Comment by pushcx | Hacker News Reader

Comment by pushcx | Hacker News Reader

For all the comments wondering what the particular movement and equipment is, see pages 5 and 6 of the supplementary materials: https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S25890042220114... The equipment is an electromyography system with realtime display. It measures the muscle contraction and is displayed to the subject so they can learn to recognize the movement that properly activates the muscle. Contrary to the video, you do not need to be an academic to buy one, they're fairly common in high-end sports coaching/rehab and you can find a cheap arduino-compatible system on Amazon if you want to DIY.

If you don't read much exercise science, it's worth noting the paper says "It is important to note that volunteers in Experiment I (Table S1) were typically sedentary (verified with an objective tracking device), and none of them had a high aerobic cardiorespiratory fitness (determined by treadmill VO2max or the maximal oxygen consumption test)." A common pitfall of exercise science is that almost anything works wonderfully on untrained sedentary subjects. Wait for replication.

But sedentary people are the target audience for this exercise.

Athletes worry about having enough energy during their exercise.

When many people in developed countries are obese or overweight, every technique helps, especially something for those who don't like to sweat...

Right but the point is that there may be nothing special about this particular exercise.

It’s a bit complicated to get the equipment and training to learn how to do this; maybe that effort is better allocated to just encouraging people to get up and go for a walk every once in a while.

> maybe that effort is better allocated to just encouraging people to get up and go for a walk every once in a while.

This method has been used for decades and the results on the obesity rates do not seem to be very good so far. Maybe it's time to try other approaches.

Clearly the current culture in the US is not healthy, but the reason for healthy scientific and rational skepticism in this case was succinctly laid out in previous comments. It seems to me a tautology to suggest to that going for a walk is less complex than purchasing a specialized device in order to to a specialized exercise in an attempt to fend off obesity (when we already know that walking alone will probably not do any such thing).

I'm much more optimistic about pharmaceutical approaches to combating the obesity epidemic at this point. The current cultural direction on this may shift at some point however.

> It seems to me a tautology to suggest to that going for a walk is less complex than purchasing a specialized device in order to to a specialized exercise in an attempt to fend off obesity (when we already know that walking alone will probably not do any such thing).

Fair point, and I do agree that pharmaceutical approaches seem more likely to reach more people affected by this problem. My broader point was that the simplistic "just be more active" seem ineffective... and in my experience in some cases even counterproductive, so providing more alternative routes to healthier lifestyles makes sense to me, as complicated as they may seem, maybe they will be more convincing/enticing than what we currently do.

Is it about obesity? The technique is about increasing oxidative capacity, which has wonderful benefits. Although it metabolizes fat, that doesn't mean it needs to lower weight to gain benefits.

The failure is a failure of adherence which is always the root issue with obesity. Walking probably actually does work well too. The relevant question is "which one are people more likely to actually do?" And this does seem promising in that regard.

walks don't burn that many calories man. America has a calories-in problem not a calories-out one anyway.

How could walking possibly burn fewer calories per unit time than a tiny leg movement?

sounds like the theory is that keeping it going over a long period of time keeps the metabolism up vs a short walk? tbh I'm skeptical, but my point is more that "go for a walk" isn't really the answer for weight loss. serious cardio (hiit appears to work well from last time i looked at literature) and some heavy lifting work way better, but it's still mostly a "calories in" problem.

Here's a nice intro to some of the difficulties in researching exercise science: https://sci-fit.net/research-limitations/ For more, the Stronger by Science podcast regularly discusses methodology.

> Athletes worry about having enough energy during their exercise.

Ironically, I'm a sedentary person who doesn't have enough energy to do 10 stations at the gym. If I do back & legs I'm pretty much done for the day.

While I was reading the article, I realized that my need for optimizing for efficient blood sugar use is different than the many who would rather waste it.

If you do back and legs you should be done for the day. Split your posterior chain. :)

if you do legs you should be done for the day... otherwise not hitting legs hard enough :)

View it as training and not exercise.

You start minimally and slow, far below exertion capacity, rest a few days, and do similar stuff with slightly more intensity (resistance) or volume (number of reps). There's an art/science to it, and barring health handicaps it's essentially a universal system the body evolved to do.

10 stations seems... excessive.

(If your goal for exercises is physical therapy or bodybuilding, ignore the rest of this)

If a given "station" is what I picture it to be, it is likely a station for training a muscle in isolation. example: a station called "preacher's bench" for "bicep curls",l.

Consider that isolation exercise is, broadly, really useful for two circumstances: bodybuilding, and physical therapy.

For functional fitness, it is exceedingly rare that the an individual muscle would be the only muscle group engaged.

So, instead, I would strongly argue that free weights (dumbells, barbells) and the compound (multi-muscle) movements are a better use of time and energy at the gym. https://aasgaardco.com/store/books-posters-dvd/books/startin... and https://aasgaardco.com/store/books-posters-dvd/books/practic... are a good starting point.

Also Strength Training Anatomy - 3rd Edition by Frederic Delavier - helpful as a reference which stations engage what muscles.

That's pretty much exactly what they say in this study. The point is if you are a sedentary couch potato or desk jockey, you can do this to activate a metabolic state. Literally the people who won't use your (good) advice.

It's why there is so much benefit to riding a cycle for 20-30 minutes before working out. Soleus Pushups done properly won't cause fatigue like the cycle does, yet triggers a long-lasting metabolic state (hours, versus minutes you can expect from short bursts of exercise) in the same amount of time.

Funny enough, they say in a few different ways that while it isn't a very practical exercise, you're just sitting there anyway. So it is not aimed at most athletes.

Athletes already have strong metabolic responses, except when they plateau, but that's surely not going to happen to a couch potato or desk jockey.

if y'all want a little broscience: the soleus may be a good choice because advice is generally that it's best worked with sitting vs. standing calf raises. so kinda interesting that they came to this muscle in particular.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com