Live data from Hacker News

Why strength training? A programmer's perspective

fhur.me

151–160 of 162 posts

Re: Why strength training? A programmer's perspective

#151
post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 primar…

The study's endurance protocol is anaerobic. Exclusive HIIT training for cardio is a terrible advice and disaster waiting to happened. I can't tell what they did for strength, but 3-5 sets of 10 exercises from 60% - 80% seems to be a hypertrophy program than strength.

> but 3-5 sets of 10 exercises from 60% - 80% seems to be a hypertrophy program than strength.

10 rep range still provides plenty of strength gains as long as you are pushing to near failure. It is less CNS adaptation than going much nearer to your 1RM or 10RPE for a fewer amount of sets, but it's not going to put you into the "weak bodybuilder with gigantic muscles" meme

https://www.strongerbyscience.com/powerlifters-should-train-... - tldr is periodization is good, and people should spend more time in the range considered hypertrophic than they do, even for strength training.

I don't really follow this advice because I don't enjoy bodybuilding style lifting or using machines, but it's led Nuckolls and others to a multitude of world record powerlifts.

Re: Why strength training? A programmer's perspective

#152
post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

THIS. You can also check out "The Barbell Prescription" by Andy Baker. This book is like Starting Strength but for the 45+ demographic. (Interestingly, Starting Strength can be used for this demographic also.) There have been documented instances of older folks reversing degenerative conditions after picking up strength training. You're also never old enough to get stronger! That said, finding a trainer that knows wh…

And by Jonathan Sullivan!

Yes! Thank you!

Re: Why strength training? A programmer's perspective

#153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Been lifting for over a decade now, and gone down the deep rabbit hole on this stuff. Also older. My advice: completely ignore the X by X stuff. Focus on time under tension, form, control and how your body feels. Lifting with a goal to hit numbers causes sloppy form and cheats (and injuries) to just try to hit X reps. Every day is different, how you slept, what you ate, whether you're training fasted, where your musc…

This is okay advice after you reach an intermediate level of training and don't necessarily care about hitting personal records. I wouldn't recommend this approach outside of that scenario.

Beginner lifters don't know what their max potential is and might overtrain by accident (because they are naturally strong and might do more reps to try and get to failure) or might not do enough volume to trigger the musculoskeletal adaptions needed to lift more weight (because they are not naturally strong and might tap out early).

> As an example (bragging a bit), as a ~50 year old, 165lb, 5' 7" guy, I'm able to lift 100lb dumbells on flat bench chest press, one in each arm. I can hit around 10-12 reps with that, most of them BS cheat reps where I'm powering with my shoulders.

I personally never recommend cheating reps.

Bodybuilders do them to localize hypertrophy in specific regions, like the upper pecs or shoulders, to improve physique during competition. Most people aren't bodybuilding though and would not benefit from this style of training.

At best, you're short-changing the development of primary and secondary movers this way in the name of moving more weight (like not engaging the lats enough when you do a bent-elbow pull up).

At worst, the risk of injury goes way up (shoulder blowouts are super duper duper common in bench presses; doubly so for dumbbell bench presses, since there isn't a bar to stabilize your arms).

In my experience, I've found that it's better to go lower in weight and use an assistance exercise and/or increasing rest/recovery time and, if needed, decreasing volume instead of cheating reps when you're stuck.

Anecdotal example. When I was struggling with getting to 225x5x3 on the bench, I dropped back 20%, added weighted dips to my rotation and decreased bench press volume. Dips engage the pectoral and tricep muscles more directly, which contributes to forward progress on bench. I can do 250x3x6 now at around 9.5 RPE.

Re: Why strength training? A programmer's perspective

#154

For various reasons, at 40 and years of being sedentary and my health failing, I settled on a combination of DDPY(oga) and consistent strength training with the assistance of a personal trainer. I had previously trained in powerlifting a decade or so earlier, so I was a _little_ prepared, but honestly the combination of the two was absolutely lifechanging. I cannot recommend it enough.

Similar for me, early 40ties, started June with strength training and been combining this with mat/reformer pilates and cardio on a bike trainer. I can also say its been life changing. I'm not boasting or anything here, but I went from a skinny guy to a what one would call a "ripped" guy in a matter of like 2 months. I was (and still am) completely astonished how a human body can change so fast.

Re: Why strength training? A programmer's perspective

#155
post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends what your goals are - if those include planning to be healthy into old age, then definitely not. For me weightlifting is somewhat fun to figure out how to get control over my will to get my body to do things it doesn’t want to do. But it’s also rewarding in that I see changes in my body over time that make me feel good, and can only be achieved by putting in the effort; and it feels responsible long term sinc…

> if those include planning to be healthy into old age, then definitely not [any other form of exercise] > All the fit-looking athletes you can imagine, also strength train to become that way. These are two flagrantly false assertions; to think they are actually true you have to be living inside a weight-lifting bubble.

My opinion on strength training being essential for health into old age largely stems from Peter Attia’s recent book Outlive [1] where he goes into great detail about the topic, and every piece of medical research I’ve ran into only seems to underline that having sufficient muscle mass is the single biggest intervention you can do to impact your long term health. Do all healthy old people do it? No, but if the question is what can you do to improve your odds, it seems silly to throw away the biggest lever you have (though it’s anyone’s personal choice to risk it and hope for the best).

(If you think he’s a quack and his message is wrong then I’d love to see some research pointing to the contrary, that having muscle mass is detrimental or at least does nothing significant for your long-term prospects)

The point about athletes is really more about pros, I should have been clear. I can guarantee you that almost every accomplished pro athlete in most sports, from running to swimming to cycling to basketball to gymnastics to soccer and the list goes on, incorporates a significant amount of strength training into their lives; there are probably some genetic freaks or sufficiently ‘roided mutants who don’t need to, but I assure you that Michael Phelps and LeBron James didn’t get their physiques purely by swimming and playing basketball.

And in case you think I’m talking about weight lifting for the purpose of competing at a bodybuilding show or strongman competition, that is not what I am referring to; I am referring to doing strength training to the extent that you have a reasonable amount of muscle mass. I don’t care if it’s traditional weight training or if it’s calisthenics or something else, so long as you don’t end up with no muscle tone and probably experiencing or prone to significant metabolic disease like most unfit people these days.

[1] https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/705161/outlive-by-p...

Re: Why strength training? A programmer's perspective

#156
post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if those include planning to be healthy into old age, then definitely not [any other form of exercise] > All the fit-looking athletes you can imagine, also strength train to become that way. These are two flagrantly false assertions; to think they are actually true you have to be living inside a weight-lifting bubble.

My opinion on strength training being essential for health into old age largely stems from Peter Attia’s recent book Outlive [1] where he goes into great detail about the topic, and every piece of medical research I’ve ran into only seems to underline that having sufficient muscle mass is the single biggest intervention you can do to impact your long term health. Do all healthy old people do it? No, but if the questi…

Thank you for the reply and the book link.

I agree that muscle tone is vitally important for human health and maintaining 'fitness' into middle and old age. However muscle tone and strength can come from many things, a lot of which don't need to deliberately include any form of 'strength training'.

I also agree that many modern professional athletes include specific strength training in their training regimes but this is a fairly recent phenomenon (e.g. tennis and swimming really only from approx. the 80s/90s on) and I don't see this as critical to them being 'fit-looking athletes'; it's only become necessary in a kind of arms race type of way, and in my opinion, with an unfortunate impact of modern competitive sport favouring 'power' over grace and technique. (I personally prefer the physiques of previous generations of athletes to those of most of the top athletes today, particularly the female ones.)

Why I responded fairly forcefully to your original comment is because it was a reply to someone who hadn't found strength training appealing and I perceived your reply as shutting down their thinking that some other option could be found that would build some strength and give other positive benefits of exercise to the questioner, including enjoyment and fulfillment.

Re: Why strength training? A programmer's perspective

#157
post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Been lifting for over a decade now, and gone down the deep rabbit hole on this stuff. Also older. My advice: completely ignore the X by X stuff. Focus on time under tension, form, control and how your body feels. Lifting with a goal to hit numbers causes sloppy form and cheats (and injuries) to just try to hit X reps. Every day is different, how you slept, what you ate, whether you're training fasted, where your musc…

This is okay advice after you reach an intermediate level of training and don't necessarily care about hitting personal records. I wouldn't recommend this approach outside of that scenario. Beginner lifters don't know what their max potential is and might overtrain by accident (because they are naturally strong and might do more reps to try and get to failure) or might not do enough volume to trigger the musculoskele…

> This is okay advice after you reach an intermediate level of training and don't necessarily care about hitting personal records. I wouldn't recommend this approach outside of that scenario.

> Beginner lifters don't know what their max potential is and might overtrain by accident (because they are naturally strong and might do more reps to try and get to failure) or might not do enough volume to trigger the musculoskeletal adaptions needed to lift more weight (because they are not naturally strong and might tap out early).

I don't agree with most of your points here. I think listening to your body and training to failure with a focus on good form is appropriate at any training stage, and superior to any sort of X by X program.

Varying volume, exercise, weight, explosiveness and rest periods is all you really need. Your body will tell you when you're doing things right and wrong, I think it's most important to learn how to listen to it.

> I personally never recommend cheating reps.

I agree.

> it's better to go lower in weight and use an assistance exercise

Yep, that was kind of my whole point. Note the following sentence where I call out all the problems with BS cheat reps. And the sentence after that where I recommend decreasing weight.

Sounds like we're in vehement agreement on this.

Re: Why strength training? A programmer's perspective

#158
post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The study's endurance protocol is anaerobic. Exclusive HIIT training for cardio is a terrible advice and disaster waiting to happened. I can't tell what they did for strength, but 3-5 sets of 10 exercises from 60% - 80% seems to be a hypertrophy program than strength.

> but 3-5 sets of 10 exercises from 60% - 80% seems to be a hypertrophy program than strength. 10 rep range still provides plenty of strength gains as long as you are pushing to near failure. It is less CNS adaptation than going much nearer to your 1RM or 10RPE for a fewer amount of sets, but it's not going to put you into the "weak bodybuilder with gigantic muscles" meme https://www.strongerbyscience.com/powerlifter…

Powerlifters at that level is on gear.

Anyway, any forms of lifting weights that can elicit stress will see an increase in strength. Even running, at the highest level. The point I was trying to make is, for an average human being who wants to be just be healthier. Cardio has tremendous benefits and should be prioritized. They should also considered weight lifting, but choose protocol that emphasizes on hypertrophy than strength. That way, they get the benefit of strong enough and have more muscle tissue for inevitable decline when old age comes.

Re: Why strength training? A programmer's perspective

#159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love swimming for this reason. I've always been able to get into a weird "zen" state swimming, as far back as when I was a teenager on a swim team. For some reason, I can't hit the same state with running, I don't know why. I don't have access to a pool where I live now, so I've recently started running 3 miles a day. I still haven't reached the point where I enjoy it, it feels like work the whole time. I'm hoping…

Do you listen to something while running? I use podcasts instead of music most times.

I probably should, but I'm a bit paranoid about not being able to hear things around me.

Good suggestion though, thanks.

Re: Why strength training? A programmer's perspective

#160
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you go heavier? Heavy lifting is a lot of things but I wouldn’t call it boring.

Yeah I find that when people say they are strength training and find it boring, it's usually because they aren't challenging themselves with heavy weight.

My problem is with the rest period, not the lifting part. I wait 90 second between each set, it's really annoying. I read a book usually, or browse HN, but it's a very "interrupted" thing.
Post reply on HN