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

Everything You Know About Fitness is a Lie

mensjournal.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 376 posts

Re: Everything You Know About Fitness is a Lie

#221

Post by enjo »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #181
jacques_chester wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I believe it's a CrossFit thing. Based on this claim I assume also that Crossfit invented the barbell, the bumper plate and gravity. The sudden outburst of anecdotes about how your Crossfit gym rooly trooly emphasises form seems to have come after years of sustained criticism by strength coaches and Olympic weightlifting coaches. It's as simple as this: nobody -- not me, not you, not your coach, not the pros -- nob…

I haven't done crossfit, but I am curious - what prevents you from doing 20 proper form clean & jerks if you lower the weight?

It's the timing aspect, and it's particularly an issue with squats. Even at lower weight, it's far to easy to get your knees pushed forward or your back arched when trying to pump through them as fast as possible.

I don't think anyone is saying that it's not possible, it's just much more likely that your average lifter is going to run into injury.

Re: Everything You Know About Fitness is a Lie

#222

Post by Cushman »

ilovecomputers wrote: post #46
jasonkester wrote: post #42

If you really want to get fit, there's one easy thing you can do that actually works: Take up a sport that gets you fit as a side effect. I have two obsessions in life: Rock Climbing and Surfing. I'm pretty good at the first, and borderline hopeless at the other, but I'm committed to the point where I've arranged my life so that I can travel for months at a time to pursue one or the other each year. When I'm working…

Also, don't eat boxed foods or foods that went through multiple stages of processing. In Defense of Food by Michael Pollan spells it out very well, but I'll just give you my simple definition: Eating healthy is as close to eating dirt without actually eating dirt. Produce, grain, cheese, 1/2 pound to a pound of meat a week[1], and whatever else Marion Nestle recommends[1.5]. Just imagine what primitive man would eat.…

As someone who went from being pretty overweight to really fit simply by following a policy of eating no sugar or grains and as much deliciously fatty meat, eggs and cheese as I want, I have strong skepticism towards the conventional wisdom about "healthy" foods.

Re: Everything You Know About Fitness is a Lie

#223

Post by enjo »

bpyne wrote: post #179
dagw wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For what it's worth I've never heard what you describe called "winded". To me winded means getting the wind knocked out of you. I wonder if it is a regional thing.

In the northeast of the US, getting winded is breathing heavily from exertion. It implies reaching your max exertion point. I would think the rest of the US uses it the same way, just based on talking with friends throughout the country. I'm not sure if our brethren to the north use it the same way.

Same in the south and midwest... I've never heard the other interpretation at all:)

Re: Everything You Know About Fitness is a Lie

#224

Post by ilovecomputers »

enjo wrote: post #219
rubashov wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> don't eat boxed foods or foods that went through multiple stages of processing What's wrong with cheese, or butter? Or sauerkraut and pickles? All processed food. Also, powdered mashed potatoes and puffed rice are just conveniently preserved starch. They're perfectly healthy. The "processed food" and "mostly plants" stuff is just marketing psychology that taps into SWPLs' inner hippie. The real diet rules aren't my…

This recalls a conversation I had with a highly noted doctor of nutrition at University of Colorado @ Denver. He was the first to admit that nutrition sciences were largely confused. All of those years of studying cholestrol and various other substances in isolation had led to a ton of barely viable nutrition advice that didn't seem to work in practice. He has come to believe that the research continues to point in a…

Of course, the experts have a better sense of why these advices work (that's why I trust Marion Nestle's advice more than Michael Pollan's). You're right, I meant processed in the industrial sense (you can consider tofu processed out of that context).

Re: Everything You Know About Fitness is a Lie

#225

Post by jimmyk »

pge wrote: post #183
jimmyk wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For your analogy, he couldn't write "hello world" in C before writing the article. Before finishing the article, he was able to write software better than the vast majority of developers. While writing the article, he received training and advice from the person who trained the best developers. I'd sure pay attention.

I have to disagree - your assessment would suggest that at the end he was more fit than the vast majority of people that try to be fit, and that his teacher was the best in the world. My point was simply that he did not have a frame of reference to evaluate the quality of the fitness program he took on relative to other programs with competent instructors (since his lack of fitness demonstrated that he had never had…

The author does have a few indicators that his teacher was in the top tier; the teacher trained special forces troops, the best mountain climbers, and ski racers. These are people who you can trust to be among the best trained in general fitness.

And in the end the author was vastly more fit than the majority of people trying to be fit. The majority of people trying to be fit go to the gym once in a while, do a few cardio exercises, and go home. He was among them before meeting with this guy. He's still well below a lot of people, like professional athletes, but the people he is still below only represent a small fraction of the population.

I get your point though. He still can't say whether or not his trainer is the best or if his ideas are the best. What he can say, though, is that his trainers ideas are much better than those of the typical gym trainer at a franchise gym. This article is clearly not targeted at Michael Phelps. It's targeted at the average gym-goer.

Re: Everything You Know About Fitness is a Lie

#226

Post by Cushman »

JoelMcCracken wrote: post #144
desigooner wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's precisely why the "nature intended us to" argument doesn't really work for me when I hear people trying to convince me to try the Paleo diet. Whatever the benefits might be (besides making the author of those books a good chunk of money), they can be garnered by other means. What I hate even more is when a few devotees of such diets go on a slant about vegetarianism/veganism etc. etc.

I went from being a vegetarian to the paleo diet (or, actually, the "primal" variant). I thought about making this really long, but instead, realize that primal/paleo people use the primitive human as a model, a "common sense" starting base, and then apply liberal amounts of scientific knowledge to get a working solution. It has changed my life. When I follow the diet, it has been pretty impossible not to lose weight…

Second this. I am as critical as anyone of the naturalistic fallacy, and don't generally subscribe to the idea that what worked for cavemen will work for me.

However, the metabolic science is there if you read it, and I can't argue with the profound effect switching to a diet based on meat, eggs and other sources of saturated fats has had on my body.

I eat as much as I want, whenever I want, I'm never really hungry any more, and I've been losing fat and gaining muscle without thinking about it at all. It's pretty incredible.

Re: Everything You Know About Fitness is a Lie

#227

Post by yummyfajitas »

randallsquared wrote: post #207
yummyfajitas wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If obesity is a disease of poverty, then how come truly poor people (e.g., the poor in India or China) are skinny? Lack of money for food is not a cause of obesity. If your goal is to obtain 2500 calories (assuming that is what you need to maintain a healthy weight) for a little money as possible, you will consume 2500 calories of carbs. You will not become obese. If you instead consume 3500 calories and become obese…

"and holding consumption constant" is the trick, ain't it? Works great if you want to lose a little weight later more than you want to eat another 500 calories now. Most people don't want that (me included, by revealed preference -- I'm over 300 lbs). When people say that obesity goes with poverty, they're noting that virtually everyone eats until they are sated, and if you eat until you are sated with high-quality,…

Exactly. Obesity goes with poverty because both are a result of a high discount rate.

High discount rate reduces the propensity for work (most poor don't work much, if at all), particularly work with a career path. Why work hard now just to have a middle class life in the future?

Similarly, a high discount rate cuts against a healthy lifestyle - why suffer through a run in the park and hunger right now, just for future health?

(Also explains correlation between poverty and: drugs, alchohol, unprotected sex, probably other pathologies I can't think of.)

High discount rate is the cause, everything else is an effect.

Of course, a high discount rate has nothing to do with the cheapness of carbs, fat and sugar relative to meat or veggies. Money is not the limiting factor. Willpower/preferences are.

Re: Everything You Know About Fitness is a Lie

#228

Post by derleth »

bhousel wrote: post #138
yummyfajitas wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So no Indian/Chinese/Japanese/Mexican food? No avocados? No seafood, unless your grandparents are from the coast? (Food diversity sucket in our grandparent's era. )

The Michael Pollan quote is actually: "Don’t eat anything your great-great-grandmother wouldn’t recognize as food. (Sorry, but at this point Moms are as confused as the rest of us, which is why we have to go back a couple of generations, to a time before the advent of modern food products.) There are a great many foodlike items in the supermarket your ancestors wouldn’t recognize as food (Go-Gurt? Breakfast-cereal ba…

> All those foods that you mentioned, a 19th century mom would recognize as food.

Doubtful. I mean, the vegetables aren't cooked. That can't be healthy!

(Before anyone downvotes me: Look up how we used to cook vegetables. 'Boiled to a mush' just about sums it up. That's neither tasty nor healthy.)

Re: Everything You Know About Fitness is a Lie

#230

Post by rdouble »

kenjackson wrote: post #182
astrogirl wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's because your form stinks. Squats and deads don't hurt you unless you do them incorrectly.

Both are too easy to hurt yourself. This is why, for example, why deadlifts are generally not recommended for professional athletes. For example, notice Kobe doesn't do deadlifts: http://www.nbaplayerworkouts.com/kobe-bryant The delta in benefit is not worth a back injury.

That article says Kobe does power cleans, which are riskier than deadlifts for back injury.
Post reply on HN