular peanut consumption for 19 weeks and more importantly the high consumption of peanuts did not turn them off to its taste or lead them to consume other snack foods during the study. The study concluded that despite being high in calories, peanuts have a high satiety value and chronic ingestion evokes strong dietary compensation and little change in energy balance.⁴ Another study found similar findings with almonds. This study’s aim was to determine if adding 1440kJ (about 343 calories) of almonds in a daily diet would elicit positive energy balance and body composition change. For the duration of the 23 week study with twenty women there were no changes in bodyweight from daily almond consumption, but an inefficiency in absorption of energy from almonds was noted. The study concluded that a daily 340 calorie serving of almonds enough to brig about positive cardiovascular effects could be added to the diet with a limited risk of weight gain.⁵

Why Nuts Don’t Make Us Gain Weight

Why is it that nuts seem to defy the laws of thermodynamics that do not apply to other foods? We don’t exactly know why you can ingest more calories than the body needs to maintain an energy balance from nuts and still not gain weight but some data points to the fact that eating nuts increases the amount of energy our body expends and there seems to be evidence that our bodies do not absorb calories from nuts very efficiently. In either case these mechanisms seem to offset most of the calories ingested or the weight loss studies conducted all found that dietary compliance was improved when nuts were permitted. I personally include in all weight loss dietary recommendations for my clients for the health benefits and the fact that it does provide a welcome guilt free treat that actually helps you stay on your diet as well. Just be sure to get the unsalted variety!

Kevin Richardson is the creator of Naturally Intense High Intensity Training 10 Minute Workouts™ and one of the most sought after personal trainers in New York City. Get a copy of his free weight loss ebook here.

Sign up for our Email Newsletter

Being Skinny Doesn’t Mean Being Healthy

In today’s society, especially for women, being skinny is the ultimate goal of most people interested in weight loss.  The media not only bombards us with a constant barrage of ultra thin models to advertise everything from clothing to cars while medical experts continuously tout the reduction of risk of metabolic related disease by being thin. But the question remains, can you be on the larger side and still be in good health? The reality, outside of selling fat burning supplements diet pills, tummy tucks and liposuction is that getting fit is far more effective at reducing the markers for type 2 diabetes, hypertension and heart disease than by just being thin. 

You Can Be Overweight And In Better Health Than Someone That Is In A Healthy Weight Range

According to a study conducted at the University of Exeter in the U.K., longevity and good health comes far more from your activity levels than by simply being thin. The study observed the health of four groups of adult males, those who were thin and in good physical condition, those who were thin and in poor physical condition, those who were overweight but in good physical condition and those who were overweight and in poor physical condition. What was important for the relevance of this study in the real world is that everyone in the fit groups were long term exercisers and not just a group of people put on an exercise program for the purpose of the study. Blood sampling revealed an interesting fact: that both groups that were in good physical condition had significantly higher hdl (good cholesterol) levels than the unfit groups. 

Visceral Abdominal Fat Levels Are Lower In Overweight People Who Exercise Regularly

What was also significant is that the visceral abdominal fat and liver fat, which have been shown to increase the risk of cardiovascular disease (see my article on the dangers of visceral abdominal fat) was far lower in the overweight group of men in good shape than the overweight group of inactive men even though their body fat percentages were the about the same.  So although someone might be classified as being overweight because their Body Mass Index (BMI) is on the higher side and they have a higher body fat percentage as long as they consistently engage in intensive regular exercise it appears that they will not have a dangerous visceral fat distribution around their internal organs. At the end of the day a low fitness level is a far greater threat to your health even though you might be thin and svelte. 

The Biggest Predictor Of Mortality Is Fitness Levels Not BMI

Overweight but fit people are often healthier than their slimmer counterparts!

The study at Exeter University isn’t the only one that has come to these conclusions, a study here in the U.S. of 5,400 adults found that half of those classified as overweight and one third of those classified as obese according to BMI standards were found to be metabolically healthy. That means that they did not have any indicators that might suggest a predisposition to health problems. The study also found that a quarter of those that fell into the ‘healthy’ weight range had at least two risk factors for cardiovascular disease. A 12 year study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association that looked at mortality rates among 2,600 adults aged 60 and over found that while death rates were highest among the very obese (those with a BMI of 35 or higher), fitness level was always the strongest predictor of mortality risk, not BMI. Those who scored the lowest on treadmill tests were four times more likely to die in the next 12 years than those who had high fitness levels. 

Regular Exercise Is Far More Important Than Simply Being Thin

The message is simple- looking good is great but the key to longevity and good health is regular exercise. Keep that in mind the next time you look in the mirror and don’t quite see the six pack you might want to see- by exercising regularly and watching what you eat you’ll live longer and be in better shape that someone who may be skinny but is inactive. Keep training! 

Kevin Richardson is the creator of Naturally Intense High Intensity Training 10 Minute Workouts™ and one of the most sought after personal trainers in New York City. Get a copy of his free weight loss ebook here.

Sign up for our Email Newsletter

Ultra Low Body Fat Isn’t Healthy

While a low body fat percentage may look good it may not always be healthy

In today’s world being ‘ripped’ and ‘cut’ with an ultra low body fat percentage is often considered the Holy Grail of most people’s fitness aspirations. Images of fitness models, bodybuilders and other athletes with abdominals rippling and every muscle beautifully defined with ultra low body fat percentages adorn the pages of so many magazines and advertisements for health related products and services that many are led to believe that being under 5% percent body fat ( for men) and under 10% (for women) is the be-all-and-end all to their fitness dreams and aspirations. For many it also represents the quality of being super fit, and sadly few are aware that models and athletes they look up to don’t stay at such ultra low body fat levels for more than a few weeks out of the year and that in that state they are often very far from being fit and healthy.

Bodybuilders & Cyclists Aren’t Healthy At Extremely Low Body Fat Levels

As a natural bodybuilder I regularly competed at an insanely low body fat percentage of 3%. It was a grueling experience every time and in that world anyone over five percent was considered fat! Keep in mind that the average healthy young male has a body fat percentage of 10-20%!  This type of skewered perspective doesn’t only exist in the bodybuilding world, as the same rigorous standard applies for many other athletes as well. Long distance cyclists are a prime example. All the major contenders for the biggest cycling event in the world, the Tour De France, compete at just about 5% body fat or lower. Take a look at Lance Armstrong’s pictures right before a race and you’ll see that he has a bit of a gaunt look to him as opposed to what he looks like when he isn’t competing. In the cycling world the formula for winning an event like the Tour De France requires a sustainable energy output of 6.7 watts per kilogram of body weight. Increasing power is difficult however reducing body weight is a bit easier so cyclists do their best to be as light as possible by losing as much body fat as humanly possible.

Our Bodies Need Body Fat To Function

The problem is that our bodies need fat to function correctly and it might surprise you that the same athletes that look like the epitome of health don’t feel that energetic at such low body fat levels and suffer from suppressed immune systems and are extremely susceptible to colds and other viruses. Females usually experience a cessation in their menstrual cycle as a consequence of going too low as the body perceives itself to be in the throes of starvation and does its best to not get pregnant as it no longer has the capacity to carry a baby to full term with such low energy reserves. It is truly not a state that the human body wants to maintain and it explains to a large degree why it is inherently so difficult to reduce your body fat levels and why we have to go to unhealthy extremes to get ourselves at an ultra low body fat level.

What does it feel like to be under five percent body fat? I can tell from my experience that it isn’t pleasant at all. When I was competing the second my fat levels dropped below 5% the lethargy set in. I hardly had the energy or desire to do very much and my face had the sunken look of someone that hadn’t eaten in several months. It seemed as if someone so much as sneezed in my direction I would get a cold and I felt cold all the time (your body uses a layer of fat as a form of insulation to keep in your body heat- take that layer away and you lose heat very quickly and will have trouble staying warm in a cold environment.)  Above all I would have difficulty staying asleep- the body perceives such low fat levels as a famine response and forces you to stay awake longer in the hopes of finding food. When I filmed my workout DVD I had already made the decision that I would never again follow any type of extreme diet nor would I ever let myself drop under 5% body fat. Not only is an ultra low body fat level unnatural but we know now that fluctuations in weight can result in an increased risk of cardiovascular disease  and at the end of the day being healthy is more important than trying to achieve a low body fat percentage. The key is to find your own level and not use the calipers as part of a race to see how low you can go. Interestingly enough I can naturally maintain a level of 6 to 7 percent just by eating well and feel fantastic. But that relatively small dip of only two or more percentage points to under 5% makes a huge difference in terms of energy levels and overall health.  It just goes to show that there is a fine line between being superfit and super unhealthy.

Click here for a copy of Kevin’s free weight loss ebook!

Kevin Richardson is an award winning health and fitness writer, natural bodybuilding champion, creator of Naturally Intense High Intensity Training ™ and one of the most sought after personal trainers in New York City. 

Sign up for our Email Newsletter

Having A Low Body Fat Percentage Doesn't Mean You Are Healthy!

Nowadays the gold marker by which all health and fitness levels seem to be measured seems to be body fat percentages. Ask just about anyone that is seriously into their fitness regime what their body fat percentage is and nine out of ten times they can tell you exactly what it is. When I started out as a personal trainer, some 20 years ago, I kept calipers as part of my training kit and was very conscientious about being ready to measure my clients on a regular basis. On my first day of training,  my coach walked to me and asked me what was I doing with the calipers and the clipboard. Somewhat puzzled,  I answered that the personal training manuals said that it was key to measure body fat percentage as an indicator of a client’s progress. He laughed and gave me some of the best advice in my entire career as a trainer; he said that if a client can’t look in the mirror and see the differences in their body or see that their clothes fit differently as time goes on, then I am simply not doing my job! He added that at the end of the day, a change in numbers means nothing if your client still has significant layers of fat obscuring their midsection. No one is going to walk around with their body fat numbers to show their progress in the gym- the progress should bee self evident in the way they look! To this day I don’t use body fat testing as a tool in my personal training practice in New York City, but in this post I explore the various ways of testing available on the market to toady, as well as why in the end it’s how you look that matters, not the numbers.

Body Fat Measurements- BMI Examples

Body fat testing can serve a useful purpose to some degree in that it helps give some idea of how much body fat and how much muscle you are carrying at any given time, a reading that the scale or simple Body Mass Index estimates sometimes cannot give. I remember when I enlisted in the U.S. Navy and weighed in at a healthy 220 lbs at a height of 6 feet tall.  I was told I was significantly overweight and would have to lose at least 30 to 40 lbs before I could get enlist. My BMI was 29.8, which gave me a reading that placed me on the higher end of being overweight. In fact, according to the numbers, I was almost obese. I couldn’t tell you how funny this was as I had a body fat level of about 8-7% at the time- complete with rippling abdominals and not an ounce of fat really visible on my frame. When I stripped down so the recruiter could see what I looked like under my clothes (it was my first winter in the United States and I had quite a lot of layers on), he was pretty shocked. Needless to say I had nothing to worry about, but it would be a story I would hear over and over in doctors’ offices before they had a chance to see what I actually looked like. To this day at 225 lbs and at a body fat level of 6-7%  according to BMI measurements, I am now officially obese, which really highlights the limitations of the BMI scales for muscular individuals. To be fair- it has been acknowledged that athletic people can’t be accurately measured using BMI scales.

Body fat is a bit more reliable, but again, there are always limitations based on the method used to define it. There are many ways to measure your body fat, some being more accurate than others, but at the end of the day, it isn’t the number that matters, but the changes in the numbers as you keep on measuring using whatever method you choose.

The Simple Tape Measure Method

With tape measure and caliper testing, people who are muscular can get numbers 3 to 5 percent higher than their true percent body fat percentages. This is because they don’t have a lot of fat inside their muscles, so their measurements may be lower than this tape measure test indicates.

Conversely, if a person is skinny but doesn’t have much muscle, this body fat test may yield a number 3 to 5 percent lower than his or her true percent body fat. Though they look thin, unfit skinny people really have more than the usual amount of fat inside their muscles, which you can’t see from the outside. So, what’s the bottom line? For many people, this tape measure test is enough to give you an idea of your body fat and it can be done frequently at little or no cost.

Bioelectrical Impedance Testing

Bio-electrical impedance testing is a fairly common method and is being used more and more in scales that you can have at home. The way it works is that a small electrical charge is sent through the body. The greater the resistance (measured in ohms), the more fat is present, because fat interferes does not conduct electricity as well as muscle does. The lesser the resistance, the more muscle tissue is present, because lean tissue is highly conductive due to its high water content. It can be off by quite a wide margin, as to be accurate hydration levels have to be exactly the same each time as well as the amount of food in your stomach and intestines. The test also tends to overestimate percent body fat in very lean individuals, (sound familiar?)  and underestimate body fat in obese people.

Additionally the handheld devices only measure fat levels in the upper body- sending a current through one arm and out the other arm, while and digital scales only measure fat levels in the lower body- current goes up one leg and down the other). Both types models won’t take abdominal fat storage into account, so you’re not getting a full picture of the fat level of your entire body at any time, which is significant since it’s abdominal fat that matters the most in terms of health risks. (See my article here on the dangers of visceral abdominal fat.)

Skin Fold Caliper Testing

With the skin fold testing, calipers are used to pinch certain parts of the body and then determine the body fat percentage based on the assumption that the amount of fat stored at these various sites is proportional to a person’s overall body fat, thus by measuring several sites, total body fat may be calculated. It is a pretty reliable test, if the same person performs it each time (it is a skill and there can be wide ranges in reading from different people performing them, as it does take some practice to master.) However there are limits. Some people just don’t pinch easily- and it is hard to get reading from them. Others have such high body fat levels that the calipers cannot open wide enough to pinch accurately and the tests will thus underestimate their levels.

The Golden Standard- Hydrostatic Testing

This can be a pretty involved,  (and expensive), process, bordering on the extreme for most. Hydrostatic testing for years has been the golden standard, where you are completely immersed in water and then asked to blow as much air as possible out of your lungs. Not exactly a great way to spend and afternoon, but it does give a very precise reading, but is far more involved for most people (myself included) and while more accurate than the caliper tests or simple measurement estimations based on taking measurements from various parts of the body, it still has some degree of error, especially when it comes to athletes- who tend to have higher bone densities than the rest of the population and thus can read to have a higher fat percentage than is actually true. Differences in bone densities based on race also can throw readings off to a degree as well.

There are other methods that are being used more and more, from Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), Computed Tomography (Cat Scans), Near Infrared Interactance and Dual Energy X-ray Absorptiometry. All seeking to find more and more accurate ways to measure body fat. Most are way too expensive and time consuming for most as part of a regular regime to record someone’s progress outside of a clinical setting.

What Is A Healthy Body Fat Percentage

While I personally shy away from the whole idea of body fat testing, as in my personal training practice, a healthy body fat percentage is when you can look in the mirror and see very little evidence of fat on your body- end of story. Numbers don’t mean that much as at the end of the day it all comes down to what you look like with your clothes off. That being said, there are some standards from various organizations that you should know to start off with, in terms of what is healthy and what is unhealthy.

The American Council on Exercise recommends that body fat levels should be 6-25% for men and 14-31% for women.

American Dietetic Association recommends that men should have 15-18% body fat and women should have 20-25% body fat.

Body fat percentages for high level athletes can vary from sport to sport. Healthy male athletes may have body fat levels as low as 5-12% body fat, and healthy female athletes can at times be as low as 12-20%.

Body Fat Is Not The Only Indicator Of How Good You Will Look Or Good Health

One of the reasons that I stress that the mirror is more important than any reading you may have, no matter how accurate the method used, is that where you hold your body fat is more important than what your percentage is. For example, my experience has been that two people can have exactly the same body fat percentages and look as different as night and day. Some people can have rippling abs with 15% body fat whereas others have to go as low as 6% to start seeing real definition in their stomach areas.

More importantly the risk of fat related conditions such as cardiovascular diseases, hypertension, stroke, diabetes and certain cancers is determined by where you hold your body fat. Fat around the abdominal area holds the greatest risk for potential health problems, while fat around the hips and thighs for women seem to be relatively harmless with respect to these health problems.

Although two people can have the weight or the same body fat percentage, that doesn’t mean they face the same health risks. Where body fat is located can place a person at far greater risk for fat-related health conditions such as: cardiovascular disease, high blood pressure, stroke, diabetes and even certain types of cancers.

It is important, for health and well-being, to not only know your body fat percentage but to also pay attention to where that fat is located. Fat around the abdomen may present the greatest risk for health problems. In contrast, fat around the hips and thighs is most common in females and seems relatively harmless with respect to these health problems. So don’t get too hung up on the numbers.

Get A Copy Of Kevin’s Free Weight Loss Ebook Here!

Get a copy of Kevin’s free award winning weight loss ebook here! Kevin Richardson is one of New York City’s most sought after personal trainers and the creator of Naturally Intense High Intensity Training. Visit his official website at www.naturallyintense.net. If you live in the New York metropolitan area and need help losing weight or taking your body to the next level give Kevin and his team a call at 1-800-798-8420 or click here to get started with 50% off your trial personal training session.