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

181–190 of 219 posts

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

#181

Post by dredmorbius »

bamboozled wrote: post #24

I find Japanese society to be adverse to weight training in general, weight lifting (Olympic) is almost exclusively practiced in college only. Women are on average afraid they will be seen as too masculine / strong so wouldn't touch weights. Things are certainly changing thanks to cross fit becoming cool Given all that, I find it interesting this study is partyl published from researchers based in Japan :) It's almos…

There are some female bodybuilders out there.

Unsure if she's Japanese though there are others:

https://i.imgur.com/2i6HNcR.mp4>

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

#182

Post by danw1979 »

Hnrobert42 wrote: post #98
naet wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doing "negative" pullups also helped me build up from zero to a max of about ten regular pullups in one set. Unfortunately I took a long break from strength training and can now barely do 1-2. Was just thinking of going back to negatives to start rebuilding my strength.

I am going to guess you are younger. Even if not, don’t worry about falling off the wagon. I’ve learned will happen again and again. The key is to get good at climbing back on, e.g., not letting shame get in the way, not jumping straight back to your previous weights, etc. That’s great that you got to 10 pull-ups. Looking forward to hearing about when you get there again!

Now here’s a coach.

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

#183

Post by oarfish »

peter_l_downs wrote: post #95
davidvarela_us wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I strongly disagree. Weight training is one of the best gifts you can give your body. It keeps you healthy and event prevents injury if done correctly. What you did wrong was not weight training but following an unbalanced training regimen. No judgement there, I was guilty of the same when I was younger. I think younger/uninformed lifters tend to "ego lift" and focus on size over aspects of physical training. It is e…

I will second the endorsement for AthleanX and KneesOverToesGuy. They have both helped me recover from injuries I suffered due to imbalances created by poor training practices. They've helped me improve both strength and mobility (turns out they're related!) and stay healthy. KOTG has been most helpful for injury recovery; Athlean X is mostly just fun. But they both promote learning about your body and the kinetic ch…

If I remember correctly, AthleanX is getting a lot of heat from the science-based fitness community for unscientific advice, though I might misremember here.

However, for those interested in practical science for strength training, I would recommend Barbell Medicine's content (by actual physicians) and Stronger by Science, perhaps.

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

#184

Post by oarfish »

trentgreene wrote: post #72

Hi, worth mentioning that you should explicitly ignore this advice if you’re lifting heavy deadlifts. Eventually you will get to a point on that exercise where your concentric pull can put up vastly more weight than you can safely lower to the ground in a slow manner. Above 3-4 plates and you probably should be dropping the weight. Maybe even less. Your lumbar will thank you.

Is there any supporting evidence for this? On the face of it, it seems highly illogical, considering you'll pretty much always be much stronger on the eccentric than the concentric. It's more a matter of learning to brace correctly, I'd say.

> Your lumbar will thank you.

This to me reinforces the unfounded and harmful narrative that deadlifting, or generally low back exercises pose more danger to the spine than e.g. not lifting.

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

#186

Post by virtual_void »

rd11235 wrote: post #107

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.

N is not the only thing that matters here. It is important but if you’re disregarding results solely on that basis then it’s unfounded.

I noted from reading the paper that they based their sample size on a previous paper that shows the effect size for contractual muscle strength to be 0.6 and turned that in to a sample size estimate (in that paper). The same technique was used here and they nearly doubled the sample size from the previous study. It seems from a first reading that they have the statistical power to make the conclusions they do.

The study that shows 0.6 for effect size was a meta analysis that i do not have access to via my institution, but I’m curious as to why you think this paper is no better than anecdote. Perhaps some other part of their methods?

Their results show at the very least that it might be worth a bigger study (more N) but there’s nothing outrageously wrong with their methodology, is there?

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

#187

Post by tonightstoast »

brailsafe wrote: post #146
naet wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doing "negative" pullups also helped me build up from zero to a max of about ten regular pullups in one set. Unfortunately I took a long break from strength training and can now barely do 1-2. Was just thinking of going back to negatives to start rebuilding my strength.

I'm in the process of doing that right now. It goes away surprisingly quickly. I'm finding that rebuilding grip strength is crucial

Are you gripping your thumb around the bar? I got to ~18 max set a few years back and found it much easier to go thumb in line with all your other fingers. Another tip is to train wide grip lat pull downs at a gym then do your pull ups with wide grip since it uses more back and less bicep (bigger vs smaller muscle). Last tip is don’t forget to breath :)

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

#188

Post by l1tany11 »

MichaelDickens wrote: post #93

As is often the case with these sorts of studies, I'd be wary of over-extrapolating. The study specifically looked at the dumbbell curl only among untrained individuals. If you did a similar study on trained individuals, or on a compound movement like a squat or a bench press, I'd expect to see different results. (In fact, it's effectively impossible to only perform the eccentric portion of a squat or a bench press u…

They used a 1 Rep Max type intensity calculation (which is very common) and to get that baseline they used an isometric contraction with a joint angle of 50deg. So basically you put someone on the machine, set the angle, tell them what to do and give them ~3 tries to do a bicep curl as hard as they can. Since the “weight” isn’t allowed to move, it’s just down to how hard each individual can pull.

I’m pretty sure they used a machine like a biodex that is basically a load cell/resistance unit that you can setup for different movements and contraction types. It works based on an arm coming off a rotational unit. So direct load cell measurements are torque. Torque can then be used to calculate other things depending on what you’re doing.

The results are interpreted and that sets the individual’s Maximum Voluntary Contraction Isometric Torque, which again is basically just 1RM on this machine.

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

#189

Post by prirun »

lta wrote: post #177
j33zusjuice wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (In fact, it's effectively impossible to only perform the eccentric portion of a squat or a bench press unless you're only doing a single rep.) That’s true for all movements, unless someone is resetting it for you. If you don’t move the weight to the top, you can’t lower it again.

I guess for many movements, it's possible to switch to a one-sided equivalent and use the other hand for an easier reset. Barbell press -> dumbbell press

Right, but the article says:

"you may be able to cut your weights routine in half and still see the same results."

If you do one-arm lowering and two-arm raising curls, you'll have to repeat it for the other arm. So instead of getting "less gym time" as the title says, it seems to me like it will take twice as long, though you will also be doing twice the "up" reps. Maybe that's where the extra gains come from! :-)

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

#190

Post by bradlys »

SamoyedFurFluff wrote: post #150
tuatoru wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Climbing is less about upper body muscle and more about body positioning and squats, actually. Your legs have more muscles than your arms, and being super buff limits necessary flexibility to perform maneuvers like swinging your foot up on a perch and pulling up with your leg, often more effective than the same maneuver with an arm.

At a beginner level, maybe. As you get past beginner levels, you need strength… especially upper body strength.

Rock climbing is especially upper body strength intensive. It’s why the guys have ripped upper bodies and tiny legs.

Post reply on HN