Muscle Resistance Is Muscle Resistance Is Muscle Resistance.

Richard Sullivan at age 59.

In a desperate attempt to gain likes and viewers, so-called “fitness experts” online make all kinds of outlandish claims about workouts, foods and supplements.

One common claim is that one workout tool—barbells vs. dumbbells vs. machines vs. fitness bands—is superior to another. The fact is, muscle resistance is muscle resistance. Your target muscle doesn’t know the difference.

Performing biceps curls using a barbell, for example, locks you into an arc you cannot deviate from, which can detrimentally impact your shoulders, elbows, and wrists. Using dumbbells instead allows each arm the freedom to arc independently of the other, avoiding injury and wear and tear on joints and tendons, thus providing a superior flex, pump and result.

Using fitness bands for biceps curls, as well as some biceps machines, eliminates the “resistance dead zone” that is part and parcel of the pathway that dumbbells and barbell take, thus providing resistance throughout 100%, rather than 80%-90%, of the arc of the movement.

The biggest mistake we make with regards to our workout is not mixing it up, not trying new exercises or re-working the old favorites. There are literally thousands of videos on YouTube in the bodybuilding/workout/fitness genre, all free for the viewing. 

The main reason for people’s progress leveling off is their lack of self-education work done OUTSIDE the gym, which most efficiently can be accomplished by auditioning videos to determine what might work best for you.

To Reach This Startling Conclusion, A University Study Was Needed.

"Could be"?

That anyone is so clueless as to not understand that playing with their cell phone at the gym totally defeats the purpose of their being there in the first place is stupid enough, but Men's Journal, clearly conflicted on this issue, thought it necessary to reference a Kent University study carried out to determine if this might indeed be the case.

Apparently the obviousness of gym cellphone obsession diminishing muscle-building results had so eluded a significant percentage of the population that a major university was compelled to devote time and money to reach this conclusion.

https://www.mensjournal.com/health-fitness/heres-how-your-phone-could-be-ruining-your-workout/

Markus Antretter

https://www.instagram.com/mark_ant_wbpf/?hl=en

I Don't Have The Time To Work Out.

George Hackenschmidt circa 1895

"I Don't Have The Time To Work Out."

People who tell me this seem to have the time to watch TV, play video games, troll on Facebook, go out to a bar and more. As dumb as this sounds, even crazier are those who claim they don’t have the time to eat "right," or even eat, period.

We all have the same 24 hours in our day and we alone choose what to do with them. My advice to people is, don’t work out if you don’t want to. And just keep eating crap if that makes you happy—but just shut up with the excuses and justifications for doing so. Nobody wants to hear them.

The great 19th century strongman/bodybuilder George Hackenscmidt said:

 “If you don't find the time to get fit and healthy, you are going to have to find the time to be sick and miserable.”

The NY Times Again Fails Its Fitness Test.

The New York Times is a great newspaper in many respects, but its repeated failure when it comes to Fitness and Nutrition is unforgivable in light of the many inconsequential, oddly biased and downright silly articles it has featured regarding this genre. This so-called "study" involved a whopping 12 individuals—which disqualifies it as a study. For the Times to give it such importance is stupid:  The article is HERE.

The vast majority of fitness/nutrition articles on mainstream websites (think major newspapers, magazines and "news" sites like Huffington Post) are not authored by fitness professionals, fitness authors like myself, or accomplished athletes, all of whom have first hand personal experience to draw upon.

These articles rarely, as I have long pointed out, include a recent photo of the author so we might assess them physically as to their qualifications. However in the case of the NYT article referenced above, the picture suggests a late-middle aged lady who does not work out. It has been made clear that the great NYT doesn't feel the need to either have a fitness editor, nor publish the writings of fitness professionals.

Having been employed by many magazines and newspapers over the last 40 years I can say that the majority of published non-news articles you and I read on any given subject are not authored by "experts" in the field. I myself have been assigned to write articles on a subject I knew little about and thus had to do a lot of research in order to come off as someone seemingly in the know.  This process describes the work of the majority of writers from all eras. Despite a lifelong dedication to fitness and nutrition, of the scores of articles I have been assigned as a writer, not one article in the fitness/nutrition field was ever assigned to me, but rather in three instances to colleagues who had little if any experience or expertise. One editor had the gall to demand I provide the necessary information to a totally unqualified author, basically acting as his unpaid ghost writer. What is wrong with people?

This is why we need to be wary of what we read, especially when presented in a way as to make the author appear to be an expert in the field. Unless their CV is referenced to support their qualifications regarding the subject matter at hand, they rarely are.

Exactly How "Real" Is GQ's "Real Life Diet"?

If your goal in life is to look like Al Sharpton (shown here before he lost all the weight), then GQ tells you just how to do it!

https://www.gq.com/story/real-life-diet-al-sharpton 

As my readers know, I love to hate GQ Magazine. So after reading the latest installment of their ongoing feature about what other people eat,  called “Real Life Diet”, I was heartened to see my new hero, New York Magazine’s Katie Heaney, step in and do the heavy lifting for me on this one:

https://www.thecut.com/2019/06/why-do-mens-magazines-still-normalize-disordered-eating.html#_ga=2.210161106.610277772.1560813246-387952572.1558645560

There is so much absurdity that goes on at the offices of Conde Nast’s Idiot Child that it’s hard to know where to begin. A “style editor” who literally walks down the street looking like a homeless person, complete with a shoelace tied round his waist to hold up his destroyed jeans would be one good example. And some of the clown outfits in their Best Dressed feature. But I digress.

This “Real Life Diet” feature is moronic for its showcasing and celebrating so-called male “celebrities” suffering from and fully embracing their eating disorders. I’m on the fence about how irresponsible shit like this influences susceptible individuals, as I feel if someone is too stupid to look things up on Google that maybe Darwin’s Law should be allowed to prevail. But I also smell bullshit throughout many of these “Real Life Diet” features, knowing that the interviewee—if not totally pulling our leg—is undoubtedly NOT eating as claimed. 

The audience however is responsible as well, as we are all free to pick who we wish to follow, to listen to, to believe, and if one chooses the latest trendy flax/kale/charcoal/coconut water nonsense being spouted by the Eating Disorder-Intermittent Fasting-Cleansing Crowd over meat/whole grains/vegetables, concluding that the latter is nutritionally superior for both good looks and good health, then have at it.

But, consequences.