A Brief History of Exercise

At the same time the cardiologists were pushing the notion that the key to proper exercise was the heart rate, the exercise marketers were pushing the notion that working the largest muscles of the body in isolation was the quickest route to obtaining dramatic results -- and when the results from their machines turned out not to be “foolproof,” as advertised, they then insisted every repetition had to be strictly supervised, thus creating the field of personal trainers. By either approach, the promised results were not forthcoming -- no matter how plausible the explanations and elaborate the theories --and rather than turn themselves over to the self-designated “professionals” on these matters, the public largely decided it was not worth the bother, figuring that the extra years they might add to their lives by such torturous regimens, would be entirely consumed in those activities. So unless they enjoyed it, what was the sense in making more time to do what made one’s life miserable?

The obvious was making exercise (movement) enjoyable and rewarding in itself -- which greatly offended the 20th century sensibilities for making everything more difficult, arduous and incomprehensible -- thereby requiring more experts (professionals) to guide one through all the perils and hazards of daily living. These proponents fostered the false confidence in conjectures as facts, and the duly-certified, as possessing inviolable and incontrovertible fact -- when in many fields, professionalism consisted in little more than giving fancy names to common knowledge, and proffering that jargon as unquestionable authority. The use of impressive sounding jargon exploded -- displacing the time-tested and time-honed processes of individual discovery and thoughtfulness on that which could be tested in one’s own lives and experiences. “The experts say…” would be the quick rebuttal to any objection.

Self-evident truth became so dishonored and disconnected in daily lives that the term “feedback,” was the euphemism for common sense. Common sense was no longer to be trusted, replaced as it now was, by “professional expertise.”

What changed all that? One can only fragment, specialize and compartmentalize all experience and knowledge before a few will recognize that a major purpose of life is integrating the whole process into a more comprehensive understanding -- which is the movement towards greater simplicity and elegance in understanding. Every great leap in human understanding reduces complexity by seeing the greater universal principle under which the many ad hoc and seemingly unrelated explanations adhere to -- all requiring their own experts, jargon and hierarchy.

Such turning points in the evolution of understanding are disruptive to all the entrenched institutions, authorities, and bureaucracies -- because they challenge the whole notion of the legitimacy of the existing hierarchy of knowledge, that its staunchest defenders will be those who are its greatest beneficiaries. They don’t want the playing field to be leveled -- to welcome all participants as equals, and then have to justify their lofty entitlements, status, and privilege; they want the status quo to continue, not change.