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

101–110 of 219 posts

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

#101

Post by davidvarela_us »

gagabity wrote: post #77

They should develop some sort of conveyor belt machine that takes the weights up so you only have to lower them! Otherwise gym pulley style machines seem perfect for this.

There is a technique known as "cheat reps" in strength training. The idea is to recruit more/stronger muscles to cover the concentric motion and to isolate the muscle you are training in the eccentric. It is an excellent tool when used intelligently. I wouldn't recommend it for beginners because it can make it easy to injure yourself and is not really needed until your strength starts to plateau anyway.

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

#102

Post by tuatoru »

pcthrowaway wrote: post #90
jakeinspace wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure but anyone who’s heavy would struggle climbing. Even truly athletic and flexible heavy athletes like football or basketball players.

There are professional climbers who are 'heavy'. Finger strength, overall strength, flexibility, coordination, balance, and technique all play a massive role as well. I don't know why the bodybuilders I've climbed with seem to be worse than overweight/obese people I've seen climbing for their first time, but I've had this observation as well.

Because body-building is an art form, not a form of exercise. I have worked in physical jobs that require overhead lifting (for example) and, regularly, scrawny-looking guys have to help out their body-building cow-orkers, who just haven't developed the ancillary muscles that provide control and balance, because that loses "definition" (or whatever the term is).

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

#103

Post by tuatoru »

Fricken wrote: post #87
jakeinspace wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure but anyone who’s heavy would struggle climbing. Even truly athletic and flexible heavy athletes like football or basketball players.

Some of these guys can do pullups all day, but they only train within a strict range of motion and they aren't necessarily any good at doing anything outside of that range. When I started climbing I could do 3 pullups, and now I can do 18 in a set. I don't train pull-ups, just climbing.

For good climbing, I'd have thought you need to be able to do muscle-ups (pullups that end with you balanced over the bar, pushing down to support yourself).

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

#104

Post by tuatoru »

_yb2s wrote: post #81
humanlion87 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Doing the traditional powerlifting lifts like you mentioned is something can can be sustained long term, and has incredible health benefits. I am a competitive strength athlete, and there are a ton of people in the community that have been lifting competitively for as much as 40-50 years and are still in great shape. Proper form and technique are critical to preventing injury, I have only seen people get injured when…

I'd add overhead presses and weighted pullups and pushups to squats and deadlifts. Bench presses are for impressing other gym rats. Overhead presses are much more beneficial for your shoulders.

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

#105

Post by pcthrowaway »

tuatoru wrote: post #103
Fricken wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some of these guys can do pullups all day, but they only train within a strict range of motion and they aren't necessarily any good at doing anything outside of that range. When I started climbing I could do 3 pullups, and now I can do 18 in a set. I don't train pull-ups, just climbing.

For good climbing, I'd have thought you need to be able to do muscle-ups (pullups that end with you balanced over the bar, pushing down to support yourself).

That's probably a level beyond where the majority of people who frequent the climbing gym get to. Even pro climbers might not be able to do any muscle ups.

Here's Alex Honnold talking about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDUeh8nyLT0&t=490s

He demonstrates he can only do 5 pullups (though it's possible he was being modest).

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

#106

Post by ehnto »

nordsieck wrote: post #49
humanlion87 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We're getting confused I think, these are typical powerlifting movements now. But classically, by which I mean in the past, those compound movements were big in bodybuilding circles as well.

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

#107

Post by rd11235 »

From the actual paper:

> Methods Non-resistance-trained young adults were assigned to one of the four groups: CON-ECC (n= 14), CON (n=14) and ECC (n= 14) training groups, and a control group (n=11) that had measurements only.

Not sure why this is getting so much attention. Evidence wise it’s only a hair stronger than the anecdotal stories / advice in the top comments.

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

#108

Post by dehrmann »

> Using a dumbbell, Professor Nosaka recommends using two hands to help with the concentric (lifting weight) phase, before using one arm for the eccentric phase (lowering weight)...

The two-hand approach just feels like a headache.

There's a common trick people do to take advantage of how you can handle more weight in the eccentric phase of the motion. You "cheat" to get it up, then lower it controlled with strict form. Push press up, military press down.

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

#109

Post by MichaelDickens »

paxys wrote: post #70
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…

There is zero science behind this. Professional body builders have chronic issues not because of the exercises but rather the intensity of training and specialized focus on certain muscles/aesthetics. You can say the same for pro athletes in most other sports as well. An amateur doing a standard squat, bench press, curl, deadlift etc. routine with manageable weights and good guidance/form is absolutely going to benef…

> There is zero science behind this.

I was curious about this so I did a little searching. I found some studies showing that resistance training has lower injury rates than contact sports, and youth resistance training in particular is safer than pretty much any other athletic activity. But I didn't find any studies that covered bodyweight strength training, so I couldn't evaluate GP's claims. Regardless, given the low injury rate for resistance training, I think it's fair to recommend people lift weights, and I mostly agree with your last sentence.

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

#110

Post by xeromal »

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.

I know 3 types of names that from the outside look the same but mean different things within the strength circles.

* Weightlifting (Clean & Jerk, Snatch)

* Powerlifting (Squat, Bench, Deadlift, Maybe Bentover Row)

* Bodybuilding (High volume isolation exercises)

Post reply on HN