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

Why strength training? A programmer's perspective

fhur.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 162 posts

Re: Why strength training? A programmer's perspective

#111

Post by voisin »

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #101
voisin wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some might argue that if you don’t feel sore at all you haven’t pushed yourself enough, and if you feel so sore it takes days and days to recover then you pushed yourself too hard. Finding the sweet spot is important. And I think this applies to strength as well as running and other exercise.

In my experience it's an indicator if I'm doing something enough or not. If I regularly perform an exercise it won't cause soreness. Squat 3x a week, one of those sessions being heavy? No soreness. Squat once a week? Definitely getting DOMS afterwards. Same with running. If get sore after a run I probably took time off before it.

I’ve been doing StrongLifts consistently since Jan 1 and so 3x per week I am doing squats. I still feel soreness despite 3x per week because the weights are semi-consistently increasing. So I think to modify what you are saying, I think frequency is one vector, but another is volume. Or maybe I am still just a beginner and eventually I’ll be able to lift increasingly heavy weights week over week without any soreness!

Re: Why strength training? A programmer's perspective

#112

Post by cthalupa »

Sakos wrote: post #93
llm_trw wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're doing strength training you'll be doing no more than 1 to 6 reps of whatever exercise in sets of 1 to 3. Large numbers of reps are for looking good, not actually being strong. This leads to the rather fun paradox that body builders are quite weak for how much effort they spend on training, while someone looking like a fat mechanic will be much strong than you'd expect.

This is some crazy amount of misinformation. It really doesn't matter whether you do 5 reps or 20. People obsess too much about the specific number of reps, as if magically you stop benefiting because you did 10 reps instead of 5. It's absurd. There's particularly less of a case for low reps if you're not specifically training for powerlifting and competing in powerlifting.

> It really doesn't matter whether you do 5 reps or 20

As long as you're training to the point that you are getting close to failure and you don't have efficiency in one particular area in mind, sure.

>as if magically you stop benefiting because you did 10 reps instead of 5

There are different methods of action that come into play doing low reps at very high weights vs. moderate reps at lower weights. Being strong isn't just about muscle gain - your central nervous system has to adapt when it comes these higher weights in a way that it doesn't with moderate weights. And if you're training properly, you're not doing the same weight if your sets are only 3-5 reps than if they're 10.

> There's particularly less of a case for low reps if you're not specifically training for powerlifting and competing in powerlifting.

Not everyone wants to be strong specifically for powerlifting competitions.

I fundamentally agree that most people are perfectly fine doing 10 reps and plenty of very effective strength focused programs will have sets of 10 being a common component.

In reality if you want to be serious about weight training, be it for strength or hypertrophy, these numbers aren't consistent anyway. You might primarily target one or the other, but basically everyone benefits from periodization.

Re: Why strength training? A programmer's perspective

#113

Post by mzhaase »

uhngureffalt wrote: post #100
nunez wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rippetoe and Baker talk about this in Practical Programming for Strength Training. Heavily depends on the movement. 3x10s are fine for accessory exercises but will be too much volume for compound movements (if strength is the focus) and can actually retard progress in later stages (because training for strength is incredibly taxing once you go heavy enough). That said, literally anything will work when you're just ge…

I like the 3x5 y’all are touting. I’m an old man and 3x10 is “how I was taught” but I’m open to new research and see how 3x5 would be easier on someone new to it. But what y’all all seem to omit is the core of my suggestion: how and when to add more weight. Would you say the weight increase signal I suggest is good, just go 3x5 rather than 3x10, or what does your literature say on that?

First of all one should continue linear progression (adding weight every session) for as long as possible, by using microplates (125g increment). This is still the fastest way to progress.

Once that does not work anymore, one leaves the novice phase by definition and is now considered "intermediate".

Eric Helms wrote a metaanalysis of the current state of exercise science in "The muscle strength pyramid". In that, the recommended periodization for intermediate lifters is "wave loading". So one would do 3x8 at weight x, then 3x7 at x+5, 3x6 at x+10, 2x6 at x (DeLoad), then 3x8 at x+5. All sets performed at RPE The rep ranges and weights here should be modified to suit the goals at hand, so for deadlifts the increase may work, but for overhead press it should be lower. If training for strength the reps should also tend to be lower.

Also, technique gets more important at higher training ages. It's worthwhile to drop the weight if it increases ROM or the stretch at the bottom, as it leads to more muscle growth this way.

Re: Why strength training? A programmer's perspective

#114

Post by sameoldtune »

graup wrote: post #30

I also think about this regularly. I'm with the author regarding the metrics (time efficient, healthy, skill component). But still, I find strength training extremely boring and going to the gym annoying. I tried a few times but it never clicked for me – what am I missing? Does anyone have other ideas for incorporating exercise into my daily routine? I enjoy a bit of walking, cycling, and doing 5-10 minute mobility e…

To add another voice, lift even though it is annoying for 3 months, after that you will want to lift because you’ll notice how you feel (and look!) without it.

Re: Why strength training? A programmer's perspective

#115

Post by cthalupa »

aynyc wrote: post #41
orbisvicis wrote: post #16

Anyone have any opinions on strength vs cardio + resistance (i.e. bands)?

You need both. However, given proper programming, cardio has better benefit for longevity than strength. I generally dislike article like this because they don’t tell you what their protocol is like so you can’t really know what they did. For most people, hypertrophy specific protocol is better than strength protocol. Zone 2 cardio is better than HIT. But people tend to do the opposite. They want to break personal re…

> However, given proper programming, cardio has better benefit for longevity than strength.

It's not that simple. For example, there is evidence that cardio does not impact pericardial adipose tissue mass, while resistance training does, while only being slightly less efficient than cardio for epicardial adipose tissue mass.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/article-abst...

Depending on what your primary risk factor is, it's possible that strength training is more beneficial.

Studies have shown people that engage in strength training tend to gain less age related visceral fat vs. people who solely engage in cardio, as well. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/oby.20949

But yes, the real answer is people should do both.

Re: Why strength training? A programmer's perspective

#116

Post by SketchySeaBeast »

voisin wrote: post #111
SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience it's an indicator if I'm doing something enough or not. If I regularly perform an exercise it won't cause soreness. Squat 3x a week, one of those sessions being heavy? No soreness. Squat once a week? Definitely getting DOMS afterwards. Same with running. If get sore after a run I probably took time off before it.

I’ve been doing StrongLifts consistently since Jan 1 and so 3x per week I am doing squats. I still feel soreness despite 3x per week because the weights are semi-consistently increasing. So I think to modify what you are saying, I think frequency is one vector, but another is volume. Or maybe I am still just a beginner and eventually I’ll be able to lift increasingly heavy weights week over week without any soreness!

Interesting. I was lifting for nearly ten years, did starting strength, texas method, 5/3/1, and I found that the soreness largely went away unless there was a marked change in intensity or program.

Re: Why strength training? A programmer's perspective

#117

Post by pfhorge »

Sakos wrote: post #4

While I've had many physical hobbies, weight lifting has been the one that has been most beneficial to my health and my overall level of fitness. That said, don't skimp on cardio. If any bro tries to tell you that it'll impact your gains, ignore them.

This is called the "interference effect", and it seems like it's increasingly thought to be mostly a non-issue: https://www.strongerbyscience.com/research-spotlight-interfe...

Re: Why strength training? A programmer's perspective

#118

Post by mzhaase »

nonninz wrote: post #67

One of my hangups to start strength training at the ripe age of 41, is that I'm terrified of hurting myself. Apparently to do "proper" strength training you need to focus on the free weights, or compound lifts, rather than gym machines that guide your movements. I.E. squats, deadlifts, bench presses, etc. The problem is that these are EXACTLY the type of exercises that an untrained, anterior pelvic tilted computer lo…

As a beginner, you are too weak to move weights that can really hurt you. 41 also isn't really old for lifting. People still set world records at that age.

Strength sports are statistically among the safest. They are significantly safer than team sports or even cycling.

If you ease into it, progress slowly, make sure pain does not go above 5/10, you are unlikely to injure yourself. In fact, you will likely prevent future injury. You're not going to injure your back lifting your nephew when you are deadlifting over 100 kg.

If you check out barbell medicine, Alan Thrall, or Dr. Mike Israetel on YouTube, you will find simple form tutorials.

Finally, of course you can get stronger using machines. Compound movements may be the most efficient ones but as long as your muscles are generating force close to their maximum capability, they will get a training impulse.

Re: Why strength training? A programmer's perspective

#119

Post by cthalupa »

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #116
voisin wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve been doing StrongLifts consistently since Jan 1 and so 3x per week I am doing squats. I still feel soreness despite 3x per week because the weights are semi-consistently increasing. So I think to modify what you are saying, I think frequency is one vector, but another is volume. Or maybe I am still just a beginner and eventually I’ll be able to lift increasingly heavy weights week over week without any soreness!

Interesting. I was lifting for nearly ten years, did starting strength, texas method, 5/3/1, and I found that the soreness largely went away unless there was a marked change in intensity or program.

This has been my experience with a sustained period over years of lifting in my early to mid 20s and several periods of restarting since then. Even when regularly adding weight, after a few months I stopped being particularly sore.

I could still feel that I had worked out the day before, sure, but as long as I was getting enough protein, getting enough sleep, doing warm up sets, etc., the soreness was incredibly minimal. Missing any of those things could cause a pretty significant increase in feeling it the next day, though.

Re: Why strength training? A programmer's perspective

#120

Post by twelve40 »

nunez wrote: post #78

To me, strength training is all about making life past your 60s suck less. It's a savings account for your body; put in the work now so that you _might_ continue to be active and mobile at 80. It also helps make you look good without having to eat like a bird, which is nice also.

> vigorous weightlifting for 1 hour may burn up to 440 calories

nah, you still have to eat like a bird.

Post reply on HN