
That moment captures something essential about the fitness entrepreneur. This is not the sports retailer selling boots or the coach guiding a team. The fitness entrepreneur trades in belief. Their product is the body, but their business is persuasion — the promise that buying from them will change your life. From Sandow in the gaslight to the influencer in the ring light, the model hasn’t changed much. The names and platforms have.
The Body as Authority
Every fitness empire begins with a body that speaks louder than credentials. Sandow understood this better than anyone. Born in Prussia in 1867, he built his fame in London’s music halls, where audiences paid to see him flex rather than lift. After a tour of the United States, measured and endorsed by Harvard’s Dudley Sargent as “the world’s most perfectly developed man,” he returned to England with a new idea: turn anatomy into authority.
His logic was simple. If he embodied health, he could sell it. Within a decade, Sandow had opened institutes, published magazines, sold dumbbells, patent devices, and launched a cocoa brand that promised strength in a cup. He even prescribed exercise as medicine in his Curative Institute, claiming cures for everything from obesity to cancer. The body was proof enough.
This asymmetry of knowledge — the public’s ignorance and the entrepreneur’s charisma — defined the trade. Customers didn’t know what worked, so they trusted who looked the part. Sandow trained with heavy barbells but told buyers that five-pound “developers” could sculpt the same physique. Bernarr Macfadden built a publishing empire on the same logic, claiming fasting and fresh air cured all disease.
The public believed because they wanted to. The fitness entrepreneur doesn’t simply sell a product — they sell authority itself. The body becomes the credential, the brand, and the billboard.
Myth, Multiplicity, and the Business of Promise
What sets the fitness entrepreneur apart from every other type of seller is flexibility. Their product can be anything and everything, depending on the pitch. Sandow’s dumbbells were fitness devices, medical instruments, and military trainers all at once. He sold to men and women, to schools and hospitals, to athletes and invalids. His cocoa was a health food, his corsets a preventive therapy, his posing shows an education in aesthetics. The same product lived across worlds because Sandow didn’t sell objects — he sold outcomes.
This multiplicity became the industry’s blueprint. Bob Hoffman and Joe Weider industrialised it in mid-century America, turning weightlifting culture into a full-scale economy. Their magazines taught readers how to train, their supplements promised results, their contests displayed living proof. The ecosystem was seamless. To be part of it, you had to keep buying.
Wrapped around every system is myth. Sandow claimed he had been weak as a child before discovering exercise. Atlas said he was humiliated on a beach. These stories weren’t true, but they worked because they spoke to a shared fantasy — the ordinary body made extraordinary through discipline. The entrepreneur’s own transformation made the promise believable.
That pattern survives today. The influencer’s “before and after” post is a direct descendant of Sandow’s studio portraits. The narrative hasn’t changed: if it worked for me, it can work for you. The only new ingredient is scale.
Community, Commerce, and the Continuity of the Type
Fitness entrepreneurs never sell in isolation. They build followings that function like congregations. Sandow’s readers joined his clubs, subscribed to his magazines, and competed in his physique contests. Bob Hoffman created a York Barbell “family,” complete with branded workouts and patriotic rhetoric. Atlas kept his mail-order students close with letters of encouragement, sometimes written by staff but signed in his name.
The relationship was personal, even devotional. Customers didn’t just buy equipment — they bought identity. To train the Sandow way, or the Hoffman way, was to belong to a moral order that promised self-improvement through effort.
But this loyalty also protected bad practice. Hoffman mixed protein powders in an industrial vat with a canoe paddle. Weider’s “labs” were storage closets dressed as research facilities. Dan Duchaine’s Underground Steroid Handbook in the 1980s simply made public what had long been common knowledge — that the line between supplement and drug was porous, and profit always outran regulation.
Still, the same traits that bred deceit also bred innovation. Sandow’s institutes were early versions of commercial gyms. Macfadden’s magazines became templates for modern lifestyle publishing. Weider’s global contests prefigured today’s influencer networks. Each generation learned from the last how to monetise aspiration, building communities that doubled as marketplaces.
Conclusion
The fitness entrepreneur endures because they understand something fundamental about human nature — that transformation sells better than truth. Sandow sold his body as medicine; Atlas sold redemption through effort; Hoffman and Weider sold science dressed as faith. Today’s online coaches and supplement brands sell the same dream in digital form.
What defines them is not muscle but mastery — the ability to turn belief into business. They blur medicine, sport, and commerce, moving easily between self-help and science, confession and instruction. They promise the afterlife of exercise, not the act itself.
To dismiss them as “all muscle and no brains” is to miss the cleverness of the design. Sandow knew how to create desire out of dust and discipline. His powdered torso under gaslight became today’s influencer body under ring light. Both trade on the same equation: charisma plus authority equals trust, and trust converts directly into sales.
The world has changed, but the type has not. The fitness entrepreneur remains the cleverest figure in the business of the body — a performer, preacher, and profiteer rolled into one, forever selling the oldest promise there is: that we can become something more than we are.
Discover more from Physical Culture Study
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

But isn’t the whole premise of bodybuilding and strength training that you can and do make yourself into something more than what you have been? It certainly worked for me! After contracting a bad case of dysentery in Greece, I returned to Oxford about 30 pounds lighter than when I had left. With plenty of whole milk, protein powder and some hard training with dumbbells, I was about 40 pounds heavier (mostly muscle) by the start of term. Friends marvelled at the transformation! “So it [resistance training] really works!” one fellow exclaimed. Largely from my example, the Junior Common Room bought a barbell set, and a number of fellows to up weight training.
Jan! So lovely to hear from you.
Absolutely it is! And I have a similar story but the other extreme… I had about 30 (maybe 40) lbs. to lose! I suppose the issue is the pitches that are often used. Rather than you can push your body to its best version (which differs greatly from person to person), entrepreneurs often sell the idea that anyone can be a Sandow, Arnold or Sandwina etc. The message as opposed to the muscle can be tricky!
Connor, the idea that anyone can achieve the same results as the best bodybuilders is not unique to bodybuilding, or even to sports; it permeates modern culture, from work ethic to self-help coaching. Obviously, statistics clearly show that none of this is true.
Oh, and one very important thing: everyone who has achieved success is blinded by winner’s bias.
Beti so awesome to hear from you. And yes! This is a huge issue with success advice more broadly. We forget about everyone else who fell along the wayside!
You have been on a roll recently with your articles on fitness influencers! They are greatly appreciated! If anyone was ever doubting the relevance or value of the history of physical culture here is a great article that demonstrates how history can help us understand a contemporary phenomenon and through that how our views on fitness and health are shaped.
Another curious, and rather damaging, aspect of fitness entrepreneurs/influencers is how knowledge is created and shared. For a pursuit which is ultimately rather simple, knowledge on fitness and strength training is incredibly polarising. Everything the others are doing sucks, whether that is kettlebells, crossfit, bodybuilding, weightlifting or powerlifting. High volume or low volume. Isolation exercises or barbell minimalism. These things can develop into real cults, of course encouraged by the marketers behind them. Ultimately I think this creates more confusion and alienation rather than informing people.
It would be intereseting to see how training knowledge was spread and produced in countries without a capitalist market structure…
Haha I may have found a niche!
More seriously, I’ve just become very very interested in how the mechanics of fitness marketing have evolved over time.
Yes! I know some people like to point to CrossFit as a point of polarisation but it existed long before then. In the 1890s in America, for example, there were contentious debates about which system was best. Same in Prussia in the 1840s where there was a government enquiry!