In the afternoon I occasionally experience a bit of a concentration slump, so I go to the New York Times to see the latest inanities it is presenting to its stupefied readership. A few minutes ago I logged on and saw the following story.
To find fault with the “Pete and Bobby Challenge,” staff writer Calum Marsh interviewed “fitness experts” who explained.
Despite that, Mr. Kennedy, who has routinely talked about the benefits of fitness, seemed to invite average Americans to challenge themselves physically in the same way he and Mr. Hegseth had, with a post on X that read: “100 push-ups, 50 pull-ups — Who’s up for the challenge?”
Multiple fitness experts believe such a regimen is not feasible for a majority of the population.
“Most people can’t even perform five strict push-ups with proper form, or a single pull-up, without compensating,” said Chris Smits, a personal trainer based in Toronto. “Pushing for such high numbers without the necessary strength foundation can quickly lead to poor form, overcompensation and a high risk of injury, including serious muscle strains or tears.” . . .
And Ben Bergeron, the founder of the global training company CompTrain, warned that the simplicity of push-ups and pull-ups should not be underestimated.
“High-volume body weight workouts are deceptively tough,” he said. “The movements themselves are simple, but when performed in the 50 to 100 rep range or more — most people aren’t prepared for it.”
Note the bizarre logic of this report—that is, most people aren’t prepared for this challenge, so they therefore shouldn’t accept the challenge.
In what world did reporter Calum Marsh grow up? Does he not understand the meaning of the English word “challenge”?
If most men in this country were already prepared for the challenge, it wouldn’t be a challenge. The whole point of the challenge is to motivate men to train so that they can eventually pass this difficult test of physical fitness.
In his 1887 book, On the Genealogy of Morals, Nietzsche wrote about what he perceived to be a growing glorification of weakness, and a corresponding assertion of the moral superiority of expressing pity for the weak instead of exhorting the weak to strive for excellence. As he saw it, this wasn’t an expression of true pity, but a phony strategy for gaining influence and power.
I used to think that Nietzsche was being hyperbolic and melodramatic when he wrote this, but it increasingly occurs to me that he was absolutely right.
Click this link for the original source of this article.
Author: John Leake
This content is courtesy of, and owned and copyrighted by, https://petermcculloughmd.substack.com and its author. This content is made available by use of the public RSS feed offered by the host site and is used for educational purposes only. If you are the author or represent the host site and would like this content removed now and in the future, please contact USSANews.com using the email address in the Contact page found in the website menu.
