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

Fitness Crazed

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 118 posts

Re: Fitness Crazed

#91

Post by a8da6b0c91d »

zacharycohn wrote: post #88
a8da6b0c91d wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also think the focus on squatting and dead lifting does not produce very aesthetic results for a lot of guys. Some people have twiggy legs and benefit from putting on some lower body mass. But a lot more guys who progress to intermediate squat and deadlift numbers wind up with over sized thighs and glutes and frankly it doesn't look good. Nor is it very "functional" outside of the lifts. That kind of bulk definitel…

"the deadlift [...] is not very impressive, [...] and it's not very useful, athletically speaking." That is probably the most false statement I've ever read on the internet. Which is saying something. Athletically speaking, there is no single exercise better than the deadlift. With the squat coming in at #2.

If you play tennis, box, run 400m, or play basketball, then pursuing a heavy weight deadlift routine is going to compromise your performance. Sometimes it might help build some strength, but beyond a limited amount sinking a lot of training capacity into it is going to slow you down and compromise endurance. This is not remotely controversial.

Re: Fitness Crazed

#92

Post by zacharycohn »

Since this article didn't elaborate on Rip's suggested diet, and I haven't seen another post here that did... here it is: ff GOMAD, or Gallon Of Milk A Day, is the diet that commonly is combined with Starting Strength (SS). The general idea is that, in addition to eating a lot of food, you drink a gallon of milk a day.

It is not for the protein in the milk. It is not for the added calcium. It is a straight up calorie per dollar play.

A gallon of whole milk is 2400 calories, and costs about $3. It's basically the best dollar to calorie ratio that exists at the grocery store.

Why do you need the extra 2400 calories? For recovery. SS operates on a linear progression. Every other day, you lift a few more pounds than you did the day before. In order to achieve that (safely, and sustainably), you need to be fully recovered by your next workout.

There are many aspects to recovery, but the primary bottleneck is fuel. Which is calories. So the rationale behind GOMAD is to remove the bottleneck. Give the body more fuel than it could possibly use in a day to spend on recovery.

If your typical diet is 3000 calories from food (not unusual when on an aggressive exercise plan), GOMAD will up that to 5400. The exact upper bound on calories your body can actually burn in a day on recovery is variable - depends on the person, the day, the workout, etc etc etc.

But the usage ceiling is definitely lower than 5400 calories. So we give the body more fuel than it could POSSIBLY burn, to give it the ability to recover as much as it is humanly possible between workouts.

You do have to do something with those extra calories. It DOES turn into fat. You do gain a little fat when doing SS+GOMAD. But you have to chose one - lose weight or build muscle. It’s incredibly difficult to do both, while also demanding gains in a reasonable amount of time. So typically once someone finishes a SS cycle, they switch to IF (Intermittent Fasting) or something to cut the extra weight.

Then you end up much stronger, and leaner.

Hope that was helpful in clearing up the GOMAD diet, and the rationale behind it.

Re: Fitness Crazed

#93

Post by zacharycohn »

a8da6b0c91d wrote: post #91
zacharycohn wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"the deadlift [...] is not very impressive, [...] and it's not very useful, athletically speaking." That is probably the most false statement I've ever read on the internet. Which is saying something. Athletically speaking, there is no single exercise better than the deadlift. With the squat coming in at #2.

If you play tennis, box, run 400m, or play basketball, then pursuing a heavy weight deadlift routine is going to compromise your performance. Sometimes it might help build some strength, but beyond a limited amount sinking a lot of training capacity into it is going to slow you down and compromise endurance. This is not remotely controversial.

All of those exercises demand explosive strength from the legs. Which is what the deadlift is very, very efficient at producing.

Proof: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrLVlbgwcW8#t=80

This guy is doing a 47 inch box jump... out of a pool. This is what deadlifting does.

Re: Fitness Crazed

#94

Post by jqm »

Dewie wrote: post #85
jqm wrote: post #36

The fitness regime I got more out of than anything else has been interval training. I worked out with weights for years and occasionally would do some cardio. I think the logic was... cardio doesn't make you look good in a swimsuit like lifting weights does, and at the time impressing ladies and intimidating other guys was priority (lets don't lie to ourselves about motive here!). Then, I got a little older and impre…

HIIT is a good form of interval training for people who want to do cardio but are also afraid that cardio will detract from their "look good in a swimsuit"-look. > , and at the time impressing ladies and intimidating other guys was priority (lets don't lie to ourselves about motive here!). Let's not project, either.

"Let's not project, either."

hehehe

Well, I was just speaking from what I remember as a 20 something... I doubt I'm unique in this regard but probably it doesn't apply to everyone.

Re: Fitness Crazed

#95

Post by HelloMcFly »

x0x0 wrote: post #38
crazygringo wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who started with Starting Strength about a year ago, and who goes to a gym in Manhattan with lots of trainers around... Nope. The book is far superior to any of the trainers I've encountered. The book has so much detail on each exercise, it will take you weeks to absorb it, but if you read relevant parts before/after each workout, to make sure you're doing everything right, you'll probably wind up with muc…

As someone who started lifting a year ago: you don't know what you're talking about, but don't let that stop you from giving others advice that could hurt them. For the rest of people interested in getting strong: get a competent trainer (one easy evaluation metric is, as I mentioned, their deadlift maxes; greater than 500 pounds makes avoiding injury w/o good form very unlikely; or participation in powerlifting even…

I agree with the person you responded to. The advice I've received from "certified trainers" on deadlift and squats has been far inferior to 1) looking up proper form online and 2) comparing that against my form in the mirror, or video I took of my lift with my phone.

Save the money, skip the trainer, watch some of Rippetoe's videos, record yourself, and improve. Of course if you have the money to spend, and will feel more confident with a trainer, then by all means do that. But be responsible for your own health and still do your own homework.

Re: Fitness Crazed

#96

Post by omegaworks »

NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #45

I have trouble understanding the basis for articles like these. As far as it goes, asking which exercises might provide the best real-world gains is a sensible question, but the question of why a 40 yr old man wants to be able to push 235 lbs away from his chest when lying reclined is never even asked. Does he know why he wants this? From a biological perspective, a specimen might want to be able to do this to signal…

From: http://essays.biochemistry.org/bsessays/042/0075/bse0420075....

>"Strength training has been shown to improve insulin-stimulated glucose uptake in both healthy elderly individuals and patients with manifest diabetes, and likewise to improve muscle strength in both elderly healthy individuals and in elderly individuals with chronic disease."

>"Low muscle mass is correlated with not only lower functional capacity, but is associated with a higher risk of falls, fractures and mortality."

>"Despite the fact that ageing is associated with a decreased muscle oxidative capacity and a reduced muscle function, a major part of this decline can be counteracted by physical activity, especially by resistance training."

Basically: muscle eats glucose. High blood glucose is bad for you. More muscle = less frail in general. It's a damn good idea for him to be doing strength training at his age.

Re: Fitness Crazed

#97

Post by HelloMcFly »

a8da6b0c91d wrote: post #86
SwellJoe wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have the same sort of, and similar length, history with weight training. I believe that's because it's pretty widely accepted now that free weights are more effective than machines. And, the difference is large enough that even people outside of weight lifting circles have a vague awareness of this. In the 80s, it was still really popular to use machines because they were "safer" (which is not necessarily true), th…

> it's pretty widely accepted now that free weights are more effective than machines. I don't buy that. The people who say that stuff are the same ones who go on about stabilizer muscles, when there's no such thing. Machines are safer than barbells. For overhead and pull-down stuff the good machines minimize dangerous shoulder stress. Barbell squats and deadlifts quite simply are somewhat dangerous and even very expe…

Between you believing the deadlift has no athletic benefit, and thinking machines are more effective than free weights, I'm wondering what your background in fitness is. I think the debate about safety is reasonable though.

Re: Fitness Crazed

#98

Post by a8da6b0c91d »

HelloMcFly wrote: post #97
a8da6b0c91d wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's pretty widely accepted now that free weights are more effective than machines. I don't buy that. The people who say that stuff are the same ones who go on about stabilizer muscles, when there's no such thing. Machines are safer than barbells. For overhead and pull-down stuff the good machines minimize dangerous shoulder stress. Barbell squats and deadlifts quite simply are somewhat dangerous and even very expe…

Between you believing the deadlift has no athletic benefit, and thinking machines are more effective than free weights, I'm wondering what your background in fitness is. I think the debate about safety is reasonable though.

I didn't say machines are more effective. I said they're safer, and that free weights are not magically more effective than machines.

I also didn't say the deadlift has no athletic benefit. I said it is fetishized and its usefulness is blown out of all proportion. It's seductive because a beginner can rapidly increase loads. But mostly it builds mass that is not very useful for real sports and impairs endurance. Always betting against the puffed up fighter has been a reliable betting strategy.

If you want to spend your training capacity building up to a 500# deadlift, go for it. Just don't kid yourself that it's particularly impressive or will help you do much else other than deadlift.

Re: Fitness Crazed

#99

Post by dublinben »

Someone wrote: post #15
JAFTEM wrote: post #5

I have many friends that in the past wanted to get more fit and healthy and they've always felt the need to do a lot of research or look for some sort of crazy program that they think is necessary to shed off the weight or gain muscle. I always try to just push them in the direction of starting out with the "big four" that this article mentioned: the bench press, the squat, the dead lift, and the clean and press. All…

"wanted to get more fit and healthy [...] to shed off the weight or gain muscle" Those are two, three, maybe four different things. The typical marathon runner, for instance, is fit, not fat, but also not muscular, and may or may not be healthy; a sumo wrestler is surprisingly fit and muscular, but also fat, and a body builder is muscular, but need not even be strong (world champion weight lifters look quite differen…

I'm aware of the differences between "functional" muscle and otherwise, but you can't be an elite level bodybuilder without being strong. Ronnie Coleman (8x Mr Olympia) is stronger than more than 99% of the human race.

Re: Fitness Crazed

#100

Post by _august »

When I started my research, I did eventually land on Starting Strength, however I lacked access to a proper gym. Eventually I started looking into bodyweight fitness.

I found some routines online and and created an interactive version with videos [1] so I could make it easier to get started.

If you're looking to get started at home and don't have barbells accessible, I highly recommend bodyweight fitness. It's working well for me, and it's actually quite fun. As an added benefit, you gain new skills with your body (such as handstands).

[1] https://fitloop.co

Post reply on HN