Bodybuilding Mags versus Running Mags

Funny thing, bodybuilding magazines are big and bulky, compared to
running magazines, which are slim and thin! Funny thing, indeed: I'd
have thought that the running and jogging market was a lot bigger than
that for pumping iron -- especially when you consider that the
advertisers for muscle mags are almost entirely from the bodybuilding
cottage industry, whereas car companies and mainstream food and
clothing companies form half of the advertising in a running magazine.

Well, I have in mind "Runner's World" only ([and just why is that not
"Runners' World," plural??] though I have leafed through an issue or
two of the even-skinnier "Running Times"). The muscle mags I know are
Iron Man, Muscular Development, Muscle & Fitness, and Muscle Mag
International.

I find the articles in "Runner's World" (RW) much more interesting
than most of those in the muscle mags. RW articles are more
intelligently written -- hardly any spelling errors, awkward
grammatical constructions, or repetitive use of words and phrases (not
to mention ideas!) -- and even more believable. With muscle mag
articles, I sometimes even get the feeling I'm reading a usenet post,
I really do!

So I've subscribed to RW, even though, interesting as their articles
are, they're actually very short, almost what other magazines
(including the muscle mags) would have for sidebars! The muscle mags
*always* do "what's new" department that are really just more
advertising of products, even outright cut-n-paste of ad copy straight
from the companies! And their articles are so damned contradictory,
even within the same issue, from one writer to another.

Unfortunately, subscription freebies for all seem to suck: a little
"home-made" pamphlet on how to "run faster/longer/safer" or "GET BIG
BICEPS NOWWWW!!!!"

Frankly, I'm surprised there isn't more variety out there. There
seems to be only two running mags on any given newsstand, and four
bodybuilding magazines (I'm not counting that "lifestyle" shit like
"Men's Health"). I can't believe there are way more news and
political magazines! I mean, not too many folks seem to care about
the news and such, whereas gyms are all over the place (the NYSC chain
just opened up another branch near me, and I'm in the so-called Outer
Boroughs of NYC!)...what the heck are all these people reading on the
toilet in the gym???

Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_war@yahoo.com> wrote in news:ff8e2d93-8fe7-
4976-8aa3-291e239c62dd@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:

>
> Funny thing, bodybuilding magazines are big and bulky, compared to
> running magazines, which are slim and thin!

BBing mags are like the readers, big, stupid, lots of fluff but no content,
and runner mags are like them, quick and direct to the point without a lot
of BS.

On Dec 26, 3:28 am, runR <runlikeh...@isp.net> wrote:
>
>
> BBing mags are like the readers, big, stupid, lots of fluff but no content,
> and runner mags are like them, quick and direct to the point without a lot
> of BS.


I hate to concede the point, but you might well be right.

Reading the bodybuilding mags, it's almost like reading a woman's
magazine: a lot of preening and such. It's all about looks, after all.

On the other hand, runner's mags can also read like women's magazines,
in how "chirpy" they are, how "harmless" they are.

Bodybuilding mags probably cater more to those with an inferiority
complex -- teenage boys and graying men. Running mags probably cater
more to those with social status on their minds, yuppies of both
sexes.

Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_war@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:c77d29fd-78c9-4eab-b062-bcffc5f45d89@j64g2000hsj.googlegroups.com:

> On Dec 26, 3:28 am, runR <runlikeh...@isp.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> BBing mags are like the readers, big, stupid, lots of fluff but no
>> content, and runner mags are like them, quick and direct to the point
>> without a lot of BS.
>
>
> I hate to concede the point, but you might well be right.
>
> Reading the bodybuilding mags, it's almost like reading a woman's
> magazine:

It's for body builders, it IS a womans mag.

> On the other hand, runner's mags can also read like women's magazines,
> in how "chirpy" they are, how "harmless" they are.
>

But skinny woman.

> Bodybuilding mags probably cater more to those with an inferiority
> complex -- teenage boys and graying men. Running mags probably cater
> more to those with social status on their minds, yuppies of both
> sexes.
>
>

Or queers.

On Dec 26, 10:26 pm, Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> Bodybuilding mags probably cater more to those with an inferiority
> complex -- teenage boys and graying men. Running mags probably cater
> more to those with social status on their minds, yuppies of both
> sexes.

I think so, ^_^, yuppies of both sexes. I rate your post 5 for that!
Diet and Fitness: http://letdiet.blogspot.com

Fakeguy@net.net wrote:
> Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_war@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:c77d29fd-78c9-4eab-b062-
> bcffc5f45d89@j64g2000hsj.googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Dec 26, 3:28 am, runR <runlikeh...@isp.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> BBing mags are like the readers, big, stupid, lots of fluff but no
>>> content, and runner mags are like them, quick and direct to the
>>> point without a lot of BS.
>>
>>
>> I hate to concede the point, but you might well be right.
>>
>> Reading the bodybuilding mags, it's almost like reading a woman's
>> magazine:
>
> It's for body builders, it IS a womans mag.
>
>> On the other hand, runner's mags can also read like women's
>> magazines, in how "chirpy" they are, how "harmless" they are.
>>
>
> But skinny woman.
>
>> Bodybuilding mags probably cater more to those with an inferiority
>> complex -- teenage boys and graying men. Running mags probably cater
>> more to those with social status on their minds, yuppies of both
>> sexes.
>>
>>
>
> Or queers.

Speaking from experience then fake!