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

The Myth of Moderate Exercise

time.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–69 of 69 posts

Re: The Myth of Moderate Exercise

#61

Post by scott_s »

gnaritas wrote: post #60
scott_s wrote: post #48

I'm in good shape. To some people, it's a bit of a mystery how I'm much more physically fit than they are. They know I go to the gym, but, hey, they go to the gym sometimes, too, so what's the deal? Here's the secret: I work really, really hard. When I go to the gym, I push myself as far as I can take it mentally and physically that day. Some days it's more than others. But overall, I work much harder in the gym than…

Except it is a chore, it's not fun. If we could just take a magic pill and instantly be in shape, I can't imagine anyone still choosing to exercise, thus, chore!

It's a chore to you, and I'm sorry for that. So find something fun.

That you can't imagine anyone still choosing to exercise says a lot about how you think about it. Going through a good workout is the same for me as solving a hard problem.

Re: The Myth of Moderate Exercise

#62

Post by attack »

randallsquared wrote: post #53
flipbrad wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

not necessarily. if the body can somehow keep count, it may just replace the cells you remove. I'm not sure we know for certain either way yet.

My guess would be that that won't happen any more than limbs get regrown. Of course, my guess is pretty worthless. :)

Answer:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/05/health/research/05fat.html...

> Losing or gaining weight affects only the amount of fat stored in the cells, not the number of cells.

BUT

> Every year [..] 10 percent of your fat cells die [...] and are replaced with new fat cells.

So, fat people aren't at a disadvantage by having far more cells.

Re: The Myth of Moderate Exercise

#63

Post by gnaritas »

scott_s wrote: post #61
gnaritas wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except it is a chore, it's not fun. If we could just take a magic pill and instantly be in shape, I can't imagine anyone still choosing to exercise, thus, chore!

It's a chore to you, and I'm sorry for that. So find something fun. That you can't imagine anyone still choosing to exercise says a lot about how you think about it. Going through a good workout is the same for me as solving a hard problem.

Sure it says a lot about how I think about it, I think people weren't meant push around artificial weights for hours on end boring themselves to death, it's not what our muscles are for. They're for walking and running and hunting and other physical activities that actually have a point beyond recursively working out to have muscles to work out with. Staying in shape should be a means, not and end.

It's cool that you've figured out how to enjoy it, but to most of society, it's an utterly boring mind numbing repetitious activity; that it has health benefits makes it no less so.

If your body was just naturally in great shape and required no exercise to stay so, you're telling me you'd still go to the gym and pump weights? For what possible reason?

Re: The Myth of Moderate Exercise

#64

Post by scott_s »

gnaritas wrote: post #63
scott_s wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a chore to you, and I'm sorry for that. So find something fun. That you can't imagine anyone still choosing to exercise says a lot about how you think about it. Going through a good workout is the same for me as solving a hard problem.

Sure it says a lot about how I think about it, I think people weren't meant push around artificial weights for hours on end boring themselves to death, it's not what our muscles are for. They're for walking and running and hunting and other physical activities that actually have a point beyond recursively working out to have muscles to work out with. Staying in shape should be a means, not and end. It's cool that you…

If you're bored during your workouts, you're doing it wrong. It's that simple.

My sport of choice is Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu. I tend to combine strength training and conditioning to complement BJJ practices. But sometimes I'll lift for power only, because it's fun to change it up.

Since you're on HN, I assume you're a programmer. Don't you like solving programming puzzles? Doesn't it make you feel good to figure something out, even if there's no obvious benefit? I have the same attitude with workouts - both BJJ and the strength training I do.

Last week, I wondered if I could do five reps of five set of Clean & Press at 185 pounds. I could seven months ago. I thought my strength wasn't up to where it had been. But I did it. It was hard; it took considerable effort to not let myself feel tired inbetween sets, and to maintain focus during the sets. I had set an ambitious but realistic goal, and I achieved it. I went home feeling good.

If you have the right attitude to exercising, there are considerable mental benefits. I think a big part of this is training for performance, not looks. Pushing yourself to achieve your performance goals, not your body-image goals. But someone else said it better, so I'll link to him: http://dynamicfitness.blogspot.com/2006/04/df-tip-13-enough-...

Find something you have fun doing. Maybe a sport or a martial art. Or maybe your concept of "working out" is too narrow; check out http://www.crossfit.com for people who stress performance during workouts that generally last less than 30 minutes, but will exhaust you.

Re: The Myth of Moderate Exercise

#65

Post by gnaritas »

scott_s wrote: post #64
gnaritas wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure it says a lot about how I think about it, I think people weren't meant push around artificial weights for hours on end boring themselves to death, it's not what our muscles are for. They're for walking and running and hunting and other physical activities that actually have a point beyond recursively working out to have muscles to work out with. Staying in shape should be a means, not and end. It's cool that you…

If you're bored during your workouts, you're doing it wrong. It's that simple. My sport of choice is Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu. I tend to combine strength training and conditioning to complement BJJ practices. But sometimes I'll lift for power only, because it's fun to change it up. Since you're on HN, I assume you're a programmer. Don't you like solving programming puzzles? Doesn't it make you feel good to figure somethin…

"Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu"

Ah, see, that's what I meant by being a means, a sport is and end and something fun in itself where the getting in shape is a side effect. When I say working out, I'm specifically talking about pumping iron in a gym. Yes I'm a programmer, so my definition isn't so much narrow as it is precise, what can I say; that's how we are. Playing a sport isn't working out, it's playing a sport; that it happens to work you out is not the main point merely a nice benefit. Where I live, it's 115 degrees outside, working up a sweat is the last thing I want to do, I spend much of my time trying to stop sweating!

"Last week, I wondered if I could do five reps of five set of Clean & Press at 185 pounds."

Yes, but can you wonder that a few times a week on a regular basis and continue to get any thrill or sense of accomplishment out of it. Performance are only motivating when you're trying to improve your performance, but that can't go on forever, at some point you just want to maintain and it's the maintaining, at a gym, that's boring as fuck.

I agree you have to find something fun to do that works you out as a side effect, like "Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu", which is my whole point. Pumping iron in the gym, in the long term, is boring as fuck, no matter how you slice it.

I haven't found my "something fun" yet, maybe I will someday, but good for you that you have.

Re: The Myth of Moderate Exercise

#66

Post by scott_s »

gnaritas wrote: post #65
scott_s wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're bored during your workouts, you're doing it wrong. It's that simple. My sport of choice is Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu. I tend to combine strength training and conditioning to complement BJJ practices. But sometimes I'll lift for power only, because it's fun to change it up. Since you're on HN, I assume you're a programmer. Don't you like solving programming puzzles? Doesn't it make you feel good to figure somethin…

"Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu" Ah, see, that's what I meant by being a means, a sport is and end and something fun in itself where the getting in shape is a side effect. When I say working out, I'm specifically talking about pumping iron in a gym. Yes I'm a programmer, so my definition isn't so much narrow as it is precise, what can I say; that's how we are. Playing a sport isn't working out, it's playing a sport; that it hap…

Actually, I lifted regularly - and enjoyed it - before I got into BJJ. The key is I'm always trying to improve my performance when lifting. Every time I go into the gym, I have a different goal.

An important point here is that I know a variety of lifts, so I know a variety of ways I can challenge myself. Eventually I come back to similar challenges, but then I always try to improve. So, yes, doing 5x5 C&P with 185 pounds again would be boring. So I'll do 190 pounds, because I know it will be hard, and I'm not sure if I can do it.

I agree, if you look at it as maintenance, it is boring, and you will stop doing it. So focus on improving performance, even if what you try to improve changes.

And I can't help but notice you keep saying "pumping iron." Are you thinking of bodybuilder style workouts? I focus on movements, not muscles.

Re: The Myth of Moderate Exercise

#67

Post by dominik »

xlnt wrote: post #52
dominik wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This only works for people who have their "hunger point" properly calibrated to when they should actually stop eating. Some folks don't stop feeling hungry until well after they should have stopped eating, leading them to eat way too many calories. John Walker explains this concept in his "The Eat Watch" chapter here: http://www.fourmilab.ch/hackdiet/e4/eatwatch.html

So how do you move it down? Fast for a few days?

You don't change your hunger point.

You change your behavior, taking into account that your hunger point is lying to you.

You stop eating before you feel full.

You look up how many calories you should be eating and how much you want to lose. (3500 calories = 1 pound of fat; if you maintain a 500 calorie deficit every day, you'll lose a pound a week).

You weigh yourself every day, using signal processing techniques to remove random variations in your weight caused by water and reveal the trendline of where your weight is headed.

You then adjust your consumption based on where your weight is headed. Trendline sloping upwards? Eat fewer calories.

If you do this for a long time, your hunger point may change. It may not. But you don't care about your hunger point, you care about eating the right amount of food. The key insight is to realize that your hunger point may be lying to you, so you need to get an accurate hunger point. Walker describes how to do this in his book, combining signal processing with dieting.

Re: The Myth of Moderate Exercise

#68

Post by flipbrad »

randallsquared wrote: post #53
flipbrad wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

not necessarily. if the body can somehow keep count, it may just replace the cells you remove. I'm not sure we know for certain either way yet.

My guess would be that that won't happen any more than limbs get regrown. Of course, my guess is pretty worthless. :)

your skin certainly knows where and when to (re)grow...

Re: The Myth of Moderate Exercise

#69

Post by xiaoma »

kingkongrevenge wrote: post #14
menloparkbum wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People also consume many more calories in places where they didn't in the past. For instance, a soy latte from Starbucks has 210 calories. If you don't change anything in your diet or exercise habits and drink one of these every work day, you'll gain 15 pounds in a year.

I don't know this for sure, but if I recall correctly people eat fewer calories now than they did in the 70s. I know it's not a dramatically different number either way. It's the composition of the calorie that has changed. I'm firmly convinced of the fat vs starch theory. People eat much less fat and oils now and eat more starch.

Total fat intake and calories have both increased steadily since at least 1849. Starches have jumped up as well starting in the 1970s.

http://www.chiroweb.com/mpacms/dc/article.php?id=38225

Post reply on HN