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

201–210 of 219 posts

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

#201

Post by joaonmatos »

brailsafe wrote: post #143
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…

It's pretty common advice for training pull-ups to start with the eccentric movement to build strength. Easy enough to do.

Yes, but that’s just because most people have stronger legs than backs so it’s easier for them to jump up to the bar that to pull themselves up.

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

#202

Post by Mouse47 »

bsder wrote: post #157

1) I thought the current science is that "knee extensions" and "leg curls" were considered to be particularly bad for you and highly prone to injury. 2) Did this go out of style and come back? I remember hearing about the benefits of "isometric overload" like this the whole way back in the late 1980s.

Conventional wisdom says leg extensions are bad for your knees but I think the science is shaky at best. I used to believe this also until I tore my ACL about 6 months ago (I'm currently 3 months post-reconstruction).

For a long time physical therapists wouldn't recommend knee extensions for ACL reconstruction rehab due to forces through the graft, but that has changed recently. My PT recommends them to me.

Read this: https://theprehabguys.com/is-the-knee-extension-machine-safe...

TLDR: 1.Squats place a similar force through your knee, except the force peaks when your knee is bent rather than when it's straight (as in leg extensions)

2.Leg extensions are the only reliable way to rebuild quad strength post surgery, and quad strength is by far the strongest predictor of reinjury to the ACL.

I believe my lack of quad-specific training contributed to my initial injury. I did tons of squats and deads and my hamstrings/glutes were strong, but I think my quads were behind. I had trouble slowing down from a sprint during soccer/walking down stairs prior to my injury, and I think those were warning signs

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

#203

Post by robomartin »

eggsmediumrare wrote: post #80
robomartin wrote: post #34

Yeah, well. Here's a concept: Every single researcher who wants to conduct these kinds of experiments needs to, as a prerequisite, read Starting Strength [0] and then go to a certified gym for a year or more before even remotely being able to say anything useful about the subject. Yes, sure, Starting Strength isn't perfect. I am not presenting it as the sum of all knowledge and the one-and-only true anything. However…

Starting Strength is fine, but would be even better if it was a shorthand in your comment for "training intelligently," as this would then include any progressive program involving compound resistance training and conditioning. Not sure wtf I'd do with 120s. Too heavy to put overhead for much more than a rep or two unless you're an absolute animal. Too light for anything else, other than maybe bench I guess?

> Starting Strength is fine, but would be even better if it was a shorthand in your comment for "training intelligently,"

I did say this:

"Starting Strength isn't perfect. I am not presenting it as the sum of all knowledge and the one-and-only true anything."

I would add that for the vast majority (95%) of the people going to a gym, Starting Strength would be an amazing improvement. My take is Rip isn't great at marketing or he could have had his program become a standard in most consumer gyms.

I don't go to gyms any more, I put in a full Rogue squat rack setup at my place. Most of the people I used to see at gyms messing around with weights and machines are wasting their time and, in some cases, getting hurt. You see the same people week after week lifting the same weights (badly) and going nowhere.

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

#204

Post by robomartin »

hhmc wrote: post #55
robomartin wrote: post #34

Yeah, well. Here's a concept: Every single researcher who wants to conduct these kinds of experiments needs to, as a prerequisite, read Starting Strength [0] and then go to a certified gym for a year or more before even remotely being able to say anything useful about the subject. Yes, sure, Starting Strength isn't perfect. I am not presenting it as the sum of all knowledge and the one-and-only true anything. However…

You're just presupposing the researchers don't know anything about strength training, any basis for that other than some lazy guess?

> any basis for that other than some lazy guess?

Reading papers on the subject and working with researchers in the context of discussing different training methodologies for space-going missions?

The knowledge gap between someone who is mostly an academic and someone who has the formal training matched with real-world experience is vast. When you attempt a 250 lb squat and your body shuts down and just collapses under the weight you learn things you cannot learn any other way. That's an extreme case, of course. Yet, I've been in a room when researcher proposed ideas that seemed sensible to them and everyone in the room who actually had time actually lifting and training just rolled their eyes.

This is true of any field. Experience is incredibly valuable. The only people who do not value experience are those who do not have it and somehow believe they have superpowers that allow them to reinvent things that have been learned the hard way by so many.

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

#205

Post by meltyness »

randoglando wrote: post #167
meltyness wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lot of a average Joe's can't do them. I'm probably in good company to say you really only need 6 exercises. From light to heavy: Chinups, Shoulder press, Rows, Bench, Squat, Deadlift Or, roughly, in calisthenics: Chins, shoulder push-ups, pull-ups, push-ups, squat, sit-ups. Probably the most useful of these movements is deadlift, nothing will make throwing office furniture around more fun than the strength you can tr…

Can you link to a sit-up? Is that a crunch? I don't understand how it is a parallel for deadlifts.

They're similar moves, but with different range of motion.

Deadlifts are the heaviest move I listed and it works the abdominal muscles via isometric contraction, which is considerable tension at very high weights. I'll cede that deadlift is more similar to an abdominal plank than a sit-up.

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

#206

Post by hhmc »

robomartin wrote: post #204
hhmc wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're just presupposing the researchers don't know anything about strength training, any basis for that other than some lazy guess?

> any basis for that other than some lazy guess? Reading papers on the subject and working with researchers in the context of discussing different training methodologies for space-going missions? The knowledge gap between someone who is mostly an academic and someone who has the formal training matched with real-world experience is vast. When you attempt a 250 lb squat and your body shuts down and just collapses unde…

> When you attempt a 250 lb squat and your body shuts down and just collapses under the weight you learn things you cannot learn any other way.

This is one of those glib statements that sounds reasonable, but is clearly meaningless on any real thought. It’s like saying you can’t understand high energy physics without personally being collided with a particle at 3 TeV.

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

#207

Post by penjelly »

gligorot wrote: post #85
penjelly wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

pull-up bar and rings and you're set. these days 80-100$ on Amazon

Not quite…the door bars will all result in “low” rings - which heavily limit your vertical movement range. If you can attach them to your ceiling you’ll have better experience. I’m lucky to have a thicker concrete ceiling though.

just bend your knees? Ring sets are usually adjustable so ive never had issues before, but yeah i had to bend by knees of course.

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

#208

Post by brailsafe »

tonightstoast wrote: post #187
brailsafe wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 :)

I switch both of them up periodically and through sets. Fairly limited bars that are tall enough at my gym, so I just work with what I can get, and with what my shoulder anatomy will allow. There's a theshold past which the right muscles continue being engaged, and below which not enough are. Between those, I find there's room to play around and either shoot for more upper trap engagement and scapular retraction, or lat/chest/shoulder etc.. depending on grip. I find that the grip position you mention is a little easier getting chest to bar, which has a bit of an implication for upper back engagement, especially with my shoulders that just won't get out of the way otherwise.

I tend to prefer about shoulder-width lat pulldowns, but slow ones. Somewhere between shoulder width and a right angle at the elbow.

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

#209

Post by brailsafe »

grvdrm wrote: post #193
tonightstoast wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 :)

Definitely something you can integrate but the wide grip pull-up is less efficient even if it better isolates the back. Again, I’m not saying avoid it, but just that it’s not as much a compound exercise as a normal pull-up. My rule of thumb is to stick with as much compound work as possible as it’s a more efficient use of time. Single arm isolated work as example is great, sure, but hardly makes use of other muscles…

I play around with different variations of grip widths and positioning, and feel like there's a time and place for pure isolation or totally compound movements. If one area is significantly weaker than the others, it helps to work on that in isolation, and if another significantly stronger, you're probably going to be doing all of them a disservice and possibly risking injury.

Leg presses, delt flys, and lat pulldowns are some that I prefer to sometimes do in isolation to ensure that one side isn't significantly compensating for the other. I find that it's also a more effective use of the mental energy required, by reducing the total amount of muscles to pay attention to.

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

#210

Post by brailsafe »

joaonmatos wrote: post #201
brailsafe wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's pretty common advice for training pull-ups to start with the eccentric movement to build strength. Easy enough to do.

Yes, but that’s just because most people have stronger legs than backs so it’s easier for them to jump up to the bar that to pull themselves up.

Could be for any reason in my mind, but whatever's lower risk seems sensible.
Post reply on HN