An exercise physiologist reveals the workout equipment you should always avoid in the gym, and why


Heather Milton, exercise physiologist at NYU Langone Health, reveals the workout equipment you should always avoid in the gym, and why. Following is a transcript of the video.

Heather Milton: So when you’re in the gym and you are looking for the best exercise equipment to use to maximize whatever your fitness goals are, there are a few that I would recommend staying away from.

One of them is if you are looking for general strength and functional strength as well as if you are looking to lose weight, I would suggest staying away from any of the machines that do one single-joint movement. 

And those are the things like leg extensions where you are sitting and you are just extending your leg or if you are doing just the calf raise meaning that you are just going up onto your toes and pushing up.

Exercises like that — bicep curls and tricep extensions are single-joint, single-muscles, so they are not really giving you as much benefit as trying to do what we call compound movements, which are using multiple joints at the same time, maximizing the amount of muscles active during the exercise like doing a chest press or a row.

Depending on the type of goal that you have, doing a rower, or an ergonometer, or stair stepper, all those machines are great for giving our cardiovascular benefit, as well as for activating a lot of muscles at once.

So they’re all good for maintaining cardiovascular fitness and reducing your risk for health complications as well as improving your overall aerobic fitness. 

They’re not necessarily the best for building muscular strength, so when it comes to muscular strength, you do want to focus on exercises that you’re able to do only about 8 to 12 repetitions of at a time before you fatigue.

And giving good rest of 30 to 60 seconds between each set of those exercises will give you the most stimulus to improve your muscular strength.

Join the conversation about this story »

from SAI

App That Paid Users to Exercise Owes Nearly $1 Million for Not Paying Users to Exercise

Image Source: Pact

In the capitalistic nightmare we live in, everything has to be a transaction. So, when Pact launched its fitness app that let you make money for working out—or else pay a fee for failing to do so—it seemed to be the perfect motivational tool. There was just one problem: The company apparently wasn’t that great at paying up, and was it too good at collecting fees.

On Thursday, the FTC announced that it has settled its complaint against the makers of Pact for failing to live up to their agreement with users. A $1.5 million judgment will be partially suspended based on Pact’s apparent lack of funds, the FTC writes, but Pact will be required to pay out $948,788 to customers who were wronged by the company.


Supported by investors like PayPal co-founder Max Levchin, Pact was initially called GymPact before it changed its name to reflect its additional meal-tracking features. The idea behind the app was relatively straightforward: A user could set a goal like, “I’ll go the gym for an hour five days in a row.” Then, the user set an amount of money that they’d be willing to pay as a penalty if they failed to meet their goal. When setting a goal, the app would tell you how much money you’d be rewarded with if you managed to achieve your goal—usually a small amount that was pulled from the pool of failures out there. At first, Pact had a deal with thousands of gyms that the user could check into and that feature was expanded to GPS tracking.

It seems like many people had a good experience with Pact since it launched in 2012. iMedical Apps, a site that covers medical apps, ran a positive review in 2014. After two years of use, the reviewer claimed they’d earned $147.17. PC Magazine ran a glowing review of the app in 2016 and gave it four-and-a-half out of five stars. When the company shut down in July, some users on Reddit were confused and disappointed. But not everyone loved it.

According to the FTC complaint:

Defendants have not paid, and in fact have charged, many consumers who satisfied their pacts. These charges have ranged from $5 to $50 per purportedly missed activity. Moreover, many consumers who have attempted to cancel Defendants’ service instead have continued to be charged in subsequent weeks without their consent. Defendants have received at least tens of thousands of consumer complaints about unauthorized charges billed through the Pact app, with many consumers reporting hundreds of dollars of losses in such charges.

Pact, and its principals Yifan Zhang and Geoffrey Oberhofer, were accused of not clearly informing consumers about the charges they’d receive before they entered billing information—a violation of the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act. Pact also apparently failed to adequately inform users on how to cancel the service, resulting in months of overcharges for some.

The FTC names a few examples:

One military consumer complained that the defendants charged her for missed pacts when she could not get the app to recognize the gym at the Air Force base where she was stationed. Another consumer said she deleted her account but continued to be billed more than $500 in recurring charges.

What’s more, even though the folks at Pact acknowledged the bogus charges as a “known issue,” they proceeded to roll out the meal-tracking programs with the same problems.


It’s a particular sort of irony that a startup founded on the idea of paying a penalty for failing to live up to a pledge is ending its days by paying a penalty for failing to live up to a pledge. It’s an irony that feels all too familiar in the era of Juicero.


from Lifehacker