Comment by Dewie | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Dewie | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Your post is useless as an argument against this specific exercise since it offers no argument against it - only an appeal to tradition (well, recent tradition since I'm guessing that circular interval training predates any modern incarnation of barbells).

- The article talks about HIIT which is a more general principle and not just a name for this specific exercise. It has been shown to be in some regards better than longer endurance exercises. And yes, with scientific studies with a HIIT group and a control group. The specific exercises that I have seen have been more about running or cycling than body weight exercises for that matter.

- This post was clearly aimed at people that want overall health and not necessarily more explosive strength, yet you only complain about the strength-part.

- EVEN disregarding the last point: you can gain a lot of strength from just body exercises and some props like a bar; all I have to say is gymnasts. I guess you can't accuse that sport of being a recent fad. Whether or not barbells and dumbbells are better comes down to the specifics of explosive versus endurance, strength vs bulk and so on and so on.

>you can gain a lot of strength from just body exercises and some props like a bar; all I have to say is gymnasts.

would you like your steroid injection now or later? Taking fitness cues from professional athletes who are ALL on PEDs is silly.

And bodybuilders aren't notorious for being juiced up? People that are in very competitive sports aren't in it for the fitness, they are in it to win, even if it wrecks their body (and their integrity). No amateur should follow a high-level professionals regimen verbatim, if all she wants is the fitness.

Anyway, aren't some gymnast exercises very demanding, and demand a lot of functional strength? Even if not, with some basic props and your body there is a lot of difficult things that you can do - handstand pushups, one-armed handstand pushups, muscle up, one armed pullup, L-sit...

bodybuilders are not healthy and are not strong/athletic.

I'd love to hear your sources about "all" the gymnasts who are on PEDs. I was a gymnast for 16 years, competed nationally for 10 years, personally knew and competed against some of the US team members in the 2008 and 2012 Olympics.

I have never, ever, heard even a whiff of anyone taking anything remotely on the wrong side of rules for "performance enhancing" substances.

Bodyweight workouts can be incredibly challenging and develop not just strength but explosive power. Regular pushups too easy? Try clapping pushups or handstand pushups or an iron cross to work your deltoids, pecs and triceps.

pics of you at your peak contest condition? I'm not being snarky I'm legitimately curious, as I suspect you are telling the truth about being natty yourself.

Steroid abuse is ridiculously rampant, and it is hard for the layperson to know what sort of physique is attainable without them.

It is essentially impossible to prove PED use in elite sports because athletes take care not to get caught and there is no interest in catching them.

I don't know much about gymnastics but if performance in that sport is dominated by strength or endurance, that is a stronger or better conditioned athlete will normally win, then it is likely that the top athletes in the world use PEDs. Otherwise it would be inconsistent with evidence of PED use in every other strength or endurance sport.

I don't know why you think having competed against an athlete would give you some special insight into their PED use especially if you aren't competitive enough to beat them; it would clearly be precarious to have other people find out.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com