Easy Rider

I was watching an infomercial for one of those combo ab-aerobic machines the other day, and I noticed something interesting: whenever they made a claim or showed a testimonial that referred to any sort of measured loss of fat or specific results, they never referred to just the product by itself. They always either stated "program"along with the claim, or threw up some fine print for 0.05 seconds that read something like "Results not typical. Individual followed a prescribed low-calorie diet and used X-abinator on a regular basis over Y-weeks."

We always look for the most salient, novel, or unusual feature to explain a phenomenon, and then ascribe much more weight as a causal factor to that one thing--that 'smoking gun.' We rarely read the fine print, even though, in reality, it's the boring, mundane factor--eating right and eating less--that probably explains as much, if not more, of the variation in results among a "control" and "experimental"--or regime-following--group than that shiny piece of equipment being ridden by a busty, tanned, unitard-clad model who probably got her figure doing 98% of her exercises with something OTHER than the contraption she's panting over.

If you're the manufacturer of said gizmos, you know there's *zero* profit in just telling people to eat better & use portion-control, even though that alone would produce solid results, far beyond what using the gear but continuing to eat poorly will ever accomplish. So people lay down their credit card and put all of their hopes on a multi-jointed piece of moving metal and plastic that folds neatly under their bed, when what would really help them progress is that little supplemental diet program booklet folded neatly in the bottom of the box.

And that's the reason that the results you see are almost never "typical." The sad part is, as we've been learning, simply by opening that booklet and strictly adhering to diet, they could be.

What the disclaimer should really read is, "Results Not EASY."