The Muhammad Ali Problem
Everybody at some point in their lives binge watches on some celebrity, movie star, rock star, super athlete, historical figure or whatever. I sure had my fair share of those. But one that struck me particularly hard, was Cassius Clay, later known as Muhammad Ali. I was completely mesmerized by the way he spoke and conducted himself. He never stuttered, he was funny, spoke loudly, expressively and fearlessly. People argue he won the fights before they even started. He was a natural salesman, showman and eventually also a “politician”. I was definitely a fan, and still am.
But one day, braindeadly scrolling on social media, I came across someone posting a video of one of his many famous speeches, with the following comment (can’t remember the exact words):
“If only politicians spoke like him, maybe the world would be a little better…”
And that struck me! That was it! Politicians DO try to speak like that and that is the EXACT problem! In his bestseller book Blink, Malcolm Gladwell has a chapter dedicated to Warren G. Harding, the 29th president of the United States. In it he describes how Harding was likely elected on the ground of being tall, charismatic and “presidential” looking. He went on to be “widely considered one of the country’s worst presidents” (Time magazine). Interestingly and in accordance, a body of research done by biologists and political scientists showed that the pitch of a political candidate’s voice may be more influential in his actual election than more important variables, such as the content of his or her speech. This means that we may be electing our future governments based on how deep the voice of the candidates is!
So, how does this relate to exercise?
These findings likely apply to other domains of social interaction. Honestly, who would you be more likely to follow advice from when it comes to exercise? The hot half naked chicks in bikini and the six packed hunks on Instagram? Or the fresh out of college nerds who are more about the numbers than the dumbbells? I’m not saying that nerds know it all, and that good-looking people don’t know anything. What I am saying is that there is likely a bias toward good-looking, well-spoken people and that those qualities hardly relate with knowledge of the subject at hand.
There was a study presented at the European Congress on Obesity, in Glasgow, that concluded that 8 out 9 nine bloggers give inaccurate nutritional advice. While nutrition and exercise are not exactly the same domain, I feel that the industry is quite similar and that a parallel can be made.
Now, there is no particular way to completely protect yourself against this, and always make sure you’re following advice by most qualified people. However, there are a few heuristics you can use that may increase the chance that you are making the right decision by listening to someone:
1 — If the advice is given in an unconditional, absolutist manner, BE WARY!
Prescription cannot be properly made without knowledge of the goals and limitations of the individual. Sentences like “the best exercise for weight loss” or “the best program to build muscle” should be an immediate red flag.
There is no “best…for” without taking into account the target of the intervention: the individual. For example: a simple and basic lower body exercise as the back squat may become dangerous if you work with tall volleyball girls whose femur/torso ratio tend to be higher than normal. This completely changes squat mechanics and makes back squats more of a hip hinging movement that may pose a hazard to the low back if done with a heavy bar (though there are solutions).
Nonetheless, we are all the same species, and there are some obvious broad recommendations that apply to everybody like: “don’t eat crappy food” or “exercise regularly”, but I don’t think you need a specialist’s advice for that.
2 — If there is a focus on methods, not on goals or principles, BE WARY!
If you are limited to one method, then you are likely to fail in interventions in which subjects have high degrees of variability across multiple domains. Our subject of intervention is the human body, a highly complex interconnected system of systems. And as if that wasn’t enough, it’s also subject to a high degree of variability within the species. If, to achieve a goal, you are limited to one method, or worse, if you apply your method as an end in itself, something is bound to go wrong.
Take as examples the frequent prescription of “go, swimming” by doctors for patients with back pain (I hope this was only common only in my country), or some common statement as “bench press is the best exercise for upper body power development”. On both examples, there is a focus on the method: swimming and bench press; and not on the goal, reducing back pain or enhancing upper body power. First, it’s imperative to find a metric to access the result of any intervention (in this case, a pain scale and some valid upper body power test) and, after that, strive to understand which methods may achieve the intended result with the least possible effort AND collateral damage. If in this case, advice-givers just have “swimming” and “bench press” in their tool box, while it may work in some cases, they’re bound to screw someone up sooner than later.
Now, I’m not saying you should find someone who has mastered all the methods, that is impossible. Instead, try to listen to someone that has a logical approach to the problem, that is knowledgeable enough to understand the existence of a multitude of useful methods other than his own, and whose focus is on the goal. If you keep noticing a discourse focused on some machine, equipment, type of exercise or practice, that should immediately come up as a red flag.
3 — If the person giving the advice clearly tries to sell him/herself or some dogmatic ideology, BE WARY!
It’s quite often that we see advertisement for the training plans of this and that celebrity, or the fitness gurus giving away their “secret” trick to get that body. THERE ARE NO FUCKING SECRETS! JESUS! Also, it is possible that the fitness people you follow are engaged on practices that are much more influential to the way they look than the diets and exercises they do, such as steroid use (I recommend watching the movie Bigger, Stronger, Faster…). I can’t avoid recalling a video series of a famous bodybuilder that started with him saying that it is all hard work and there are no steroids involved while he himself couldn’t fit into the screen. I guess there are some secrets after all… However, while I am absolutely not in the least againstrecreational and properly informed steroid use, I am against misleading people into believing absolute lies.
Another thing that people rarely take into account are the limitations of their own phenotype. In the same way that you cannot get taller by training, sometimes you just can’t get that six pack because the connective tissue dividing your rectus is simply not very defined. I have a friend who is one of those people that look like he fell into the secret potion* cauldron when he was young. Big, lean and mean. No six-pack however. Not even at his leanest. It is just the shape of his rectus, there’s hardly anything you can do about that (assuming you even should, but that’s another topic). The same goes for variables that depend on your skeletal structure (ex: shoulder to hip width ratio). So, red flag when advice-givers focus too much on their own path and not on that of the possible subjects.
That last red flag on this topic should be for cult leaders. Some fitness and exercise gurus literally create a cult around their ways and preach in a dogmatic manner, in which they often tend to enthusiastically subvert all diverging practices. For some reason, which I’m sure is rooted in the part of our brain that responds to tribal behavior, this is very appealing to some people. Dogma and blind ideologies should have no place in the mind of the critical thinker. These cult leaders are often easy to identify, as they influence their followers in such a way that they normally wear the same type of clothes, shoes (or barefooted), and even hair style. They spend more time perfecting the way they act out the role, than actually developing and making critical sense out of their practice and intervention. The content of their speech is, more often than not, subjective, ambiguous and vague, but they all speak with the qualities addressed at the beginning of this article. Any of these features should come up as a red flag in someone giving out advice.
4 — Try to get info on the person’s academic and professional background. If you find only a couple of weekend courses, or nothing at all, BE WARY!
I’m slightly cautious making this recommendation and I understand it may be unfair for a couple of reasons:
1. First, I realize that universities no longer have the exclusive access to the distribution of knowledge, due to such phenomena as the internet;
2. Second, the content taught in universities is sometimes lacking, for a variety of reasons (here I can only speak about my own);
3. Third, universities still hold the monopoly of accreditation (not for much longer, I believe) and, as such, it is still hard to give proper recognition to people that have chosen to learn by other means.
However, my approach here is purely probabilistic. I don’t mean to say that there aren’t very competent people who haven’t been through university or that there aren’t dumb people who have (I sure know a fair share of the latter). But, all things considered, I do believe that someone who has higher academic accreditation is more likely to give proper advice than someone who has not.
So, if your advice-giver is backed up solely by a couple of online programs, weekend courses and a having watched pumping-irona few dozen times, that should come up as a red flag.
Having the gift of speech and charisma is a tremendous quality and I surely don’t stand alone in admiring such people. But when you’re on the listening end, make sure to avoid getting enamored of the person speaking instead of making sense out of what they are saying. Actually, you can do the former, as a long as you also do the latter. If, however, you’re the soft speaking charismatic one, I hope you are aware of the power you have at hand and put it to the best possible use.
*THERE ARE NO FUCKING SECRETS!
André Sousa 30/5/19
References:
Time’s article on Warren Harding:
Research on voice pitch and political electability:
News on the research on advice given by bloggers:
