Get Results With Simple Gym Math

Don’t worry, I hate math too. I live with a high school math teacher and I just don’t get it. But unlike those dopey kids who we went to school with who used to always moan “When are we ever going to need to do this stuff?!?!” I, at least, despite my distaste for it, recognize that math is not only useful, but necessary in day to day life.

How does this relate to you getting strong and lean? Very easily, my friend.

If you’ve followed us at all over the last few years, you know that we’re always screaming about what a waste of times gyms are. Statistically speaking, if you want to get in good shape, gyms are one of the last places you should go because it’s been proven you probably won’t get stronger or leaner there.

Well it wasn’t until I sat down and did some simple math that I realized the extent to which gyms are useless.

Play along with me: Think of people you know or have seen at the gym that are in really good shape. People that you look at and say “Wow, I wouldn’t mind being like him/her!” Using the gym I used to be in as a reference, I’m thinking maybe 25 people fall into that category. I would say I knew about 25 people in gym “X” that I would say were in really good shape.

And using my former gym “X” as a reference, there were approximately 9,000 members. I know this because they couldn’t stop telling everybody how great they were because they had so many members.

Now the plot thickens, and it’s time to put that math to use:

Approximately 25 people out of approximately 9,000 members = approximately .002778% of people who have memberships actually are in good shape.

That’s less than one percent. In fact, it’s not even close to ONE percent.

OK, let’s say my memory is off. There were actually twice as many people in gym “X” in really good shape as I remember.

That’s still less than one percent.

OK, let’s be even more of a skeptic: there are three times as many people in really good shape at big box gym than I remember.

That’s STILL LESS THAN ONE PERCENT OF ITS MEMBERS THAT ARE IN REALLY GOOD SHAPE.

I know what some of you smart alecks are saying: “Well, Jon, a lot of those members you’re counting don’t actually go to the gym, which is why they don’t get in shape. They shouldn’t be counted.”

I’m going to disagree with you my friend because you have it backwards: They don’t go to the gym BECAUSE THE GYM DOESN’T GET THEM IN SHAPE!!! Their gym sucks. It’s not fun, it’s ineffectual and it’s filled with assholes. Of course people are going to stop showing up!

Nobody ever joined a gym with the intention of not going. They joined, they tried it, then they said “This sucks,” then they stopped going – not the other way around.

Now I’m not sure of the statistics off the top of my head, but at The Training Rim people who have fun outnumber those who don’t. Members who attend and train regularly outnumber those who don’t. And people who are in great shape are the general rule, not the exception.

Remember: if you go to the gym and don’t get results, it’s not your fault. If your friend is always whining about going to the gym and not getting results, it’s not his or her fault.

The lack of results is the gym’s fault. Gyms don't work. Here endeth the lesson.

Muscle Confusion?

Muscle Confusion? I’m confused.

Recently the term “muscle confusion” has become popular. I’m not really sure who to blame for this.

First of all, muscles do not have brains therefore they do not get confused. Muscles receive messages from your brain then react. That’s it. There’s no higher order deductive reasoning going on in the sarcomeres of your muscle tissue.

People who use the term muscle confusion act is if they saw a muscle reading a philosophy book once and were able to mentally outmaneuver it.

This is what I hear when someone says they use muscle confusion:

“Hey – my bicep thought I was going to make it contract by doing a barbell curl. But I fooled it – I made it contract by doing a dumbbell curl! Ha ha ha! I sure outwitted my bicep! Woo Hoo!”

And back to reading the latest muscle magazine with the big pictures you go my friend.

I’m not really sure what is meant by muscle confusion, but I know ultimately it just means doing random crap. Do one thing, then do another, then another with no rhyme or reason. Don’t have a plan, neither short nor long term by which to go. Mix your strength training with your corrective exercise, your corrective exercise with your conditioning, your conditioning with your core work, your core work with your flexibility, your flexibility with whatever – it’ll all work out. As long as it looks cool and has a cool name.

I’ve learned many things in my career, and one of the most important things I’ve ever learned is this:

When it comes to exercise and conditioning, randomness should be avoided at all costs.

Understand that your plan will probably need to be tweaked – but have a plan.

There are no important gains in exercise that don’t take tons of practice and diligence. Nobody anywhere in life made significant progress on something either important or difficult without practicing their arses off. Don’t believe me? Read “Outliers” by Malcom Gladwell.

Diligence and practice should not be confused with repetitiveness, monotony, and tedium, however. It only means something should be mastered before moving on. Trust me: there are dozens of ways to make a push up tougher if you think you’re good at them.

And remember as far as exercise goes, if it comes easy, you’re probably wasting your time. Stick with what you’re doing as long as you’re progressing. If you’re getting results, don’t change anything.

For example, the program I had written for my small group clients was supposed to change on the first of the month. The problem with that was that everyone was still progressing on that program, so why change it - because we want our muscles to be confused? That sounds like something that someone who sells DVD’s for a living would tell you. A professional trainer – you know someone who actually trains people for a living – would say ‘let’s stick with what’s working’.

This is why you need experienced, educated exercise professionals. Not people who watched DVD’s as their educational resource and not people who think beating the crap out of you a different way today than they did the last workout is exercise programming. Any moron can do those things for you. Find somebody who’s read a book. Find someone who’s read articles on programming individuals and groups.

Or, even better, find someone who’s written those books and articles and train at their facility.

Fat Burning? Really?

First off, two apologies:


I apologize if you’re already aware that the “Fat Burning Zone” is a myth. I, like you, thought it hadn’t been taken seriously since the 1980’s. Unfortunately due to more than one recent discussion, I’ve learned this fallacy is alive and well in the exercise community.

I apologize if you believe this nonsense and feel my anger is directed towards you. It’s directed at the knucklehead fitness pro who communicated it to you whose job it is to know better.


The “Fat Burning Zone”, according to its proponents, is a heart rate of between 60-65% of your maximum heart rate. (This presumably is following the guide that your maximum heart rate can be calculated by subtracting your age from 220. The BS that is THAT calculation will be covered some other time.) The proponents and followers of the fat burning zone argue that a relatively low heart rate such as 60-65%, causes your body to burn a greater percentage of calories from fat, thereby increasing fat loss and weight loss.


Problem #1: Following that logic, sitting on the couch watching football is better for me than a circuit of kettlebell swings. Watching football will elevate my heart rate slightly above normal, thereby burning a high percentage of fat calories. An intense circuit of kettlebell swings may get my heart rate up to 180 beats per minute, or pretty close to my maximum. According to the fat burning zone, the kettlebell circuit won’t cause me to lose as much fat as watching football. Uh…OK…


Problem #2: You know how people who are trying to conserve energy always tell you to drive your car more slowly because you’ll save gas? Well you’re body works the same way: if you move slowly, you use less energy. The problem is this: saving gas in your car is a good thing. Saving and storing energy in your body is a bad thing. There is a name for stored energy in your body: it’s called FAT. Drive your car slowly, but move your body quickly – when your body runs out of gas, you’re doing pretty well with your workout.


Problem #3: The concept is short sighted. Let’s assume for the sake of discussion that your body will use more fat for energy when your heart rate is low. You’re still burning way fewer total calories by keeping the intensity down. For example, workout A is trying to get you to burn more calories from fat. Workout A is walking for 30 minutes. Workout A says you’ll burn 100 calories and 50% will be from fat for a grand total of 50 calories burned using fat as an energy source. Workout B is an interval circuit alternating between kettlebell swings and rope slams for 10 minutes. It burns a total of 200 calories and only 40% are from fat for a total of 80 calories burned using fat as an energy source.


Workout B burned 100 more total calories, with 30 more of them coming from stored energy sources (fat), and took 20 minutes less incidentally. But of course, a higher percentage of the minute number of calories came from fat in workout A. Whoop de damn doo – the person doing workout B burned more total calories, more calories from fat, and had an extra 20 minutes in their day.


Now tell me again why the intensity needs to be kept low?


Truthfully, I don’t know the answer to this. I think it still stems from our society’s way for looking for the expedient route instead of the correct route. Walking is easy. Slamming ropes is hard. Let’s look for an excuse to walk. A seated chest press machine is easy. Pushups are not. Let’s sell memberships by showing people our “machines” with soft seats.


Whatever the case may be, you’ll have a tough time convincing me, or any of my clients that doing less work is better for fat loss.

Research?!? C'mon...

“Men of experience succeed even better than those who have theory without experience.” - Aristotle

The longer I’m in my field, the more I realize the above statement is true. Theoretical research comes out every day in the world of health and exercise that makes me go “huh?!?” This isn’t the problem to me but rather the likelihood that someone who doesn’t do what I do for a living will see the news report about the research and go running with it, assuming it’s valid and/or applicable to their personal situation, when it probably isn’t.

Recently I saw a news report about a study suggesting that eating breakfast isn’t that important as it relates to weight loss and health issues as people previously believed. The study mentioned that people that skip breakfast don’t necessarily eat more throughout the rest of the day, and therefore don’t take in more calories on a whole.

I’ll preface my reaction to this report with this: All research can be called into question. Typically research is performed to validate an opinion. Generally speaking, if the opinion isn’t proven correct, people don’t run around yelling “Look! I was wrong! I was wrong!” More often, they design the study to prove their point and run to the news with it if they’re opinion was validated. And of course, if it’s even a little bit controversial the media will scream it from the rafters in order to get us to watch. This is magnified exponentially if the research is funded by a company that has a financial interest in the outcome of the research.

In this particular case, the researchers had a theory that people who don’t eat breakfast don’t eat more through the day and wanted to show they are correct. What was not mentioned in the news report is countless other research, both subjective and objective, that suggests that even if that is true, it doesn’t take into account other very important factors to your health.

Even if you are not eating more by skipping breakfast, you surely are burning fewer calories by skipping breakfast. You’re body is already in a form of fasting mode 1st thing in the morning because you haven’t eaten since the night before at best. This brings your metabolism to a screeching halt – when your body doesn’t get food, it doesn’t burn food because it thinks it’s starving – it does this as a defense mechanism. Skipping breakfast only exacerbates this situation, and forces your body to lower the number of calories you’ll burn.

Am I saying discount all research and theoretical studies? Of course not. Many great societal progressions have come from studies like this.

I am saying however that research studies are simply a tool and should be treated as such. Take what is said with a grain of salt, especially if it’s reported through the media.

Far more reliable than theoretical research is real world experience. This is something that many people I trust in my industry have told me, but it becomes more evident and grows more valid every time I think about it.

There is a misconception that working experience is not research. It is. It’s subjective however, so therefore some would have you believe it’s not as valid as “scientific studies”. But as we’ve discussed, they can be pretty subjective as well.

So when push comes to shove, who is more credible? The person in a lab measuring and quantifying statistics with a very small number of people over the course of a few weeks, or, the person who has seen and worked with real people day after day, year after year for decades? I’ll take that 2nd person’s opinion 99 times out of 100. Their observations are priceless because they aren’t theories about what MAY work, the observations are knowledge about what HAS worked in real situations.

It reminds me of the early days of the Ultimate Fighting Championship. Two martial artists who believe their fighting style to be superior to all others disagree with each other: Would you believe the guy whose system was never actually used in a real fight, or the guy who actually got in the ring and showed his fighting style worked better than others? Uh, when I’m in a dark alley, I’d rather have the 2nd guy watching my back.

I mention this warning about research because we’ve always believed at The Training Rim that results speak for themselves, whether it coincides with popular ideas and research or not. When there’s a new training methodology out that claims to be superior to all other previous modalities, our response is usually “OK, prove it. And not with mice in a lab – with real people with real jobs, families, homes, social lives etc. If it doesn’t work in that setting then it’s useless information.”

This attitude has worked well for us. We use training methodologies that we know to be effective. We know they’re effective because we’ve been using them for over a decade now and we’ve seen our clients continually get great results.

That beats the hell out of any research study any day of the week to us. If you want to debate the latest ideas and studies go right ahead: by the time you’re done we’ll be wrapping up another workout that’s already been proven to make us stronger and leaner.

In the words of Ron Burgundy, “It’s science.”

Beware of Rehab!

During my time as an exercise professional, I’ve encountered many people who were rehabbing joint problems and/or were considering doing so. And based on what they tell me they think they should do, or what they’ve been told to do, etc, I’ve encountered some really bad information.

The misinformation is usually due to vast oversimplifications of human movement that although well intentioned, don’t tell the whole story and therefore are unlikely to illicit the results that are sought.

We’ll use the shoulder for discussion’s sake. The shoulder, specifically the rotator cuff, is a highly complex area that’s very susceptible to dysfunction. Many people have had shoulder issues that have lead to the physical therapists’ office, health magazines and/or websites, or solicitations of advice from friends or colleagues who have had shoulder problems.

More often than not, the simplistic view is to simply look at how the rotator cuff moves and then train it to do that movement. We know the rotator cuff can externally rotate your shoulder (turn it back in non-biomechanical nomenclature). Following this logic, the patient is usually told to do some version of the internal/external rotation with the elbow pinned to the ribcage while holding a rubber tube in the hand.

Cute smile. Stupid exercise.

This is what the rotator cuff does right? It externally rotates the shoulder, right? So by adding some resistance like a band and turning my arm in and out, I’m strengthening my rotator cuff, correct?

Not really. Stay with me…

The rotator cuff CAN turn the shoulder out, but that’s not really what its job is. It’s really supposed to hold the shoulder in its socket during use. When you reach, grab, push, pull, lift, etc. your rotator cuff is supposed to squeeze the hell out of the top of your arm to hold it in place so the bigger muscles in the arm, chest and back can do the lifting.

The best analogy to use is to compare it to the wheels on your car. Imagine you had a problem with one of the wheels on your car. You take it to a mechanic, and the mechanic does whatever mechanics do to fix the wheel. He then puts the car on a lift and lifts it in the air and spins the tires. He then says to you: “Your wheels are fixed. They spin fine.”

Your response would be, “I can see they spin, but THAT’S NOT REALLY WHAT THEY DO. I need them to support the cars weight on the ground, I need them to stop, start, turn, go over bumps, etc.” Only when the mechanic showed you the wheel worked under those conditions would you trust his diagnosis.

Same thing goes with your shoulder, or any joint for that matter. Grabbing a tube and moving your hand back and forth to fix your shoulder is like putting your car on a lift and spinning the tires. Yes, your shoulder CAN do that, but that’s not how you’re going to use it. (Skeptical? If you ever do that motion with the tubing in real life let me know.) Therefore rehabbing it in a way that it will rarely if ever be used is ineffectual at best.

Using it in the manner it’s supposed to be used in a total body training sense is the only way to rehab it efficiently. Grab things, lift things, move things using functionally efficient total body mechanics.

My 2nd Most Important Lesson:

I was watching the local news this morning for the regular “fitness” segment they run. Generally, the segments are amusing depending on what silly mechanism the reporter is telling us about, how we should try it, yada yada yada…Typically she interviews some “expert” who proceeds to give out erroneous information and generally bad advice. (Except for the time over the summer when they interviewed some guy and his client about swinging kettlebells – THAT was cool:)

Anyway, today’s segment was about flag football. They showed a bunch of twenty somethings playing that were clearly still harboring anger from being cut from the real football team 10 years ago. One of the guys proclaimed he uses flag football to “Get my workout in…” and the reporter claimed “It’s a great way to exercise…”. She then jogged about 7 feet and caught a football to demonstrate.


Me: “Whew! That looks tiring! Better sit down and stretch after THAT!”


As usual my cynicism and caustic nature forced me to poke fun at the situation, but it did remind me of a very important lesson I learned a while ago. It’s a lesson that many people still haven’t learned and unfortunately it’s keeping them from reaching their exercise goals. I call this my 2nd most important lesson I learned in the exercise world. If you missed my most important lesson, check the blogroll to the right when you’re done reading this.


My 2nd most important lesson learned is:


The terms “exercise”, “sports” and “activities” are NOT synonymous.


Unfortunately, many (most?) people use the terms interchangeably, which is a big mistake if you’re seeking the benefits of one but performing the others.


A sport is something done for competition.


An activity is done for personal enjoyment.


Exercise is performed to improve physical function.


Biking, yoga, jogging, karate, tennis, etc. are NOT exercise. They are sports where there is a competition aspect between or among the participants, or they are activities with some other goal in mind such as fun, emotional improvement aspects, etc. Their goal and purpose is NOT improvement of physical function.


This confuses people sometimes because there are residual side effects with the above activities that lead people to assume what they are doing is in line with their goals. For example, you will develop power if you train in karate – but what if power development isn’t your exercise goal? Or even if it were, there are probably more efficient ways to develop it.


If you jogged, you may improve your aerobic capacity – but what if that’s not the goal? And even if it were, there are countless more efficient, safer ways to go about it.


Taking yoga to relax? Great choice. Taking yoga to improve strength or flexibility? Bad move.


Why is this a big deal? It may not be. But if your exercise related goals are one thing, performing an activity that may not be addressing your needs and areas of weakness although possibly fun, may also be taking you away from doing what you should be doing to improve. Your sport or ativity may also be directly keeping you from getting the benefits you want when you’re exercising.


More importantly than that, these activities are also increasing the chance of injury as well. Injuries can always occur, but in a reasonably controlled setting where competiton is not an issue and improvement is the only goal, injuries are far less likely. If the goal is winning, considerations about posture, form, speed of movement etc take a back seat and injury whether it be acute or chronic becomes more likely. And as I’ve asked 10 million times: How good is your exercise program going to be because you’re skipping workouts due to injury?


Actually in the TV piece I mentioned above, they showed one of the guys wearing a splint on his thumb. If this guys’ goal was to improve upper body strength, he just decreased his chances of getting there because he thought football was his “cardio” day and “exercise”.


Of course, I’m not saying any of the above are bad choices if your goals are different – they’re just not exercise. If your goal is improved physical function, then you need to be exercising with that in mind. You should be training with the intention of improving your bio-mechanics, your metabolism, etc which typically lead to improvements in other aspects of your life if the exercise is done correctly.


Exercise is movement with the intention of improving health. The specifics of that may vary from person to person, but that's what dictates the programming.


Sports and activities are exactly what their names imply: movement with some other goal in mind. Again, going this route isn’t a bad thing – there’s nothing wrong with the aforementioned activities. It’s just not exercise and therefore won’t get you closer to your exercise related goals. Just be clear about what you’re doing and why you’re doing it.


And don’t listen to the twenty-something with hidden resentment when he tells you it’s a good way to “…get your workout in…”. Dangling prepositions aside, it’s also poor advice.

The Goblet Squat

I always hated the goblet squat. It just never felt right. I’m big on needing to know what an exercise feels like and what my clients are going to experience before I start programming it into their sessions. Every time I tried this stupid exercise, it didn’t work for me.

This is NOT a goblet squat:

I only kept trying it over and over because trainers I know for whom I have a ton of respect always preached the goblet squats’ effectiveness to be used with all populations. All I got out of it was a general sense of discomfort and unpleasantness without the benefit of feeling progress in any aspect of strength, stability, mobility, etc. So out the window it went…

Until the little light bulb went on over my head, that so often takes an inordinate amount of time to go on for me: Keywords from above: “…it didn’t work FOR ME.”

Don’t get me wrong: I have plenty of bio-mechanical issues. But an ability to retract and depress my shoulder blades isn’t one of them. Nor is my ability to prevent lumbar flexion (or as we say at the TR, you’ll never catch me “butt tucking”).

But many, if not most people, especially those with jobs, do have those issues. Forward rolled shoulders and pelvis’ tucked under the body to almost comical extents are the norm in our society.

Think this is funny? Don’t laugh – many of you reading this are on your way to that look. Not me.

Re-enter the goblet squat.

The goblet squat forces the user to keep the shoulders back – if he or she doesn’t the user will fall forward and/or drop the weight. The goblet squat also forces the user to prevent lumbar flexion – if he or she does not “stick the butt out”, he or she will fall backwards.Of course, we don’t want to fall or drop a weight, so our bodies are forced to figure out how to move correctly when in this position. Most people start off just by squatting a few inches down. Then this can be progressed to squatting down to a bench or chair.

Eventually, you can be a show off, like Dina: