I'm angry about the obvious discord I see between fantasy and reality in much of the bodybuilding and fitness industry. I see neophyte members of my gym being led around by "fitness trainers" who are so out of shape themselves that they couldn't walk up a small flight of stairs without being winded. I see those same neophytes with an unchanged appearance (is it any wonder?) a full year later and after parting with a good chunk of their income.
What did they get for their money? Well, I know of one who's gotten nothing more than the added drama of knowing every detail of his "personal trainer's" divorce proceedings. I've seen another one get so beaten down by the over-zealous instruction of a trainer that was hell-bent on being the "hard-core alternative" - I don't think that client will ever set foot in a gym again. And I've witnessed one after another becoming more and more confused as their personal trainers invent new training methods (ad hoc) in order to outdo each other. This might be spurred by the ulterior motive of making muscle building and fitness training appear esoteric or difficult to understand.
Many marketers of products in this industry are no less 'full-of-it'. I mean, if I see one more before-and-after photo in which the subject of the picture is holding up a local newspaper that doesn't display anything visually discernible, I think I'm gonna throw up. What am I supposed to conclude from such a picture? When this concept was first utilized many years ago, the displayed publication was a weekly national magazine with the cover of the issue clearly shown. A reader of the ad could verify the time window that the newly-fit or muscular person in the picture had made their transformation. This would especially be so if the subject was holding up a prominent periodical, like Time or Newsweek, in both the before and after photo.
Before and after photos with hand-held periodicals that have discernible dates can prevent the kind of bodybuilding B.S. that an acquintance of mine was engaged in. This guy was in quite a few ads for bodybuilding products a few years ago. But his non-bodybuilding brother confided to me that despite his brother's claims in the ads to being "natural", this guy took steroids on and off for three years. He'd utilized the tactic of having the 'after picture' taken first and the 'before picture' taken after. That way, he was tanned, lean, and "juiced-up" in the after shot and then all he had to do was spend two months losing his tan, his gym membership, and his dignity at the dining room table in order to have his before pic taken. According to his brother, he'd get an easy thousand bucks and the ego injection of a magazine picture for his efforts.
In parallel with all this is the insult I get when these former steroid users call themselves "natural" because they aren't currently on the juice. If a person's used synthetic testosterone or growth hormone to build their muscles at any time in their life, they're not natural. Why does this matter? Because many of these people who've relied on pharmaceuticals to enhance their bodies are selling their "knowledge" to those who don't use the drugs. This often results in the 'pre-steroid-using fitness trainer' becoming nothing more than an over-paid repetition counter for his or her client.
That becomes too bad for the client - especially if he/she doesn't want to be a divorce counselor the P.T.
