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

How little exercise can you get away with?

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 117 posts

Re: How little exercise can you get away with?

#61

Post by gensym »

orangecat wrote: post #22
gensym wrote: post #7

What a weird question. The amount depends on what you hope to accomplish. Want to be able to get on the floor and play with your grandkids? That's going to require a certain amount of mobility work. Want to be able to hike up Mount Whitney? You'll need regular cardio. I also hate the phrasing that exercise is something to "get away with". Most people who exercise regularly enjoy it. Moving your body is fun, especiall…

Most people who exercise regularly enjoy it. There's a huge selection effect here.

Gotta fuckin love hn, where you can't say the simplest thing without getting thrown into a well, actually.

I wasn't claiming to have run a damned study. Just making an observation. The thing is, people who don't enjoy exercising but start exercising anyway tend to find they enjoy it after a while. Saying people enjoy exercise is only slightly more controversial than saying "ice cream tastes good". There's a bit of activation energy required, but it's not a huge stretch to notice that something that is good for our bodies gives us pleasure.

Re: How little exercise can you get away with?

#62

Post by sublinear »

loeg wrote: post #55
sublinear wrote: post #48

Lift weights. Do it multiple times a day and chase that pump. Do it for stress relief. Do it to help you fall asleep. Do it to wake up. It's not all about cardio. Your muscles are such a significant part of your metabolism and far too many people avoid strength training. A ton of problems that arise while aging are ultimately hormonal. Even your skin improves. Cardiovascular health begins here. People are literally r…

Lift weights, but like 30-60 minutes 3x a week is plenty. You definitely don't have to do it multiple times a day if that would be inconvenient.

Yeah I agree, but considering this is HN, there's a large audience of people who want a serious answer despite it being a somewhat silly question. I already know these comments will be absolutely polluted with conjecture that isn't practical.

If someone works from home and doesn't have kids and hates going outside, this is it. If you can at least get into the habit of lifting weights, you're doing better than most.

I'm going to be the one that says it: people avoid cardio because they instantly feel like crap. Why? They lack the strength. Your legs are considered a "second heart" for a reason. When you get your strength up, you feel amazing. That run will no longer feel like a chore.

Re: How little exercise can you get away with?

#63

Post by swat535 »

KashifNY wrote: post #5

At least 30 minutes in a day, probably 3 days a week at minumum as the body requires it to maintain itself that is though if you want to live a happy and good life, but then over doing its isnt good as well, theres need to be a balance in everything

If you're going to exercise 3+ times a week, make sure to work on different parts of your body during each session or you risk injuring yourself.

For example if you are doing arm exercises Monday, don't do arm exercises again Tuesday, work another muscle groups like your legs.

I had to learn this the hard way when I was starting out..

Re: How little exercise can you get away with?

#64

Post by JohnMakin »

moscoe wrote: post #42
JohnMakin wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people have disabilities or physical limitations.

All the more reason to be more active. Everyone struggles.

Not necessarily to the same degree. Physical activity can be extremely painful with certain disabilities. In those cases, it can be useful to know how much is enough to stay healthy.

Re: How little exercise can you get away with?

#65

Post by JohnMakin »

AlienRobot wrote: post #32
JohnMakin wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people have disabilities or physical limitations.

Do these people you mention read a comment on the internet saying people should exercise more and think that comment is referring to them?

I am one of “these people.” I’m pointing out something to the gp comment that people don’t consider when they make generalizing, moralizing comments like this.

Re: How little exercise can you get away with?

#66

Post by JohnMakin »

delis-thumbs-7e wrote: post #44
JohnMakin wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people have disabilities or physical limitations.

There’s even Paralympics in this world. People with disabilities do sports, although obviously it complicates things.

Those people are world class athletes. Lots of disabilities cause physical activity to be extraordinarily painful or difficult.

Re: How little exercise can you get away with?

#67

Post by JohnMakin »

gherkinnn wrote: post #58
JohnMakin wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people have disabilities or physical limitations.

I do not understand this type of objection. What is the point of shooting down a reasonable recommendation (in this case exercise and having fun doing so) with a handwavy moral plight such as yours? It truly is a bizarre spin on whataboutism.

What objection is there? Talk about “handwavy” comments there. This framing is ableist, whether intentional or not, and I was pointing out not everyone is in a situation where this is the case:

> How about you instead of trying to “get away with” as little exercise as possible you found a way to move your body that you genuinely enjoy? One should not optimise away sleep, nutrition and exercise.

Answer: because exercise can be physically very painful, impossible, or sometimes dangerous for people with certain medical conditions. Knowing how much is enough can be useful to know without being shamed for “optimizing” away exercise.

Hope that helps. Pointing out that people with different situations exist to a generalizing comment should not cause such offense, imho.

Re: How little exercise can you get away with?

#68

Post by AlienRobot »

JohnMakin wrote: post #65
AlienRobot wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do these people you mention read a comment on the internet saying people should exercise more and think that comment is referring to them?

I am one of “these people.” I’m pointing out something to the gp comment that people don’t consider when they make generalizing, moralizing comments like this.

But if the comment wasn't considering you, then they weren't telling you to exercise.

Nobody is telling someone who physically can't run to run. There is no reason to interpret it this way.

Re: How little exercise can you get away with?

#69

Post by loeg »

sublinear wrote: post #62
loeg wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lift weights, but like 30-60 minutes 3x a week is plenty. You definitely don't have to do it multiple times a day if that would be inconvenient.

Yeah I agree, but considering this is HN, there's a large audience of people who want a serious answer despite it being a somewhat silly question. I already know these comments will be absolutely polluted with conjecture that isn't practical. If someone works from home and doesn't have kids and hates going outside, this is it. If you can at least get into the habit of lifting weights, you're doing better than most. I…

I can't object to any of that. If you can swing the space for a squat rack at home, it's pretty life-changing. Highly recommend.

Re: How little exercise can you get away with?

#70

Post by Legend2440 »

Gigachad wrote: post #27
BurningFrog wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Completely restructuring society seems so simple to some people.

What needs to be done is relatively simple. Convincing society to fix what's broken is the hard part. We need to restructure cities away from being driving focused.

A lot of Americans genuinely like their cars and low-density single family neighborhoods.

This would also be a massive and expensive undertaking that would require rebuilding the majority of city infrastructure.

Post reply on HN