I think Mark Ripptoe is the best guy on what and how to do it. His explanation of what to do and the details of how to do it in his book Starting Strength are astonishingly detailed. An engineering process document on how to build strength.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Rippetoe
Rippetoe is great for beginners and for the most part he as a pretty deserved cult following online because he has been the entry point for so many people into going to the gym and lifting in particular.
The drawback of this is that there's this idea that he is the standard. But he's actually very opinionated, has some outdated info, and is very focused on powerlifting.
That's not to take away from his utility for beginners, but once you are out of the beginner stage his programming recommendations are not as effective or sport specific enough for a lot of people.
If someone is going to the gym to improve at a sport, which is recommended for practically all sports, then something like Dan John's "Easy Strength" where lifting is the means to improving at the sport and not simply the end goal is probably a better direction.
True, but I would say - if you're serious about it - once you've graduated from Starting Strength programming you are already very strong, which is the goal.
The books "The Barbell Prescription" and "Practical Programming for Strength Training" contain a lot of info on how to branch out from the novice program. The latter contains a small section on lifting for sports, while on his podcast Rippetoe emphasizes that you do general strength development for any sport and spend the rest of the time practising that sport.
I was at a Starting Strength seminar recently and the coach explicitly said that the beginner's program is not the end-all, so I'm not sure where that criticism is coming from?
> The drawback of this is that there's this idea that he is the standard. But he's actually very opinionated, has some outdated info, and is very focused on powerlifting.
Came here to say the same thing. And afaict even his powerlifting advice is bizarre and dated.
After helping out some beginners get into lifting I'd say his program is at best a poor use of time and at worst, dangerous and encourages injury.
Probably any program that does not depend on doing RPE 10 efforts. There's this cringe video segment of his where he confidently states that the grindy last few reps are the ones that matter, which has no scientific basis.
But as a novice, you can progress linearly for some time and it's viable, as long as you know when to tap out. And then you might as well start with something more long term altogether.
My observation is most lifters can't assess RPE/RIR if they don't start with an intensity driven program that forces failure as part of progression. Much better to learn how the feeling of grinding early on with baby weights with low injury chance.
I would argue that a copy of Starting Strength and a gym membership, or a few hundred bucks in barbell weights at home, is one of the most 'bang-for-your-buck' improvements you can immediately enact.
My favorite introduction to this is the book "The Barbell Prescription", together with "Basic Barbell Training, 3rd Edition". They got me out of just getting sweaty and tired in the gym to actually training and increasing my strength.
I could never personally validate the 1g protein per lean muscle pound requirement. I've worked out six months without worrying about protein as well as six months on a heavy protein overload with multiple shakes per day. And I don't eat meat, so when I'm not deliberately increasing my protein intake, it's probably extremely low by these standards. Regardless, I couldn't make out a significant difference.
That's fantastic to hear, because no amount of fiber seems to combat the gastrointestinal distress caused by ingesting over 100g of whey protein a day.
I really don't get how anyone actually keeps up with such a regimen for any serious length of time. Perhaps they just play T-Rex at a chicken farm every morning.
1g/lb is also higher than really needed. IIRC the current evidence supports 1.4-1.7g/kg is enough for most people, and eating more will just displace other useful things from your diet. Since the number should be based on lean body mass, the heuristics are less applicable to individuals with obesity or competitive physique athletes. I think the average american already consumes >1g/kg of protein, so most people won't need much more to max out muscle protein synthesis from diet.
I think there was an informed (with links to sources) comment in HN some days ago that stated that anything above 0.8g/kg drastically reduces lifespan. I wish I could find it
These studies are never in populations engaging in resistance training, the benefits of resistance training far outweigh any risks from protein consumption, which probably disappear once you increase strength and endurance training along with the proportion of whole foods that are plant based in the diet.
It would sure be nice if that paper explained what it meant by "high protein/high meat" without needing to delve into its 10 references. Ideally in the abstract.
There are many different rules of thumb on this floating around. 1g per lb of body weight is indeed something a number of well informed people recommend, but those people generally acknowledge that it’s something like an upper bound on the amount that is useful.
Sugar's big issue is that it's empty calories that doesn't go toward building muscle, and consumed prior to a work out, is going to make the workout itself harder without any real benefit.
Arguably sugar is more of an issue for those trying to lose weight than for those trying to gain muscle, as it will induce a glycemic roller coaster effect that will ramp up food cravings, which, when fed with processed carbs, becomes self-perpetuating. And that's not even touching on how it interacts with Candida.
Throw all that on top of the calories you NEED from other nutrients and you're running a serious surplus.
Can you share a source for your summary? It's not in the link you provided and I don't see anything searching Peter's site directly on point (though may be contained in podcast episodes or something).
> Mitochondrial dynamics, including continuous biogenesis, fusion, fission, and autophagy, are crucial to maintain mitochondrial integrity, distribution, size, and function, and play an important role in cardiovascular homeostasis. Cardiovascular health improves with aerobic exercise, a well-recognized non-pharmaceutical intervention for both healthy and ill individuals that reduces overall cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality. Increasing evidence shows that aerobic exercise can effectively regulate the coordinated circulation of mitochondrial dynamics, thus inhibiting CVD development. This review aims to illustrate the benefits of aerobic exercise in prevention and treatment of cardiovascular disease by modulating mitochondrial function.
Attia is a fan of "zone 2" training in particular because it trains mitochondria to burn fat, which leads to "metabolic flexibility". https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28467922
> Metabolic flexibility is the ability to respond or adapt to conditional changes in metabolic demand. This broad concept has been propagated to explain insulin resistance and mechanisms governing fuel selection between glucose and fatty acids, highlighting the metabolic inflexibility of obesity and type 2 diabetes. In parallel, contemporary exercise physiology research has helped to identify potential mechanisms underlying altered fuel metabolism in obesity and diabetes.
Weightlifting, if anything, depletes muscle glycogen, a sugar, so you aren't really training your fat-burning.
> Extreme cardiorespiratory fitness (≥2 SDs above the mean for age and sex) was associated with the lowest risk-adjusted all-cause mortality compared with all other performance groups.
Sure your cardio might be "good" now, but see Table 2 for what happens to you over time (with and without training).
> Individuals with higher cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) showed lower risks of all-cause, CVD and cancer mortality; those with higher grip strength (GS) had lower all-cause mortality. All-cause and CVD mortality risk was lowest in adults with both higher CRF and higher. Improving both CRF and muscle strength, as opposed to either of the two alone, may be the most effective behavioral strategy to reduce all-cause and cardiovascular mortality risk.
Your doc, like most docs, is probably woefully undereducated on the subject. Or at the very least he's so used to the average patient that anything above average is just a relief.
Episodes 236-238 of the Barbell Medicine podcast goes more in depth about the health benefits of endurance training and what a good target is for health benefits.
Is your resting heart rate under 70bpm? Can you run 2 miles in 18 minutes? If not, you could use some cardio. If only so you can breathe when you get COVID.
The average is a huge range of 60-100. 70 is usually on the lower end and implies some cardiovascular fitness. It usually won't be that low from sitting on a couch. Running 2 miles at 9 minutes / mile isn't some accomplishment either, but it does imply some sort of training for an adult. I wanted to list a real standard for health, not athletic performance.
If you want athletic performance, there are the Iron Man / RASP standards and a heart rate between 40-60. Do note that while under 60 is highly trained, 40 is more on the elite athlete side of things.
you seem way more informed than me, but if that's the case, I'm confused by your suggestion: if 70 already implies cardiovascular fitness, why do you recommend cardio, given the person already should have some cardiovascular fitness?
I don't think I misunderstood you, I was suggesting that if 70bpm is already "cardio fitness", shouldn't that be sufficient for most individuals to prevent the majority of health issues?
Ah, got it. Yes, I agree that it's sufficient to be healthy, that's why it's the only number I initially brought up. I hate when people conflate exceptional fitness with health for people who don't want to specialize on fitness.
Its a 3.5h video, but roughly sugar is as toxic as alcohol and the food industry is adding it to most products. In short if it has a label (like most processed foods with many ingredients) you should avoid, switch to the ones that don't have (like an apple).
This book is also great "The hacking of the American mind"
`While researching the toxic and addictive properties of sugar for his New York Times bestseller Fat Chance, Robert Lustig made an alarming discovery—our pursuit of happiness is being subverted by a culture of addiction and depression from which we may never recover.
Dopamine is the “reward” neurotransmitter that tells our brains we want more; yet every substance or behavior that releases dopamine in the extreme leads to addiction. Serotonin is the “contentment” neurotransmitter that tells our brains we don’t need any more; yet its deficiency leads to depression. Ideally, both are in optimal supply. Yet dopamine evolved to overwhelm serotonin—because our ancestors were more likely to survive if they were constantly motivated—with the result that constant desire can chemically destroy our ability to feel happiness, while sending us down the slippery slope to addiction. In the last forty years, government legislation and subsidies have promoted ever-available temptation (sugar, drugs, social media, porn) combined with constant stress (work, home, money, Internet), with the end result of an unprecedented epidemic of addiction, anxiety, depression, and chronic disease. And with the advent of neuromarketing, corporate America has successfully imprisoned us in an endless loop of desire and consumption from which there is no obvious escape.
With his customary wit and incisiveness, Lustig not only reveals the science that drives these states of mind, he points his finger directly at the corporations that helped create this mess, and the government actors who facilitated it, and he offers solutions we can all use in the pursuit of happiness, even in the face of overwhelming opposition. Always fearless and provocative, Lustig marshals a call to action, with seminal implications for our health, our well-being, and our culture.`
I haven't watched the talk here, but anything about medicine from Huberman should be considered with extreme skepticism, given his often reductionist/mechanistic or outright unsupported claims.
> By the way he goes on talking about diet soft drinks, and explain that they are also bad, you produce insulin anyway.
This is where I'd start to tune out on other stuff this person is saying. I looked into this a while back when my son sent me those studies/links (we've been in a constant bar-argument debate over if real Coca-Cola is better or worse for you than Diet Coke) and I recall that it was highly specific to individuals. Some displayed a slight insulin response, while others did not.
I hit my weight loss extremely aggressively in the past year, and as part of that wore a CGM. I drink far too more diet coke than I reasonably should, and I've never been able to correlate any blood sugar events (high or low) to my diet coke or coke zero consumption. You'd think there would at least be a small amount of data in the graphs to tease out given it's a daily thing for me.
Of course abstaining from both is the right answer - but there has been no clear repeatable data I've seen yet that shows detrimental health from the artificial sweeteners commonly used. A lot of the first studies that got traction were either extremely flawed, non-repeatable, or using dosing that never made sense to test with.
I actually put my feet under the couch and do sit-ups.
If you are a big guy like me and can't do push ups, then you can do Knee push-ups or alternatively you can also stand between two walls at angle and push yourself away from the other wall. For heavier guys like me This is the equivalent of pushing about 20Kg.
In general the higher the incline the less of your body weight you lift.
If you don't have any dumbbells at home you can also fill up multiple water bottles and put them in a rather strong bag(like the eco friendly ones you buy at the store). After all 1L of water is about 1Kg.
Don't forget, you must not rush the exercise. Slow make sure you keep a good form.
Also if this is your first day exercising. Don't do more than 5-10 minutes. You can increase the time you exercise the next time.
> I also do a bit of aerobic exercices (cardio). But excessive cardio is counterproductive, leading to loss of muscle mass and potential joint issues.
It's fine to do a lot of aerobic training. You almost certainly build up muscle instead of burning it; aerobic training by definition is about burning fat (not that you'll lose weight). Joint issues can be avoided by sticking to a plan that slowly increases load (e.g. < 10% distance increase per week for running) and keeping track of your heart rate (e.g. < 75% of max).
Yeah, the article went off the rails there. It’s okay to prefer weight training, but cardio is great for health too. (Including building and keeping muscle mass.)
But it's not ideal. You make it harder for yourself if you want to focus on muscle mass. It's harder to be in a calorie surplus, the energy you consume gets used to restore what you lost with the cardio and you simply have less time for recovery if you want to keep the same training volume in your weight training.
Some base level of cardio only makes it harder to gain muscle mass if you are really short on time. I don't think it'll hinder the average person to maintain a surplus – first, you don't burn that many calories exercising as you might think, especially once you're adapted to it, and second, our food environment makes it relatively easy to increase calories if needed.
I'd also challenge the idea that cardio interferes with your recovery for weight training purposes.
I thought Attia recommends increasing your VO2max which is a function with weight as the denominator, so losing as much weight as possible while still being strong would be preferred to gaining muscle mass and being heavy.
Stronglifts 5x5 is simply a terrible program to start. Pick a frequency you can adhere to over the long course of time, be it 2x - 6x a week, and stick to the basics. Don't try to lift ultra heavy on day 1 and btw, you don't need to lift heavy to build muscle.
If you are looking to start, huge shoutout to Dr. Mike from Renaissance Periodisation and Dr. Milo from Wolf Coaching. Both of their YouTube channels are excellent and set you up for the long-term.
I had trouble with 5x5 when starting out. It was billed as simple and foolproof, but my form was lacking. I am hyper-mobile, so this means I really have to train proprioception, and probably not make the most gains in the shortest amount of time.
This is something I didn't know I didn't know, and I had to learn the hard way. It doesn't mean 5x5 is bad, it just didn't fit for me when starting out initially. Lifting forums have a tendency towards the idea that, "you aren't special, just do these things" because they have a lot of people descend upon them with too many questions.
But sometimes things aren't working, and you need to adjust.
You need to fix your form regardless of program. 5x5 is fine, along with many other programs. If you want to gain size, it's more about eating than anything else. If you're new, you can do almost anything consistently and you'll get gains.
The reason 5x5 is recommended so often is almost everyone will benefit from more strength. After a full cycle of 5x5, any other programs you do will benefit from the strength base you built. 5x5 of the big lifts also limits people wasting time on things like curls.
Mate, 5x5 isn't even what you would do to make the most gains possible. The amount of pump / soreness / disruption / metabolite sequestration you get with your 5RM is... very very low. It will certainly make you stronger but it won't grow you a lot of muscle.
> But sometimes things aren't working, and you need to adjust.
Absolutely. Dogmatic approaches to training doesn't work very well. Listening to your body and adapting does.
I switched from powerlifting style training to hypertrophy training in the last year, and I have found nothing but more enjoyment out of my training. It isn't to say powerlifting style training is bad, just that my ankle mobility is shit so I can't squat below parallel easily, at least not without an ultra wide stance.
As for hypertrophy programs, I make my own by following Dr. Mike, Dr. Milo and Jeff Nippard on YouTube. Here's the one I am currently going through: https://1drv.ms/x/s!AiiXzauoGwzRgx2Jzb45uzbzdWC8
What is functional strength? I remember a story where a guy was deadlifting and a kid came up and asked, "what muscle does that work?". The lifter asks the kid if he watches football, and the kid says 'yeah'. The lifter then goes, when you watch a line backer run across the field and hit a runner - that's the muscle the DL works.
I'm not a fan of SL, but from what I recall, it's not true that you are starting ultra heavy on day one. If I remember correctly, you're actually starting with the bar (except for deadlifts).
The bigger problem, IMO, with SL is that when you fail, and of course you will, there's nothing to help you break through it.
Sure, but when you are starting out: The olympic bar - 20 kg, maybe your 5RM and if you have never squatted before and hit your 5 RM on your first day of working out, the probability of injury is more than it isn't.
And what you said is also right; from the page:
> 5×5 means you do five sets of five reps with the same weight. Squat 20kg five times, rack the weight, and rest 90 seconds. Then Squat 20kg for five reps again. Repeat until you’ve done five sets of five (5×5). Then move to the next exercise.
There's no way you can keep the weight same across 5 sets unless, according to the example, 20 kg is your 10RM+ weight. That too with 90 seconds rest. Squats and Deadlifts will gas you out completely. It'll take you 90 seconds to just catch up with your breath. And some more for the actual muscle (and synergists) to recover.
But if you don't get all 5x5 then you keep the same weight for the next workout. An adult male should be able to squat 45lbs for at least a set of 5. They might not hit all 25 day 1, but they have to start somewhere.
5x5 starts with an empty bar, not ultra heavy weight, on day 1. Eventually you get to 5-rep max (if that is what you are calling “ultra heavy”) but it takes a while to get there
It always feels like these articles never mention the "real" reasons people work out and stay motivated. It makes you super attractive! It's great to be treated so nicely by everyone (compared to how i was treated when 50 pounds heavier). It's validating to have members of your desired sex lust for you. I wish I was wise enough to be motivated by the idea that i'll be more mobile in 40 years but if i'm being honest I think the actual motivation is the validation from others
Being attractive isn’t just about members of the opposite sex wanting to bone you.
It’s about having a head start in the pecking order game for any room you walk into, work or social or otherwise. It’s about people moving out of your way on the sidewalk instead of the other way around. It’s about people showing respect and going the extra mile at the airline counter or the retail store.
There are a lot of subtle benefits that people probably don’t want to readily acknowledge
"If you were always moving out of the way when you were smaller, because you had to, is it so noble?"
There are other ways to be precieved as dangerous. Appearing to be dangerous is the real choice. Having the image of being bigger/stronger can actually have negative effects as well when considering things like what level of force is considered justified against you, other people seeking to prove dominace just due to your threatening appearance, etc.
"Becoming attractive unlocks doors in the world that were previously locked."
Not really. Sure it would help in certain things like mate selection, being an OF model, etc. Maybe you get slightly more courteous treatment. But it's not really opening doors that couldn't be opened in other ways. Not to mention that being attractive does not require big muscles. There are other ways to achieve that.
Agreed on the first point and good context. Tempted to lump it in with “great responsibility.” Doesn’t just apply to physical size, if you are a CCW it’s important to take extra care to avoid situations you don’t want to be in like someone else (cop or otherwise) thinking you’re a threat when you’re not
On the second point, may I ask do you have big muscles?
I have some muscles, but not that big. Overall I'm physically attractive.
Muscles and attractiveness might have made my situation slight better in some ways (like dating), but it hasn't made up for social inadequacy. There are many people who are less attractive who have gone further in their careers etc with better social skills and such. So there are multiple angles to get ahead. Being physically attractive doesn't hurt, but I think being attractive in other ways is more important.
Such a naive take. I suspect you haven't spent much time in bad neighborhoods where there's a high chance that the "weak" looking person approaching on the sidewalk is strapped. You don't show some mutual respect and you're likely to get shot.
I live in Chicago man. Im always on the border of a bad neighborhood, I play pickup in the park anywhere, and I regularly volunteer on the statistically worst block of the entire city. I have spent time as an inmate in Cook County Jail(1). Come visit some time I’ll show you around
If that's the case then you should know being fit isn't going to mean much if you run into an actual BMFer.
I grew up in Atlanta and I lived in Chicago for awhile. From my personal experience, and the stats back me up, Atlanta is worse for violent crimes. The worst thing that happened in Chicago was someone broke into my car when I wasn't home. In Atlanta I was stabbed when I wouldn't hand over my wallet.
Through sheer luck during my youth I didn't end up dead or in prison.
And I get that what I said can be interpreted that way but it’s far from the truth. If anything it’s easier for the weak to be noble because there are fewer decisions they are given to make.
At the other end of the spectrum it’s nearly impossible to be consistently noble if you are say, the leader of the free world, with great power comes great responsibility etc.
But in the Catholic Church for example there are just as many saints who had small influence, often not even extending beyond themselves to another person, as there are saints with massive, global influence
Not in my experience. The people who are assholes are usually not confident in who they are. They feel they always have to prove something. People who are confident in themselves if something goes down are typically the nicest people.
I'm about to hit 40, and I'm definitely more motivated by being healthier in 20 years, than I am by random strangers lusting for me. (I mean, it's nice to have my spouse lust after me, but turns out she does that with my current body.)
Truly grokking the extent of the halo effect was a bit of a I-want-to-puke moment. I suppose I expected that attraction could be an intrinsic thing. I don't think it undoes that, FWIW, but things like the halo effect certainly throw fuel on the fire.
My motivation to do at least a little bit of exercise every day to build up a routine stems directly from my back aching when I pick up my kid. I don't want it to ache! I want to play with my kid :P
That may be a reason to start, but most people that I know that consistently work out learn to enjoy it. For me, it helps me release emotions and feel more focused in the day.
Being fit definitely has its social benefits in romance, but it isn't the reason I go when it's far below freezing out at 730 in the morning.
Research also backs this. That the people who keep going find ways to enjoy it and not for the long term hope of losing weight or looking fit.
I really wish depressed people were more in tune with just how profound resistance training is for your mental and emotional health. Instead it seems easy to dismiss weight lifting as some sort of bro-club occupied by oppressive toxic individuals (at least that was my passive opinion of it for years).
I wouldn't quite say I went so far to think it was a toxic bro-club, but I certainly did not give resistance training the consideration I should have until this past year.
If I could make a single change in my life 20 years ago, it would be getting into a gym habit. I tried back then, but had both horrible trainers (the "puke and rally" bro type) and friends who didn't have a clue about what they were doing. It all seemed pointless to me unless immense effort was put in. I also worked landscape and came from a blue collar family background where working out was seen as a sign of bougieness - who needs to pay to go work out if you work hard all day?
But this year (at age 42) I got a personal trainer at a local gym and started going once a week. She is great, and matches my personality and style to the workouts. I never realized how quickly and easily you can start seeing results - and that feedback loop can be quite addictive.
I can't say I look forward to going into the gym now, but I at least don't dread it. Once I'm there and halfway through my routine I'm quite happy I went, and it really does impact your mood and emotional state probably much more than I even want to admit as I type this. It's hard to realize you went through most of your life ignoring such a major component of success - basically playing life on hard mode for no particular reason.
The gym is also interesting in that you can be having a real shitty unproductive day - but you go in and get your routine done - and you can still feel accomplished. Bad week at work? At least you still got your 3 workouts in and are 2% stronger than last month.
Is it that the people who keep going find ways to enjoy it, or that the people who find ways to enjoy it keep going? Your comment seems to imply a certain causality that I do not find immediately convincing.
Not likely, the definition of addiction requires harm. Resistance training has profound wholistic benefits. It's possible that someone can neglect professional or personal relationships to the point of harm, but I don't think there's any reason to assume that's the case here.
My point is simply that just because you do something compulsively, does not make that thing an addiction. E.g. breathing is compulsive, but it's not an addiction.
See: people working out even when injured, people who exercise to be as thin as possible. People doing steroids and other drugs for performance or appearance. These are edge cases.
They exist, and endorphins are using the addiction biological framework.
Feel free to ignore this if it feels like nit-picking, but I'm particularly sensitive to "addiction" language.
We don't have a biological framework for addiction, we have a framework for building routines and healthy habits. The system is incredibly beneficial and we'd do ourselves a great disservice not utilizing that system to improve our health and lifestyle.
Again, I'm fairly sure we all understand what you're saying, but I find there's a great deal of cumulative power in the language/framing we use day-in and day-out and I believe my characterization isn't just optimistic, but more accurate.
No, we don't - we have a biological framework for creating motivation for certain behaviors. This is a well established concept. Motivated behaviors (or habits) are the framework, addiction is when we misuse that framework. We're not born with some defect that gives us negative evolutionary fitness. That makes no sense at all.
Addiction is feeling compelled to do something against your will. Consciously choosing despite circumstances is probably the furthest thing from addiction, and what the OP is referring to.
You can learn to enjoy pushing yourself in this way. To an outsider it can look like you're hooked on it, or that it is easy to make the choice every time.
I've been lifting weights for so long I don't remember what my original motivation was. Probably look good and/or be better at sports. Now, it's just who I am. I like being strong and confident. I like the mental and emotional health I get from lifting. The only thing better than lifting weights has been BJJ. But, because I lifted weights for years, it was much easier to get into BJJ.
> the mental and emotional health I get from lifting
this should not be discounted -- a lot of studies back up the anti-depressant effects of regular exercise. i find it's the closest i get to a 'moment of zen'.
Definitely. My wife has said a few a times, "you're being an asshole, go workout," and she's right. No matter what's happening, it puts me back in a good state of mind.
I started working out after a break up, so I could pick things up quickly again; I only did it for 6 months thinking about that, enough to get somewhat lean (I wasn’t obese).
To be honest, I’ve been doing it for 6 years (38M) and I only do it for health reasons. Sex, daily activities, I can do whatever just fine and usually with better performance. I don’t go pushing myself to the max, dead lifting Earth; just enough to (if I can) force myself a bit more and to keep me in shape and keep this strength that has helped me so much already. I don’t do no preaching, nor do I want to be in a strength competition, nor do I do it for attracting partners.
Good things come easier when you feel better yourself (confidence) and you can actually back some of those things up.
> It always feels like these articles never mention the "real" reasons people work out and stay motivated. It makes you super attractive!
I think this dismisses a large portion (possibly the majority) of people who exercise. There are major mental health benefits, it provides structure, it’s fun, etc.
If the only reason people work out is for aesthetics then everybody would just be a bodybuilder. But there’s a huge swath of sport and modalities people pursue instead.
> If the only reason people work out is for aesthetics then everybody would just be a bodybuilder.
That makes an assumption that majority of the population thinks that bodybuilder physique is the most attractive one. If you are optimizing for aesthetics, imo the maxed out bodybuilding physique is both very difficult to achieve and isn’t going to optimize for most-liked aesthetic.
Out of bodybuilders i personally know, it is either about the challenge or going for the aesthetics that they themselves like and want (all while being very aware that it isn’t necessarily what most people like, and that’s valid).
That’s just a small nitpick though, fully agreed with the entirety of the rest of your comment.
> If the only reason people work out is for aesthetics then everybody would just be a bodybuilder.
You're assuming that the body builder aesthetic is everyones desired aesthetic, it's not.
Also, working out for your health and working out to be more attractive are not mutually exclusive things. I'd argue they're the same thing, and even if you disagree, it's still reasonable for a large numebr of individuals to cite both health and aesthetics as their motivation/reasoning.
> You're assuming that the body builder aesthetic is everyones desired aesthetic, it's not.
I'm not, it was just an example. I can't edit, but you're right this could be more clear. What I mean is that if aesthetics is the only goal then people would exercise optimizing for aesthetics exclusively.
> Also, working out for your health and working out to be more attractive are not mutually exclusive things. I'd argue they're the same thing, and even if you disagree, it's still reasonable for a large numebr of individuals to cite both health and aesthetics as their motivation/reasoning.
This is a strawman. I didn't say exercise is only for health, nor did I even imply it. I said that health can be a primary motivator. That said, I'd still disagree with your statement.
Someone who is diagnosed with diabetes and changes their lifestyle to be more active and eat better might get the benefit of looking better after some time, but I'm pretty sure their primary motivation is to not die. Remember, OP claimed the real reason people work out "is to look good".
But you're ignoring a lot of people who simply want to see what the human body is capable of, or just have fun, or any other number of motivators. Someone who runs ultra marathons, doing bodybuilding shows, powerlifting, etc. surely is more interested in testing their limits possibly at the expense of their health/aesthetics.
Or sometimes people just want to play basketball because it's just exceptionally fun.
> What I mean is that if aesthetics is the only goal then people would exercise optimizing for aesthetics exclusively.
In that case, apologies for misunderstanding, and agreed fully. I was saying the same.
The only part of your comment I disagreed with was the assertion I took issue with up top, which we've already covered was a miscommunication on our part. The rest of it was supporting what you said.
> I didn't say exercise is only for health, nor did I even imply it.
You aren't the only one in this comment chain, and the topic is the dichotomy between the motivating factors of aesthetics vs health in exercising for fitness, thus why I zeroed in on that, using your prior example and the implication therein to highlight that said dichotomy is not exclusive. we already addressed that as a miscommunication though rather than an actual disagreement.
In other words, I was agreeing. And despite you saying you disagree with me, you immediately go on to substantiate that point with the diabetic having multiple justifications for exercising: There's more than one reason to exercise, and they aren't exclusionary.
Being attractive to members of your desired sex not necessarily mean being a Don Juan.
I am happily married for over 15 years and enjoy not being a couch potato for my wife. And of course, being fit helps a lot with your sex life besides the aesthetics aspect of it.
Not for me. I do strength work because it enables me to keep running/hiking in the mountains and that's good for my mental health. Last year I had to have knee surgery due to a running injury, it's plausible that would have been avoided with stronger upper legs. I also have a kid now so I'm acutely aware of wanting to be healthy in old age so I can have more time with them. As I understand it, preventing loss of muscle mass is an important factor in longevity.
I think that really depends on your relationship status. I'm married and I'm more worried about longevity. Besides, my wife will not like it if I attract other girls.
Having said that, doing weight training or other kinds of exercise is really hard when kids are young and consume 98% of your time. Maybe in a couple of years I can start doing this seriously instead of ad-hoc. Hopefully still in time to combat the decline.
Not the opposite, more like an additional point to what I mentioned. The key thing for people reading this who have never gone from fat to fit is that EVERYONE treats you better when you get fit. Men and women, it's not necessarily about sexual attraction people just appear to treat physical attractive people better in all cases.
Yes. This was the primary motivation for me to lose weight last year. Health is a close second, but it's a much more delayed gratification thing vs. seeing the immediate social benefits just 6mo later.
Going from morbidly obese to the mid-range of the normal weight BMI chart in about 6mo time has been absolutely eye opening for me.
It's less about sex than it is about appeal. I don't care so much about being desirable to the opposite sex these days - but the impact of being considered conventionally attractive in pretty much all social contexts is profound.
There certainly is an impact from self confidence, but it cannot explain the whole difference. Humans simply treat people they find attractive differently than those they do not.
It really isn't man, it's "partially" in your head of course. Being more confident and secure does increase attraction, but sadly the halo effect is real and how attractive you are will massively influence your treatment
"It's validating to have members of your desired sex lust for you."
Thank you, very politically aware of you, however, I am in good shape but do not feel the members of my desired sex lusting for me, please elaborate on how to induce this lust in the desired sex, diameter of biceps, visible abs? What is required of the facial geometry? Thank you, can barely ;) wait to be lusted for.
I don't know why you responded like this. Did something about my comment offend you? I don't get the impression you're asking for advice in good faith so won't answer, sorry if I misunderstood the tone
Most of the research given is about exercise, and including some level of strength training, being an overall health benefit. The research does not necessarily support higher body mass (eg big muscles) being beneficial or even necessary. Higher muscle mass can actually be a detriment to things like joint, heart, and kidney health.
What matters is exercise that includes some strength training. Training for healthy strength (includes stamina, complex movement, etc and not just max weight) should be the focus over building mass. There are even studies showing that measures like grip strength matter most in relation to body mass - meaning strength to mass ratio matters.
Weight lifting trains too few muscles. Do Calisthenics instead. It has the further advantages that you can do it at near every place you like, and it costs next to nothin'.
It’s a good book, I’m currently reading it now. The premise is: if you want your later years to be healthier (as thoroughly defined in the book, but covering physical and emotional wellness), you need to start early with a long term plan
Yes. He seems good. After hearing him on Making Sense, I tried to read the book, but it was way too much for me. Also I don't really care about his personal issues. Kudos.
I exercise to maintain healthspan and keep fit, but I am by no means "fit" by the standards of people who are fit. I've seen what strong looks like (I'm not very big, at the oly gym I used to frequent I saw someone my height and weight bench > 3 plates at a meet), I've seen what performance endurance in a run, cycle, and swim looks like, and I've also seen what the vast majority of people at my office are like.
The author has some great reasons to grow and keep big muscles, but I have some thoughts to add for that "majority of people at the office" crowd.
Thought #1: there is one item that the author mentions that I think is absolutely critical yet buried all the way at the bottom.
> If you’re over 30 (or even in your 20s and able to afford it), hire a personal trainer to start. They can check your form and avoid any kind of injuries. With weights, it is really easy to get a bad form, no matter how many youtube videos you watch. I went to see a Physiotherapist 4 years after I started squats, and this is the best thing I’ve ever done. She retaught me everything I think I knew about squatting.
I cannot over-emphasise how important it is to focus on form so you avoid injuries. When you're older, hurting yourself will knock you off the exercise horse for years. Also, note that if you're in your 30s and have been mostly sedentary your adult life, the squat and deadlift may not even be movements that you have the range of motion to do.
Don't fall into the trap of pushing yourself because the program said so or the internet said so or because you feel inadequate next to the huge gains that people are showing off on the internet. There is absolutely no shame in taking things slower. Remember your goal is not to look good naked on the beach next summer, it is to maintain healthspan into your 70s.
Thought #2: cardio is important, the author's warning about "too much cardio because your joints will give out and you will lose muscle" is really odd and feels like I'm browsing /r/fitness in 2010. If you're very concerned about your joints, do something lower impact, like swim or cycle or row or the elliptical.
But do take your rest days.
Thought #3: stronglifts 5x5 is great if you're in your 20s or your early 30s. If you're older than that, well, you can still do it but please be careful. See thought #1 above.
The lifting crowd hates cardio people. Because they are skinny wimpy girly men in their mainstream values... Yes it is that dumb, it is SNL skit.
It's actually a really good filter. Keep those people at arms length. The ones that don't have that attitude are the ones with positive balance aren't headed for the steroid slope.
Lifting is something that you should do with yoga or Pilates, swimming, some running and biking all in the mix. Because you get benefits from all of them.
The best starting workout for people imo is you lift 3 exercises, one set each to about 10-15 reps, then do 5 minutes of cardio between them. Do that cycle 4 times.
You'll get 20 minutes of cardio and 12 different exercises. Make sure 2-3 of the motions are lower body.
While this article has the right message, there are some things that stand out as odd
> If you’re over 30 (or even in your 20s and able to afford it), hire a personal trainer to start. They can check your form and avoid any kind of injuries. With weights, it is really easy to get a bad form, no matter how many youtube videos you watch. I went to see a Physiotherapist 4 years after I started squats, and this is the best thing I’ve ever done. She retaught me everything I think I knew about squatting.
This seems to suggest that "bad form" (which has no clear definition) would be a reliable source of injury, which it isn't. People like to harp on this because they've had a bad experience, but it's not a scientific fact that you have to move in some particular way to avoid injury. Don't let the absence of a personal trainer stop you from investing in your health.
> But excessive cardio is counterproductive, leading to loss of muscle mass and potential joint issues.
Such an incredible claim would need substantial evidence. As long as we are not talking about extreme exercise volumes, I call bullshit on this one.
---
I see a lot of in humble opinion uninformed comments in this thread. I believe the hackers here might be interested in barbell medicine [1], they have a podcast [2] that has way more info than one might ever want on health and training-related topics. I also feel it's a great innoculator against bullshit, which feels to be the majority of content about fitness these days.
Excellent advice. It's still severely underrated by "most people", just how important strength training is to your general health and well-being. Especially as you get older.
A lot of things have sold me on the value of weight training for size and strength, but watching my parents decline physically has been the biggest. I don't think they understood how close they were to losing the ability to enjoy specific activities.
They thought of weight training as kind of a meathead thing, something you do to belong to a meathead tribe, and they couldn't see why I would do it since 1) they raised me to value intellect over physicality, and 2) there's no way I could ever enjoy the benefits of being perceived as a meathead, since our genetics didn't allow for it.
My efforts to get them to see it as a practical means for improving their lives went nowhere, until my mom realized she was having trouble stepping up onto curbs. Now she works with a trainer once a week, and she's thinking doing it twice a week since once isn't killing her. Better late than never.
There's one graph without an axis label and while it'd help give some context, the point is to show peak muscle and how it declines over time. The same point is shown in more detail on a graph with axis labels a little more down. This article is largely a very brief summarization of a topic from Peter Attia's book Outlive which is worth checking out.
The main theme of the blog post is taken from Peter Attia's "Outlive" book which is a compilation of science backed ways to improve health and wellbeing long-term which includes resistance training. Peter is very science driven and worth checking out. No "bro-y" at all.
Any people have guides on how to train with free weights + bench? I don't have space for the rack he mentions and I hate going to the gym. Is there a 5x5 equivalent?
I don't have advice, but I will link to the classic ShovelGlove exercise routine, which is based on using a sledgehammer as a weight-on-a-stick to recreate traditional labour work movements: https://www.shovelglove.com/
Created because of the inventor's dislike of going to the gym, lying on the floor, or doing arbitrary movements disconnected from anything else in life.
Please don't do 5x5 if you are starting out. Training only the big lifts heavy when you are starting out and have little knowledge about form is a highway to injury. And most of your strength work will not translate to hypertrophy.
You can train a lot of muscles if all you have are free weights + bench. Simply search, "Home workouts Dr. Mike" on YouTube.
Stronglifts 5x5 starts you on an empty bar. There are tons of form videos online, and anyone can videotape themselves to see how they compare. Seems like injury is easily avoided by anyone with a modicum of interest in doing so.
I bought a Tempo Fit Studio about 6 months ago, and put it in my living room: https://tempo.fit/shop
It’s mostly dumbbell focused, so needs much less space than a barbell. That specific model brings its own screen, but you can get a smaller unit that just holds weights and uses your iPhone depth camera.
I follow their programs plus I select workouts that follow upper/lower/rest pattern. Maybe it’s less optimal than 5x5 but I’m getting great results regardless - so far down 4” at my waist and feeling a lot better; as the OP mentioned my back pain is gone.
The above advice is good, since the most important thing is getting all major muscle groups regularly.
But you might also look into calisthenics, which is enjoying a surge in popularity, it seems. Lots of good stuff out there on bodyweight training with a variety of adapted equipment.
You may find something by searching YouTube. I've found that there's a wide variety to the amount of equipment needed and at worse, just pick things out of different videos based on the equipment you have
I'm perhaps idealistic by saying that at least some of this time, these things can coexist. It's ok to make money doing a thing. I'm reminded of this video that makes an excellent point:
Part of the problem is that most of this works. If you pick up heavy things, you will get stronger. If you're trying to differentiate yourself you'll focus on specific techniques or sports, but really, the basics are not hard: do something that's difficult and your body will adapt to improve its ability to do that thing.
However, some specifics that I've found useful:
Barbell Medicine - focuses on strength training, not just barbells.
The Bioneer - a little lifestyle heavy, but the basic advice is sound.
Alan Thrall- also barbell focused, but lots of good advice to be gleaned there, including on bodyweight.
Ross Enamait - boxing focus, but bodyweight stuff. His book "Never Gymless" is good.
Underground Strength Gym - an oldie, but a goodie.
I think its a bit of a stretch to lump exercise simply into medical/health advice. I wouldn't tell you to go on YouTube to diagnose an illness you may have. But OP asked for guides on at home workouts and I think that YouTube is more than sufficient and safe for learning about what different exercises may be available.
I have been doing fairly advanced body-weight only stuff for the last couple of years. I really, really want to a) work out from home and b) not buy any big equipment, particularly barbells, but I have gotten around to believe(?) that I might benefit from adding weights to my training.
Realistically, am I kidding myself that I will be fine without barbells? I would be fine with adding dumbbells and kettlebells at any weight. Does this work? My goals pretty much align with the idea around this article: I want to stay healthy, long. I do not want to injure myself. Looks are of no concern to me.
I understand that workouts are a topic with strong opinions. If you are into barbells you probably also do it because you believe it's necessary. Given a level response on this might not be simple but it would be much appreciated
It might work to keep you lean and healthy overall, but if the studies are to be trusted, barbell adds that extra (real) weight training you may need.
I don’t plan on doing it myself, because like you, I pretty much just keep my dumbbells and kettlebells, bands for travel or certain exercises, and some cardio mixed into 2 days of training.
I will probably won’t live as long as the study, but if that is not healthy enough to feel like I’m feeling now, I have better things to do that go to a gym for barbell and other heavier exercise machinery.
Why would (unsupported) single leg squats, or one arm push-ups or pull-ups (maybe with an additional weight vest or some weight) not work? I feel the math could be made to look equivalent and, just observationally, I don't think a lot of people are ablke to do single anything so there should be plenty room to grow? As far as I am able to tell without having done any, barbells are "simpler" because you can scale them fairly smoothly.
You just aren't moving the same amount of weight with those exercises. If I'm squatting 300 pounds, while most of the time the weight is distributed, there will be moments where one of my legs is balancing close to 300 pounds. There will be no moment anywhere close to that with a single leg pistol or skater squat. Those are great exercises, but you'll get a different outcome IMO.
One thing I've found in fitness is that people need to do what will keep them active and for many, that requires specific guidance or goals. General prescriptions like "use your muscles by being active" is fine, but what does active mean? Some people like bodybuilding, or powerlifting, or powerbuilding, or crossfit, or hiking, or basketball or whatever and if those things get them active, then that's good.
The current physical activity guidelines call for 150 minutes of moderate intensity cardiovascular training per week and at resistance training on at least 2 days per week. There's lots of ways to get there, and maybe strength training is the way to do it for some people. Even if that's not the focus, however, people should set aside some time to focus on resistance training because it provides a number of long term benefits.
Ugh. Please… You know, my grandfather was thin as a stick and lived to 99 and was as sharp as a tack.
Muscles need energy.
When you use energy you produce waste. The waste in the muscles case is reactive oxygen species,. If you can’t clear that waste, you will become sick and fatigued and have disease.
If you increase muscle mass without making sure you’re getting rid of these reactive, oxygen species Muscle mass won’t do a thing for your longevity.
If you want to live longer, balance your oxidative stress.
I'm not entirely sure what "reactive, oxygen species" is, but I think you're talking about free radicals, which your body is quite capable of dealing with.
If you can't deal with "reactive, oxygen species" from muscles, you can't live. Your heart is a muscle.
Our bodies are quite capable of dealing with when we have the right nutrition and we don’t create too much oxidative stress. I can’t believe how little understanding there is of the impact of distress.
Just being deficient in manganese, zinc and copper could increase superoxides to a point that starts creating DNA damage.
And it’s funny that you don’t think reactive oxygen species damage heart muscles. If there’s too much of them that is. If there’s an imbalance that is.
If you’re not exactly sure what reactive oxygen species are, then, why don’t you look them up before you make comments of what you know nothing about. If you’re making fun, about a stupid comma that Siri placed in my sentence then well, that’s just childish. And you’re not serious at all.
Strength training isn't the same as chronic distress though. Activity that uses muscles above current baseline leads to inflammation, which leads to hypertrophy and growth, which results in downregulation of inflammatory markers in the long term. The body upregulates anti-oxidant species in response to normal increases in oxidative stress. Yes, acute/extreme spikes in ROS generation is bad, but that's not what actually occurs in regular exercise.
Tomes of papers support the connection between physical activity, reduced inflammation markers, and decreased all-cause mortality.
Maybe you should actually take some courses in molecular biology, instead of googling some very basic high-level articles and over-generalizing to support your misguided point.
> What the hell is muscle use above a curent baseline? What does that even mean?
Meaning, a conservative increase over your current training regimen, as opposed to over-training. If you go from couch potato to running several miles a day, that's going to be way more stressful than gradual ramp-up. I made that caveat because intense over-training can cause really bad things such as rhabdomyolysis at the extreme.
>I’m pretty sure you’ve never taken a science class in your life.
I'm pretty sure I have a BS in chemistry and worked as a synthetic chemist for years, and you are talking out your ass.
Please remind the others in this thread of the same. Thank you. I apologize for my own behavior. It seems that this was only singled out to me for some reason.
Further, whole-body resistance exercise increased oxidative damage. For example, resistance exercise at a 10-repetition maximum load increases the MDA level in the blood [19]. Furthermore, local resistance exercise, which is a single type of resistance training in a specific muscle group, can increase oxidative damage.
> Although initial investigations reported the negative effect of ROS, recent studies have shown that exercise-induced ROS can upregulate several enzymatic and nonenzymatic antioxidants in the biological system [7, 8], and exercise could be an optimizer of ROS in negating oxidative damage in the cells, while ROS can regulate signaling or act as a signaling molecule to muscular adaption.
Did you even read your own link, or are you just googling keywords and linking papers with a title that superficially supports your thesis?
Yes I did, thank you for continuing the conversation.
Those enzymes that it unregulated, those genes that they upregulate… do you know what they are? Let’s talk about one…mnSOD or SOD2.
Do you know that enzyme needs a co-factor and that co-factor is manganese. What do you think happens when you keep exercising, but do not replenish your manganese? mnSOD does not work as fast and this leads to a buildup of superoxides and disease.
Up regulating these enzymes because we’re exercising is not decreasing oxidative stress, it’s getting rid of the oxidative stress that we created. And all that results is that we deplete ourselves in manganese.
Does this happen for everyone? No does this happen for people who might have polymorphisms in there SOD2 genetics? Probably.
Ok, so make sure you get enough dietary manganese?
RDA for Mn is 1.8-2.3 mg/day. Tolerable upper limit is 11mg/day. Mn ions are highly conserved in the body and mostly cycle through redox states and various complexes.
That's actually a pretty narrow therapeutic window, again because it's a trace mineral and biology has evolved to recycle it very efficiently.
Yeah, that’s what I thought until I had my hair and serum levels of manganese tested. Which were both low. And taking manganese cured not only my chronic fatigue, but my insomnia and anxiety as well.
Also, there’s a study at Stamford going on right now, looking at manganese levels and illness and they’re finding that these ranges are old and arbitrary.
And that tolerable upper limit is a joke since I had to take 30 mg a day.
Just do a little research and find out where they got those limits and ranges from.
But, regardless, it proves my point, that exercise depletes manganese and that could cause disease in people who don’t have sufficient manganese. So just telling everyone to work out and you’ll live longer is a false statement.
There are no reliable and validated biomarkers of manganese intake or status and data on manganese intakes versus health outcomes are not available for DRVs for manganese. As there is insufficient evidence available to derive an average requirement or a population reference intake, an Adequate Intake (AI) is proposed.
Reactive oxygen species (ROS) is loosely synonymous with "free radicals", which is more of an older term. ROS include free radical oxygen, but also other energetic non-radical species such as singlet oxygen and peroxide ions.
But yeah, your broad point is correct. Biology has several billions of years of evolutionary experience dealing with ROS and upregulates antioxidant biomolecules in response, it's way more complex than "ROS bad".
I didn’t say reactive oxygen species were bad, I said that oxidative stress is bad. And reactive Oxygen species is not an old term but nice try it in an attempt to make me look stupid.
Here are all the papers that use the terms since 2023
Further, whole-body resistance exercise increased oxidative damage. For example, resistance exercise at a 10-repetition maximum load increases the MDA level in the blood [19]. Furthermore, local resistance exercise, which is a single type of resistance training in a specific muscle group, can increase oxidative damage.
Listen, the Bros don’t even talk about oxidative stress. What do you think it is that oxidants cholesterol to cause coronary artery disease? What do you think triggers the DNA changes to cause cancer?
You do understand that biology is complex and multifaceted, and aging/healing is more complex than "oxidative stress bad", right? The body does double/triple/n-tuple with almost every biomolecule. "Inflammation" (which isn't a single process) is widely vilified but it's absolutely necessary to grow and heal.
Of course, it’s complicated, but it’s simple as well. It’s just about Balance. Too much inflammation is bad. Too little is bad. we need just to balance them out, and it’s the same with oxidative stress. Reactive oxygen species kill pathogens but they can also kill us. We balanced them using enzymes, and these enzymes need enzymes and cofactors.
So then why are you being so contrarian? The overwhelming evidence supports the theory that a combination of strength and cardio training leads to better healthspans. And before you "correlation is not causation" yeah no duh, but the evidence is absolutely conclusive by now that exercise is better than not.
> overwhelming evidence supports the theory that a combination of strength and cardio training leads to better healthspans.
Better for who? That’s my point. Obviously my grandfather didn’t need it right?
But I’m against these simplistic explanations for something much more beautiful happening underneath all this bro science advice.
There is no evidence that strength and cardio ALONE leads to longer life and health spans. what I’m arguing is that there is something beneath what you’re all looking at that would help way more people if we understood it completely. And what that is is the balance and mitigation of oxidative stress. It is quite probable that because my grandfather did not work out, he did not create a lot of oxidative stress, and that’s what helped him live longer. What would be more important for humanity is understanding oxidative stress.
There's always 1 person anecdotes. Monohar the body builder and early Mr. Universe winner lived to 104. Continuing to lift to the very end. I'd wager he was the most mobile centenarian ever too.
No, seriously, I had an uncle that smoked 3 cigarettes a day and lived into his 90s. I've started smoking a pack a day and I'll live well past 100, right?
I wish we, as humans, understood odds better. All health advice is about stacking the deck in your favor, but outliers always exist. I'd be more critical, except I'm sure there's some area where I apply a similar ignorance of the basics.
Yeah, everyone is an individual, that’s my point. You can treat us all as a mass, or the midpoint in a bell curve, but we’re not. And the majority of us will be outliers are on any bell curve
> And the majority of us will be outliers are on any bell curve
This cannot be possible, by definition. The majority of us will be within one standard deviation of the midpoint on a bell curve because that's how bell curves work. And that means basic evidence based health and fitness advice applies to the majority of us. Not bullshit like "oxidative stress".
Bro. I can’t tell if this is a joke or not. Outliers are a thing, there’s a good book on them. Your personal anecdote to your grandfather does not flip the table on all the research that clearly and definitively proves otherwise.
Beyond that, resistance training DOES combat stress. C’mon man. Some counter opinions just aren’t worth voicing.
