Hacker News Reader

Comment by StanislavPetrov | Hacker News Reader

Exercise also causes the release of endorphins in the brain that leads to a condition commonly known as "runners high".

http://www.runnersworld.com/running-tips/how-to-achieve-a-ru...

Actually there is some evidence to suggest that the runners high is due to endocannabinoids rather than endorphin release. Interestingly the endocannabinoid system is also activated when consuming cannabis and experiencing the resulting cannabis/runners high.

http://cen.acs.org/articles/93/web/2015/10/Exploring-Molecul...

Real runner's high means you started damaging your muscles and brain flushes endorphins to your blood stream in order to keep you being able to continue without experiencing debilitating pain in case you are running from a disaster/predator/death in the last attempt before you cease to be able to move. Not something you'd want to achieve repeatedly.

Any exercise can lead to the release of endorphins. Endorphin release doesn't occur only to mask the damage you are doing to yourself in the face of an extreme life threatening situation (which is also accompanied by the release of adrenaline and other hormones).

>The endogenous opioids seem likely to be assigned a significant role in the integrated hormonal and metabolic response to exercise. This article reviews the present evidence on exercise and the endogenous opioids, and examines their involvement in a number of widely disparate physiological processes

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6091217

I heard that "runner's high" only sets in when you train hard and for a long time. To make that clear, you're saying it's actually a sign of you having gone too far?

http://www.sortyourbrainout.com/#!The-Runner%E2%80%99s-High/...

Just from personal experience, it usually hits around mile 3 or 4 at a decent pace (8-9 min/mi). But then, I wouldn't say I'm in the best of conditioning either.

>Not something you'd want to achieve repeatedly.

My memory is telling me that studies of exercise show the longest living are those that do anything from endurance to what the article below calls "mixed" sports. Powerlifting and high intensity training may offer some benefit, but it is not as much as endurance training.

What I found in a quick Google search to attempt to refresh my memory, is in agreement: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/19/live-as-long-as-an-...

This correlates with my personal experience. Lifting is a good idea, but my optimum for it is perhaps once a week, else I fall into overtraining. The rest of the time when I want to exercise mild cardio seems more beneficial.

Maybe that works for you, but you'll never be strong/look strong weight training weekly. If you're "overtraining" from one weight training session per week, there's something very wrong. The average human only takes 48-72 hours to fully recover for most muscle groups in the body.

It's also been proven that HIIT is much more beneficial for your system than LISS.

It might "seem" more beneficial to you, but likely is not more beneficial than the alternatives. However, something is definitely better than nothing, and do what works for you and makes you happy.

>It's also been proven that HIIT is much more beneficial for your system than LISS.

Source? What is your definition of 'better?' The context is in longevity, and my link offers some evidence against your statement, so I think you should provide some source for your claim that HIIT is consistent with living longer than LISS because that's not what I've seen published in the last 10 years.

Long time lurker, finally registered to answer this. What's your definition of "strong"? I've been weight training once a week since March, following Doug McGuff's "Body By Science" method, and I have doubled my weights in 4 of the "big 5" in the last 3 months. While I'm led to believe McGuff's methods will never make anyone look absolutely massive, I disagree with your premise that you have to train more than once a week to be strong or look strong. Incidentally, McGuff mentions in his book that the optimal gap between workouts is 8 days.

No offense meant for something working for you. If it works for you, keep doing it.

I've competed now in three separate strength sports (powerlifting, strongman, olympic lifting). There isn't a single person on any competitive circuit that only lifts weights once every 8 days. You might be getting strong for you. You started in March, so you are on the ultra-beginner slope that means you can basically do any training in existence and make gains. That will steadily slow.

Regarding a definition of "strong", there are many, but the one most people in the strength industry agree on is:

  * 2.5x bodyweight dead lift  
  * 2x bodyweight full squat  
  * 1.5x bodyweight bench  
  * 1x bodyweight standing strict overhead press

So a 180lb person who is "strong" will have a 450lb DL, 360lb squat, 270 lb bench, and 180lb OHP.

No offense to the one person you read, but hundreds of years of strength athletes are on the side of lifting weights multiple times per week.

As usual, people say "no offense" when they are about to offend me :)

I have actually read more than one "person". McGuff actually has some credibility, and cites many scholarly articles in his book. However his method is not aimed at competitive weightlifters, which suits me as I don't have hours to spend at the gym every week, or a desire to get huge. I do expect to be stronger than approximately 99% of my peers by the end of the year though, which in my book is a bit better than "strong for me".

> However his method is not aimed at competitive weightlifters

Yes, but you said a workout every 8 days was optimum. I'm saying that's completely bad information. You don't have to compete to learn from people who compete.

You wouldn't learn an optimal golf swing from someone who only plays mini-golf at an arcade would you? No, you'd look at the true greats in the game.

Here are just a few people to read instead of McGuff, all of who have some actual strength credentials.

  * Wendler  
  * Coan  
  * Rippetoe  
  * Dan John  
  * Pavel  
  * Abadjiev  
  * Kilgore

Hey nosequel, can you recommend me succinct reading or ideally a great training program to follow for strength building with calisthenics? In my situation with my lifestyle of travel at the moment, access to gyms can be expensive and infrequent, and I like the athleticism and balance involved in calisthenics anyways.

Good post.

How much do people consider body shape when looking at those numbers?

Body shape is hugely influential. Limb length compared to torso length, back width, arm length compared to leg length all will have huge influences. These were general guidelines kind of thrown around over the years, but it is expected that for each person on of those will be easier than the rest to achieve. Most really good deadlifters are not necessarily good squatters, and vice versa.

You are correct. In fact, you can get really strong training once a week. Fact is, this guy's training methods are basically kind of appoaching an optimization for bulking (building the most muscle mass possible) combined with laziness (only training once a week).

The big criticisms of this kind of training would be:

1.) athleticism (he recommends machines, but free weights and calisthenics--replacing lat pulls with pull ups, muscle ups, etc is much better for athleticism)

2.) strength (he recommends machines, no momentum in movements, long recovery periods... this is basically how bodybuilders train to build the most muscle, but power lifters and athletes will optimize for maximum power, which includes momentum in their movements, and more endurance in their muscles)

3.) cardio/weight loss (you will burn more calories and build better cardio with higher volume, repitions)

4.) Injury (machines, low reps, high weights, all increase risk of injury)

Endurance exercise displays an inverted U curve in terms of longevity.

Strength is highly correlated with reduced all cause mortality. Which direction the relationship goes is debatable, but being strong is pretty sweet in and of itself.

Source?

Anyways I've run marathons in the past, but I mostly do strength training now, actually mostly callisthenics. It's less dedication, gives me more of an adrenaline rush and easier to do than endurance training. I don't deny, though, that most of what I've read says that cardio is better if you just simply want to live as long as possible.

Though I wasn't able to find it offhand, the study with the inverse U curve showed that the moderate training group had lower all cause mortality than the extreme training group (who still had lower all cause mortality than the sedentary population). The meta-analyses I was able to find did not show the inverted U, but it is very possible that too few studies had "extreme" training groups for the far side of the distribution to show up.

If you only watch TV or read while walking at an incline on the treadmill, it's easy to rack up the miles without inconveniencing yourself. I probably hit about 24 miles a week doing this.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AdvancedFitness/comments/1bo5xm/ass...

reddit post with main study, also comments have HN posts about it and good critiques. interesting stuff.

I've seen the cardio U curve study before too but do not have it saved like I did the strength one.

Then I'm not sure I ever got Runner's High. I did get Runner's Crave after one week tied to a bed. I couldn't stay in place and was anxious all the time, fantasizing about climbing the stairs between the hospital floors.

I get this after 3 or 4 days of inactivity. When I'm like that I have to exercise or I can't sleep.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com