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

How Strength Training Changes Your Body for Good

time.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 86 posts

Re: How Strength Training Changes Your Body for Good

#31

Post by randlet »

donretag wrote: post #24

"The average American flat-out loathes strength training. While about half of people do the recommended amount of aerobic activity each week, only 20% also do the muscle-strengthening moves that work major muscle groups." That definitely sums up myself. I am a cyclist. My totals for this week are 147.1 miles with 15,497 feet of climbing (I do nothing but mountains, flat is boring!), but if you ask me to do 10 push up…

You'd probably see nice returns in your cycling if you started doing heavy barbell squats too.

Re: How Strength Training Changes Your Body for Good

#33

Post by narak »

deskamess wrote: post #27

Do we always need additional/external weights, or are there any body weight exercises that can target your bones? Perhaps leg bones are easier since the body weight goes through them. How about upper body (like shoulder area) and the spine?

Running has recently been shown, in contrast to previously held views, to strengthen spinal disks. [1]

Pull-ups/chin-ups/dips are probably the best upper body weight exercise, followed by classic floor exercises pushups and leg raises for the core.

Many of these stress bones in addition to the muscles.

[1] http://www.deakin.edu.au/about-deakin/media-releases/article...

Re: How Strength Training Changes Your Body for Good

#34

Post by barry-cotter »

cbanek wrote: post #21
thaumasiotes wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The current regime of near universal caloric surplus is not something our ancestors ever faced and evolution left us very little tools to deal with instinctively. This depends on your ancestors. Demographics with a long history of agriculture are much less vulnerable to diet-induced diabetes than, say, native Americans are. Some people will eat to gorging when faced with more food than they can eat, and some won't.

That's super interesting about demographics with a long history of agriculture. Do you have any links for further reading on that?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1323307/

Diabetes and Mexicans: Why the Two Are Linked

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1932342/

Diabetes Mellitus: A “Thrifty” Genotype Rendered Detrimental by “Progress”?

Re: How Strength Training Changes Your Body for Good

#35

Post by js2 »

deskamess wrote: post #27

Do we always need additional/external weights, or are there any body weight exercises that can target your bones? Perhaps leg bones are easier since the body weight goes through them. How about upper body (like shoulder area) and the spine?

You can do a lot with just bodyweight, but even the r/bodyweight folks recommend using a barbell for squats and deadlifts.

Re: How Strength Training Changes Your Body for Good

#36

Post by brandonmenc »

randlet wrote: post #31
donretag wrote: post #24

"The average American flat-out loathes strength training. While about half of people do the recommended amount of aerobic activity each week, only 20% also do the muscle-strengthening moves that work major muscle groups." That definitely sums up myself. I am a cyclist. My totals for this week are 147.1 miles with 15,497 feet of climbing (I do nothing but mountains, flat is boring!), but if you ask me to do 10 push up…

You'd probably see nice returns in your cycling if you started doing heavy barbell squats too.

Maybe.

afaik, most elite cyclists do not squat. I'm guessing endurance and low body weight are more advantageous to the sport.

I'm sure there are studies. Can anyone else chime in?

Re: How Strength Training Changes Your Body for Good

#37

Post by tejohnso »

zebraflask wrote: post #17
garraeth wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if you are operating with a calorie surplus, you'd need to eat an optimal mix of nutrients to maintain extra muscle. Most people (most likely) cannot simply ramp up amounts of what you currently eat. For example, if you suddenly require 5000 c/day, you cannot simply eat more pizza, MT Dew, etc. You have to eat 5000 c/day of nutrient rich food. Your muscles do not only require calories. This is actually very hard…

There's some truth to this. Junk food is over-processed, doesn't have much in the way of nutrient content, and is usually loaded with too much sugar and salt. Everyone knows that. But I think this comment is overestimating how many calories you'd need and how concerned you'd need to be about nutrient balancing, even on a fairly intense training program. Most people, in their first few years of weight lifting, aren't…

"...dropped about 40 pounds without ever worrying about the diet side of things"

"... [I made] an effort to avoid sugared soda, fruit juice (has a ton of sugar), junk food, etc."

Important contradiction to point out there. I'd say you did worry about the diet side of things given the effort to avoid sugar and junk.

It's a common and widely accepted saying that "abs are made in the kitchen." That's to say, if you want to loose weight, you must change your diet. A few days of cardio or strength training per week won't make up for a bad diet. In fact, if all you're trying to do is loose weight, you're better off working on the diet than the strength training. You could end up being very discouraged if you go the opposite route. Ideally, do both and you'll see results very quickly. But think diet for fat loss, strength training for...strength.

Re: How Strength Training Changes Your Body for Good

#38

Post by tejohnso »

ec109685 wrote: post #11
garraeth wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if you are operating with a calorie surplus, you'd need to eat an optimal mix of nutrients to maintain extra muscle. Most people (most likely) cannot simply ramp up amounts of what you currently eat. For example, if you suddenly require 5000 c/day, you cannot simply eat more pizza, MT Dew, etc. You have to eat 5000 c/day of nutrient rich food. Your muscles do not only require calories. This is actually very hard…

Which nutrients are pizza missing for building muscle? The problem with pizza is that it is way too easy to over indulge, but I don't think it is lacking "nutrients".

Protein. Pizza is a high carb dish in most cases. If you're getting a whole chicken breast worth of chicken per two or three slices, that's a different story. But in general it's mostly a bunch of white bread with some tasty sauce on it.

Re: How Strength Training Changes Your Body for Good

#39

Post by brandonmenc »

garraeth wrote: post #9
Aron wrote: post #2

Weight training doesn't make your muscles bigger, it inspires your body to make your muscles bigger. So my question has always been, if having bigger muscles is good why doesn't the body just do it? It certainly has to be aware that I'm operating with a calorie surplus.

Even if you are operating with a calorie surplus, you'd need to eat an optimal mix of nutrients to maintain extra muscle. Most people (most likely) cannot simply ramp up amounts of what you currently eat. For example, if you suddenly require 5000 c/day, you cannot simply eat more pizza, MT Dew, etc. You have to eat 5000 c/day of nutrient rich food. Your muscles do not only require calories. This is actually very hard…

> For example, if you suddenly require 5000 c/day, you cannot simply eat more pizza, MT Dew, etc. You have to eat 5000 c/day of nutrient rich food.

Pizza and soda are nutrient rich - macronutrient-rich, that is.

If you're getting the right number of calories, and the correct ratio of protein, fat, and carbs, you can mostly eat whatever you want.

Relevant: "Food Composition (Nutritional Priorities with Dr. Israetel)" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwGspJZt1kE

Re: How Strength Training Changes Your Body for Good

#40

Post by zebraflask »

tejohnso wrote: post #37
zebraflask wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's some truth to this. Junk food is over-processed, doesn't have much in the way of nutrient content, and is usually loaded with too much sugar and salt. Everyone knows that. But I think this comment is overestimating how many calories you'd need and how concerned you'd need to be about nutrient balancing, even on a fairly intense training program. Most people, in their first few years of weight lifting, aren't…

"...dropped about 40 pounds without ever worrying about the diet side of things" "... [I made] an effort to avoid sugared soda, fruit juice (has a ton of sugar), junk food, etc." Important contradiction to point out there. I'd say you did worry about the diet side of things given the effort to avoid sugar and junk. It's a common and widely accepted saying that "abs are made in the kitchen." That's to say, if you want…

Might be unclear wording on my part. I was thinking about the fitness and nutritional sites, forums, etc. you find when you Google on this topic. A lot of them try to persuade you to follow some pretty complicated or restrictive dietary plans, or expect you to monitor every last thing you eat.

When it comes to diet, I am an unashamedly lazy man. Lifting the weights is tough enough as it is. I'm not going to live on oatmeal or kale, count calories, or any of that. That just sounds awful.

What works for me is cutting out things that are obviously bad for you: too much sugar, too much salt, comes in a can or a box with a long list of preservatives, etc. Simple plans are easiest to stick with, after all.

Post reply on HN