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

Less gym time, same results: Why ‘lowering’ weights is all you need to do

ecu.edu.au

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 219 posts

Re: Less gym time, same results: Why ‘lowering’ weights is all you need to do

#41

Post by inerte »

superfrank wrote: post #22
Moissanite wrote: post #10

So, what, am I supposed to get my butler to lift the weights up for me so that I can just lower them back down?

I had a personal training for a while and he would mix in what he would call "negatives" that were exactly that. For example, we'd set up in a bench press and he'd assist in lifting the bar up, then it was on me to slowly lower it back down. According to him, you're able to use your strength more effectively going down, so I was actually able to do more than I could normally bench this way. Similar story with concent…

Exercises can also have a "tempo" variation, where you slowly do one of the parts, with "tempo squat" probably being one of the most popular ones where descent takes 3-5 seconds.

Re: Less gym time, same results: Why ‘lowering’ weights is all you need to do

#42

Post by malshe »

BFLpL0QNek wrote: post #38
malshe wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for this tip! I am trying to build upper body strength and pull-ups kill me

Bands help. You get the most assistance at the bottom and the assistance decreases as you pull up to your strongest position.

Thanks

Re: Less gym time, same results: Why ‘lowering’ weights is all you need to do

#43

Post by mancerayder »

hahaxdxd123 wrote: post #30
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think your arguments are a fair critique of this study: > First of all, I've been lifting for many years and I haven't done dumbbell curls in a decade. The study authors aren't arguing that dumbbell curls should be the center of your workout. And they are are presumably using an isolation exercise because it is more straightforward to test improvements to strength when you are just examining the effect on a s…

I would also add that some of his arguments are just wrong? > you probably shouldn't be doing isolation exercises unless you don't mind risking injury and joint inflammation in the long-term I have never heard of anyone getting injured from dumbbell curls or lateral raises, but everyone I know has tweaked something from a momentary lapse of form in compound movements. Turns out moving 400lb+ pounds close to your limi…

> I have never heard of anyone getting injured from dumbbell curls or lateral raises, but everyone I know has tweaked something from a momentary lapse of form in compound movements. Turns out moving 400lb+ pounds close to your limit regularly isn't that safe.

That's because by "getting injured" you're thinking of "a momentary lapse of form." As an old guy, I can tell you the injuries to look out for happen slowly, then suddenly, when muscle imbalances accumulate and inflammation starts to happen more than the body can recover from it, repeatedly and over a period of time. Tweaking a muscle is nothing, muscle imbalances and joint pain are the fun stuff. Since bicep curls are not functional movements, they're prone to these muscle imbalances. A pullup or chinup (even weighted) is a counter-example, and a more natural human movement. Having huge, very strong biceps and not ensuring the triceps keep up (and not to mention the muscles in the forearm) is more likely to result in pain at some point. Probably pain in the elbows. You also hear of muscle / tendon tears (you can see some of them on YouTube if you can stomach it) while the exercise is performed.

> Turns out moving 400lb+ pounds close to your limit regularly isn't that safe.

Maybe some of your arguments are just wrong ? 400 lbs isn't a meaningful number in isolation. And moving what, as in squatting? It depends on your weight class and training levels but 400 lbs of squatting isn't a recipe for damage and death if you've built up to it with good form. Why would it be? Which part of the anatomy do you think will suffer first?

Re: Less gym time, same results: Why ‘lowering’ weights is all you need to do

#44

Post by thewizardofaus »

This is extremely common in the triphasic training approach.

"Each block focuses on a particular portion of the main lifts—the eccentric (down) phase, the isometric (static) phase, and the concentric (up) phase."

Another common technique for force production in elite sport is to use weight releasers that overload the eccentric phase of a movement.

For example; squat eccentric 200kg, weight releases, concentric with 100kg.

Re: Less gym time, same results: Why ‘lowering’ weights is all you need to do

#45

Post by humanlion87 »

Octabrain wrote: post #40

From my personal experience, for the majority of people, I would recommend to stay away from classic body building weight trainning. I trainned that way for several years in my early twenties (back then, I was even a certified body bulding trainner) and the overload in my joints was a recipe for disaster + the kind of body I developed was disfunctional for activities other than weights themselves. The excercises I've…

May I know what you are referring to as the "classic body building" exercises. To me the classic ones are squat, bench and deadlift. I am curious why you think it's a disaster.

Re: Less gym time, same results: Why ‘lowering’ weights is all you need to do

#46

Post by runnerup »

Octabrain wrote: post #40

From my personal experience, for the majority of people, I would recommend to stay away from classic body building weight trainning. I trainned that way for several years in my early twenties (back then, I was even a certified body bulding trainner) and the overload in my joints was a recipe for disaster + the kind of body I developed was disfunctional for activities other than weights themselves. The excercises I've…

But is your version better for aesthetics in addition to being better for wellness?

Re: Less gym time, same results: Why ‘lowering’ weights is all you need to do

#47

Post by cashsterling »

A set of gymnastic rings for 50USD is a great investment if you can find a good place to use them. I have a set that I take with me to the gym.

Ring dips and push-ups are awesome pushing exercises. Ring dips especially put a lot of load on the chest in way that almost no other exercise does.

Ring pull-ups and rows are great pull exercises. Rings allow you to do a lot of interesting movements and variations on these exercises.

FitnessFAQs on youtube has a lot of good videos on ring exercise form and routines.

Re: Less gym time, same results: Why ‘lowering’ weights is all you need to do

#48

Post by nordsieck »

malshe wrote: post #33
mrob wrote: post #15

I used eccentric muscle contractions to gain enough strength to do pull-ups when I was too weak to do even one. I stood on a chair to get into the top position, then lowered myself as slowly as I could. The exercise was effective, and after a few weeks I could do full pull-ups without the chair.

Thanks for this tip! I am trying to build upper body strength and pull-ups kill me

> I am trying to build upper body strength and pull-ups kill me

IMO, the best thing is if you have access to an assisted pull up machine or lat pull down.

Bands can work alright (and they're cheap!), but assisted pull ups and/or lat pull down allow you finely tune your progressive overload. The general problem with bands (and spring type resistance in general) is that the non-linear resistance makes it more difficult to judge your progress.

Re: Less gym time, same results: Why ‘lowering’ weights is all you need to do

#49

Post by nordsieck »

humanlion87 wrote: post #45
Octabrain wrote: post #40

From my personal experience, for the majority of people, I would recommend to stay away from classic body building weight trainning. I trainned that way for several years in my early twenties (back then, I was even a certified body bulding trainner) and the overload in my joints was a recipe for disaster + the kind of body I developed was disfunctional for activities other than weights themselves. The excercises I've…

May I know what you are referring to as the "classic body building" exercises. To me the classic ones are squat, bench and deadlift. I am curious why you think it's a disaster.

> To me the classic ones are squat, bench and deadlift.

IMO, those are classic powerlifting exercises. From what I can tell, the pro body builders typically do a lot more machine work and other isolated movements because it has a better stimulus:fatigue ratio than large compound movements.

Re: Less gym time, same results: Why ‘lowering’ weights is all you need to do

#50

Post by runnerup »

humanlion87 wrote: post #45
Octabrain wrote: post #40

From my personal experience, for the majority of people, I would recommend to stay away from classic body building weight trainning. I trainned that way for several years in my early twenties (back then, I was even a certified body bulding trainner) and the overload in my joints was a recipe for disaster + the kind of body I developed was disfunctional for activities other than weights themselves. The excercises I've…

May I know what you are referring to as the "classic body building" exercises. To me the classic ones are squat, bench and deadlift. I am curious why you think it's a disaster.

Those aren’t very classic for bodybuilding, rather they are the ones for powerlifting. Bodybuilding uses a very wide variety of movements incorporating dumbbells, barbells, and machines to train every single muscle periodically (even focusing on little tiny ones no one else would care about).

Here’s a good example of a bodybuilding training routine: https://thinksteroids.com/community/threads/first-bodybuildi...

That said, I’m also curious what GP was referring to, specifically. Was he saying like “don’t do dumbbell curls”?

Post reply on HN