Anyway, some (slightly more serious, hopefully final) thoughts on the original question of why men don't lift weights:
1. Most people (both sexes) would indeed benefit from some weight training. The majority of people who think an injury precludes them are misguided and confused about the body's ability to adapt to stimulus and inability to adapt in the absence of a stimulus. In other words, for most people under the impression that they can't squat and deadlift due to injury, squatting and deadlifting are their best or only hope of healing. Lifting won't turn your bones to dust. Not lifting will.
2. It's damningly hard for most people to get strong without lifting weights. Saying that Al Kavadlo is proof that bodyweight exercises make people strong is akin to saying the guy on the 8-minute abs infomercial proves it will work for you. If you love movnat, CrossFit, or bodyweight exercises, you can attempt to program them so as to promote strength (and, if you're a novice, riding a bicycle will make your bench press numbers go up), but they quite simply cannot do the job that the barbell can. And that job is to make you strong.
3. We live in a society in which strength is undervalued. Strength is incredibly useful on a day to day basis, as well as in emergency and crisis situations. Strength underlies all the other parameters of fitness. Strength training with barbells, in the words of Dr. Jonathon Sullivan, is Big Medicine.
4. Everybody should read this article, and all women should read both of these.
I agree one one level, but I think that strength training gets more consistently good results then other options. The place I go now that is a mix of Crossfit and strength training, ALL of the women who have been going for 12 months plus have well above average bodies. They may not be uber cut, but that have muscle and "attractive" amounts of fat as well as consistently flat stomachs and good shapes.They've eventually always got to include that picture, the unobtainable image of a woman that lifts.
That's pretty good odds versus other programs I have tried and seen. I'd say 50% of my Galloway running group was obese when we started and obese when we ended. Granted, it was only a 6 month group, but I saw little to none improvement in appearance. The HIIT class was similar- most people seemed to never look any better over 6 months and the ones who looked good were already athletes in other arenas.
So while I realize I probably won't look like the women in the blog, within two months, I have seen fat loss/inch loss through my core and legs, more muscle in my shoulders and back, firmer behind, my arms are getting smaller, less fat (though excess skin makes flab an issue) and a reduction in leg cellulite. In short, with LESS work, my body is making bigger changes than running, P90X, HIIT classes, Insanity etc. ever did without any significant change in diet.
The changes I'm getting through the weight training are the ones we generally want- flab reduction and overall tightening plus "shaping" where your ass and shoulders work together to make your waist look smaller. I feel like I am overall building more "structure" to my body.
So no, I'm never gonna look like Miss Tight 6 Pack, but I can look far better than shapeless flab and it seems to be a fairly consistent result. One of the best things is the number of women in the classes that are OLDER (post kids, over 40) and look very tight.
Check out my blog. Hope to share lots of great recipes and ideas!
Nice post Rich and the articles were worth reading, if only there were more trainers like Alexandre Cortez.
Yes, I am truly saying that - all human civilizations are rooted and founded by agriculture - that was my statement that you called "blatantly false" when you first responded to my original posting. So like it or not; "Civilizations depends on agriculture", to quote the NGE article, but mind you, I do not necessarily say that civilizations are a good thing here - that's a completely different issue...
And, it's not a "narrow-minded definition of civilization" that I have pulled out of my butt either, the term "civilization" have a specific meaning even if there can be some disagrement how to exactly define it - but there are no disagrement to my knowlegde that hunter-gatherer societies, Inuits etc., fall outside the concept of 'civilization'. But good to see that you at least have some honesty to admit that you were wrong though...
so based upon the link you provided earlier, they would be defined as civilizations
This is how I would define civilization. note, the complete and utter lack of agricultural requirement.
Merriam Webster definition:
Definition of CIVILIZATION
1a : a relatively high level of cultural and technological development; specifically : the stage of cultural development at which writing and the keeping of written records is attained
b : the culture characteristic of a particular time or place
2: the process of becoming civilized
3a : refinement of thought, manners, or taste
b : a situation of urban comfort
1. an advanced state of human society, in which a high level of culture, science, industry, and government has been reached.
2.those people or nations that have reached such a state.
3. any type of culture, society, etc., of a specific place, time, or group: Greek civilization.
4. the act or process of civilizing or being civilized: Rome's civilization of barbaric tribes was admirable.
5. cultural refinement; refinement of thought and cultural appreciation: The letters of Madame de Sévigné reveal her wit and civilization.
Alright, not on the rug, continue with your trolling and intellectual dishonesty without me hereafter, because you have now earned yourself a very deserved place on my ignore list…