Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition • Hacker News Board

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#71

Post by flictonic » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 4:35 PM UTC

dfxm12 wrote: post #35

crazygringo wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Lift a heavy stone"? That's a joke, right? Barbells and dumbbells are appropriately ergonomic (handles, balance, etc.) and won't ruin your back if you use proper technique. Lifting a heavy stone is a recipe for injuring yourself severely . People need specific indoor gym equipment if they lift, which is a very valid form of exercise. Or, you know, if it's raining or thunderstorming or a humid 100°F outside. And body…

You can't just dismiss the fitness routines people have spent years choosing and refining and getting better at. That's incredibly arrogant. More arrogant than putting other lives at risk because you can't put your routine on hold, or alter it for a bit? No. It isn't. "Lift a heavy stone"? That's a joke, right? No, and it's part of strongman competitions. It's not dangerous if you have the right form and don't overdo…

> why do you need specific indoor gym equipment?

He answered your question directly and then you change the goalposts. Clearly you hold the opinion that gyms should remain closed, and that's fine, but why even ask the question?

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#72

Post by SpicyLemonZest » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 4:35 PM UTC

Ansil849 wrote: post #29

This seems incredibly dangerous. Are the speakeasy gyms requiring negative COVID tests? Are they doing temperature screenings upon entry? How diligently are they sanitizing equipment? How well ventilated are these various areas? Why are people ignoring all of these risks, what kind of threat model do they have?

They're not constructing a complex threat model and deciding that the hedonic value of gym attendance outweighs the disease risk. They're just going to the gym because they decided they'd like to. The article's parallel to alcohol prohibition is exactly on point; there was a famous policy where the government ordered industrial alcohol to include increasingly strong poisions, but consumers kept on drinking it anyway, because they weren't doing a risk-benefit analysis in the first place.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#73

Post by dqpb » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 4:35 PM UTC

While they’re at it, they should setup some speakeasy urgent care clinics for when they give themselves covid.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#74

Post by parliament32 » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 4:35 PM UTC

adolph wrote: post #14

Unlike actual prohibition, the social agreement behind "lockdowns" is subject to time contingencies. The activities considered "essential" grow as time passes. While there are nominal categories of "essential" defined by community/political leaders, that contract depends on agreement. Since each person's conception of "essential" is different, as time passes "essential" grows exponentially instead of linearly.

"Essential" is exactly it. I'm happy to take 2-4 weeks off the gym (switching to apartment calisthenics) to help flatten the curve, but once it drags on to months I'd have no moral qualms with joining an underground gym. Thankfully in my area gyms re-opened June 1st and looks like they're staying open.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#75

Post by hammock » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 4:35 PM UTC

Ansil849 wrote: post #66

hammock wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't have to go if you don't want to. Surely your indignation would be better directed at employers, schools and others who are requiring in-person attendance.

> You don't have to go if you don't want to. Are you implying that the people going to these speakeasy gyms are then self-quarantining and not interacting with people who did not go to the gym? Because if not, then this is a non sequitur of a response. > Surely your indignation would be better directed at employers, schools and others who are requiring in-person attendance. Except OP is not about employers, schools a…

Interacting with other people is a two-way street. If you are afraid someone across from you might have been to one of these gyms, then walk away from them.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#76

Post by zackmorris » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 4:35 PM UTC

dfxm12 wrote: post #6

I don't get it. Unless you're training for a very specific purpose (like an MMA fight or football season), why do you need specific indoor gym equipment? Shelter in place orders are largely lifted, so you can workout outside: run, do pull ups on a tree branch, ride a bike, lift a heavy stone, do an outdoor yoga class, etc. Hell, you only need maybe a 6' x 6' area for a perfectly effective body weight routine, even in…

I've lost 2+ inches on my arms, chest and legs after 20 years of working out fairly consistently. I was the strongest I had ever been just before COVID-19 hit. I'm not super-depressed about it quite yet, because the gym had become a bit of a crutch for avoiding dealing with problems in my life.

But after so many months off, I'm reaching the point where the lost gains might not be recoverable. I have to decide sometime soon whether to get back into the gym or give it up permanently.

It's not a total loss since I've been doing handyman work for my boss and 50 incline pushups 2-3 times per week. I'm in generally good health and my face is thinner. Still stinks though.

I bought a used weight bench and plan to use it soon. And I'm still paying my gym membership, only $20/mo for life at a converted Gold's Gym. But we get such a boost in the first 6 weeks of n00b gains after a break that I feel it's better to go all-in rather than dabble.

Oh and to answer your question: pumping iron is a hack. My girlfriend does kickboxing, and it's a tremendously physical exercise revolving around burpies and other crossfit-style functional training. It's really good. But, I feel that weightlifting provides a much higher bang for the buck because it takes advantage of 2 to 5 day overcompensation cycles in the body so that gains continue indefinitely. So my intensity under the bar over an hour and a half period never even reaches the intensity of her warmup. Yet I put on perhaps 2 to 4 times as much muscle as I would cross training, for 1/2 to 1/4 the effort, which works out to about a 4 to 16 times better return on investment (an order of magnitude better result).

I pump iron because I'm lazy, is what I'm saying.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#77

Post by iancmceachern » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 4:35 PM UTC

I saw an engineering services company I know of post a new job position for a "care coordinator" to babysit their employees kids, at work, while the employees work. My first thought was, isn't that a daycare? How is it different in the eyes of the law? Edited- spelling

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#78

Post by reaperducer » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 4:36 PM UTC

dragosmocrii wrote: post #62

matz1 wrote: post #42

Bad policies deserve to be violated. > Please consider reporting the details to the appropriate authorities No, on the contrary I'm encouraging people to go out and resume their normal activities.

This. The last couple months has done more damage than good to me. I'm that type of person who'll lose muscle quickly if stops working out for mote than 2 weeks. I also played a couple games of volleyball and tennis, and I'm so clumsy I'm embarrassed I lost control of my body. Meanwhile, thr local gyms havr silly rules to restrict people's access...

The last couple months has done more damage than good to me. I'm that type of person who'll lose muscle quickly if stops working out for mote than 2 weeks.

It's not about you. It's about everyone else.

How can someone be so selfish and self-absorbed that they think their "muscle mass" is more important than the health of hundreds or thousands of other people?

I know this question may violate some HN policy, but I can't help but ask: What's wrong with you?

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#79

Post by henriquez » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 4:36 PM UTC

adolph wrote: post #14

Unlike actual prohibition, the social agreement behind "lockdowns" is subject to time contingencies. The activities considered "essential" grow as time passes. While there are nominal categories of "essential" defined by community/political leaders, that contract depends on agreement. Since each person's conception of "essential" is different, as time passes "essential" grows exponentially instead of linearly.

An extension of this is the notion of emergency authorities and people’s perception of the weight they carry.

An emergency is an emergent situation, which must be new, evolving, and carry the risk of serious harm. Emergency orders are based upon the idea that executive authority must be wielded to quickly mitigate an emergency situation. But a key attribute of an emergency (by definition) is “new” - if emergency powers are extended month after month then they are based on a situation that is no longer an emergency.

Now before you get angry, consider that we can agree that COVID-19 is a serious threat that requires government action _without_ it necessarily being an emergency or emergent situation. The threat has long since emerged.

Now we have a lot of governors issuing decrees based on emergency authorities that they’ve been using for six months. This is quite simply a conflict with our basic notion of democracy. We do not have rulers, yet our governors are issuing rules purportedly carrying the weight of law with no oversight from legislature.

Whether or not you agree with the orders, I think it’s intuitively likely that you can see how this is essentially a disruption in the relationship between people and their government, and as such it’s at least understandable how many people would feel these orders carry no moral weight (even if they’re not thinking from a legal perspective). And so the existence of gray market gyms and parties is at least understandable, even if we don’t condone such behavior.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#80

Post by ultrarunner » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 4:37 PM UTC

adolph wrote: post #14

Unlike actual prohibition, the social agreement behind "lockdowns" is subject to time contingencies. The activities considered "essential" grow as time passes. While there are nominal categories of "essential" defined by community/political leaders, that contract depends on agreement. Since each person's conception of "essential" is different, as time passes "essential" grows exponentially instead of linearly.

I always thought they should have called them “authorized” activities and businesses. The optics wouldn’t allow it, but it would have been more accurate all around and avoided these misunderstandings.