What, Me Exercise?: The Hacker Exercise Regime | Hacker News Reader

What, Me Exercise?: The Hacker Exercise Regime

fourmilab.ch

37 pointsaaronsw68 comments

That's too complicated for me. My exercise program is:

Get completely winded at least once a day.

It won't make you Lance Armstrong, and it isn't a weight loss program. However, it'll do subtle things like encourage you to take the stairs- and RUN up them. This kind of attitude gently pushes you towards a healthier overall lifestyle, while keeping your lungs and heart at a basic level of functionality. That's all I'm really looking for.

So, I bike to work, and then when I get there, I take my bike up the stairs, usually two steps at a time. Someone asked me once whether it was hard to run up the stairs with a bike. I responded that if it was, I would keep doing it until it wasn't.

The mentality to test your limits when you have the opportunity has served me well over the years.

I disagree with a lot of this. I used to hate exercise until I was taught two major misconceptions: 1) cardio helps you lose weight, and 2) high rep/low weight = muscle tone, and low weight/high rep = big muscles. These are patently false.

Cardio is NOT for losing weight. In fact in many cases it actually is very difficult to burn fat while doing lots of cardio because it trains your body to burn the fact more efficiently. This is why you'll see people spend so much time at the gym and get no results. The OP is quite correct that without a serious change in diet coupled with the cardio you will NOT lose weight. Which is exactly why you shouldn't do cardio if you want to lose weight, you may get a small drop in the beginning, but ultimately you will return to a baseline. Pushups etc. are great for warmups, but ultimately these will have very diminishing returns as well (the "100 pushup" style of training is laughable).

If you want to burn fat and lose weight you really need to lift weights, and you need to lift heavy weights. The idea that you can "tone" your muscles with small weights is just ludicrously wrong. You wont turn into a mega-hulk, trust me.

If you want to increase your stamina, your lung capacity and your heart health cardio is absolutely what you should be doing. But also understand that this comes at a cost of diminishing your muscle gains (thus slowing down how quickly you burn your fat).

TLDR: the best way to lose weight is to lift heavy weights in low reps (as heavy as forces you below 10 reps) with moderately short breaks between exercises. Cardio will be an uphill battle to lose weight.

And the best part is you actually get to eat MORE if you are seriously lifting.

Edit: if you want to disagree with me and downvote, at least post a response. I'd love to hear why you think I'm wrong.

If you read the article, he explicitly says exercise is best for reasons wholly apart from weight loss (like longevity and health).

Sure, but he sets up a completely false dichotomy right in the beginning by comparing cardio exercises to weight loss results. He also opens the article with:

"Don't kid yourself into thinking that exercise, by itself, will make you lose weight. Consider the following activities, and the number of calories an average person burns per hour in each."

It's very targeted at people aiming to lose weight.

Weight loss is very related to overall health, and in many cases very necessary to be healthier (especially us Americans). He also is EXTREMELY focused on saving time, and then proceeds to propose the LEAST time efficient way to get in shape.

No need to be nasty, I read the article.

Couldn't agree more with this. I have been having tremendous results from doing the Bill Star 5x5 program (bench, squat, dead lift, incline, barbell rows) in a shot amount of time.

I would like to incorporate some cardio into to this for heart health though. I was thinking of running on Tuesdays and Thursdays in between my lifting days. Do you think this is a good idea?

I personally think it would interfere with your recovery and make you prone to injuries . Just follow the program, Dont overdo it .

No. There's no reason to introduce long slow distance running (granted, you didn't specify the type of running, but this is usually what people mean) into your training. It will interfere with your recovery from lifting, and really won't do a lot for your overall health.

Don't you feel your heart pounding after a heavy set of five squats? I'd say that's adequate for "heart health."

If you're worried about staying "fit," you might consider adding in one conditioning day of pushing a sled or running sprints. 5x5 is a lot of volume, though, so I'd be careful with adding in anything extra.

So, it would be better to play a sport of some sort on the weekend? Like some soccer or roller hockey? I am not a huge fan of running.

I have heard from atleast 2 sports orthos that squatting is bad for you knees. I guess it shouldn't matter when you are doing it the right way with adequate recovery period but nevertheless its easy to screw up your joints . One even said that squatting is a very unnatural moment for human body and is best to avoid it .

One even said that squatting is a very unnatural moment for human body and is best to avoid it

Then babies need to fire their personal trainers:

http://personaltrainerbath.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/BA...

http://www.malvernstrength.com/.a/6a00e553cfae8a88340120a4cb...

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_X0yQkonFwHQ/SeINrYNoy9I/AAAAAAAAAU...

I think you're getting into the zone of training philosophy at this point (ie: no right answer, YMMV etc). Absolutely squats by definition are not bad for you, but it's very easy to hurt your knees (and your back) doing them if you aren't careful.

For what type of squats, and what does bad for your knees mean? Risk of acute injury? Risk of longterm damage? Are we talking half squats or full squats? Sets of 6 reps with heavy weight, or sets of 100 reps with light weight? With feet flat on the floor, or on an incline (with heels slightly higher than feet)? Does the damage occur at any weight, or at some threshold? What about jumpies?

Saying squats are bad for your knees doesn't really mean anything, and I doubt your orthos would actually know offhand. If you have a question, go look up the relevant studies from the academic literature, and then ask if you don't understand something.

You should read Starting Strength, by Rippetoe and Kilgore. It goes into a lot of detail on correct form in performing barbell squats, and it also goes into detail about what causes knee injuries. Short version: a full deep squat, with the top of the thigh parallel to the floor, is fine. Partial and incorrect squats are bad.

I'm not going to take the bait on the "squatting is bad for your knees" claim. There's plenty of literature and information out there that debunks this claim; maybe someone else wants to explain. . .

And sure, if you want to play sports on the weekend that's great. See how you feel. If it starts to affect your weight training, then you will have to evaluate it. If you don't care how fast you will make progress in your lifts, and you'd like to play some sports, there's obviously nothing wrong with that. Just understand that a program like Bill Starr's 5x5 is really a program for intermediate lifters, perhaps not intended for people who want to do other activities as well.

I don't think there is anything wrong with some light jogging. Try not to push yourself too hard, but ease into things.

What I would really like to find is some pick up soccer or roller hockey on the weekends then. I really don't particularly feel like I need to run and I would rather play a sport to condition.

I did a lot of 5x5 stuff back in high school when I played football so I have some experience. That was 4 years ago though and I must say that I was real sore the first week of this program.

Whether or not it's a good idea to incorporate some kind of cardio depends on what you want to achieve - fat loss? strength gains? larger muscles? better performance on the soccer field? aesthetic improvement? all round fitness?

Being fit means different things to different people. Personally if I can't run 10k in under 50 minutes I don't think I'm fit enough (but that's not my only threshold for fitness), but other people will have their own idea of what they consider to be fit.

the "100 pushup" style of training is laughable

Why do you say that? Do you find one hundred push-ups easy?

Edit: Or are you specifically referring to their usefulness for losing weight?

I completely disagree. Doing as few as 30 pushups/day has resulted in dramatic increases in strength in addition to weight loss and NOTICEABLE tricep formation [i.e. other people commented on it]. This coming from a guy who worked out (off and on, but mostly on) from the end of senior year to senior year of college.

Noticeable tricep formation means nothing. Muscle size != muscle strength by any measure. It's also not hard to make your muscles pop for short periods of time. If you're doing it every day I wouldn't be shocked if the "gains" you were seeing were actually just daily swelling.

30 pushups vs. doing absolutely nothing, yes you will see small results. You will also cap out in < 3 weeks at what you can gain.

Not to be a dick but please do define dramatic.

Muscles are for show as well as function sir ;)

You would get even more noticeable size increase by doing push downs with a cable or skull crushers.

It's slightly useful for stamina training, but it's a very inefficient way to train.

But yes, mostly referring to weight loss.

I can't do 100 pushups right now, but probably about 50-60 (as is obvious I train for strength not stamina). In about a week I could get it up to 100 pretty easily, and I would not be lifting any more weight and I would not be losing any more weight. So beyond being able to do more pushups nothing would really change.

Sorry would edit if I could but I can't so replying. I'm actually kinda into this stuff and have gotten pretty good results doing what im doing. i have done 100 pushups as well, i was doing at least 150 a day doing 1 set of 100 one set of 50, i am in far better shape now. so if you do disagree please at least post why because I really do wanna know what you think. Always looking to train more efficiently...

Now that you clarified your point, I don't disagree. Push-ups have serious limitations with regard to strength training, of course, since it's really difficult to increase resistance. (I've toyed with the idea of rigging a special backpack and putting weight plates in it.)

For a beginning trainee, especially a sedentary person trying to get fit, I think that a hundred push-up program is a safe and easy way to start. I certainly don't think such a program is "laughable"; it'll produce noticeable good results in a fairly short period of time. Those gains will hopefully encourage the trainee to begin strength training with free weights.

In general, I personally prefer to be able to do 100 push-ups (one set), 25 pull-ups (one set), 100 sit-ups (one set), and then run 5 miles — resting no more than a couple of minutes in between — and I'm willing to sacrifice some strength gains for it. I'm still working on hitting that goal. :)

hmm i had the opposite haha! when i used to do a ton of pushups i just got more discouraged because i didn't get real gains. when i finally went with a few friends to the gym and they showed me how i got way more into it and had pretty real results after the 2nd or 3rd trip, which is why i say "laughable" etc., of course all fitness advice should go with the disclaimer that YMMV and "whatever keeps you going back" etc.

You're right, but calisthenics are great for their simplicity. You don't need any equipment, and you can do them anywhere.

People lifting five pound weights piss me off, though. You've already gone through the trouble of getting equipment- why not use some equipment that will actually help you?

"In fact in many cases it actually is very difficult to burn fat while doing lots of cardio because it trains your body to burn the fact more efficiently."

If you are working out at a fixed percentage of AT, then why would the total amount of fat burned decrease as your AT increases?

Sorry, what does AT mean?

In order to burn the same amount of fat you will constantly have to be doing more exercise, maybe that clarifies?

AT = Anaerobic Threshold

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaerobic_threshold

Anaerobic threshold. It's the point where your body produces more lactate than it can burn, so excess lactate accumulates. (When I say point, this is generally expressed as both a heart rate and also a speed, but you usually pace your workouts based on HR.)

working out at a fixed % of AT will make sure you cross over into anaerobic everytime. That is true. but at the same time, you will have to do more and more work to get to that point, and I think people underestimate how much that is (and thus get frustrated with cardio and blame exercise in general, poor genetics etc.). Purely as a time measurement, the amount invested just doesn't make sense vs. lifting. why not just cut to the chase and start with anaerobic exercise, since it looks like we agree that that's what burns the fat?

edit: I should also reiterate, as many have below, you ALSO get the cardio benefit from lifting.

"working out at a fixed % of AT will make sure you cross over into anaerobic everytime. That is true."

No, that's completely false. It doesn't even make sense.

If that fixed % breaks your AT it does. Which is what happens if you lift heavy weights with a decent speed right?

If not please explain, I'm a bit new to the concept.

Let's say your anaerobic threshold is 190bpm, and you are working out at 155bpm. That means you can never go over your AT by definition, since you are always changing your pace to keep your HR fixed at 155. Essentially the longer you work out the slower you go, so that your heart rate never increases.

The way you phrase this makes it sound like you have to work harder to burn more fat as you get more fit. This is not true. Say your cardio workout consists of running at N% of your max heart rate for 1 hr, covering a distance D. The more fit you become, the greater distance you will cover running at the same N% of your max heart rate. Since the number of calories you burn is proportional to the distance you run (work done), as you get fitter you will burn more calories without needing to exert additional effort. Cardio is a good way to lose weight, esp in combination w/strength training.

I generally agree with you, but your post seems misplaced -- the article isn't about losing weight or building muscle. Instead, it's simply about getting out of your chair and maintaining a minimal level of fitness. It is geared toward sedentary people who aren't motivated to exercise, not people who want to lose weight!

I used to play football (gridiron) where you will find many counterexamples to the 'lift weights to lose fat' meme. Cardio is great for losing weight and most bodybuilders use it during their cutting phase. The reason why cardio doesn't work for many people is because they aren't doing enough of it at the right intensity.

Over the last two years I've gone from 220 to 190. The only change I've made was to start riding my bike to work. Granted, I am fortunate enough to live somewhere that makes that possible. Since making the change I now think that I won't move somewhere that I can't do that (at least most of the year), and I won't take a job that won't allow for it.

I have proven conclusively to myself that I am incapable of following a regimented exercise plan. I need to be forced/tricked into it. I don't think of the ride to work as exercise, I think of it as "going to work". In that way, I've managed to trick myself into about an hour and a half of exercise per day that I ride into work.

The downside is having to buy all new clothes, but the upside is I no longer need an inhaler to have sex.

Just want to point out that this is 1.5 hours a day of exercise. It's great that you trick yourself into doing that, but its a huge time commitment. Any exercise for 1.5 hours a day for 2 years would have similar effects.

Maximizing time, you'd be much better waking up a bit earlier, lifting, and driving to work (though you'd have to find a new trick :P )

Ah, but some of the exercise time is time that would be spent commuting anyway. That's one major advantage of commuting-as-exercise.

I dropped 10 pounds by cutting all alcohol intake. No other changes, in general. And stabilized at that weight for more than a year.

I guess the ice cream in my twice weekly coffee goes next...

Cycling the same kcal/hour as walking? That's very slow cycling. A much better measure is kcal/km, as that is at least somewhat more independent of speed.

No citations on life extension.

Recommends situps, which destroy your back. Leg lifts have the potential to do the same.

Doesn't mention how many kcal/g fat is (it's 9 kcal/g), which is a useful figure if you're trying to lose weight.

> Recommends situps, which destroy your back.

Citation needed, big time. Everything I've ever heard (from high school and college level athletic trainers and strength coaches) has said that a strong core helps your back. I can back this up anecdotally, as years of heavy squats made it painful to drive far in my car's crappy driver's seat, but some ab work (and other exercise) made the problem go away.

When I googled I got http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/17/core-myths/ which basically said "A couple of experts question the (what has so far been considered) the authoritative study.

Ab work and lower back work (hyper extensions) just seem like the way to strengthen ones back. Is there another solution that I'm not aware of?

http://startingstrength.com/index.php/site/core_stability_tr...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sit-up_(exercise)

I didn't do a study myself, I just heard it multiple times and assumed that it was true. I have also experienced lower back pain in school when we did sit ups, but of course that doesn't mean that it will do long-term damage.

> Situps can be dangerous due to high compressive lumbar load[1] and may be replaced with the crunch in exercise programs[2].

I've always heard cycling is the most energy efficient form of transportation for a human, period.

Why exactly do situps destroy your back? I am rather fond of doing hanging situps (hanging by knees) with weights. I wonder if they are just as bad...?

Sure, cycling is more efficient kcal/km wise, but at least the speed that I and most people I know cycle is more intensive than walking kcal/second.

The sit ups: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sit-up_(exercise) I don't know if the same applies to hanging sit ups, but this Wikipedia article says:

> Situps can be dangerous due to high compressive lumbar load[1] and may be replaced with the crunch in exercise programs[2].

regarding situps: I've read that crunches give much the same benefit as situps, but without situps increased risk of hurting something.

This is what I learned too. No longer have my reference book, it was like 20-years ago, but situps tug at you lower vertebrae and increase the risk of lower-back injuries. Crunches exercise your abdomen without that undesirable side-effect. Since it's harder to isolate your lower abs, it's best to target those first (leg-raises with bent-knees and pelvis, or easier knee-ups) and then hit the upper abs which by now have already done some work and will really burn.

Situps and leg lifts don't destroy your back.

Doing them improperly can destroy your back. Doing them properly can really improve core strength and make you a much safer athlete, as core strength is needed for most activities you do in life.

Unfortunately most people are never truly taught how to exercise their core properly. (I'm certainly no expert, but have had a couple of sessions with trainers who actually know what they're doing.)

Clearly, even an hour a day of exercise doesn't account for much food. And what's the likelihood you'll find the time to spend a full hour, every day, month after month, year after year, doing those exercises?

What if the post is too conventional in its thinking? I think this is the Real Hacker Exercise Regmine: http://www.instructables.com/id/Treadmill-Desk/ (courtesy of the founder and CEO of Instructables)

This page is just one small part of "The Hacker's Diet". Looking at this single page removes much of the underlying context of the whole strategy. See:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/hackdiet/e4/

http://www.fourmilab.ch/hackdiet/

The site provides an unconventional approach to losing weight (and exercise). I've found it motivating and useful. I take from it what resonates with me and leave the rest.

This is very very simple. Regarding weight loss simply stop drinking anything that is not 100% water and possibly 2% milk. Stop drinking soda. Stop drinking alcohol. Stop drinking sugary juices. Stop drinking coffee. Just cutting those sugar/carbs will trim a lot of weight off of you. Combine that with exercise and a man will lose weight insanely fast 10 pounds in the first month is not even a problem.

As for exercise - do everything that makes you sweat. And I mean fall down, can't breath, can't move sweat. Running, biking, swimming, weight lifting, dancing, rollerblading... whatever. At least 30min - 1hr every day. EVERY DAY. Be consistent. Don't stop.

I just did a 2 mile swim in the Hudson river on Saturday and a sprint triathlon on Sunday. This will be my third season training for triathlons. The tri season is just getting underway for me in earnest and my training (swim, bike, run) will considerably pick up. You don't have to do a tri or compete in a run but for me it makes it more 'real' and I get to put events up on my calendar that I know I won't back out of and that I know I have to be ready for. My first half Ironman will be in September.

In addition, I do P90X with my sister everyday (according to the schedule). P90X alone is a rock solid regimen that if you stick to will definitely improve your physique. It is very taxing but dead simple to do. Just pop the DVD in and do what the man says. If all you want is an above base level of fitness and a nice body - do P90X. It works, it's hard, it's probably too hard for most programmers who sit around all day reading HN, but it is definitely worth doing and it will definitely get you into shape. Do it one full time around with less weight, less reps, more rest and then step it up on the second time around.

Cutting juice, alcohol, soda etc. is just about the easiest thing you can do to lose weight (there is ZERO reason for you to have sugar at all in your diet - even fruits [relatively high in sugar] can be cut entirely as well as long as you eat you veggies).

P90X is great, but all the other stuff you are doing (while also great) goes against the OP's goal of targeting hackers who don't have a lot of time. Sounds like exercise is a big part of your life.

Ya true, training for anything, including triathlons, takes discipline and time. In deference to the OP, I really believe every person - including hackers - can devote at least 1 hour a day to their physical well being. If you can not take even a sliver of time out of your day to work on your own health than you really need to ask yourself what are you doing with your life.

P90X is a fantastic option. Almost every class can be completed in an hour. The yoga class is 90 minutes. Every other day is abs, an additional 15 minutes. If you can not handle the 90 minute yoga, just do it for 60. Or simply switch it out with another class like the stretch or core synergistics. If your day is packed, just wake up earlier.

Trust me, you will thank yourself when you are in your 40s, 50s and 60s that you invested an hour a day into yourself in your 20s and 30s.

Coffee contains caffeine (unless you get decaf), which is a stimulant. Stimulants increase your metabolism and therefore enhance weight loss.

This all assumes pure coffee, no sugar or other additives. Other than this, I agree with everything else you said :) I decided to nitpick your statement because caffeine is actually a useful dietary aid in losing weight, and can even reduce appetite in addition to increasing basal metabolic rate!

Here's what I think about exercise: Find a sport or activity that'll make you move: salsa dancing counts! ;-) (golf doesn't.. unless you're walking the whole damn course :P). When you get bored, find another fun sport or activity! =). You might even end up finding complimentary activities (I like to swim and go sailing - swimming helps when your boat capsizes, hahaha).

As far as eating is concerned, here's what I suggest:

- Figure out what you usually eat.

- Now figure out what you need (in terms of proteins, vitamins, minerals etc..), and figure out whether your current diet is providing what you need.

- If you have been getting everything you need in your current diet but are gaining fat, figure out what you can start cutting back on.

- If you are deficient in your daily intake nutrients but are also gaining fat, then figure out what you can add to your diet to complete the right nutrient intake, and what you can start cutting back on.

All this diet and exercise shit is a bit evolutionary. Just stick to it, build it up over time. Don't be too hard on yourself but don't give up or go easy either.

I just ride my bicycle to work. That is, until yesterday when I ran over (I shit you not) a deer. Now I'm licking my wounds. My bike blog link is in my profile if you even care. I won't clutter this thread with link spam.

From the sounds of it, lots of hackers enjoy biking to work. It beats paying for a gym membership, it gets them the dose of sun-induced vitamin d, and it's a practice in efficiency that hackers often admire. There are very few ways to turn energy into transportation more efficiently than a bicycle.

How much arguing do we have to do about the optimal way to lose weight before we maybe come to the conclusion that different bodies are different?

In my strictly personal experience, exercise for long-time goal is rather hard to do. Some more immediate benefit would certainly advantageous. The menial-task endorphin rush runners get, seeing your weight (or measurements) going down/up or the competition in team sports, martial arts, tennis etc.

Just a row of exercises definitely requires more willpower for me. Of course, YMMV.

This was exactly my issue as well (not having results re: motivation). Lifting weights for gains instead of tone (see my post above) gives me two things that keeps me going: 1) the easy and obvious accomplishment of simply being able to lift heavier weights (same as leveling up in a video game :P), and 2) you will see results.

I found that neither cardio or weightlifting made any difference in my pattern of weight gain over the last few years.

I switched to a standing desk and lost about six pounds in the first three weeks: just bopping around to rave music while I code. No starving myself, and no hours in the gym that take away from work and family.

Somebody needs to write a little app with his ladder program idea, if it hasn't been done already.

the trick for me is to not call it exercise. everyone is short on time and noone likes to do 'extra work' even if its good for you.

find something you enjoy that is active and do it. hockey, basketball, skiing, biking, boxing, swing dancing... there is no law that says it has to be some boring uninspiring task.

personal method is road bike to and from work + evening rides time/weather permitting. i'm down 70lbs since 6 years ago.

find a publicly funded gym. I pay $6 a month for a pool, full weight room, and exercise machines. plus I can run there and back. done.

After every "cap deploy", I max out pushups and situps.

Works.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com