The Scientific 7-Minute Workout(well.blogs.nytimes.com)
well.blogs.nytimes.com
The Scientific 7-Minute Workout
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/09/the-scientific-7-minute-workout/?
380 comments
>Please don't waste your time with this "workout," unless of course you're so weak and fragile that it'll literally kill you to do a squat.
I think gym-nerds vastly underestimate how out of shape the median person is. I started doing a variation of this regimen every day before work two weeks ago and I feel better already. I was sore for the first two days from just a few sets of squats.
Who gives a fuck about being able to bench press all you can bench press? It sounds like macho bullshit to me. I don't care about being as strong as I can be.
I care about not being winded when I hit the top of the stairs, and I care about not having back aches from sitting in a chair all the time, and I care about dying a bit later than sooner. If a few simple bodyweight reps once a day or three times a week will get me there without the expense and the hours wasted travelling to and from gyms all so much the better.
I think gym-nerds vastly underestimate how out of shape the median person is. I started doing a variation of this regimen every day before work two weeks ago and I feel better already. I was sore for the first two days from just a few sets of squats.
Who gives a fuck about being able to bench press all you can bench press? It sounds like macho bullshit to me. I don't care about being as strong as I can be.
I care about not being winded when I hit the top of the stairs, and I care about not having back aches from sitting in a chair all the time, and I care about dying a bit later than sooner. If a few simple bodyweight reps once a day or three times a week will get me there without the expense and the hours wasted travelling to and from gyms all so much the better.
> I don't care about being as strong as I can be.
You should.
From the introduction to Rippetoe's Starting Strength:
“Physical strength is the most important thing in life. This is true whether we want it to be or not. As humanity has developed throughout history, physical strength has become less critical to our daily existence, but no less important to our lives. Our strength, more than any other thing we possess, still determines the quality and the quantity of our time here in these bodies. Whereas previously our physical strength determined how much food we ate and how warm and dry we stayed, it now merely determines how well we function in these new surroundings we have crafted for ourselves as our culture has accumulated. But we are still animals - our physical existence is, in the final analysis, the only one that actually matters. A weak man is not as happy as that same man would be if he were strong. This reality is offensive to some people who would like the intellectual or spiritual to take precedence. It is instructive to see what happens to these very people as their squat strength goes up.”
You should.
From the introduction to Rippetoe's Starting Strength:
“Physical strength is the most important thing in life. This is true whether we want it to be or not. As humanity has developed throughout history, physical strength has become less critical to our daily existence, but no less important to our lives. Our strength, more than any other thing we possess, still determines the quality and the quantity of our time here in these bodies. Whereas previously our physical strength determined how much food we ate and how warm and dry we stayed, it now merely determines how well we function in these new surroundings we have crafted for ourselves as our culture has accumulated. But we are still animals - our physical existence is, in the final analysis, the only one that actually matters. A weak man is not as happy as that same man would be if he were strong. This reality is offensive to some people who would like the intellectual or spiritual to take precedence. It is instructive to see what happens to these very people as their squat strength goes up.”
self-help deep shit. It seems that HN readers read a lot of self help shit. Maybe everyone does. How can you read that kind of generalist catch-phrase style and not perceive it's lack of quality?
Because it worked for me. Strength training helped me overcome the RSI and back pain which plagued me while I was still inclined to overvalue the intellectual over the physical.
Given NFL players tend to be carefully trained and I would assume as strong as possible, why do they tend to have shorter than expected life expectancy? Or world class athletes in general? Doesn't that show that going to an extreme and being as strong as possible perhaps isn't actually leading to a longer life?
Reading the disagreeing replies to this post is extremely enlightening. You see one thing: people who don't want to exercise will use just about any method to deny its extreme importance.
let's face the obvious (actually insanelly obvious). Money is the most important thing in life. If you are strong and poor, you will live less.
I think there's a difference between being (1) healthy (2) strong (3) strong as can be. There's an argument for being healthy, an argument for being strong, but I don't see an argument for being as strong as you can be. Other parts of your life would suffer if you focused on strength at the expense of all else.
I lift weights, and the above passage is religious horseshit, like much of what I've read in books about weight lifting. I didn't become happier when I could lift more. I couldn't have cared less, and I only lift weights because it's considered beneficial by medical experts.
The worst part about weight lifting isn't setting aside time to lift weights; the worst part is consuming information produced by weight lifters.
The worst part about weight lifting isn't setting aside time to lift weights; the worst part is consuming information produced by weight lifters.
>But we are still animals - our physical existence is, in the final analysis, the only one that actually matters.
Uhm, like I said - macho bullshit. There is not a single actual argument in that paragraph past "strength good weak bad".
People historically were as strong as they had to be; I have a pretty good intuition about this as I'm only about two generations removed from subsistence farming. It's not like you had the time - or often, the calories - to spend doing pointless exercise.
I care about feeling comfortable in my body. I'm sure being able to lift 300lbs makes you feel more confident! but I learned how to be confident a few years ago.
Do exercise because it makes you feel good, and because our bodies need a workout every now and then. Don't get caught up in some silly statistic; there's a diminishing ROI past a certain level of fitness (which, admittedly, I'm currently still far from attaining).
Uhm, like I said - macho bullshit. There is not a single actual argument in that paragraph past "strength good weak bad".
People historically were as strong as they had to be; I have a pretty good intuition about this as I'm only about two generations removed from subsistence farming. It's not like you had the time - or often, the calories - to spend doing pointless exercise.
I care about feeling comfortable in my body. I'm sure being able to lift 300lbs makes you feel more confident! but I learned how to be confident a few years ago.
Do exercise because it makes you feel good, and because our bodies need a workout every now and then. Don't get caught up in some silly statistic; there's a diminishing ROI past a certain level of fitness (which, admittedly, I'm currently still far from attaining).
It is instructive to see what happens to these very people as their squat strength goes up
This is a claim worth investigating, not "macho bullshit"
This is a claim worth investigating, not "macho bullshit"
From personal experience, you start moving a bit differently, and not shy away from certain positions and ways of doing things. It's certainly nice, but it didn't change the way I interact with people or make different people attracted to me or anything like that. It's a bit of improvement, but learning the Bayes theorem was an order of magnitude more awesome, and reading up on syntax theory, physics, AI and bits of Marxism plus moving countries worked way better for getting people interested in me.
Of course this is anecdotal, but that's what I would expect from the experiment. Secondary confidence improvement would be expected, but that's thanks to awareness that you are more compliant with what Men's Health says you should look like, not inherent property of humans (see: places and times when fat people were seen as more attractive).
Of course this is anecdotal, but that's what I would expect from the experiment. Secondary confidence improvement would be expected, but that's thanks to awareness that you are more compliant with what Men's Health says you should look like, not inherent property of humans (see: places and times when fat people were seen as more attractive).
I find that it gives you a feeling of wellbeing that you can't get elsewhere. I don't mean that you can't feel good if you aren't strong. I mean the feeling of wellbeing that you get from it is unique and I haven't found it elsewhere.
Eh, I wouldn't relate it to squat strength, and it has diminishing returns. But biochemistry of the brain during exercise is fun stuff, and explains a lot of elation people have.
It's definitely related to squat strength. It makes me feel light of my feet, well balanced and generally younger than any other form of exercise that I've done.
Physical strength is the most important thing in life.
What a load of shit. I was actually considering checking this guy's stuff out until you posted that.
It's a well-used sales line: You've got somebody on the hook- they obviously think it's important or they wouldn't be looking at the book. They also obviously don't have what you're selling, so they wouldn't know any better. Then, make an argument (emotional if possible) as to why they need this. Presto: sale. And perhaps guru status.
I imagine this works for similar "my life would be better if only..." sales. Penis enhancers come to mind.
I think the OP's workout is a great place to start. The only caveat is that you want to go through the routine several times as you get proficient. The exercises are part of the "core" exercises that serious athletes are doing. If you stick with it you can add yoga, bosu, and medicine balls to the mix to work on your stabilizing muscles. You can add dumbells and barbell exercises too. I added "core" to my workouts about a year ago and am please.
What a load of shit. I was actually considering checking this guy's stuff out until you posted that.
It's a well-used sales line: You've got somebody on the hook- they obviously think it's important or they wouldn't be looking at the book. They also obviously don't have what you're selling, so they wouldn't know any better. Then, make an argument (emotional if possible) as to why they need this. Presto: sale. And perhaps guru status.
I imagine this works for similar "my life would be better if only..." sales. Penis enhancers come to mind.
I think the OP's workout is a great place to start. The only caveat is that you want to go through the routine several times as you get proficient. The exercises are part of the "core" exercises that serious athletes are doing. If you stick with it you can add yoga, bosu, and medicine balls to the mix to work on your stabilizing muscles. You can add dumbells and barbell exercises too. I added "core" to my workouts about a year ago and am please.
> What a load of shit.
As your strength declines, so does your life. You can no longer play with your kids. You can no longer get up stairs. You can't care for your house or yourself. Someday, you will no longer be able to get out of bed.
As your strength declines, so does your life. You can no longer play with your kids. You can no longer get up stairs. You can't care for your house or yourself. Someday, you will no longer be able to get out of bed.
As your strength declines, so does your life.
Correlation is not causation (you might as well flip it around). And I'm afraid that even for the strongest person, they're will come a day where they won't be able to get out of bed.
Correlation is not causation (you might as well flip it around). And I'm afraid that even for the strongest person, they're will come a day where they won't be able to get out of bed.
Sorry to challenge your inept logical fallacy wankery, but a lack of strength does directly cause a lower quality of life. Capability and independence are vital to happiness. And yes, strength can be improved and maintained right up until death if you work at it.
Lowering your quality of life is far different from being the most important thing. A lot of things change when you age that work to lower the quality of your life; your happiness depends greatly on how you handle it.
I should because one single physically strong person told me I should?
Before being a programmer, I was a soldier, and before that, a rugby player. I've had my share of extreme fitness levels, and I've known and am friends with a lot of strong people. Trust me, strenght is fun, but to make it the most important thing is plain wrong. Life is not uni-dimensional. Obviously, it's unclear what Rippetoe means by important. Does he mean it'll make you happy, live longer, healthier, good looking, etc.? Until he specifies that, he is saying absolutely nothing of value.
By the way, Physical existence, is, in no way, related to strength.
If you want my 2 cents, the only thing that works to get fit is: "Shut the fuck up and exercise!". All the time spent to talk about it, find a good workout, supplements, etc. Is worthless in the beginning if you can't shut it and do some physical activity.
The high intensity circuit training have been demonstrated to be more efficient at certain objectives, everyone that calls bullshit, probably never did high intensity circuit training properly, and for a reasonably long enough period of time, or has objectives to which it has not been proven to be good at. Other type of workouts can be just as good, or better, depending on the objective, and your context. If you only have 10 minutes a day, you don't really have a choice now do you.
Obviously, nothing will ever compare to having an active lifestyle. The reason we even need workouts are because our modern lives are so inactive.
Also, don't think because it's so short, it is easy. Sometimes, more motivation might be needed to perform high intensity circuit training properly. Higher injury rates can occur if done poorly. Depending on individuals, it is easier to perform at lesser intensity for longer times.
Before being a programmer, I was a soldier, and before that, a rugby player. I've had my share of extreme fitness levels, and I've known and am friends with a lot of strong people. Trust me, strenght is fun, but to make it the most important thing is plain wrong. Life is not uni-dimensional. Obviously, it's unclear what Rippetoe means by important. Does he mean it'll make you happy, live longer, healthier, good looking, etc.? Until he specifies that, he is saying absolutely nothing of value.
By the way, Physical existence, is, in no way, related to strength.
If you want my 2 cents, the only thing that works to get fit is: "Shut the fuck up and exercise!". All the time spent to talk about it, find a good workout, supplements, etc. Is worthless in the beginning if you can't shut it and do some physical activity.
The high intensity circuit training have been demonstrated to be more efficient at certain objectives, everyone that calls bullshit, probably never did high intensity circuit training properly, and for a reasonably long enough period of time, or has objectives to which it has not been proven to be good at. Other type of workouts can be just as good, or better, depending on the objective, and your context. If you only have 10 minutes a day, you don't really have a choice now do you.
Obviously, nothing will ever compare to having an active lifestyle. The reason we even need workouts are because our modern lives are so inactive.
Also, don't think because it's so short, it is easy. Sometimes, more motivation might be needed to perform high intensity circuit training properly. Higher injury rates can occur if done poorly. Depending on individuals, it is easier to perform at lesser intensity for longer times.
I've never met anyone else who's gone the soldier -> programmer route. Who did you serve with?
Canadian Army, 34th Brigade, R de Mais. You?
If I'm not mistaken, I think Zed Shaw was an american soldier before becoming a programmer.
If I'm not mistaken, I think Zed Shaw was an american soldier before becoming a programmer.
[deleted]
>Physical strength is the most important thing in life.
BS in its purest form. Makes this guy untrustworthy. Actually, I find all of the fitness popularizing guys somewhat untrustworthy. I'm not sure why, my subconscious tells me that there's something fishy about them.
BS in its purest form. Makes this guy untrustworthy. Actually, I find all of the fitness popularizing guys somewhat untrustworthy. I'm not sure why, my subconscious tells me that there's something fishy about them.
Have you ever been strong? If not how can you evaluate this claim as it relates to you?
Or, in Reddit parlance:
"Bro, do you even lift?"
"Bro, do you even lift?"
[deleted]
I've never been particularly strong, but strength is clearly not the most important thing in life, that's just common sense.
"I may not be able to design a car, but I still wouldn't want to have an AMC Gremlin."
Let's see.
"Cognitive strength is the most important thing in life. This is true whether we want it to be or not. As humanity has developed throughout history, individual intelligence has become less critical to our daily existence, but no less important to our lives. Our intelligence, more than any other thing we possess, still determines the quality and the quantity of our time here in these bodies. Whereas previously our intelligence determined how much food we ate and how warm and dry we stayed, it now merely determines how well we function in these new surroundings we have crafted for ourselves as our culture has accumulated. But we are still animals - our cognitive existence is, in the final analysis, the only one that actually matters. A stupid man is not as happy as that same man would be if he were smart. This reality is offensive to some people who would like the physical or spiritual to take precedence. It is instructive to see what happens to these very people as their ability to do math goes up." -- some ranting fool
Or try the experiment with "visual acuity". Or with "a strong family connection". Or with "memory". They all work just as well as "strength".
Individual sentences in the Rippetoe quote are true (like "strong is happier than weak" and "strength is less day-to-day essential than it was, but still very important to overall life" and "it's instructive to see what happens as you get stronger"). The overall package, with the superlative phrasing exemplified by the first sentence, is total utter bullshit.
Replies like hoelle's, below, about "play with kids" and "get up stairs".... that's true of strength, but it applies to things other than strength, too. Again, "visual acuity" is a drop-in replacement, and so is "short-term memory".
"Cognitive strength is the most important thing in life. This is true whether we want it to be or not. As humanity has developed throughout history, individual intelligence has become less critical to our daily existence, but no less important to our lives. Our intelligence, more than any other thing we possess, still determines the quality and the quantity of our time here in these bodies. Whereas previously our intelligence determined how much food we ate and how warm and dry we stayed, it now merely determines how well we function in these new surroundings we have crafted for ourselves as our culture has accumulated. But we are still animals - our cognitive existence is, in the final analysis, the only one that actually matters. A stupid man is not as happy as that same man would be if he were smart. This reality is offensive to some people who would like the physical or spiritual to take precedence. It is instructive to see what happens to these very people as their ability to do math goes up." -- some ranting fool
Or try the experiment with "visual acuity". Or with "a strong family connection". Or with "memory". They all work just as well as "strength".
Individual sentences in the Rippetoe quote are true (like "strong is happier than weak" and "strength is less day-to-day essential than it was, but still very important to overall life" and "it's instructive to see what happens as you get stronger"). The overall package, with the superlative phrasing exemplified by the first sentence, is total utter bullshit.
Replies like hoelle's, below, about "play with kids" and "get up stairs".... that's true of strength, but it applies to things other than strength, too. Again, "visual acuity" is a drop-in replacement, and so is "short-term memory".
Except that when you replace "physical strength" with "cognitive strength", you start having sentences that are very obviously false, like this one: "Whereas previously our intelligence determined how much food we ate and how warm and dry we stayed, it now merely determines how well we function in these new surroundings we have crafted for ourselves as our culture has accumulated."
I think that sentence is perfect as-is. Which part do you disagree with?
First of all, pre-civilized humans (and especially our pre-human ancestors) were highly dependent on intelligence for acquiring food, and staying warm and dry. The part before the comma is obviously true.
Second of all, modern humans in civilization do not usually require intelligence to eat and stay warm and dry, just like we don't require strength. Many humans do well because of inheritance, or because of familial support (this one was available to pre-civilized humans too), and some modern humans benefit from society-level support (admittedly a minority). And many many humans need only minimal intelligence to contribute to their economy enough to buy food and shelter.
The only tricky part is arguing that intelligence helps us function today. For some people it helps, for some people it seems to hurt. Was that your complaint?
First of all, pre-civilized humans (and especially our pre-human ancestors) were highly dependent on intelligence for acquiring food, and staying warm and dry. The part before the comma is obviously true.
Second of all, modern humans in civilization do not usually require intelligence to eat and stay warm and dry, just like we don't require strength. Many humans do well because of inheritance, or because of familial support (this one was available to pre-civilized humans too), and some modern humans benefit from society-level support (admittedly a minority). And many many humans need only minimal intelligence to contribute to their economy enough to buy food and shelter.
The only tricky part is arguing that intelligence helps us function today. For some people it helps, for some people it seems to hurt. Was that your complaint?
I guess we need to define precisely what we mean by cognitive strength. Living in the modern world successfully requires you to understand things like understanding interest rates, monthly payments, and logging into your bank website to check the balance on your account. The amount of intelligence required for that is either greater, or we are talking about a different kind of intelligence, than the kind that required you to hunt and find shelter in caves.
You are absolutely proving my point.
No, modern life provably does not require any of those skills in order to stay fed and warm and dry. For example, zero of my cousins (I have two cousins) have ANY of those three skills, and both of them have survived into their thirties. I wouldn't be shocked if one of them had reproduced, in fact (if so, I pity the female involved).
On the other hand, all three of those skills help to "determine how well we function in these new surroundings" of modern culture.
The minimum intelligence requirements to stay fed and warm and dry, in modern society, are far lower today than any time in the history or pre-history of "humanity". Just like with the minimum requirements for strength. This isn't even a claim about social safety nets. Society is just so rich, food is just so cheap, that you can be a pretty crappy contributor, and even so some other smart guy will figure out how to put you to work, to his profit, and give you just enough to live. It's a good time to be a loser. (It's a great time to be a winner.)
(Oh, and also, I happen to disagree that the intelligence required to understand monthly payments or logging into a website is greater than that for reliably hunting or finding reliable shelter. Interest rates, I'm not sure. But this whole paragraph is beside my main point.)
No, modern life provably does not require any of those skills in order to stay fed and warm and dry. For example, zero of my cousins (I have two cousins) have ANY of those three skills, and both of them have survived into their thirties. I wouldn't be shocked if one of them had reproduced, in fact (if so, I pity the female involved).
On the other hand, all three of those skills help to "determine how well we function in these new surroundings" of modern culture.
The minimum intelligence requirements to stay fed and warm and dry, in modern society, are far lower today than any time in the history or pre-history of "humanity". Just like with the minimum requirements for strength. This isn't even a claim about social safety nets. Society is just so rich, food is just so cheap, that you can be a pretty crappy contributor, and even so some other smart guy will figure out how to put you to work, to his profit, and give you just enough to live. It's a good time to be a loser. (It's a great time to be a winner.)
(Oh, and also, I happen to disagree that the intelligence required to understand monthly payments or logging into a website is greater than that for reliably hunting or finding reliable shelter. Interest rates, I'm not sure. But this whole paragraph is beside my main point.)
Yes, obviously a basic level of fitness is important. But improving your body composition (LBM) has long term dramatic benefits to both longevity and quality of life.
I'll add that, if you've never been strong, you don't know what you're missing.
You could try it, and decide it's not for you. But a lot of self-professed nerds disdain it, assuming it's something only stupid jocks do.
It's not. Getting strong has been one of the most fulfilling things I've ever done. It's also had lasting effects in pain reduction, how other perceive me, and my self-confidence.
You could try it, and decide it's not for you. But a lot of self-professed nerds disdain it, assuming it's something only stupid jocks do.
It's not. Getting strong has been one of the most fulfilling things I've ever done. It's also had lasting effects in pain reduction, how other perceive me, and my self-confidence.
Weightlifting is great, but there are other methods that work well for a lot of people. You can get strong enough to bench-press 400lbs simply by doing bodyweight exercises, so it's not like someone has to choose between lifting weights or being a weakling.
[deleted]
>You can get strong enough to bench-press 400lbs simply by doing bodyweight exercises
bullshit.
bullshit.
>You can get strong enough to bench-press 400lbs simply by doing bodyweight exercises
I don't see how this would ever be possible - is there a specific method you're referring to? Coaches don't put football players in front of a p90x DVD, they stick them under a barbell add some heavy weight to it.
I don't see how this would ever be possible - is there a specific method you're referring to? Coaches don't put football players in front of a p90x DVD, they stick them under a barbell add some heavy weight to it.
It's possible by using leverage to increase the difficulty of an exercise. For example, with the push up, you can start by doing normal push-ups, then elevate your feet to add resistance. Eventually, you should be able to do handstand push-ups. When you are strong enough, you can start working through the series of exercises that leads up to doing a planche.
Example of a planche. http://www.crossfitgymnastics.com/uploads/gymnastics/image/T...
Example of a planche. http://www.crossfitgymnastics.com/uploads/gymnastics/image/T...
Except for the fact that is baseless and ridiculous. Pushups and Handstand pushups use different muscle groups. Me being capable of doing handstand pushups does not translate in any way to me pushing more on a bench press.
Aside from the fact that you only read half of my comment, the bench-press and handstand push ups don't completely overlap, but some of the same muscles are used for both of them.
Muscles Targeted by Push-Ups
http://www.livestrong.com/article/141152-what-muscles-do-pus...
Muscles targeted by bench-press.
http://www.livestrong.com/article/167707-the-muscle-groups-u...
Am I wrong or do these two exercises seem to target the same muscle groups?
Also, the muscle groups targeted by both exercises depends largely on hand placement. The same would apply for hand-stand push-ups, just to a lesser degree.
http://www.livestrong.com/article/141152-what-muscles-do-pus...
Muscles targeted by bench-press.
http://www.livestrong.com/article/167707-the-muscle-groups-u...
Am I wrong or do these two exercises seem to target the same muscle groups?
Also, the muscle groups targeted by both exercises depends largely on hand placement. The same would apply for hand-stand push-ups, just to a lesser degree.
If you are interested in bodyweight training, check out this excellent book: http://www.amazon.com/Overcoming-Gravity-Systematic-Gymnasti...
That's true, but pretty much nobody who does body weight exercises actually do body weight exercises that are hard enough to get that level of strength. It's much easier to delude yourself with body weight exercises, if you want to.
I bench a "measly" 286lbs, about 1.3 times body weight, which isn't all that amazing. I can trivially easily get up to substantial numbers of regular push ups in a few weeks. But getting to that 400lbs range, there's a whole set of progressions towards being able to do planche push ups etc. that I'm not able to do at all at my current strength. But most people doing body weight exercises just end up adding a few extra push ups or doing slight variations that don't overload them much more.
I think that's one of the largest benefits of lifting weights for most people: It's very, very easy to track progress and make sure you're not cheating yourself. Even so, enough people still manage to cheat themselves (and wonder why they're not getting bigger muscles...)
I bench a "measly" 286lbs, about 1.3 times body weight, which isn't all that amazing. I can trivially easily get up to substantial numbers of regular push ups in a few weeks. But getting to that 400lbs range, there's a whole set of progressions towards being able to do planche push ups etc. that I'm not able to do at all at my current strength. But most people doing body weight exercises just end up adding a few extra push ups or doing slight variations that don't overload them much more.
I think that's one of the largest benefits of lifting weights for most people: It's very, very easy to track progress and make sure you're not cheating yourself. Even so, enough people still manage to cheat themselves (and wonder why they're not getting bigger muscles...)
Sure, but 99.9% of people who get into weightlifting also fail to achieve a 400lb bench-press. Most people don't need to be that strong.
I'm 5'6", and by doing only basic bodyweight exercises, push-ups, pull-ups, and dips, I could bench press 180lbs 10 times at a body weight of 155. That's not bad at all in my opinion.
I'm 5'6", and by doing only basic bodyweight exercises, push-ups, pull-ups, and dips, I could bench press 180lbs 10 times at a body weight of 155. That's not bad at all in my opinion.
180lbs x 10 gives you an estimated 1RM in the 240lbs region, which at a body weight of 155 puts you closer to advanced than intermediate, if you did them with full range of motion (based on this site: http://www.exrx.net/Testing/WeightLifting/StrengthStandards.... ). So that's pretty good - it puts you in a range that's expected for someone who have spent a few years doing weights.
But my point is that even people who want to get bigger seem to fail to progress more often with body weight exercises than with weights because the progress is so easy to measure: Either your numbers go up, or they don't, and while people do certainly cheat themselves with poor form or range of motion, I see less of it with weights than with body weights. Perhaps the biggest problem for people getting started with body weight exercises is that they don't know how to progress and so a lot of them end up dicking around with the same basic exercises with the same rep ranges without ever getting anywhere.
Conversely if you do know how to progress and is strict, you can do amazing things with body weight exercises - it's not unusual for high level gymnasts to be able to go straight in and put weight lifters to shame without ever lifting regularly, for example.
But my point is that even people who want to get bigger seem to fail to progress more often with body weight exercises than with weights because the progress is so easy to measure: Either your numbers go up, or they don't, and while people do certainly cheat themselves with poor form or range of motion, I see less of it with weights than with body weights. Perhaps the biggest problem for people getting started with body weight exercises is that they don't know how to progress and so a lot of them end up dicking around with the same basic exercises with the same rep ranges without ever getting anywhere.
Conversely if you do know how to progress and is strict, you can do amazing things with body weight exercises - it's not unusual for high level gymnasts to be able to go straight in and put weight lifters to shame without ever lifting regularly, for example.
Carryover from resistance exercises to other resistance exercises is a legitimate phenomenon. Adding 5kg to my overhead press added 15kg to my bench press (I bench press a few times per year).
That is indeed a fair accomplishment. I've been weight training for about a year. Had to take time off, but at my max four months ago I could only get about 170 on the bench press, times five reps.
What kind of body weight routine do you have, and does it depend on any equipment such as dip bars? I'm looking for a good one for when I go traveling.
What kind of body weight routine do you have, and does it depend on any equipment such as dip bars? I'm looking for a good one for when I go traveling.
I focused mostly on pull-ups. I was in the military at the time and we had a pull-up bar near the exit of our work area. I typically did several sets of 10-15 each day. It took several months to work up to this point. At my best, I could do a single set of 30.
In addition to the pull-ups, I would do the Army's regular work out. This would involve running 2-3 miles 2-3 times a week, and performing general calisthenics(similar to the 7 minute workout originally posted, just at a slower pace.) 2-3 times a week.
In addition to the pull-ups, I would do the Army's regular work out. This would involve running 2-3 miles 2-3 times a week, and performing general calisthenics(similar to the 7 minute workout originally posted, just at a slower pace.) 2-3 times a week.
If this were Wikipedia there would be a [citation needed] at the end of this claim. Care to offer evidence?
Herschel Walker claims to have bench pressed 375 the first time he ever tried. His workout involved 750-100 push-ups and 2000 sit-ups daily. I've read elsewhere that he once managed 500lbs, but it was a long time ago and I can't find a reliable source.
The other example I have is from Christopher Sommer, a famous U.S. gymnastics coach. He mentioned an athlete that could benchpress 400lbs either in an online article or his book. I can't remember which, but I haven't been able to find it. I did find an article where he mentions a young athlete trained solely through bodyweight exercise, that managed to deadlift 400lbs at a bodyweight of 135.
http://www.dragondoor.com/articles/building-an-olympic-body-...
I forgot another source. When I was in the military we had a martial arts instructor that was about 6'3" and 250lbs of muscle. He claimed that his only other source of exercise was Yoga.
The other example I have is from Christopher Sommer, a famous U.S. gymnastics coach. He mentioned an athlete that could benchpress 400lbs either in an online article or his book. I can't remember which, but I haven't been able to find it. I did find an article where he mentions a young athlete trained solely through bodyweight exercise, that managed to deadlift 400lbs at a bodyweight of 135.
http://www.dragondoor.com/articles/building-an-olympic-body-...
I forgot another source. When I was in the military we had a martial arts instructor that was about 6'3" and 250lbs of muscle. He claimed that his only other source of exercise was Yoga.
It seems like these people represent exceptions to the rule more often than what is achievable by ordinary people within an ordinary time period. If I had as my goal to bench press 400 lbs within 2-3 years I wouldn't rely on body weight exercises alone.
There are ways to get incredibly strong using only body weight exercises (inmates and yoga practitioners do it, after all), but to my knowledge these all require a greater time investment due to the higher number of reps, and the results materialize over a much longer time span. I imagine that most HN readers are more interested in a time-efficient form of exercise.
Unless you want to avoid sports or paying for a gym membership entirely, the only real benefit seems to be that you can move up very slowly and conservatively, with little risk of injury.
There are ways to get incredibly strong using only body weight exercises (inmates and yoga practitioners do it, after all), but to my knowledge these all require a greater time investment due to the higher number of reps, and the results materialize over a much longer time span. I imagine that most HN readers are more interested in a time-efficient form of exercise.
Unless you want to avoid sports or paying for a gym membership entirely, the only real benefit seems to be that you can move up very slowly and conservatively, with little risk of injury.
> It seems like these people represent exceptions to the rule
Basically this.
I was a gymnast for 18 years (from 2 - 20 years old). Obviously, it wasn't professional level the entire time, but starting a bit before high school, workouts would be 5 or 6 times a week, for 4-5 hours. There was never any weightlifting, only body weight exercises. Those guys you see on TV doing Still Rings, Pommel Horse, etc., they didn't get that strong through weight training. It's just hours and hours of practice and so-called 'endurance' conditioning. I say 'so-called endurance' because most gymnasts that I met were pretty bad endurance wise, judging on ability to run for awhile. A lot of us topped out at a couple of miles, before we needed to walk.
Gymnastics is a sport that isn't assisted by weight training. There are a few exercises that use weights, like wrist therapy using 5-10 pound free weights. But all those physiques you see on TV are just thousands of hours of work, and those hours make for some of the leanest, strongest people.
Here are two videos of some good, professional-level routines:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScgJJDYeqqg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRDzQX6MzHo
You literally can not learn to do that through weightlifting. You cannot gain the strength those two use through weightlifting. It's not because the positions themselves are difficult, those are usually the easy parts to train and practice. It's the transitions between two different positions that is difficult, and cannot be trained by weightlifting. Gymnastics is a dynamic sport, weightlifting is a static exercise. The best that weightlifting can do is make the holds a bit easier, but that isn't really necessary, because those aren't as hard to train as the fluid transitions.
Basically this.
I was a gymnast for 18 years (from 2 - 20 years old). Obviously, it wasn't professional level the entire time, but starting a bit before high school, workouts would be 5 or 6 times a week, for 4-5 hours. There was never any weightlifting, only body weight exercises. Those guys you see on TV doing Still Rings, Pommel Horse, etc., they didn't get that strong through weight training. It's just hours and hours of practice and so-called 'endurance' conditioning. I say 'so-called endurance' because most gymnasts that I met were pretty bad endurance wise, judging on ability to run for awhile. A lot of us topped out at a couple of miles, before we needed to walk.
Gymnastics is a sport that isn't assisted by weight training. There are a few exercises that use weights, like wrist therapy using 5-10 pound free weights. But all those physiques you see on TV are just thousands of hours of work, and those hours make for some of the leanest, strongest people.
Here are two videos of some good, professional-level routines:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScgJJDYeqqg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRDzQX6MzHo
You literally can not learn to do that through weightlifting. You cannot gain the strength those two use through weightlifting. It's not because the positions themselves are difficult, those are usually the easy parts to train and practice. It's the transitions between two different positions that is difficult, and cannot be trained by weightlifting. Gymnastics is a dynamic sport, weightlifting is a static exercise. The best that weightlifting can do is make the holds a bit easier, but that isn't really necessary, because those aren't as hard to train as the fluid transitions.
I admire and respect the difficulty of gymnastics, but people are good at what they do most of. Give me a gymnast and powerlifter who weigh the same and I expect that the PLer will smoke the gymnast at bench press and the gymnast will smoke the PLer at planche pushups.
> Gymnastics is a dynamic sport, weightlifting is a static exercise.
I dunno, man. The snatch seems to happen fairly quickly.
> Gymnastics is a dynamic sport, weightlifting is a static exercise.
I dunno, man. The snatch seems to happen fairly quickly.
Isn't pretty much anyone that benches 400lbs an exception to the rule? I've known a couple people that could, but they pretty much live inside a gym.
A genetic freak doesn't need to do anything to be strong, they just are.
The fact is that any given person will be significantly stronger after N months of training using "optimal" barbell training than using "optimal" bodyweight exercises assuming an appropriate diet.
You will get stronger using bodyweight exercises or P90x but it will take longer and you will never get as strong as using barbell training so why do it?
The fact is that any given person will be significantly stronger after N months of training using "optimal" barbell training than using "optimal" bodyweight exercises assuming an appropriate diet.
You will get stronger using bodyweight exercises or P90x but it will take longer and you will never get as strong as using barbell training so why do it?
professional gymnasts heavily abuse PEDs. Taking enough test you can build more muscle sitting on your ass than someone lifting heavy weights naturally.
Has coach sommer or any of his athletes been linked to PED scandals? I haven't heard of any, but it's possible.
Also, couldn't you say the same thing about professional weightlifters?
The pissing contest between weightlifting and other types of strength training is pretty ridiculous. As I said in one of my original comments, both methods are completely viable. Whether you use weights or bodyweight exercise, a person who exercises is going to be far better off than someone who doesn't.
Also, couldn't you say the same thing about professional weightlifters?
The pissing contest between weightlifting and other types of strength training is pretty ridiculous. As I said in one of my original comments, both methods are completely viable. Whether you use weights or bodyweight exercise, a person who exercises is going to be far better off than someone who doesn't.
of course not, their entire existence revolves around not getting caught.
Edit: I looked up some of the claims about strength gains of Sommer's athletes. He's bragging about 400lb deadlifts, 75lb pullups after years and years of training. For reference I hit those numbers for reps in less than 18 months at a bodyweight of 145 with an actual lifting routine, and I consider my progress to be slightly slow compared to a lot of other lifting logs on fitness sites. I expect any other numbers I find to be similarly unimpressive. In general I find that the claims about bodyweight exercise follow this pattern, proponents simply do not understand what constitutes genuine impressive numbers once you are talking about a legitimate strength training program (one used by professional athletes across many sports).
Edit2 found some more claims: Double bodyweight dead lift
Military press with 110% bodyweight
Chins with 50% of his bodyweight for reps
Dips + 60% of his bodyweight for reps
There's nothing here not reachable within 2 years by a young male following a decent program (and that's assuming a start from sedentary).
Edit: I looked up some of the claims about strength gains of Sommer's athletes. He's bragging about 400lb deadlifts, 75lb pullups after years and years of training. For reference I hit those numbers for reps in less than 18 months at a bodyweight of 145 with an actual lifting routine, and I consider my progress to be slightly slow compared to a lot of other lifting logs on fitness sites. I expect any other numbers I find to be similarly unimpressive. In general I find that the claims about bodyweight exercise follow this pattern, proponents simply do not understand what constitutes genuine impressive numbers once you are talking about a legitimate strength training program (one used by professional athletes across many sports).
Edit2 found some more claims: Double bodyweight dead lift
Military press with 110% bodyweight
Chins with 50% of his bodyweight for reps
Dips + 60% of his bodyweight for reps
There's nothing here not reachable within 2 years by a young male following a decent program (and that's assuming a start from sedentary).
I wasn't trying to say that body weight exercise trumps weightlifting when the focus is on strength, I was simply saying that you can build strength in other ways too.
If I woke up one day and decided that the most important thing in my life was to one day bench-press 400 lbs, I would grab a copy of Starting Strength and hit the weights. There really isn't any debate about that.
The original argument against bodyweight exercise was that it's a complete waste of time. It clearly isn't. When I started basic training, about 20 percent of us could actually pass a PT test. Some people could only perform a couple of push-ups. After 8-9 weeks of doing nothing but running and body-weight exercise, nearly everyone passed.
If you took a cycle of recruits, tested them on the bench-press on day 1 of basic training, and then did so again on the last day, I'd be willing to bet that on average, their numbers would be significantly higher.
If I woke up one day and decided that the most important thing in my life was to one day bench-press 400 lbs, I would grab a copy of Starting Strength and hit the weights. There really isn't any debate about that.
The original argument against bodyweight exercise was that it's a complete waste of time. It clearly isn't. When I started basic training, about 20 percent of us could actually pass a PT test. Some people could only perform a couple of push-ups. After 8-9 weeks of doing nothing but running and body-weight exercise, nearly everyone passed.
If you took a cycle of recruits, tested them on the bench-press on day 1 of basic training, and then did so again on the last day, I'd be willing to bet that on average, their numbers would be significantly higher.
That's a strawman, no one is claiming it is a complete waste of time, only that it is inefficient.
Here is the first sentence from the top comment in this thread.
>This is a waste of time.
He then goes on to explain that the only way to get real and lasting benefits from an exercise routine is to go to the gym and lift weights.
>This is a waste of time.
He then goes on to explain that the only way to get real and lasting benefits from an exercise routine is to go to the gym and lift weights.
A waste of time, not a complete waste of time. Inefficiency implies you are wasting time.
I agree that the part about "only real and lasting" is wrong.
I agree that the part about "only real and lasting" is wrong.
Please don't make a claim like that unless you can back it up. See my previous comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5707361
I'll admit that my quick and dirty work out doesn't give me huge body builder style muscles. I am merely athletic, not huge. If I wanted to be huge, I guess I'd have to put in the work, lots of literature on the science of body building.
> huge body builder style muscles
those are INCREDIBLY difficult to get. you're not going to get those just by lifting big with deadlift/squat/presses a couple of times a week.
it's like when women say they don't want to lift because they don't "want to get bulky".
100% pure nonsense. it's VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY difficult to get big muscles.
let me say that again...
it's VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY DIFFICULT to get big muscles. it has to be nearly a full time job for YEARS and YEARS of your life.
those are INCREDIBLY difficult to get. you're not going to get those just by lifting big with deadlift/squat/presses a couple of times a week.
it's like when women say they don't want to lift because they don't "want to get bulky".
100% pure nonsense. it's VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY difficult to get big muscles.
let me say that again...
it's VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY DIFFICULT to get big muscles. it has to be nearly a full time job for YEARS and YEARS of your life.
The women you cite have a point though (while misusing the word "bulky" in front of a bodybuilder / fitness expert)
When I stopped ballroom dancing and started working out more, I did not get bulky in any way, however it surely felt that way!
Gone was my coordination, my elegance, my posture!
Isolated, limited movement with weight is the exact opposite of rhytmic dance movement with lots of body tension.
It annoyed me, but I can imagine that this matters a lot more to women. In dancing I've seen women who might have been a little overweight, moving around gracefully.
Just wanted to point that out, because I have noticed several comments like yours around the 'net recently - maybe people getting a little touchy that the work they put into their body is not appreciated sufficiently?
When I stopped ballroom dancing and started working out more, I did not get bulky in any way, however it surely felt that way!
Gone was my coordination, my elegance, my posture!
Isolated, limited movement with weight is the exact opposite of rhytmic dance movement with lots of body tension.
It annoyed me, but I can imagine that this matters a lot more to women. In dancing I've seen women who might have been a little overweight, moving around gracefully.
Just wanted to point that out, because I have noticed several comments like yours around the 'net recently - maybe people getting a little touchy that the work they put into their body is not appreciated sufficiently?
"Isolated, limited movement" is a horrible way to exercise.
My flexibility, coordination and posture has all improved substantially through lifting - I needed a lot of work to get flexible enough to carry out e.g. deep squats and correct deadlifts without hurting myself.
Do primarily isolation exercises, and yes, you will not spend time maintaining and improving your flexibility and coordination. Do exercises with large range of motion and complex movements, like deep squats, clean and jerk or power clean (power cleans are "easy" compared to clean and jerk), or kettlebell exercises, and add in some dynamic stretches for mobility (separate by time from the lifting), and most people will get far more flexible and coordinated.
Personally I'm annoyed at people worrying about getting bulky for two reasons: Yes, it is annoying seeing beginners be all presumptuous about how easy it'll be, but I also find well trained but non-bulky women more attractive. And I happen to know that most of them will never, ever get into bulky territory without a combination of cutting their body fat to unhealthy levels and steroid use, so I would love more women to lift weights..
My flexibility, coordination and posture has all improved substantially through lifting - I needed a lot of work to get flexible enough to carry out e.g. deep squats and correct deadlifts without hurting myself.
Do primarily isolation exercises, and yes, you will not spend time maintaining and improving your flexibility and coordination. Do exercises with large range of motion and complex movements, like deep squats, clean and jerk or power clean (power cleans are "easy" compared to clean and jerk), or kettlebell exercises, and add in some dynamic stretches for mobility (separate by time from the lifting), and most people will get far more flexible and coordinated.
Personally I'm annoyed at people worrying about getting bulky for two reasons: Yes, it is annoying seeing beginners be all presumptuous about how easy it'll be, but I also find well trained but non-bulky women more attractive. And I happen to know that most of them will never, ever get into bulky territory without a combination of cutting their body fat to unhealthy levels and steroid use, so I would love more women to lift weights..
I think you're unfairly blaming weight training for the effect of cessation of skill training.
When, due to injury, I became unable last year to perform either the snatch or the clean and jerk, I was relegated to being able to do whatever it is I could. Lots of less complicated exercises that don't share any patterns in common with either of those two lifts.
At a recent experimental trial of my technique after 15 months away from the two lifts, it came as no surprise that I came kinda bad at them now.
Do I blame the other weight training? No: I realise that these two lifts require constant practice to remain smooth, precise and efficient. It's the same for other inter-muscular coordination tasks. If you stop doing them, you get worse at them.
When, due to injury, I became unable last year to perform either the snatch or the clean and jerk, I was relegated to being able to do whatever it is I could. Lots of less complicated exercises that don't share any patterns in common with either of those two lifts.
At a recent experimental trial of my technique after 15 months away from the two lifts, it came as no surprise that I came kinda bad at them now.
Do I blame the other weight training? No: I realise that these two lifts require constant practice to remain smooth, precise and efficient. It's the same for other inter-muscular coordination tasks. If you stop doing them, you get worse at them.
What kind of exercises were you doing?
After I started barbells, I noticed I got MUCH better at yoga and any activity that requires balance. You cannot lift 250 pounds safely without some measure of balance and grace.
When I look around the gym, I see a lot of people bouncing around when lifting lighter dumbbell weights or using weight machines. It's very possible to lift weights unbalanced, to a point.
However, the most efficient weight training will also train balance.
I'm guessing two things happened in your case:
1. Your form was off, and you unbalanced yourself 2. Your elegance stopped because you had stopped training elegance. It was lack of dance, rather than weight lifting.
Proper weight training does not destroy grace, it augments it.
After I started barbells, I noticed I got MUCH better at yoga and any activity that requires balance. You cannot lift 250 pounds safely without some measure of balance and grace.
When I look around the gym, I see a lot of people bouncing around when lifting lighter dumbbell weights or using weight machines. It's very possible to lift weights unbalanced, to a point.
However, the most efficient weight training will also train balance.
I'm guessing two things happened in your case:
1. Your form was off, and you unbalanced yourself 2. Your elegance stopped because you had stopped training elegance. It was lack of dance, rather than weight lifting.
Proper weight training does not destroy grace, it augments it.
fully agree with you and the other reply:
Lifting requires form and balance and all that, and is beautiful in itself, and for elegance you gotta keep training elegance.
I do maintain that people look bulky and uncoordinated if they are only lift weights and doing nothing else (i.e. excluded people who do other sports, or women in the acrobatic bodybuilding categories etc.). This can be normal/cool for men, but is noticable in women in my opinion.
While we're in a general fitness/workout thread, I want to recommend activities that require coordination and skill. If you are looking for an activity, see if you can find a broader challenge than just a weight - learning a skill in martial arts, experiencing progress more vividly in climbing, swimming and learning all 4 styles etc.
The attitude of articles like this (7 minutes) often feels like "how little do I have to do this dreaded activity for my health conscience". Meh.
Lifting requires form and balance and all that, and is beautiful in itself, and for elegance you gotta keep training elegance.
I do maintain that people look bulky and uncoordinated if they are only lift weights and doing nothing else (i.e. excluded people who do other sports, or women in the acrobatic bodybuilding categories etc.). This can be normal/cool for men, but is noticable in women in my opinion.
While we're in a general fitness/workout thread, I want to recommend activities that require coordination and skill. If you are looking for an activity, see if you can find a broader challenge than just a weight - learning a skill in martial arts, experiencing progress more vividly in climbing, swimming and learning all 4 styles etc.
The attitude of articles like this (7 minutes) often feels like "how little do I have to do this dreaded activity for my health conscience". Meh.
Are you using weight machines? Those are usually isolation exercises that neglect the stabilizer muscles. Most beginning lifting programs such as Starting Strength recommend the major, compound lifts.
There's something quite beautiful in watching a skilled lifter. Lifting a 200 pound bar without the slightest wobble takes no small amount of coordination, as does merely doing a powerclean at all.
There's something quite beautiful in watching a skilled lifter. Lifting a 200 pound bar without the slightest wobble takes no small amount of coordination, as does merely doing a powerclean at all.
[deleted]
And it's worth pointing out a couple of other things most people don't realize:
Almost all of the people you see pictures off with really huge muscles today are/were heavy steroid users. Arnie looks "normal" compared to modern bodybuilders, and he used lots of steroids and put in massive amount of effort (another thing a lot of non-lifters don't understand is that steroid users don't get it easy, what they get is much faster and better recovery, letting them work harder and keep improving beyond a point where non-steroid users plateau) year after year after year. He first won a competition in 1965 after many years of exercise, and got his last Mr Olympia's in 1975 and 1980. The entire competitive field moved massively in that period with
Even more so, you usually see pictures of them that are nothing at all like what they normally look like. When training for Conan, Arnold decided to take one last shot at Mr. Olympia, and went on to win the 1980. Here's what he looked like: http://www.ironmanmagazine.com/blog/johnhansen/2011/12/27/th...
But he looked like this, minutes to hours at a time at most, while covered in oil and dark colouring to bring out his definition. This is Arnold near or at his peak, after months of gruelling competition preparation, followed by making sure he is hydrated just right and his muscles are pumped for competition.
Outside of competition or exercise situations most lifters will be much less lean (especially power lifters) and will ironically often look smaller as a result of less definition and for many a less V-shaped torso that masks some of the development. I even find myself impressed by guys at the gym that I know for a fact are less muscular than me when they happen to be leaner so their build is more noticeable.
I just did heavy (for me) bench sets this morning. When I do, my chest and arms swell enough that my normally well fitting t-shifts stretch noticeably. I have to keep adjusting my polo shirts. This lasts for a couple of hours, and the swelling wears off.
I'm roughly Arnie's height, and weigh as much as he did at his peak. My body volume is bigger than he was at his peak, but I look much smaller because I have about 15kg more fat than him and 15kg or so less muscle... (I can claim my volume is bigger because muscle is more dense than fat - his overall volume would have been smaller, but concentrated in more muscle on his arms, chest and legs rather than as more evenly spread fat; I believe his waist was 34" when he was competing; I'm 36" to 38").
This is after 8 years of "recreational" lifting, starting at 30. I'm consistently in the gym 3-5 times every week outside of perhaps 2-3 weeks a year. If I started younger, and lifted more seriously, I might have gotten closer in size, but without steroids and far more work I'd have no chance of getting close to that kind of muscle volume and development. I'm not even at competitive levels for regional competitions in either power lifting or body building.
Yet I look more muscular than most guys who worry about getting bulky ever will, but I look tiny compared to well developed body builders much smaller than Arnold, despite a similar body volume.
Another thing most people that worry about this don't realize is that they eat way too little to ever get to even my size no matter how much they exercise. Currently I'm gaining strength at a good rate without increasing my weight thanks to mostly following intermittent fasting with a very high protein diet. Most days I eat 180g-230g of protein... Most people will find they'll be so stuffed they can hardly push more food down if they try that, pretty much irrespective of total calorie intake - getting most of it via lean chicken to give me some flexibility for other meals, still means I have nearly a kilo of chicken for lunch... I'm sick of chicken...
And I am not eating enough to get steroid-eating body-builder big, by far - I currently eat at roughly maintenance levels but varying up and down to get me in a slight deficit on non-exercise days and slightly above on exercise days.
Almost all of the people you see pictures off with really huge muscles today are/were heavy steroid users. Arnie looks "normal" compared to modern bodybuilders, and he used lots of steroids and put in massive amount of effort (another thing a lot of non-lifters don't understand is that steroid users don't get it easy, what they get is much faster and better recovery, letting them work harder and keep improving beyond a point where non-steroid users plateau) year after year after year. He first won a competition in 1965 after many years of exercise, and got his last Mr Olympia's in 1975 and 1980. The entire competitive field moved massively in that period with
Even more so, you usually see pictures of them that are nothing at all like what they normally look like. When training for Conan, Arnold decided to take one last shot at Mr. Olympia, and went on to win the 1980. Here's what he looked like: http://www.ironmanmagazine.com/blog/johnhansen/2011/12/27/th...
But he looked like this, minutes to hours at a time at most, while covered in oil and dark colouring to bring out his definition. This is Arnold near or at his peak, after months of gruelling competition preparation, followed by making sure he is hydrated just right and his muscles are pumped for competition.
Outside of competition or exercise situations most lifters will be much less lean (especially power lifters) and will ironically often look smaller as a result of less definition and for many a less V-shaped torso that masks some of the development. I even find myself impressed by guys at the gym that I know for a fact are less muscular than me when they happen to be leaner so their build is more noticeable.
I just did heavy (for me) bench sets this morning. When I do, my chest and arms swell enough that my normally well fitting t-shifts stretch noticeably. I have to keep adjusting my polo shirts. This lasts for a couple of hours, and the swelling wears off.
I'm roughly Arnie's height, and weigh as much as he did at his peak. My body volume is bigger than he was at his peak, but I look much smaller because I have about 15kg more fat than him and 15kg or so less muscle... (I can claim my volume is bigger because muscle is more dense than fat - his overall volume would have been smaller, but concentrated in more muscle on his arms, chest and legs rather than as more evenly spread fat; I believe his waist was 34" when he was competing; I'm 36" to 38").
This is after 8 years of "recreational" lifting, starting at 30. I'm consistently in the gym 3-5 times every week outside of perhaps 2-3 weeks a year. If I started younger, and lifted more seriously, I might have gotten closer in size, but without steroids and far more work I'd have no chance of getting close to that kind of muscle volume and development. I'm not even at competitive levels for regional competitions in either power lifting or body building.
Yet I look more muscular than most guys who worry about getting bulky ever will, but I look tiny compared to well developed body builders much smaller than Arnold, despite a similar body volume.
Another thing most people that worry about this don't realize is that they eat way too little to ever get to even my size no matter how much they exercise. Currently I'm gaining strength at a good rate without increasing my weight thanks to mostly following intermittent fasting with a very high protein diet. Most days I eat 180g-230g of protein... Most people will find they'll be so stuffed they can hardly push more food down if they try that, pretty much irrespective of total calorie intake - getting most of it via lean chicken to give me some flexibility for other meals, still means I have nearly a kilo of chicken for lunch... I'm sick of chicken...
And I am not eating enough to get steroid-eating body-builder big, by far - I currently eat at roughly maintenance levels but varying up and down to get me in a slight deficit on non-exercise days and slightly above on exercise days.
"Crap, I was just doing a couple squats and all of a sudden I'm as big and scary-looking as Arnold Schwarzenegger!" - no one ever
Everyone's different. Some people can lift for years and just become more muscular, some lift for 3 months and double their volume.
You don't "double your volume" in 3 months unless your starting point is ridiculously small and/or you're counting added fat. Contrary to what fitness magazines and supplement manufacturers like to pretend, the body's ability to synthesise protein to build muscle is fairly limited.
"Double" your strength, sure, in the sense that beginner gains due to improved coordination and better understanding of your actual limits means it's not uncommon to double or triple the weight you can lift in the first few months (I tripled most of mine in the first month I exercised - these days I'm lucky if I can increase my max by 2.5kg per month from starting points ranging from 90kg to ca. 200kg depending on lift; often the increase takes longer than a month by now).
"Double" your strength, sure, in the sense that beginner gains due to improved coordination and better understanding of your actual limits means it's not uncommon to double or triple the weight you can lift in the first few months (I tripled most of mine in the first month I exercised - these days I'm lucky if I can increase my max by 2.5kg per month from starting points ranging from 90kg to ca. 200kg depending on lift; often the increase takes longer than a month by now).
Look at the difference between a natural and "regular" bodybuilder and see if you can work out what the difference is due to.
Lifting for strength and lifting for large muscles are actually quite different. It is likely a huge bodybuilder type will be strong relative to the average person, but that's not their primary goal, and correspondingly you can be strong without that look too.
Exactly, there was a Gold Medal Olympic sprinter that could bench press 450lbs at a bodyweight of 175.
(Can't remember which one it was, but I read it in a book by decathlete Dan O'Brien when I was about 10.)
(Can't remember which one it was, but I read it in a book by decathlete Dan O'Brien when I was about 10.)
As beachstartup says, huge and strong don't always go together.
Before I started barbells, I had a fair amount of muscle mass. My muscles got a bit bigger, but I got a lot stronger.
I'd also like to clarify that I didn't really increase my gym time to do barbells. It takes about 3 hours per week. 1 hour, 3 days per week.
The main difference is the type of exercise done, and making sure that I sleep and eat in such a way to promote muscle repair.
Before I started barbells, I had a fair amount of muscle mass. My muscles got a bit bigger, but I got a lot stronger.
I'd also like to clarify that I didn't really increase my gym time to do barbells. It takes about 3 hours per week. 1 hour, 3 days per week.
The main difference is the type of exercise done, and making sure that I sleep and eat in such a way to promote muscle repair.
making sure that I sleep and eat in such a way to promote muscle repair.
This is the main time suck for me in weight training. Eating like a combination horse/tiger is pretty time consuming.
This is the main time suck for me in weight training. Eating like a combination horse/tiger is pretty time consuming.
I wonder if how others perceive you has anything to do with the pain reduction...
How dare someone not value your hobbies as much as you do.
This article is specifically about a time efficient workout that does not require special equipment. While this article does not report on a controlled study, I don't think it deserves quotes around "science" since it does appear to rely on real science like
5. Gibala MJ, Little JP, Essen MV, et al.. Short-term sprint interval versus traditional endurance training: similar initial adaptations in human skeletal muscle and exercise performance. J Physiol. 2006; 575 (3): 901–11.
Your comment is overly dismissive without the supporting evidence to back it up. The authors of this piece have the same qualification (CSCS) as your preferred source.
This article is specifically about a time efficient workout that does not require special equipment. While this article does not report on a controlled study, I don't think it deserves quotes around "science" since it does appear to rely on real science like
5. Gibala MJ, Little JP, Essen MV, et al.. Short-term sprint interval versus traditional endurance training: similar initial adaptations in human skeletal muscle and exercise performance. J Physiol. 2006; 575 (3): 901–11.
Your comment is overly dismissive without the supporting evidence to back it up. The authors of this piece have the same qualification (CSCS) as your preferred source.
I tried this. I did squats, dead lifts, presses. I ate like a horse because I was very hungry. I drank a lot of milk and protein powder. I was gaining a pound per week, and my wife asked me (after a month) if I'd lost weight. On dead lift days you can eat the whole world and still lose weight, if you're challenging yourself.
I've been lifting weights for 20 years and was always fairly strong but I felt I never got results that justified the amount of work I put in. I decided to try starting stength after hearing so many great things about it. In 3 months all of my lifts have nearly doubled. Sometimes you really are just doing it wrong ...
Your's is my favorite comment here. The harmful fitness relativism that plagues the industry and this whole thread is actually making people weak and more likely to die early.
Starting Strength is bandied about like the bible of fitness. While it is a great read, especially for beginners, you should take any such cult following with a grain of salt.
For anyone who has never done free weights I cannot recommend enough the need for finding a competent trainer when you are starting out. Although SS goes into great detail on how to properly perform the lifts nothing compare with having a professional evaluate your form.
This is even more important in a sport like lifting where often times the first hint that you are not using proper form is through injury.
The big catch to this advice is that most professional/fitness trainers are worthless. I don't have any advice on how to weed out the good ones from the bad ones other than getting recommendations from someone you trust.
For anyone who has never done free weights I cannot recommend enough the need for finding a competent trainer when you are starting out. Although SS goes into great detail on how to properly perform the lifts nothing compare with having a professional evaluate your form.
This is even more important in a sport like lifting where often times the first hint that you are not using proper form is through injury.
The big catch to this advice is that most professional/fitness trainers are worthless. I don't have any advice on how to weed out the good ones from the bad ones other than getting recommendations from someone you trust.
Say I don't necessarily want to be ripped but I just want to do the minimum amount of exercise to be healthy. So I can go to the gym twice a week and do the program you advocate, or go to the gym twice a week and swim or run on the elliptical for 45 minutes. Your program will be better for me--unless I injure myself, and the risk of injury is much greater with free weight lifting than with swimming/ellipticals. Are the beneficial effects of free weights really that much better that they offset the risk of injury? Honest question.
I got some potentially chronic knee injuries lifting weights. As someone who barely squats ~235 these are probably not too serious. I made mistakes in form and routine to get them, serious mistakes that I see others making at the gym. I see more people make very noticeable mistakes in squat/deadlift form than not. These are average athletic 185 lbs at 6' at globo gym, hardcore gyms would be the opposite. That's where most injuries come from for non-elite athletes. Also mistakes in choosing routines, stay away from elite athlete workouts.
After correcting form and playing around with routine and resistance level, these "injuries" are bothering me a lot less. I used to do squats 3x5 at 180-220 lbs twice a week. Now doing one medium weight 3x8 back squat day, one light front squat day, one heavy 3x5 day. Increasing the frequency seems to help keep the knee ready over the course of the week.
And runners and swimmers get injuries too. I had those. One particularly memorable calf muscle pull swimming, painful to walk for over a month.
The benefits of progressive strength training over staying in "shape" exercising is that it gets your body closer to its natural well fed, well prepared state. It simulates the life humans evolved for, hunter gatherers or farmers, not lethargic bed ridden hipster skinny jeans.
Your bone density increases, your hormone levels become normal. Your face looks less childlike. I know from personal experience it helps a lot with depression and others believe this as well. Exercising without progressing to a recommended level of strength, 2.5xBW deadlift, 2xBW squat, etc. just doing 50 pushups, bunch of light curls, left me feeling not much better and not motivated to continue. But I was in extremely bad shape, people who live actively don't need a strength training shock treatment to feel normal.
After correcting form and playing around with routine and resistance level, these "injuries" are bothering me a lot less. I used to do squats 3x5 at 180-220 lbs twice a week. Now doing one medium weight 3x8 back squat day, one light front squat day, one heavy 3x5 day. Increasing the frequency seems to help keep the knee ready over the course of the week.
And runners and swimmers get injuries too. I had those. One particularly memorable calf muscle pull swimming, painful to walk for over a month.
The benefits of progressive strength training over staying in "shape" exercising is that it gets your body closer to its natural well fed, well prepared state. It simulates the life humans evolved for, hunter gatherers or farmers, not lethargic bed ridden hipster skinny jeans.
Your bone density increases, your hormone levels become normal. Your face looks less childlike. I know from personal experience it helps a lot with depression and others believe this as well. Exercising without progressing to a recommended level of strength, 2.5xBW deadlift, 2xBW squat, etc. just doing 50 pushups, bunch of light curls, left me feeling not much better and not motivated to continue. But I was in extremely bad shape, people who live actively don't need a strength training shock treatment to feel normal.
Good question, yes they are. Free weight exercise done the right way, as described in Starting Strength, is the best way to prevent injury and improve health. Progress will be fast enough to impress you and motivate you to keep working, but slow enough to where you can stop increasing the weights if you feel that you're getting too "ripped." But watch as your squat weights start increasing, your clothes start fitting better, and you start getting more looks from people of your preferred gender, and you'll love having a body that's the product of weightlifting.
> Are the beneficial effects of free weights really that much better that they offset the risk of injury? Honest question.
I would say yes. There are health effects of resistance training (with weights or bodyweight) that cannot be obtained through other means. The incidence of injury in weight training is lower than for many sports, including "safe" options like soccer.
Also, I dunno if you've ever sat in on swimmers bitching about overuse injuries.
I would say yes. There are health effects of resistance training (with weights or bodyweight) that cannot be obtained through other means. The incidence of injury in weight training is lower than for many sports, including "safe" options like soccer.
Also, I dunno if you've ever sat in on swimmers bitching about overuse injuries.
I'm really enjoying this thread. My idea of a good gym is one that has an espresso bar with delicious brownies and a fireplace.
However, my wife is both ACSM and NASM certified. She's spent the last decade "just doing the damn squats" and all the rest of her waking hours working with clients and studying, studying, studying.
I've been reading your replies out loud and she says, "Right on!"
And yeah, I'm a pretty lucky dude. :)
However, my wife is both ACSM and NASM certified. She's spent the last decade "just doing the damn squats" and all the rest of her waking hours working with clients and studying, studying, studying.
I've been reading your replies out loud and she says, "Right on!"
And yeah, I'm a pretty lucky dude. :)
That's strange, she is ACSM certified, yet she disagrees with an ACSM paper? Just wondering why she does.
Oh not at all. The paper is just fine. The NYT summary though could lead someone to think that this 7 minute work out is all anyone needs. As any trainer will tell you, the certifications provide tools for directing clients to the best program to reach their goals.
I'm so happy to hear that! It's nice to find a corroborating opinion in the sea of fitness relativism :)
It reminded me of one of my favorite phrases, "The easiest way to get in shape doesn't exist."
30 min of average-intensity running will not get you anywhere, body adapts quickly.
this is a good set of exercises to mix into your home (next to the chair) routine. and the point of the article is intensity level while touching most of muscle groups.
this is a good set of exercises to mix into your home (next to the chair) routine. and the point of the article is intensity level while touching most of muscle groups.
Comparing this workout to Starting Strength is analogous to comparing a half-marathon to walking a mile a day. I agree with you that this workout isn't going to make you 'ripped,' but to say that it is a "waste of time" is absolute hyperbole.
Let me explain.
If you take a workout like this--that lasts, say, ten minutes (slightly longer than the one described), you will be getting 70 minutes of somewhat intense exercise per week. It's not as intense as doing deadlifts, but if you follow the routine as prescribed (10-second or so breaks in between exercises on the circuit), you're going to be at least performing somewhat taxing activity.
Compare that to someone who works out 2-3 times per week for 30 minutes at the gym.
First of all, that time in the gym generally contains at least 5-10 minutes of breaks, waiting for machines/weights, etc. Let's just factor that out to make a more fair comparison.
The article, but more importantly the study[1] it references, is stating that you can have much of the effect as a longer workout. It never claims that you can get the full effect of a 30 minute workout in ten minutes, but it does imply that you can more than just the third you'd expect.
Now you have efficiency gains on two fronts: first, you're working out almost as much per week as going to the gym a couple times, but spending smaller chunks of time exercising. For a lot of people, that's attractive. Secondly, if the study is correct, then getting more efficiency per time makes you "break even" in terms of generalized fitness.
In short, I don't think the authors of the NY Times article or the study behind it are saying that you can become a bodybuilder or a competitive-class weightlifter by following their steps. They are saying that working out for, say, 70 minutes per week is a lot easier than committing to going to the gym several times, and that their technique apparently produces efficiency gains as if you were working out for longer periods of time.
I don't know enough about biology and physiology to dispute the claims of the study, and although you mention elsewhere that you're in a biology-related field, I doubt that you have the prowess to dispute their academic claims either. I really think that all of this boils down to the fact that short, intense workouts produces more gains than its percentage of a longer workout.
1: http://journals.lww.com/acsm-healthfitness/Fulltext/2013/050...
Edit: Even though I disagree with you about the potential efficiency of the workout described, I'd also like to second your opinion that for those trying to get stronger, Starting Strength really is the way to go. Don't fool yourself into thinking that this workout is going to do anything other than provide the bare healthy minimum of exercise.
Let me explain.
If you take a workout like this--that lasts, say, ten minutes (slightly longer than the one described), you will be getting 70 minutes of somewhat intense exercise per week. It's not as intense as doing deadlifts, but if you follow the routine as prescribed (10-second or so breaks in between exercises on the circuit), you're going to be at least performing somewhat taxing activity.
Compare that to someone who works out 2-3 times per week for 30 minutes at the gym.
First of all, that time in the gym generally contains at least 5-10 minutes of breaks, waiting for machines/weights, etc. Let's just factor that out to make a more fair comparison.
The article, but more importantly the study[1] it references, is stating that you can have much of the effect as a longer workout. It never claims that you can get the full effect of a 30 minute workout in ten minutes, but it does imply that you can more than just the third you'd expect.
Now you have efficiency gains on two fronts: first, you're working out almost as much per week as going to the gym a couple times, but spending smaller chunks of time exercising. For a lot of people, that's attractive. Secondly, if the study is correct, then getting more efficiency per time makes you "break even" in terms of generalized fitness.
In short, I don't think the authors of the NY Times article or the study behind it are saying that you can become a bodybuilder or a competitive-class weightlifter by following their steps. They are saying that working out for, say, 70 minutes per week is a lot easier than committing to going to the gym several times, and that their technique apparently produces efficiency gains as if you were working out for longer periods of time.
I don't know enough about biology and physiology to dispute the claims of the study, and although you mention elsewhere that you're in a biology-related field, I doubt that you have the prowess to dispute their academic claims either. I really think that all of this boils down to the fact that short, intense workouts produces more gains than its percentage of a longer workout.
1: http://journals.lww.com/acsm-healthfitness/Fulltext/2013/050...
Edit: Even though I disagree with you about the potential efficiency of the workout described, I'd also like to second your opinion that for those trying to get stronger, Starting Strength really is the way to go. Don't fool yourself into thinking that this workout is going to do anything other than provide the bare healthy minimum of exercise.
Yo, do you need a number for the gym? You sure? I was just looking at your comments, you need to start lifting. Do you even lift bro? You’re probably a skinnylicious man, your girl is bigger than you, you’d better start lifting. You gotta work a little bit harder for muscles. Where are you going so fast? Gym?? You mean go milk the cows, you don’t work out bro, you look small. You look small, do you want a sandwich? You need to pump some iron! Do you even lift bro? Small muscles, I’m serious, do you want to press the reset button and start with this girly dumbbell? I was looking at your muscles, you’re a small guy.
Sigh.
In an HN thread commenting on a scientific study, our top comment is an N=1 report, followed immediately by the commenter peddling the book of a self-described fitness expert who praises "ultra-high calorie diets", followed downthread by the same commenter peddling some "supplement" called "Pre-Exercise CNS-Carnosine-ATP Augmentor".
Really, HN?
In an HN thread commenting on a scientific study, our top comment is an N=1 report, followed immediately by the commenter peddling the book of a self-described fitness expert who praises "ultra-high calorie diets", followed downthread by the same commenter peddling some "supplement" called "Pre-Exercise CNS-Carnosine-ATP Augmentor".
Really, HN?
As someone who made best progress following the ideas described in Starting Strength after trying numerous approaches that didn't really work, I'd say you can safely assume N=2 now.
Really, this book teaches a very "old-school" approach to fitness but as a matter of fact, it does work and it did indeed work for thousands and thousands of people already. I know we like to get all scientific on everything these days, and I think this is a good thing, but there's something about fitness and especially building muscle that makes intuitive sense without any science whatsoever: If you want to be strong, start lifting heavy things. Do that in a controlled fashion, with a simple workout plan, and you'll eventually succeed.
Really, this book teaches a very "old-school" approach to fitness but as a matter of fact, it does work and it did indeed work for thousands and thousands of people already. I know we like to get all scientific on everything these days, and I think this is a good thing, but there's something about fitness and especially building muscle that makes intuitive sense without any science whatsoever: If you want to be strong, start lifting heavy things. Do that in a controlled fashion, with a simple workout plan, and you'll eventually succeed.
Original commenter here, looks like your post is going to be near the top I wanted to reply so people don't get confused and instead understand why my post is at the top.
-Mark Rippetoe is not a self-described fitness expert, he is THE expert on building strength. If you want results, you listen to Rippetoe. Such a claim is widely-supported, rarely disputed.
-If you want to get stronger you'll need a caloric excess. Repairing muscle requires chemical energy in the form of protein and glucose. Look into Leangains for a method to do so while avoiding fat gain
-Jack3d - the supplement you're referring to - is a powder that has a stimulant in it called DMAA that's very effective as a pre-workout energy drink. I'm a biochemistry major so I know that "Pre-Exercise CNS-Carnosine-ATP Augmentor" is probably meaningless mumbo-jumbo (common in the entire supplement industry) but the drink works and is safe when used as directed. Tastes great too.
-Mark Rippetoe is not a self-described fitness expert, he is THE expert on building strength. If you want results, you listen to Rippetoe. Such a claim is widely-supported, rarely disputed.
-If you want to get stronger you'll need a caloric excess. Repairing muscle requires chemical energy in the form of protein and glucose. Look into Leangains for a method to do so while avoiding fat gain
-Jack3d - the supplement you're referring to - is a powder that has a stimulant in it called DMAA that's very effective as a pre-workout energy drink. I'm a biochemistry major so I know that "Pre-Exercise CNS-Carnosine-ATP Augmentor" is probably meaningless mumbo-jumbo (common in the entire supplement industry) but the drink works and is safe when used as directed. Tastes great too.
Rippetoe is not as well respected in all circles.
As much as your simplification sounds reasonable, if you dive down into the details, it falls apart.
Mark Rippetoe is a well respected strength coach in fitness circles. He may not be delivering Olympic-level athletes, but certainly good at delivering strength knowledge for the lay person.
"Ultra-high calorie diets" is a suggestion that needs to be taken in context. His focus is strength, not diet. Excess calories are required to gain muscle and strength, and for one of his target demographics, young skinny teens who lack muscle altogether, ultra-high calorie diets are exactly what they need. Obviously for heavily obese people this advice would not necessarily apply if their goals were to lose weight.
Regarding the supplement, don't judge things by the marketing fluff, but rather by what it actually does and its ingredients. DMAA is a well-known stimulant that does what a pre-workout supplement should do.
Mark Rippetoe is a well respected strength coach in fitness circles. He may not be delivering Olympic-level athletes, but certainly good at delivering strength knowledge for the lay person.
"Ultra-high calorie diets" is a suggestion that needs to be taken in context. His focus is strength, not diet. Excess calories are required to gain muscle and strength, and for one of his target demographics, young skinny teens who lack muscle altogether, ultra-high calorie diets are exactly what they need. Obviously for heavily obese people this advice would not necessarily apply if their goals were to lose weight.
Regarding the supplement, don't judge things by the marketing fluff, but rather by what it actually does and its ingredients. DMAA is a well-known stimulant that does what a pre-workout supplement should do.
And also fight this article as if it were advertising a paid strongman programme, not an openly available paper describing a routine that only needs a chair (maybe it's sponsored by IKEA?) and the purpose of which is to get some slobs heart attack risk down a couple of notches. Which means they probably didn't even read this.
I think a downvote option would have solved this problem. Why doesn't HN have a downvote anyway? Am I just stupid and don't see it?
You need a pile of karma to be able to downvote people. So you're not stupid, pg only assumes you are.
You are allowed to downvote once you get a certain amount of karma.
Ah thanks, did just make my account today.
From my reading the "scientific study" has a sample size of 0.
Your post is useless as an argument against this specific exercise since it offers no argument against it - only an appeal to tradition (well, recent tradition since I'm guessing that circular interval training predates any modern incarnation of barbells).
- The article talks about HIIT which is a more general principle and not just a name for this specific exercise. It has been shown to be in some regards better than longer endurance exercises. And yes, with scientific studies with a HIIT group and a control group. The specific exercises that I have seen have been more about running or cycling than body weight exercises for that matter.
- This post was clearly aimed at people that want overall health and not necessarily more explosive strength, yet you only complain about the strength-part.
- EVEN disregarding the last point: you can gain a lot of strength from just body exercises and some props like a bar; all I have to say is gymnasts. I guess you can't accuse that sport of being a recent fad. Whether or not barbells and dumbbells are better comes down to the specifics of explosive versus endurance, strength vs bulk and so on and so on.
- The article talks about HIIT which is a more general principle and not just a name for this specific exercise. It has been shown to be in some regards better than longer endurance exercises. And yes, with scientific studies with a HIIT group and a control group. The specific exercises that I have seen have been more about running or cycling than body weight exercises for that matter.
- This post was clearly aimed at people that want overall health and not necessarily more explosive strength, yet you only complain about the strength-part.
- EVEN disregarding the last point: you can gain a lot of strength from just body exercises and some props like a bar; all I have to say is gymnasts. I guess you can't accuse that sport of being a recent fad. Whether or not barbells and dumbbells are better comes down to the specifics of explosive versus endurance, strength vs bulk and so on and so on.
>you can gain a lot of strength from just body exercises and some props like a bar; all I have to say is gymnasts.
would you like your steroid injection now or later? Taking fitness cues from professional athletes who are ALL on PEDs is silly.
would you like your steroid injection now or later? Taking fitness cues from professional athletes who are ALL on PEDs is silly.
I'd love to hear your sources about "all" the gymnasts who are on PEDs. I was a gymnast for 16 years, competed nationally for 10 years, personally knew and competed against some of the US team members in the 2008 and 2012 Olympics.
I have never, ever, heard even a whiff of anyone taking anything remotely on the wrong side of rules for "performance enhancing" substances.
Bodyweight workouts can be incredibly challenging and develop not just strength but explosive power. Regular pushups too easy? Try clapping pushups or handstand pushups or an iron cross to work your deltoids, pecs and triceps.
I have never, ever, heard even a whiff of anyone taking anything remotely on the wrong side of rules for "performance enhancing" substances.
Bodyweight workouts can be incredibly challenging and develop not just strength but explosive power. Regular pushups too easy? Try clapping pushups or handstand pushups or an iron cross to work your deltoids, pecs and triceps.
It is essentially impossible to prove PED use in elite sports because athletes take care not to get caught and there is no interest in catching them.
I don't know much about gymnastics but if performance in that sport is dominated by strength or endurance, that is a stronger or better conditioned athlete will normally win, then it is likely that the top athletes in the world use PEDs. Otherwise it would be inconsistent with evidence of PED use in every other strength or endurance sport.
I don't know why you think having competed against an athlete would give you some special insight into their PED use especially if you aren't competitive enough to beat them; it would clearly be precarious to have other people find out.
I don't know much about gymnastics but if performance in that sport is dominated by strength or endurance, that is a stronger or better conditioned athlete will normally win, then it is likely that the top athletes in the world use PEDs. Otherwise it would be inconsistent with evidence of PED use in every other strength or endurance sport.
I don't know why you think having competed against an athlete would give you some special insight into their PED use especially if you aren't competitive enough to beat them; it would clearly be precarious to have other people find out.
pics of you at your peak contest condition? I'm not being snarky I'm legitimately curious, as I suspect you are telling the truth about being natty yourself.
Steroid abuse is ridiculously rampant, and it is hard for the layperson to know what sort of physique is attainable without them.
Steroid abuse is ridiculously rampant, and it is hard for the layperson to know what sort of physique is attainable without them.
And bodybuilders aren't notorious for being juiced up? People that are in very competitive sports aren't in it for the fitness, they are in it to win, even if it wrecks their body (and their integrity). No amateur should follow a high-level professionals regimen verbatim, if all she wants is the fitness.
Anyway, aren't some gymnast exercises very demanding, and demand a lot of functional strength? Even if not, with some basic props and your body there is a lot of difficult things that you can do - handstand pushups, one-armed handstand pushups, muscle up, one armed pullup, L-sit...
Anyway, aren't some gymnast exercises very demanding, and demand a lot of functional strength? Even if not, with some basic props and your body there is a lot of difficult things that you can do - handstand pushups, one-armed handstand pushups, muscle up, one armed pullup, L-sit...
bodybuilders are not healthy and are not strong/athletic.
> you'll offset the entire effect of this workout by eating a cookie
Hm. I dealt with this problem by radical diet change and no change in activity level. I lost more than 100 lbs in a year by going essentially vegetarian for a couple months and then gradually changing my diet into to something that's still not what it was but is something I can live with long-term. Right now, I'm doing what I'll be doing the rest of my life, which is monitoring my weight and modifying my diet based on observed results but otherwise eating what I want. I still walk multiple hours a day, as I did before I lost weight, while I lost weight, and will until I physically can't, but I did (and do) no other exercise.
I'm predisposed to being fat. That may or may not be genetic in a meaningful sense, but I treat it as if it is. I know I'm genetically predisposed to Type 2 diabetes. If I get fat again and stay fat long enough, I'm going to have to manage that. I'd rather manage the process of staying a healthy weight.
Hm. I dealt with this problem by radical diet change and no change in activity level. I lost more than 100 lbs in a year by going essentially vegetarian for a couple months and then gradually changing my diet into to something that's still not what it was but is something I can live with long-term. Right now, I'm doing what I'll be doing the rest of my life, which is monitoring my weight and modifying my diet based on observed results but otherwise eating what I want. I still walk multiple hours a day, as I did before I lost weight, while I lost weight, and will until I physically can't, but I did (and do) no other exercise.
I'm predisposed to being fat. That may or may not be genetic in a meaningful sense, but I treat it as if it is. I know I'm genetically predisposed to Type 2 diabetes. If I get fat again and stay fat long enough, I'm going to have to manage that. I'd rather manage the process of staying a healthy weight.
>>As technology-minded guys who tend not to get a lot of physical exercise, we're really susceptible to people throwing around the term "scientific" to describe their exercise pitches.
Actually, the headline is targeted towards people who know very little science. Tech folks like us approach things like this with a great deal of skepticism. I bet more than half the posters in this thread have at least skimmed the study on which the article is based. You can't really expect the general populace to be so inquisitive.
Actually, the headline is targeted towards people who know very little science. Tech folks like us approach things like this with a great deal of skepticism. I bet more than half the posters in this thread have at least skimmed the study on which the article is based. You can't really expect the general populace to be so inquisitive.
Nope, it works.
Look at cats. Cats sleep up to 17 hours a day. They lie around seemingly doing nothing most of their waking hours. But if you watch a cat work out - wow!! it works out. It's going all out for a few minutes. Talking about a healthy country cat here, which, compared to its body weight pulls of physical feats a human can only dream of.
People often ask me if I go to the gym. Nope. I just do push ups now and then, not even every day, but when I do, I do them properly, military style push ups until I almost faint. Between 50 and 80 full on ones seems to do it for me. Takes... 2 minutes or so?! Fitness secrets!
Look at cats. Cats sleep up to 17 hours a day. They lie around seemingly doing nothing most of their waking hours. But if you watch a cat work out - wow!! it works out. It's going all out for a few minutes. Talking about a healthy country cat here, which, compared to its body weight pulls of physical feats a human can only dream of.
People often ask me if I go to the gym. Nope. I just do push ups now and then, not even every day, but when I do, I do them properly, military style push ups until I almost faint. Between 50 and 80 full on ones seems to do it for me. Takes... 2 minutes or so?! Fitness secrets!
Smaller animals have a higher power to weight ratio than larger animals, because strength scales as a quadratic function and mass as a cubic function.
For the same reason, smaller weightlifers snatch a larger multiple of bodyweight than bigger weightlifters. At the Olympic level it goes from about 3xBW down to 1.6xBW depending on weight division.
Also, humans are upright bipeds in a body that has the architectural hallmarks of a system for quadripedal locomotion. Cats have not compromised those advantages: we have.
For the same reason, smaller weightlifers snatch a larger multiple of bodyweight than bigger weightlifters. At the Olympic level it goes from about 3xBW down to 1.6xBW depending on weight division.
Also, humans are upright bipeds in a body that has the architectural hallmarks of a system for quadripedal locomotion. Cats have not compromised those advantages: we have.
Tigers.
Do I need to say more?
Do I need to say more?
Imagine if tigers started doing compound weightlifting exercises. We humans would be doomed.
Yes. Proportionally, tigers can't jump as high as their smaller cousins, can't run as fast as their smaller cousins and unlike humans still use quadripedal locomotion.
Dude my cat barely sleeps at all, and I have literally seen her drag a 90 pound deer up a tree. Her power to weight ratio is off the charts and she has a VO2 max of 88.0 at her peak. I too, do not go to the gym. I just do power squats all day.
I love looking at cats!
'Starting Strength' is great for beginners.
It is simple, it involves linear progression, and it is a clear set of directions which explicitly tell you to NOT DO ANYTHING ELSE. This is important, because with newbies it is tempting to go to the gym and then start playing with all the other toys.
I did SS for several months, and after significant gains of muscle have moved on to the Wendler 531 program, which uses much slower progression and is more compatible with my normal caloric intake.
It is simple, it involves linear progression, and it is a clear set of directions which explicitly tell you to NOT DO ANYTHING ELSE. This is important, because with newbies it is tempting to go to the gym and then start playing with all the other toys.
I did SS for several months, and after significant gains of muscle have moved on to the Wendler 531 program, which uses much slower progression and is more compatible with my normal caloric intake.
Awesome! Glad to hear you're focusing on an effective plan. I just started madcow 5x5 myself. I love the simplicity and effectiveness of sticking to compound exercises. Plus I don't look like an idiot doing a one-legged dumbbell curl on one of those squishy half-sphere things.
Edit: btw, for anybody who read JPKab's comment and is wondering what we mean when we say "beginner," we mean squatting less than 250lbs or so and benching less than near 200lbs range. A novice in the strength-building sense can still be stronger than 99% of people you'll encounter in this world. Starting strength will get you there really effectively.
Edit: btw, for anybody who read JPKab's comment and is wondering what we mean when we say "beginner," we mean squatting less than 250lbs or so and benching less than near 200lbs range. A novice in the strength-building sense can still be stronger than 99% of people you'll encounter in this world. Starting strength will get you there really effectively.
Okay, so I'll bite.
The main reason I never hit the gym was/is because I'm too embarrassed to be seen exercising by others. Interestingly, my problem is that I'm too thin (with a bmi of 18 now) so my goal was/is to become both stronger and huger.
How about if I get this machine (or something like it): http://eatinggreat.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/MACHINE-WE... Could I then be fine following the SS book you mention with it?
The main reason I never hit the gym was/is because I'm too embarrassed to be seen exercising by others. Interestingly, my problem is that I'm too thin (with a bmi of 18 now) so my goal was/is to become both stronger and huger.
How about if I get this machine (or something like it): http://eatinggreat.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/MACHINE-WE... Could I then be fine following the SS book you mention with it?
I'm sorry to hear that you're feeling self-conscious about going to the gym! Side-note: if big buff fitness gurus see a beginner doing squats with good technique they're going to have a TON of respect for you regardless of the weight you're lifting or what kind of shape you're in. The machine you linked to isn't going to help you with SS - you'd want to eliminate machines and cables from your fitness vocabulary alltogether - but it's still better than not exercising. SS would call for a setup like this: http://www.littleblokefitness.com.au/wp-content/uploads/wpsc... assuming of course that you can move that bench out of the way.
Looks a lot less expensive!
Looks a lot less expensive!
[deleted]
I've never signed up for a gym, and don't know the first thing about the customs that rule the place. So, I guess here's a question to start with: do normal gyms have workout trainers I could pay to get guidance from? Or do I just ignore everyone and try to follow the SS book to the best of my abilities.
Question #2: are all gyms created equal, should I 'shop' around for a decent one with decent equipment or whatever, or just join the 'snap fitness' gym that is literally 2 minute walk away from my place of residence?
Question #2: are all gyms created equal, should I 'shop' around for a decent one with decent equipment or whatever, or just join the 'snap fitness' gym that is literally 2 minute walk away from my place of residence?
The same kind of self-consciousness motivated me to build a gym in my garage. If that's an option and you have the space, go for it. I built a power rack using the plans from home gym bodybuilding[1], got a Burgener & Rippetoe Olympic Bar from Rogue Fitness[2], and weights from Play it Again Sports. I read SS for detailed tips on form, and started on Stronglifts 5x5, which has a really handy app to track your progress. The total cost of the gym was probably in the neighborhood of $500, though you could get it done for much less if you went with a cheaper or second-hand bar -- that was the highest-cost item.
[1]http://www.home-gym-bodybuilding.com/homemade-power-rack.htm...
[2]http://www.roguefitness.com/burgener-rippetoe-men-s-bar.php
[1]http://www.home-gym-bodybuilding.com/homemade-power-rack.htm...
[2]http://www.roguefitness.com/burgener-rippetoe-men-s-bar.php
That's incredible! I might have to try building that sometime. I love the idea of walking out to my backyard with my shirt off and doing a bunch of squats in the sun! Plus I would never have to wait on people doing curls in the squat rack ;)
There's only a few exercises you'll need to learn, all described very thoroughly in SS. A good gym will have people working there that will happily critique your form for free. They want you to be safe!
Avoid gyms without a squat rack (yes those exist, ugh). Things that matter: squat rack, affordability, and operating hours that work for you. Not being super-packed all the time is also really nice.
Avoid gyms without a squat rack (yes those exist, ugh). Things that matter: squat rack, affordability, and operating hours that work for you. Not being super-packed all the time is also really nice.
I joined a local Snap Fitness with a friend a few months ago, they're not too bad. They're also inexpensive. (I've only visited my gym and a gym that was in another state when I was visiting family, they had comparable equipment.) The major benefit is that they're open 24/7, which is nice for those of us who are mildly self-conscious. (Or don't want to deal with hook-up people, or trainers annoyingly trying to get new clients, etc.) I typically go (with or without my friend) between 11pm-4am and almost all the time there's no one else there; when there is, it's no more than 4 other people and they usually leave before me. (Especially if I spend my first 30 minutes on the treadmill/cycle/elliptical machine.) Your area may be different.
The main downside to my gym at least (I don't know if it's the same at all Snaps) is that they have a Smith Machine, not a Power Rack. This is only a downside to me because I just recently started the Stronglifts 5x5 program, which gives a convincing argument for the Power Rack over the Smith Machine. While not a big inconvenience in the grand scheme of things (all the 5x5 exercises but the bench press can be done with the bar starting from the floor) it's something to consider. Other (typically more expensive) gyms have showers, pools, hot tubs, or climbing walls, all of which might factor into your choice too depending on what conveniences you care about.
Edit: If you can get a friend to sign up with you, that will help a lot. Instead of midnight snack trips (okay we still do those sometimes), my friend and I have midnight gym trips.
The main downside to my gym at least (I don't know if it's the same at all Snaps) is that they have a Smith Machine, not a Power Rack. This is only a downside to me because I just recently started the Stronglifts 5x5 program, which gives a convincing argument for the Power Rack over the Smith Machine. While not a big inconvenience in the grand scheme of things (all the 5x5 exercises but the bench press can be done with the bar starting from the floor) it's something to consider. Other (typically more expensive) gyms have showers, pools, hot tubs, or climbing walls, all of which might factor into your choice too depending on what conveniences you care about.
Edit: If you can get a friend to sign up with you, that will help a lot. Instead of midnight snack trips (okay we still do those sometimes), my friend and I have midnight gym trips.
Smith Machines are awful. Gyms choose to get them rather than squat racks because it reduces their insurance payments. When you go to an inexpensive gym, this is the kind of tradeoff you get.
If you feel embarrassed there is nothing to do but suck it up. It lessens each week and your desire to achieve your goals should be greater than your desire to avoid mild embarrassment.
Good trainers are hard to find but invaluable. You can try: http://startingstrength.com/index.php/site/coaching#dir or,if you are lucky, finding a Starting Strength training camp in your area.
Otherwise, take a video camera and film yourself. Review it after your set and later at night and compare it against the technique described in Starting Strength. It will be very wrong at first. Fix it. When you think you finally got it right post a video form check on the Starting Strength forums and they will tell you what you missed.
Good trainers are hard to find but invaluable. You can try: http://startingstrength.com/index.php/site/coaching#dir or,if you are lucky, finding a Starting Strength training camp in your area.
Otherwise, take a video camera and film yourself. Review it after your set and later at night and compare it against the technique described in Starting Strength. It will be very wrong at first. Fix it. When you think you finally got it right post a video form check on the Starting Strength forums and they will tell you what you missed.
A few things to know about gyms:
Personal trainers are either terrible or expensive. If you can afford a personal trainer for a long time, either you have hired a great one because you are loaded, or you are paying for a crappy one and probably not getting great results. I know I am stereotyping, but I'm just trying to encourage a little skepticism. The gym I go to has multiple squat racks, rubber "bumper" plates for doing Olympic style barbell lifts, and has personal trainers/staff that have been stolen away from chains like Gold's, LA Fitness, etc. Why? Because the gym I go to has a premium business model where they pay their staff much more than other gyms do. Rather than paying a low monthly rate and then hiring a personal trainer, I pay a higher monthly fee for using my gym but don't need a trainer.
Anothe thing about trainers: Too often, their goal is to keep you coming back. They tend to have constantly changing, high variety workouts. These are fine, since the body adapts to exercise and the point is to prevent plateaus. However, this is not good if you are trying to learn to work out on your own. Also, variety is overrated for people trying to get fit. I've noticed trainers mix in strength with aerobic conditioning. Gaining muscle and losing fat are goals which are most easily met when they are done one at a time. If you want to get stronger, lift weights and eat a lot. You will make progress. If you want to lose fat, get up every morning and do cardio before eating ANY breakfast. Just water, then straight into cardio. Your body will be in fat burning mode with depleted blood sugar, and your energy expenditure will come primarily from fatty acids released by fat cells. But for the love of God, don't try to do both in the same workout. Cardio interferes with muscle building and vice versa, requiring ridiculously oprimized nutrition that is hard for people without professional chefs/dieticians to achieve.
Here is what I would look for in a gym:
1) 2 or more squat racks
2) 1 or more trainers who keep themselves fit using barbell exercises (my gym, despite having the standard cardio floorplan for the masses, has a section with the good strength equipment, and the staff who are into Olympic/Barbell lifting walk around and happily give advice/tips/form checks). When I am doing squats in the morning workout, I will frequently look over and see a staff member doing the same workout on the other squat rack. 3) Large numbers (5 or more) of benches for doing bench presses with barbells (not machines)
4) A rack of dumbbells that is complete (missing dumbbells is a sign of a gym that doesn't maintain their equipment) and ideally goes up to 120 lbs. per dumbell
5) Lots of pull-up bars
Personal trainers are either terrible or expensive. If you can afford a personal trainer for a long time, either you have hired a great one because you are loaded, or you are paying for a crappy one and probably not getting great results. I know I am stereotyping, but I'm just trying to encourage a little skepticism. The gym I go to has multiple squat racks, rubber "bumper" plates for doing Olympic style barbell lifts, and has personal trainers/staff that have been stolen away from chains like Gold's, LA Fitness, etc. Why? Because the gym I go to has a premium business model where they pay their staff much more than other gyms do. Rather than paying a low monthly rate and then hiring a personal trainer, I pay a higher monthly fee for using my gym but don't need a trainer.
Anothe thing about trainers: Too often, their goal is to keep you coming back. They tend to have constantly changing, high variety workouts. These are fine, since the body adapts to exercise and the point is to prevent plateaus. However, this is not good if you are trying to learn to work out on your own. Also, variety is overrated for people trying to get fit. I've noticed trainers mix in strength with aerobic conditioning. Gaining muscle and losing fat are goals which are most easily met when they are done one at a time. If you want to get stronger, lift weights and eat a lot. You will make progress. If you want to lose fat, get up every morning and do cardio before eating ANY breakfast. Just water, then straight into cardio. Your body will be in fat burning mode with depleted blood sugar, and your energy expenditure will come primarily from fatty acids released by fat cells. But for the love of God, don't try to do both in the same workout. Cardio interferes with muscle building and vice versa, requiring ridiculously oprimized nutrition that is hard for people without professional chefs/dieticians to achieve.
Here is what I would look for in a gym:
1) 2 or more squat racks
2) 1 or more trainers who keep themselves fit using barbell exercises (my gym, despite having the standard cardio floorplan for the masses, has a section with the good strength equipment, and the staff who are into Olympic/Barbell lifting walk around and happily give advice/tips/form checks). When I am doing squats in the morning workout, I will frequently look over and see a staff member doing the same workout on the other squat rack. 3) Large numbers (5 or more) of benches for doing bench presses with barbells (not machines)
4) A rack of dumbbells that is complete (missing dumbbells is a sign of a gym that doesn't maintain their equipment) and ideally goes up to 120 lbs. per dumbell
5) Lots of pull-up bars
Just remember, people go to the gym to improve their fitness, not to demonstrate it.
As somebody who sits at computer all day, who is too cheap to buy equipment, too embarrassed to be seen exercising by others, and who hates the idea of devoting an hour a day to physical agony, this appeals to me.
Look at Leangains and combine that with Starting Strength. I put in 2 and a half hours per week (that's 10 hours per month. total) and eat 1-2 large meals a day consisting of just about whatever I want. I'm thrilled with the shape I'm in and best of all it's been really easy to get here once I stopped focusing on the kinds of time-wasters this article describes and instead started focusing on the Right Way (compound exercises and leangains eating guidelines).
Training should only cause physical agony if:
1) you have a serious, unaddressed medical condition (please seek help!)
2) you're trying something far beyond your normal activity level. There's no rush, work up gradually and your body will adapt. If a walk around the block is a challenge, start there. Repeatable training sessions over time is what makes change, not beating yourself up in the name of 'health'.
1) you have a serious, unaddressed medical condition (please seek help!)
2) you're trying something far beyond your normal activity level. There's no rush, work up gradually and your body will adapt. If a walk around the block is a challenge, start there. Repeatable training sessions over time is what makes change, not beating yourself up in the name of 'health'.
or if you hate it.
I could spend my time doing anything better than at a stupid gym.
I used to go to the gym and lift really heavy things off the ground for 2-3 hours a day 5 days a week. It was great exercise and I loved how strong I was after a few years of doing that religiously.
At some point life "got in the way", and between a kid and a full-time job my gym time started to disappear. I've tried a lot of creative approaches to keeping fit with shorter workouts, and what I have come up with isn't all that different than what is being prescribed here.
My basic approach is this:
1. Pushups - every other morning I do 5 minutes of pushups where I start at a set of 20 then bump up by a count of 5 until I'm at 35. Then I work my way back down to 20 allowing brief 20 second rests in between.
2. Pullups - same as pushups except I start at 6 and bump by 2 until I hit 10, and then work back down.
3. Squats - No weight, three sets of 50. This could be better, but I'm kinda lazy when it comes to squats
4. Mix in exercises using resistance bands. (shoulder press, lat pulls, tricep extensions, etc). I usually do these in three sets of 12-15.
Each workout takes about 15 minutes, and while I've lost some muscle mass I'm still a pretty lean/muscular 170. I'm sure there are all sorts of optimizations I could make, but honestly I don't really care at this point. I've found a quick workout I can do 3-4 times a week and it is keeping me pretty damn healthy.
At some point life "got in the way", and between a kid and a full-time job my gym time started to disappear. I've tried a lot of creative approaches to keeping fit with shorter workouts, and what I have come up with isn't all that different than what is being prescribed here.
My basic approach is this:
1. Pushups - every other morning I do 5 minutes of pushups where I start at a set of 20 then bump up by a count of 5 until I'm at 35. Then I work my way back down to 20 allowing brief 20 second rests in between.
2. Pullups - same as pushups except I start at 6 and bump by 2 until I hit 10, and then work back down.
3. Squats - No weight, three sets of 50. This could be better, but I'm kinda lazy when it comes to squats
4. Mix in exercises using resistance bands. (shoulder press, lat pulls, tricep extensions, etc). I usually do these in three sets of 12-15.
Each workout takes about 15 minutes, and while I've lost some muscle mass I'm still a pretty lean/muscular 170. I'm sure there are all sorts of optimizations I could make, but honestly I don't really care at this point. I've found a quick workout I can do 3-4 times a week and it is keeping me pretty damn healthy.
2-3 hours a day x 5 days a week -- 10-15 hrs -- is a huge amount of time to spend on weights.
A Starting Strength routine shouldn't take more than 3-4 hours a week, and you'd be moving way more than your bodyweight.
Or, if you can find room in your dwelling for a barbell and plates, Pavel's Power to the People program would take a total of 2-3 hours a week. Again, you'd be developing strength, rather than endurance.
Having said that, if you've found something you're happy with, cool. The routine you actually do beats a theoretically superior routine you don't get around to.
A Starting Strength routine shouldn't take more than 3-4 hours a week, and you'd be moving way more than your bodyweight.
Or, if you can find room in your dwelling for a barbell and plates, Pavel's Power to the People program would take a total of 2-3 hours a week. Again, you'd be developing strength, rather than endurance.
Having said that, if you've found something you're happy with, cool. The routine you actually do beats a theoretically superior routine you don't get around to.
A big part of gym time is getting there, changing (twice) and taking a shower. When I used to go to the gym, I did SS and it took between 50 and 60 minutes to complete the workout, but I left home at 5:30 AM and got to school at 8:00 AM. There was one hour to walk to/from the gym and about 30 minutes to change and wash up.
Since I started working out at home (same kind of deal as OP), I got less strong, but not by much, but I also have more time.
Since I started working out at home (same kind of deal as OP), I got less strong, but not by much, but I also have more time.
Given your situation, I'd recommend investing in some kettlebells and elastic bands (get the latter from a powerlifting specialist, they'll be cheaper and better).
> 3. Squats - No weight, three sets of 50. This could be better, but I'm kinda lazy when it comes to squats
Look into doing pistol squats[1]. The bodyweight fitness subreddit[2] is actually a pretty good resource for what you're doing. Glad you've found something that works for you.
[1] http://www.beastskills.com/one-legged-squat-the-pistol/
[2] http://www.reddit.com/r/bodyweightfitness
Look into doing pistol squats[1]. The bodyweight fitness subreddit[2] is actually a pretty good resource for what you're doing. Glad you've found something that works for you.
[1] http://www.beastskills.com/one-legged-squat-the-pistol/
[2] http://www.reddit.com/r/bodyweightfitness
Pistol squats: careful there. I damaged the cartilage on the back of my patella doing something similar. The damage was caused merely by stepping up onto an almost waist high platform a couple of times. This is not the usual consult-a-doctor bullshit: I was 23 and deadlifting 275+ for reps, so I wasn't "weak" or out of shape. Make sure you have the proper strength for a full pistol squat before trying it.
Sure, but even sedentary people only lose a pound of muscle a year. It is really easy to maintain once you have spent that 2-3 years building a foundation, as you did, with weights.
"This is a waste of time" is read by someone who currently does no exercise as "I may as well not bother trying".
Fitness advice is so fragmented and the debates between those who practice various types of fitness are so vigorous that it puts people off to fitness entirely.
If you actually want to inspire people who are not fit to get fit, it is going to take encouragement, not constant criticism of every possible method of getting fit.
There is literally no exercise routine that someone can propose and not face immediate criticism. A beginner doesn't need a perfect routine (which clearly doesn't exist anyway given all the argument on the issue). They need to do something. Something that is not actively harmful and will increase their fitness, even in a small way.
You may think you are showing people a better way, but you are really giving people nowhere to turn for support, because everyone always tries to show a better way no matter what the original way was. I could come here every single day posting about another fitness routine and every single day I would be told it's wrong. So if everything is wrong, what do you think I am going to do? Nothing.
Fitness advice is so fragmented and the debates between those who practice various types of fitness are so vigorous that it puts people off to fitness entirely.
If you actually want to inspire people who are not fit to get fit, it is going to take encouragement, not constant criticism of every possible method of getting fit.
There is literally no exercise routine that someone can propose and not face immediate criticism. A beginner doesn't need a perfect routine (which clearly doesn't exist anyway given all the argument on the issue). They need to do something. Something that is not actively harmful and will increase their fitness, even in a small way.
You may think you are showing people a better way, but you are really giving people nowhere to turn for support, because everyone always tries to show a better way no matter what the original way was. I could come here every single day posting about another fitness routine and every single day I would be told it's wrong. So if everything is wrong, what do you think I am going to do? Nothing.
A beginner doesn't need a perfect routine. They need to do something.
Sure, but it can't be just any ol' snake oil thing. If they keep buying into snake oil after snake oil, they will never see results and only become more depressed and unmotivated. Snake oil exercise regimes are actively detrimental because of this.
Sure, but it can't be just any ol' snake oil thing. If they keep buying into snake oil after snake oil, they will never see results and only become more depressed and unmotivated. Snake oil exercise regimes are actively detrimental because of this.
The routine in the NY Times doesn't seem like snake oil. Jumping jacks and push-ups? Hardly revolutionary. It's not like their were promoting strange supplements or buying expensive fitness equipment.
It's not "snake oil" in the sense of something which has no effect. It's just that it's so utterly unbalanced and poorly thought out that it's ultimately very little better than nothing.
Posted elsewhere in this thread but very much worth reading, a devastating take-down of the piece:
http://elsbethvaino.com/2013/05/should-you-do-a-newspaper-wo...
Posted elsewhere in this thread but very much worth reading, a devastating take-down of the piece:
http://elsbethvaino.com/2013/05/should-you-do-a-newspaper-wo...
The way I see it there are basically four types of exercise. Basic fitness, sculpting what you look like, preparation for some specific activity, burning calories.
But the dirty little secret is burning calories though exercise is basically a waste of time compared to simply eating less and it takes vary little to get basic fitness. So assuming your diet is reasonable you can look like someone that spends 2 hours a day in the working out by doing to same basic routine without the cardio.
But the dirty little secret is burning calories though exercise is basically a waste of time compared to simply eating less and it takes vary little to get basic fitness. So assuming your diet is reasonable you can look like someone that spends 2 hours a day in the working out by doing to same basic routine without the cardio.
Ever hear of skinny-fat? That's where someone is at the right weight, but because they do no exercise they have NO muscle tone. It's better to exercise and not have a perfect diet than not exercise and have a perfect diet.
That's where basic fitness comes in. 10 minutes of high stress activity a day builds more muscle mass than 2 hours of low impact cardio. Or to put it another way typists don't build large muscle in there forearm but a bricklayer does because stress is far more important than duration when it comes to muscle growth.
That's not to say cardio is pointless, rather unless your trying to build stamina for some reason cardio takes a lot of time for little short term benefit.
That's not to say cardio is pointless, rather unless your trying to build stamina for some reason cardio takes a lot of time for little short term benefit.
While it may not be a total waste of time, it could actually be dangerous to a large portion of this article's target audience. The best rebuttal to the article that I've seen so far is here:
http://elsbethvaino.com/2013/05/should-you-do-a-newspaper-wo...
http://elsbethvaino.com/2013/05/should-you-do-a-newspaper-wo...
Fitness advice is so fragmented and the debates between those who practice various types of fitness are so vigorous that it puts people off to fitness entirely.
Yes and no.
Once you dig past the obviously bullshit claims and scams, and the One True Way prophets (and even Rippetoe suffers this to an extent), there's a lot that's very well established. Much of the problem boils down to a fundamental set of market failures: fitness _is_ simple (not "easy", but simple), and there's relatively little money to be made in the stuff that really works (that's a principle you can apply well beyond the field as well).
The rebuttal piece noted elsewhere in this thread is excellent. Read it.
http://elsbethvaino.com/2013/05/should-you-do-a-newspaper-wo...
The most important thing for me to realize is understanding how your body responds to training, diet, rest, recovery, and stress.
Here's the key: your body is a complex feedback system responding largely with and to hormonal flows you can influence directly through diet and training.
"Training" includes both strength training and cardio. For the typical schmoe or schmoette, a basic level of strength, cardiovascular, mobility, and motor-control fitness is reasonably easy to attain.
An extremely good general overview is Liam Rosen's guide. The Reddit Fitness FAQ is also quite good. Neither is selling anything, a key point:
http://liamrosen.com/fitness.html
http://www.reddit.com/help/faqs/Fitness
Rippetoe is a good introduction to strength. The "New Rules of Lifting" books by Schuler and Cosgrove go a bit broader (and add some scope to strength training), as well as add the introductory phase that some untrained individuals might benefit from which Rippetoe largely omits (though the general principle that "you cannot start too light" is useful to keep in mind.
As to the failings of the NY Times piece, there are many, and these are highly typical of Gretchen Reynolds pieces -- I've come to discount her, and much other, health & fitness reporting at the Times (Gina Kolada is also pretty poor in my experience, despite her stature and tenure).
- It offers little or no actual strength development.
- There's no training of the back (difficult without at least minimal equipment). This is omitting training a major muscle group, and one which is underutilized in most modern daily life. More than even other muscle groups.
- There is no progression. You don't need "muscle confusion", but if you're going to progress in a training program, there has to be some mode of increasing the challenge over time.
- This is effectively a cardio-only program. It's promoting the same myth that the fitness industry has promoted since the 1970s, that cardio is all you need. The simple truth is that muscle mass and strength offer very significant benefits (Schuler and Cosgrove get into this, Robert Arnot's Dr. Bob Arnot's Guide to Turning Back the Clock also addressed this back in 1994), and as you age, you are losing about 0.5% of your muscle mass per year. This is called "sarcopenia", or age-related muscle loss.
So: yes, this is a pretty poor article, the science is lacking. The program is likely "better than nothing", but there are vastly more effective programs (and Rippetoe or "New Rules" would be good starts) which will actually provide far more returns.
The key is this: while "something" may be better than "nothing", "better" is better than "something".
If the article itself would point out these deficiencies and that this program is only a VERY basic starting point, I could accept it. It doesn't. Ergo: it's adding to the problem.
Honestly: Gretchen should be canned.
Yes and no.
Once you dig past the obviously bullshit claims and scams, and the One True Way prophets (and even Rippetoe suffers this to an extent), there's a lot that's very well established. Much of the problem boils down to a fundamental set of market failures: fitness _is_ simple (not "easy", but simple), and there's relatively little money to be made in the stuff that really works (that's a principle you can apply well beyond the field as well).
The rebuttal piece noted elsewhere in this thread is excellent. Read it.
http://elsbethvaino.com/2013/05/should-you-do-a-newspaper-wo...
The most important thing for me to realize is understanding how your body responds to training, diet, rest, recovery, and stress.
Here's the key: your body is a complex feedback system responding largely with and to hormonal flows you can influence directly through diet and training.
"Training" includes both strength training and cardio. For the typical schmoe or schmoette, a basic level of strength, cardiovascular, mobility, and motor-control fitness is reasonably easy to attain.
An extremely good general overview is Liam Rosen's guide. The Reddit Fitness FAQ is also quite good. Neither is selling anything, a key point:
http://liamrosen.com/fitness.html
http://www.reddit.com/help/faqs/Fitness
Rippetoe is a good introduction to strength. The "New Rules of Lifting" books by Schuler and Cosgrove go a bit broader (and add some scope to strength training), as well as add the introductory phase that some untrained individuals might benefit from which Rippetoe largely omits (though the general principle that "you cannot start too light" is useful to keep in mind.
As to the failings of the NY Times piece, there are many, and these are highly typical of Gretchen Reynolds pieces -- I've come to discount her, and much other, health & fitness reporting at the Times (Gina Kolada is also pretty poor in my experience, despite her stature and tenure).
- It offers little or no actual strength development.
- There's no training of the back (difficult without at least minimal equipment). This is omitting training a major muscle group, and one which is underutilized in most modern daily life. More than even other muscle groups.
- There is no progression. You don't need "muscle confusion", but if you're going to progress in a training program, there has to be some mode of increasing the challenge over time.
- This is effectively a cardio-only program. It's promoting the same myth that the fitness industry has promoted since the 1970s, that cardio is all you need. The simple truth is that muscle mass and strength offer very significant benefits (Schuler and Cosgrove get into this, Robert Arnot's Dr. Bob Arnot's Guide to Turning Back the Clock also addressed this back in 1994), and as you age, you are losing about 0.5% of your muscle mass per year. This is called "sarcopenia", or age-related muscle loss.
So: yes, this is a pretty poor article, the science is lacking. The program is likely "better than nothing", but there are vastly more effective programs (and Rippetoe or "New Rules" would be good starts) which will actually provide far more returns.
The key is this: while "something" may be better than "nothing", "better" is better than "something".
If the article itself would point out these deficiencies and that this program is only a VERY basic starting point, I could accept it. It doesn't. Ergo: it's adding to the problem.
Honestly: Gretchen should be canned.
What if cardio-only is sufficient just to make you feel better, more relaxed? Why not just do it for those benefits? Honestly, if someone wants to play 30 minutes of DDR, they will sweat, they will exercise...no they are not in a very good fitness plan but think of it as a gateway drug.
The trouble is that cardio-only doesn't improve or forestall certain classes of health problem such as sarcopenia or osteoporosis. Plus most folk discover to their very great surprise that weight training is very satisfying.
For most people the answer is to do a bit of each.
For most people the answer is to do a bit of each.
Tell you what: read the informational links I posted.
Then answer your own question in a reply here.
Or I could sit next to you for the next 20 years and spoon-feed you the Internet.
Then answer your own question in a reply here.
Or I could sit next to you for the next 20 years and spoon-feed you the Internet.
Nice reply, but your reddit link returns a 404
Here is the working link: http://www.reddit.com/r/Fitness/wiki/faq
Thanks, too late to go back and edit to fix.
>Gina Kolada
That's an unfortunate name.
Also, great comment on your part :)
That's an unfortunate name.
Also, great comment on your part :)
Let me say that the routine in the original post can be actually harmful. It should be performed close to the maximum and beginners do no know their maximums. And their maximums also very uneven - muscles here (stabilizers) aren't as strong as muscles there (main muscles) and injuries should be very likely.
This routine is more for intermediate-to-advanced types and those already spent a big amount of time in gym.
This routine is more for intermediate-to-advanced types and those already spent a big amount of time in gym.
Those people are just looking for a reason not to get exercise, and are better off dying around their mid 50s.
Exercise is hard. We used to have to do it, you know, to like eat and stuff. I would be willing to bet that if you grabbed a prehistoric man and dropped him into now with all the luxuries modern life affords, he, himself, would be loathe to exercise.
You have to want it. People who do "7 minute exercises" don't want anything. They can't even find value in prolonging their life, or living more healthy, or goddammit even looking better.
There is no fragmented advice, no magic bullet. If you want to be healthy, you have to work for it. Period.
Exercise is hard. We used to have to do it, you know, to like eat and stuff. I would be willing to bet that if you grabbed a prehistoric man and dropped him into now with all the luxuries modern life affords, he, himself, would be loathe to exercise.
You have to want it. People who do "7 minute exercises" don't want anything. They can't even find value in prolonging their life, or living more healthy, or goddammit even looking better.
There is no fragmented advice, no magic bullet. If you want to be healthy, you have to work for it. Period.
> Those people are just looking for a reason not to get exercise, and are better off dying around their mid 50s.
I assume this is intended as snark, but still... a little extreme.
I assume this is intended as snark, but still... a little extreme.
Why would you say something like that?
Like what? I said a lot of things.
"Those people are just looking for a reason not to get exercise, and are better off dying around their mid 50s."
It's a ridiculous statement. Life expectancy, even among those who do not regularly exercise, is greater than 50. My mom is 70, and the most exercise she's ever gotten was from walking (and not for fitness, just around the block, or meandering through the mall). She certainly would not have been better off dying in her 50s.
It's a ridiculous statement. Life expectancy, even among those who do not regularly exercise, is greater than 50. My mom is 70, and the most exercise she's ever gotten was from walking (and not for fitness, just around the block, or meandering through the mall). She certainly would not have been better off dying in her 50s.
See my edit for the right way. I'm sorry the bloated fitness industry has inundated you with bad advice :(
It's highly ironic then, that you respond to a not-asking-for-money article on "how to get some basics off the ground" with advice to buy yet another "this time it's totally right, honest" book buy a guy who considers a quarterback more useful than me, Steven Hawking and probably you as well. And later in the thread you're starting to peddle miracle cure.
You don't have to buy the book - the same advice is given on the website you'll see if you search google for it. Or even do Stronglifts, which is the same kind of thing as Starting Strength (some people even consider it a ripoff) and it's free.
But don't go shooting the messenger because he's a bit of a meathead and turn people off to good advice as a result. That's just employing logical fallacy. Really, the benefits of weightlifting and eating properly are so great that if you tried it you wouldn't be surprised I'm so adamant about these programs. They literally prevent you from dying early.
But don't go shooting the messenger because he's a bit of a meathead and turn people off to good advice as a result. That's just employing logical fallacy. Really, the benefits of weightlifting and eating properly are so great that if you tried it you wouldn't be surprised I'm so adamant about these programs. They literally prevent you from dying early.
Motivation is an issue for some people. I myself find it hard to get myself to go to the gym but I can much more easily do workouts at home. This is much better than nothing at all and I am working up the motivation to move on to the gym.
If motivation is youre problem try some of this stuff: http://www.gnc.com/product/index.jsp?productId=12553280
I could be completely depressed and sleep deprived, drink a scoop of that, and the ONLY thing I'll want to do is get in a squat rack and put some heavy shit in the air.
I could be completely depressed and sleep deprived, drink a scoop of that, and the ONLY thing I'll want to do is get in a squat rack and put some heavy shit in the air.
Apparently, that stuff is of questionable safety, as it contains DMAA:
http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm347270.ht...
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/13/business/fda-issues-warni...
http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm347270.ht...
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/13/business/fda-issues-warni...
Take the recommended dose (one or two scoops) and you'll be fine. Overdose and your heart will stop. Same exact thing as any stimulant.
That's more likely to be Pavlovian conditioning than any actual health effect. "ATP augmentor"?!
You're criticizing gimmicky crap and bloated industries and you post a "health supplement"?
You're criticizing gimmicky crap and bloated industries and you post a "health supplement"?
The only reason I recommend that is it's the best pre-workout stimulant I've ever tried, and I've tried a few. YMMV but Jacked 3d with the DMAA ingredient is known in weightlifting circles as a miracle substance. Tear off the damn label if it bothers you.
Edit: http://www.leangains.com/2010/09/high-protein-recipes-and-ja... make sure not to get the "micro" stuff and instead look for the one with the DMAA in it
Edit: http://www.leangains.com/2010/09/high-protein-recipes-and-ja... make sure not to get the "micro" stuff and instead look for the one with the DMAA in it
@ceejayoz literature on creatine is pretty sound, unless your diet provides enough creatine, supplementation is beneficial. Here's a literature review: http://examine.com/supplements/Creatine/
careful with that stuff, and GNC in general. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/14/business/death-after-use-o...
[deleted]
The problem I have with that is then I'm dependent on a drug to get myself to workout. Anything like what you linked is most likely not good for you on a regular basis. My problem is my mindset, which will take time and effort.
My overall point is that while these "scientific" workouts are not the best way to workout, people should at least do something instead of nothing, similar to what DanielStraight said. Then if they truly want better results, they should follow routines like yours.
My overall point is that while these "scientific" workouts are not the best way to workout, people should at least do something instead of nothing, similar to what DanielStraight said. Then if they truly want better results, they should follow routines like yours.
whatever you do don't listen to this guy.
Hitchhiker: You heard of this thing, the 8-Minute Abs?
Ted: Yeah, sure, 8-Minute Abs. Yeah, the excercise video.
Hitchhiker: Yeah, this is going to blow that right out of the water. Listen to this: 7... Minute... Abs.
Ted: Right. Yes. OK, all right. I see where you're going.
Hitchhiker: Think about it. You walk into a video store, you see 8-Minute Abs sittin' there, there's 7-Minute Abs right beside it. Which one are you gonna pick, man?
Ted: I would go for the 7.
Hitchhiker: Bingo, man, bingo. 7-Minute Abs. And we guarantee just as good a workout as the 8-minute folk.
Ted: That's right. That's - that's good. That's good. Unless, of course, somebody comes up with 6-Minute Abs. Then you're in trouble, huh?
Ted: Yeah, sure, 8-Minute Abs. Yeah, the excercise video.
Hitchhiker: Yeah, this is going to blow that right out of the water. Listen to this: 7... Minute... Abs.
Ted: Right. Yes. OK, all right. I see where you're going.
Hitchhiker: Think about it. You walk into a video store, you see 8-Minute Abs sittin' there, there's 7-Minute Abs right beside it. Which one are you gonna pick, man?
Ted: I would go for the 7.
Hitchhiker: Bingo, man, bingo. 7-Minute Abs. And we guarantee just as good a workout as the 8-minute folk.
Ted: That's right. That's - that's good. That's good. Unless, of course, somebody comes up with 6-Minute Abs. Then you're in trouble, huh?
If you're going to the gym to burn calories, you're going for the wrong reasons. There's no better way to burn off excess calories than by not eating them. Exercise is a ridiculously inefficient way to burn calories and get rid of fat.
Just because burning calories from exercise will never replace proper diet doesn't mean its worthless. You can easily double your weight loss rate by going to the gym a few times a week. Far from worthless in my books.
You're both right. He never said that gym time wouldn't help you lose weight, just that, if it's the only reason you're going to the gym, you're doing it wrong.
You can have the best of both worlds. If you just spend 3 or so hours/week at the gym lifting heavy things in a focused, disciplined manner, you won't have to worry about eating too much, you'll have to worry about not eating enough. And the types of food that you want to eat will change too. It's almost magic. Sugars, fatty foods, excessive carbs, etc will just start to seem unappetizing.
You can have the best of both worlds. If you just spend 3 or so hours/week at the gym lifting heavy things in a focused, disciplined manner, you won't have to worry about eating too much, you'll have to worry about not eating enough. And the types of food that you want to eat will change too. It's almost magic. Sugars, fatty foods, excessive carbs, etc will just start to seem unappetizing.
This is very true, but I'd also suggest making a big tweak to SS if your goal is not to be a powerlifter. Substitute the front squat and trap bar deadlift for the back squat and deadlift in the program.
If you use bad form on the front squat, you drop the bar. If you use bad form on the back squat, the bar drops you.
Similarly, the trap bar deadlift also makes it easier to keep your back straight and avoids awkwardness (and possible errors/injuries) as you get the bar past your knees.
(Both are suggestions given to me by my boxing coach.)
If you use bad form on the front squat, you drop the bar. If you use bad form on the back squat, the bar drops you.
Similarly, the trap bar deadlift also makes it easier to keep your back straight and avoids awkwardness (and possible errors/injuries) as you get the bar past your knees.
(Both are suggestions given to me by my boxing coach.)
I'm not convinced that change is particularly valuable. It's not at all hard to learn to drop a bar from a back squat safely--if you're lifting in a power rack (this is mine: http://www.roguefitness.com/rogue-r-3-power-rack.php) it's almost trivial, and if you're lifting off a stand, it takes me about five minutes to show someone how to jump forward.
What's far worse is that good form on a front squat is harder, especially for inflexible people (read: most men.) It takes a wider stance, more ankle motion, and better control over your butt and spine to stay stable. You also can move less weight and it's less of a full body exercise.
Trap bar deadlifts are less problematic but I still wouldn't use them. Rippetoe has called them "a leg press with a bar"--sure, it's easier to stay vertical, but you shouldn't be trying to do that. And while yes, it takes some instruction and practice to learn good deadlift form, that's time you should be spending with a coach anyway.
Mind you, front squats and trap bar deads are by no means bad exercises and are way better than what 95% of people waste their time with; if that's what gets you to spend time under heavy weight, good for you. I just wouldn't tell my friends to go that direction.
What's far worse is that good form on a front squat is harder, especially for inflexible people (read: most men.) It takes a wider stance, more ankle motion, and better control over your butt and spine to stay stable. You also can move less weight and it's less of a full body exercise.
Trap bar deadlifts are less problematic but I still wouldn't use them. Rippetoe has called them "a leg press with a bar"--sure, it's easier to stay vertical, but you shouldn't be trying to do that. And while yes, it takes some instruction and practice to learn good deadlift form, that's time you should be spending with a coach anyway.
Mind you, front squats and trap bar deads are by no means bad exercises and are way better than what 95% of people waste their time with; if that's what gets you to spend time under heavy weight, good for you. I just wouldn't tell my friends to go that direction.
For overall health and lasting benefits you're going to need to get into a gym and pick something heavy off the ground.
Not necessarily true. There are also body weight exercises/calisthenics you can do at home. Hell, even regular walking and some yard work do wonders for your health.
You do not need to go to a gym and lift weights.
This exercise regime (or "gimmick", as you refer to it) is completely valid, and it's better than doing nothing. The average person probably can't even complete the 7 minute exercises with proper form.
Not necessarily true. There are also body weight exercises/calisthenics you can do at home. Hell, even regular walking and some yard work do wonders for your health.
You do not need to go to a gym and lift weights.
This exercise regime (or "gimmick", as you refer to it) is completely valid, and it's better than doing nothing. The average person probably can't even complete the 7 minute exercises with proper form.
A 7-minute workout isn't really going to accomplish much, but the original paper suggests repeating the 7 minute program multiple times per session.
This article is attempting to repackage old knowledge, but that doesn't really mean that it's a waste of time. There are world class athletes that use only bodyweight exercises to stay in shape. Going to the gym and picking heavy things off of the ground isn't a strict requirement of lasting fitness. Weightlifting is a perfectly viable method, but it isn't the only way to get in shape.
This article is attempting to repackage old knowledge, but that doesn't really mean that it's a waste of time. There are world class athletes that use only bodyweight exercises to stay in shape. Going to the gym and picking heavy things off of the ground isn't a strict requirement of lasting fitness. Weightlifting is a perfectly viable method, but it isn't the only way to get in shape.
To add to that: As a programmer who's been half-crippled by RSI in the past, and half-crippled again more recently by a broken shoulder (motorbike accident) and massive whiplash (car crash) within a year of each other, SS is a really worthwhile read.
I rejoined the local gym six months ago with near-constant back pain and posture that was screwed to hell. I was seriously nervous about my ability to even lift an empty bar, never mind serious weights.
A month or two in, I reached a set of weights that I simply couldn't safely increase any further - not because I wasn't getting stronger, but because my appalling posture wouldn't allow me to do it properly. So I've worked since at doing the same weights each time, but doing them right
This week is the first time since that I've been able to start adding weight - just a couple kilos, but an increase nonetheless.
But bearing in mind my back was literally so weak I had to be slow & cautious about getting out of bed in the morning six months ago: courtesy of nothing but 3 gym visits a week following the advice in SS, I'm now stronger than I ever have been, and am slowly undoing the damage of years of godawful posture.
The other day I was sitting on a sofa with my lady friend sitting on my lap. I was able to put my arms under her and stand up from that position, lifting her entire bodyweight as well as my own. And no matter how weak you might think you are right now, unless you've taken genuine spine trauma recently, I gaurantee you're stronger than I was six months ago.
And the nice thing is, it's come with very little change in body size - almost all my clothes still fit.
I rejoined the local gym six months ago with near-constant back pain and posture that was screwed to hell. I was seriously nervous about my ability to even lift an empty bar, never mind serious weights.
A month or two in, I reached a set of weights that I simply couldn't safely increase any further - not because I wasn't getting stronger, but because my appalling posture wouldn't allow me to do it properly. So I've worked since at doing the same weights each time, but doing them right
This week is the first time since that I've been able to start adding weight - just a couple kilos, but an increase nonetheless.
But bearing in mind my back was literally so weak I had to be slow & cautious about getting out of bed in the morning six months ago: courtesy of nothing but 3 gym visits a week following the advice in SS, I'm now stronger than I ever have been, and am slowly undoing the damage of years of godawful posture.
The other day I was sitting on a sofa with my lady friend sitting on my lap. I was able to put my arms under her and stand up from that position, lifting her entire bodyweight as well as my own. And no matter how weak you might think you are right now, unless you've taken genuine spine trauma recently, I gaurantee you're stronger than I was six months ago.
And the nice thing is, it's come with very little change in body size - almost all my clothes still fit.
I can recommend the Kinesis Advantage keyboard for RSI: http://www.amazon.com/Kinesis-KB500USB-BLK-Advantage-Contour...
Be sure to get the Mac one if you're on osx.
Be sure to get the Mac one if you're on osx.
I appreciate the thought, but I no longer suffer from RSI :)
I'm really happy for your inspiring progress! @skeptics, this kind of overall health improvement is what you can expect out of exercising the right way (Starting Strength) and avoiding the wrong way (The Scientific 7-Minute Workout).
You guys are completely off the mark. Obviously you need to do high intensity workouts the proper way. The higher the intensity, the better you must be at doing the exercise properly. Since you seem to have started working out using high intensity, I assume you did not know how to properly do it. High Intensity is not recommended to beginners. It is a special form of workout. This is why they mention this in the article:
"caution should be taken when prescribing this protocol to individuals who are overweight/obese, detrained, previously injured, or elderly or for individuals with comorbidities. For individuals with hypertension or heart disease, the isometric exercises (wall sit, plank, and side plank) are not recommended."
Obviously, for beginners, something with less intensity, and a higher tolerance for mistake will have better results. While you learn how to properly do exercise, and build a core foundation, that will later allow you to move to high intensity. The reason you would want to later move to high intensity, is for either lack of time, in which case, you will need the shortest workout with the highest fitness accomplishments. Or for improved oxygen flow levels and decreased body fat, which high intensity is often better at than other types of workout, no matter how much of it.
The workout described in this article, is one routine, you should not be doing it ad vitam eternam, it serves as an example, and you already need to be in a certain fitness level to perform it properly.
"caution should be taken when prescribing this protocol to individuals who are overweight/obese, detrained, previously injured, or elderly or for individuals with comorbidities. For individuals with hypertension or heart disease, the isometric exercises (wall sit, plank, and side plank) are not recommended."
Obviously, for beginners, something with less intensity, and a higher tolerance for mistake will have better results. While you learn how to properly do exercise, and build a core foundation, that will later allow you to move to high intensity. The reason you would want to later move to high intensity, is for either lack of time, in which case, you will need the shortest workout with the highest fitness accomplishments. Or for improved oxygen flow levels and decreased body fat, which high intensity is often better at than other types of workout, no matter how much of it.
The workout described in this article, is one routine, you should not be doing it ad vitam eternam, it serves as an example, and you already need to be in a certain fitness level to perform it properly.
So how much do you squat? Most people I've seen who are following SS and SL look really weak and seem to struggle with the same (low) weight for ages. I personally think 3-split 3x10 will not only give you bigger muscles but also more strength.
If they "struggle with the same (low) weight for ages" they are not following either SS or SL, as both programs include protocols for deloading to get past sticking points that works, and to eventually changing programs once your progress slows too much. E.g. SL goes from 5x5 to 3x5 to 1x5, to switching off SL entirely and switching to Madcow or Texas Method or similar - this progression is explicitly documented as part of the program, up to and including stopping SL.
SL is by design a beginners routine, intended to exploit quick recovery while you're a beginner. It is intended to get too hard for you to continue to be able to gain on it. Starting your workout with 5x5 squats 3 times a weak is not something normal people will keep doing with heavy weights. Once I started flattening out with SL 5x5, it took <6 months of substantial gains before I was flattening out on 1x5 too, and switched first to Texas Method, then to Wendlers 5/3/1. At the moment I'm doing a program that is similar to 5/3/1 but slightly higher volume, as I'm seeing decent results from that while eating like a pig.
SL is by design a beginners routine, intended to exploit quick recovery while you're a beginner. It is intended to get too hard for you to continue to be able to gain on it. Starting your workout with 5x5 squats 3 times a weak is not something normal people will keep doing with heavy weights. Once I started flattening out with SL 5x5, it took <6 months of substantial gains before I was flattening out on 1x5 too, and switched first to Texas Method, then to Wendlers 5/3/1. At the moment I'm doing a program that is similar to 5/3/1 but slightly higher volume, as I'm seeing decent results from that while eating like a pig.
I personally believe - with zero evidence to back myself up - that set/rep counts are an artificial construct and that the key is to just do the damn squats and eat enough food afterwards.
Modulating sets and reps is generally regarded to affect outcomes. The emphasis of adaptation to a set of 15 at 60% are different from the emphasis for 5 sets of 3 at 90%.
> but you'll offset the entire effect of this workout by eating a cookie.
Who said the point of the workout was weight loss? That's a really narrow view. How about just, you know, health?
> a 30 minute run and burn the same net amount of calories
Wait... now you seem to be contradicting yourself. So, a 30 minute run is offset by eating a cookie too? I can't tell if you mean the run is good, or you're saying that 30 minute runs are bad... which doesn't make a lot of sense.
I'm sure you have a point to make, but I can't tell what it is. And as for "picking something heavy off the ground"... push-ups (step 3), for example, aren't any different than that. Clearly this is not a body-building routine, but for just getting into better shape with minimal time, it seems pretty good.
> As technology-minded guys who tend not to get a lot of physical exercise
Well that's kind of the point... this is a lot better than not getting a lot of physical exercise, isn't it?
Who said the point of the workout was weight loss? That's a really narrow view. How about just, you know, health?
> a 30 minute run and burn the same net amount of calories
Wait... now you seem to be contradicting yourself. So, a 30 minute run is offset by eating a cookie too? I can't tell if you mean the run is good, or you're saying that 30 minute runs are bad... which doesn't make a lot of sense.
I'm sure you have a point to make, but I can't tell what it is. And as for "picking something heavy off the ground"... push-ups (step 3), for example, aren't any different than that. Clearly this is not a body-building routine, but for just getting into better shape with minimal time, it seems pretty good.
> As technology-minded guys who tend not to get a lot of physical exercise
Well that's kind of the point... this is a lot better than not getting a lot of physical exercise, isn't it?
> Who said the point of the workout was weight loss?
He is probably American. Americans are obsessed with losing weight and consider gyms as places "one goes to loose weight". Heard this over and over from relatives and others. "Gotta hit the gym after the holidays/after eating cake/etc". I tried telling some of them how unproductive it is to run on the treadmill for 2 hours then eat a large BigMac but it just doesn't register.
Weight and health are not necessarily strictly and linearly related. One can be thin as a stick figure and be very sick or can be overweight and relatively healthy. Why should one go to the gym? There are many reasons, feel better, get stronger, get more nimble, improve dexterity, improve mobility, meet people, and yes loose weight too but is just one of the reasons.
He is probably American. Americans are obsessed with losing weight and consider gyms as places "one goes to loose weight". Heard this over and over from relatives and others. "Gotta hit the gym after the holidays/after eating cake/etc". I tried telling some of them how unproductive it is to run on the treadmill for 2 hours then eat a large BigMac but it just doesn't register.
Weight and health are not necessarily strictly and linearly related. One can be thin as a stick figure and be very sick or can be overweight and relatively healthy. Why should one go to the gym? There are many reasons, feel better, get stronger, get more nimble, improve dexterity, improve mobility, meet people, and yes loose weight too but is just one of the reasons.
I experienced this phenomenon. I've been working hard to get in shape, and I told all my friends. The net result? They all think I'm trying to lose weight!
The ridiculous part is I've never had weight to lose. I started at 140 lbs! After considerable effort I'm up to 165 lbs now. An hour on the weights every second day and I eat ~4,000 calories / day. My goal is to reach 180.
The ridiculous part is I've never had weight to lose. I started at 140 lbs! After considerable effort I'm up to 165 lbs now. An hour on the weights every second day and I eat ~4,000 calories / day. My goal is to reach 180.
I'd also like to add this article to the discussion - Barbell Training is Big Medicine (http://startingstrength.com/articles/barbell_medicine_sulliv...).
The article only does a dip into the effects of strength training, but the more I research about strength & health the more I truly believe that strength (not big bulky muscles) is something everyone should strive for.
The article only does a dip into the effects of strength training, but the more I research about strength & health the more I truly believe that strength (not big bulky muscles) is something everyone should strive for.
Wow! Just read the article, it was really enlightening!
Weight lifting will not (ever) keep your legs from burning as you bound up 5 flights of stairs, two stairs at a time. This program will, with enough practice. If you never want to have this kind of performance it may be a waste for you.
5-3-1 Boring But Big/NOV is a pretty good workout in a similar vein. You get stronger month on month, and the workout can be completed in under an hour.
Instead of prowler pushing, I substitute in running on a switched off treadmill. You have to generate resistance to move the belt.
Instead of prowler pushing, I substitute in running on a switched off treadmill. You have to generate resistance to move the belt.
This is definitely not a waste of time. I do routines similar to this and I've definitely gotten stronger doing them. I also do many pull-ups as well which aren't on this chart, but all of these exercises are great exercises. You are NOT going to lose a lot of weight with this alone. However, if you are already a healthy active person then adding a routing like this only helps.
My brother spends at least 5 days a week at a gym lifting weights and eats a very strict diet. I'm more of the runner type, doing Taekwondo 2 days a week and more body weight workouts like this (and I eat fairly well for the most part). He's definitely stronger than me, but I have no doubt that I'm in just as good of shape if not better than him.
My brother spends at least 5 days a week at a gym lifting weights and eats a very strict diet. I'm more of the runner type, doing Taekwondo 2 days a week and more body weight workouts like this (and I eat fairly well for the most part). He's definitely stronger than me, but I have no doubt that I'm in just as good of shape if not better than him.
After years of spinning wheels, like many others, I've found that gimmicky crap like this is just that - gimmicky crap. This may be more efficient than a 30 minute run and burn the same net amount of calories, but you'll offset the entire effect of this workout by eating a cookie. For overall health and lasting benefits you're going to need to get into a gym and pick something heavy off the ground.
Can I disprove one anecdote, with another? Sure, why not?
I used to go to the gym 6x a week for about 60-90/session and lifted heavy things from every possible position imaginable. I even won a fitness contest at my university (a weird combination of weight to bench press, squat, deadlift, and pull ups). I was certainly in great shape and very strong.
But life intruded. For a while I did nothing and got in much worse shape. I needed to get back in shape, but I didn't have time for the gym (at least that was my opinion). So I started just doing stuff at home. Probably 10 minutes per day. Push ups, pull ups, crunches, and biking a short distance to the bus for work.
While I'm probably not quite as strong as I was in college, I'm pretty close. I've probably gotten something like 90% of the gains with 15% of the effort.
To be a competitive athlete or bodybuilder that 10% makes a huge difference. But for most people, I think this seems like the right tradeoff.
Can I disprove one anecdote, with another? Sure, why not?
I used to go to the gym 6x a week for about 60-90/session and lifted heavy things from every possible position imaginable. I even won a fitness contest at my university (a weird combination of weight to bench press, squat, deadlift, and pull ups). I was certainly in great shape and very strong.
But life intruded. For a while I did nothing and got in much worse shape. I needed to get back in shape, but I didn't have time for the gym (at least that was my opinion). So I started just doing stuff at home. Probably 10 minutes per day. Push ups, pull ups, crunches, and biking a short distance to the bus for work.
While I'm probably not quite as strong as I was in college, I'm pretty close. I've probably gotten something like 90% of the gains with 15% of the effort.
To be a competitive athlete or bodybuilder that 10% makes a huge difference. But for most people, I think this seems like the right tradeoff.
Its great that you got in shape lifting heavy weights. Mark Rippetoe discusses why it is easier to regain old strength as opposed to building new strength in his starting strength series.
I don't really see your anecdote disproving the GP, rather, it seems it is further evidence of the GP's hypothesis that heavy lifting is required for strength gains.
Congratulations on your gains, though.
I don't really see your anecdote disproving the GP, rather, it seems it is further evidence of the GP's hypothesis that heavy lifting is required for strength gains.
Congratulations on your gains, though.
The GP wasn't saying heavy lifting is required for strength gains, he was making the much stronger claim that it was necessary to be healthy. (Perhaps unintentionally; I'm not sure they actually read the bloody linked article.)
I see the distinction you were making, but this study has an interesting conclusion[0].
"Muscular strength is inversely and independently associated with death from all causes and cancer in men, even after adjusting for cardiorespiratory fitness and other potential confounders."
[0]: http://www.bmj.com/content/337/bmj.a439
"Muscular strength is inversely and independently associated with death from all causes and cancer in men, even after adjusting for cardiorespiratory fitness and other potential confounders."
[0]: http://www.bmj.com/content/337/bmj.a439
That's still looking at things the wrong way round. Even in your quote, it mentions the need to control for things like cardiorespiratory fitness.
The conclusion that muscular strength will always improve your health does not imply that other things are useless! (And note that the linked routines does attempt to improve muscular strength, but the whole point of it was to be something you could do without special equipment.)
The conclusion that muscular strength will always improve your health does not imply that other things are useless! (And note that the linked routines does attempt to improve muscular strength, but the whole point of it was to be something you could do without special equipment.)
Body weight (BW) exercises like push-ups and pull-ups are still moving heavy weights. At least in my case. It may not be as hardcore as serious barbell training, but it's substantial.
Muscles aren't sentient and to a muscle resistance is resistance. In that respect, bodyweight is fine.
The larger view is problematic, though. Progressions in bodyweight training often require large leaps in resistance and the development of new skills.
For conventional barbell training you can progress in increments of a kilogram.
The larger view is problematic, though. Progressions in bodyweight training often require large leaps in resistance and the development of new skills.
For conventional barbell training you can progress in increments of a kilogram.
Indeed. I was speaking more to the possible perception that barbell training and body weight training were two different things completely. They are both resistance/weight training, and are alike in more ways than different. You are pushing/pulling with resistance, at a given angle, and that builds certain muscles and burns calories.
I think people get silly about it. Traditional dick waving stuff.
I'm a barbell partisan, but I have a few bodyweight-ish things sprinkled here and there. Pushups are an excellent assistance exercise for the overhead press and for the snatch/jerk lockout positions. Pullups or chinups are fun and develop the latismuss dorsi, a key muscle for the snatch and clean.
I'm a barbell partisan, but I have a few bodyweight-ish things sprinkled here and there. Pushups are an excellent assistance exercise for the overhead press and for the snatch/jerk lockout positions. Pullups or chinups are fun and develop the latismuss dorsi, a key muscle for the snatch and clean.
Not possible.
What was your 1RM squat, deadlift and bench press then and what is it now?
What was your 1RM squat, deadlift and bench press then and what is it now?
Do I really need to go into the gym to get something heavy to lift? I happen to have something heavy already at my house: my fat self.
Right now I do nothing other than jogging or strenuous hiking, and I recognize that I need to add strength training. More than half of these seem to be strength exercises.
I don't understand all the weird schisms and cliques that pop up on HN when fitness topics are discussed. From an idiot's perspective, it seems like I could get good strength gains with these exercise and my (already-considerable) body weight.
Right now I do nothing other than jogging or strenuous hiking, and I recognize that I need to add strength training. More than half of these seem to be strength exercises.
I don't understand all the weird schisms and cliques that pop up on HN when fitness topics are discussed. From an idiot's perspective, it seems like I could get good strength gains with these exercise and my (already-considerable) body weight.
You definitely don't. My home barbell area is 6x8 feet, and could be less, but that's the space I need to train in so I leave it set up. Like pyoung said, you want to make it easy to want to exercise; I do it at home because it's just more convenient and takes less time. For others I'm sure a gym makes more sense.
I am not familiar with any of the 'science', but from what I understand you definitely want to do some sort of strength training. It helps with weight regulation, injury prevention, and overall health. The scientific 7-minute will probably work, or at least be a good place to start.
For me personally, I've noticed that when I pay for a gym membership (or some other fitness program), I actually force myself to use the service due to the financial commitment. When i try and save money by working out at home, I always skip sessions. If I could get better at motivating myself for the home workouts, I would probably do those more, but like someone else said, the best workout is the one that you actually do.
For me personally, I've noticed that when I pay for a gym membership (or some other fitness program), I actually force myself to use the service due to the financial commitment. When i try and save money by working out at home, I always skip sessions. If I could get better at motivating myself for the home workouts, I would probably do those more, but like someone else said, the best workout is the one that you actually do.
The keys to great beginner strength training are low reps and linear progression. Let's say you're an average male and start squatting 135 pounds in 3 sets of 5 reps. Next time you lift 140. Then 145. Etc. Once you reach the 300lb neighborhood a few months later, you will be massively stronger, but still only an intermediate beginner in the view of a good strength coach.
If you're like me and you reach that point, you'll then look back at the years wasted doing pushups and biking or whatever and consider it time wasted. You'll wonder "why isn't this more widely known?!"
If you're like me and you reach that point, you'll then look back at the years wasted doing pushups and biking or whatever and consider it time wasted. You'll wonder "why isn't this more widely known?!"
You are correct. Push-ups, pull-ups and other exercises that you can do with your own body provide the same kind benefits as weight training, just at a much smaller range. That is, it's harder (and slower) to start, and you can only go so far.
> That is, it's harder (and slower) to start, and you can only go so far.
That's a strange definition of "same benefits".
That's a strange definition of "same benefits".
You build muscle mass and get bigger. That's the benefit.
If you lift weights, you get the added benefit of being able to start with a lower weight and work your way up. If you are just doing push-up/pull-ups you will likely find you hit a threshold where your body weight is no longer sufficient for strength training.
TBH, most people will never reach that point. You've got to be in damn good shape to be able to do 50 pushups with your feet on a chair.
So yeah, the benefits are the same for most people.
If you lift weights, you get the added benefit of being able to start with a lower weight and work your way up. If you are just doing push-up/pull-ups you will likely find you hit a threshold where your body weight is no longer sufficient for strength training.
TBH, most people will never reach that point. You've got to be in damn good shape to be able to do 50 pushups with your feet on a chair.
So yeah, the benefits are the same for most people.
It's cute that you think everyone has access to a gym, I guess.
It's unfortunate that single comment threads dominate the entire discussion on HN sometimes.
"For overall health and lasting benefits you're going to need to get into a gym and pick something heavy off the ground."
That statement is not true.
Yoga is incredibly beneficial to the body with many lasting benefits after you leave the mat.
And you never have to lift anything heavy. Ever.
That statement is not true.
Yoga is incredibly beneficial to the body with many lasting benefits after you leave the mat.
And you never have to lift anything heavy. Ever.
Agreed, I don't know of any research that would back up such a claim.
I tried Mark Rippletoe's program, and it didn't work for me. IMO, it worked my legs way too much. Squats 3 times a week? I went up in the beginning, but plateaued in a couple of months and then got the flu (and I rarely get sick). After a couple of weeks off, my legs were still sore. I tried to get back into it, but the constant pain and lack of progress finally made me give up.
Also, I don't understand why his routine is so lopsided as to favor the lower body.
Right now I'm doing Mike Mentzer's Heavy Duty routine, which after 3 months has been fantastic. It uses HIT principles, where you are only doing the minimum work necessary to stimulate the muscle. This translates to 1 set per exercise twice a week or so.
Check out http://boiseexperiment.com/HeavyDuty/?page_id=308 for a very detailed account of the results of doing such a workout.
Also, I don't understand why his routine is so lopsided as to favor the lower body.
Right now I'm doing Mike Mentzer's Heavy Duty routine, which after 3 months has been fantastic. It uses HIT principles, where you are only doing the minimum work necessary to stimulate the muscle. This translates to 1 set per exercise twice a week or so.
Check out http://boiseexperiment.com/HeavyDuty/?page_id=308 for a very detailed account of the results of doing such a workout.
> Also, I don't understand why his routine is so lopsided as to favor the lower body.
Most of the muscle mass of the body is in the hips and legs.
If you dislike squatting frequently (personally, I luuuurve squatting), look up and try the Greyskull Linear Program (GSLP). Here's a handy summary: http://i.imgur.com/ADuFA.png
Most of the muscle mass of the body is in the hips and legs.
If you dislike squatting frequently (personally, I luuuurve squatting), look up and try the Greyskull Linear Program (GSLP). Here's a handy summary: http://i.imgur.com/ADuFA.png
Are you sure you were eating enough? Eating more is almost always the answer to plateaus. Also squats are the best exercise for all-around strength, not just legs. Squatting more weight does wonders for other things like bench and overhead press.
I wasn't drinking a gallon of milk a day, as recommended by Rippletoe, although I was eating more. It gave me a big belly, gastrointestinal problems and gained about 10 lbs, which was another issue, too.
I could have eaten even more though. But I don't get the whole eat until your stuffed mantra either. It seems so unnatural and unhealthy.
I could have eaten even more though. But I don't get the whole eat until your stuffed mantra either. It seems so unnatural and unhealthy.
Getting enough sleep is important as well. Anecdotally, I have experienced subpar lifting performance when I average less than 8.5 hours/night for a few days.
I also plateaued on Squats during SS after about 4 months, so I lowered my work weight to 80% during my middle squat day (Wednesday in a MWF routine), as Rippetoe suggests, and I immediately broke out of it.
I also plateaued on Squats during SS after about 4 months, so I lowered my work weight to 80% during my middle squat day (Wednesday in a MWF routine), as Rippetoe suggests, and I immediately broke out of it.
Assuming you are younger than 35 and starting essentially untrained then if you only gained 10 lbs after several months you weren't eating nearly enough.
I'm 38 and have been weight lifting on and off for around 20 years, but never was very successful at it. I think I maxed around a 225 bench at one point, but now I'm much less than that.
Anyway, I just discovered HIIT training, which has made a world of difference. I'm actually gaining strength and mass every time I work out, and I'm eating less now than I did on SS.
SS works for some people, but I think it depends on your genetics. Or maybe your right and I'm not eating enough. However, my system just can't handle that much food without GI problems. Also, I was getting a big fat belly along with it.
HIIT training has been working for me and after 2 months the gains are still there and better than those I was getting on SS. There also is more evidence that it works than SS has, I believe. Like I posted on another thread, checkout the boise experiment: http://boiseexperiment.com/HeavyDuty/?page_id=308
Anyway, each to his own.
Anyway, I just discovered HIIT training, which has made a world of difference. I'm actually gaining strength and mass every time I work out, and I'm eating less now than I did on SS.
SS works for some people, but I think it depends on your genetics. Or maybe your right and I'm not eating enough. However, my system just can't handle that much food without GI problems. Also, I was getting a big fat belly along with it.
HIIT training has been working for me and after 2 months the gains are still there and better than those I was getting on SS. There also is more evidence that it works than SS has, I believe. Like I posted on another thread, checkout the boise experiment: http://boiseexperiment.com/HeavyDuty/?page_id=308
Anyway, each to his own.
[deleted]
I'm also doing Mentzer's workout.
Even though it is only one set per workout, that set tends to be pretty painful. ;)
Even though it is only one set per workout, that set tends to be pretty painful. ;)
Starting Strength and only primarily targets the ability to lift heavy objects. On its own it does nothing to improve your cardio fitness and it doesn't directly help with postural problems or injury prevention. And if your
main interest is in gaining muscle and looking better, there are much better routines. In all the gyms I've been to, I've yet to see a big guy who was doing a stripped down strength focused routine... Finally, it also has to be noted that many people do not have good experiences with the big barbell exercises, especially if they have pre-existing issues with their knees/back/shoulders, even if they use good form.
Deadlifts, one of the core exercises of SS, is famous for improving posture when performed correctly.
Lifting weights in general has been shown to improve cardiovascular health; obviously not as much as pure cardiovascular training, but the science is pretty conclusive that it has a positive impact on your heart.
Lifting weights prevents injuries by improving bone density, strengthening connective tissue around troublesome joints (knees, rotator cuff, hips, etc.) and preventing the use of poor posture to accomplish everyday tasks (e.g., instead of hunching your back and stressing your spine to carry a heavy ice chest, you can use the muscles of your upper back). It also adds muscle, which increases your BMR (AKA metabolism).
If your main interest is in gaining muscle and looking better, there may be better routines. But Starting Strength is about one thing ... strength. Pure and simple. It never claims otherwise.
Starting Strength has been used as a fundamental building block by athletic trainers for years; it is often modified to be sport specific, but its fundamental lifts have proven effective over and over. After one has reached strength standards, it is typical (and recommended) to move on to a more advanced strength routine, which may explain why many of the big guys you have met are no longer doing a stripped down strength routine.
Yes, those with serious pre-existing injuries may want to opt for a different program (probably machine based), but that will be true of almost any strength training program. Those with only minor injuries can just start SS at a lower weight and improve more slowly.
Hope that helps address your concerns.
Lifting weights in general has been shown to improve cardiovascular health; obviously not as much as pure cardiovascular training, but the science is pretty conclusive that it has a positive impact on your heart.
Lifting weights prevents injuries by improving bone density, strengthening connective tissue around troublesome joints (knees, rotator cuff, hips, etc.) and preventing the use of poor posture to accomplish everyday tasks (e.g., instead of hunching your back and stressing your spine to carry a heavy ice chest, you can use the muscles of your upper back). It also adds muscle, which increases your BMR (AKA metabolism).
If your main interest is in gaining muscle and looking better, there may be better routines. But Starting Strength is about one thing ... strength. Pure and simple. It never claims otherwise.
Starting Strength has been used as a fundamental building block by athletic trainers for years; it is often modified to be sport specific, but its fundamental lifts have proven effective over and over. After one has reached strength standards, it is typical (and recommended) to move on to a more advanced strength routine, which may explain why many of the big guys you have met are no longer doing a stripped down strength routine.
Yes, those with serious pre-existing injuries may want to opt for a different program (probably machine based), but that will be true of almost any strength training program. Those with only minor injuries can just start SS at a lower weight and improve more slowly.
Hope that helps address your concerns.
> Lifting weights in general has been shown to improve cardiovascular health; obviously not as much as pure cardiovascular training, but the science is pretty conclusive that it has a positive impact on your heart.
It is worth noting that the adaptation of the heart to weight training is different to the adaptation caused by traditional "cardio".
Weight training causes the heart walls to thicken because, during muscular contraction, blood pressure spikes and the heart must beat against that pressure. For heavy compound exercises the spike can be very high (which is why weight training is contraindicated for some trainees).
Cardio training however is aerobic -- the muscles begin to use blood-borne glucose and oxygen. This means that the heart must deliver more blood per stroke and so ultimately, the heart chambers grow larger.
Both adaptations have a positive impact on heart health. For most people doing both strength and some conditioning work is good.
It is worth noting that the adaptation of the heart to weight training is different to the adaptation caused by traditional "cardio".
Weight training causes the heart walls to thicken because, during muscular contraction, blood pressure spikes and the heart must beat against that pressure. For heavy compound exercises the spike can be very high (which is why weight training is contraindicated for some trainees).
Cardio training however is aerobic -- the muscles begin to use blood-borne glucose and oxygen. This means that the heart must deliver more blood per stroke and so ultimately, the heart chambers grow larger.
Both adaptations have a positive impact on heart health. For most people doing both strength and some conditioning work is good.
Good info, thanks for sharing. Are you knowledgeable about how much time to spend on cardio and strength training per week for optimal heart health? It's difficult to find reliable information about this subject.
Some claim that elevating one's heart rate (170+ BPM for late 20s individual) for 20-30 minutes three times a week is a good 80/20 solution for aerobic exercise. My current routine is to lift for 50 minutes MWF, jog for 45 minutes Tuesday, interval sprint for 25 minutes Thursday, and take a long hike Saturday. I also bike to work MWF (11 miles round trip) and walk 12k steps a day, so I figure that cancels the need for a third weekly intense aerobic exercise session. Curious to know if you have any heart health improvement suggestions.
Some claim that elevating one's heart rate (170+ BPM for late 20s individual) for 20-30 minutes three times a week is a good 80/20 solution for aerobic exercise. My current routine is to lift for 50 minutes MWF, jog for 45 minutes Tuesday, interval sprint for 25 minutes Thursday, and take a long hike Saturday. I also bike to work MWF (11 miles round trip) and walk 12k steps a day, so I figure that cancels the need for a third weekly intense aerobic exercise session. Curious to know if you have any heart health improvement suggestions.
If you don't have a particular special goal, a spectrum is good. I think yours sounds OK. Some weights, some jogging, some sprints.
My conditioning requirements basically are to get my breath back within 90 seconds of attempting a 1RM snatch / clean & jerk, so most of my conditioning is timed KB swings.
My conditioning requirements basically are to get my breath back within 90 seconds of attempting a 1RM snatch / clean & jerk, so most of my conditioning is timed KB swings.
> In all the gyms I've been to, I've yet to see a big guy who was doing a stripped down strength focused routine...
Visit a powerlifting gym some time. I cross-train at one.
Visit a powerlifting gym some time. I cross-train at one.
Everybody is different. I tried a lot of different workout routines and while I would enjoy and make quick gains from each one, I would eventually stop making gains and get bored, and stop. For years I thought that if I could motivate myself to stick with something, I would be able to get healthy.
What I realized is that variety is exactly what I need. Now I'll generally switch up my routine once every month or two. Right now I'm on a biking kick because the weather is finally getting nice here. Before that it was pull-ups/push-ups/one-legged squats. Before that it was yoga.
There are tons of ways to get fit. Starting strength worked for me--for three months--but it's not any more the "one true way" than anything else.
What I realized is that variety is exactly what I need. Now I'll generally switch up my routine once every month or two. Right now I'm on a biking kick because the weather is finally getting nice here. Before that it was pull-ups/push-ups/one-legged squats. Before that it was yoga.
There are tons of ways to get fit. Starting strength worked for me--for three months--but it's not any more the "one true way" than anything else.
A lot of the get fit in 60-90 days fitness programs that sell on TV are based on these types of workouts. I was a fatass my whole life until 1.5 years ago I decided to lose weight and get in shape. I followed the slow carb diet and now try to recommend it every time I get the chance. I exercise daily, but without the diet aspect I dont think my body would have changed at all.
The supplement and weight loss industry has made in very difficult for people to achieve results. I lost 50 pounds fat and put on 20 pounds of muscle with zero supplements, not even a protein shake, just lots of good nutrition, patience, and little understanding that my body might change.
The supplement and weight loss industry has made in very difficult for people to achieve results. I lost 50 pounds fat and put on 20 pounds of muscle with zero supplements, not even a protein shake, just lots of good nutrition, patience, and little understanding that my body might change.
Congrats! It's a huge sense of accomplishment, no? I did a similar thing around the same time ago -- started eating better (out with the Frosted Mini Wheats for breakfast, in with the Greek Yogurt), started running, and lost 30 lbs in about 6 months. No supplements either. Best life improvement I've ever made.
Thanks and congrats to you too. I have found a lot of people that are into fitness on hn. Taken a few tips here and there. The no supplements thing was something I was just determined to do. In my mind, I ate to get fat, and now I needed to eat to get fit. That perspective helped me out a lot. I wanted to mention that I achieved my results so far without a gym membership. I did put together a small @ home gym, but its not the same as a gym. Just been able to really stay motivated.
The best article I found on this was "Everything You Know About Fitness Is A Lie" [1]
I'd summarize the contents as: 1- Most gyms are 45% cardio, 45% stretching 10% weights. This is bad. 2- You need to lift heavy things. 3- There are no shortcuts.
Favorite excerpt: My conversion moment came in a garage-like industrial space next to an ATV rental yard in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. I was lying on a concrete floor, near puking, having just humiliated myself on the king of all strength exercises, the old-school back squat. "The best thing I can do for an athlete," coach Rob Shaul said to me as I struggled to get up, "is to make him strong. Strength is king, and you're fucking little-girl weak."
[1] http://www.mensjournal.com/magazine/everything-you-know-abou...
I'd summarize the contents as: 1- Most gyms are 45% cardio, 45% stretching 10% weights. This is bad. 2- You need to lift heavy things. 3- There are no shortcuts.
Favorite excerpt: My conversion moment came in a garage-like industrial space next to an ATV rental yard in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. I was lying on a concrete floor, near puking, having just humiliated myself on the king of all strength exercises, the old-school back squat. "The best thing I can do for an athlete," coach Rob Shaul said to me as I struggled to get up, "is to make him strong. Strength is king, and you're fucking little-girl weak."
[1] http://www.mensjournal.com/magazine/everything-you-know-abou...
"Scientific" ?
I dont see science in this article or the science in this article is the same science behind those late night tv ads where they sell 8-minute-ab-pro (among the others).
The original paper that articles cites does not provide any concrete data to defend their claims.
Secondly the most important thing is what is the objective of this workout. Clearly it is neither to keep your weight in control or to build strength. It is merely to provide "some" exercise.
There are some fundamental truths about workouts which everyone should know.
1. Your body starts burning fat at higher rate only when you heartbeat is above average for around 20 minutes. Till then your body is mostly burning calories from the carbs. So no matter how hard you work for those 7 minutes you are not gonna lose that extra fat.
2. Even if you do these exercises regularly it is only within a week that your muscles will get strong enough to get used to your body weight. After that same number of reps wont have any effect on your body. (Yes it might be little better than being idle).
3. Actually no matter what is your goal if you keep your regimen fixed you very soon find yourself in a local minima. After that the law of diminishing returns kicks in and the benefit of exercise becomes negligible compared to the time you spend doing it.
Here is a quick checklist to see if the advertised regimen should be taken seriously
1. Is the lower limit on duration around 20 minutes ?
2. Is there any variable that can be changed with time to increase difficulty level ?
3. Does it cover all core muscle groups ? Arms, Chest, Back, Abs, Legs and shoulders?
I dont see science in this article or the science in this article is the same science behind those late night tv ads where they sell 8-minute-ab-pro (among the others).
The original paper that articles cites does not provide any concrete data to defend their claims.
Secondly the most important thing is what is the objective of this workout. Clearly it is neither to keep your weight in control or to build strength. It is merely to provide "some" exercise.
There are some fundamental truths about workouts which everyone should know.
1. Your body starts burning fat at higher rate only when you heartbeat is above average for around 20 minutes. Till then your body is mostly burning calories from the carbs. So no matter how hard you work for those 7 minutes you are not gonna lose that extra fat.
2. Even if you do these exercises regularly it is only within a week that your muscles will get strong enough to get used to your body weight. After that same number of reps wont have any effect on your body. (Yes it might be little better than being idle).
3. Actually no matter what is your goal if you keep your regimen fixed you very soon find yourself in a local minima. After that the law of diminishing returns kicks in and the benefit of exercise becomes negligible compared to the time you spend doing it.
Here is a quick checklist to see if the advertised regimen should be taken seriously
1. Is the lower limit on duration around 20 minutes ?
2. Is there any variable that can be changed with time to increase difficulty level ?
3. Does it cover all core muscle groups ? Arms, Chest, Back, Abs, Legs and shoulders?
Consider the source. Periodicals are in the business of selling you content (and advertising). Therefore, it is in their interests to create the latest "fad" and to sell it to you as tested. And then create something new and sell it to you again. And then...
Is this workout terrible? No. It beats nothing. Is it the key to your ongoing physical fitness? Of course not.
The fitness world is overrun with so-called experts. One problem is that we are all different. We have different body types, different goals, different strengths, different weaknesses, and different likes/dislikes. What works for me may not work for you.
Can a periodical take this into account for all readers? Of course not.
Consider their workout as a first step. If you are doing nothing, do the 7-minute workout. It will help you, to a point. Thereafter, you'll need to challenge your body to do harder things.
Also, consider the physics definition of mechanical work: W=f*d.
So, go apply some force of a distance. That's a workout.
Do work.
Is this workout terrible? No. It beats nothing. Is it the key to your ongoing physical fitness? Of course not.
The fitness world is overrun with so-called experts. One problem is that we are all different. We have different body types, different goals, different strengths, different weaknesses, and different likes/dislikes. What works for me may not work for you.
Can a periodical take this into account for all readers? Of course not.
Consider their workout as a first step. If you are doing nothing, do the 7-minute workout. It will help you, to a point. Thereafter, you'll need to challenge your body to do harder things.
Also, consider the physics definition of mechanical work: W=f*d.
So, go apply some force of a distance. That's a workout.
Do work.
I have a secret about fitness to share. It's the reason there are so many snake oil programs out there. Everything works. For a sedentary person ANY random stimulus is going to give you a couple months of improvement.
The true measure of a program is if after the first year you are still making quantifiable improvements.
The true measure of a program is if after the first year you are still making quantifiable improvements.
Fellow HN'ers - I'm slightly disappointed.
How come I go to the comments and all I see is a battle of the anecdotes? Where's the fact-checking?
This being HN, I would at least have expected someone pointing out that 12 exercises à 30 seconds plus 11 x 10 seconds rest between them is closer to an 8-minute workout than a 7-minute workout ;-)
How come I go to the comments and all I see is a battle of the anecdotes? Where's the fact-checking?
This being HN, I would at least have expected someone pointing out that 12 exercises à 30 seconds plus 11 x 10 seconds rest between them is closer to an 8-minute workout than a 7-minute workout ;-)
I'm all for bodyweight training (you are your own gym, convict conditioning, al kavadlo, naked warrior, barstarzz, coach sommer, calisthenic kings...), and have better results than with metal, without the pain, but this is not it. Seriously, not one exercise for your back, but useless crunches? Do some yoga sun salutation, add some resistance by tensing your body and you have a by far better workout in the same amount of time than this.
Lift some weights, 2-3 minutes a day, every day.
Eat/drink/do whatever else you want and you will stay fit regardless, because it is about increasing your metabolism and not how much or even what you do, just that you do it every single day before eating.
Oh and don't drink sweet drinks of any kind.
#unsubstantiated personal experience
Eat/drink/do whatever else you want and you will stay fit regardless, because it is about increasing your metabolism and not how much or even what you do, just that you do it every single day before eating.
Oh and don't drink sweet drinks of any kind.
#unsubstantiated personal experience
Am I the only one who noticed, that the other, more realistic number 20 minutes is omitted in the NYT article. See "the established ACSM guidelines for high-intensity exercise of at least 20 minutes is recommended" in the original article.
It seems great. if people spend less time at the gym and more time doing interesting things, like learning to play a violin or reading james joyce, the world would be a little less boring.
I actually like spending time exercising. It allows me to relax and think more clearly. I run about 15 miles a week, and enjoy every minute of it.
It doesn't take much endurance to do 7 minutes of training...
If you're not going to expend the hard work then you shouldn't expect to see much improvement.
"Sua Sponte!"
"Sua Sponte!"
Nothing worth having is easy. Anything easy isn't worth having
Getting fit is hard work. If it was easy everyone would look like a Greek God / Goddess!
No Pain, No Gain
Getting fit is hard work. If it was easy everyone would look like a Greek God / Goddess!
No Pain, No Gain
About 50% of those moves look like the yoga poses I do every week.
aka circuit training
Here are videos showing the 7 exercises, along with some tips for avoiding potential damage (don't slide down after the wall sit, for example, push up, so you don't damage your knees):
http://lifehacker.com/these-12-videos-show-the-proper-form-f...
http://lifehacker.com/these-12-videos-show-the-proper-form-f...
Squat form video is wrong. Don't do that with weight.
Your toes need to be pointed out 30 degrees and knees spread apart, crotch opened as far as possible.
You'll find a lot of wrong YouTube videos. It's a minefield of fitness non-experts trying to make a profit. Follow Starting Strength form recommendations and make sure the videos you're watching follow them approximately.
Your toes need to be pointed out 30 degrees and knees spread apart, crotch opened as far as possible.
You'll find a lot of wrong YouTube videos. It's a minefield of fitness non-experts trying to make a profit. Follow Starting Strength form recommendations and make sure the videos you're watching follow them approximately.
80% intensity is no joke - this should not be comfortable. Might want to do a little easy warmup first.
The full article is here:
http://journals.lww.com/acsm-healthfitness/Fulltext/2013/050...
It's surprisingly readable and goes into much more detail. Also, a downloadable PDF.
http://journals.lww.com/acsm-healthfitness/Fulltext/2013/050...
It's surprisingly readable and goes into much more detail. Also, a downloadable PDF.
“There’s very good evidence” that high-intensity interval training provides “many of the fitness benefits of prolonged endurance training but in much less time""
Sorry, but there's no way that I'll believe that a 7 minute "heavy intensity workout" can burn the same number of calories of an involved 45 minute run, and have the same beneficial effect on weight control.
Better than nothing, maybe very efficient in terms of results/time, but in no way "combines a long run and a visit to the weight room" as the article claims.
EDIT : It's useful to separate what the NYT says and the actual article does.
Sorry, but there's no way that I'll believe that a 7 minute "heavy intensity workout" can burn the same number of calories of an involved 45 minute run, and have the same beneficial effect on weight control.
Better than nothing, maybe very efficient in terms of results/time, but in no way "combines a long run and a visit to the weight room" as the article claims.
EDIT : It's useful to separate what the NYT says and the actual article does.
I love how you quote the part which lists the potential benefits of this, then argue that it is nonsense because it doesn't accomplish [other benefits as listed]. The quote you quoted says nothing about "weight control."
Also since when is exercise effective for losing substantial amounts of body fat/weight? You burn very few calories when you exercise, at least very few relative to your BMR.
Even just knowing some numbers should tell you how bonkers losing weight through exercise as opposed to diet is (e.g. calories burnt per hour running, calories in a chocolate bar, calories per pound of weight, and BMR).
Plus, you're basically dumping on a scientific article with your nonsense anecdotes. Your belief is not required.
Also since when is exercise effective for losing substantial amounts of body fat/weight? You burn very few calories when you exercise, at least very few relative to your BMR.
Even just knowing some numbers should tell you how bonkers losing weight through exercise as opposed to diet is (e.g. calories burnt per hour running, calories in a chocolate bar, calories per pound of weight, and BMR).
Plus, you're basically dumping on a scientific article with your nonsense anecdotes. Your belief is not required.
> Also since when is exercise effective for losing substantial amounts of body fat/weight? You burn very few calories when you exercise, at least very few relative to your BMR.
Is this a joke? I just ran the numbers for my BMR and what I've burned running for the month of May and get:
BMR Estimate = 1.4 Kcal/min
Jogging (8:30/mile pace)= 17.8 Kcal.min.
The cardio is burning 1207% more Calories per minute than BMR. To put it in perspective, it would take me about 2 hours of Cardio at that intensity to burn my entire daily BMR. Running a marathon would consume almost twice my daily BMR.
edit: ah, I see from your comment below that you are mistaking BMR and daily Calorie intake. Yes, exercising is often accompanied by an increase in Calorie intake and a deficit is necessary for weight loss. Diet is important, too.
Is this a joke? I just ran the numbers for my BMR and what I've burned running for the month of May and get:
BMR Estimate = 1.4 Kcal/min
Jogging (8:30/mile pace)= 17.8 Kcal.min.
The cardio is burning 1207% more Calories per minute than BMR. To put it in perspective, it would take me about 2 hours of Cardio at that intensity to burn my entire daily BMR. Running a marathon would consume almost twice my daily BMR.
edit: ah, I see from your comment below that you are mistaking BMR and daily Calorie intake. Yes, exercising is often accompanied by an increase in Calorie intake and a deficit is necessary for weight loss. Diet is important, too.
I have solid personal experience in weight loss using regular cardio exercise.
"You burn very few calories when you exercise, at least very few relative to your BMR".
This is just BS, that you would know if you ever tried to lose weight.
I'm not dumping the scientific article at all, I'm criticising the claims the NYT makes of what it means.
The scientific text clearly states that this is a program that provides some of the benefits of a regular regime, and it's suited with people that doesn't have either time or easy access to facilities.
"You burn very few calories when you exercise, at least very few relative to your BMR".
This is just BS, that you would know if you ever tried to lose weight.
I'm not dumping the scientific article at all, I'm criticising the claims the NYT makes of what it means.
The scientific text clearly states that this is a program that provides some of the benefits of a regular regime, and it's suited with people that doesn't have either time or easy access to facilities.
> This is just BS, that you would know if you ever tried to lose weight.
Let's look at some numbers then. Let's take a hypothetical person, 250 pounds, male, age 25, 6' tall.
This person does NOT change their diet. They exercise instead. Since exercise means weight loss, and diet is unimportant... Or so you claim.
So to get to be 250 pounds you have to eat 2370 calories a day. Since they haven't change their diet and are 250 pound we know for a FACT they're eating 2370 on average a day...
So how do we beat that with nothing but exercise? If they ran at 5 MpH they would burn 960 calories/hour, therefore at 2370 calories a day, in order to start losing weight they need to run at least 1.2 hrs a day, 7 days a week.
How many even fit people do that much exercise? Not damn many. Do you? I don't.
But contrast that against diet changes... In order to have the same amount of weight loss as 1.2 hrs/day/7 days they would need to eat the equivalent of four less McDonalds meals a week.
What is harder? 8.5 hrs/week of running or eating four less McDonalds meals?
Let's look at some numbers then. Let's take a hypothetical person, 250 pounds, male, age 25, 6' tall.
This person does NOT change their diet. They exercise instead. Since exercise means weight loss, and diet is unimportant... Or so you claim.
So to get to be 250 pounds you have to eat 2370 calories a day. Since they haven't change their diet and are 250 pound we know for a FACT they're eating 2370 on average a day...
So how do we beat that with nothing but exercise? If they ran at 5 MpH they would burn 960 calories/hour, therefore at 2370 calories a day, in order to start losing weight they need to run at least 1.2 hrs a day, 7 days a week.
How many even fit people do that much exercise? Not damn many. Do you? I don't.
But contrast that against diet changes... In order to have the same amount of weight loss as 1.2 hrs/day/7 days they would need to eat the equivalent of four less McDonalds meals a week.
What is harder? 8.5 hrs/week of running or eating four less McDonalds meals?
Pray tell, where did I say that diet is unimportant ???
Doing physical exercise without controlling intake is a surefire way to fail any weight loss program, since you tend to overestimate the burned calories and compensate by eating more.
Let's take a REAL actual example, myself. I run 45/50 minutes x day (yes it's very possible to do that, as it is for the hundreds of people I meet daily in the park doing the same thing), burning an average of 500 calories x run.
To lose a pound you need to burn about 3500 calories. This would be about a pound every week.
Run half of the time(maybe more realistic, and perfectly achievable by most normal people) and we are talking about a pound every two weeks, without changing diet.
I have been running an average of three days for week over the last 6 years, according to my Nike+ record, and I have had very little problems in controlling weight over these years, as opposed as being seriously overweight before I starting working out.
Is diet more effective for weight loss? No, diet and exercise is a much more effective combination than any of those two alone, as doctors and scientists have been saying since, well, ever.
But I thought we were comparing a cardio workout to the 7-minutes workout, where diet entered into the discussion exactly ?
Doing physical exercise without controlling intake is a surefire way to fail any weight loss program, since you tend to overestimate the burned calories and compensate by eating more.
Let's take a REAL actual example, myself. I run 45/50 minutes x day (yes it's very possible to do that, as it is for the hundreds of people I meet daily in the park doing the same thing), burning an average of 500 calories x run.
To lose a pound you need to burn about 3500 calories. This would be about a pound every week.
Run half of the time(maybe more realistic, and perfectly achievable by most normal people) and we are talking about a pound every two weeks, without changing diet.
I have been running an average of three days for week over the last 6 years, according to my Nike+ record, and I have had very little problems in controlling weight over these years, as opposed as being seriously overweight before I starting working out.
Is diet more effective for weight loss? No, diet and exercise is a much more effective combination than any of those two alone, as doctors and scientists have been saying since, well, ever.
But I thought we were comparing a cardio workout to the 7-minutes workout, where diet entered into the discussion exactly ?
> This person does NOT change their diet. They exercise instead. Since exercise means weight loss, and diet is unimportant... Or so you claim.
Where did he claim that? He does not mention diet.
I took his claim to be: For the purpose of burning calories, a 45 minute workout will be more efficient than a 7 minute workout, regardless of workout content.
Where did he claim that? He does not mention diet.
I took his claim to be: For the purpose of burning calories, a 45 minute workout will be more efficient than a 7 minute workout, regardless of workout content.
An alternative hypothesis is that the calories burned during exercise are not the main driver of weight loss/maintenance. But exercise does promote muscle mass gain/maintenance. This increased lean muscle mass will then increase your daily calorie consumption simply by existing, thus helping weight control.
From your years of work in scientific medical research or just 'cus'?
You do understand this is scientific research and not just an idea someone thought up on a whim.
You do understand this is scientific research and not just an idea someone thought up on a whim.
Most of the science you need to reach the same conclusions as Kurtz79 is high school biology and some basic physics and thermodynamics.
Calories are a measure of work (Force x mass). To burn Calories your body has to be doing work of some sort. To burn the same number of Calories in 7 minutes as 45 requires doing an equivalent amount of work.
In my case, 45 minutes running is 800 calories. 800 calories in 7 minutes is like 114 Calories/minute. I don't think even maximum anaerobic sprinting comes close to 114 kcal/min, and even if it does I certainly can't maintain that intensity for more than 15-20 seconds.
For a comparison, my 2800 lb Honda Civic burns probably 400 kcal/minute in gasoline during city driving at an average speed of 20mph.
The article is very vague about how reasonable this 7-minute set of exercises actually is. From the article:
Interval training, though, requires intervals; the extremely intense activity must be intermingled with brief periods of recovery.
How intense? It doesn't say. This should be possible to measure. To explain more though I will have to read the original paper to see exactly what sort of "benefits" they were talking about and how intense this exercise has to be.
Calories are a measure of work (Force x mass). To burn Calories your body has to be doing work of some sort. To burn the same number of Calories in 7 minutes as 45 requires doing an equivalent amount of work.
In my case, 45 minutes running is 800 calories. 800 calories in 7 minutes is like 114 Calories/minute. I don't think even maximum anaerobic sprinting comes close to 114 kcal/min, and even if it does I certainly can't maintain that intensity for more than 15-20 seconds.
For a comparison, my 2800 lb Honda Civic burns probably 400 kcal/minute in gasoline during city driving at an average speed of 20mph.
The article is very vague about how reasonable this 7-minute set of exercises actually is. From the article:
Interval training, though, requires intervals; the extremely intense activity must be intermingled with brief periods of recovery.
How intense? It doesn't say. This should be possible to measure. To explain more though I will have to read the original paper to see exactly what sort of "benefits" they were talking about and how intense this exercise has to be.
It's not original research. It's a sample program in a puffy review article that goes out of its way to avoid using barbells, dumbbells or kettlebells.
From my years of actually exercising, and reading articles that deal with nutrition an physical exercise.
It's well known in endurance sports circles that high-intensity interval training is a great way to increase your speed over long distances as opposed to running very long distances for your training. There's some disagreement about whether or not long-distance training is actually better though because that's what runners from Kenya and Ethiopia do and it seems to be working well for them.
This 7 minute routine is just a very very basic circuit training session.
It definitely doesn't make up for "a visit to the weight room" and while fairly 'effective' in its ROI, the 7 minute span definitely gives it a hard limit on its benefits (when I used to row, we'd do 15-station circuits for an hour or so).
Also, I actually wonder if a very out of shape person can even make it through a 7 minute high intensity circuit sesion.
It definitely doesn't make up for "a visit to the weight room" and while fairly 'effective' in its ROI, the 7 minute span definitely gives it a hard limit on its benefits (when I used to row, we'd do 15-station circuits for an hour or so).
Also, I actually wonder if a very out of shape person can even make it through a 7 minute high intensity circuit sesion.
> Also, I actually wonder if a very out of shape person can even make it through a 7 minute high intensity circuit sesion.
Isn't high intensity self-defined? Meaning someone out of shape's high intensity will be less intense than someone who is in shape?
Isn't high intensity self-defined? Meaning someone out of shape's high intensity will be less intense than someone who is in shape?
In sports science, "intensity" refers to a percentage of some maximal performance.
In weight / strength training, "intensity" refers to percentage of a 1-rep maximum. So if you squat 100kg, a 70kg squat is 70% intensity.
Meanwhile, in various aerobic trials, "intensity" could be defined as percentage of measured VO2 max. This is important because one of the most influential studies on high intensity interval training (Tabata) was calibrated this way. Cyclists were tested to their sprint VO2 max and then made to push past that level for 20 seconds, then 10 seconds of rest; repeated 8 times.
In weight / strength training, "intensity" refers to percentage of a 1-rep maximum. So if you squat 100kg, a 70kg squat is 70% intensity.
Meanwhile, in various aerobic trials, "intensity" could be defined as percentage of measured VO2 max. This is important because one of the most influential studies on high intensity interval training (Tabata) was calibrated this way. Cyclists were tested to their sprint VO2 max and then made to push past that level for 20 seconds, then 10 seconds of rest; repeated 8 times.
As far as burning calories goes, it doesn't burn more calories during the actual exercise: it burns more calories overall because the HIIT raises your metabolism more post-workout. There have been done studies on this so you can search for them if you want.
OK, I'll say it: this is not a very good program. Which is fine, because it's a sample program in a fairly silly ACSM article[1].
"The exercises selected should ... promote strength development for all major muscle groups of the body".
Then progressive resistance is required. Simply adding reps does not increase strength past initial accomodation.
"... create a balance of strength throughout the body ..."
Then drop the isometrics. Isometric exercises only produce strength increases in a limited range of motion close to the joint angle of the isometric exercise. And most of those studies were done with maximal voluntary isometric contraction -- ie pushing as hard as possible against an immobile object. Wall sits do not fit those studies.
"... adapted as necessary to increase or decrease exercise intensity"
Which can't be done with most of these exercises.
"To maximize the metabolic impact of the exercise, time should be sufficient enough to allow for the proper execution of 15 to 20 repetitions (15) of an exercise."
Which further breaks the link with strength.
" Individuals who previously believed that they did not have the time for exercise can now trade total exercise time for total exercise effort and get similar or better health and fitness benefits."
Given that the studies done on high intensity interval training were initially done with elite athletes, I'm not certain it shows that at all.
This is about as scientific as two guys spitballing over beer. It hasn't been tested as a program and the idea that you can achieve any kind of serious strength gain through high repetition circuit training is, frankly, a joke.
If you want to get stronger and improve cardiovascular condition, simple barbell exercises and running or swinging a kettlebell will do it better, for longer.
When I write programs for my trainees, I am apparently equivalently scientific. I too take the general principles I am taught and go through a process of exercise selection, exercise ordering, repetition and set layout, rest period selection and then sprinkle in modifications. I'll be right back, I have a scientific program for figure competitors I need to flog to the Wall Street Journal.
[1] http://journals.lww.com/acsm-healthfitness/Fulltext/2013/050...
"The exercises selected should ... promote strength development for all major muscle groups of the body".
Then progressive resistance is required. Simply adding reps does not increase strength past initial accomodation.
"... create a balance of strength throughout the body ..."
Then drop the isometrics. Isometric exercises only produce strength increases in a limited range of motion close to the joint angle of the isometric exercise. And most of those studies were done with maximal voluntary isometric contraction -- ie pushing as hard as possible against an immobile object. Wall sits do not fit those studies.
"... adapted as necessary to increase or decrease exercise intensity"
Which can't be done with most of these exercises.
"To maximize the metabolic impact of the exercise, time should be sufficient enough to allow for the proper execution of 15 to 20 repetitions (15) of an exercise."
Which further breaks the link with strength.
" Individuals who previously believed that they did not have the time for exercise can now trade total exercise time for total exercise effort and get similar or better health and fitness benefits."
Given that the studies done on high intensity interval training were initially done with elite athletes, I'm not certain it shows that at all.
This is about as scientific as two guys spitballing over beer. It hasn't been tested as a program and the idea that you can achieve any kind of serious strength gain through high repetition circuit training is, frankly, a joke.
If you want to get stronger and improve cardiovascular condition, simple barbell exercises and running or swinging a kettlebell will do it better, for longer.
When I write programs for my trainees, I am apparently equivalently scientific. I too take the general principles I am taught and go through a process of exercise selection, exercise ordering, repetition and set layout, rest period selection and then sprinkle in modifications. I'll be right back, I have a scientific program for figure competitors I need to flog to the Wall Street Journal.
[1] http://journals.lww.com/acsm-healthfitness/Fulltext/2013/050...
It's true, a perfect training and exercise regimen will include increasing loads. But given the general sorry state of fitness and health I see daily on the streets, getting people to understand that ANY exercise, even as little as 7 minutes a day, is beneficial will go along ways towards making people healthier and stronger.
"Then progressive resistance is required. Simply adding reps does not increase strength past initial accommodation."
But initial accommodation for many people might be 6 months. I have trainees who struggle to squat past parallel for weeks or months, who can't do a Tabata cycle of more than 8 squats and who struggle to do real pushups after weeks of training. The base level of fitness for most people is so abysmal that getting them to understand the benefits of 7 minutes of high intensity exercise can be life changing. Sure, to be truly strong, you're going to have to eventually lift heavy weights but for majority of the people out there, a simple body weight routine will give them an amazing fitness boost.
Any exercise is better than no exercise. For years, people have thought they needed to spend hours at the gym to lose weight when in fact, solid nutrition combined with short intense workouts can in fact lead to enhanced strength and fitness. When the baseline is so low, anything is helpful.
"Then progressive resistance is required. Simply adding reps does not increase strength past initial accommodation."
But initial accommodation for many people might be 6 months. I have trainees who struggle to squat past parallel for weeks or months, who can't do a Tabata cycle of more than 8 squats and who struggle to do real pushups after weeks of training. The base level of fitness for most people is so abysmal that getting them to understand the benefits of 7 minutes of high intensity exercise can be life changing. Sure, to be truly strong, you're going to have to eventually lift heavy weights but for majority of the people out there, a simple body weight routine will give them an amazing fitness boost.
Any exercise is better than no exercise. For years, people have thought they needed to spend hours at the gym to lose weight when in fact, solid nutrition combined with short intense workouts can in fact lead to enhanced strength and fitness. When the baseline is so low, anything is helpful.
When the baseline is so low, anything is helpful.
Spot-on. People think they need to throw themselves into a weight-lifting program, or P90x, or crossfit, or running 5 miles a day. It's all garbage unless they can develop a habit and see personal gains. All this method requires is a timer, a room, and a chair, which makes for a much less intimidating introduction to fitness.
Spot-on. People think they need to throw themselves into a weight-lifting program, or P90x, or crossfit, or running 5 miles a day. It's all garbage unless they can develop a habit and see personal gains. All this method requires is a timer, a room, and a chair, which makes for a much less intimidating introduction to fitness.
A key advantage of barbell and dumbbell exercises is that they can be progresively loaded in small increments. Bodyweight exercises tend to have larger jumps in difficulty.
Most of the most popular weights programs for beginners are linear progressions. You literally add a fixed amount to each exercise, each session, until you can't. Folk are amazed at how quickly they can progress from struggling with a bar to squatting their own bodyweight.
Most of the most popular weights programs for beginners are linear progressions. You literally add a fixed amount to each exercise, each session, until you can't. Folk are amazed at how quickly they can progress from struggling with a bar to squatting their own bodyweight.
I totally agree with you. But I think of exercise programs like the described blog post as the gateway drug to real strength. For most people, the idea of getting into a strength program is intimidating in the same way that doing a waltz in front of 200 people is. But if you can get someone dancing in their kitchen, eventually they might turn to real lessons with real instructors.
If I can get people doing 7 minute exercise routines in their living room, eventually they will see the results and want more which leads them to the next step, a true strength program.
If I can get people doing 7 minute exercise routines in their living room, eventually they will see the results and want more which leads them to the next step, a true strength program.
Totally agree on the casual thing. I don't even think it takes a full 7 minutes. It can be done in much less.
I don't agree on "true strength", whatever that may be. I don't care to be any stronger than I am, frankly. I can pull myself up anything; I can easily lift my dates. I don't need to impress on the beach. And I don't enjoy gyms, I'd rather do something else. So "getting strong" really isn't on my priority list.
I don't agree on "true strength", whatever that may be. I don't care to be any stronger than I am, frankly. I can pull myself up anything; I can easily lift my dates. I don't need to impress on the beach. And I don't enjoy gyms, I'd rather do something else. So "getting strong" really isn't on my priority list.
Furious agreement!
I feel differently: that training at home makes it easier to give up. "Oh, I'll just sit on the couch for a minute. Hmm, I'll just check facebook for a second".
A gym, meanwhile, is an environment dedicated to training.
Still, we're both spitballing. Each trainee has their own path to exercise. I would prefer to put them onto something that won't run out of room to improve within a month or two.
I feel differently: that training at home makes it easier to give up. "Oh, I'll just sit on the couch for a minute. Hmm, I'll just check facebook for a second".
A gym, meanwhile, is an environment dedicated to training.
Still, we're both spitballing. Each trainee has their own path to exercise. I would prefer to put them onto something that won't run out of room to improve within a month or two.
The way I see it you should treat it like any other UX problem: The user is going to be at home anyways, so if you can get a "conversion" (even a short 7-minute one) that can easily bridge them into the next step. Just like video games start you off in tutorial levels and help you develop the skills you need (e.g. Mega Man X [1]).
For example I tried out the 7-minute exercise simply because I could, it was easy. If I can't even be bothered to spend 7 minutes on exercise there's no way I'm going to the gym, so it's not as if the short exercises are interfering with work at the gym.
[1] http://youtu.be/8FpigqfcvlM?t=5m53s
For example I tried out the 7-minute exercise simply because I could, it was easy. If I can't even be bothered to spend 7 minutes on exercise there's no way I'm going to the gym, so it's not as if the short exercises are interfering with work at the gym.
[1] http://youtu.be/8FpigqfcvlM?t=5m53s
The problem with bodyweight training is that there's no smooth gradient from wall sits to, say, pistol squats. The difficulty increases lumpily and frequently requires a new motor pattern to be learnt.
Whereas going from a 20kg squat to a 100kg squat can be done 1kg at a time with the same movement pattern throughout.
For people who genuinely can't or won't go to a gym, I'd first suggest installing a power cage, adjustable bench, barbell and some plates. Failing that kettlebells and resistance bands. Only after those are exhausted would I suggest a purely bodyweight training regimen.
Whereas going from a 20kg squat to a 100kg squat can be done 1kg at a time with the same movement pattern throughout.
For people who genuinely can't or won't go to a gym, I'd first suggest installing a power cage, adjustable bench, barbell and some plates. Failing that kettlebells and resistance bands. Only after those are exhausted would I suggest a purely bodyweight training regimen.
> Bodyweight exercises tend to have larger jumps in difficulty.
What's worse is that the exercise actually changes. So you're doing a exercise that requires more strength, that you haven't and cannot practice at a lower level of difficulty.
What's worse is that the exercise actually changes. So you're doing a exercise that requires more strength, that you haven't and cannot practice at a lower level of difficulty.
> It's true, a perfect training and exercise regimen will include increasing loads. But given the general sorry state of fitness and health I see daily on the streets, getting people to understand that ANY exercise, even as little as 7 minutes a day, is beneficial will go along ways towards making people healthier and stronger.
This is what is wrong with "fitness" today - the harder you work out the more "bad ass" you are, and the fitness-is-my-hobby crowd are notorious for their "go hard or go home" attitude (yes, massive generalization here). And since these people are the go-to 'experts', people who only want to not-suck when it comes to fitness probably get easily discouraged because there is a real and tangible barrier to entry: you have to "work out" which means to go to the gym, or go to the park and jog, go home, shower... while for some people, simply some more activity would be better than nothing. Simply walking more, or doing the odd push ups during down times.
But evidently - that is not good enough. Go hard or I will make you feel worthless for not being as dedicated as me.
This is what is wrong with "fitness" today - the harder you work out the more "bad ass" you are, and the fitness-is-my-hobby crowd are notorious for their "go hard or go home" attitude (yes, massive generalization here). And since these people are the go-to 'experts', people who only want to not-suck when it comes to fitness probably get easily discouraged because there is a real and tangible barrier to entry: you have to "work out" which means to go to the gym, or go to the park and jog, go home, shower... while for some people, simply some more activity would be better than nothing. Simply walking more, or doing the odd push ups during down times.
But evidently - that is not good enough. Go hard or I will make you feel worthless for not being as dedicated as me.
"the idea that you can achieve any kind of serious strength gain through high repetition circuit training is, frankly, a joke."
I guess the joke's on all the extremely fit, strong people who do yoga, then.
(I've personally gained strength and muscle mass doing yoga, and when I looked at this routine, I saw most of the poses in a basic vinyasa class. Seven minutes is perhaps a bit aggressive, but the exercises do work. The notion that you can only get intensity with weights is the obviously silly one. All you really need for a good workout is your body, and maybe a mat.)
I guess the joke's on all the extremely fit, strong people who do yoga, then.
(I've personally gained strength and muscle mass doing yoga, and when I looked at this routine, I saw most of the poses in a basic vinyasa class. Seven minutes is perhaps a bit aggressive, but the exercises do work. The notion that you can only get intensity with weights is the obviously silly one. All you really need for a good workout is your body, and maybe a mat.)
I have no doubt that you have gained significant strength doing yoga. It should be noted that the poses in yoga do involve holding bodyweight, and the increasing complexity and difficulty of the various poses involves progressively more bodyweight resistance per muscle group.
There is no question that intensity can be achieved without weights. I believe what the gentleman was referring to is the science of building significant strength increases over a fit level of baseline strength.
The science on this one is very much settled, courtesy of the not very ethical, but scientifically valid, studies from the Soviet Union in the height of the Cold War.
The science is this:
Lower # of reps at 80 - 90% of a weight you can only lift once builds strength most effieciently.
As you progress up the curve to higher reps at 60%, you are still building strength, but not as efficiently, and you are moving more towards increasing endurance.
Endurance, of course, is most efficiently gained with high # of reps at low percentages. However, this will typically be at the expense of raw strength.
Note: For people who are not at all fit, with atrophied muscles, strength will be gained very easily from almost any use of their muscles, high reps or not.
There is no question that intensity can be achieved without weights. I believe what the gentleman was referring to is the science of building significant strength increases over a fit level of baseline strength.
The science on this one is very much settled, courtesy of the not very ethical, but scientifically valid, studies from the Soviet Union in the height of the Cold War.
The science is this:
Lower # of reps at 80 - 90% of a weight you can only lift once builds strength most effieciently.
As you progress up the curve to higher reps at 60%, you are still building strength, but not as efficiently, and you are moving more towards increasing endurance.
Endurance, of course, is most efficiently gained with high # of reps at low percentages. However, this will typically be at the expense of raw strength.
Note: For people who are not at all fit, with atrophied muscles, strength will be gained very easily from almost any use of their muscles, high reps or not.
I guess when someone can do five reps of one armed push ups, five reps of pistol squats and five reps of pull ups (one arm?) then they can say "well, maybe time to drop this scheme and hit the weights"#. But the vast majority of people don't come close to this, so it is completely and utterly absurd for the grandparent to dismiss anything other than barbells for strength training.
#Admittedly it's hard to find a replacement for something like olympic barbells when it comes to exercises such as the deadlift. And of course weights have their benefits with the easier progression, etc etc...
#Admittedly it's hard to find a replacement for something like olympic barbells when it comes to exercises such as the deadlift. And of course weights have their benefits with the easier progression, etc etc...
While the responses to different sorts of training (as in intensity/volume tradeoffs) is considered well-settled, there's still a lot of controversy about the actual physiology, the most efficient programming and so forth.
I don't see people using yoga alone to win powerlifting contests or Olympic medals in weightlifting. That makes me suspect that perhaps yoga's ability to elicit strength adaptations is limited by leverage and bodyweight.
Edit: I agree with you that weights are not the only way to elicit adaptation. But they're easy to scale up in small increments and a lot of the movements don't require much in the way of skill acquisition.
Edit: I agree with you that weights are not the only way to elicit adaptation. But they're easy to scale up in small increments and a lot of the movements don't require much in the way of skill acquisition.
[deleted]
> I guess the joke's on all the extremely fit, strong people who do yoga, then.
Yoga isn't the same thing as high repetition circuit training. Strength gains from yoga are caused by the increasing resistance found in more difficult poses. Out of all the people you've seen become extremely fit and strong, how many stayed in beginner classes doing the easiest poses the whole time?
Yoga isn't the same thing as high repetition circuit training. Strength gains from yoga are caused by the increasing resistance found in more difficult poses. Out of all the people you've seen become extremely fit and strong, how many stayed in beginner classes doing the easiest poses the whole time?
The primary difference between class levels is not the poses. You get a few fancy new ones as you gain flexibility, but those are icing on the cake. Probably 90% of what you do in any given class is the same.
The primary differences between a beginner class and an advanced class are the frequency (repetition), rest time and hold times used. Advanced classes will easily work 2-3x more asanas into an hour than beginner classes.
The primary differences between a beginner class and an advanced class are the frequency (repetition), rest time and hold times used. Advanced classes will easily work 2-3x more asanas into an hour than beginner classes.
I'm sorry to tell you that you are terribly misinformed.
Athletes get stronger with yoga, because improved flexibility helps them to do compound exercises with better form, and that allows them to activate the correct muscle groups for better leverage. In other words, they have the same muscle mass - they can just activate those muscles more effectively. This is most likely what happened to you, unless you were so unfit when you began yoga that even simple poses worked the hell out of your muscles.
Athletes get stronger with yoga, because improved flexibility helps them to do compound exercises with better form, and that allows them to activate the correct muscle groups for better leverage. In other words, they have the same muscle mass - they can just activate those muscles more effectively. This is most likely what happened to you, unless you were so unfit when you began yoga that even simple poses worked the hell out of your muscles.
[deleted]
It's a bummer to be terribly misinformed, but I'll take my own muscle mass gains as a consolation prize. We can't have everything, I guess.
It's good that you got stronger (for the reasons I explained). But unless you are doing some hardcore yoga, it is extremely unlikely that you actually gained muscle mass. (As proof, you can look at any long-term yoga instructor who wasn't muscular to begin with.)
Or, you know...as proof, I can use the gains I've measured in my own body.
No, that can't be it...
No, that can't be it...
I addressed this in my original post:
"unless you were so unfit when you began yoga that even simple poses worked the hell out of your muscles."
"unless you were so unfit when you began yoga that even simple poses worked the hell out of your muscles."
I was not unfit when I began yoga.
Okay, so let's get down to specifics. Two questions:
1. How did you measure your lean muscle mass? 2. How did you conclude that it increased due to yoga and not something else?
1. How did you measure your lean muscle mass? 2. How did you conclude that it increased due to yoga and not something else?
Which are? Genuinely curious.
This has nothing at all to do with strength training. They specifically note in the cited article that this is to 'manage and expand their physical energy, prevent fatigue, and sustain engagement'. Simple barbell and kettlebell exercises do not address this in the least. (Well, kettlebell helps, but you're lacking a lot of lower-body plyometrics).
And I don't see why you would argue against increasing strength at the joint angle. It's very important for people with the potential for joint pain or injury to strengthen supporting muscles around the joint.
I agree that there's little to no science in the article. It seems like everything i've seen concerning athletic performance is based on cherry-picked ideas distributed by non-scientists.
And I don't see why you would argue against increasing strength at the joint angle. It's very important for people with the potential for joint pain or injury to strengthen supporting muscles around the joint.
I agree that there's little to no science in the article. It seems like everything i've seen concerning athletic performance is based on cherry-picked ideas distributed by non-scientists.
> This has nothing at all to do with strength training.
Their first criteria for exercise selection was to "promote strength development for all major muscle groups of the body".
As for developing short term fatigue resistance (as opposed to straight up endurance), kettlebells are excellent. My favourite tool for such a job: compact, widely available, and evil.
> And I don't see why you would argue against increasing strength at the joint angle. It's very important for people with the potential for joint pain or injury to strengthen supporting muscles around the joint.
Because joints move through, and must support load, at a variety of angles. Being really really good at a particular 10 degree band is not very useful for most folk.
> It seems like everything i've seen concerning athletic performance is based on cherry-picked ideas distributed by non-scientists.
Well in their defence, sports science sucks. Like software engineering research and for the same reasons: small and biased samples, poor experiment design and not much funding to fix either.
Their first criteria for exercise selection was to "promote strength development for all major muscle groups of the body".
As for developing short term fatigue resistance (as opposed to straight up endurance), kettlebells are excellent. My favourite tool for such a job: compact, widely available, and evil.
> And I don't see why you would argue against increasing strength at the joint angle. It's very important for people with the potential for joint pain or injury to strengthen supporting muscles around the joint.
Because joints move through, and must support load, at a variety of angles. Being really really good at a particular 10 degree band is not very useful for most folk.
> It seems like everything i've seen concerning athletic performance is based on cherry-picked ideas distributed by non-scientists.
Well in their defence, sports science sucks. Like software engineering research and for the same reasons: small and biased samples, poor experiment design and not much funding to fix either.
"Sports science sucks"
Yep. So does nutritional science and anything else that involves measuring humans over long periods of time. It's expensive and we make lousy lab rats.
Yep. So does nutritional science and anything else that involves measuring humans over long periods of time. It's expensive and we make lousy lab rats.
>>Because joints move through, and must support load, at a variety of angles. Being really really good at a particular 10 degree band is not very useful for most folk.
This is so true it bears repeating. A lot of people who focus on limited joint angle strength end up injured when they work their muscles beyond the angles that they are trained for.
This is so true it bears repeating. A lot of people who focus on limited joint angle strength end up injured when they work their muscles beyond the angles that they are trained for.
A lot of people don't ever get a trainer to show them the right way to do things and get hurt. The people who do learn the right way will find benefit in isometric training. Telling everyone to ignore it benefits neither group.
It's certainly important to exercise muscles with a full range of motion, but even people who don't do isometrics hardly ever train to their full range. Watching people at gyms do push-ups, pull-ups, squats, lunges, hell even lat raises with only a specific range of motion is sad.
It's certainly important to exercise muscles with a full range of motion, but even people who don't do isometrics hardly ever train to their full range. Watching people at gyms do push-ups, pull-ups, squats, lunges, hell even lat raises with only a specific range of motion is sad.
Isometrics are a specialist tool, they don't make much sense for the general case. Turning to them first is like saying "gee, our web server is a bit slow. Let's tinker with making cron run faster".
>>A lot of people don't ever get a trainer to show them the right way to do things and get hurt.
Man, don't even get me started on trainers...
Man, don't even get me started on trainers...
>Because joints move through, and must support load, at a variety of angles. Being really really good at a particular 10 degree band is not very useful for most folk.
And this is part of why you see bulgy weightlifting types at the rock climbing gym getting shown up by skinny "DYEL" types.
And this is part of why you see bulgy weightlifting types at the rock climbing gym getting shown up by skinny "DYEL" types.
From the ACSM article:
"Although HICT can be an efficient means by which to improve health and decrease body fat, it may be inferior to [sic] creating absolute strength and power, specific endurance, and other specific performance variables. If these are the goals of a program, as with competitive athletes, traditional programs may elicit greater absolute gains."
"Although HICT can be an efficient means by which to improve health and decrease body fat, it may be inferior to [sic] creating absolute strength and power, specific endurance, and other specific performance variables. If these are the goals of a program, as with competitive athletes, traditional programs may elicit greater absolute gains."
Thanks for quoting. I'd like to add that the workout the blog post cited was the ACSM article's "sample workout" based on HICT (an efficient, common sense approach commonly used by personal trainers), that also required no specialized equipment.
>Given that the studies done on high intensity interval training were initially done with elite athletes, I'm not certain it shows that at all.
There was a study recently released of HIIT (8s sprint/12s relax on a bike) on overweight males, showing it to bt very effective [1]. Not that I pretend to know how this relates to this program in particular.
[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3375095/
There was a study recently released of HIIT (8s sprint/12s relax on a bike) on overweight males, showing it to bt very effective [1]. Not that I pretend to know how this relates to this program in particular.
[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3375095/
To add to the barbell exercise theory, I've found Mark Rippetoe's Starting Strength to be a great mathematical based source of strength training, focusing on full body barbell exercises.
I couldn't even do some of these ☹
I think I'll try the bike peddling one first, repeatedly sprint for eight seconds, then pedal slowly for 12 and repeat.
http://lifehacker.com/5989669/researchers-claim-to-discover-...
I think I'll try the bike peddling one first, repeatedly sprint for eight seconds, then pedal slowly for 12 and repeat.
http://lifehacker.com/5989669/researchers-claim-to-discover-...
I read about this and put together a quick js page so that I can run it in the corner of my computer while I bike, or watch a movie.
http://alangfiles.github.io/bike-workout/
http://alangfiles.github.io/bike-workout/
I have struggled with fitness my whole life, and I have realized that not everyone is genetically disposed to the same effects of specific exercises. However, I believe that most people can get in shape, it's just a function of resistance.
Diet and fitness is one of those things in life where you should just overkill the plan. Keep your diet stricter than you have to, lift more weights than you have to, do more cardio than you have to.
When you overkill the situation, you will get in and stay in excellent shape, trying to walk the line of "just enough" gets your burned and loses precious time towards proper progress.
Diet and fitness is one of those things in life where you should just overkill the plan. Keep your diet stricter than you have to, lift more weights than you have to, do more cardio than you have to.
When you overkill the situation, you will get in and stay in excellent shape, trying to walk the line of "just enough" gets your burned and loses precious time towards proper progress.
Fitness is environmentally specific. For example, a predisposition to fat storage, in most of human history, was a powerful survival trait. Your body doesn't know that you want to look good on the beach, only that winter is coming.
Speaking from experience, don't overkill. You won't be able to sustain it over the long term.
Speaking from experience, don't overkill. You won't be able to sustain it over the long term.
I'd suggest that your struggles with fitness may be down to your views on "overkilling" the situation.
Slow progress and sustainable changes are the key to success my friend :-)
Slow progress and sustainable changes are the key to success my friend :-)
This reminds me a lot of the 5BX (5 Basic Exercises) plan.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5BX
That has 5 exercises which you should be able to do in 5 minutes. It has a complete scheme of exercises building up in intensity as you get better at them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5BX
That has 5 exercises which you should be able to do in 5 minutes. It has a complete scheme of exercises building up in intensity as you get better at them.
I believe there is some disagreement among elite endurance sport athletes about whether interval training is actually better for performance over the long term when compared to long distance training. High intensity interval training did become very popular in the 80s/90s because one could seemingly get very quick results from relatively few hours spent training. However, Americans were always outperformed by African runners.
That is until recently since a new trend of running very long distances at a low intensity for training became popular, just as runners from Kenya and Ethiopia do. Now Americans who employ the latter tactic are starting to fair better on the international scene, even reaching the podium for some long distance events. More American collegiate athletes who are employing the low-intensity, long distance training strategy are clocking sub-4 minute miles as well which is a hallmark of elite running status.
It seems counter-intuitive that low intensity running over long distances should improve high intensity short-distance times, but the proof is in the pudding.
Interval training can increase your lactate threshold, or your body's ability to remove lactic acid from your muscles while you are engaging in high intensity activities (the same acid that causes that burning sensation we all love to hate), but it doesn't do that much for your VO2max which determines how effectively your body uses oxygen.
Most pro endurance athletes mix interval training with long distance training to get the benefit of both strategies. As with anything in physical activity, there is no silver bullet.
That is until recently since a new trend of running very long distances at a low intensity for training became popular, just as runners from Kenya and Ethiopia do. Now Americans who employ the latter tactic are starting to fair better on the international scene, even reaching the podium for some long distance events. More American collegiate athletes who are employing the low-intensity, long distance training strategy are clocking sub-4 minute miles as well which is a hallmark of elite running status.
It seems counter-intuitive that low intensity running over long distances should improve high intensity short-distance times, but the proof is in the pudding.
Interval training can increase your lactate threshold, or your body's ability to remove lactic acid from your muscles while you are engaging in high intensity activities (the same acid that causes that burning sensation we all love to hate), but it doesn't do that much for your VO2max which determines how effectively your body uses oxygen.
Most pro endurance athletes mix interval training with long distance training to get the benefit of both strategies. As with anything in physical activity, there is no silver bullet.
>>That is until recently since a new trend of running very long distances at a low intensity for training became popular, just as runners from Kenya and Ethiopia do. Now Americans who employ the latter tactic are starting to fair better on the international scene, even reaching the podium for some long distance events. More American collegiate athletes who are employing the low-intensity, long distance training strategy are clocking sub-4 minute miles as well which is a hallmark of elite running status.
This conclusion is premature. We have no way of knowing whether the increase in performance in American athletes comes from them changing their training methods, as opposed to countless other factors. As far as I know, no random controlled trials have been conducted in this area (and those are the only truly reliable scientific method for answering questions like this).
edit: only someone who doesn't understand science would downvote this comment. :)
This conclusion is premature. We have no way of knowing whether the increase in performance in American athletes comes from them changing their training methods, as opposed to countless other factors. As far as I know, no random controlled trials have been conducted in this area (and those are the only truly reliable scientific method for answering questions like this).
edit: only someone who doesn't understand science would downvote this comment. :)
I agree, it deserves better scientific treatment. I'd be shocked if such a study isn't being conducted as we speak.
I would be shocked. Randomised, controlled trials are difficult and expensive.
You need enough subjects.
First problem: how many advanced and elite athletes are there? Not many.
Second problem: how many have coaches who are happy for you to experiment on their charges? Not many.
Third problem: given the small samples, how do you control other factors such as diet and sleeping patterns? With great difficulty.
Fourth problem: funding the dream trial. Most research money is public money, and "give us money to find out how to make healthy adults run slightly faster so we can win an extra medal every 4 years" is a pretty difficult ask next to research into helping sick folk.
There's a reason that a great deal of sports science still relies on research done in the eastern bloc throughout the cold war. Totalitarian societies had the conditions and the motivation to set large, serious experiments up, and they did.
In general though, progress occurs through a cut down version of science. Coaches observe, hypothesise and tinker. Scientists do small studies; the studies compound or refute each other. Over time rough consensus emerges about what works and what doesn't. Things that don't work disappear quickly. Meanwhile, unseen, population effects muddy everybody's waters.
Is it the fully dressed version of science we demand from physics or medicine? It is not. But it's what we can reasonably expect.
You need enough subjects.
First problem: how many advanced and elite athletes are there? Not many.
Second problem: how many have coaches who are happy for you to experiment on their charges? Not many.
Third problem: given the small samples, how do you control other factors such as diet and sleeping patterns? With great difficulty.
Fourth problem: funding the dream trial. Most research money is public money, and "give us money to find out how to make healthy adults run slightly faster so we can win an extra medal every 4 years" is a pretty difficult ask next to research into helping sick folk.
There's a reason that a great deal of sports science still relies on research done in the eastern bloc throughout the cold war. Totalitarian societies had the conditions and the motivation to set large, serious experiments up, and they did.
In general though, progress occurs through a cut down version of science. Coaches observe, hypothesise and tinker. Scientists do small studies; the studies compound or refute each other. Over time rough consensus emerges about what works and what doesn't. Things that don't work disappear quickly. Meanwhile, unseen, population effects muddy everybody's waters.
Is it the fully dressed version of science we demand from physics or medicine? It is not. But it's what we can reasonably expect.
> There's a reason that a great deal of sports science still relies on research done in the eastern bloc throughout the cold war.
how do we know these types of studies aren't happening right now in other countries that have more lax ethics in science?
how do we know these types of studies aren't happening right now in other countries that have more lax ethics in science?
> how do we know these types of studies aren't happening right now in other countries that have more lax ethics in science?
The one truly totalitarian society left, AFAIK, is North Korea; they might be doing this.
But pretty much the easiest strategy for a centralised sports system is to just throw bodies at sports until the normal distribution gives you winners. The Chinese are finding that this works well for them.
The one truly totalitarian society left, AFAIK, is North Korea; they might be doing this.
But pretty much the easiest strategy for a centralised sports system is to just throw bodies at sports until the normal distribution gives you winners. The Chinese are finding that this works well for them.
I mainly agree with your points about performance in elite athletes, but this has very little to do with health benefits for the average couch potato.
Are you referring specifically to marathon training, or some other form of competitive running?
Any non-sprint running, actually. So from the mile run all the way up to ultra marathoners. I would imagine that these tactics just as effective for other endurance sports, too, such as swimming or biking, but AFIAK there's been less talk about it in those sports.
Any sources on this?
I read this in a fairly long article that I'm not able to find at the moment, but there's a lot of other stuff that's been written about it out there. Who knows whether or not it holds water.
BBC medical guru Michael Mosley(PhD) has a very interesting show about 3 minute high intensity training, and there are indeed couch potatoes that can reap huge benefits:
...research from a number of centres has shown that three minutes of HIT a week improves insulin sensitivity by an average of 24% ...
Although 15% of people made huge strides (so-called "super-responders"), 20% showed no real improvement at all ("non-responders").
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17177251
...research from a number of centres has shown that three minutes of HIT a week improves insulin sensitivity by an average of 24% ...
Although 15% of people made huge strides (so-called "super-responders"), 20% showed no real improvement at all ("non-responders").
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17177251
This cries out for an app, which uses both visual and audio cues to prompt the next exercise, and count down each period. EG:
"Starting your 7 minute workout with Jumping Jacks in 5... 4... 3... 2... 1..."
"Start Jumping Jacks for 30... [optional chirp-per-second]... 20 seconds... 10 seconds... 5... 4... 3... 2... 1..."
"Rest now, next is Wall Sit... in 5... 4... 3... 2... 1..."
"Begin Wall Sit for 30... [etc]"
Obviously, it could be a static recording. But some obvious enhancements would be:
• visual countdown timer
• changing images of the exercises to precede/accompany each phase
• optional chirps/clicks each second
• alternate trainer voices
• optional extra voiced 'encouragement' ("keep up intensity", "good", "almost there", "all done")
• automatic logging/reminders of when/how-often circuit is completed (either based on how many times started run through uninterrupted, or based on a prompted "did you finish and what was your self-rated 1-10 intensity?" question at the end)
"Starting your 7 minute workout with Jumping Jacks in 5... 4... 3... 2... 1..."
"Start Jumping Jacks for 30... [optional chirp-per-second]... 20 seconds... 10 seconds... 5... 4... 3... 2... 1..."
"Rest now, next is Wall Sit... in 5... 4... 3... 2... 1..."
"Begin Wall Sit for 30... [etc]"
Obviously, it could be a static recording. But some obvious enhancements would be:
• visual countdown timer
• changing images of the exercises to precede/accompany each phase
• optional chirps/clicks each second
• alternate trainer voices
• optional extra voiced 'encouragement' ("keep up intensity", "good", "almost there", "all done")
• automatic logging/reminders of when/how-often circuit is completed (either based on how many times started run through uninterrupted, or based on a prompted "did you finish and what was your self-rated 1-10 intensity?" question at the end)
There's at least one already; http://willwilson.co/7minworkout/
There are several apps that do this. Some of them even have videos or pictures showing you how to do it. But a very basic HIIT interval timer works perfectly well, just write down each exercise on a sheet of paper and do them one at a time.
How about use some FFT analysis so the user can call out "One! Two! Three!" and the app will automatically advance?
This is basically what every fitness video since the 80s does. If you want something longer than 7 minutes, this one is pretty good: http://www.teambeachbody.com/workout-routines/insanity-worko...
Sounds like Wii Fit.
There's a good chance this will be able to deplete most of the glucose stores in your muscles just like lifting does. You do have to make sure you aren't cheating and are actually teetering on the brink of the activation of golgi tendon reflex (overload). As far as strength goes this is not quite as good at lifting for actually creating new muscles. But this will definitively improve overall use of muscles and cardio system.
Interesting, this is very close to the training exercises they use in the danish military.
While I don't think this workout is actually a great one, I have found that you definitely can do a killer workout in a short period of time, depending on your fitness.
I started Crossfit a few months back, and its entirely possible to do 2-3 simple movements (thrusters + pullups for example) in a short time period (2-10 minutes) and really push yourself to complete exhaustion.
I started Crossfit a few months back, and its entirely possible to do 2-3 simple movements (thrusters + pullups for example) in a short time period (2-10 minutes) and really push yourself to complete exhaustion.
I have developed the 6-minute workout and it is by far superior to the 7-minute workout. Anything done in less time is technically impossible.
When someone tries to distinguish their X by saying it is rooted in science, all they really mean is that someone with a grad degree and a lab coat came up with it. That is a pretty limited, and IMO flawed view of what science is. Are they really trying to say that other workouts don't use the scientific method at all? That they don't do anything like formulating and nullifying hypotheses with evidence, without any semblance of control? Is your workout really better because it came out of a university research center?
Science isn't peer review. Peer review is merely a filter mechanism to discard bad from good...a filter mechanism that has both false positives and false negatives. We shouldn't conflate peer review with science.
Science isn't peer review. Peer review is merely a filter mechanism to discard bad from good...a filter mechanism that has both false positives and false negatives. We shouldn't conflate peer review with science.
I think this would be excellent starting exercise for people who don't exercise much. As soon as they would gain some strength, hackers as they are, would explore and find better things to do. I think criticism of this article, which is legitimate, is missing the point of this being targeted to beginners who are just starting.
This is not a waste of time. Let me explain.
Sometimes you only have 7 minutes. What's the difference between 7 minutes of this and 7 minutes of sitting, reading HN or Reddit? Lots.
I did this one yesterday, just to try it out. Now me, personally, I'm quite active. I did it three times with 30-second stretch breaks because that's what it took to work up a good sweat.
The point of exercise like this, to my mind, is that you can do it anytime and work it into your work day. Exercise during the work day, even minimal exercise sharpens your concentration and "shakes out the dead leaves" so to speak. It makes you sharper, and sharper at 3:30 in the afternoon (empirically determined to be the least productive time of the day by several studies) is exactly what most of us need.
What are your goals when you work out? Depending on that, this is not a waste of time. If you want to lose 50lbs, this will not help you. If you want massive muscles, this will not help you. If you want to be an "active person", this will not by itself achieve that, although it may make it easier to get into exercise later, when you do something short and see nearly immediate results. It's rewarding, and that's the first thing you need when starting an exercise program of any sort.
My point is, don't let anyone -- or yourself -- shame you out of working out. Yes, you read it in the NYT. It's a fad and it's mass-media. That doesn't make it stupid by definition. If it starts you off on finding ways to hack your body and make it strong, endurant, and resilient, then by all means, go for it.
Sometimes you only have 7 minutes. What's the difference between 7 minutes of this and 7 minutes of sitting, reading HN or Reddit? Lots.
I did this one yesterday, just to try it out. Now me, personally, I'm quite active. I did it three times with 30-second stretch breaks because that's what it took to work up a good sweat.
The point of exercise like this, to my mind, is that you can do it anytime and work it into your work day. Exercise during the work day, even minimal exercise sharpens your concentration and "shakes out the dead leaves" so to speak. It makes you sharper, and sharper at 3:30 in the afternoon (empirically determined to be the least productive time of the day by several studies) is exactly what most of us need.
What are your goals when you work out? Depending on that, this is not a waste of time. If you want to lose 50lbs, this will not help you. If you want massive muscles, this will not help you. If you want to be an "active person", this will not by itself achieve that, although it may make it easier to get into exercise later, when you do something short and see nearly immediate results. It's rewarding, and that's the first thing you need when starting an exercise program of any sort.
My point is, don't let anyone -- or yourself -- shame you out of working out. Yes, you read it in the NYT. It's a fad and it's mass-media. That doesn't make it stupid by definition. If it starts you off on finding ways to hack your body and make it strong, endurant, and resilient, then by all means, go for it.
This should be the top comment. I never realised the tech crowd were as bad/the same as the bodybuilding.com crowd.
this is a workout WARMUP
I'm absolutely not a believer of this. It's beyond just their bad math. (It's an 8 minute workout)
To do a proper sprint interval workout, you'd need to warm up (5 minutes at least), and go so hard in those 30 intervals that you'd need 90 seconds to recover. So 120 seconds * 12 + 5 = 29 minutes. Add in stretching and you're beyond a half hour.
The other issue is many of these exercises won't get your heartrate up to the right threshold to be good interval training.
Yes, it's better than nothing. No, it's not better than a real workout, and not scientifically valid.
To do a proper sprint interval workout, you'd need to warm up (5 minutes at least), and go so hard in those 30 intervals that you'd need 90 seconds to recover. So 120 seconds * 12 + 5 = 29 minutes. Add in stretching and you're beyond a half hour.
The other issue is many of these exercises won't get your heartrate up to the right threshold to be good interval training.
Yes, it's better than nothing. No, it's not better than a real workout, and not scientifically valid.
If you're a beginner and looking to start a bodyweight(BW) program see this[0]. Intermediate fitness enthusiasts can have a look at this[1]. If you're clueless about what the jargons are checkout this[2] 'cheat sheet' for a list of youtube videos for guidance
[0] - http://i.imgur.com/MwbAD.png [1] - http://i.imgur.com/o3bRo.png [2] - http://www.reddit.com/r/bodyweightfitness/comments/15bou5/ex...
[0] - http://i.imgur.com/MwbAD.png [1] - http://i.imgur.com/o3bRo.png [2] - http://www.reddit.com/r/bodyweightfitness/comments/15bou5/ex...
The illustration for the air squat shows the worst possible form. The push-ups diagram looks incorrect too. I'm pretty sure the chest should touch the ground. What's the use of rapid succession if you are using bad form?
The nytimes illustration, or the original article?
The nytimes illustration. The subject keeps straight back in the original article. Doing this exercise wrong can really screw things up.
NYT.
Illustrators don't know what they don't know. I don't hold that against them, especially if there's a sharp deadline looming.
Illustrators don't know what they don't know. I don't hold that against them, especially if there's a sharp deadline looming.
The authors of the study actually recommend you do it 3 times. So it's actually a 21-minute workout.
After years of spinning wheels, like many others, I've found that gimmicky crap like this is just that - gimmicky crap. This may be more efficient than a 30 minute run and burn the same net amount of calories, but you'll offset the entire effect of this workout by eating a cookie. For overall health and lasting benefits you're going to need to get into a gym and pick something heavy off the ground.
As technology-minded guys who tend not to get a lot of physical exercise, we're really susceptible to people throwing around the term "scientific" to describe their exercise pitches.
Please don't waste your time with this "workout," unless of course you're so weak and fragile that it'll literally kill you to do a squat. Really look into Starting Strength by Mark Rippetoe for actual good advice.
"Strong people are harder to kill than weak people, and more useful in general." - Mark Rippetoe
Edit: Btw, time comparison: spend years chasing the latest "scientific" fitness fad (see article) and going nowhere or get in better shape while working an office job than 99% of highschool/college guys in a few months for a time commitment of 2-3 hours per week. That's the kind of math I'm talking about when I talk about starting strength and leangains.