Staying Power

I recently read about speculation in the fitness industry that the shift toward exercise methods that use little and/or inexpensive equipment may result in lower revenues for the industry, but I’m not convinced. I’ll explain.

The exercise method in question is functional training, which, for those unfamiliar, can be described as sport-specific training for the average person. For years, athletes have been performing exercises that closely mimic the movements required in their sport in order to improve performance through increased speed, strength, power, coordination, or endurance. This involves a lot of movements that integrate multiple and various muscle groups working together as a system. Additionally, the focus is on movement (functionality), so external resistance, whether from machines, free weights, or other, is only one tool. Conversely, the traditional fitness-oriented workout for the average person is rooted in body building, which emphasizes isolated muscle groups – this is why we have lines of selectorized (weight stack) machines that typically emphasize only one muscle group. The focus here is on strength and aesthetics (looks).

Over the past ten years, the fitness industry has shifted toward a research-based emphasis on training movements, not isolated muscle groups – hence, the shift toward functional training, in which the average person performs exercises that improve functionality in daily living. Because this increasingly popular method of exercise uses a variety of tools other than selectorized machines, (such as dumbbells, medicine balls, resistance bands, stability balls, etc.) some people have subsequently wondered whether health club memberships will decline (since many exercises can be performed practically anywhere, and inexpensively), or equipment manufacturers may experience a similar loss of revenue (with fewer selectorized machines or free weight equipment sold).

I don’t believe these two outcomes will happen, at least not due to functional training, for one simple reason – human behavior. Many people who are motivated to do this type of training on their own still need variety at some point to maintain interest, and you can find this at most facilities. In addition, many people aren’t motivated enough to exercise on their own, so the distractions and variety available at facilities will often encourage them to be active at all. There are also social benefits to belonging to a facility, such as increased likelihood that someone will continue to participate due to relationships and/or accountability.

Ultimately, it’s beneficial for people to have a variety of exercise options, including those that can be done without access to a facility and expensive equipment. The traditional club isn’t going away anytime soon though.

Weekender: Test Your Limits

Just in case you’ve ever wondered how far we’ll go…

Have Fun With It

One of the biggest barriers to physical activity for a lot of people is that it simply isn’t any fun for them. I’ve encountered numerous people who incorrectly believe that exercise has to be done a certain way, otherwise it won’t “count.” As a result, they force themselves to endure activities (if they end up doing them at all) that they don’t enjoy, and miss out on the benefits – physically and mentally – of other activities that are more up their alley.

The people featured in this story are definitely having fun, and on top of enjoying the activity, they’re enjoying the social interaction. Research shows that people who exercise with others are more likely to stick to it because of the accountability and the relationships formed (this includes a friend, a spouse, or a trainer). No, staying active isn’t always guaranteed to be fun – sometimes it’s hard work. But it sure doesn’t hurt to have as much fun as possible, whenever possible.

Government Knows Best?

According to the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles City Council is currently considering a temporary ban on fast food restaurant openings in a specific area of the city.  The thought is that there are already plenty available, and the quantity may be contributing to a higher obesity rate there relative to other parts of the city.

To be honest, I’m not sure how I feel about this, but I’m leaning more toward “bad idea” rather than “good idea.”  I know, I also sided with “big business” in my last post regarding regulation of marketing to children, so people are going to begin thinking that I’m a corporate stooge.  To me the issue though isn’t so much supporting Corporate America as it is maintaining freedom of choice.  I’m a big advocate for addressing systemic facilitators of obesity in our society to help level the playing field for everyone, but I’m increasingly concerned the personal choice and responsibility is being removed from the equation.

The government needs to step in at times when the deck is severely stacked against society, but I’m not so sure this is the case in this situation.  Granted, I don’t live there, so I don’t have firsthand experience.  My thinking though is that people can choose not to patronize those existing restaurants, and when they do, they can choose to eat healthier menu items (which are more available since consumers have demanded them).  If more fast food companies want to locate there because they think they can be successful, then obviously the current supply doesn’t meet the demand.  If more move into the area and they fail, then we’ll know that demand has been met for that particular need.  The point is communities should be free to choose with their dollars what they want in their neighborhoods.

That’s my thinking today, but again, I’m still somewhat on the fence.  Being on the fence isn’t particularly noteworthy or daring, but that’s fine with me.  It’s just indicative of the complexity of the issue.

Don’t Count On It

Last week one of the shows on the Fox Business Channel featured two guests who were on opposite sides of the debate regarding whether food companies like Proctor & Gamble should avoid advertising directly to children, and it got me thinking about the line between regulation and social pressure.  One guest believed that companies should not target children in ads (although I don’t recall whether she advocated an outright ban on it), based on the fact that children are still developing throughout and childhood and adolescence and aren’t able or don’t have the information to distguinsh between facts and ads.  I agree that kids can’t make this distinction very well at times.  However, the other guest (a brand expert) said that while she agreed that companies should be good corporate citizens and be responsible with their advertising, they shouldn’t be regulated to do so.

Some might be surprised by this, but I agree overall with the latter in this case.  These companies are in the business to make money by selling food and other household products, not serve as surrogate parents.  This situation is not the same though as tobacco or alcohol companies targeting children – these products are clearly not healthy for kids, and in the case of tobacco, not healthy for anyone.  Food, on the other hand, can be healthy or at least enjoyed in moderation if it’s not.  Parents need to be involved to help kids distinguish between food types.  Not only that, but if we restrict companies’ advertising food to kids because the food may be unhealthy, what’s to stop regulation of toy companies who target kids since their toys may influence kids to be sedentary rather than active?  Parents who advocate such restrictions should be ready for Thomas the Train and Dora the Explorer to go pay-per-view, because these are the very companies to provide major ad revenue to children’s television channels.

Having said that, I do think that companies should be responsible with the ways they market their products.  I’m not counting on it happening without intervention though.  What we as consumers and parents need to do is pressure companies to be responsible.  For example, in recent years McDonald’s has added healthier menu options to their standard fare, and are including messages about physical activity in their messages to kids.  Why?  Because consumers demanded it and voted with their dollars.  In addition, with the power that the Internet has given consumers today, more companies are starting to monitor and manage consumer perceptions of their brand(s), and consequently, they don’t want to be viewed as bad corporate citizens.

By exerting some pressure, parents can force companies to balance their messages when peddling their food products.  Ultimately though, the messages that kids receive and their interpretations of those messages are dependent upon parents being parents.