I went to a "big box" type gym in January 2012 and hired a staff trainer. I told her that I wanted to lose about 20 lb, get stronger, and start running in mud runs. She started me off with basic body circuit training, working with her once a week and doing 3-5 more workouts the rest of the days. During this period I also watched my calorie intake. By May, I reached my goal on all three accounts, so she switched me to a routine more focused on free weights. Around October, she signed me up with a "specialist": a USAW certified coach that worked outside the "big box" gym, to do some Olympic weightlifting. This was a great experience. Not only did I get a lot stronger, leaner and got a lot more endurance, but I also learned a lot. The best part for me was that I did not have to focus on any one type of exercise: I did not gain 50 lb of muscle and lose all my flexibility, and I did not lose all my muscle mass by focusing solely on cardio. I learned the proper form for doing back squats, clean & jerks, and snatches, and as of a month ago, I can run a 6 minute mile.
My point with all that is that a traditional gym and a staff trainer can work, provided the trainer knows what she is doing. Everybody is different. I have no particular athletic talent; my only advantage is that I am relatively young. However, what I have is time. There are 168 hours in a week. Devoting 5 of them to fitness is not a big deal. For me, finally getting a professional to train me was what I needed. This may work for others as well.
Edit: by the way, getting a trainer to work with you once a week is fairly expensive. I got a raise at the beginning of 2012 and thought that getting a trainer would be a wise way to spend that money. I do not regret a penny I spent. Looking back, the alternatives I considered (getting a loan on a new car, a new computer, etc.) would not have made me as happy as getting more fit than I ever was in my life up to this point.
Congratulations. You got lucky, and got a great trainer. The sad reality is this is the exception. I take my office gym for example - I don't go there, but a colleague does. We've discussed fitness over lunch a few times, he gets it.
Guess what the trainers in the gym think about him? They personally do his workouts. They take his advice. They are happy for him to go up to other gym users and coach them, because he knows more than they do about free weights.
They are professional coaches. He's a parts logistics troubleshooter. See the problem there? (And he said that the trainers we have are actually pretty good compared to those at the many commercial gyms he's used).
Thanks. Yes, I did get lucky. Same way I got lucky with the English teacher I had when I only knew Russian and was getting ready to come to the United States. I honestly had no idea how to tell a good trainer from a bad one, and got paired up with a person that knew what she was doing and also was passionate about her job.
However, that was the situation I envisioned as well. I knew how to run and how to bench press, but I didn't know when to do it. I am a software engineer, not a fitness expert. I pretended to be a fitness expert for too long, so I decided to hire someone whose job it was to teach me instead.
One small addition to my story is that my gym had a training coordinator who talked to me about my goals and evaluated my fitness level before pairing me with a trainer. So, you could say that it wasn't completely random that I got paired with my trainer, but a result of a deliberate process. Of course that would depend on how good the coordinator is, so the chain of random events goes on.
"Congratulations. You got lucky, and got a great trainer. The sad reality is this is the exception."
Ain't that the truth! My wife thought that personal training would get her motivated to lose weight and get in shape. Unfortunately the trainer was a complete jerk. He was inconsistent with making his appointments, to his credit though, he must have the unluckiest family ever because just about ever Saturday was a "family emergency" eye roll. But anyway, since he wasn't consistent with showing up and he didn't do much except count and look at his phone, my wife wasn't getting results. That's when he suggested taking weight loss pills. Actually he didn't suggest, he kept pushing them on her. She actually thought about it (to which I convinced her it isn't a good idea). There has been one good trainer at that place since then but he left for a better job (go figure).
I feel that if you go a big box gym, you are walking in to a personal trainer revolving door and that the trainers are sales people in disguise. I have notice that at the gym in my office building (which is an independently owned gym) the trainers seem much more knowledgeable and nobody I have talked to has had any complaints.
You're much better off finding a gym which specializes in training for strength or power sports (e.g.: powerlifting, Oly lifting, even a better Crossfit box) and signing on with a team. This isn't a group class, it's a team sport.
The cost-effectiveness is much higher than one-on-one training, the emphasis is on measurable results (higher totals, Crossfit games, etc.), and the group itself is competitive but supportive.
One-on-one fitness studios can be good, but it's a high-cost niche.
As of now, my wife is just going workout with me and skip the personal training. She has had better results in the past by working out on her own, so we are going to revisit that. As for me, if I'm going to spend money on training it will definitely be with a USAW certified coach as I would just want to learn the Olympic lifts. Thank you for the advice though, if my wife does decide to get back in to see a trainer I'll definitely keep that in mind.
Yes, trainers in a "Globo" gym are incentivized on membership sales, repeat personal sessions, and importantly: running classes. The more classes they are "trained" to run, the more valuable they are as an employee.
They are professional coaches. He's a parts logistics troubleshooter. See the problem there?
While your story is both anecdotal and second-hand, what you describe doesn't sound that remarkable: Information is largely free now. It is entirely possible if not probable that someone with an interest in a niche will learn more about specific subject matter than generalists who have to know about the whole field.
It isnt as though they were upset that their divorce attorney couldnt answer complex questions about patent law. Free weights should not be considered a niche for a personal trainer in a gym. Even just walking around a gym should show you that primarily you have 3 types of equipment, cardio, weight machines, and free weights, so it isnt as though there is simply too much to learn and understand for somebody whose job it is to be knowledgeable.
The issue with many personal trainers (and people you discuss fitness with in general) is that, for the most part, if your diet is good, doing pretty much anything in the gym will get you results. Many trainers have desirable figures and they know it and they constantly have people asking them for advice in their private lives and are paid to give it at their jobs. This causes many to simply assume that what they did is the "correct" way to workout when the truth is that had they dont most any routine with that devotion for many years, they would have gotten similar results.
This is much more similar to investing in the sense that the experts often give worse recommendations than you could find yourself with a few hours research. Im sorry this is too anecdotal for you, but if you walk into most gyms, talk to most people who have a clue about training, etc, then this is what you hear; people simply arent properly educated on personal fitness even when that is their job
> This causes many to simply assume that what they did is the "correct" way to workout when the truth is that had they dont most any routine with that devotion for many years, they would have gotten similar results.
This. A great example of this is Tim Ferris and The 4 Hour Body. That guy basically says "well, here is what I did, and here's what I look like now. Do exactly as I say and you will too." His "research" has a sample size of 1, yet he claims that his method will work for anyone in the world, from a skinny teenager to his overweight mother. True, it will work for some, further muddying the waters.
The thing is, if you work in a gym daily, I'd expect you to have intermediate knowledge of a lot of things: cycling, running, rowing, free weights, warm up exercises, safe stretching techniques, nutrition. The ability to perform assessments of form, fitness, give advice about contra-indicated exercises based on disclosed medical histories, and more.
It's when I see people completely incorrectly adjust their gym bikes, start stretching before they touch any equipment, etc. because their "trainer" told them. When I personally get "corrected" on my "bad" form by a gym trainer (at the time I was attending twice weekly sessions with a qualified amateur lifting trainer instructor), telling me to do the exact opposite of what I was taught. When I see trainers get on the rowing machine and demonstrate poor technique that could lead to repetitive strain back injuries... the list goes on, and it's depressing.
The danger for me was thinking that I knew more than the professional did. Yes, you can be more knowledgeable than the trainer, but would you expect them to know more about, say Ruby, than you do if they dabble in it in addition to their full time job? Seems to me like you can (and probably should) always find a professional who knows her trade better than you do. Otherwise, yes it's a waste of your money, time, and health.
I would absolutely expect to find people in other fields who know specific areas of my field better than me. This is the story of every single person "in computers" since the origin of the career, everyone who dabbles desperate to show that they know some specific better than you.
Sounds great. The only unsolicited advice I would offer is that if it ever gets boring, I would look into doing some sport half of the time. It will give you social, technical and mental elements that weight training just can't.
Sports are great but don't offer the easy progression in fitness that weight/fitness training offers.
For example you can make yourself steadily stronger by gradually increasing the amount you're squatting each week or by running longer distances. You don't have this level of control when playing competitive sports.
That said I agree with the social elements. Sports are great fun and joining a team sport would be worth it for the camaraderie alone.
One characteristic of aerobic athletics is that most individuals peak in their mid 20s to late 30s, after which raw capabilities typically decline (albeit gradually, less than 1% per year). There's some exception for endurance activities, in which maturity, pacing, training, and nutrition can provide gains until later years (highly competitive 40, 50, and 60-something ultramarathoners aren't uncommon). And for activities involving fine motor control or finesse, skills may be developed over a lifetime, though injuries can also accumulate: gymnasts, dancers, and football players often peak out young.
For strength sports, progress is cumulative over years, meaning peak strength may not occur until the mid 30s or early 40s.
In competitive sports, you're looking at a mix of skills and abilities. Individual progress is harder to measure as it's team results that are most evident, not that stats aren't available (how meaningful they are is another matter). High-contact sports tend to be games of youth, but this isn't always the case.
And for anyone, coming to an activity fresh means a lot of latent potential to unleash: you'll likely improve dramatically over the first few years of participation.
Sports are great. Just make sure you stretch beforehand and only play with folks who take safety seriously - it can suck to lose a skiing season because your basketball teammate caused you to roll your ankle.
The philosophy of stretching changes every couple of years. One year, stretching before is the way to go. Then, stretching after sport. Then, no stretching at all.
From what I know: Stretching after doing a workout is bad, because it tenses muscles even more, stopping the flow of blood in the muscle and thus, making muscles more sore. But maybe that opinion is just the current trend.
The science on this one seems clear, stretching is only useful for increasing range of motion. It doesn't prevent injury ( in the studied contexts), it doesn't prevent DOMS, and it doesn't lengthen muscles.
The solid science has been pretty consistent for about 20 years: dynamic stretching can be helpful, static stretching much less so, and the best warm-up for an activity is doing the activity at a lower rate for a few minutes.
Re: your last paragraph(the edit), I agree completely. I can think of few things that make me feel as good about myself as when I have a few-month-long streak going of consistently spending time doing physical activities. Gives me such a natural rush of happiness and confidence all day everyday.
Yeah, martial arts are expensive. I was looking at the price per year for this, which works out to be quite a lot.
I am not a fan of CrossFit for many reasons. At best, you simply don't get your money's worth. At worst, it's a one-size-fits-all system with no structure to it. From personal experience, and word of mouth, it's also really easy to get injured doing it.
I started with two days of cardio and three days of body circuits. Each workout was about 30 minutes long, though cardio sometimes would go to 40 or so. I kept doing two cardio days throughout, switching from circuits to lifting and back as the trainer told me.
Most of my workouts were 30 minutes long, and most weeks I did 5 workouts. The other part of the time was spent on commuting to the gym (10 minutes) or getting ready, etc. This is an important point, as most of my weight loss did not come from the exercise: I burnt about 400 calories at a time and immediately replenished them after. The weight loss came from the calorie restricted diet (not overly so, I did create a deficit), which included lots of vegetables and fruit.
I have tried doing dieting alone but it never worked: I could lose weight, but then would gain it back within a year. Combining diet and exercise completed the feedback loop. Eating like crap meant feeling like I was going to die when working out. Conversely, eating well meant performing well. This clicked for me.
For most people, that doesn't really account for the travel time, fueling time, cooling off, and general gym fooling around, which there inevitably will be.
I still agree with his point that it's one of the best ways to spend that extra time, but I think it's important to acknowledge it and plan for it. The commitment of a one hour workout is quite different than one that's twice as long because you have to deal with after-work traffic. There's also the matter of which 5 hours, as not all hours are equal in value.
If you have running shoes and a weight bench that's really enough. In the city you can live close to the gym and that keeps the time down, for example I can leave my apartment, return, shower, and dress in under 1:15.
Oly bar, plates, rack stand or power cage, adjustable dumbbells, chinning bar, dips bar / captain's chair, C2 indoor rower, pulley system, bumper plates & platform, ropes, kettlebells, would make up my essential gym. It's a lot cheaper (and more convenient) to pay someone else a monthly fee to manage and store all that than keep it on premises than accumulate and store it myself. Hence: a good gym is a solid investment.
I bought a Rogue S2, the matching bench and dip accessory, a set of bumpers, Pendlay Bearing Bar, and some rubber mats from the Tractor Store. Put it in my basement. Sure beats having to run to the gym or wondering if it will be open on certain days or the hours. I don't know why you would need or want all those other accessories you mentioned. I like to keep it simple though. It doesn't take up much storage either. Before I bought my current home, I rented out a climate controlled U-Haul to use it.
A bar stand is good, but (if you've got the space and budget for it) a full power cage is going to offer you additional benefits and flexibility. Most of my list actually attaches to that or is proximate to it, so it's not like you'd have a huge pile of equipment spread all over the place.
The cage itself is good for squats, rack pulls, shrugs, high-racked overhead press (as opposed to cleaned presses), and bench press, among others. The safety pins can be used for additional protection where the bar might put you at risk, especially in squats and bench press. Most cages will have a high bar suitable for chin-ups, if not one can generally be added. Similarly a dips attachment. An adjustable pulley gives you the added flexibility of a cable station allowing for pulls with resistance at different orientations (high, low, mid). With front racks, you can work outside the cage while still racking the bar onto it, much as you would with your bar stand. Bumper plates and a platform allow for Oly lifts, which are great for developing not just power but strength (you can do Oly lifts without these, but it's safer and easier on your equipment if you do have them).
An adjustable DB is just a bar, a set of plates, and a locking ring that you can set up for a wide range of weights, it's cheaper than buying a full set of DBs over the same range, and the manual ones will give more range than the adjustable DBs you can typically buy (usually 5-50# or so, not enough for the serious lifter).
A rope hanging from the ceiling for climbing is pretty minimal equipment. Kettelbells (even just 2-4 of a few weights) offer some increased variety to a workout, though most KB moves can be done with DBs.
A Concept2 erg is something I happen to like, and if I had my own gym it's what I'd want.
I could have gotten the cage, but it's larger, heavier, and takes up more space. Also, it's all I need. I didn't want to buy more than I wanted or needed. I don't need a cage to squat, clean, press, and chin. I went back and forth for a while, but those are essentially the only exercises I do. I have no interest in chains, bands, etc. This is fine and works for me. It's also cheaper, easier to take apart/together, and move to a different location if needed.
Yes. When I was at my strongest (max DL was 525lbs, sadly I'm only in the 400s now) I spent only that in the gym. Lifting weights is both a physical and mental exercise that most people can only continue for ~45 minutes. Anymore than that and it's often useless work because it's not at a level that's still challenging.
Powerlifting tends to make for longer workouts because I would take more rest between sets. When I would do BB or cut workouts I would be in the gym ~30 minutes. Keep in mind that this 30 minutes was full on balls to the wall intensity. It's the intensity that matters and not the time. Also, many people do not know true intensity. I know I didn't learn it until I started doing BJJ training and puking multiple times during 1.5 hour sessions. Protecting yourself and competition has a way of drawing people out to the very edge of what they are capable of.
There was an article recently in Outdoor magazine where even amateur marathon runners are training differently. Instead of slogging out many many miles, they have cut miles and are doing less work but at maximum intensity.
Bench was 325#
Squat was 380#
Weight at the time was 205#
My goals were 500/400/300 DL/Squat/Bench, but I could never get the squat. My legs are long and I do true ATG squats. My quarter and half squats were into the 400s though. My other problem with squats was that I tore my ACL wakeboarding and have had it surgically repaired. It feels great now, but the timing set me back on my squatting.
Benching in the 300s hurt my elbows too much so once I hit that number I backed way off. I rarely bench over 250# during a workout now.
1. explains the supercompensation period and how to time your workouts.
2. champions free weights and resistance exercise.
3. explains injuries and gives some practical exercises to strengthen the rotator cuff (frequent injury among bodybuilders)
However, I'm not sure if I agree with the "Fundamental Four" and him saying muscular endurance (low weights, high reps) "is great for endurance sports but tends to undermine the first three, shrinking your strength, power, and muscle size."
There's a recent paper refuting this theory, http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/pdf/10.1139/h2012-022 . It basically says that low weights, high rep actually builds as much muscle mass as high weights, low reps... but both need to be done to the points of exhaustion, and that's they key.
Edit: Just wanted to give some more background on my thoughts on low weight, high rep. I became interested in this after I visited a trainer who suggested high reps (ie., 50+) with low weights. He demonstrated on me and made me do 25 reps of low weight bench press. At around 20 reps I couldn't do any more but helped me barely finish the remaining 5. His point was that you can do low weights, high reps but you need to work past what your mind is capable (and thus he suggests a personal trainer to push those limits). He also said with lower weights, high reps I could gain muscle mass and it's healthier (ie., less injuries) but if I wanted to be huge like a bodybuilder that lower reps, higher weights is better.
So, I've been trying this out on myself recently - doing low weights (30-40% of usual) and high reps (25-50), and doing each rep until the point of exhaustion (not able to lift any more). And then I take a short break (15-30 seconds) and do it again. Break, repeat, etc... until I do about 10 sets. Each set is to the point of exhaustion and I can't lift any more. The results is I'm super sore and it feels great. Prior I tried the StrongLifts 5x5 program (5 reps, 5 set) and also the typical 6-12 reps per set. But with heavier weights, I'm more scared of injury and it's harder to go to the point of exhaustion by myself. With lower weights, I don't fear injury as much.
I'm not trying to become a bodybuilder- rather just trying to bulk up a bit, lose fat and get fit.
Note that the paper you cited measured protein byproducts, not strength. Running six miles a day will not radically improve your 100m dash time. Low intensity, high rep walking 15 miles a day isn't likely to help either.
If you want to get better at something, do the something you want to get better at.
What most people fail to understand about fitness is that over time, your body adapts to whatever you make it do. Whatever you want to get better at, just do that thing over and over, and you will get better at it. There is no shortcut or "hack," it's just practice and adaptation over time.
I would agree with that. I have daughters in gymnastics and they are all much more muscular than their non-gymnastics friends. That said, they tend to get injuries when they do high-impact gymnastics skills. They do not do weight-training, which, from my experience, I suspect would help minimize the injuries.
That's an interesting paper. I'd like to see more research done on this as I think being able to minimize injuries (which I suspect are more common when you're lifting 80+% of your max) while still gaining muscle mass would be the holy grail for those of us in middle age. :-)
Except many gyms have strict "no video" policies because of pervs. Quite frustrating to not be able to video yourself.
I requested an exception once at a 24 hour gym and they had the most inane excuse. They said "there may be witness protection people here that could be compromised". I really had no response to that one...
You highlighted the key point of going to exhaustion. No matter how much weight you lift you need to lift it to exhaustion to get the best results. You will get results no matter if it's light or heavy weight.
Agreed. The problem with 50+ is that the weight is so low that depending on how you pace yourself, and your pain threshold, and how mentally prepared you are, you might end up at 50 or 200 on different sets, and you pretty much always can force through one more rep...
A while ago someone posted an article on Reddit about a group of 5 people who had tried a 1000 kettlebell swings per day for 10 days challenge, and about the outcomes. The discussion turned to whether it'd be possible to get close to that with squats or various other execises. So I figured I'd see how close I'd get with squats.
I didn't finish a full 10 days, and I didn't reach 1000, but I did ~400 bodyweight squats a day for 5-6 days in sets ranging from 20 to 100 at the time. It'd not be that hard to do more if you have time, after the first few days of soreness.
What I learned (apart from how funny you'll walk the day after 400 squats) was that the difference for me between 20 and a 100 squats was whether or not I drew my focus away from the burn, and how I counted, coupled with pacing. When I counted towards 20 and then at 15 said to myself that I'm halfway to 30, so I might as well continue, and kept going like that, meeting 100 was "easy" and I probably could do more. But I'd slow down substantially towards the end, and I'd get more done in less time by confining myself to sets around 5 0 reps.
But I could just as well reach 20 and feel my legs were on fire and I needed a break, if I didn't pace myself properly or didn't "tricky" myself into moving the goalpost.
I honestly don't know what my actual failure limit is for bodyweight squats. I just know that it's somewhere beyond 50 and likely beyond 100 depending on what restrictions I were to set on pace. I thus also don't know, without experimentation, how many reps I'd need to see growth that way... Too much hassle to try to find out.
That is pretty much the same technique I would use to get through long pieces on the Erg (rowing machine). Continually breaking down what I had done, how far through I was, % left, how many strokes left at 24 rating etc.
I was all ready to come on here and trash this article. The headline and the first few paragraphs had me rolling my eyes. But I kept reading and changed my mind. I've now bookmarked this article.
People seem eager to find some magic, half-hearted shortcut to reaching certain goals. There really aren't any. The best advice is often the kind you don't want to hear. To really improve, look at the people who are the best in their field and mimic them. Why would you blindly trust a magazine written by someone trying to sell you a product?
Look at any college gym to see how well the article's conclusion is supported. Women generally stick to cardio machines. The skinny guys trying to get strong are all on the weight machines, and the big guys are all using free weights.
Having recently switched from distance running to weight-lifting because of an injury, I've had a rapid improvement in a few months. The exercises recommended to me from a guy that benches 400 lbs (180 kg) include: squats, deadlifts, bench press, dips, chin-ups, flys, and ab-crunch machine (only machine he mentioned). Dips and chin-ups should have weight added when body-weight becomes too easy.
Also, since I've very paranoid about injuries now, I've been watching and reading as much as I can on proper lifting form. In this case, I would recommend against copying the strongest guys. I see some very strong people with bad form. All that means is that they've been lucky so far.
> People seem eager to find some magic, half-hearted shortcut to reaching certain goals. There really aren't any. The best advice is often the kind you don't want to hear.
Often yes, and in this case probably especially so, but I'd like to make a general comment here as I hear this sentiment repeated in many other situations: in general, this is not true. The entire technological progress of humanity is based on this simple assumption: there must be a better / faster / magic way to do this, even a half-hearted shortcut, so that we do not have to work much to get what we want. That's why we invented... pretty much everything. We can call it "looking for half-hearted shortcuts" or "optimization", but it's the same process.
I read this article around the time it was first published, and it has changed my life. I know it sounds corny and cliched, but it's true. This article was the first seed in my head that I needed to change the way I was doing things.
It took me about 18 months after reading it to actually buckle down and start lifting, but it's no doubt that the journey started here. I ended up reading "Starting Strength" and started up on the program. It's been about 6 months now and I'm stronger than I've ever been in my entire life- by a significant margin. I've gained 40 pounds of muscle. I feel confident, capable, and strong.
The only downside is that I cannot fit into regular clothes anymore- I have to buy clothes made for fat people and just deal with the extra room in the midsection. I also eat an incredible amount of food, which can get tiring and expensive (I eat $40 a week in steak alone). Overall, though, I'm thoroughly satisfied with the path that I'm on, and wish I had started years earlier.
Congrats and I concur. I wasted 2 years at the gym before I stumbled over "Starting Strength". I just decided to go for it, because I had the feeling that most people, including me, are just messing around wasting time at the gym.
And here's why. _Proper_ squats and deadlifts are hard. You breathe heavily, your whole body (as opposed to just certain muscles) exhausts itself in just a few movements. In the beginning you go to bed with every muscle sore. But I figured: It's pointless to go to the gym and avoid strain and exhaustion. So I might just as well aim for it.
And I did the Ripptoe program, and my life changed for the better.
My posture, ruined by years of computer programming, was fixed in less than two months. People started asking me if I've grown recently. I was just standing and walking properly.
My mood nowadays is good 99% of the time. It's just hard to be depressed or care about the little annoyances (or the whining of some people) when your body is strong. I don't know why exactly, but the mood improvement is significant, lasting and one of the best benefits of weightlifting. I can still enjoy every good thing that happens, but I don't sweat the bad stuff as much. I just shrug it off. A wonderful feeling to be able to do that consistently.
People react differently to me. Women, as you would expect, initiate flirting and so forth, but also I get the feeling that other men, children and the elderly, just look at me in a kinder way. Perhaps increasing strength also makes one seem more reliable. Or maybe they think I am used to hard work. Well, I guess they are right. Building strength is hard work.
There's one downside to all that.
When I started to follow the Ripptoe program, the barbell area at my gym was mostly deserted. After a year or so it's almost always busy. Perhaps I inspired the others or it's a general fitness trend of "less BS" and "back to the fundamentals". But if they don't expand that barbell area and install a few more chin-up bars this year, I'll have to find a new gym where I don't have to wait up to 30 minutes to start lifting.
"My posture, ruined by years of computer programming, was fixed in less than two months."
Would you mind sharing the 80/20 gist of what aspect mainly contributed to that? I'm sure the best method would be to follow the program totally, but if one wanted just to see gains in that area with the least possible investment, what would you recommend?
Posterior chain exercise. Between general posture, sitting, slouching, and the tendency for many people to emphasize "mirror / beach muscles" -- chest and biceps, as well as age-related sarcopenia (muscle loss at the rate of about 0.5 lb/year past your mid/late 20s), most people are losing muscle, including the "posterior chain" (calves, hamstrings, glutes, spinal erectors, traps, lats, rhomboids) which support the body and spine.
You strengthen the posterior chain by training it: squats, deadlifts, rows, chins, power cleans.
The best way to get the gains you're looking for with the least possible investment is to do the program. Get the book. Do the program. Three workouts per week. Squats, deads, bench, press, power cleans, chins. Six to nine months will change your life.
As for your questions, I'd strongly recommend looking over the Wit and Wisdom of Mark Rippetoe page as well, I believe you'd benefit from it, particularly the entry beginning "Responding to someone who wanted the book".
The single-best exercise for my back was doing squats. Those, probably mixed with deadlifts, build up my back muscles and my posture corrected itself. (I was slouching a lot.) I just can't think of anything more effective than those two exercises. (Perhaps swimming, though.)
I also recommend proper warmups. e.g. start with no or very little weight, and then keep adding until you reach your maximum, then do 3 sets at the maximum. I usually do 5 - 8 reps each set.
As for time investment: 2 - 3 times a week (doesn't matter if I was tired or lazy, I knew I would feel fantastic at or after the gym), 60 - 90 minutes each time. (no time-wasting, breaks only as long as necessary.)
As for 80/20: After doing the squats and the deadweights, I usually feel very motivated to keep doing other things. It's really switching the body into "workout"-mode.
That is fantastic info about actual execution, many congratulations to you. It will be great if you could please share your age group range (very roughly; 20+, 30+, 40+ etc). Just trying to relate the results with the age group.
When I was a competitive ski racer I used to ave to buy pants 2-4 sizes bigger than normal because my legs were so big. It was actually really annoying.
All the stuff from this article is what my coach used to have us do for weight training. This really isn't comprehensive, though. Weights are important but actually going out and using your abilities is important too.
I train three times a week - as little as twice a week is enough if you're pressed for time.
My back problems gradually improved over two years of training. I had a disk that had slipped gradually over the previous several years. Exquisitely painful episodes 3-4 times a year. Certainly not helped by my weight and lack of muscle tone. After a year of lifting I noticed that I recovered from these episodes quicker, and that the intervals between them were longer. I think it's well over a year now since the last. Obviously, don't even think about lifting if you are currently suffering back pain.
I believe there is general agreement that any strength program will be based around low-rep sets of exercises that involve a large number of muscle groups. Typically squats, power cleans, dead lifts, overhead presses and bench presses. Rippetoe's Starting Strength book and DVD are an excellent introduction to these. Eventually (6 - 18 months) you will plateau and need to change program. I'm currently using Jim Wendler's 5/3/1 and so far am very happy with it, but a beginner will progress faster with Rippetoe.
If you don't mind some extra, unsolicited advice;
- start with much lighter weights than you think you can handle and aim for regular, small weekly increases - even a pound or two is fine and quickly adds up.
- Be prepared to end a session the moment you feel any discomfort in your lower back, and don't return until it clears up completely. I didn't do this at first and each time ended up unable to train for a fortnight.
- technique matters. While these lifts are nothing like as complex as the olympic lifts, there is still some technique that you need to learn for your safety, and also to allow progress to occur. If possible film yourself from time to time to check you're not developing bad habits.
I've no doubt at all that you're significantly stronger, but not all of that 40 extra pounds is going to be muscle. You might want to reduce the amount you're eating now so that you don't have to eat at a deficit for so long later.
It's 40 pounds of muscle, give or take (at most) a couple of pounds of increased bone mass. I take weekly caliper-based readings of body fat percentage, which has fallen by over 10% in the last 6 months. Overall I've gained 20 pounds while losing 20 pounds of fat.
I'm sorry, but caliper readings are pretty inaccurate. Losing 20 pounds in 6 months is solid and believable, but it's hard to believe that you put on 20 lbs of muscle in 6 months. Generally accepted advice is that you can gain about 0.5 lb muscle/week, so I could see you putting on 12-15 lbs tops.
It's also very difficult to lose fat and gain muscle at the same time, especially if you're not a teenager anymore. Still, congrats on your progress!
Blackjack already said this, but humans can gain up to 0.5lbs of muscle per week. And this assumes perfect sleep, perfect diet, and a perfect workout regimen. A little more than that number is possible, but you have to be either genetically gifted, or use steroids. Assuming neither, the 40 pounds you gained over the past six months was mostly fat. You are probably confused because gaining muscle can make someone look less fat, as muscles are emphasized more.
This is a solid article, but the title is just wrong. "Free weights are better than machines" is not a "little known" fact, it's a well known fact by anyone who has cared to read the internet re:fitness since 2009. So is "lifting weights is much more efficient than cardio".
I say this only so that you don't read this and think these are some kind of fringe theories. They're widely, WIDELY known and 100% true.
2009 and the internet? This has been the dominant conventional wisdom in all fitness media for at least a decade. If you open any fitness or "men's" magazine in any given month you will find at least one article telling you that: strength training is better than cardio, free weights are better than machines, and lifts that use multiple major muscle groups in coordination are best. The funny thing is that every one of these articles acts like it is the first time any of this has ever been written down.
It's the exact same way with articles advocating diets relatively higher in protein and fat. An assertion of novelty seems to be a mandatory element of any attempt to market anything fitness related.
Agree, but you know who hasn't gotten on board? The people that design/fit out gyms. It's still all machines in the middle and a couple benches near the edges. I'd love to walk into a gym that is all or nearly all free weights.
Actually I think you'll find that they're not widely known.
(Sweeping generalisation) Most women avoid free weights because they don't want to put on muscle and look like a body builder. Doesn't happen. Hell, some men have that same attitude because "hey I don't want to get bulky". My comment is "well if you discover that secret, you should market it because millions of people will buy it"
I came here to say this. I read about all this stuff years ago on SomethingAwful of all places. If you've ever bothered to do any research rather than just believing whatever your gym tells you, you know all of this.
For life in general, or at least the things that matter in life, it's always a good idea to do your own research. Otherwise you end up going through life believing the half-baked stories people make up so they don't have to think, and the bullshit people tell you to sell you stuff.
That all depends on where you are in your information-gathering phase. And for many, many, many inexperienced lifters, as well as materials and recommendations promoting fitness and strength training will still recommend machines over freeweights.
Both have their place, though I put a heavy emphasis on freeweights.
Depends what you are trying to do and your situation. Machines are safer, so if this is a concern for some reason (injury rehab, age, etc.), then machines in some cases can be better for lifting heavy weights.
Ha! Hard to argue with that because you pluralized 'definition.'
But what I mean is, (1) If I'm doing a chest exercise, for example, with 270+ pounds, and I fail on a machine, I can get out of it. With free weights, I need a spotter and it's much trickier. (2) Perhaps more important: If I'm doing heavy legs (450 lbs, for example), with free weights I have to load a lot of weight on my back for a squat. This is dangerous even for younger men (I'm 50 years old) because slight distraction and they can hurt their backs in a way that is really hard to get over. Load up a weight machine and I don't have to worry about it.
I hit the stabilizer muscles doing light weight squats on a bosu ball.
So, yeah, in a perfect world I'd be 25 years old and doing all free weights. But I've adapted to my circumstances in what I believe to be a reasonable way.
Yes. It's just that being hit by the weights is actually not the failure mode you should be worried about most. It's having the wrong stress on your joints for longer times.
It's a bit like barefoot running vs shod running. Shoes protect your feet, so they are ostensibly safer. But they also make it easy to have bad technique and wreck your joints, especially your knees.
> (1) If I'm doing a chest exercise, for example, with 270+ pounds, and I fail on a machine, I can get out of it. With free weights, I need a spotter and it's much trickier.
Depends on what you are doing, and how you are doing it. The only real need for a spotter is for barbell bench pressing. There you can bench press in a squat rack with the safeties set to the right level. But there are lots of other exercises that provide a similar benefit without trapping you. E.g. (weighted) dips (on rings), push up variations, hand stand push ups, standing overhead presses.
* It's having the wrong stress on your joints for longer times*
Yes, that was my point #2.
The only real need for a spotter is for barbell bench pressing
I was specifically thinking about the bench-press-like machine press, but also true for the dumbell fly exercise.
I do the free-weight lifts, just not with heavy weight. When I want to seriously stress my muscles I go to the machines.
I just started with the bosu-ball stuff last year and I have to say I like it. It hits stabilizers the squat doesn't begin to touch. I'm a sailor- just got back from a week-long bareboat charter in pretty choppy seas, and I really like the results. I'm not sure I can articulate it though- while it helped my balance, it also helped my strength while maintaining balance. For example, the task of picking up a mooring ball with the boat bouncing seemed easier. But that may just be a distorted perception.
There's nothing wrong with machines, except being less effective than free weights. They're still solid though, I got in the best shape of my life one time only on weights because I worked really really hard at it. But I accomplish 80% now with 40% of the time with free weights and compound exercises.
One of the big criticisms Rippetoe makes of machines in the book Starting Strength mentioned in the article is that because they can cause unbalanced muscle development and increase the chances of injury over the long run.
Working with free weights is amazing. After college I decided to get in shape and spent some time doing this: http://stronglifts.com/stronglifts-5x5-beginner-strength-tra.... It's just one of many perfectly good programs you can find on the internet, it just has the advantage of being free and pretty simple to follow.
What's really shocking about lifting free weights is how little time it takes to stay "acceptably fit" (not "ripped like Jesus" fit, but "looks pretty good in clothes" fit). It just doesn't take a long workout to work all your muscles to exhaustion, and since it's often counter-productive to work the same muscle group on consecutive days, you don't need to go to the gym every day.
Cardio machines are innocent enough, as they won’t actually make you any less fit, but maintaining cardiovascular fitness doesn’t really take much more than breathing uncomfortably hard for about 20 minutes, three times a week. And we all know that swimming, hoops, bike riding, and even Ultimate Frisbee can get the job done, and that treadmills or elliptical trainers are a pale substitute.
I think the author is overlooking one of the great benefits of elliptical trainers. They get the job done and they're very safe. If you're an obese out of shape person you're unlikely to get hurt getting your cardio in on an elliptical, whereas activities like hoops, bike riding, and Ultimate Frisbee can really fuck you up.
If you wear a heart monitor and keep your HR in the appropriate zones the elliptical can be a safe, effective cardio workout. I spent three years doing hour long cardio sessions 3-5 days a week, with around 60% of that hour spent in the high end of the aerobic zone. At the end of it I had lost a considerable amount of weight, and I had a resting HR of 38.
There are alternatives to cardio machines that are far less expensive. A jump rope or kettlebell can provide ample and safe workouts for most. The advantage of activities (basketball, cycling, Ultimate) is that they're engaging, getting past the "but it's sooooo boring" issue of just grinding out your 20 minutes.
And at the high end of the out-of-shape scale, just getting out of the house and walking would be a great start.
Yes, skipping rope is only trivial if you already learned how to do it earlier.
Walking / running up stairs is an easy way to get in intense exercise without much stress on your joints.
KB swings are fine. Just need equipment.
If one is fairly out of shape, than one can benefit from very simplified burpees: just lie on the floor, get up, lie down again. With speed. Add jumping, once you are fitter. Then add negatives of push ups. And full push ups later.
Strap an HR monitor on your chest when you do your next weight lifting routine, have it estimate your calories burned. Spend the same amount of time doing cardio at > 70% of your age predicted HR max. I think you'll find it's not even close.
Of course you said fat loss, and perhaps you'll quibble about how much of the calories burned comes from fat vs. muscle, but I think more people are trying to get to a healthy weight rather than achieve a single digit body fat percentage.
Even easier than that is just to not eat those calories in the first place.
With resistance training you are not trying to burn calories, you are building muscle. This new muscle will need calories to support itself and will make it easier to lose fat in the future because your body will need more calories to function.
Read starting strength. Its a small, cheap book, and it goes into more detail on form than you will probably need. It has chapters on each of the major lifts and I used to read it on my phone (kindle app) before/during the workout at the gym until I got everything right, using low weights of course.
Well, actually... Daniel the author neglected to tell Nicole the illustrator that the thumbs on the squatter (first graphic) are in the wrong position -- according to Rippetoe, not me. :-)
Humor aside, lifting heavy works for women, to. Women are afraid to get bulky. I got over the idea that lifting heavy wouldn't _make_ me bulky. This is just the way I am. Might as well make the best of what my DNA doled out. As for gyms, I've been harassed at my gym by a trainer for dropping 250lbs a bit too hard (it ripped the callus on my left hand and fell less than a foot, and gym doesn't allow chalk) when I routinely see/hear male lifters throw 100+ dumbbells to the floor. Can't wait to get a cage in my basement so I can spend less time in that place.
I'll be trying Brown's movements to see if they help with the pain in my knees from derby drills. Thanks for posting this!
Weightlifter here. The squat described in that graphic is high-bar (bar between traps and delts) as opposed to the low-bar form championed by Rippetoe (and powerlifters in general). The back is more upright, so you can't really "trap" the bar just by resting your hands on it and pushing your elbows back, you have to wrap your thumbs around. You should still keep your wrists as straight as possible.
Speaking of women lifting heavy things, my Coach's wife Jo-Ann Aita just set a world record in raw powerlifting last month, and she is far from bulky! See for yourself http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5n7c5KoyaLI
Ah, that explains it. I do low bar and had forgotten there was such a thing as high bar. Do you suppose low bar works better if you have broad shoulders? Low bar certainly alleviates the sore neck problem.
JoAnn definitely not bulky. And cripes would I love to be able to bench 165! Sometimes I resent stumbling on this type of training in my 40s instead of my 20s.
Nia Shanks is something like 122lbs and (last I saw) could deadlift 315lbs. She is not bulky or "'roided out." It is because of her that I've set my goal at 315lbs. I've had two kids by c-section, though. Dunno if I'll get there or not. Sometimes stuff hurts.
Daniel makes this point in his article, in a way: goals are important. From what I understand, there are three goals: get strong, get lean or look good naked. All three are perfectly respectable goals in my book. Approach a random person in the gym and ask them what they are training for, "To lose weight." This is a meaningless statement we believe has meaning.
So far, the best response I've heard is, "Retirement." I forget who said it, though.
Try convincing the women with that. I have no idea where they came up with the belief that lifting weights would make them bulky while it would take a man, on supplements, years and a lot of effort to develop a meaningful amount of muscle to be considered "bulky". They seem to be happy to walk for a half-hour on the treadmill and then run towards the scale as if that half-hour would actually do anything.
It's really difficult to explain to unfit people (who always complain) that the solution is not a pill or some crazy diet you do for a week. It just takes a bit of effort and common sense.
Unconvincing anyone of their convictions is a quixotic undertaking. I've had a few women approach me over the last year and ask me how much I'm lifting, and I've seen them watching me from afar. Alas, the way I am built, I am only going to reinforce the stereotype. My people were built to pull ploughs, apparently.
If you are interested in free weights, Starting Strength is the best book out there. In free weights you have to be extremely careful about your form otherwise you could seriously injure yourself. This book goes deep in the human anatomy and mechanics to teach you how to approach free weights.
An amazing free ebook called Brain Over Brawn is one of the best things I've ever read on this subject, and continues to include all the big conclusions articles like these come to: http://brainoverbrawn.com/get-the-book/
I highly suggest giving it a a read or scan. It's very well written (fun to read, he's a great writer), short, and very to the point. He applies the 80/20 rule to working out, your body, your diet, and so forth.
My favorite section is how to build what he calls an "engineer bag", which costs a total of around $10 and replacing pretty much all gym equipment.
At Betable, four of us do CrossFit. It's not sadistic as the title says, though I'm sure that can depend on the gym. The one in SOMA is pretty supportive and accommodating, probably because they deal with a lot of startup engineers :)
Anyway, was struck me about CrossFit and really any group exercise routine is how much more it makes you tax your own body. When you're at the gym, you don't push yourself. You run comfortably fast on the treadmill, lift a comfortable amount of weight, and do it at a comfortable pace. Group exercise is great for breaking you out of that habit and making you push your limits. It's too easy to pretend that 45 minutes at the gym, 15 of which is "cardio" and 15 of which is "cooldown", is going to change anything.
I was a crossfitter for about 2 years at the South Bay Crossfit gym (Jason Khalipa's).
My big takeaway from that was that olympic lifting is much more fun and rewarding than CF for me. (Note to HN pedants: for me.) The only problem is that it's hard to find a big box with a barbell, let alone two or three.
Huh, that's interesting. I go to a CrossFit affiliate that actually focusses pretty intently on olympic lifts. Each one hour session includes 20 minutes of practicing a specific lift. The two - olympic lifting and CrossFit - have become so intertwined in my mind that it's difficult to imagine one without the other.
I've been doing Crossfit for about five years, at multiple facilities. The really good CF facilities, including Crossfit Southie in Boston where I currently go, place a huge emphasis on powerlifting and olympic movements. Take a look at the Crossfit Games workouts (http://games.crossfit.com/), and you'll see snatches and deadlifts everywhere.
The problem with Crossfit is that it is an affiliated brand. Every CF facility pays about $5,000 per year to use the Crossfit brand, but each facility is independently owned and operated, and so the programming at each facility is usually unique. There exist a number of questionable facilities, especially out in California where the concentration of gyms is much higher.
The Crossfit affiliates need to start doing some quality control. As I've watch the program expand over the past half-decade, I've been excited at how many people the gyms have helped, but dismayed at how the trainers at some facilities don't share the same love or ability for the basic lifts.
I'm doing Crossfit for about 1.5 years and sometimes it's pretty tough. E.g., last week there was a workout that I was 100% sure I won't be able to finish, though eventually I did even though it took me 20 mins more than more fit people, and I had to scale down couple of parts from prescribed. But thinking back about it, I constantly realize there's no way I'd push myself so hard if I weren't on Crossfit program. And that's probably why previous years of "exercising" here and there did very little for me, but with Crossfit I am feeling real progress. I am still very far from where I want to be, but at least I am feeling some movement towards the goal. And while Crossfit can be very tough sometimes, right on the border of "are you kidding me? you want me to do whathow many times?", it usually works out pretty well.
Personal experience (his and mine). Same basic principle explains why people work together in offices instead of at home: peer pressure prevents you from slacking. And personal trainers take this up yet another level, because it's a lot harder to give up when somebody's in your face telling you that he knows you can do one more rep.
And yes, of course there are people who can put in supremely productive 9-to-5 days at the home office and/or whip themselves mercilessly in solo workouts. But they're a minority.
A really good way to counter this, at least for me, is to keep track of your progress in a notebook or on your phone. It helps a lot to be able to say "oh, I was able to do 2 more reps than average this time" or "Hmm, I've been on this weight for a couple of months, maybe I should go up." Plus it's a good motivator -- it's a lot easier to go the the gym when you can see how much progress you've made.
I think he meant that, if you're not careful, you'll lapse into going through the motions without pushing yourself. In other words, you need to push yourself. And he says being in a group will help you actually push yourself.
A roommate of mine (former D1 track athlete) loved to do CrossFit solely because the group atmosphere forced him way beyond his boundaries. The first 4 times in a row that he went, he pushed himself so hard that he threw up. He could not stop raving about how it got him back into such relatively good shape so fast.
Not the OP but worked out at United Barbell and they are phenomenal. I am no longer convinced that CrossFit is the right thing for me to keep doing so I stopped it and replaced it by running 5+ miles and doing the big 3, but it definitely is the best thing that ever happened to me fitness wise.
Everything I know is a lie? So, eating huge amounts of fat and sugar, and never exercising is not less healthy than eating some vegetables and going for a run? I doubt it. So can we please stop with such ridiculous headlines?!
Actually, eating huge amounts of fat, with the absence of sugar and other carbohydrates can actually be very healthy. I've followed a keto diet for some time now and have much improved cholesterol, triglycerides, and I've lost > 30 lbs. Check out /r/keto on Reddit. Fat is not bad.
Yes, I'm aware of that, which is why I mentioned "huge amounts of fat and sugar" combined with 0 exercise. I know that the combination of those things does not lead to being fit (but the headline tells me that's a lie! so maybe that will lead to me being fit.)
Yes, I have read it now. It was a nice article. I did not find out that everything I know about fitness was a lie. I found out that I don't know much, but what I did know was correct (and I learned a number of new things). No reason to hide a nice article behind a rude, condescending and incorrect headline.
> a miasma of lies and misinformation that we mistake for common sense, and that makes most of our gym time a complete waste
Well, it started off with complete bullshit like this. If we could get 10% of people to the gym (instead of their usual home-bound sugar-feast), it would be fucking wonderful. My gym time was never a waste, regardless of my form or which equipment I was using.
The rest of the article, however, I'm pretty in line with with. But it's preaching to the choir for the most part. We could make this article mandatory reading and it wouldn't make a goddamn difference. And that's the problem. Got a solution?
You'd get the Nobel Prize in EVERYTHING if you could figure out an effective way to get masses of people to effect these kinds of changes in their lives. That kind of science spans the realms of pyschology, sociology, medicine, biology, physics, and wizardry.
I think the author is targeting subscribers of health magazines and gym go-ers. For the average person getting health tips from google news, they probably are only filled with far less lies than the aforementioned group.
I used to own a boutique, 5,000 square foot personal training facility a few years back. Sadly, this article is on the money. We hired strength coaches with degrees in exercise physiology or athletic training and were fanatical about form and outcomes. We wanted clients to re-up not because they'd become best friends with a trainer or been entertained, but because they were experiencing measurable changes in whatever metrics were relevant to them (which we tested on a regular basis). We were very much the exception to the rule in a world where places like Crossfit didn't even exist yet.
The commentary on big-box fitness clubs is also dead on. It's all about maximizing revenue / sq ft, not changing lives. That leads to a 40% industry attrition-rate, because the offerings and environment are so broken, off-putting and ineffective. What other industry survives when you need to regenerate 40% of your client base every year just to stay at zero-growth? Insanity.
Last stat, for more than 30 years, the fitness industry has been trying to attract what's perceived as the holy grail, sedentary adults. But, no matter how much marketing they throw at the market, 85% of US adults refuse to join or stay members of clubs, even though more than 90% say exercise is mission-critical to their ability to live the lives they want to live.
I sold my last facility 4 years ago, but just writing this is reminding me how ripe this space still is for mass-disruption. Crossfit is doing a great job, but there's still so more that can and should be done.
> I signed a 10-page membership contract at a corporate-franchise gym, hired my first personal trainer, and became yet another sucker for all the half-baked, largely spurious non-advice cobbled together from doctors, newspapers, magazines, infomercials, websites, government health agencies, and, especially, from the organs of our wonderful $19 billion fitness industry, whose real knack lies in helping us to lose weight around the middle of our wallets.
If that's not a CTA for startups, I don't know what is.
I'm in a unique position because I'm an avid programmer/HNer, but I'm also a competitive powerlifter in my spare time. I was very skeptical based on the article title, but it is actually well done and honest. If you're new to the gym/fitness, I would back up what was said in this article as sage advice.
My kids joined a swim team, so I decided to try it as a work out (already had a membership at a gym with a pool).
I never swam as a workout before. I could barely do 500 meters when I started, switching up strokes (mostly free with my sad approximations of breast, fly, and back), having to stop and catch my breath often.
Now I'm at 600, have to stop much less often, and see some upper body development. I feel like swimming fits into the "muscle endurance" column from the article. I had just recently told someone swimming is like "upper body cardio".
So I'm curious if anyone else reading this swims and how you think it compares to other exercise regimens.
I've swum for several decades. It's a good form of cardiovascular training. It's also very much a skill sport that's difficult to pick up in later life -- your entire workout distance is a small portion of my warm-up routine (workouts run 3k - 6k meters).
The specific part of the article you want to pay attention to is the training goal matrix (http://archive.mensjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/picture-21...). Swimming does not load your muscles at 40-60% of your maximum. For an utterly untrained individual you'll see some development as the result of doing virtually anything, however that progress will max out very quickly.
Any serious competitive swimmer (national / international / Olympic level) is doing a considerable amount of strength training in addition to their pool work. The same goes for athletes in any other field. While there may be adaptations to limit total mass gains for some (long-distance marathoners and cyclists tend to have low bodyweights), there absolutely is strength training.
If you want to gain muscle, lift. If you want to get better at swimming, invest in a stroke clinic and join a masters team.
I agree: swimming will make you more fit, and works great as general aerobic or anaerobic exercise, but won't necessarily build up muscles beyond a reasonable baseline. However, I'd argue that it works far better than walking or running if you want general calorie burning.
On a different note, though: swimming works very well for building lung capacity, which cross-trains very well with other exercises.
I can attest to the final point. I had to give up running for a month to heal from shin splints and I started swimming and biking to train in the meantime. My previous 5k personal best was 24:00 and when I ran it again after that month of swimming/biking I ran it in 21:52 with relative ease. I attribute it to the swimming which kicked my ass.
I would say it fits with point number four in the article. I found swimming especially good for avoiding normal "office injuries" in the back and hips. I also think it's great mental training as most of the difference for a novice to go from say 10% to 60% in swimming ability is just relaxing and "finding" decent technique.
You increase the support in a system by strengthing it, not loosening it.
You may want to address imbalances (look up "upper crossed syndrome") by strengthening parts of the system in opposition to those which are overstimulated.
Generally, there's not a whole lot of increase in flexibility you can accomplish by casual stretching, and excess flexibility can be a problem -- pregnant women experience a loosening of tendons and ligaments (it helps in moving the baby through the birth canal) which can present problems in strength training.
Kettlebell swings are most decidedly low-impact training.
I recently started swimming since I'm planning on doing a triathlon next summer and it is by far the hardest of the three disciplines. I started out not being able to do more than 50m without having to catch my breath and this was after an entire summer of running and a month of road biking, so it's not like I wasn't in decent shape. Swimming is a whole different ballgame. I'm now at the point where I can swim indefinitely (did 1500m with two 20 second breaks at the 10th and 20th laps recently) but it took a while to get there. Like anything, it's all about your form. I had to learn how to settle down and swim slower, gliding through the water, controlling my breathing, and reaching on every stroke. Once you get the form down you can pretty much go and go, but it's hard to trust that you won't start sucking water in when you get too tired. I find it helps to really exaggerate your rolling motion so that your mouth clears the water more easily when you go to take a breath. It also helps you reach your arm out a couple extra inches.
The most surprising aspect of swimming was how ripped my chest and arms felt afterwards. I've been an avid weightlifter since high school and it's the same feeling I get after doing bench presses or fly's.
Comparing the distance you can swim may be a bit misleading as a very large component of skilled swimming is doing it efficiently. As you improve your stroke you become much more hydrodynamic and it takes far less effort (and time) to swim a given lap.
For an extreme example, put someone who doesn't know how to swim at all into a pool. As they thrash about wildly they'll get a rather serious workout even though they'll scarcely make a lap.
For whatever reason, swimming picked up a pattern of really long-distance training routines, peaking in the 1970s and early 1980s with 10-12,000 yard/meter days (two workouts). Cycling had similar trends for a while as well. Both are activities in which the athlete is supported (swimmers by water, cyclists by the bike) and friction is minimal (rowing tends to get painful after an hour or two), allowing hours-long training sessions well past what would be the point of exhaustion in other activities.
While this can help with skills development (though my thinking is that training in an exhausted state reinforces poor form), and may be a good way to keep kids off the streets, it's largely useless for developing maximum capability in the shorter-duration events typical of pool meets (50-500 yards / 50-400 meters), taking anywhere from 15 seconds to 5-6 minutes or so. The primary exceptions would be 1000m or 1650y events (10-15 minutes or so). Triathalon / open-water swimming is almost a wholly different sport.
You'd benefit in swimming from a regime that's similar to other HIIT training: 15-60 second maximum-effort pieces followed by brief rest (5-15 seconds) and a repeat, in sets of 8-10 or so. Incorporate warmup, skills drills, and strength training, and workout time drops markedly.
I still enjoy doing longer pieces and the whole-body flush accompanying them, but they're not something I undertake daily or even weekly.
When swimming competitively, 2-3 miles is the norm, and 4-5 would be for longer practices (usually Saturday mornings or the Friday before a break)
You don't just get in the pool and lap swim. We would do laps on 1 minute intervals (sprint the lap, rest for 30 seconds, repeat), 100s on 90 or 120 second intervals, 200s on 4 or 5 minute intervals, etc. You've also got isolation exercises ( pull/kick/swims, 25s off the block, half-pool 25s with the turn, etc)
But during a 3 hour practice, you still wind up swimming a few miles. Even doing an average of 25 yards a minute (a snail's pace), you're looking at 2.5 miles.
This is a great article (even as a repeat), and well-timed for the annual influx of "resolutionists" at the gym come January 1.
If you haven't lifted or trained seriously before, and have been looking for a solid guide and starting point, you could well do worse. If you're looking for further reading, the suggested library (Rippetoe's Starting Strength and Practical Programming, Zatsiorsky's Science and Practice of Strength Training, Schmitz's Olympic-Style Weightlifting and Gambetta's Athletic Development: The Art & Science of Functional Sports Conditioning) is solid. I'd add Schuler & Cosgrove's The New Rules of Lifting* more for its fitness and nutritional background than its training program, though that too is good.
For community, Reddit's /r/fitness, /r/advancedfitness, and /r/weightroom are good.
The one significant omission from Duane's "Men's Journal" article is of HIIT (high intensity interval training) and Tabata intervals (http://www.rosstraining.com/articles/tabataintervals.html). As with strength work, it's amazing how little a time investment can provide returns. Your work sets for both lifting and high-intensity cardio training can be completed in a very few minutes.
The other key point is that consistency over time, rather than instantaneous effort, is what pays dividends. Lift for a week and you'll be sore. Lift for a month and you'll start feeling things. Lift for a year and you'll see results. Lift for 5 years, and it will be obvious to even the most oblivious. And you can look forward to benefits throughout most of your life, not just your 20s and 30s.
Lift a weight so heavy you can lift it only once, you’re building strength (and, oddly, not much mass); lift a weight you can move six to 12 times, you’re building mass (and, oddly, a little less pure strength);
It's interesting how many people don't know that size does not necessarily mean strength. When I was in university, a gym friend, who happened to be a trainer, was an accomplished amateur bodybuilder, and was fairly close to getting his pro card (he might have it now, I'm not sure). This guy was easily twice my size, but to my surprise, I could lift quite a bit more than him. Now, I'm quite sure that I look like I'm in good shape, but I don't think anyone would guess that I'm 195 pounds, and can oly squat 2x my lean body weight. It's been more than once that I've seen someone at the the gym who looks merely "lean" at first glance, but turns out to be quite impressively strong. Just goes to show that it's hard to judge how strong people are just by looking at them, until you see them lift.
I have found kettlebells to be very useful also. There is a sub-reddit on them: http://reddit.com/r/kettlebell . I will have to look into the Starting Strength book, I always had problems when trying to do squats before - perhaps bad technique.
Thanks, yummyfajitas - exactly what I would have said. If you can't do a pushup, then can you do a pushup against a wall? When you can do that with good form, then you lower the angle so you're pushing more of your bodyweight.
The logic works the other way, too, for increasing difficulty. Can you do 3 sets of a hundred one-armed pushups? Well, start climbing your feet up the wall!
If you can do free-standing one-hand vertical pushups without strain, I've got nothing for ya. Go ahead and start vert pressing 600 pounds. Also, try out for the Olympic weightlifting team--the gold medal should be easy!
This is one of the best fitness articles I've read. Of course, that's me suffering from confirmation bias, because in 3 years of being on a health kick, I came to the same conclusions after talking to various people with a similar interest.
I would recommend using one alone, because I do it all the time. Survivor bias! ;)
With SS/Stronglifts/Whatever, you begin with an empty bar, (or no bar if you can't squat at all), so the weight doesn't start out being something you need any genuine assistance with. With the power rack you have the safety pins. You adjust the safety pins to be at a point where if you are in the bottom of the squat, and you can't return to standing position, you just drop the bar off your back onto the pins (or lower it onto the pins)
With the bench press it's the same thing - you set the pins so they're below your lowest point in the bench press (bar touching sternum), but slightly above your neck level (I'm lucky in terms of bench / safety pin positioning, it's perfect for me) - when I fail a bench press, or can't push it off, I just let it hit the pins and slide out from underneath the bar.
If you don't have access to a power rack with safety pins I would not recommend doing the bench press without a spotter unless you back the weight off to something you will always confidently re-rack safely.
However a spotter with the squat is a recipe for ruin, best to just rely on the pins. Supposedly designed to handle 200kg+ dropped on them from 4+ft. Hopefully your gym hasn't bought a cheap shitty rack!
The thing I've come close to injuring myself the most with is the press. I was arching my back too much and putting a lot of pressure on my lower back - trick is to keep stomach tight when doing the press. Something I wasn't doing.
For a very affordably monthly fee you can sign up to be remotely coached by fantastic power lifting / bodybuilding / MMA trainers with decades of experience bringing up truly strong and powerful athletes.
They'll find out exactly where you're at, help you figure out the optimal diet for your goals, help you with your form and regimen and will continuously work with you to make sure you're on track. The only variable in the equation is going to be your own personal willingness to stick to your own program. For the cost, I can't recommend it enough.
Check out http://www.ironaddicts.com/forums/ . I trained under both the founder (he passed away, very unfortunately) and his successor. Couldn't recommend Mr. Pinder any higher, but if he doesn't have openings right now, I'm sure he'll be able to recommend someone else excellent.
As semi-pro strongman and powerlifter, i've to say that Hackenschmidt's book has been most helpful for me, because it's give good tips about diet, mental preparedness and encouraged to do other sports than just Gym.
Well thanks for confirming the impression I got from my one and only ever experience at a gym: Not only is it boring but its also a huge waste of time. I remember it took me 2 hours until I felt like I had done something - and the best machine seemed to be the chin-up bar. I dont need a gym for that?!
I think for general body health, any exercise is better than none but some are more effective than others. Top to bottom:
- Yoga ( ermm... The serious kind. Lots of bs out there)
- Strength exercises like in the article
- Competitive sports. (I used to fight Tae Kwon Do tournaments)
- Casual sports
- Biking to work
- The Gym
I know some Yogis and they're overall the healthiest, best-shape people I know. Little wonder as Yoga was developed over thousands of years and specifically to heal the body. Maximizing the - amazing - self healing powers of your body. Those basic strength exercises are IMO just the western version of it, a slightly less advanced form. And it'll work better for some, no doubt.
> Little wonder as Yoga was developed over thousands
> of years
There is a large amount of bullshit which evolved over thousands of years and is still bullshit. Thousands of years mean nothing. I am not saying that all yoga is BS, but signal to noise is definitely very low.
> Those basic strength exercises are IMO just the western
> version of it, a slightly less advanced form.
A good gym is a godsend. But what you're looking for isn't going to be one of the plastic-and-chrome palaces but something that's got tons of weights, power cages, chinning bars, adjustable benches, dumbbells in a wide range of weights (200# is a good upper limit, higher isn't bad though you can usually manage with a barbell and landmine), bumper plates and platforms, chalk, glute-ham raise, kettlebells, ergs, foam and PVC rollers. If you see prowlers, ropes, and chains, you're in heaven.
Yoga has its place, however asanas are only a small part of total fitness. "Western fitness" is based on empirical results and studies, while much traditional yoga is founded on mystical explanations (and don't even get me started on Auyurveda). If you explore deeper, I think you'll find that Western fitness has in fact examined and adopted those parts of yoga which are shown to be useful and effective.
A good point, and I would add that if you explore even deeper, you will find that what is usually referred to as yoga in the west is already itself a western adaptation of a very small part of yoga which aims to improve physical (rather than mental) well-being.
You don't see many people at gym yoga classes singing prayers or trying to control their dreams :)
I bench 120kg+ without a spotter (at 95kg body weight). If I were to fail disastrously, I might have a broken rib, but without collars on the bar the chance of a severe failure that cause me to drop the fully loaded bar on my chest is pretty much 0. I've put it down on my chest and rolled it off more than once, and it only causes a light bruise that's gone in a few hours. I probably wouldn't do much more than 1.5 times body weight without a spotter, but I'm assuming you're not there yet, as I suspect you wouldn't be asking those questions if you were.
And use the dumbbells. You can bench with them. Do sumo deadlifts (legs flared much wider than usual, and lift the weight between your legs - you can start with one dumbbell, and increase to two). Learn to clean the dumbbells for overhead presses and front squats. Back squats are tricky with dumbbells, so there you'll have to resort to the Smith machine, thouhg it is considered somewhat evil amongst many lifters (it is easy to end up lifting with bad form and an unnatural movement, and very easy to fool yourself by leaning into the bar), but it is better than nothing.
Frankly, until you start getting to dumbbells that add up to more than your body weight on every main exercise, there's not much reason why the lack of a proper bar should impede you, and dumbbell exercises have much to be said for them for stability.
I'd agree with this. I've been pinned under 80-90kg weights a few times.
The first thing is, unless you're not concentrating, you don't really drop it. For me, it's normally not being able to lift the weight back up when I've brought it down to my chest. Without collars, you can just tip the weight to the side, the plates fall off, and the bar (fairly rapidly) pings upright. Makes a bit of a noise, and you feel like a fool, but that's all :-)
I've had my bodyweight (110 KG) stuck on my chest with no ill effects other than embarrassment. As the parents say, simply slide the weights off, or ask anyone nearby for a hand.
One thing that is extremely dangerous is using the 'suicide grip' when benching - i.e. having the thumb and fingers on the same side of the bar and simply resting the bar on the palms. It's stupid, but a surprisingly large number of lifters use it.
You can bench without a spotter pretty safely up to about 75kg, at which point the roll of shame starts getting challenging. It's different for women though, because rolling a large amount of weight over breasts is apparently quite painful.
Consider getting the Free Spotter (http://www.shermworks.com). Its about the safest way to go, and is endorsed by a few professional lifters. Nothing in your way to corrupt the motion, and you simply let go if you get in trouble. You don't even need a rack for bench or shoulder press, as you can set the empty bar at your chosen height, load the weight, and lift!
Benching without spotting is easy if you aren't going to one rep maxes. If you are doing sets of 5, then don't do rep N if rep N-1 was too hard that you think you will fail the rep. Also, if you stop before the 5th rep, you should be doing sets at a lighter weight.
If your gym only has a smith machine it certainly isn't dangerous to bench; dumbells also offer many exercises, you can even bench with dumbells. Needless to say though, if that's all your gym has, change gyms.
Don't trash all physicians. We're not "in on it," we just have to target populations rather than individuals. It's a completely different ballgame. Plus we have limited training (or none) on these kinds of topics.
I break the mold all the time, but only when I think a patient is mature enough and enlightened enough to handle it. Otherwise it's completely pointless (and will fail to meet the "standard of care" in most cases).
Thanks for posting this article! I was actually in the middle of getting back into lifting to 1) improve my health and 2) gain some confidence by accomplishing something in my personal life. I e-mailed a personal training studio a few weeks ago, and they never responded even though they recommended that means to get in touch with them. My next step was going to be to enroll in a "big box" gym to take advantage of year-end deals and start personal training sessions there. This article gave me the thought that I should consider some more self-education first. I may enroll in a gym anyway as they have the gear and the space for working out, but I should consider self-training. Will check out the Starting Strength book.
My own research on the subject, and my several years of experience applying said research, taught me this: fitness as an overall goal is actually very, very simple. It gets complicated only when you try to optimize and fine-tune your workouts and diets, which most people do not actually need to do unless they are professional bodybuilders or powerlifters. Regardless of your goals, it comes down to three things: eat well, sleep as much as your body actually needs, and lift weights.
The problem is that the fitness industry, in order to justify its own existence, feeds people so many little details and tricks and drivel that it intimidates those who want to start, and quickly overwhelms those who actually do start. Furthermore, when someone fails to see results, they attribute it to some little detail that they must have missed, which perpetuates the existence of all those fitness magazines and websites.
Combine this with people's natural tendency to look for quick fixes, and you got yourself a huge mess. What I tell people who want to become fit is this: your current body is the result of years and years of certain habits you followed. You can't undo that in a month.
For those who are reading this and want to become healthier, my advice is as follows.
1. If you want to lose weight, then you need to eat below maintenance, do a mix of cardio and weightlifting, and sleep eight hours a day.
2. If you want to build muscle, then you need to eat a LOT of food with tons of protein, do mostly weightlifting, and sleep eight hours a day.
3. If you want to get "toned", that actually equates to losing body fat to make underlying muscles more visible, so follow 1.
4. If you want to build cardiovascular endurance (e.g. for sports), then focus mainly on cardio, with some weightlifting to build the muscles used in those sports.
From there, it's a matter of figuring out the basics and sticking with them.
This is my feeling exactly. People seem to over analyze various approaches to fitness and diet to the point that it becomes un-productive. There is not a magic bullet workout or diet - in fact lots of different workouts and diets will have a positive effect if you stick with them. We are so obsessed with micro-optimizing that we miss the big picture.
I would add some general principles with regards to diet that could benefit most people. Reducing or eliminating processed foods and sugar, for example, can benefit anybody. Maintaining a reasonable proportion of fats, protein and carbohydrates is another.
I've got to say that I never expected folks to be comparing Bench Press results on Hacker News.
The story starts with a known truth, "Health Clubs are RipOffs" and then gets a little off track. Barbells aren't the only thing. They're important, but great athletes mix in other types of training - low impact cardio to reduce the resting heart rate, short and long intervals, outdoor exercise, etc.
IMHO - The best gyms are tailored around an activity one enjoyes: Rock Climbing, Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, Rowing, etc. Supplement that as needed.
The article misses (maybe on purpose, so one has to figure it out by himself) what plan is he on.
What I understand he is doing n number of set of 5 reps (the last set being 100% weight he can do with 5 repetitions):
- dead lift
- bench press
In the article (in other sources) I read that doing squat and dead lift on the same day is not a good idea (back is working in both cases) should we throw out also this common wisdom?
I'm planning to buy "Starting Strength" but could someone correct me if I'm wrong?
Mainstream delivery pizza has reached an all time low on all fronts. The glorious Jolt cola has shown the way to a plethora of marketing dollars, leaving once fringe energy conscious beverage consumers disillusioned. And it is yet to be determined whether the Unix beard is the cause or the effect of godly low level programming ability.
For the last 5 years, I've gone to the gym once or twice a week (usually just once). I do powerclean or snatch -> squats or deadlift -> bench and then I leave in around 45 minutes. When I explain my routine to friends and coworkers, they dismiss my results, believing they are due to genetics.
Thanks for posting the article. I definitely recommend reading Starting Strength if you haven't had any formal weight training instruction.
This article is largely rehashing what everyone I know already thinks. BUT, if you are going to claim to contradict widespread views, you should appeal to evidence.
If I disagreed with anything in this article, there is nothing here that would make me change my mind. The author cites how bad he felt that some trainer calling him "little girl weak" as a reason we should lift heavy weights?
Honestly, I couldn't care less about the author's insecurities.
His claim at that point is that raw strength is more useful for general fitness and injury prevention than what he was doing before (which was stability ball training).
While his poor squat performance shows that his stability ball workout wasn't building raw strength, it's quite possible that doing squats wouldn't improve his balance. So which has the biggest benefits for injury prevention?
The article presents no evidence one way or the other. You (and I) may think raw strength is more important. But then we are agreeing with the author only because he's saying things we already thought.
So the article promises to show us why our beliefs are wrong. But we have no reason to accept the author's claims, except that they reinforce our current beliefs.
The people who are inclined to follow up references to evidence supporting these claims wouldn't be holding these misconceptions in the first place - the research is readily available for those who cares enough to be prepared to look.
I am the co-founder of Wello (www.wello.co). A site that enables you to workout with a personal trainer over live, interactive video. All you need is a laptop, webcam and internet connection. The bottom line is that personal training works and we make personal training accessible to everyone in the privacy of their home at a fraction of the price. Check it out and book a personal training workout today.
OT: Anyone know what these men's magazines have against Crossfit? There was a ridiculously ill-informed article in Men's Health magazine this year and this article slanders Crossfit as "sadistic" then doesn't bother to validate the claim.
But then he goes to a trainer who calls him "fucking little girl weak" and then goes on to essentially describe the Crossfit ethos as I've experienced it, minus the bullshit insults.
Great article! After reading it, it seems like stronglifts 5X5 is the thing to do.
I followed it for a while until some guy at the gym said I was doing squats wrong (he was wrong), I ended up injuring my (already weak) back and never properly recovered. Now I'm not sure if I should try pick it up again. Free weights get a bit scary as from a certain weight, you really need a buddy.
When doing Squats and Deadlifts, make sure you lift if your legs and not your back.
Don't be afraid to hire a (credible) personal trainer who knows how to do barbell lifts to coach you on correct form. It may take several weeks to get the form exactly right, but it's worth it so you don't get injured.
Does anyone have any recommendations about dieting? I don't think that when it comes to strength eating paleo cuts it. Most of the powerlifters don't seem to care about being lean and only care about strength, so they eat a lot.
I've got a lot stronger since I started training strength, but haven't got any leaner. Is there a way to have both or is it impossible?
It's possible, but difficult. Like many other extraordinary feats like doubling your bench press in a month, it's most often seen in people just starting out.
In general, gaining strength means a caloric surplus, and in general, losing weight means a caloric deficit. There are programs like leangains that try to do both. There's a reason the "pros" have separate cutting & bulking phases, although that's maybe needless and arguably dangerous for mere mortals.
I suck at dieting, so I won't give specific advice other than perhaps troll r/fitness & co.
"Yet multiple studies of pre-workout stretching demonstrate that it actually raises your likelihood of injury and lowers your subsequent performance." This was the only claim that surprised me and the only one that didn't provide much of a source. Time to dust of the old search engine, I guess.
OK, as a former professional athlete this piece is, as usual, half-smart and largely uninformed (and hugely frustrating).
1 - Don't confuse a "health club" with a gym.
2 - Don't confuse a "personal fitness trainer" with an athletic trainer.
3 - Most of all.... Don't confuse Performance and Results.
If you actually really care about Performance and training - I would suggest you start by learning the fundamentals of training. You MUST own your own training. And to do that you need to be informed. The author obviously didn't do any of this work as he just ran from "expert" to "expert" rather than taking personal responsibility. A simple rule of thumb.... if you're not talking about periodization, you're working with the wrong person (and doing it wrong).
Kevin Brown was one of the best PTs on the west coast and I'm incredibly fortunate to have worked with him. He was a huge loss to the community, and to his friends and family. But he wasn't the sort of 'holy man' that is implied in this piece. Unlike everyone else who the author worked with throughout his efforts, Kevin was just a highly skilled, highly trained, athletic performance professional. These people exist throughout the athletic world - including working as trainers.
So make the effort.
1 - Educate yourself on performance and athletic training principles.
2 - Fine a serious professional and work with them.
If you're not up for the above - then accept that you're not going to get the "magical" results you dream of. That's life.
Oh... and a fundamental flaw throughout this piece is the idea that there is some sort of "shortcut" to high performing physical fitness and athletic performance. Other than using PEDs there is no shortcut. And even PEDs are only effective if you ALSO take no shortcuts in your training.
You are a former professional athlete so I assume you would know better than me, an amateur with only a few months in the gym. However
> A simple rule of thumb.... if you're not talking about periodization, you're working with the wrong person (and doing it wrong).
From everything I have understood so far, a novice is better served with a linear progression program for as long as they can steadily increase the weights. Why would they think of periodization? I thought before you moved to periodic programs you needed to have built a strength base of 1x bench press, 1.5x squat and 2x deadlift. Is my understanding incorrect? Or are you targeting experienced lifters with your advice?
I'm not sure anyone knows the answer to that question. My best first approximation is to just jump into an open-source project and try to fix bugs. It gets you to both read code by those who are (presumably) more experienced, while also working your problem-solving skills.
Classical CS education is also important; I went to a school with a fairly math-heavy CS program so that's how I learned it. Our algorithms text was pretty good, but it's on my shelf at home, so I can't recommend it by name.
It is said that Milo of Croton lifted a calf every day, growing stronger as it grew heavier. Perhaps it isn't very insightful, but I learned to program by trying to accomplish increasingly ambitious tasks. You'll succeed at some and fail at others. The failures are the price of your education, so it helps to choose tasks for which the price of failure is low. It also helps to choose tasks for which the reward of success is high, and to revisit your failures when you're ready to succeed. I always thought Steve Jobs' best talent was picking the right tasks to fail at, and learning to not fail at them the next time.
While some are able to extract valuable benefit from gyms the vast majority are wasting time and money. In addition to that, most of these articles are very thin on reproducible facts and true research-based data.
This is, by far, the most interesting and useful resource I have found when it comes to fitness:
The author covers cellular biology and debunks ideas such as "cardio workouts", treadmill bunnies, jogging and walking around your neighborhood to loose weight with plain-old science. Here you'll learn about the cellular metabolic process, Krebs cycle, Insulin resistance, fatty acid synthesis, glycolitic cycle, Cori cycle, Bohr effect, glycogenolysis, amplification cascade and whole host of other topics that are important, relevant and reasonably well understood.
What's more important is that everything that is proposed in this book is backed by science and scientific studies. It's like open-source software. If you care to dive deeper into why something works the way it does the scientific references are provided. The book has over 25 pages of listed references (about 10% of the book is reference data).
Anyhow, one of the claims of the book is "12 minutes a week" every seven to ten days. In other words, that's the actual time under load you need every seven to ten days to affect significant changes in your body. This does not include time walking around, watching TV or resting. Time under load.
I have to say that it works pretty much exactly as advertised. After reading the book I tried it and had a friend try it. We'd spend about fifteen minutes under load at the gym once a week. For me it changed to fifteen minutes every 9 to 12 days (you track your data in order to determine frequency). I got stronger with every passing week. Something that I was not able to do without a ton more effort in the past.
If you are interested in learning about this, start with Dr McGuff's (the author) videos:
I wish there would be more studies done to support McGuff's theories. I find his ideas (including the ultra-high resistance machines) fascinating, and do hope they turn out to be correct, but I'm also really skeptical of anything that's not been proven by time.
I like how every general fitness article refrences "brad pitt in fightclub"...brad pitt in fight club was a little under 160 lbs so beyond aesthetics,I doubta 156 lb male had any real functional strength.
I live in SE Asia and one of my workers here is about Bruce Lee sized but he can lift more, and for longer, than anybody I know. No wonder as he has been doing hard manual labor since he was a child. You think youre going to be stronger if you go to the gym 3 times a week?
Well those 160lb Olympic weightlifters sure manage to fling around a lot of weight for people with no real functional strength. World record lifters in that class can get around 400-430lbs overhead in the C+J.
You can't be "sold" fitness. It doesn't come in a barbell or a bosu ball or on the track or in the pool. It's not in your food and it's not in the mind of a trainer. It's definitely not a recipe, WOD, set, game, trail, or pitch.
Want to get fit? Get off your goddamn ass three times a week, eat healthy, proportional meals, and get your doctor to evaluate you. That's it. I have nothing else to say because that is fitness.
That being said, this whole article is fucking ridiculous as it purports to tell you that lifting a ton makes you "fit". For me personally, I know i'm "fit" when I can do real-world exercise without getting exhausted. Running a mile in 7 minutes, hiking a medium-to-hard trail, pulling myself up over a ledge/fence, climbing a tree, or sparring for three minutes without falling over. Those are my fitness tests.
Those are my fitness tests, though, not yours. Make fitness personal and work towards your own goals - not something Men's Journal tells you is right for you.
"[lifting] longer, but it prepares you for the task of loading the hay, and it has the much more important benefit of preparing you for any other work-related task you might encounter, not just the hay."
How many of us work lifting hay here? Or indeed any other physical labour?
"A resting heart rate of 48 BPM is very cool, but it's not nearly as useful as a 405-pound deadlift."
Useful? To WHOM? I run and cycle hills when I'm training because I'm training for running and cycling hills. I don't give two hoots about lifting 405 pounds. (and yes I've been down to 50bpm, but that's not a training goal. Having fun is the goal)
He talks about this being about generic training versus specific training, but all his 'generic' examples are specifically about lifting heavy objects.
I would just add that machines aren't the devil; Depending on where you live the douchebag level may be intolerable in the free weights area which can be a huge demotivator, machines can help blunt that a little. And no matter what any one tells you squats are great but there is a 100% chance of injury with them, it's just a question of when. The leg press machine works just fine and can prevent chronic back and neck problems.
What to Submit
On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.
The fact that it is on top demonstrates that it is doing the trick.
> The fact that it is on top demonstrates that it is doing the trick.
Demonstrate? Really? What about the other possibilities?
- An uncatched click-ring pulled it up.
- The HN crowd has been tricked to upvote something that do not "gratifies one's intellectual curiosity" (would not be the first time).
- This "intellectual curiosity" is misunderstood. I remember a friend's friend who had a big collection of porn. He told us blantly that he did watch them only out of curiosity and interest... Yes. But, you know, I also feel mildly titillated when checking gossips about some topic I am interested in, eg. Mr Facebook wedding pics, and could easily mistake this for "intellectual curiosity gratification", but it is not, or anything is and the filter becomes useless.