A malassada, this one from Champion on Beretania Street, can make any day better.
You don’t have to embarrass yourself in public anymore.
According to several studies — including a recent one, the results presented last month at the annual meeting of the American College of Sports Medicine — muscle activation and oxygen consumption were almost identical whether the women wore toning or normal walking shoes.
Meaning, those rocker-shaped soles that promise to tighten your calves, thighs and butt don’t do anything ordinary shoes would. Yes, even if they “feel” different.
I’ll admit: I’ve been tempted to spend the $100 or so to buy one of these miracle shoes and walk my way to a fitter body. But like anything that sounds too good to be true, it is.
It’s amazing, though, how companies are able to get away with what essentially is misleading (not necessarily false) advertising. On the SKECHERS website, it says its Shape-ups will “tone your muscles, promote healthy weight loss and make it easy to get in shape.”
While the claims may not be entirely true, if people — namely, women — buy these shoes and actually start walking, that’s a good thing. And I’m guessing some women have used these shoes to get back into shape — and may not have even attempted it had it not been for the convincing sales pitch.
If that’s enough to get people out there and moving, I suppose the shoes have done their job.
I’m just glad I didn’t buy into it. Otherwise, I would have an ugly pair of useless shoes.
This is Bella, a 6-pound chihuahua/terrier mix who last seen last Sunday around 5 p.m. on Anoi Road in Kaneohe. She ran away from her dog-sitter the day before in the housing area across from Castle High School. Her fur is white and coarse and she’s very friendly with people and other animals.
Spread the word! There’s a reward, too!
Until they kick our seats in a plane or scream mercilessly in a restaurant.
But is banning kids from places like airplanes and restaurants really fair?
This question came up recently when a Pennsylvania restaurant decided to ban kids under six starting July 16.
McDain’s owner Mike Vuick sent this email to his customers:
“Beginning July 16, 2011, McDain’s Restaurant will no longer admit children under six years of age. We feel that McDain’s is not a place for young children. Their volume can’t be controlled and many, many times, they have disturbed other customers.”
I can totally empathize.
The other day we were having dinner at a Japanese restaurant. On a nearby table, a child kept screaming at the top of her little lungs, mostly for no reason. Her parents did little more than shush her quietly to no avail.
And I can clearly remember an afternoon spent at the movies with a toddler running up and down the theater aisle, screaming, with parents creating more of a distraction trying to stop him. After a few very loud complaints directed to the parents — “Control your kid!” was the most effective — the entire family left the theater. To applause. (Read Joel Stein’s column, “Baby on Board,” in TIME.)
According to a story in Reuters, banning kids from restaurants and other places of business isn’t technically illegal. (Nowhere does it say you can’t discriminate based on age. Think about 21-and-over hotel pools — I’ve been to one — and discounts for seniors.)
But is it fair? Or right?
I can understand why business owners want to put in place these blanket bans. Who wants uncontrollable kids ruining the experience of other patrons?
But maybe it’s not the kids who should be banned — but their parents.
What do you think?