This might be the best living-room workout you haven’t heard of yet
My workouts are usually limited to the gym, ice rink and occasional Tough Mudder course. Not usually my living room, where I had Mike Dolce — a shave-headed, shirtless 38-year-old man with visible, enviable abs — bark orders at me via my flat screen.
“We’re not done,” Dolce’s gravelly voice piped through my speakers.
My hardwood floors were. Yes, Dolce made me sweat so much my laminated lumber had become treacherous with puddles of perspiration, even if my mixed martial arts-inspired punches and kicks were nowhere close to the Ultimate Fighting Championship he’s trained for over the years. I was watching (and awkwardly tossing around fighting moves to) UFC FIT, Dolce’s pivot from an MMA diet guru toward becoming a mainstream fitness authority.
“P90X was created by an actor,” Dolce, ever the self-marketer, told OZY. “Insanity was created by a dancer. Do you want a program that was built by an actor or a professional who does this every day?”
At $120, UFC FIT, launched last fall, is priced the same as those two programs and will get a huge marketing push over the next several weeks.
“We are going to find out soon if this will be a commercial success or something that is just a technically sound product,” Dolce said. “I think it’s going to be killer.”
Read more on OZY.com: Ultimate Fighting Workouts — for Your Living Room
Because if you’re a football fan during the off-season, you probably still want to know what’s going down with your fave players.
Over the course of his six-season NFL career, Nate Jackson received a steady course of painkillers and anti-inflammatory meds from doctors. These pharmaceuticals crucially helped keep him on the field despite injuries as a tight end with the Denver Broncos.
But it wasn’t enough. Jackson also self-medicated with marijuana — a substance that is banned by the NFL and was illegal in Colorado at the time. That ban didn’t stop him as he sought relief from both the physical and mental stress of playing pro football.
Researchers at Iowa State University tested eight different activity monitors to see just how accurate each model really is. They had 30 men and 30 women wear all the devices — as well as a portable metabolic analyzer as the comparison — during a 69-minute activity session, which included everything from writing at a computer to running to playing Wii tennis.
The result? Most trackers were reasonably accurate, their calories-burned estimates landing within 10 to 15 percent of the actual number. But the study did reveal that some models are more accurate than others. Choosing a tracker shouldn’t be about which one looks the coolest; function is what matters.
Read more on OZY.com: Don't Trust Your Fitbit | Acumen | OZY