Cute Fitness Sucks, Unfortunately

When it comes to fitness, do you know what people love? People love cute training. If it looks novel, it gets attention. When its novelty supersedes its ability to invoke an honest look at the users potential, we have a blockbuster on our hands, folks. (SEE: This, This, and This)

The problem with cute fitness is that it doesn’t do the job. Exciting? Maybe. Effective? Not so much. In fact, the most effective training is terribly boring. No one goes oodling over holding sub-seventy second quarter miles with three minutes rest across eight rounds. No fitness amateur reposts a three by five back squat on Instagram like, “Need this!” Instead, it’s cross-legged-bosu-ball-jump-lunges and half push ups while balancing a yoga girl on your back that we can’t wait to window shop on.

#GymGoals, am I right?

Think about what fitness is, people. It’s simply a practice to invoke a response. The hope is that with this response, our body will get the memo and adapt because of it. The problem with “cross-legged-bosu-ball-jump-lunges” is we never get that memo. In addition, there is a built-in escape hatch that allows us to avoid the rigor and accountability of answering one’s potential (or not), but that mental side is another article in and of itself.

As much as it’d be better for everyone if the opposite were true, we have a choice on our hands. Look forward to the newest, cutest fitness practices and products to come out of the hopper and stay stimulated and unfit, or we can look back at the oldest, most basic training like dvd workouts for women. Looking back would mean training that builds fitness. Still not stimulated enough? Go see a scary movie. Maybe play fantasy football?

 

Logan Gelbrich

@functionalcoach