Good writing is not the result of having good content. if no one likes reading what you wrote, then who cares if you alone are publishing the "best information."
The majority of a "fitness articles" (the term gets caught in my throat) out there today are not written by those with rhetorical expertise as one of their credentials. These are not writers; these are people with a lot in their mind. And while I am grateful they want to contribute, they too often shoot themselves in the foot; they lose our attention and then criticize us for diverting that attention to things which can capture it.
Good writing is about good editing. Good writing is NOT about good content. If the marriage of reasonable content and compelling writing takes place, then you have a winner of information delivery.
I only share this because too often I see athletes criticized for following the most flashy writing that has lousy content, yet those with solid content bore the crap out of those athletes and thus lose the chance to fill their heads with the good stuff.
We need to pay close better attention to how the good information travels from hand to hand. We mustn't lament when good content gets overlooked when it was not delivered in an "easily-digested" form.
Meanwhile, this same sentiment should stand as a warning to athletes: just because something reads convincingly does not mean that what it has convinced you of is of high merit. Persuasion is the tool of masters and the drug of fools. Be mindful when you feel that an article is :right" that what could be convincing you is the writing, not the content.