The final episode of "MythBusters" aired this past weekend.  I don't know about you, but I'm going to miss their epic goatees, pursuit of science, and blowing things up for pure enjoyment.

This week I'd like to pay homage by putting on my own science cap, requisite goatee, and busting one of the strength and conditioning world's myths.  The problem is that there are a ton:

• Lactic acid isn't what makes your muscles burn, it's an excess of hydrogen ions from the Krebs cycle.  
• Sit-ups and crunches aren't going to give you a six pack, they may actually hurt your lower back.  
• Heavy weights won't make you bulky, but overeating might.

All three of those truths aren't just #broscience but actual science.  Yet I'd like to focus on one particular problem commonly seen in runners: IT Band pain.

I never doubt when people are in pain, but for a tiny piece of fascia on your outer thigh, it sure is the target of a lot of frustration.  What if I told you that the pain in your IT band wasn't actually your IT band?  Rather, it's the result of a badly positioned pelvis.

It's January.  Like late night NYC pizza joints after 2 am or Jon Hamm doing H&R Block commercials, that means it's busy season for Strength and Conditioning professionals.

Unfortunately, that means my writing has taken a back seat.  Between working with clients, my own Tactical Strength Challenge prep, and trying to win The Bachelor Fantasy League, there really isn't enough time in a day.  But that doesn't mean I've stopped thinking.

In fact, I'd like to revisit my "Confessions from a Physical Preparation Coach" series I started last year.  Part advice and part memoir, the topics below don't quite have enough "meat" to make up a full post.  But they've been learned in the trenches and are every bit as valuable.

I was petrified when I met with my first nutrition client.  Will they believe what I say? Will I meet their expectations? It's one thing to learn from a textbook and be certified, but quite another to actually coach someone.

I'm still far from a "nutrition whisperer," but I've learned a lot since I started several years ago. Instead of trying to fix whatever I *thought* was their problem, I now begin with this general algorithm:

• What's their current and previous relationship with food? (Hint: we all have one)
• Is this person getting enough sleep?  (Usually not.)
• Are they adequately hydrated?  (Again, usually not.)
• Are there any glaring tendencies that need to be addressed? (Like when someone puts butter in their coffee.  Yup, that's a thing.)

I'm proof that having mobile shoulders is a gift and a curse.  It's allowed me pitch at a high level, press my body weight overhead (for reps), and apply sunscreen to any part of my back without asking for help.

But if you ask my college roommate, he'll beg to differ at how effectively I can do that last part under the intense Aruban sun.

Besides the benefits of having Orangutan-like arms, there are plenty of downsides.  Chiefly, the neck and elbow pain I've experienced along the way.

I'd like to thank The New York Times for contributing to the malaise and hopelessness currently coupled with obesity.

Why?  Because last Monday the Times published After The Biggest Loser, Their Bodies Fought to Regain the Weight.  A depressing account of what happens to contestants after they leave the show, it is. But good journalism? It is not.

Sadly, this newest article adds to the disagreeable and outdated health advice from the Times, or those found in an Op-Ed.  And full disclosure, I'm far from impartial as The Biggest Loser is among my most hated shows on television. Yet I'm also a religious watcher of The Bachelor, so hey, nobody's perfect.

I don't believe the Times had malicious intent, nor were they purposely trying to paint sustained weight loss as some Sisyphean task.  Instead, my main gripe was that they didn't add anything to the conversation and they failed to propose any solutions.  We've known from study after study that losing weight is the "easy" part, maintaining is the hardest.  And the only answers they did provide were bariatric surgery or accepting hunger as the new normal.

The logic and skepticism of our inner scientist should be wary of accepting the conclusions of a small, self-selected study, but it's hard to overlook such a compelling story.  So in an effort to steer the interwebz back to reality, below are 5 ways in which the article failed to cover the entire story: