Structural Balance Theory: Does your Butt Care about your Biceps? [$]

Categories: Training

Everything that sucks is good for you. That’s what our intuition tells us. Give someone a piece of food that tastes disgusting and tell them it’s really good for them. They’ll take your word for it. Give someone a piece of this cheesecake and afterwards tell them it’s healthy and they’ll go ”˜Yeah, right’. Even worse, if you tell them beforehand, they’ll enjoy the cheesecake less [1]. We readily believe that stretching is good for us because it hurts and it’s boring, even though stretching often doesn’t help at all. Bodybuilders take this masochistic ”˜no pain no gain’ outlook on life to extremes. Unseasoned chicken with sauceless rice and plain broccoli, anyone? One particular fitness concept that has completely escaped scientific scrutiny because of its inherent plausibility is structural balance theory. To show that nothing escapes the truth, I will hereby shine the light of science on this theory from 7 perspectives.

 

Read the full article in Alan Aragon’s Research Review of February/March 2014 [$10/issue].


Want more content like this?

Then get our free mini-course on muscle building, fat loss and strength.

By filling in your details you consent with our privacy policy and the way we handle your personal data.


About the author

Menno Henselmans

Formerly a business consultant, I've traded my company car to follow my passion in strength training. I'm now an online physique coach, scientist and international public speaker with the mission to help serious trainees master their physique.

» Join in and discuss this article on Facebook

Send this to a friend