As summer comes in with June Whole Pieces is bringing the heat with a strong and no nonsense gal. Melissa Lienesch, yes we are related by marriage, but surely not the reason to select the Appleton, Wisconsin native.
Committed wife to James, and mother to 2 year old Emily, Melissa knows how to do it all. Upon the entrance of Emily to the Lienesch's lives, Melissa decided she would be most content and useful taking care of their home and new daughter, leaving her 9-5 job. She may have quit the 9-5, but you can't keep her cooped up for long. Melissa inspires others daily as a group fitness instructor at Ellipse Fitness in Wisconsin, teaching kickboxing and resistance training.
Melissa swears by strength training, particularly for women, and recommends it 3 times a week, at 30 minute sessions. While a lot of women shy away from strength training worrying it will bulk them up, Melissa contends it's quite the opposite. It was the fat torching capabilities of strength training which were responsible for zapping her baby weight and more. She admits even she was floored at the results.
Our June Champion feels proud to be associated with Ellipse Fitness. The programs offered range according to the needs of the individual including both fitness and nutritional plans. Additionally, Ellipse offers challenges to motivate participants with amazing cash prizes. Currently serving Wisconsin primarily, they are growing at a rapid rate, and even provide franchising opportunities.
Melissa started putting a priority on her health as a young adult fresh out of college. Carrying a little more weight than she needed a friend inspired Melissa to workout with her. After that, it was history. The motivation lies in achieving the best quality of life. Melissa loves the feeling after a workout and being strong. She hopes this fire will keep her fit for life and avoid struggling with the diseases that come from being overweight.
When it comes to nutrition Melissa is pretty disciplined. These are my words, not hers, as I have spent many holidays with her, even then, great will power.
I can't help but think what a wonderful role model Melissa proves to be for Emily and any other children they may be blessed with.
Thanks to Melissa for being our June Champion and taking time out of her busy day to chat with me!
A Health and Wellness Coach's perspective on healthy living. Touching on nutrition, fitness, skin care, spirit and energy.
Thursday, June 14, 2012
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
Just Plain Irony or Actual Hypocrisy?
Each day we are inundated by conflicting information surrounding our health care. Mixed messages send us into a confusion spiral in which we are forced to dump it all, proceeding with the status quo. As if that isn't difficult enough, we're also flooded with information from those who don't have a stake in our health, but have a lot to gain financially and politically for the positions they take. It simply drives us to the point of exhaustion. This morning I happened to catch Howard Schultz, Chairman and CEO of Starbucks, in an interview commenting on the soda ban proposed by New York City Mayor, Michael Bloomberg. If you are not familiar, Mayor Bloomberg, in his attempt to make his contribution to fight the war on fat has proposed a soda ban. The proposed ban targets 16oz and larger size sodas.
I found Schultz's response to Charlie Rose's question regarding the ban quite intriguing. Schultz exclaims, "I applaud the approach, and obviously the objective", and later comments, "I am not sure it's the right approach, but we are obviously going to follow suit and respond to him because he is doing something that is quite important." I am curious how Starbucks intends to "respond" to Mayor Bloomberg. Let me be clear, I am for free enterprise and capitalism, as well as allowing grown adults to make their own health choices and parents to make the choices for their children. What I find questionable is the stance Starbucks takes regarding their responsibility and potential contribution to the obesity problem in this country. From Schultz's comments one might infer they are supportive of this ban.
Let's take a look at the data here. A 20oz bottle of Coke has 65 grams of sugar.
Ironically, Starbucks does not give specific sugar information in their nutritional data listed on their website. Based on information given at Livestrong.com, which I consider an excellent source, lists a grande (16 oz) vanilla Frappacino with regular whole milk contains 64 grams of sugar. Interesting.
Is Schultz not recognizing the irony here? A Frappacino holds a cute name, in a fancy cup, but call a spade a spade, it's junk food, and every bit as much as soda. I have no problem with soda, Frappacino's, any other candy or junk food in moderation. We all want a treat from time to time, and when eaten responsibly, I see no legitimate concern. I do take issue with Schultz promulgating support to fighting obesity where food is the primary contributing factor. Personally, my stance doesn't promote banning specific foods to change the root problem of the obesity epidemic. But, perhaps Schultz should consider holding up a mirror. It's the overall hypocrisy I found somewhat amusing, the elephant in the room nobody wanted to address. I had hoped Charlie Rose would challenge him, but sadly, he did not. I, on the other hand, almost fell off the treadmill in laughter by the overall ridiculousness of it all.
What I hope you will take, is the proverbial grain of salt from all the information being blasted at you. Do your best to keep you and your family healthy and safe! Be well, and take care of all of your pieces.
I found Schultz's response to Charlie Rose's question regarding the ban quite intriguing. Schultz exclaims, "I applaud the approach, and obviously the objective", and later comments, "I am not sure it's the right approach, but we are obviously going to follow suit and respond to him because he is doing something that is quite important." I am curious how Starbucks intends to "respond" to Mayor Bloomberg. Let me be clear, I am for free enterprise and capitalism, as well as allowing grown adults to make their own health choices and parents to make the choices for their children. What I find questionable is the stance Starbucks takes regarding their responsibility and potential contribution to the obesity problem in this country. From Schultz's comments one might infer they are supportive of this ban.
Let's take a look at the data here. A 20oz bottle of Coke has 65 grams of sugar.
Ironically, Starbucks does not give specific sugar information in their nutritional data listed on their website. Based on information given at Livestrong.com, which I consider an excellent source, lists a grande (16 oz) vanilla Frappacino with regular whole milk contains 64 grams of sugar. Interesting.
Is Schultz not recognizing the irony here? A Frappacino holds a cute name, in a fancy cup, but call a spade a spade, it's junk food, and every bit as much as soda. I have no problem with soda, Frappacino's, any other candy or junk food in moderation. We all want a treat from time to time, and when eaten responsibly, I see no legitimate concern. I do take issue with Schultz promulgating support to fighting obesity where food is the primary contributing factor. Personally, my stance doesn't promote banning specific foods to change the root problem of the obesity epidemic. But, perhaps Schultz should consider holding up a mirror. It's the overall hypocrisy I found somewhat amusing, the elephant in the room nobody wanted to address. I had hoped Charlie Rose would challenge him, but sadly, he did not. I, on the other hand, almost fell off the treadmill in laughter by the overall ridiculousness of it all.
What I hope you will take, is the proverbial grain of salt from all the information being blasted at you. Do your best to keep you and your family healthy and safe! Be well, and take care of all of your pieces.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)