The Physics of Fitness

Chapter Twenty-Six
In Conclusion

As you have come to learn throughout the past 25 chapters, Resistance Exercise is all
about mechanics (physics) - the levers of our body, working against external forces that
are acting upon our levers from certain angles, which results in various outcomes of
more or less efficiency.

It’s also about natural versus unnatural anatomical motions, and selecting exercises that
avoid physiological conflicts of interest such as Reciprocal Innervation, Bi-Lateral Deficit
and instability.

Every resistance exercise has a unique biomechanical profile, which determines its
value. This value dictates that some exercises are clearly “better” than others, in terms
of efficiency, productivity and safety.

All exercises have some degree of benefit - however minor that benefit may be. But the
wisest approach is to select only the exercises that have very high value - the ones that
are most efficient, most productive and cause the least risk of injury. Performing only
high-value exercises allows us to reap the greatest amount of benefit, with the least
amount of wasted effort, and the least risk of injury.

The following are the criteria that determine the biomechanical value of a given
resistance exercise:

1. An exercise that allows the operating lever of the target muscle to move directly
toward that muscle’s origin, is better (more efficient) than an exercise that does not
allow that. The more “direct toward the muscle origin”, the more efficient the movement
is. The less “direct toward the muscle origin”, the more inefficient the movement is - in
terms of percentage of participation.

2. Dynamic muscle contraction is better than Isometric muscle contraction - in terms of

visible muscle development, and for strength improvement throughout the entire range
of motion, instead of just in that one place where an isometric contraction is held. More
range of motion is better than less range of motion.

3. Uni-lateral exercise (independent limb resistance) is generally better than Bi-Lateral

exercise (shared-instrument resistance).

1
4. Exercises that provide alignment between the direction of the resistance, the
direction of the motion, the origin and insertion of the target muscle - are generally
better (more efficient) than exercises that do not provide this alignment. This
automatically implies that the direction of resistance, and the direction of your concentric
motion, be directly opposite each other.

If an exercise lacks alignment, instead of fully loading your intended target muscle, the
resistance will be diluted, and a percentage of the load will be diverted to other non-
target (often weaker) muscles (like Rotator Cuff), and may also strain joints.

5. Exercises that allow your target muscle to be positioned directly opposite the
direction of resistance (i.e., the line of force) are better (more efficient) than exercises
where the target muscle is not directly opposite the direction of resistance. Whichever
muscle is positioned directly opposite resistance, will be the most loaded, whether you
intend it to be so, or not.

6. Exercises that avoid Reciprocal Innervation (the shutting-down of a muscle caused

by activation / loading / stretching of the opposing muscle), are better than exercises
that do trigger Reciprocal Innervation.

Likewise, exercises that allow the anatomy to function without other conflicts of interest
are better than exercises that do cause that type of conflict. An example of this is Leg
Raises, where two muscles (the Rectus abdominis and the Psoas) inhibit each other,
because they are battling for an opposite spinal position.

7. Exercises that allow the operating lever of a target muscle to cross resistance
perpendicularly (i.e., to be an “active” lever), are better (more efficient) than exercises
that cause the operating lever to me mostly parallel with resistance (i.e., mostly an
“inactive” lever).

8. Exercises that allow the operating lever (limb) of a target muscle to work with its full
length are better (more efficient) than are exercises where the operating lever (limb) is
effectively shortened by a secondary lever (i.e., forearm or lower leg).

9. Exercises that avoid combining Mechanical Disadvantage, with an operating lever

that is too “active”, are better (less risky) than are exercises where those two force
magnifiers are combined.

10. Exercises that are Early Phase Loaded are generally better than are exercises that
are Late Phase Loaded. Any Mechanical Disadvantage that may occur during an
exercise would be factored into this decision. This is called “finding the optimal
resistance curve for your target muscle”.

11. Exercises that do not strain a joint (by unnecessarily twisting or distorting it) are
generally better than exercises that do strain (twist / distort) a joint. This “rule” actually

2
does not need to be stated, if the above 10 criteria are met. Any exercise that moves
the target muscle’s insertion toward that muscle’s origin, and has proper alignment, will
automatically operate the corresponding joint in a way that is natural and consistent with
human musculoskeletal design.

12. Exercises that are performed with deliberate muscle contraction are generally
better than exercises that are performed with momentum.

Efficiency is defined as getting the most benefit with the least cost. Using momentum
reduces the resistance to a target muscle, therefore more weight must be used. But
using more weight while using momentum does not load a target muscle more. It’s
simply “paying more” for “equal or less” benefit.

- - - - - - - - - -
The above 12 criteria allow us to separate high-value exercises from exercises that
have varying degrees of lesser value. It is misguided to believe that all exercises have
the same degree of value or benefit. They do not. Therefore, exercises are not as
interchangeable as many people believe.

It’s also misguided to believe that “variety of exercises is essential”, or that different
exercises allow you to alter the shape of a muscle. The shape of our muscles is
genetically determined. Exercises differ primarily in terms of mechanical efficiency and
in terms of how closely it mimics the “most natural” / most ideal anatomical function of
your target muscle and its corresponding joint.

Understanding these concepts allows you to realize that much of what we have been
“taught” about resistance exercise is false.

This leads us to the question of why we are taught incorrect information about
resistance exercise, why we believe that misinformation and why we should not
always believe what we are told - even by those whom we assume are knowledgeable
about that subject, and are trustworthy.

We have some natural human (psychological) tendencies, which often cause us to

make improper choices in terms of exercise selection. It’s important to know what those
human tendencies are, and why we often refuse to change our beliefs, despite more
logical alternatives being offered.

- - - - - - - - - -
Many people select exercises largely on the basis of whether that exercise allows them
to use a lot of weight. They do this under the misguided belief that that alone
determines how much load is placed on a target muscle. However, many times an

3
exercise that allows us to use more weight, loads individual muscles less - even though
more weight is being used. This is due to the mechanical profile of the exercise.

In addition to the misguided belief that “using more weight loads a target muscle more”,
using more weight also tends to gratify people’s ego. Many people (mostly men) are
more influenced by the appearance of being in “beast mode” (seeming very strong),
than they are by the goal of training efficiently - loading their muscles more, while using
less weight. It’s sensible to train this way, but it tends to be less impressive to observers
who don’t understand anything other than “heavy”.

What’s needed is an understanding - this set of biomechanical rules - which allows us to

select the exercises that are most efficient, most productive, and least likely to cause
unnecessary strain to the spine and joints. This understanding of biomechanics -
applied to resistance exercise - allows us to do that. That’s what this book is all about.

Biomechanics analyzes the physics of an exercise, as it integrates with human

anatomical function. This is very different than Exercise Physiology.

Exercise Physiology examines biological factors, like the ideal amount of recovery time
between sets for specific goals. It analyzes the result of high reps (with light weight)
versus low reps (with heavy weight). It studies the adaptation of a muscle in response
to various speeds of muscle contraction. It examines what kind of substrates (fuel
sources) are best for various types of training, and numerous other biological aspects of
muscle performance and adaptations.

Exercise Physiology provides us with valuable information in the areas mentioned

above, but it does not examine the force magnification of levers (bones), as those
bones interact with different angles of resistance. Nor does it examine the differing
angles of pull by muscles on their corresponding bones. Nor does it examine natural
joint function, as determined by our evolutionary design. The mechanical aspects of
resistance exercise are typically not studied by Exercise Physiologists. And this is fine -
it’s no different than an auto mechanic not studying how gasoline is made, or a chemical
engineer not being familiar with auto mechanics. They are distinctly separate fields,
even though each facilitates the other.

Both fields are important, but they should not be confused. Unfortunately, some people
with an advanced education in one field, make claims about exercise that relate to a
different science than that of their own. This sometimes occurs because people
unrealistically expect (as an example) an Exercises Physiologist to know which
exercises are good, and the Exercise Physiologist doesn’t want to say that he doesn’t
know. I am frequently asked questions that relate more to the biological response to
exercise, rather than the mechanical aspects of exercise. I typical answer in a way that
reflects what I’ve read Exercise Physiologists announce (their articles), but I usually also
express that that is a not my specific area of expertise.

4
Some people call themselves an “Exercise PhD” or a “Muscle PhD”, even though
neither term is technically correct. Those are ambiguous, non-specific / not legitimately
recognized titles. There is no academic designation that matches these terms. This
tends to mislead consumers.

People who designate themselves in such a way, typically do so in hopes of creating the
impression that they know all that there is to know about Exercise science - hoping to
attract more clients. Be careful to ascertain what someone’s actual expertise is, before
heeding their advice in an area that is not their area of expertise.

In addition, there are many others who call themselves “trainers”, but have little or no
actual exercise-science knowledge at all. Frankly, it’s truly frightening what some of the
these “trainers” ask their clients to do in the gym. And - for some reason - clients
usually just do as they are told. They blindly assume that the trainer knows what he (or
she) is doing - and usually, it’s incorrect.

In the United States, there is no regulation that prevents unqualified people from calling
themselves “trainer”. Nor is there any regulation that dictates what exercise advice a
“trainer” can give to clients. There is no “safety guideline” whatsoever - nor is there an
official set of “effectiveness” guidelines. For this reason, the fitness industry is flooded
with people who absolutely are not qualified to be trainers.

There are far more “bad” advice givers in the area of exercise and fitness, than there
are providers of good (accurate) information. The percentage of “trainers” who give
incorrect advice is so high, that you could safely bet that the next “trainer” you meet will
fall into the category of “bad advice giver”. I estimate that roughly 95% of all the people
who call themselves “trainer”, know far less than they should know.

This is not always their fault, as I’ve discussed in this book. In many cases, the industry
has failed them. I was certified by the American College of Sports Medicine (in the
1980s) and also by the American Council on Exercise, and neither of them included
anything in their course materials (at that time) about biomechanics (physics). This is
absurd, since most exercise involves human mechanics.

The pursuit of physique development and physical fitness (also physical therapy and
sports conditioning) involves various sciences, including Biomechanics, Exercise
Physiology, Neurobiology, Biochemistry, Endocrinology and Nutrition. There is some
overlap between these sciences (especially the latter three), but mostly they each
examine different components of exercise. Thus, consumers need to verify that the
advice their hearing or reading, comes from a person with an informed background in
that particular science.

- - - - - - - - - -

5
Be skeptical of trainers who use technical terms, as if you’re supposed to be familiar
with them. Trainers should explain - in plain language (not scientific terms) - what the
benefit is of doing an exercise, and what the disadvantage might be of not doing a
particular exercise. For example, we sometimes hear a trainer tell a client that he
needs to do DeadLifts to work his “posterior chain” muscles. That may sound like it’s
well-informed, but it’s essentially meaningless to the consumer. It is meant to seem
more persuasive to the person who is hearing it. Rather, they should explain which
muscles are involved, why it’s good to work those muscles in this particular way, and
what the disadvantage is of not doing this particular exercise.

Other technical terms that are often used by trainers (who want to sound like they are
well-informed) include: “this exercise increases power”, “this improves your
deceleration”, “this improves your stability” and “this improves your neuromuscular
control”. These are all ambiguous terms that are also essentially meaningless (i.e.,
worthless) to a person who is pursuing physique development, weight loss and / or
general physical fitness. They might be useful to a world-class athlete striving for an
Olympic Gold Medal, but entirely useless for just about every other fitness / exercise
application.

If you hear someone say these things, you should ask them to explain what that means,
in real terms. Ask them what the difference is between someone who performs an
exercise that is meant to make those improvements, versus someone who does not do
that exercise - in terms of practical application. Ask for an explanation that is logical and
sensible. Do not settle for an esoteric or theoretical explanation.

Ask, “How will the improvement manifest itself?”, “How long will it take?”, “Will I see a
dramatic visual difference?”, “Will I feel a dramatic difference?” “Will my day-to-day
activities be noticeably easier?” and “If so, in what way?”.

The most important question to ask, however, is “what’s the mechanism by which this
exercise produces the results you claim it will produce?”. “What is the biomechanics of
the exercise?” “How does it do what you say this exercise does?” A person calling
himself a “trainer” should know the answers to these questions - or they should not be
YOUR trainer.

- - - - - - - -
The fitness industry is fraught with conflicts of interest. These conflicts usually involve
money. People who are profit-oriented often target their marketing to consumers who
are naive and uninformed, and willing to spend money on “secret training tips” and
“short cuts”. Sometimes misinformation is passed on by an unwitting messenger, who
is well-intended but has also been mislead.

A Personal Trainer who wants to make an honest living, might like the idea of working in
a field that he/she finds interesting. However, most people - in any field of work - are

6
mostly interested in their economic survival. This “economic pressure” often puts a
trainer in a frame of mind that causes him to eagerly embrace what the commercial
branch of the fitness industry tells him, because he believes it will help him improve his
income. Meanwhile, the commercial branch of the fitness industry is less concerned
about educating the trainer than they are about maintaining their profits. Selling
“new” (even though LESS productive) exercise concepts to trainers - without informing
them that those concepts are less beneficial than previously taught concepts - allows
the “industry” to keep its revenues flowing.

To the fitness industry, the Personal Trainer is their customer. The fitness industry relies
on trainers for its revenues, while trainers perceive the fitness industry as being entirely
benevolent. Trainers trust that the “industry” will provide them with the information they
need to become “successful trainers”, but what is a “successful trainer”? Is it a trainer
who makes a decent income by teaching less than optimal, often useless - sometimes
dangerous - exercise trends?

There is a limit to how much science can be taught to trainers, but there is no limit to
how many trends can be taught to trainers. Fitness trends represent an endless stream
of money-making opportunities to the industry. Thus, the fitness industry is incentivized
to sell trends to Personal Trainers, instead of science. In fact, science would refute
many of those trends, so the industry is also incentivized to abstain from teaching
accurate exercise science to trainers.

- - - - - - - - - -
The magazine industry is among the most guilty of this type of practice. Below are
actual statements cut directly from the front covers of various fitness and bodybuilding
publications. These magazines are often considered the “primary source” of information
by many amateur and pro bodybuilders, as well as trainers and fitness participants.

7
8
9
Every single one of these statements above has some degree of falsehood. Either the
statement is completely unrealistic, physiologically speaking - or it drastically
oversimplifies reality. So why are these statements on the cover of fitness magazines?
Because it prompts consumers to buy the magazine.

It should come as no surprise that magazines are not primarily concerned with
educating the public. They are primarily concerned with their profits, or (at least) their
economic survival. Either way, they want revenue, and they know the public wants
“fast”, “simple”, “easy”, “secret”, “tips” on how to achieve their fitness goals. So, they
mislead consumers, or create the illusion of being able to provide consumers with
“huge, fast, simple, easy tips”, because it increases their sales.

If magazine publishers were really interested in educating the public, they could do it in
about 24 issues (i.e., two year’s worth of monthly editions), but then they’d have nothing
more to provide readers. Then, they’d have to go out of business.

This is why we often see people in the gym doing new (but inefficient) exercises they
saw in a fitness magazine. As long as the public doesn’t understand how to assess an
exercise, magazine publishers can sell endless issues containing more inaccurate,
exaggerated or false, “information” about exercise. Of course, some of what is
contained in fitness magazines is, at times, correct. But, more often than not,
magazines do not provide the best, most accurate information.

Keep in mind that they are also having to accommodate the “needs” of their advertisers.
So, they are not likely to publish an article stating that a particular method of exercise is
unproductive, while advertisers are paying them money to run an advertisement
promoting precisely that type of exercise.

The U.S. Food and Drug (FDA) has strict guidelines for the Nutrition Supplement
Industry. Supplement manufacturers are not allowed to make claims on their
packaging, nor in their advertising, that says anything like “This supplement will make
your muscles larger”.

Unfortunately, there is no such regulation for the fitness industry. As a result, we often
see magazines making a claim like “This exercise will improve your mobility, increase
your strength, and pack on slabs of muscle” - when nothing could be farther from the
truth. In the realm of fitness claims that are made to the public, it’s “anything goes”.
There are no regulations which prevent a magazine from making claims that are entirely
inaccurate.

- - - - - - - -
On a particular day in the 1980s - when I owned a gym in the town of Pasadena
(California) - a champion female bodybuilder named Cory Everson came in with a
prominent photographer named Robert Reiff (photo below). They had scheduled to

10
come and do a photo shoot for one of the women’s fitness magazines. During that
assignment, Cory was photographed doing a variety of exercises that were meant to
accompany an upcoming article.

As someone who knows bodybuilding very well, it was obvious to me that the exercises
she was demonstrating were not part of her normal workout routine. Some of us might
call them “fluff” exercises - exercises that are typical of a lay person’s program - but
certainly not part of a serious bodybuilding workout - let alone that of a world class
champion*.

(* Note: Cory Everson won the Ms. Olympia competition (considered by some as the highest
level of bodybuilding competition) a historic six times. She also won numerous other
competitions during her nine year career.)

It’s natural for readers to assume that the exercises Cory Everson was demonstrating in
that article were the actual exercises she used to develop her amazing body. But, that
is not true. In reality, she used exercises that were much more demanding than the
ones she was depicting in this photo shoot.

As someone who has also been photographed for magazine articles, I can say that -
when we (bodybuilders / models) agree to do a photo shoot - we are happy to get the

11
exposure, and are focused on the fact that we have arrived at the point where our
image is valued. We view those images as “art work”. What we fail to realize at the
time is that those images will mislead some (if not most) readers, who will believe that
those exercises are what developed our musculature.

The magazine would certainly not hire models that are not impressive to look at, given
that a primary reason many people purchase the magazine is for inspiration. The
publisher also knows they must show something different in every issue of the
magazine. So, typically, they tell us which exercises they’d like to show us doing -
never mind what we actually do during our workouts.

These are the types of conflicts of interest that are inherent in the fitness industry. The
magazines want to sell more issues, the readers want “new” information and visual
inspiration, and the models want exposure and income. That combination of conditions
leads to misleading impressions made to consumers, and few people are aware of it.

- - - - - - - -
Joe Weider (1920 - 2013) was one of the most prolific marketers of bodybuilding
products ever, as well as the publisher of numerous bodybuilding and fitness
publications. However, he was federally investigated, prosecuted and court-ordered to
issue refunds to consumers, and also fined, for making false and misleading claims
regarding a number of the nutrition products he manufactured. In a 1972
advertisement, he claimed that “Weider Formula No. 7” would allow a person to gain
“one pound of muscle mass per day”.

Below is one of the many advertisements that were displayed in his publications. The
claim here is that a person can gain “2 full inches of his arms, plus 3 inches on his
chest, and reduce the waistline by 4 inches, in just 7 weeks” is obviously an
extraordinary claim. It is physiologically impossible to achieve those kinds of changes in
only seven weeks. But as long as people are willing to pay money for advice (a
program) or a “magic pill” (a supplement) that might do it, there will be someone willing
to pretend they can provide it.

12
13
In 1976, Joe Weider was cited for using false “before and after” photographs to promote
his “Five-Minute Body Shaper” - a product which he claimed would allow “significant
weight loss in just five minutes per day”. In the 1980s, he was fined by the Federal
Trade Commission for claiming that his “Weider’s Anabolic Mega-Pak” was an
“effective substitute for anabolic steroids, for building muscle”.

Yet, despite being cited and fined for deceptive advertising, millions of readers
continued purchasing his magazines and following the recommendations of its authors
(and models) as if it was Gospel. Even today, many people still consider Joe Weider
the “Father of Modern Bodybuilding”.

Indeed, Joe Weider played a huge role in making bodybuilding “main stream”. He was
able to make his publications go from being “back room” reading, to the grocery store
check-out line. It’s likely that bodybuilding would not be nearly as popular today, were it
not for his publications - as fraught with misinformation and fraudulent advertising as
they may have been.

- - - - - - - -
From the 1930s through the 1950s, many physicians recommended and endorsed the
smoking of cigarettes. Needless to say, there is nothing healthful about smoking
cigarettes. Some cigarette smokers might be fortunate enough to avoid an early death,
cardiac disease or lung cancer, but the vast majority of people who smoke cigarettes
suffer severe health consequences as a direct result of smoking. Today, doctors often
say that the single most health-improving thing a person can do (if they smoke
cigarettes) is to STOP smoking.

Below are a number of ads from the 1930s and 40s, showing the kind of medically
endorsed “encouragement” that was aimed at consumers, in regard to smoking
cigarettes.

14
15
16
17
Now, in a November 24, 2017 New York Times article, we read that four “Big Tobacco”
companies (Altria, R. J. Reynolds Tobacco, Lorillard and Philip Morris USA) have been
Federally court-ordered to begin airing advertisements on prime-time television and in
national newspapers, which state that they have known for the past 20 years that
smoking was extremely detrimental to one’s health - yet they knowingly mislead the
public about it.

One of the new advertisement says, “More people die every year from smoking than
murder, AIDS, suicide, drugs, car crashes and alcohol - combined.” Another reads,
“Cigarette companies intentionally designed cigarettes with enough nicotine to
create and sustain addiction.” This court order stems from a United States Federal
lawsuit against the above named companies, which was originally filed in 2006.

This is the same poisonous product which was endorsed by physicians, whom we have
historically regarded as “health experts”. Should they have endorsed cigarette-
smoking? Did they base their decision to endorse cigarette-smoking on a mistaken
belief of its safety, or on the absence of evidence demonstrating its toxicity? Were they
more influenced by the money they were paid, than by their pledge to the Hippocratic
Oath to “first, do no harm”? We don’t know, but this is more proof that we cannot
always believe those whom we think are knowledgeable and trustworthy.

- - - - - - - -
In the documentary film entitled “Blackfish”, we see a number of former employees /
trainers of Sea World (Oceanic Mammal Park and Entertainment Center), revealing
what they were told by their employer about the lives of Orcas (Killer Whales). During
the live Orca shows, audience members would ask those trainers questions about the
lives of Killer Whales, to which the trainers would respond with answers they believed
were correct. Yet, those answers were false, according to marine biologists.

For example, one of the questions was, “Why do many of the Orcas in the show have a
collapsed dorsal fin?”. The answer the trainers gave to audiences - which was told to
them by Sea World management - was that it’s “normal” for about 25% of all Orcas to
have their dorsal fins collapse ( photos A and B - below).

18
According to marine biologists, it rarely happens in the wild. “…in less than 1% of all
wild Orcas”, they say. The 25% incidence found in captivity is believed to be due to the
limited swim space. According to Debbie Giles, Ph.D. (marine biology), Orcas in the
wild swim hundreds of miles, and at speeds between 8 and 29 miles per hour - for
which they need an upright dorsal fin (C, D and E - below). In captivity, they mostly just
“float” - never reaching a fraction of the speed they could achieve in the open ocean,
and certainly not nearly the distance.

19
Another question that was asked by audience members at Sea World shows was, “How
long do Killer Whales live?”. Again, with complete confidence and an attitude
suggesting an advanced education in marine biology, the trainers would say that “Orcas
in captivity live twice as long as they do in the wild.” But, according to independent
marine biologists, Orcas live much longer in the wild, than they do in captivity. “Most
Orcas in captivity only live about 20 years. In the wild, the average life span of male
Orca is 30 years, and for females it’s 50 years.”

Again, this answer regarding the lifespan of Orcas was told to audience members by
Sea World trainers who believed they were answering the question accurately and
honestly. It was not their intention to mislead the audience. They were unaware that
they had (apparently) been misinformed by their own their employer (i.e., the “industry”).

We can only guess as to why the Sea World trainers were misinformed by their
employer, but a logical reason might be that it was meant to prevent the sympathy
audience members might feel if they believed that keeping Orcas in captivity was
detrimental to their well-being. In other words, for commercial reasons.

The Sea World trainers answered audience members’ questions with complete
confidence - believing they had been accurately informed by their employer - but they
were apparently misinforming them. The same thing happens in the fitness industry.

20
“Certified” trainers, with the same misguided confidence as demonstrated by the Sea
World employees, make false claims about exercises which were told to them by their
industry. Yet, those claims are demonstrably incorrect.

Again, this demonstrates how it is that consumers are often mislead - many times by the
very same people whom they trust to properly inform them of the truth. Whether it’s
physicians recommending cigarettes, or trainers recommending exercises that are less
than optimally productive and safe, there is no guarantee that consumers are being told
the truth. Usually, due to economic conflicts of interest, the information given to
consumers is whatever is most economically advantageous to those providing the
“information”.

- - - - - - - -
Knowledge versus Beliefs
Prior to 9th Century BC, it was believed that the Sun rotated around the Earth. It
certainly appeared that way, and still does, from the perspective of someone standing
on Earth. Even now, we say “the Sun rises in the East, and sets in the West”, even
though we know that that’s not technically accurate. In fact, the Sun does not move at
all - but that was not known in those years.

Then, in 9th Century BC, an Indian philosopher named Yajnavalkya (“A” below) - using
mathematics and geometric calculations - concluded that it’s actually the Earth that
rotates around the Sun. In 270 BC, a Greek mathematician named “Aristarchus” (“B”
below) arrived at the same conclusion. This fact was announced, but no one accepted
it. They continued believing that the Sun revolved around the Earth.

21
In 190 BC, a Greek philosopher and astronomer named “Seleucus of Selecia” (“C”
above) came to that same conclusion - that the Earth revolved around the Sun. There
were others as well, who also believed that the Earth rotated around the Sun, and they
also declared it. But the vast majority of people refused to accept it.

Finally, when German mathematician and astronomer, Nicolaus Copernicus (“D” above)
made that same claim in the 16th Century AD, people began believing the Earth actually
rotates around the Sun. But that was more than two hundred years after it was first
proposed.

Before people finally embraced the notion that the Earth rotates around the Sun, people
claimed to “know” that the Sun rotated around the Earth. They considered it
“knowledge”, but it was actually a “belief”, based on conjecture and the absence of
better information.

In 1916, Albert Einstein predicted “gravitational waves”, as part of his General Theory
of Relativity. Gravitational waves are “ripples in space time”, that are caused by
objects moving through the Universe. At the time, Albert Einstein’s prediction was
criticized and ridiculed by those who simply refused to accept the possibility of it being
correct, even though he gave a rational explanation in support of his theory.

22
Einstein’s theory was eventually proven to be correct on September 14, 2015 by a
group of researchers known as “The Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave
Observatory (LIGO) Scientific Collaboration.” Now, the existence of gravitational waves
is considered “knowledge”, where before it was considered “crack pot”.

- - - - - - - -
There is a long history of people refusing to accept new evidence, or to embrace a more
logical approach, to a pre-existing belief. The reason for this is that people typically
identify with their beliefs. In other words, the things we believe to be true, to some
degree, become part of our identity.

If something we believe to be true, is demonstrated to be false, it often makes us feel as

if our identity is threatened. Thus, we sometimes feel an impulsive need to defend that
which we have believed to be true. But it behooves us to be curious, to be open to new
information and to embrace a new perspective if it seems to be more accurate than our
previous belief.

People who spend many years in a particular field often develop a certain level of
confidence - perhaps even arrogance - about their “knowledge” in that particular
subject. Unfortunately, that confidence is sometimes unwarranted.

For example, sometimes we see a veteran “weight lifter” (60+ years old) walk into a gym
with a high level of confidence suggesting, “These young kids today don’t know a damn
thing about weight lifting…..I’ve spent more time in gyms than they’ve been alive…..I
know my way around a gym”. Then they proceed to do exercises which are clearly
explained in this book as being inefficient or dangerous.

Spending years studying the science of a particular subject can indeed make a person
very knowledgeable about that subject. However, spending years entrenched in the
mythology and the “conventional wisdom” of a subject (close to it, but not actually
studying the science of it), will only make them “knowledgeable” about the way that
subject has been practiced. That would likely give a person a sense of confidence, but
it’s misplaced.

World-renowned physicist, cosmologist and Lucasian professor of mathematics

Stephen Hawking said, “The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance. It is
the illusion of knowledge.”.

It is often worse to have an incorrect understanding of a particular subject, than it is to

have no knowledge at all about that subject. People with no knowledge about a subject
are more receptive to new information, than are people with a pre-existing (but
incorrect) “knowledge” about that subject.

23
Similarly, an Indian philosopher known as “Osho” said, “One of the greatest misfortunes
in the world is that the foolish are absolutely certain, and the wise are hesitant”.

Those who are certain that they already fully understand a subject, are often closed-
minded about considering new (perhaps more logical) information - which is foolish.
Conversely, it is wise to to take the position that “We believe something is true and
correct, based on the information we have at this time. But if new and better
information is made available, we will need to adjust our understanding of that
subject ”.

- - - - - - - -
For hundreds of years, psychologists have known about a phenomenon called “The
Einstellung Effect”, which is a tendency for people to cling to the most familiar solution
to a problem, while stubbornly ignoring alternative solutions. Francis Bacon - who was
an English philosopher, scientist and essayist - called it “one of the most common forms
of cognitive bias” in his 1620 book entitled “Novum Organum”.

Harvard University professor Steven Jay Gould also examined this phenomenon in his
1981 book entitled “The Measure of Man”, noting that humans tend to not only
preferentially seek and embrace information that supports their already existing beliefs
- even when those beliefs are wrong - but often aggressively condemn information that
may disprove their belief. They may also attempt to belittle the person making the claim
or providing the new information.

As if this type of closed-minded attitude is not enough to block a person from

considering more accurate information, there is yet another human behavioral trait
which tends to interfere with the learning of truth, and further perpetuates false or
inaccurate beliefs. Psychologists refer to it as “The Backfire Effect”.

This is the tendency many people have to defend their belief more aggressively, when
more evidence is presented which refutes their belief. Apparently, the more evidence
that is provided, the more it “backfires”. Rather than increasing the likelihood that
additional evidence will change a person’s belief, it often causes the person to more
aggressively defend their belief. They’ll either refuse to listen at all, or will use irrational
arguments to oppose the new information. This response is similar to what occurs
when a person feels that their character is being assaulted. They become “defensive”.

Of course, a person is free to believe whatever they choose to believe, whether it’s
accurate or not. In general, people have all sorts of beliefs - many of which are not the
least bit reasonable. However, people who are wise tend to thoughtfully and rationally
assess new information. If they find it sensible, they incorporate that new information
into their belief system. Either way, new information is not an assault on anyone’s
character.

24
 - - - - - - - -
As you have discovered in this book, many exercises which we had probably thought
were “good”, are actually not so good, when examined more closely. Many methods,
which we had thought were beneficial, are not so beneficial. Other exercises, which
many people have never seen before, are actually very good, when viewed through the
lens of sensible biomechanics.

All this “new” information is likely to be unsettling for many people - possibly also for
you. At the very least, it is cause for you to re-think your previous understanding about
resistance exercise which is intended for the purpose of physique development, or even
for general physical fitness. But - as you can see - it’s all very logical and sensible, and
perfectly accurate from an engineering (physics) perspective. Hence the endorsement
of physics experts, orthopedic doctors and an evolutionary biologist.

Hopefully, this new information will also make you more skeptical of the “advice” you
hear, even if it comes from people who seem to wear the cloak of authority and of
“knowledge”.

The best way to distinguish between good advice about an exercise, and bad advice, is
to understand the principles which apply to all things that are mechanical (physics), as
well as some basic human musculoskeletal facts. These are outlined in the 12 factors
at the beginning of this chapter.

Resistance exercise is a mechanical event, because the human body is made up of

levers, pivots and “pulleys” - muscles which pull on their corresponding levers. There
should be no debate about which exercises are “better” and which are “worse” than
other exercises. It’s all determined by what constitutes “natural” human anatomical
movement, and physics. It’s as black and white as is the engineering of an architectural
structure, a bridge or a crane. It’s all quantifiable, once we understand the basic
principles of biomechanics, which are explained in this book.

Let us no longer be fooled by the misinformation and the endless trends peddled to us
by commercial enterprises, who are more focused on maximizing their profits than they
are in providing consumers with truthful and sensible information for optimal fitness
improvements. Knowing the truth (about biomechanics), can set you free from being
duped or conned into believing unreasonable claims about exercise, ever again.

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to share with you what I’ve learned in the four
decades I’ve spent exploring and studying the mechanics of resistance exercise. I hope
this information will allow you to improve your physical condition beyond what you could
have imagined; that it will allow you to stay injury-free; that it will spare you from wasting
time and energy on inefficient exercises; and that (if you are a Personal Trainer) it will
help make you a better resource of information for your clients.

25
26