Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Weight Lifting for Hackers

littlebitofcode.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 72 posts

Re: Weight Lifting for Hackers

#31

Post by stiff »

philk wrote: post #18
stiff wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with the general advice, especially with the Starting Strength recommendation, but the milk advice (also from this book), speaking from own experience, is a recipe for disaster unless you are aiming for a powerlifting physique, with plenty of muscle hidden underneath plenty of fat or unless you are __really skinny__. "Starting strength" is great for exercise technique, but go also get a good nutrition book an…

Losing fat isn't all that hard. You keep lifting heavy weights and subtract ~250 kCal a day from your diet. If you aren't losing much [1] weight, you subtract another ~250 kCal/day and so on. They heavy weights are there to persuade your body to hang onto muscle which is metabolically expensive and therefore eliminated if not used. I'm curious how much you were eating to wind up with loads of fat. I've put on ~40 lbs…

It doesn't work this way, at least not for everyone (genetics), exactly because of the muscle loss that occurs when you decrease caloric intake. Of course you can prevent it in some ways, but then it is no longer just "subtracting 250 kCal". Nutrition is complex, so I would not give advice this simplified about it, as it can get you in trouble, just as putting 15lbs weight in a month. Maybe you have good genetics, or already follow a well-balanced diet, but people who follow your advice not necessarily so, they should thus pay more attention to this aspect of "training". I learned this lesson the hard way, so I wish the advice in "Starting Strength" would be more balanced in this respect.

Re: Weight Lifting for Hackers

#32

Post by nandemo »

nazgulnarsil wrote: post #2

ugh....the large number of reps at low weight meme has spread because people want to believe that they can do an easy workout. if you can do more than 5 reps your weight is too light. there's no such thing as "toned instead of bulk". lifting casually a few times a week is not going to turn you into a hulkish freak. and if you want toned you do CARDIO. treating weightlifting as cardio is stupid. for the average person…

Doing a set with a large number of reps is neither easy nor useless.

It's not easy because you're supposed to do it until failure.

And if you're aiming at improving your muscular endurance, then lots of reps with a light weight are more useful than low reps with a heavier weight. There are several studies that show this. Example:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/t96qmxyaa7x7le0c/

Subjects were divided into four groups: a low repetition group (Low Rep, n=9) performing 3–5 repetitions maximum (RM) for four sets of each exercise with 3 min rest between sets and exercises, an intermediate repetition group (Int Rep, n=11) performing 9–11 RM for three sets with 2 min rest, a high repetition group (High Rep, n=7) performing 20–28 RM for two sets with 1 min rest, and a non-exercising control group (Con, n=5). (...) Maximal strength improved significantly more for the Low Rep group compared to the other training groups, and the maximal number of repetitions at 60% 1RM improved the most for the High Rep group.

Re: Weight Lifting for Hackers

#33

Post by nandemo »

bombs wrote: post #5
nazgulnarsil wrote: post #2

ugh....the large number of reps at low weight meme has spread because people want to believe that they can do an easy workout. if you can do more than 5 reps your weight is too light. there's no such thing as "toned instead of bulk". lifting casually a few times a week is not going to turn you into a hulkish freak. and if you want toned you do CARDIO. treating weightlifting as cardio is stupid. for the average person…

If you're lifting for hypertrophy, more reps is better than more weight, e.g. 15 reps of 100 lbs instead of 6 of 150 lbs or whatever your maximums may be.

No, it's the other way around. See my other comment and this:

Physical education students were matched into three groups; G90 (n = 9) trained with a load of 90%, G35 (n = 11) with 35%, and G15 (n  = 10) with 15% of 1RM (1 repetition maximum). Training consisted of three to five sets, performed three times a week for 9 weeks. Each set consisted of two, seven and ten repetitions in G90, G35 and G15, respectively. Training was performed with the nondominant arm, and the dominant arm served as control. The 1RM increased 15.2 (SD 4.5)% (P 

This bit was surprising to me:

In the untrained arm, 1RM also increased for G90 and G15. In contrast to G90, G15 showed a similar increase in 1RM in both arms.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/qwwpy506jtmdt7v6/

Re: Weight Lifting for Hackers

#34

Post by greenlblue »

philk wrote: post #8
greenlblue wrote: post #6

In my experience cardiovascular exercise is way better for almost everything he mentions and for strength training one doesn't really need weights, various push-up routines are more than enough.

I'm having a hard time imagining how push-up routines can match the muscle building power of heavy squats and deadlifts.

Lifting weights adds too much "heavy" muscle and not enough "lean" muscle which I think technically is known as twitch muscle. I have tried both lifting heavy weights and just simple exercises combined with flexibility training that just involve using my own body as a source of resistance and I can tell you without a doubt that I feel way better when I have more twitch/lean type of muscles.

Re: Weight Lifting for Hackers

#35

Post by greenlblue »

tjogin wrote: post #28
greenlblue wrote: post #6

In my experience cardiovascular exercise is way better for almost everything he mentions and for strength training one doesn't really need weights, various push-up routines are more than enough.

The main activity that makes your body gain muscle is to subject it to exceptional amounts of work — that is to say, a lot more work than it is used to (combined with the intake of the necessary fuel to facilitate it). It should be reasonably simple to understand that using your own bodyweight as resistance is a very inefficient means by which to achieve this. Not only do you need to use weights to reach a level of e…

I disagree. The only thing gymnasts do is use their own bodyweight and as far as athletes go in terms of endurance and pound for pound muscle strength they can not be beat.

Re: Weight Lifting for Hackers

#36

Post by nazgulnarsil »

hendzen wrote: post #20
nazgulnarsil wrote: post #2

ugh....the large number of reps at low weight meme has spread because people want to believe that they can do an easy workout. if you can do more than 5 reps your weight is too light. there's no such thing as "toned instead of bulk". lifting casually a few times a week is not going to turn you into a hulkish freak. and if you want toned you do CARDIO. treating weightlifting as cardio is stupid. for the average person…

While I agree in general with the content of your first paragraph, your second paragraph has some inaccuracies that I found bothersome. 1) You claim that "weighted dips and pullups" combined with "jogging up hills a few times a week" amounts to a complete exercise regime. As far as dips and pullups go, the average person would benefit much more from a simple weightlifting routine like Starting Strength. Additionally,…

of course they would benefit more from more intense, comprehensive exercise. the point is that you can get in excellent shape with 1/10th of the commitment and effort that such a comprehensive program demands. constantly worrying over your next major gains is what makes the fitness habit so hard to maintain.

Re: Weight Lifting for Hackers

#37

Post by punkrockgeekboy »

"So you’re sold on weight lifting and are ready to put a little pride in your stride, a little strut in your stuff, but you don’t know where to get started."

After reading that, I didn't need to look at his about page to know he worked in marketing. What a douche-bag.

Re: Weight Lifting for Hackers

#38

Post by nazgulnarsil »

peterwwillis wrote: post #25
nazgulnarsil wrote: post #2

ugh....the large number of reps at low weight meme has spread because people want to believe that they can do an easy workout. if you can do more than 5 reps your weight is too light. there's no such thing as "toned instead of bulk". lifting casually a few times a week is not going to turn you into a hulkish freak. and if you want toned you do CARDIO. treating weightlifting as cardio is stupid. for the average person…

"treating weight lifting as cardio" is intended to build muscle that can perform. take anybody who uses a standard lifting program and they'd die 30 minutes into a p90x/insanity/conditioning program. do the same cardio with weight, or weight with more reps, and your muscles adapt to more continuous strain. if you just care about looking buff or losing/gaining weight quickly, do few high-weight reps. if you're trainin…

cardio with weight is bad for your joints. if you want to build endurance swim, jog, and spar.

Re: Weight Lifting for Hackers

#39

Post by deutronium »

I've recently started Bouldering (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bouldering, "rock climbing undertaken without a rope and normally limited to very short climbs over a crash pad") in a Uni bouldering wall and am finding it a good way to increase muscle strength, whilst also enjoying the strategy aspect of deciding how to complete a particular route (which to me is more appealing than the repetitiveness of lifting weights).

Re: Weight Lifting for Hackers

#40

Post by mark_h »

JesseAldridge wrote: post #29

Or you could keep things simple and just do this: http://www.rosstraining.com/articles/burpeeclip.htm It's my favorite exercise by far. Except the way I learned it is you bring your knees to your chest when you jump (that forces you to jump high). I do 1, then 2, then 4, etc, taking about a 30 second break in between. It does both muscles and cardio. It's super-intense. Just go until you collapse. It gives you a soli…

Second that. Ross sells a few training manuals that are all excellent value; they're quite scientific too, albeit distilled down to what you need to know (+ citations).

Check out any video clips of him in action if you need any further inspiration -- the guy is a machine.

Post reply on HN