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

The Scientific 7-Minute Workout

well.blogs.nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 152 posts

Re: The Scientific 7-Minute Workout

#131

Post by will_lam »

31reasons wrote: post #97
jamesaguilar wrote: post #29

I tried the seven minute workout for a little while and saw no improvement in any dimension. This[1], on the other hand, has gotten me some significant results so far, five months in. [1] http://stronglifts.com/

Too bad most gyms in my area (Los Angeles!) are not equipped for strong lifts. For example, just one barbell in the whole gym, No dead-lift platform etc. All of them just have machines . The only gyms equipped for Starting Strength / Strong Lifts workouts are Crossfit gyms but they somehow dislike the idea of only using weights. I offered my local Crossfit gym full membership fee just for access to the barbells and t…

Yeah, that's a shame. I understand their rationale as it might undermine their programming. At my CrossFit gym, they'll allow you to try other styles of programming only after you've become proficient at "CrossFit"

Re: The Scientific 7-Minute Workout

#132

Post by will_lam »

melling wrote: post #39
jamesaguilar wrote: post #29

I tried the seven minute workout for a little while and saw no improvement in any dimension. This[1], on the other hand, has gotten me some significant results so far, five months in. [1] http://stronglifts.com/

I find it hard to believe that you can do squats more than one day a week. It takes a while for large muscles to recover, especially when you're doing heavy weight.

You'd be surprised at what you're body is capable of as long as you're lifting with proper form, getting enough rest and doing mobility on a regular basis.

Re: The Scientific 7-Minute Workout

#133

Post by tptacek »

spoiler wrote: post #98
jamesaguilar wrote: post #29

I tried the seven minute workout for a little while and saw no improvement in any dimension. This[1], on the other hand, has gotten me some significant results so far, five months in. [1] http://stronglifts.com/

I'm curious about your fitness level at the time of trying the 7min workout? I'm asking because it's sort of important. If you were fit before you started with the workouts, I'd expect these wouldn't be a big improvement for you. Stronglifts looks very interesting (I've read most of thee content on the website), and it got me all excited about doing it, but quickly I realised that I can't even do basic shit. I'd say…

You'll be sore for a week. It sucks; it is, for instance, hard to walk downstairs after your first and second squat session. But then you won't be sore anymore, though if you're like me you'll get a persistent burning feeling that isn't distracting. And if all you're normally doing is sitting in front of a computer, the week of soreness isn't that much of a drag.

It's also a bit tricky; there are lots of little form details you need to work out, and getting them wrong retards progress and sets you up for additional soreness. But I find that I like that aspect of it: beyond just being able to pick up heavier stuff every session, I also often walk away having figured something new out about correct form, which is gratifying.

You should also check out Rippetoe's _Starting Strength_ (there's a Kindle version of it) for a similar program and much more detail on how the motions actually work.

Re: The Scientific 7-Minute Workout

#134

Post by bitL »

gnuvince wrote: post #129
bitL wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Try to do the same intensity I do during 7-minute workout if you can't break a sweat ;-) - 56 push ups - 44 abdominal crunches - 36 chair steps up - 35 squats - 56 triceps dips on chair - 30 lunges - 20 push ups with rotation (all in 30 seconds) I thought the point of this exercise was to slowly allow you to raise your intensity to have a real interval training, all while being constrained by time.

56 pushups in 30 seconds? It seems to me the only way to do that is to either a) do them with extremely bad form, b) not go down completely, c) both of those. People like eshlow (author of "Overcoming Gravity") at /r/bodyweightfitness recommend a tempo of 10x1: lowering yourself for one second, staying 0 seconds at the bottom, pushing up as hard and fast as possible (x = explode), and holding for one second at the to…

Yes, it's a different form than you described. I go all the way down and basically go extremely quickly up and down without slowing down the fall phase. My muscles are explosive, I am a good natural fit for tennis, squash, basketball, ice hockey, alpine skiing, sprints, etc. not for endurance (this needs a lot of work). Moreover, I have a very good skeletal maneuverability that doesn't inhibit my movements as is the case with many other muscular people. Also, it took me ~6 months to get to this level. YMMV

Re: The Scientific 7-Minute Workout

#135

Post by oh_sigh »

bitL wrote: post #118
cwilson wrote: post #108

The 7 minute workout is for people who want to feel like they are working out with minimal effort. It's kind of ridiculous. I tried this for a few weeks 4 times a week and saw/felt almost no benefit. Then I upped it to a 30 minute workout using the same set of exercises and saw quite a bit of progress. That's really the difference. You need your heart-rate pumping for 30 minutes to really see benefits from this, not…

Try to do the same intensity I do during 7-minute workout if you can't break a sweat ;-) - 56 push ups - 44 abdominal crunches - 36 chair steps up - 35 squats - 56 triceps dips on chair - 30 lunges - 20 push ups with rotation (all in 30 seconds) I thought the point of this exercise was to slowly allow you to raise your intensity to have a real interval training, all while being constrained by time.

I'd like to see a video of your form while doing 56 pushups in 30 seconds.

Re: The Scientific 7-Minute Workout

#136

Post by hunvreus »

To anybody trying to get back in shape, I can't recommend Nerd Fitness (http://www.nerdfitness.com/) enough. I used it to get back in shape 2 or 3 years ago, it's very approachable even with no real fitness knowledge. I am not affiliated.

Bottom line though:

- Fix your diet (whatever works for you, for me it was getting rid of carbs),

- Make time for this and build up the routine (I get most of my workouts done in under 35 minutes all included, I do this at least 3 times a week),

- You don't need a gym; you can get dumbbells for cheap, but even without it there is a lot you can do (I haven't lifted anything in a year, doing mostly bodyweight).

Re: The Scientific 7-Minute Workout

#137

Post by MichaelDickens »

spoiler wrote: post #98
jamesaguilar wrote: post #29

I tried the seven minute workout for a little while and saw no improvement in any dimension. This[1], on the other hand, has gotten me some significant results so far, five months in. [1] http://stronglifts.com/

I'm curious about your fitness level at the time of trying the 7min workout? I'm asking because it's sort of important. If you were fit before you started with the workouts, I'd expect these wouldn't be a big improvement for you. Stronglifts looks very interesting (I've read most of thee content on the website), and it got me all excited about doing it, but quickly I realised that I can't even do basic shit. I'd say…

If you start with light enough weights, StrongLifts should be easier than the 7-minute workout. If you get a light bar (say 5-10kg) to start with (in case 20kg Olympic bars are too heavy), doing 5 sets of 5 squats with the bar should be easier than doing squats as fast as you can for 30 seconds straight. Then add 5lb to the bar each session and you should be able to progress no matter how weak you were to begin with.

Re: The Scientific 7-Minute Workout

#138

Post by MichaelDickens »

rickyc091 wrote: post #106
spoiler wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious about your fitness level at the time of trying the 7min workout? I'm asking because it's sort of important. If you were fit before you started with the workouts, I'd expect these wouldn't be a big improvement for you. Stronglifts looks very interesting (I've read most of thee content on the website), and it got me all excited about doing it, but quickly I realised that I can't even do basic shit. I'd say…

First off, don't exercise two to three days continuously, especially if you are just starting off. If you are targeting different muscle groups, it's okay, but if you are targeting the same ones, it's not necessary. Everyone has a different reason for working out. What's yours? Is it for strength? Building muscles? Losing weight? Different goals call for different routines. If you are interested in StrongLifts, I wou…

> First off, don't exercise two to three days continuously, especially if you are just starting off. If you are targeting different muscle groups, it's okay, but if you are targeting the same ones, it's not necessary.

Not only is it not necessary, it's actively harmful. After stressing your muscles, you need to give your body time to recover. If you stress your muscles beyond your body's ability to recover quickly, you will get weaker, not stronger. If you wait at least 48 hours between workouts, you'll see better results.

Re: The Scientific 7-Minute Workout

#139

Post by MichaelDickens »

TylerJay wrote: post #124
fasteo wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The great coach Mark Rippetoe is the to go source for strength training [1] [1] http://startingstrength.com/index.php/site/about

SS and StrongLifts serve similar purposes are are both effective. StrongLifts can be better for people starting from very low fitness levels, while SS remains effective up to a higher strength level. This (unofficial, but true-to-source) site is a better resource for the actual Starting Strength programs if you don't want to buy the book: http://startingstrength.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ:The_Program

> StrongLifts can be better for people starting from very low fitness levels, while SS remains effective up to a higher strength level.

Why would that be true? I believe the only difference is that SS recommends 3 work sets and SL recommends 5 sets, and SS uses power cleans while SL uses rows. Do the additional sets work better for people starting from low fitness levels?

Re: The Scientific 7-Minute Workout

#140

Post by MichaelDickens »

melling wrote: post #39
jamesaguilar wrote: post #29

I tried the seven minute workout for a little while and saw no improvement in any dimension. This[1], on the other hand, has gotten me some significant results so far, five months in. [1] http://stronglifts.com/

I find it hard to believe that you can do squats more than one day a week. It takes a while for large muscles to recover, especially when you're doing heavy weight.

Novices should be able to do this. When I first started working out, I increased my squat 5lb per session, 3 times a week, for about 2 months straight. Novices' large muscles can usually fully recover within 48-72 hours. Large muscles actually recover quicker than small muscles.

You're right though that more experienced trainees who have built up a base level of strength take more like a week to recover. Intermediate powerlifting/Olympic weightlifting programs (see Texas Method, Bill Starr 5x5) usually still recommend squatting three days a week, but only one of these days is a heavy day.

Post reply on HN