SUBSCRIBE

MENU
GEAR
TRAVEL
FITNESS
ADVENTURE
CULTURE
VIDEO
MAGAZINE
SUBSCRIBE
PODCAST
SEARCH
How Athletes Get Great
Just train for 10,000 hours, right? Not quite. In his new book, author David
Epstein argues that top-shelf athletic performance may be a more complicated
formula than we�ve recently come to believe.
running minimalist running shoes soles vibram five fingers nike new balance
traditional running running stride orthopedics podiatry othotics born to run
mcdougall brooks puredrift saucony virrata sketchers gobionic irene davis
Jeremy Repanich
Jeremy Repanich
Aug 6, 2013
Long before he co-authored a damning investigative article on Lance Armstrong or
introduced the phrase �deer antler spray� into the lexicon with his feature on Ray
Lewis�s dealings with some hucksters, Sports Illustrated senior writer David
Epstein had questions about the biology behind elite athletic performance.

David Epstein's new book busts the 10,000-hour myth.

In high school he wondered why the mini-diaspora of Jamaican runners that populated
his team would blow away the competition despite, �some of these guys not showing
up to practice that much,� he says. As a member of the track team at Columbia
University (Epstein ran the 800m), more questions came. Epstein observed that
despite starting the season slower than most runners, he responded better to
training, even though he and his teammates trained stride-for-stride. Then, when he
arrived at meets, he learned that the competition in distance events wasn�t merely
from Kenyans, they were mostly from the same rural tribe, the Kalenjin.

His observations of nature�s influence on athleticism seemed to contradict the

nurture-based 10,000-Hour rule, popularized by Malcolm Gladwell. Epstein saw the
rule influence not only popular culture, but academia as well. He wanted to
investigate the long-standing nature versus nurture debate among elite competitors,
so he travelled the world, interviewing athletes, scientists, and coaches in search
of some answers.

Outside recently caught up with him to talk about his new book, The Sports Gene:
Inside the Science Of Extraordinary Athletic Performance ($26.95; Current
Hardcover):

Do you find there�s a misconception about genetics in the general public?

The problem is that, when a gene comes out, the media will say, �Oh, you have the
fat gene or the angry gene or the promiscuous gene.� First of all, sometimes the
results are not repeated and they get blown out of the water later. Other times,
they have a tiny effect. It�s like trying to say you have the whole puzzle when you
have one of a thousand pieces, with some of those other pieces being not genes but
environment. So I could see why people would say, �you have the brain damage gene,
you�re going to have dementia.� It just tells you that you�re at increased risk.

Some genes are deterministic, the ones that makes us like other humans. Brain
chemicals, our organs, 10 fingers�it takes a pretty major mutation to change those.
Then there are others like for Huntington�s where if you have the gene, you have
the disease, but most genes are predisposition and not destiny, and that nuance
gets lost.

It seems like the problems come when we graft narrative onto a subject we don�t
fully understand, but want to delude ourselves into thinking we do.
That definitely happens. We fit narrative to what we can see. We can�t see our
genes. All we can see are the things we can come up with so we fit narratives
whether we can see all the evidence or not. For my training partner at Columbia and
me, I now know that I have genes that make me a higher responder to training. I
could see that my teammate�who unlike me was pegged as naturally talented�would
start the season in way better shape, but with training I would surpass him. People
would tell me how tough I am. And he was told he had a lot of talent, but had he
had psychological problems or something. No, we were doing the exact same training.
But you fit a narrative to what you can see. There�s this twins study I found where
two twins were separated at birth and found out about each other as adults and they
were both obsessive about being neat and clean. One of them said in an interview
that his adoptive mother was really neat, so he learned from her. The other said
his adoptive mother was a slob and he never wanted to be like her. Ok, so maybe
it�s actually that there�s a genetic inclination to behave that way and they fit it
to a narrative that works that way, and it happens a lot in sports.

The popular narrative you found while researching the book was the 10,000-hour rule
made famous by Malcolm Gladwell�s book Outliers. Was the idea that pervasive?
Totally. And it motivated me to do the book, actually, and this was before I even
knew how I felt about the so-called rule. I didn�t know about the science, but I
wanted to evaluate it. And it took a long time and a lot of self-doubt before I
became confident that I was interpreting it correctly. It was popping up
everywhere. When I would go to the American College of Sports Medicine conference,
there wasn�t a day that went by that people weren�t using it in their talks.

I remember writing a story about brain trauma at Purdue and watching video of a hit
LaDainian Tomlinson took. He fell on his head and these scientists said, �Wow, he
should have broken his neck. That�s your 10,000 hours there. That guy has put in
his time of taking hits and a normal person would have broken their neck.� And I
thought, �Seriously, we�re going to use this everywhere?� I talked to Olympic
scientists a lot and they didn�t seem to think about the science or have even read
they underlying paper. They knew nothing about it. The study is based on the
practice hours of 10 people who are already in a world-famous music academy, so
they�re already prescreened. When you take a study and you already screen out most
of the gene pool, it�s not a very representative sample.

And people would call it �Gladwell�s 10,000 hours� as if he had done the research
for it. It started to bug me. People were using it just to mean that practice was
important, that�s it. That�s not what the theory says. The researcher behind it,
Anders Ericsson, has said that he thinks all people have the necessary genes to be
elite performers. Just saying that practice is important is totally
uncontroversial. From a scientific standpoint it�s useless. Scientists have to say
how important it is, what else is important? I found it to be troubling from a
scientific standpoint and the more I evaluated it, the more it seemed to unravel.
And ultimately, Ericsson read Outliers and said Gladwell misconstrued his work. His
words, not mine.

How did Gladwell misconstrue it?

Aside from not having copied the numbers from the actual paper correctly for his
book? He says that there is a perfect correspondence between practice and the level
of expertise a person attains. And you can�t tell that from the paper. The 10,000
hours is an average of differences. You could have two people in any endeavor and
one person took 0 hours and another took 20,000 hours, which is something like what
happened with two high jumpers I discuss in the book. One guy put in 20,000 and one
put in 0, so there�s your average of 10,000 hours, but that tells you nothing about
an individual.

Now, Gladwell doesn�t say there�s no such thing as genetic talent. I think other
writers are stricter than him. [Matthew Syed�s] Bounce is a book that minimizes
talent. Gladwell does say elite performers are more talented. One of the things
that Ericsson criticizes Gladwell about is to say that 10,000 hours is some kind of
rule. The paper just says that these performers by the age of 20, these performers
have accumulated 10,000 hours but there�s no where that says it�s a magical number
where that�s when they become elite or anything like that. These people, by the
time they go into their professional careers, have way more than that. That�s just
where they were when they�re 20 as an average, not even to mention their individual
differences.

Tracking chess masters helped you dismantle the rule, because it wasn�t so
restrictive in its sample size, right?
Even with chess masters you�re talking about a population that�s pretty trained. So
you�re still eliminating a large swath of humanity before you even start.
Researchers found it takes 11,053 hours on average to achieve international master
status. But the range there is what�s important. One guy takes 3,000 hours to
become a master and another takes 25,000 and he�s still not there. So you can
average those and come up with some rule, but it doesn�t tell you anything. You can
always average individual differences and come up with some sort of a rule.
Gladwell does leave more room for elite talent. He says, �Michael Jordan has more
talent than me, but he also put in the work.� And that�s uncontroversial, that
someone is talented and put in work. Beyond the chess players, genetics is
continually finding now that one person�s hour of practice isn�t as good as the
next person�s hour. Talent isn�t something preceding you trying something, but your
biological setup that allows you to benefit more than the next guy.

That�s one of the most fascinating and unexpected parts of the book, where you
discuss the Heritage study�s findings on trainability. Explain its implications.
That�s the most famous exercise-genetics study ever done. It�s the collaboration of
five colleges in the U.S. and Canada. They took sedentary, two-generation families,
which didn�t have a training history, and put them through stationary-bike exercise
plans that were totally controlled. Families had to go into the lab and exercise
over five months. The goal was to see how people would improve, and they were split
into four different university centers to do the training and every center saw the
exact same pattern. About 15% of people improved their aerobic capacity very little
or not at all. And 15% improved 50% or more doing identical training. Families
tended to stick together in the improvement curve, so about half of any person�s
improvement was determined by their parents. I remember the editorial that ran in
the journal of applied physiology �some people�s alphabet soup�meaning their
DNA�didn�t spell �runner.�� One person training the exact same as another person
can have completely different outcomes.

What does that mean for the athlete who has plateaued?
No cookie-cutter training plan is ever going to work. I�m a great example. Before
my senior year of high school, I got up to 85 miles per week of training, which
isn�t a lot for a pro, but was a lot for someone my age. When I came to college, I
really got interested in physiology and took a scientific approach to my training.
I found I was better at cross-country by training 35 miles per week with hill
intervals instead of doing 85 miles per week. People need to pay attention to their
training plans, because if something is not working for you as well as the next
guy, it may be your biology, so you should try another plan. If you�re not taking a
trial-and-error approach to training where you�re measuring something your time,
you�re way less likely to find a plan that works for you. The cookie cutter
approach to training is purely a facet of having a large group of people to train.
If you�re writing a training book, then you have to be more broad. In the book,
there�s a Danish scientist who biopsies his athletes and he�s found guys with huge
fast twitch muscles and he tells them, �You�re working out too much because you�re
causing your fast twitch muscles to take on the properties of more endurance muscle
fibers.�

That can be tough for coaches, especially of big teams, because making everyone
train the same way is seen as being fair to all the players.
I think my high-school coach noticed this about me, because when I graduated he
said, �Get them to train you like a sprinter when you go to college.� And I did,
and I got better at every distance by doing short training. I think part of the
genius of Usain Bolt is that if you read his biography, 9.58, he talks about how
lazy he is and he likes his coach because his coach realizes he won�t show up for
practice some days. Who knows what his proportion of fast-twitch muscle fibers, but
probably it�s huge. Those guys get hurt if they train too much, or they convert
their super-fast-twitch muscle fibers into normal fast twitch. They take on the
properties of endurance muscle fibers. Bolt will ramp up to peak when he needs too.
For some guys, less training is the best medicine.

It�s like the anti-10,000-Hour Rule�working out too much can negatively affect some
athletes?
It�s great that the 10,000-Hour Rule emphasizes the importance of practice because
some people underestimate what practice can do. I think I can take anyone with two
working legs and in six months can get them to run a marathon. I think most people
don�t believe they can do that, but they can. It�s cool that they emphasize how
much practice can do, but kids are getting burned out and injured from
overtraining. It�s especially true for guys that have a lot of fast twitch, who are
shown to be more prone to getting hurt. Usain Bolt has figured it out. He trusts
himself to take time off.

A lack of nuance can really make it difficult to talk about genetics, especially
with race.
Writing about race almost scared me out of writing the book altogether, which is
why I wrote a section that had nothing to do sports on whether race had a genetic
meaning in the first place. I was hoping that would be a non-hysterical way to
start the discussion of genetics. But I wasn�t alone. Some scientists told me that
they had data on physical differences in some ethnic traits that they were not
going to publish. They were worried about reinforcing stereotypes or that people
would take this to mean they�d also be somehow implying that there are innate
intellectual differences between ethnicities; never mind that their work had
nothing to do with that. But that�s the fear. So there�s clearly a political aspect
to science that people are angling for depending on what social message they want
to convey, but that social message has no bearing on the truth. The best way to get
the best outcome for all people is to figure out what ethnic differences are real
and what are not. Once I heard scientists tell me�it wasn�t often, but it did
happen�that they were holding back data, I decided I didn�t what to hold back with
things that I found.

Black athletes have been so negatively impacted by pseudoscience stereotypes about

what�s biologically innate to them that it�s easy to distrust any discussion of
what is innate ability. Writers like William C. Rhoden of the New York Times want
scrap the idea of athletic prowess�good or bad�being innate, chalking up
differences in race and ethnicities as social constructs. You cite an example of
that in the book.
Rhoden says that white cornerbacks are shuffled off to safety instead of playing
corner because whites are stereotyped as slow. I didn�t know if he was right or
wrong. The only way I thought I could evaluate was to look at combine times to see
if anyone who had the speed to be a corner but were shuffled off to safety. What I
found was that there weren�t safeties of any ethnicity that were running fast
enough, most of the time, to be cornerbacks. There certainly are social constructs
and bigotry, but people attack those ideas thinking that will negate the bigotry. I
think those pseudoscience beliefs are the result, not the cause, of bigotry. People
aren�t looking at innate differences and decide, �Well, I guess I�m going to be
racist.� Patrick Cooper addresses that in his research in his book Black Superman,
when he dismantles the incorrect idea that physical prowess and intellectual
prowess are on some sort of teeter-totter. That was never even an idea until
physical prowess became associated with African Americans in the 1930s. So, I
understand why it�s important to be critical of those ideas about innate ability.

But you believe there are innate differences between ethnicities and that we need
to be up front about them?
In medicine, this is a non-issue. There was a study this month that come out
showing tuberculosis measurements should be tailored by ethnicity because people
with African ancestries, their immune systems respond differently to treatment. So
you monitor the disease differently. We know that people with African ancestry have
lower hemoglobin levels so sometimes they get turned away inappropriately from
blood donation because they get measured against European standards. It�s really
important to acknowledge ethnic differences in those cases. What the problem is
when you take generalities and you apply them to an individual. A stereotype is a
way to evaluate someone indirectly. When you can have someone at the NFL Combine,
it makes no sense to evaluate him indirectly with a stereotype when you can
evaluate him directly and decide whether he�s good or not.

Michael Johnson believes that the slave trade bred exceptional black athletes,
especially sprinters from Jamaica. Is that a theory where pseudoscience is rearing
its head?
You would definitely want to see more work to be conclusive about it. Yannis
Pitsiladis [researcher from the University of Glasgow] is the only guy killing
himself to do that work to figure it out and there�s only so much of that that he�s
gotten done. There have been theories on other traits beside athleticism that the
�unnatural selection� of slavery selected for certain traits and some of those have
really fallen by the wayside, even though they seemed intuitively right. The slave
theory might make sense, but the science doesn�t support it right now. Maybe when
genetic testing changes, we�ll see something different, but I want to highlight
where the science is now. So far the genetic data is suggesting that while every
man who has been in the Olympic 100 meter final is of sub-Saharan West African
descent, they come from a variety of countries and variety ethnic groups. There
isn�t some genetic monolith for sprinting in Jamaica or the Caribbean. I think we�d
see a lot more really good sprinters from West Africa if there were some sports
infrastructure in those countries.

You mention the Jamaican coach in the book that�s wary of sending sprinters to the
US for college because of the risk of overtraining.
When I went to Champs, the national high-school track championships in Jamaica, and
I talked to coaches about their training plans, their kids who are the equivalent
of our freshmen and sophomores only practice two to three days a week. They take it
easy on them until they become upper classmen. When I was a freshman, we started to
lift weights right away. They don�t let them lift weights until they�re at least
16. The underclassmen were training way lighter than what you�d find at decent high
school in the U.S. Their approach seems to be one of the keys to developing to
sprinters on the island. That coach still thinks most sprinters should go to
college in the US, because they�re not going to make money off of running, so they
should get a scholarship and college degree out of it. But the guys at the top,
they should stay on the island because they don�t over race them there.

But when you see a cluster of high-level athletes from one location, does that
raise red flags that the phenomenon we�re witnessing is just the result of PEDs?
I�ve been involved in reporting on doping. You�d be na�ve not to wonder about it
and Jamaica�s testing is getting more rigid and we�re going to find out. But when I
look at their high-school times, like what they do at Champs and the number of good
runners they send to the U.S., who are then subject to the same kind of testing
that the U.S. has�I don�t think PEDs are driving the phenomenon overall, but I�m
quite sure there are athletes are doping.

Which brings us to a really unexpected theme to this book: It�s secretly an

economics and social science book as well as a genetic science one. The 10,000-
hours faction believes in nurture over nature. You show the intersection of genes,
training, economic incentives, and cultural institutions that create athletes.
Nature and nurture together.
Usain Bolt is a great example. He was 6�4� when he was 15 years old and blazing
fast. He wanted to play soccer or cricket. What are the chances anyone lets him run
track in the U.S.? To me, it�s zero. There�s no way he�s not playing basketball or
football. Nowhere but Trinidad, the Bahamas, Barbados, and Jamaica would a guy
that�s 6�4�, with blinding speed, be allowed to run track instead of something
else. People have asked me, �Should we do genetic screening for the best athletes
or at least some sort of measurements?� Yes, measuring kids and trying to fit them
into the right sport for their body type absolutely works. That�s why you saw
Australia and Great Britain up their medal haul with their talent search programs
when they had their Olympics. However, when there�s a sport that�s most popular in
an area, you don�t have to do that because you already have the natural sifting
program. You don�t have to go hunt for the best football players in America because
they�re already going to go play football and then we select them.

Sprinting in Jamaica is like our system here for college football. What are the
chances that a really good high school football player will fall through the cracks
and not go to college? Pretty small, because people are looking for them and they
earn adoration and accolades from performing well. That�s the way it is for youth
track in Jamaica. They have shady boosters and everything! I went to a warm up
track at Champs and started to ask the coaches about recruiting and how it works
and they kept telling me, �We�re not allowed to give refrigerators to their
parents.� I�m like, �What?!?� Apparently there was a rash of bribing kids with
fridges to get kids to come to their track high schools. In Kenya, there�s no
joggers. There�s only people who are running for transportation, people who are
absolutely killing themselves in training to be Olympians and pros and people who
aren�t running at all. There are no opportunity costs.

There was a guy named Brian Sell, he was [a marathoner] on the US Olympic team in
2008. He put in a lot of work, he got really good, he made the team, and he was
putting off dental school. He was putting off making a living to chase being a pro
runner. In rural Kenya, where the Kalenjin are from, there is no opportunity costs
for attempting to be a runner. You�re not putting off any other opportunity, so you
might as well try, so you get this huge input in the talent funnel. All of them try
to train like Olympians. They go down to the local dirt track and guys who have a
gold medal or world championship are already there and they literally try to run
right alongside them right away. Most of them fall by the wayside, but the ones who
survive are world-beaters. It�s a pretty good talent system.

But it�s not all economics and social systems for Kenyans. I mean, can a person
with cankles win the NYC marathon?
It�s interesting. Americans think that Kenyans are good runners. Kenyans aren�t
good runners; the subset of people from the Kalenjin tribe are the amazing runners.
They run to school and I think that primes them for training and serves as a talent
selection mechanism. But millions of kids run to school all over Africa and in
India, and most of the great runners come out of the Kalenjin, so that environment
is not unique to the Kalenjin. The Kalenjin have this incredibly narrow build, with
a very narrow pelvic girdle and long, thin limbs. That�s a result of having your
ancestry in a hot, dry climate. The more surface area you have relative to volume,
the more heat you unload through the surface. Also, the less weight you have
further from your center of gravity, the easier it is to swing your legs. So your
running economy is better. Oscar Pistorius� running economy is as good as an elite
marathoner, which is unheard of for a sprinter, because he has these artificially
light lower limbs. The lighter the lower your limbs, the better pace you can go for
a given amount of oxygen. Some of the cool studies that have confirmed this is they
take runners and put 8 lbs on their waist and it increases how much oxygen they
have to use a little bit when they run at a certain pace. But if they take that
same 8 lbs and put it around each ankle, so it�s 4 lbs each ankle, it�s a 20%
difference in the amount of energy they have to use to go the same pace. Weight at
the end of your limb makes it hard to swing your legs, which makes your running
economy much worse. So you want as long and as thin a leg as humanly possible.
That�s the build Kalenjin have. A study showed that even untrained Kalenjin have
better economy than untrained Danish kids. Some of the Danish kids had better
aerobic capacity, meaning they�re in better shape, but they still had worse running
economy because their lower legs are thicker, so if you have thick lower legs,
you�re not winning the NYC Marathon, unfortunately.

DAMN YOU FOR CRUSHING MY DREAMS.

Sorry.

What you�re saying does give some credence to the minimalist shoe craze, right?
Dan Lieberman, a scientist who did some of the famous work on barefoot running
featured in Born To Run has done some work where he will have people run in shoes
and then have them run with an equivalent weight strapped to the top of their foot.
They�re running barefoot, but they still have the weight of a shoe and their
running economy is worse. So you definitely want to stay light down there.

What you explained about the Kalenjin, is part of a larger trend in sports spurred
by economics, which you describe as the Big Bang of Body Types.
Athletes in sports where they have to be big have gotten even bigger and where they
have to be small have gotten smaller. For instance female gymnasts have gone from
an average height of 5�3� to 4�9�. Two things happened. For a while there Germans
were leaders in athletic science and there was the idea that the average body type
would be best for every athletic endeavor�Vitruvian man. That turned out to be
woefully wrong. So once that science receded and scientists realized specialized
body types were better. But also as the reward pyramid became really narrow. There
used to be vibrant club systems that would support semi-pro and lower level pros,
especially in Europe, because if you wanted to see sports, you had to go in person
or participate. Then you get TV contracts and revenue sharing with athletes where
they start to be able to make a huge living and so many more people want to be pro
athletes. Now everyone has a ticket to the Super Bowl, basically, by watching on
TV. You expand the consumer population enormously and make the rewards tremendous,
but concentrated at the tiny pinnacle of performance. As those trends happened over
the 20th century it caused people who wanted to be professional athletes to try,
which put more people in the talent funnel and the most specialized and best bodies
for those sports were coming out the bottom. General managers and scouts started
searching farther and wider as the money became bigger. One of the places that
showed up was as soon as you have revenue sharing with players in the NBA, the
percent of the league that�s made up of 7-footers doubled almost over night.
Everyone wants to be in the NBA and teams started going abroad to find guys with
height when they ran out of guys at home.

That explains why the high jump record isn�t being challenged anymore. The economic
incentive to attract a big talent pool has gone away.
For the most part no one gets close. Even in the 100-meters, you�ve got Bolt,
basically. There are guys in the finals of the 100 of the Olympics who probably
aren�t making that good of a living. Trindon Holliday, now an NFL player, he may
have been the best young sprinter in America at one point. He beat Walter Dix, who
medaled in the 100m in Beijing, in the US Championships in 2007, but declined to go
to the World Championships because he didn�t want to miss any LSU preseason
football. There�s a guy who could become America�s best sprinter, but doesn�t even
want to miss a day of preseason football.

Are you afraid that genetic breakthroughs will be abused by athletes?

One of the interesting things was any researchers I�d talk to who had discovered a
gene that had an impact on muscle growth, when they published their findings,
they�d get deluged by weightlifters and athletes who volunteer themselves. So that
possibility exists. There was a trial of a German track coach and in the trial it
became clear he was trying to get his hands on a gene therapy to increase the
body�s production of red blood cells.

There�s a guy who I write about in the book who has a mutation on his EPO receptor
gene that causes him to overproduce red blood cells. Look at what EPO did to
cycling. You think if they could tinker with their EPO receptor gene they wouldn�t
do it? However, I think if I were an athlete who was hell-bent on cheating, current
forms of doping like microdosing testosterone and re-infusing their own blood are
so effective that I wouldn�t even bother with something that could kill me. But I
think that time will come where things will be made safer and then will people pick
the traits of their children and that�s a little scary because we haven�t had
discussions about how to regulate and deal with that. I fear it�s going to come
faster than we can think about it.

So, what�s the next big breakthrough?

One of the coolest things is genetically tailored diet and training. It won�t be
perfect because we still don�t know what most genes do. But exercise genetics will
potentially produce some of the most widely used and effective medicine. You may be
able to tell people how they can train to get a certain health benefit instead of
taking a drug, or maybe that they can�t get that benefit with training so they do
need a medication. Also, injury predisposition genes are coming online right now.
It would be nice to know more than just through straight trial and error what�s the
best training for your and how you can avoid injury. For example, what if you have
a predisposition to low collagen production, so now we know to keep you healthy we
have -to strengthen your support muscles more than the next guy. Of course, with
the concussion crisis, there�s clearly a gene that predisposes people to sustaining
more damage from getting hit in the head than other people and I think it�s crazy
that testing for it is not in wider use. I understand the fears of it going into
wider use, but this isn�t a place where you should be hiding from any information.
Even though it�s just statistical info, it�s not destiny to have a gene.

Stay on Topic
The Beauty in the Process
Sponsor Content
The Beauty in the Process
What Can We Learn from Avalanches? A New Book Tries to Find Out.
What Can We Learn from Avalanches? A New Book Tries to Find Out.
By: Emma Walker
Ueli Steck, After Death and in His Own Words
Ueli Steck, After Death and in His Own Words
By: Tim Neville
What Tim Ferriss Learned from More Than 100 Elite Performers
What Tim Ferriss Learned from More Than 100 Elite Performers
By: The Editors
MORE CULTURE
Outside Online
Our Mission
To inspire active participation in the world outside through award-winning coverage
of the sports, people, places, adventure, discoveries, health and fitness, gear and
apparel, trends and events that make up an active lifestyle.

Contact Us Terms of Use Privacy Ads Media Kit Subscriptions Affiliate Links RSS
Site Feedback
� 2018 Mariah Media Network LLC.

News in a New Way

Get the essentials in your inbox. Every single day.
Email Address:
Enter your email address
SUBMIT