Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by mkirklions | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

mkirklions

This article doesnt make mention of my workout where I lift something heavy 1 time.

I had the idea that I wanted to reduce time in the gym, so I used the potential energy equation

PE= Mgh

I'm not getting any taller, so the only thing I could change was either the reps or mass of weight moved.

I made it my goal to lift heavy weights so I'd only need to deadlift 1 time and be able to pig out.

TBH, it works, I lose 1 lb a week eating 3,000 calories a day. We lift 2 times a week. Warm up, then do 2+ reps of a heavy set.

I dont really sweat after a workout, but I look pretty big and I'm still deadlifting 450lbs. But I only deadlift that weight 1 time a week.

Is that 'Strenuous'?

View on HN

Hmmm can't tell if serious or crazy

Crazy, guaranteed.

People always overstate their level of fitness by several orders of magnitude on anonymous internet forums.

A 450lb deadlift is not crazy.

One order of magnitude is a mere 45 lbs deadlift. Thus the poster must be horrifically weak. He must have wrote that from the nursing home, I'm sure the nurses love it that he spends his days quietly posting nonsense on the internet instead of bothering them.

Yeah 450lb deadlift isnt even respectable among lifters.

450 is almost the expectation for anyone casually lifting for a few years.

This depends on the lifter's weight (which is why there are weight classes in power and oly lifting competitions).

For an average male, that should be obtainable in about 6 months to a year.

You're ridiculous. You can say 315 is achievable in a year. 450 lbs doesn't even get on the charts for any weight up to 310 until intermediate level according to this chart [0]. Nobody with any sense considers themselves to be an 'intermediate' lifter after one year.

[0] https://strengthlevel.com/strength-standards/deadlift

These are self-reported numbers mostly from novices on the Internet. I can assure you these do not represent consistent and specific training for this lift.

A 315lb deadlift is obtainable within a month.

But he's also claiming to be fit while consuming 3500 calories a day and pretty much only doing a few 1RM lifts a week.

Very low reps (1-4) at a high resistance (85-100% of a 1-rep max) is the standard powerlifter workout. But usually you'd do that for many sets. Lifting a 1RM for a single set seems either grossly inefficient (I have a similar max and it takes me 6 warmup sets just to get into the 405+ range), or he's risking injury by not warming up enough.

Serious but probably crazy too. I use engineering everywhere in my life, food, water bottle size, decision making, caffeine usage...

I didnt mention that I have to warm up, but the point of the workout is to complete a heavy set.

Found the fatty ;)

Ok, seriously.... math: if you eat 3000 kcal per day and lose 1 lb per week, you're burning 3500 kcal per day. This is quite a lot. It's near impossible unless you work out a lot and are veeeery muscular... or are impossibly tall... or, well, fat. (Or a combination of those.)

Take me for comparison: I am 187cm (6'1ish) tall and weigh 75kg (165 lbs), pretty much smack in the middle of the "normal weight" range. I like running, do about 50km (30 miles) per week. I count calories and let my wrist watch measure my energy expenditure 24/7. On rest days (mostly sedentary), I burn about 2100 kcal. To get up to 3400, I have to do some sort of hard run and some lighter activity in addition, or do a long run (18km+).

Now I'm not everybody of course, but you can't be that abnormal, right? So I'm not buying your numbers.

How accurately/precisely can your wrist watch tell you what your energy expenditure is?

I have only anecdotal evidence, which is me.

Since about 3 years I've been counting calories and let various wrist watches with 24/7 heart rate trackers (fitbit, later garmin devices) estimate energy expenditure.

So I measure energy in and out (with unknown error bars). The energy balance I get as a result predicts what my body weight should do.

My control is stepping on the scale every time before I take a shower, log, and observe trends.

Result, consistent over the last three-ish years: my measured weight does almost exactly what the calorie counting and wristwatch estimating predicts. I see absolutely no systematic error in one direction or the other (measured over weeks, that is, to do away with short term fluctuations).

Running is probably the worst sport as far as caloric expenditure is concerned.

A serious endurance cyclist or swimmer will certainly go through 3000 kcal on a normal training day if not more.

I've burned an estimated 5000kcal daily on the bike for weeks. What's more is I know these numbers are very accurate as we train with power meters that record our energy expenditure with minimal error.

It's important to distinguish between serious athletes and average people who exercise. It's possible that truly competitive athletes - for instance, who run 120 miles a week to your 30 - will be much more likely to get ill from their efforts. It can take serious fitness - and a mentality acquired only by years of serious training - to push yourself to the extent that you fall ill, and maybe the recreational "athlete" described in this text can't reach that point.

Why do you think cycling would burn more calories than jogging?

Jogging is very efficient, mechanically speaking. You're not going to burn a lot of calories per hour.

Depends on how you look at it. I can bike all day without getting tired, but there's no way I can jog all day. If your definition of efficiency includes duration of effort, or distance covered, then cycling is very efficient.

You need to put more effort in 1 hour cycling session to burn the same amount of calories as in 1 hour running session. Running activates more muscles.

But cycling affects largest human muscles, which work more intensively..

I was "professional" athlete many moons ago. When we measured max heart rate, we did it on a bike first and then on a treadmill running and then bike again. My max heart rate running was +5 beats allways and I was not a single case. I just couldn't get to my max heart rate while cycling.

They are actually much more similar than most people realize. However, people usually burn more calories total on cycling because it's easier to put longer time periods into cycling than it is for running.

Put another way, an average cyclist will find a 2 hour bike ride to be an average ride but an average runner will consider a 2 hour run to be quite long.

As much as I enjoy cycling, I don't have anywhere near enough time to accommodate a bike regimen equivalent to my running regimen. To my mind, the only way cycling comes out ahead of running for most people is if (1) they have an usual amount of free time (e.g. enough to go on three hour rides every day), or (2) they're unable to run without injuring themselves.

> Running is probably the worst sport as far as caloric expenditure is concerned.

This is not correct. They are relatively close, though in fact swimming on average will burn slightly less calories than running per hour of activity for most paces of comparative effort [0].

> I've burned an estimated 5000kcal daily on the bike for weeks

This is around 3.5 to 10 hours of cycling a day depending on your weight and speed... There is individual variation of course, but there is no way you are burning this many calories without A LOT of hours on the bike.

[0]: http://www.nutristrategy.com/caloriesburned.htm

Check this out http://www.businessinsider.com/how-many-calories-cyclists-bu...

"Each day participants ride, on average, about 100 miles and burn some 6,071 calories"

As a competitive, but still amateur cyclist I would do something in this ballpark almost every day. Hence 3000 - 5000 calories. And I'd often run for an hour or play soccer on top of this since I wasn't a pro.

I did spend a lot of hours on the bike, as serious athletes tend to do. Years of experience with myself and many other national caliber athletes tells me that we do in fact get sick from strenuous exercise, all the time.

> "Each day participants ride, on average, about 100 miles and burn some 6,071 calories"

This is a very bad baseline for an average athlete. You are referring to pro athletes in a race event who average 40-45km/hr speeds on a notoriously hilly race. They don't maintain this level of exertion during training season, and an average athlete is nowhere even close to it.

> As a competitive, but still amateur cyclist I would do something in this ballpark almost every day. Hence 3000 - 5000 calories.

If you bike 160km a day, then you're cycling 4 - 6 hours a day. My original statement that you're not burning that many calories without ALOT of hours on the bike is correct.

> I did spend a lot of hours on the bike, as serious athletes tend to do. Years of experience with myself and many other national caliber athletes..

It's very impressive if you're able to sustain >30hrs week of exercise for weeks as you mention, but be cautious to not sound elitist.

Running is probably the worst sport as far as caloric expenditure is concerned.

Yes, running is extremely inefficient. The most efficient form of movement known is a human on a bicycle. One's choice depends on whether the goal is to burn calories, or travel efficiently.

I've burned an estimated 5000kcal daily on the bike for weeks.

Wait a minute, what? You're going to take the most efficient form of locomotion and use that as an example of how to burn calories? The only reason you burned that many calories is because you spent all day on the bike. Maybe I'm completely missing your point, but for time spent, running burns more calories.

Rate of calorie burn on a cycle is highly dependent on speed. Riding at 32km/h or higher absolutely consumes significant energy due to wind resistance.

I'm the same height as you as recently dropped 5kg to 81kg due to fasting and cutting starch from my diet. Why wife started freaking out because I was looking so skinny (I'm not remotely fat normally either). I can easily burn 4000 kcal a day. All it takes is one hour on the bike. I burn ~3000 kcal on rest days. You have an endurance optimised build, I have a sprinters build. Everyone is different. Those numbers seem perfectly normal to me.

Yeah but the OP said nothing about biking for an hour every day... OP was replying to a guy who said "We lift 2 times a week. Warm up, then do 2+ reps of a heavy set." That does not at all sound like a guy who burns 3k kcal on a rest day and burns 4k kcal on a bike a few times a week.

A couple of years ago, I took a half-day hike up a mountain called Timpanogos with my son. According to my fitness tracker, I burned over 8000 kcal on that trip. It was a bit strenuous, but not painful. The estimate of calories burned seemed reasonable to me.

EDIT: According to this chart, I probably burned around 600 kcal per hour:

http://www.nutristrategy.com/caloriesburnedwalking.htm

It took us about 8 hours, so the total was probably closer to 4800 kcal.

In any case, the point I'm trying to make is that it's easy to burn a lot more than 2000 kcal per day.

Your estimate has already gone from 8000 to 4800 and you're still relying on the unsourced data of NutriStrategy.

Who's willing to be the truth is significantly lower still?

Not even close. It's highly unlikely that you burned more than about 3300kcal (and probably less). You can check out calorie counts from hikers with similar times on Strava.

https://www.strava.com/segments/8428908

Maybe. My body is definitely less efficient than those runners. :-) According to this site, typical energy expenditure on the Timpanogos hike is 4000-5000 kcal:

https://www.bettercheaperslower.com/ways/to-the-summit-of-mt...

The people who did it in the same time as you were walking, not running. They were no more efficient.

3500 kcal per day is nothing. One can have a basal resting metabolic rate of 2500 kcal, then do some sports and you get 3500 easily. And you seem to be a bit underweight, go build some more muscle. 75kg is featherweight for that height ;)

> And you seem to be a bit underweight, go build some more muscle. 75kg is featherweight for that height ;)

Oh you put a smiley, that makes it alright then!

> And you seem to be a bit underweight

Incorrect. My BMI is 21.4, which is almost exactly in the middle of the "healthy" range for my height. (Healthy BMI range is defined 18.5 - 25)

I think that the issue here is that we're comparing aerobic and strength sports - weightlifters usually seem to aim for BMIs around the "overweight" 25-30 range.

"Myofibrillar hypertrophy" is the relevant search term. "Underground Secrets to Faster Running" by Barry Ross IIRC is a good read about high weight, low rep protocols. You can perform the same workout everyday of the week with long rests (5 min) between sets.

I used to do heavy dead lift singles (405-500+) as part of my power lifting routine. The warmup alone would crush many people, so I wouldn't exactly say you were not doing anything strenuous.

If you're going in cold right to 450+, my back is scared for you.

For a normal person, unless you're extremely tall or in a very considerable amount of PEDs, you will have a high body fat doing this.

Young men can get away with all sorts of stuff.

Considering the article example is a marathon (26.2 miles, burns ~2600 calories) and your example is deadlifting (4 sets of 8 deadlifts @ 175 kilograms burns ~100 calories - equivalent of running .5 miles).. I'd define this test case as 1.9% as 'Strenuous'.

What about increase in RMR after building more muscle mass?

Ok, let's think about the energy equation. In order to do as much work with a one rep workout versus a standard 5x5 (five sets, five reps) workout, you'd need to be lifting 25 times more weight (one rep total vs 25 reps total). The problem is, your one rep max is not going to be 25 times your 5x5 max.

In any case, I don't think the premise underlying this makes sense. Resistance training is for triggering muscle growth, not burning calories. Perhaps there's some biological reason why a 1 rep workout is effective for you, but I don't think the PE equation helps here.

I agree that a 5x5 is more effective vs a 1 rep lift.

But the problem statement begins with- You need to finish the gym in less than 2 hours/week.

I like strength training, especially 3x5s.

My workout looks closer to a 5/3/1/5 pyramid due to warmup and trying to burn myself out on the last set.

I'm glad you mentioned this, I'll play with the math this weekend and try to find a point of diminishing returns.

So you do 1 Rep Max once a week. Not bad advice.

How many warm up sets do you do?

It's actually very bad advice, do not do this. All of the literature will plainly tell you this is a bad idea.

Especially with deadlift, back injuries are no fun at all.

Indeed.

Working up to a deadlift max doesn't take a lot of time, or a ton of sets. Like, 4-6 sets of 3-4 reps.

Longevity and injury-prevention is key to long-term gym vitality... but people don't usually appreciate this until they injure themselves somehow.

<40-something lifter, out...>

Seconding this.

1 heavy deadlift set usually means 15 minutes of warmups.

Pfft what could those scientists/doctors/trainers/experienced athletes possibly know that some dude on the internet can't anecdote his way into correctness? /s

Engineer/trainer/experienced athlete here

I thought using the potential energy equation gave me a little credentials.

I also wrote a book about this topic. But I didnt include it in the comment.

Could you link to the book?

After doing strength training for years, it is all part of the routine.

You cannot do 5x5 deadlift sets once you are past 4 plates.

Sure you can, it's just that progress goes much slower. When I finally got into the 500s I was counting 1/2 and 1/4 reps as progress. For example, if I got 525 for 3-1/4 reps for one workout, and later got 3-1/2 reps, that was progress. Keep in mind for me that later could be weeks or months as I'm not naturally big.

You can, but it's not a lot of fun. I did it for years as a modified BBB element in 5/3/1. I have, at various times done 5x5 squat past 4 plates as well. Didn't last more then 3 weeks before I had to back off, I'm too old to recover from that, but I was working Texas Method at 415 lbs, which was just as hard as it sounds.

My point is, actually, that whenever someone says "I just do 1 set or 1 rep and am done, after warmup" that the warmup sets are really part of the exercise...

looks like mkirklions responded and really he does 5 sets with increasing weight, then does his heaviest.

So it is more like the classic "pyramid" or "increased weight until near-exhaustion" sets, which have been around since forever...

It depends on what percentage of his 1rm he's doing. I use 531 and it's based off a training max which is 90% of your 1rm. You never lift heavier than about 85% of your 1rm on the program because doing so is heavily taxing on your CNS. Unless he is using PEDs he probably won't last long-term if he's lifting close to his 1rm twice a week.

Warmups usually are by plates.

Deadlift warmups at 45lbs, 135lbs, 225lbs, 315lbs, 405lbs, then heavy set 435lbs.

Bench is 45lbs, 135lbs, 190lbs(or whatever my workout buddy does), then 235lbs for my heavy set.

The goal is to do 2-3 since that means its good form. I am for 1 heavy set rather than 1 heavy rep.

How long does it take you to get to the gym? Surely doing a couple more reps after getting to gym, warm-up, and mobility isn't going to hurt your time spent.

My gym is in the basement. 500$ for the entire set.

Got a gym crew that probably takes the longest to put on my friends weights.

For real?

How high do you lift it?

How's your back?

Who's we? (can I join)

All at least 2 reps, goal is 5.

Day 1 Deadlift- 435 Bench- 235

Day 2 Squats-345 OHP-160

Back is surprisingly great, my first deadlift was only 90lbs. Ive come a long way.

Here is the cheatsheet I follow: http://efficiencyiseverything.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploa...

As others said, your exercise does not burn enough calories to impact weight loss / gain.

I suspect your weight loss may be due to the exercise affecting your eating patterns (if you eat high calorie food before going to bed you will likely gain more weight than if you get same calories in a sweet drink right after a long ski race; not sure why).

> if you eat high calorie food before going to bed you will likely gain more weight than if you get same calories in a sweet drink right after a long ski race; not sure why

I don't think that's right. Eating a hypercaloric diet will likely gain you more weight, and hypocaloric will result in weight loss. It doesn't matter when you eat the food. Eating carbs or protein right after a workout is the subject of the nutrient timing, which is largely moot for protein (as long as you get enough during the 24 hours), and only important for carbs if you are an endurance athlete or have multiple workouts per day.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com