To join or not to join a gym: That is the question. If you opt out of building a home gym, you can join a club and have access to more weights and machines. Friends and classes motivate you to keep coming, and that monthly bill keeps you disciplined. On the other hand, gym memberships are steep, workouts can get hijacked by bullies, and going to the gym is an additional commute.

My gym tardiness, however, will likely catch up to me. One of the most consistent messages from health and fitness experts today is that lifting weights has immeasurable benefits. Strength training allows us to keep doing the things we love well into our advanced years. It reduces blood sugar, lowers blood pressure, burns calories, and reduces inflammation. A recent review of studies in the British Journal of Sports Medicine by Harvard Medical School found that strength training is linked to lower risk for cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and cancer and provides a 10 to 17 percent lower overall risk of early death.

But you don’t need all the time and money in the world to have a great home gym. Reviews editor Adrienne So and I have been slowly adding to our existing, minimalist home gyms in our living rooms and garage—a roughly 10- by 10-foot patch in our basements and living rooms. There’s a ton of equipment out there, but for maximum results, I asked two physical therapists—Grace Fenske at Excel North Physical Therapy and Performance and Samuel Hayden at Limit Less Physical Therapy—for their recommendations.

Here’s a PT-recommended guide for an ultrasimple setup that will keep you pumped and motivated. Don’t see anything you like? Don’t forget to check out our existing guides to the Best Running Shoes, the Best Fitness Trackers, or the Best Walking Pads.

Adjustable Dumbbells

Yes, these are very pricey. But people outgrow their small dumbbells very quickly, and if you bite the bullet early, adjustable dumbbells take up a lot less space than individual dumbbell or kettlebell sets. The Nüobell adjustable dumbbells required 38 patents and allow users to increase weight in increments of five pounds all the way up to 80 with a twist of the handle. Each dumbbell set replaces 32 individual dumbbells. In a cramped space, that’s a game changer.

The way that both Steph’s Nüobells and my Nike adjustable dumbbells work is that the full barbell fits into a cradle. (You can also mount the barbells in a stand.) When the user twists the handle to five pounds, the aluminum bar with grooves will grab onto the first hollowed-out plate, which is 2.5 pounds on each side of the barbell. With each subsequent turn of the handle the bar will pick up heavier weight in increments of five pounds. A safety hook at the bottom of the cradle ensures the barbell weight must be locked in place before lifting.

I like my Nike dumbbells because the end of the dumbbell is flat, which means I can rest it on its end on my thigh without putting a divot in my leg. Also, the plates aren’t round. If you have a big round dumbbell on the floor, or especially in your garage, it will find the nearest incline and roll away on top of a house pet or child. You can still take individual plates out of the rack if you need them for leverage under your heel or for mobility exercises. Whichever one you choose, though, both Steph and I recommend getting a floor stand to decrease strain on your back. —Adrienne So

I’ve tested a lot of software tools over the years designed to block distractions and keep you focused. None of them work perfectly, mostly because of context.

Reddit, for example, is something I should generally avoid during the workday, so I tend to block it—this is a good decision for me overall. The problem is that sometimes the only place I can find a particular piece of information online is in a Reddit thread, meaning that to get that information I need to turn off my distraction-blocking tool. Then I inevitably end up down some kind of rabbit hole.

This is the exact problem Fomi, a macOS distraction-blocking tool, is built to solve. The application asks you what you’re working on, then watches everything you do on your Mac desktop—every app you open—and uses AI to analyze what’s on your screen. The tool can tell, from context, whether you’re using a particular website productively or as a distraction.

Zach Yang, part of the team behind the app, tells me on Discord he dreamed up the app after talking with a friend who was studying for an MBA. “He needed YouTube for study videos, so web/app blockers didn’t work, and once he was watching, recommendations would often pull him away,” Yang says. “That’s when I started thinking about using AI to solve this. I built a small prototype to test whether current models were capable of distinguishing distraction from actual work, and the results were good enough that I decided to turn it into a real project.”

Fomi offers a three-day free trial. If you decide you like it, subscription plans cost $8 per month. However, since the tool uploads screenshots of your desktop to an AI model in the cloud, there are privacy concerns you will need to weigh before deciding if a tool like this is right for you.

Watch This Space

I’ve been trying out this application for a couple of days. The first time you launch it, you’re asked what you do day-to-day and what kind of tools you use to do it. Then, when it’s time to focus, you tell the software what you’re working on and which tools you plan to use while doing it.

As you work, a green dot and a timer appear at the top of the screen, surrounding your MacBook’s notch. If you switch to a potentially distracting application, the dot changes to yellow. If you start engaging in things that are clearly distractions, the dot turns red and an animated tomato splats across the screen. You’ll see a custom message telling you to get to work—the app calls out your specific distraction.

Zuckerberg repeatedly fell back on accusing Lanier of “mischaracterizing” his previous statements. When it came to emails, Zuckerberg typically objected based on how old the message was, or his lack of familiarity with the Meta employees involved. “I don’t think so, no,” he replied when directed to clarify if he knew Karina Newton, Instagram’s head of public policy in 2021. And Zuckerberg never failed to point out when he wasn’t actually on an email thread entered as evidence.

Perhaps anticipating these detached and repetitive talking points from Zuckerberg—who claimed over and over that any increased engagement from a user on Facebook or Instagram merely reflected the “value” of those apps—Lanier early on suggested that the CEO has been coached to address these issues. “You have extensive media training,” he said. “I think I’m sort of well-known to be pretty bad at this,” Zuckerberg protested, getting a rare laugh from the courtroom. Lanier went on to present Meta documents outlining communication strategies for Zuckerberg, describing his team as “telling you what kind of answers to give,” including in a context such as testifying under oath. “I’m not sure what you’re trying to imply,” Zuckerberg said. In the afternoon, Meta counsel Paul Schmidt returned to that line of questioning, asking if Zuckerberg had to speak to the media because of his role as head of a major business. “More than I would like,” Zuckerberg said, to more laughter.

In an even more, well, “meta” moment after the court had returned from lunch, Kuhl struck a stern tone by warning all in the room that anyone wearing “glasses that record”—such as the AI-equipped Oakley and Ray-Ban glasses sold by Meta for up to $499—had to remove them while attending the proceedings, where both video and audio recordings are prohibited.

K.G.M.’s suit and the others to follow are novel in their sidestepping of Section 230, a law that has protected tech companies from liability for content created by users on their platforms. As such, Zuckerberg stuck to a playbook that framed the lawsuit as a fundamental misunderstanding of how Meta works. When Lanier presented evidence that Meta teams were working on increasing the minutes users spent on their platforms each day, Zuckerberg countered that the company had long ago moved on from those objectives, or that those numbers were not even “goals” per se, just metrics of competitiveness within the industry. When Lanier questioned if Meta was merely hiding behind an age limit policy that was “unenforced” and maybe “unenforceable,” per an email from Nick Clegg, Meta’s former president of global affairs, Zuckerberg calmly deflected with a narrative about people circumventing their safeguards despite continual improvements on that front.

Lanier, though, could always return to K.G.M., who he said had signed up for Instagram at the age of 9, some five years before the app started asking users for their birthday in 2019. While Zuckerberg could more or less brush off internal data on, say, the need to convert tweens into loyal teen users, or Meta’s apparent rejection of the alarming expert analysis they had commissioned on the risks of Instagram’s “beauty filters,” he didn’t have a prepackaged response to Lanier’s grand finale: a billboard-sized tarp, which took up half the width of the courtroom and required seven people to hold, of hundreds of posts from K.G.M.’s Instagram account. As Zuckerberg blinked hard at the vast display, visible only to himself, Kuhl, and the jury, Lanier said it was a measure of the sheer amount of time K.G.M. had poured into the app. “In a sense, y’all own these pictures,” he added. “I’m not sure that’s accurate,” Zuckerberg replied.

When Lanier had finished and Schmidt was given the chance to set Zuckerberg up for an alternate vision of Meta as a utopia of connection and free expression, the founder quickly gained his stride again. “I wanted people to have a good experience with it,” he said of the company’s platforms. Then, a moment later: “People shift their time naturally according to what they find valuable.”