Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Angle]

Anyone mentioned darebee.com yet? I've been using their exercises and I think they work pretty well. :/

[JoshuaFH]

The Big 4 are touted as kind of the top level exercises and everything else below them is either an isolation exercise, or just won't work your whole body (in addition to the actual muscle group the exercise targets) nearly as much. Doing as many compound exercises as you can and spot training additional muscles you want to focus on is how you develop a balanced physique.

Sadly, those are the 4 exercises I can't really do at home and my work gym doesn't accommodate. On the other hand....compound exercises like bench and squat are where you really start wanting a spotter in case something goes wrong. For me the lack of being able to do bench/squats/deadlifts and having to settle for honestly inferior exercises like chest press/goblet squats/dumbbell deadlifts is the primary motivating factor for getting a gym membership right now.

I had to look up what the "Big 4" are, from a website called HOW2GETBIG.COM, and I just want to comment that it is a miracle that it was an exercise site and not a... other kind of site.

But I went to the gym today, ready to graduate to free weight barbells, as described in the big 4. Those things are really heavy even without the weights. I put on tiny 25 lb weights, put on my best poker face as guys on both sides of me are lifting giant slabs of steel, and I struggle to keep the thing steady in my hands. I have a friend in the military that told me something along the lines of "gradually taper down the weight as you get tired, and aim for a lot of reps." so that's what I did, and I really feel it in my arms.

[nenjin]

A standard unloaded barbell is 45 pounds. So if you're not comfortably curling 30 in each hand with dumbbells, it's going to be at or near your max. What were you trying to do with it? The Big 4 are:

Bench Press
Squat
Deadlift
Pull ups

Only the first three are done with a barbell, and only the first one is done lying down, the other two are done standing.

I have a friend in the military that told me something along the lines of "gradually taper down the weight as you get tired, and aim for a lot of reps." so that's what I did, and I really feel it in my arms.

Referred to as drop sets, usually. You do a few sets at x, one set at x-y, and a last set at x-z. Lets you get more reps in and helps exhaust the muscle and push it to hypertrophy at lower weights. I still don't know about drop sets. I do them for curls because my arms give out so fast at the higher weight, but I have more reps in me. Generally though, I don't have the time for drop sets. I hit at least three muscle groups in each workout, excluding abs, and doing drop sets for all of those would add like another 10 or 15 minutes to an already hour long workout. Drop sets are good if you're just going at one or two muscle groups in a few exercises for the day.

I also don't know if drop sets are good for actually increasing your strength per se. But they are good for overloading the muscle, giving it a deep workout and that in turn helps stimulate growth. On the other hand, one of the axioms I keep hearing is "your muscle doesn't know what the weight it, it only understands how much tension it's under." By that logic, if your muscles are working just as hard at a lower weight doing drop sets as they are doing higher weights when you're fresh, then it can be good for strength as your muscles adapt to that level of tension, and eventually overcome it.

[JoshuaFH]

Oh, that site I mentioned said the big 4 were those, except pullups replaced with Military Presses. But I'll have to keep at it I guess.

[nenjin]

I can see that.

Here's why I'd recommend pull ups instead of military press though.

#1. Military press can leave you pretty vulnerable to getting hurt. It is not an easy movement to press a weighted barbell above your head while standing, and the bar is behind your head. Lower back injury, possible shoulder impairment and just plain falling over backwards or losing your balance are all risks. You face fewer of those risks if you do the military press in front of your head, but still.

#2. Bench and squat are push exercises for the most part. You're pushing the weight up from your chest and your legs. Pull up is a pull exercise, where you have to pull your weight to something. Mixing push and pull exercises keeps your muscles balanced as they get trained to exert force going both directions. Along with deadlifts, you get two push and two pull exercises in the big 4. If you do military presses instead, you're getting three push and one pull exercise.

[JoshuaFH]

You've done so much more research into this than I have Nenjin. My strat has been to just exert myself into I get tired and sweaty, only loosely paying attention to the exercise through which it's done. Uh, I bothered to look up a proper pullup, and can I get back to you on that "25 pullups" thing? I might have cheated just a little, and I feel like an ass over potentially bragging over nothing now.

[nenjin]

S'alright. It's all a process of revision, figuring out how to increase the challenge and, in doing so, get better results. It's why I do so much research, there's always something you could be doing differently/better/with better discipline to really get the work in. When I'm like "I wanna try exercise X", I usually watch 2 or 3 videos from different people, get all their takes on it and kind of synthesize how I want to try it, then put it in to practice.

Mostly it's just about practicing good form, until you simply can't. Good form keeps the muscle working for the whole exercise as much as it can. Utilizing the full range of motion (i.e not doing half reps and letting the muscle fully extend on each rep), going ssssllllllloooowwww, clenching your whole body while you do the exercise, these things all drive up the intensity of your exercises. Higher intensity done for longer = more tension = more stimulus for growth.

"Cheat" reps aren't all bad too. At the end of a set, a cheated rep is still better than no rep.

Lifting weights and getting the most out of it is way more technical than most people give it credit for. And then you gotta be technical while you're on your last sets and exhausted and all your body wants to do is cheat the reps and stop short. Easy it ain't!

[JoshuaFH]

Using full extension and pulling my chin up to the bars on my pullups now, I can do... five? Oh well, time to put some more work onto the pullup machine that negates some of my weight with the weighted platform.

[nenjin]

Using full extension and pulling my chin up to the bars on my pullups now, I can do... five? Oh well, time to put some more work onto the pullup machine that negates some of my weight with the weighted platform.

Still a fine number. Like I said, when you can hit 10 solid pull ups then you can start using the weight belts like those other dudes.

[Loud Whispers]

Edamame (soybean) snacks are also 40% protein. And edamame are nice because they're a portable snack that can substitute for when you feel lke potato chips, or put in a small bowl for snacking at the computer.

There are a lot of anti-soy people however they all seem to fall into "bro-science" if you know what I mean. Basically the argument is that soy contains substances call phytoestrogens, and estrogen is "girly" so eating soy will suck out your testosterone and make you a soft and flabby-titted girly man. While kinda plausible it turns out that more detailed studies than "girly stuff is bad!" show that this has nothing to do with reality. While there might be compounds similar to estrogens in soy they're not there in great amounts and even then, the compounds don't seem to work like they claim to turn you into a girly-man anyway. Hell, if that really worked whatsoever you'd have transgender people swearing by soy products as an aid to transitioning.

https://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/can-adding-soy-protein-lead-to-more-growth.html
https://www.livestrong.com/article/360960-is-soy-protein-good-for-building-muscle/

Because the bro-dudes don't want it you can get highly concentrated soy protein powder cheaper than other powders, and mix it with whey and casein (which is the protein in regular milk), and that's shown positive growth results compared to using any one of them alone.

for a while I was getting Savour brand edamame for $1.30 for 100 grams, so 40 grams of protein for $1.30 in a convenient snackable form. But right now everyone's been out of stock of them for months, I guess they might be a seasonal crop and stocks just competely ran out ?!?

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Notably all of /fit/, /d/, /lgbt/, /a/ and /tv/ are in concurrence as to the effects of soy. It does not take a genius to figure out that a food source that contains substances which increase absorption of estrogens and mimics estrogen is going to affect your hormone levels. Reddit suggests that dietary shit and hormonal supplements may cause the contrary desired effect, which would probably explain why those on hrt don't cross streams. This is what the National Health Service had to say:

There are contradictory results from studies in this area (both human and animal studies), including the argument that the Asian diet (high in phytoestrogens from soy foods) has no apparent effect on fertility. Others support the view that soy has a positive or null effect on sperm quality. As the researchers state, this lack of consistency – particularly between animal and human studies – "highlights the importance of conducting further studies in humans".

Until then, there is no harm in men who have low sperm counts who are trying to conceive and who are worried about their sperm counts falling further, limiting their intake of foods containing soya. This should be in context of other factors that may affect fertility including lifestyle factors (smoking, alcohol), sexual history, general health and other aspects of a healthy diet.

tl;dr; initial trials suggest link between soya and declining male fertility, but scale of trials insufficient in size to form consensus: It is recommended to limit soy intake until it can be proven as safe in large quantities. Otherwise it's on ur edd to decide

https://www.nutrition.org.uk/nutritionscience/nutrients-food-and-ingredients/protein.html?limit=1&start=4
Imo, if you want protein, there are three options:

• Eat meat
• Eat nuts
• Eat oats

Meat is self-explanatory, nuts too. Oats are the GOAT food though. They're cheap as FUCK (unless you live in the Sahara or Siberia or something), are full of minerals and vitamins, fibre, carbohydrates, protein (more than soy), don't have to be cooked, are easily cooked, one of the most nutritious foods known to man, full of beta-glucan fibres which lower cholesterol and contribute to positive gut microbe growth, can be eaten without industrial processing and are the dankest food ever. Truly the Chad of foods

If you take the time to look into the actual science, then the answer is yes. Thousands of studies link soy to malnutrition, digestive distress, immune system breakdown, thyroid dysfunction, cognitive decline, reproductive disorders and infertility — even cancer and heart disease.

Soy science btfo

Spoiler: some more bants (click to show/hide)

eat oats and crossfit torture for good health
t. oat idf

[nenjin]

You can get a lot of protein from beans too.

In truth, you can get protein from most plants. Plants actually are what produce protein. What you get from animals is simply the protein they've digested from plants.

Saw a documentary, or part of one, on Netfilx the other day called "What The Health." A buddy linked it to me for what it had to say about protein consumption and the meat industry.

I won't stand by everything it was saying. It seemed like a documentary promoting veganism, calling it a "plant-based diet" instead. Went on and on about how humans weren't evolved to eat as much meat as we do, that many long term health problems in older and even younger people could be traced back to consuming too many animal products and the chronic inflammation they cause, that overeating meat promotes bacteria in your gut that, over time, will lead to colon or intestinal cancer. That many health issues disappeared in weeks after switching to a plant-based diet, that the production chain for meats in this country makes the problem even worse with contamination, hormones, etc....and that basically you can get ripped and huge just from eating a lot of veggies because "cows, gorillas, elephants and other large herbivore land mammals got that way by eating vegetables, and so can you." And they trot out a few swole vegans to make the point.

It also made the point that we don't really need that much protein daily. About 30g. But based on our diets as a country, we vastly over consume protein from meat sources. You can get the daily protein you need from broccoli by eating...about 1000g of it a day. Which is a lot. But it's totally doable to get your DRV of protein simply from veggies.

So while I don't doubt much of what was said about meat is true, things were a little too slickly arranged in the documentary for me not to have some questions and/or doubts. When a doctor with a white lab coat and stethoscope on his neck throws out aphorisms like "elephants get huge eating plants so you can get huge eating plants" or "carnivores have 3x the stomach acid humans do and it's much stronger so clearly humans shouldn't eat meat" or "human milk has the least protein in it out of every mammal on earth, ergo we don't need that much protein as humans", and don't actually speak to the science behind it, I start to get a little suspicious.

Anyways, it did make me reconsider how much meat I'm eating to reach my protein goals. Lately, I've been eating a metric fuckton of meat and I may try to phase some of it out for plant-based protein sources.

Also I just realized that my favorite protein bar which tastes amazing with only 6 grams of sugar....has soy protein and leptin extracts. FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF. It's probably the only soy I get in my diet next to soy sauce. But I'll probably try to find a protein bar with similar stats and no soy proteins in it. Cause MUH T.

And in other news...I'm sore. Didn't work out until Saturday, hit chest and arms and shoulders hard. Was still sore by Monday but somehow found the energy to put in a full workout....today my muscles feel ragged. I've got good energy, but working out hard when your muscles haven't full recovered from the previous workout is like an extra level of soreness I'm not used to. Thinking I'll probably still be a bit sore for my Wednesday workout. May have to take it easy this weekend.

Although I will say.....changing up your routine, even what days you work out or what you do in your workouts, is good. It's weird how much more I feel like I hurt simply by missing a few days then working out in a different pattern than my body has become adapted to.

[MrRoboto75]

I'm considering getting a gym membership.  I'm hoping at the minimum it'll help me fight my depression/self image and maybe outside of that actually get me to socialize for once.

I used to practice Tae Kwon Do.  It really did nothing for losing weight, but it was at least a confidence builder.  Even if I disliked being surrounded by mirrors.

[Reelya]

Veganism promotion is all well and good, the things they say are mostly true. However, they lie by omission. That's because their #1 goal is to convert you to hardline veganism, not to give you better health information. "It's better for you" is the marketing spiel, it's not the message:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Processed meats (salted, smoked, preserved) are far worse than fresh meats, those studies don't all take that into account. Vegans aren't about pinpointing which meats are bad for you and helping you avoid unhealthy choices: it's a zero-tolerance message where even the tiniest bite of the healthiest meat is as bad as eating 40 bacon cheeseburgers a day.

People who eat fish gets significantly less bowel cancer than people who eat a vegetarian diet, and vegetarians get less bowel cancer than vegans. Red meat eats get more bowel cancer, however that's mixing in people who eat lean steak, with people who eat hotdogs, salami, bacon etc: processed meats which are created with ingredients now listed as carcinogens. In fact, there's a new type of bacon which has changed one of the main treatment agents that's been proven as a carcinogen, so that's not even a constant thing either.

Basically, the evidence is that if you eat fish, eggs and milk products (to some amount) you'll get the least amount of bowel cancer possible. And the biggest thing you can otherwise is to avoid things like sausages, bacon, salami etc. basically processed meat goods.

So yeah, the veganism argument is fine, but they omit studies that contradict their message. You shouldn't trust sources that omit inconvenient studies because they conflict with the ideological position they're promoting: selling veganism on the ethics is fine, however it's not fine to lie to people about health research to try and scare them into conforming to a particular set of ethics. If you lie about health risks, then you prevent people from making optimal choices for their own health: by lying that veganism is the #1 safest diet for colon cancer, when in fact vegetarians are safer, and pescatarians are a whole 20% safer, you're dooming thousands of people to dying of colon cancer if they follow your advice, which is hugely unethical.

EDIT: Uggh, I read some breakdowns of that movie:

http://time.com/4897133/vegan-netflix-what-the-health/

Apparently, they're trying to say sugar isn't a problem, it's "animal proteins". Despite the fact that animal proteins are no different to plant proteins. Fuck them. They are murdering liars if they're spreading this health advice to load up on sugar and cut protein intake.

Also: the film claims that eating 1 egg is as bad as smoking 5 cigarettes. It's just straight-up bullshit.

Here's some good counter-science:

https://edition.cnn.com/2015/03/11/health/vegetarians-fish-colon-cancer/index.html

Colon cancer risk drops 27% from vegetarianism to pescetarianism (eating fish). Slam dunk, enough said.

[nenjin]

I didn't watch the whole thing, but I don't think their takeaway point was that sugar isn't bad for you.

More it's less dangerous for you in the long term than a large portion of your diet coming from animal products.

Like, they cite this study from the 1970s about a researcher who basically fed people vegetables and a ton of table sugar...and all the participants lost weight. Ergo, sugar alone doesn't make you fat even in high quantities. They admit the study is flawed on a lot of fronts but still trotted it out as part of making meat look worse by comparing to our other favorite health demon.

Also I'm not sure what the difference between vegan and vegetarian is, but they weren't pushing the vegan diet. They were pushing a "plant-based diet" which maybe is just a less triggering term for veganism or vegetarianism.

Not saying I stand by the documentary, but it was pretty good at being scary.

Also: the film claims that eating 1 egg is as bad as smoking 5 cigarettes. It's just straight-up bullshit.

Must have missed that claim, because that's patently stupid.

https://edition.cnn.com/2015/03/11/health/vegetarians-fish-colon-cancer/index.html

Colon cancer risk drops 27% from vegetarianism to pescetarianism (eating fish). Slam dunk, enough said.

On the flip side marine life basically is a filter for everything that goes in the oceans, so you're trading one set of risk based on how world economies work for others. I seem to recall studies from a few years back saying if you eat X amount of fish and marine flesh in a year, you're taking in a fairly steady quantity of heavy metals and other shit. Totally un-substantiated, not going to hunt for articles, feel free to debunk it if you please.

I'm considering getting a gym membership.  I'm hoping at the minimum it'll help me fight my depression/self image and maybe outside of that actually get me to socialize for once.

Suggestion: Try home work out routines first and focus on discipline. While not clinically diagnosed with depression, I've struggled with it. And just the structure and expectation of something to do on a regular schedule did a ton for my mood. I stopped feeling aimless. I started feeling like I had purpose. What's more, because it was a purpose I had dictated, not like life and having a job and responsibilities you have to have to survive....it was something I became excited to do. Just like video games or reading or writing or art are things I choose to do and invest my time in, working out didn't feel like work. It felt like it was on a whole 'nother level of priorities, wired to different responses. I dread waking up for work, honestly. But I can't wait to get home and start my workout sometimes.

Maybe being out among people, paying for a membership, maybe getting a trainer will keep you consistent, instill that discipline in you that makes for a successful workout/exercise/training journey. For me though, I had to know I had it in me to stick to my goals and I had to know I could do it with no one's help. (Also no way in hell was I going to cough up for an overpriced gym membership when all I wanted access to were the weights.) I told myself if I could stick with an exercise regime I arbitrarily created, that this wasn't just a phase or a manic attempt to feel different. That it was real, committed.

Now, I can see myself spending for a gym membership because I know it won't be wasted. I've got the motivation, the discipline and the knowledge to get the most out of it. Where did I foster that motivation, discipline and knowledge though? In my home.

To put too fine a point on it, there are 50 things you could do right now, after you're done reading this, to start getting back in to shape. No weights, no coaching, no gym required. To me saying that getting a gym membership is the first step to getting back in to shape is largely an excuse, an artificial barrier you erect between where you are and where you know you should be. ("Oh well if I don't get that gym membership I guess I can't work out.....") The first step to working out is to just do it, where ever you can, however you can. Get the ball rolling. Get the blood pumping. Build momentum. For me, it was just one night where I said "This is happening." It was like flipping a switch, because I was ready. Anyone can flip that switch, and say "it's worth my time to put in the time, right now and going forward."

[Reelya]

On the flip side marine life basically is a filter for everything that goes in the oceans, so you're trading one set of risk based on how world economies work for others. I seem to recall studies from a few years back saying if you eat X amount of fish and marine flesh in a year, you're taking in a fairly steady quantity of heavy metals and other shit. Totally un-substantiated, not going to hunt for articles, feel free to debunk it if you please.

There are risks, however they're vastly different depending on what type of fish you eat. Ironically, the cheaper the fish, the lower the risks (on average), since low-cost fish are lower in the food-chain. e.g. if you're buying expensive yellowfin tuna, it has much more mercury than basic canned tuna. Sardines and stuff are very low in the food chain: they don't have much heavy metals.

However, there's also some evidence that some metals that are present in fish form a buffer against the effects of other metals. e.g. mercury is bad for you because it binds to selenium, which you need because of basic neural physiology, preventing it from functioning. However, many fish, including tuna, have very high selenium levels along with mercury. It's almost as if the fish that are at risk from mercury have "evolved" to concentrate out selenium from the water so that they can function normally despite the exposure.

https://chriskresser.com/5-reasons-why-concerns-about-mercury-in-fish-are-misguided/

In 2004 the EPA and FDA published new guidelines suggesting that pregnant women (and those who might become pregnant) limit their consumption of fish to 12 ounces (340 g) per week due to concerns about mercury exposure.

These guidelines, which were only intended for pregnant women for the sake of their developing children, have quickly become an accepted fact among the mainstream media, the medical establishment, and the general public.

So, basically they started with a recommended intake of tuna for pregnant women, then they just blanket-applied that recommendation to everyone, regardless of gender, average bodyweight, and pregnancy status. And of course, to be on the safe side, they would have had to assume you're a small pregnant woman eating fish in the upper levels of mercury concentration, while also aiming for a relatively low level of mercury intake. e.g. the recommendation is bullshit if you're not a small woman who is pregnant, and it would also need to be revised if you're not eating fish that's known to be high in mercury. And none of that takes into account how mercury actually harms you:

In the past, researchers thought selenium was protective because it binds to mercury and prevents mercury from harming other molecules. This led to the mistaken idea that mercury causes harm in the body until selenium binds it. But our current understanding is almost the reverse: it’s not that selenium prevents mercury toxicity by binding to mercury, but that mercury interferes with selenonzyme function by binding to selenium. In fact, mercury cannot cause harm until it occurs in high enough amounts to inhibit a significant percentage of selenoenzyme activities. Mercury is only harmful because it binds to selenium and prevents it from performing its vital roles in the brain.

As long as you are eating fish that contains more selenium than mercury, the amount of selenium in the body will always be in plentiful excess of mercury. That means that these essential selenoenzymes are never inhibited to a meaningful degree. Fortunately, the vast majority of fish most people consume have more selenium than mercury. The exceptions are pilot whale, shark, tilefish, king mackerel and swordfish.

So we're just left with "fish is bad because metals" without any actual studies showing adverse effects from people who eat fish. What about countless generations of Japanese mothers who ate a fish-based diet while pregnant? We have entire cultures of people who eat fish for breakfast, lunch and dinner, yet they don't have a mercury poisoning pandemic - e.g. if it was really true that over 340 grams of fish a week put you in danger of mercury poisoning, and thus brain damage, then many people in Japan would have to have that already*

*The only time that it was a problem was because of a factory releasing mercury-based waste chemicals into a bay where there was traditional fishing. So far, that company has paid out $86 million in compensation. And in that case, even cats started acting fucked up. People feed their cats fish all the time, and the selenium in fish prevents the cats suffering from mercury poisoning. And you know what: nobody even gives a shit about how much mercury is in catfood. Yet cats do ok. The whole thing really is media hysteria.