Just saw an ad with this image in my Facebook feed. There are a few big problems with the graphic:
1. Both styles of training yield both strength and hypertrophy (muscle volume growth), albeit w/slightly/moderately different outcomes (NSCA graph below).
2. The bigger body is more representative of hypertrophy training than strength focused resistance training. It's also wildly exaggerated and cartoonish.
3. Genetic differences would be a much bigger influence in producing these two disparate physiques, assuming training loads and weekly volume were comparable.
4. I hate A.I.
Marketers know that many who see these images will do three things :
Be drawn into and captivated by the stark comparison
Internalize and identify with one of the images they aspire to emulate
Feel incomplete or sub-standard and long for a solution (their product, of course!)
The domains of fitness and nutrition have always been, and I suspect will always be, fertile ground for unethical marketers to distort, exploit and make profit off people precisely because their targets don't have a clear or realistic concept of what is actually achievable or how to achieve it. And an implied dose of "you're not really good enough unless you look like this" will always ratchet sales at the cost of increased confusion and desperation for a large enough segment to justify the financial investment.
So, how do you combat this and arm yourself with reliable information? Seek guidance from trusted sources. Ask yourself if the source has both a scientific background and substantial practical knowledge and experience in the field. Ask yourself if your elevated understanding is their priority (or are they more interested in your wallet?). And ask yourself if you're willing to take the time and effort to discern the difference between the criteria just described and the emotionally charged impact of graphics like the one at top of this post.
If yes is the answer to each, you're on the right track.
Comments