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

Hacking strength: Gaining muscle with least resistance

matt.might.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 108 posts

Re: Hacking strength: Gaining muscle with least resistance

#31

Post by lutze »

cgag wrote: post #28
lutze wrote: post #5

Some of this is terrible advice. You want strength, you do high weight, low rep sets of compound barbell lifts. Dumbbells are a body-building tool, not a strength building one. Press machines are horrid horrid horrid. At best they don't target the important stabilizing muscles that compound lifts are supposed to. At worst they can pull your movements into unnatural ranges of motion, causing lasting damage to your joi…

Getting in shape is vague, but I don't think playing any sport is going to make you strong the way a real lifting routine will.

I agree, but then neither will the program described in the blog. If your goal is just to get leaner, fitter and healthier you're better off playing a sport IMO.

Re: Hacking strength: Gaining muscle with least resistance

#32

Post by Detrus »

Reads a bit like an ad for some popular products. Most equipment junkies agree that SelectTech dumbbells are the worst choice. Cheap spinlocks are better because they're sturdier, can take some abuse. Regular handles are 14" and you can get 18" handles. With Bowflex and their copycats, the dumbbells are an annoying length at any weight.

Ironmasters are the best dumbbells you can quickly adjust, followed by Powerblocks. They get shorter with less weight. Quick adjustment is not very important once your weights get above 50 lbs because you're taking long enough breaks to switch weights and get bored.

Re: Hacking strength: Gaining muscle with least resistance

#33

Post by com2kid »

agilescale wrote: post #26
krakensden wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> every single small'ish gym believes that they are somehow safer than regular squat racks They're worried about a different kind of injury than you are.

As a non-gym goer (if I had the money...), what injuries are you talking about? I can guess that gyms want to protect people who try to lift more weight than they can, rather than straining from posture.

> As a non-gym goer (if I had the money...), what injuries are you talking about?

The problem with Smith Machines is that the movements are all linear, e.g. perfectly straight. NOTHING in your body moves in a perfectly straight line, there is an arc to almost everything you do.

Frequently people do squats with smith machines which will eventually hurt their backs from bad form.

(Indeed, I wince in pain sometimes watching people do horrible things to their backs in smith machines, holy crap!)

Now you CAN do things wrong with barbells of course, but many of the things done with a smith machine cannot be right at all!

> (if I had the money...),

My small local gym costs $200 a year.

Find a small local neighborhood gym (even if it isn't in your neighborhood!), they are always affordable!

And hey, body weight exercise programs are free. :)

Re: Hacking strength: Gaining muscle with least resistance

#34

Post by com2kid »

gdubs wrote: post #20
lutze wrote: post #5

Some of this is terrible advice. You want strength, you do high weight, low rep sets of compound barbell lifts. Dumbbells are a body-building tool, not a strength building one. Press machines are horrid horrid horrid. At best they don't target the important stabilizing muscles that compound lifts are supposed to. At worst they can pull your movements into unnatural ranges of motion, causing lasting damage to your joi…

Isn't the point that dumbbells can be a strength trainer for someone just starting out? If its heavy enough for someone to only comfortably get 6-8 reps,then they're in the strength training target. Once they're capable of handling more weight, they can graduate to a bar. The OP's point was to lower the barrier of entry, right?

> Isn't the point that dumbbells can be a strength trainer for someone just starting out?

A good gym will have a light weight 35lb starting bar. That will be 35lb spread across two arms and your back.

You begin with that empty, no weights on it. Start out until you can lift heavier and heavier.

For people who cannot even lift that, then yes, special measures may be called for.

As others have mentioned though, the big problem with common dumbbell exercises is that there are entire muscle groups they just don't exercise, (to be fair I have read the same about some common barbell exercises), mostly involving stabilizer muscles in the back that are unglamorous but are the muscles that will help improve posture, prevent back injury, and provide support when living heavier weights.

Re: Hacking strength: Gaining muscle with least resistance

#35

Post by yummyfajitas »

hkmurakami wrote: post #3

I don't disagree with the overal theme of the article, but I have to disagree on some particulars. Some thoughts: >Habit First Absolutely agree, especially when you're trying to get out of morbid out-of-shapeness. I personally find that mixing it into a pre-existing daily routine works well. I personally do core work and pullups/chinups before my morning and evening showers, and stretch exercises while I'm in the sho…

Not all dumbell exercises are isolation. For most upper body barbell exercises, you can find a corresponding dumbell exercise which recruits more stabilizer muscle. Compare, for example, the barbell bench press to the dumbell version - the dumbell version is harder since you need to stabilize each dumbell in 2 directions rather than 1.

Or just look at the turkish get up. That's all stabilizer.

Of course, there is no substitute for squats and deadlifts. The closest is pistol squats which are great for advanced athletes, but pistol squats are very hard to do if you haven't done a lot of barbell squats first.

Re: Hacking strength: Gaining muscle with least resistance

#36

Post by dvfb »

gdubs wrote: post #19
hkmurakami wrote: post #3

I don't disagree with the overal theme of the article, but I have to disagree on some particulars. Some thoughts: >Habit First Absolutely agree, especially when you're trying to get out of morbid out-of-shapeness. I personally find that mixing it into a pre-existing daily routine works well. I personally do core work and pullups/chinups before my morning and evening showers, and stretch exercises while I'm in the sho…

"That' because dumbell lifts don't engage the stabilizer muscles. As a result, those support muscles are going to be underdeveloped and you won't have developed the coordination to engage them when you need them." Untrue. Dumbbells offer a completely free range of motion, which is what activates the stabilizer muscles. (source: google for "stabilizer muscles dumbbells" and you'll find a ton of information on the subj…

Barbells are simply bigger and heavier dumbbells. However most dumbbells in the context the comment was referring to aren't heavy enough to actively engage the stabilizing muscles to any great effect.

The exercise also makes a big difference. Doing chest flys with dumbbells may feel like you are using a lot of stabilizers but actually you are no where near using as many as a free standing squat.

And of course you're using bigger muscles when doing more compound exercises so correspondingly the weight have to be bigger. I believe that's why in general most people would say barbells > dumbbells.

Re: Hacking strength: Gaining muscle with least resistance

#37

Post by seles »

rayiner wrote: post #18
seles wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I started with stronglifts 5x5, but switched to Mark Rippetoe's Starting Strength. Starting Strength is a little harder to get into because it is based off of a paid book instead of a free pdf. But it is a better program in my opinion. Stronglifts is basically a ripoff of it but with better search engine optimization, hence its popularity. Differences: -Stronglifts starts with minimal weight. Starting Strength starts…

Fair enough. I haven't looked at Starting Strength. I do think Stronglifts is "good enough" for people just looking to get in reasonable shape, and I think there are "transaction costs" benefits to having a short free PDF and a routine that starts with low weights to learn form as opposed to a thorough book and getting professional instruction.

I agree, it is the biggest downfall of Starting Strength. It would be much more accessible if they just had a well organized library of video instructions for all the lifts the program uses. I find it hard to learn from a book...

Re: Hacking strength: Gaining muscle with least resistance

#38

Post by yummyfajitas »

rayiner wrote: post #18
seles wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I started with stronglifts 5x5, but switched to Mark Rippetoe's Starting Strength. Starting Strength is a little harder to get into because it is based off of a paid book instead of a free pdf. But it is a better program in my opinion. Stronglifts is basically a ripoff of it but with better search engine optimization, hence its popularity. Differences: -Stronglifts starts with minimal weight. Starting Strength starts…

Fair enough. I haven't looked at Starting Strength. I do think Stronglifts is "good enough" for people just looking to get in reasonable shape, and I think there are "transaction costs" benefits to having a short free PDF and a routine that starts with low weights to learn form as opposed to a thorough book and getting professional instruction.

If you are going to do something with as high a potential for injury as powerlifting, drop $20 on SS. It spends pages on explanation and diagrams showing you exactly how to perform the lifts.

Start with stronglifts. I get the point of having a free pdf. After you've added 20-25lbs to the bar, go buy SS. It's worth it.

Re: Hacking strength: Gaining muscle with least resistance

#40

Post by yummyfajitas »

com2kid wrote: post #34
gdubs wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't the point that dumbbells can be a strength trainer for someone just starting out? If its heavy enough for someone to only comfortably get 6-8 reps,then they're in the strength training target. Once they're capable of handling more weight, they can graduate to a bar. The OP's point was to lower the barrier of entry, right?

> Isn't the point that dumbbells can be a strength trainer for someone just starting out? A good gym will have a light weight 35lb starting bar. That will be 35lb spread across two arms and your back. You begin with that empty, no weights on it. Start out until you can lift heavier and heavier. For people who cannot even lift that, then yes, special measures may be called for. As others have mentioned though, the big…

The turkish get up doesn't work your stabilizers?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztTOn0rSMis

Post reply on HN