Conventional Exercise Doesn't Make One Stronger -- They Merely Eliminate the Weak

The major problem with using a competitive model as the prototype or paradigm for achieving one's greatest fitness (capabilities, health), is that the intention of the competitive paradigm, is not to make the weak strong, but simply to eliminate the weak from further participation. That is the whole purpose of competitive athletics -- to determine who is the strongest (most suited to that activity), and not to make the weak, strong, or stronger. That is the very reason, the weakest drop out, are eliminated, or are injured, and are discouraged from further participation.

Many of those dropouts however, do go on to make themselves stronger -- to understand and overcome their weakness, but premature competition, would discourage rather than aid them in the process, at that vulnerable stage. So it is not surprising that many who who do go on, choose not to reveal themselves as the ultimate prodigies, and even go into seclusion and under cover, not to reveal their activities, intentions, and current capabilities, so that they can singlemindedly focus on finding a way to overcome their weaknesses and/or handicaps.

That is not unsurprisingly, how many get into "bodybuilding," of which the "before" and "after" transformations, are legendary. Often ignored however, are those who are so naturally gifted in this way, that they have the ability to effect this dramatic transformation, "instantly," first because they have the genetic disposition to, but also because they learn how to maximize that effect. Such individuals can therefore effect a this striking "before" and "after" transformation, in a single workout -- and that quality, distinguishes a champion bodybuilder, much more than their comparisons before they "pump" up.

In fact, many will deny that there is a difference between their before and after conditions -- to maintain the general public's illusion that they are "always," or "naturally" that way -- rather than it is an intentional objective. The lesson of the bodybuilders, should not be discounted because this is so, but should rather be encouraging for anyone wishing to "get in shape" -- that it is to a great extent a learned (conditioned) skill, and not a permanent condition of the body. One can immediately get into shape, if one learns to do so -- because that's what muscles do, change its shape -- depending on one's understanding and mastery of that control.

Thus, one of the pioneers of "scientific/medical" exercise machines, Arthur Jones, observed, even the best shaped people, were merely "well-shaped fat" -- which is the existing muscular ability, to shape whatever body mass they have. Other studies have thus noted, that body-mass measurements and indices, will often show that the most muscular as the fat rather than fit, because they can carry 300 lbs. of body mass (which is off their charts) while being perceived as muscular, while on the other hand, there have been very strong individuals, who saw no need to "look" in the preferred muscular shape they advertised to the world, and in fact, felt uncomfortable and did as much to downplay and hide their prodigious strength, mass and abilities, and achieving the reputation as being unduly modest and humble by it.

Those are familiar as the type that camouflage their true capabilities (identity) -- rather than revealing it, and their weaknesses for any opponent or antagonist to exploit -- as a basic strategy of their own fitness for survival and advantage. We see that ploy often on the Internet when people pretend to be less smart than they actually are -- hoping by that, to gain an advantage, or to draw in those who look for those vulnerabilities in others. But while one can pretend to be less smart than one is, it is much more difficult, to pretend to be smarter than one actually is. That can not be faked, though many think they can -- until they run into those with the ability to assess these things accurately .

And so if one desires an accurate assessment of any individual's truest capabilities, one needs to understand the range from its worst to its best, and not settle on an "average," as the actualization of that potential -- which is usually deceptive as any information of significance. For many, that is simply knowing what everybody else "knows," because somebody else told them, that was all that could be known, and so they "think they know everything" -- even if it doesn't work for most people, and requires more time, energy and expense, for little and even worse results.

We most commonly see that in government and institutionalized solutions that require more money and manpower each year -- and becomes its own reason for being. And so they come to accept a solution that simply makes things get worse -- because of their investment in the problem, and not its solution, or elimination. That is the profitable health care strategy of chronic, long-term deterioration defined as "normal" aging. The alternative to such health care, would be health -- which is something else entirely.

Almost no money goes into that discovery because it is not profitable to do so -- except personally, often from absolute necessity of having to. That's also when the best effects actually become more apparent -- but usually not even attempted, and so the condition attenuates, because there is no way to make a person stronger, with as minimal expenditure of recovery ability as possible -- because the very premise of conventional exercise, is to waste as much energy as possible, as though it was an unlimited resource and the whole objective was to burn as many calories as possible -- as though that was an intelligent thing to do, in/under any condition.