17 ms·
How Strength Training Changes Your Body for Good
- Aron 9y agoWeight training doesn't make your muscles bigger, it inspires your body to make your muscles bigger. So my question has always been, if having bigger muscles is good why doesn't the body just do it? It certainly has to be aware that I'm operating with a calorie surplus.
- maxcan 9y agoSimply maintaining muscle mass requires a considerable amount of calories. Our bodies evolved to function with the least calories possible. So, if you aren't using your muscles often, the body will catabolize muscle to save energy. If you are using your muscles, and thus signaling to your body that you need more of them, your body will devote energy to hypertrophy and increase muscle mass. The current regime of near universal caloric surplus is not something our ancestors ever faced and evolution left us very little tools to deal with instinctively.
- thaumasiotes 9y ago> The current regime of near universal caloric surplus is not something our ancestors ever faced and evolution left us very little tools to deal with instinctively. This depends on your ancestors. Demographics with a long history of agriculture are much less vulnerable to diet-induced diabetes than, say, native Americans are. Some people will eat to gorging when faced with more food than they can eat, and some won't.
- cbanek 9y agoThat's super interesting about demographics with a long history of agriculture. Do you have any links for further reading on that?
- barry-cotter 9y agohttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1323307/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1323307/ Diabetes and Mexicans: Why the Two Are Linked https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1932342/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1932342/ Diabetes Mellitus: A “Thrifty” Genotype Rendered Detrimental by “Progress”?
- Aron 9y agoHow many calories do you think it takes [to maintain] +1 lb of muscle mass, with same activity levels? [Hint: It's not the broscience 50]
- cma 9y agoProbably a calorie surplus is more efficiently stored as fat than as muscle (which consumes considerable extra calories too). And most food crisis events maybe aren't remedied with brute strength, especially if you hadn't been using strength before the crisis to achieve your main foodstuffs. (But it could be many other reasons too when you factor in sexual selection, etc.)
- DrScump 9y agoGenetics and epigenetics. If muscle isn't needed and used, it's expensive to maintain.
- dnackoul 9y agoBecause muscles take energy to power and fat is storage. In the non-modern world where food was scarcer it wasn't always advantageous to increase in muscle size and therefore caloric needs. Better to carry some fat around in case you don't find food for a while.
- Aron 9y agoI agree that this is the shape of the answer, but I think that fat being preferential to muscle as a calorie store leaves not a lot of room to believe that muscle had substantial other advantages to health. Now of course, it might not be having the muscle that is healthful, but the activities involved in creating it.
- innerpeace1 9y agoBravo, spoken like a true geek, if only evolution was as simple as building machines.
- dpark 9y agoEvolution is building machines. What is often missed is that the machines that survive best across many scenarios may not excel in most scenarios. You can build a robot that moves 60mph on wheels but it can't take the stairs. Evolution could have built humans that naturally carry far more muscle, but those same humans would die massively in the event of a famine.
- FullMtlAlcoholc 9y agoEvolution does build machines. It is a master of nanotechnology.
- garraeth 9y agoEven if you are operating with a calorie surplus, you'd need to eat an optimal mix of nutrients to maintain extra muscle. Most people (most likely) cannot simply ramp up amounts of what you currently eat. For example, if you suddenly require 5000 c/day, you cannot simply eat more pizza, MT Dew, etc. You have to eat 5000 c/day of nutrient rich food. Your muscles do not only require calories. This is actually very hard to do (imagine how much actual food volume you have to process)! You also need many more macronutrients to keep things going (all that extra food needs to be processed), and clean (significantly more waste byproducts produced). Your cardiovascular system needs to grow in conjunction with the extra muscle -- it must keep up. As does your skeletal (bones, ligaments/tendons).
- ec109685 9y agoWhich nutrients are pizza missing for building muscle? The problem with pizza is that it is way too easy to over indulge, but I don't think it is lacking "nutrients".
- Daishiman 9y agoFiber for improved intestinal health, and probably a boatload of micronutrients.
- ec109685 9y agoCrust has fiber.
- tejohnso 9y agoProtein. Pizza is a high carb dish in most cases. If you're getting a whole chicken breast worth of chicken per two or three slices, that's a different story. But in general it's mostly a bunch of white bread with some tasty sauce on it.
- ntsplnkv2 9y agoPizza has cheese which has a decent amount of protein in it. Lots of pizzas also have meat toppings as well.
- amelius 9y agoA related question would be: why doesn't my body dump all the fat, since I'm eating a surplus of calories anyway?
- Aron 9y agoPresumably because carrying surplus fat has minimal cost relative to the evolutionary likelihood of famine. This is more obvious than the muscle scenario. For muscle, prior to the famine you get to do cool things like punch your neighbor and do pull ups. During a famine, you could consume your muscles as calories. Where is the cost?
- bluedino 9y agoIf your body fat percentage is too low, you'll run into side effects (including reproductive ones)
- dpark 9y agoDuring a famine your fat neighbor will survive longer. Storing fat is more efficient than building muscle. Maintaining fat is more efficient than maintaining muscle. And metabolizing fat is more efficient than metabolizing muscle. So while it's cool that you can do pull-ups, your fat neighbor will easily outlast you in a famine unless you're willing to eat him.
- _chris_ 9y agowhy doesn't my body dump all the fat, since I'm eating a surplus of calories anyway? That's a great research question. Normally, the body tries to maintain a happy "set point" of fat. However, different genetic populations (who may have historically gone through more famine) are more inclined to save fat than dump it relative to others. Researchers suspect that there is some mechanism that may be going awry due to our modern diet/lifestyle. Fat makes a protein called leptin; the more leptin in our body, the fatter we must be. So why is our body not properly measuring how much leptin is in our bloodstream and thus thinking it is skinnier than it really is? Answer that and you will both win a Nobel Prize and become a very rich person.
- eberkund 9y agoSimply put: your body knows you are operating at a caloric surplus NOW. But it can't assume you will be operating at a caloric surplus for the indefinite future. Your body doesn't want to behave like a professional athlete who spends all the money from their first contract only to have a career ending injury and wind up broke.
- ChemicalWarfare 9y agomuscles DO get bigger when you consume more calories then what your body requires for "maintenance". except of course unless your testosterone levels are exceptionally high most of those calories would go into fat storage. you might know that this calorie surplus will last "forever" but your body doesn't so to speak so it's choosing a safe bet survival strategy-wise.
- tybit 9y agoI think it effectively operates under the heuristic of build only as much muscle as needed(which is why the signals(hormones) are needed), store excess as fat. That makes sense if starvation is the largest risk shaping evolution, but this is all just armchair biology.
- oh_sigh 9y agoBecause your body deems big muscles as relatively worthless if you don't need them. They are a big energy sink so it makes sense. Also, being muscular increases your basal metabolic rate, so not only does it take energy (which may not be available) to grow them, but you also spend more energy simply existing with more muscle mass.
- spodek 9y agoSince I bet the overwhelming majority of our 300,000 years worth of homo sapiens ancestors and countless more years of prior ancestors exercised in these ways as a matter of course, I would instead title it "How sedentary lifestyles and lack of strength training degrade your body and mind."
- gutnor 9y agoNot sure if I made that comment already on HN. But I was watching a documentary on some amazonian hunter-gatherer tribe. All the men from teens to elders looked like gym models. It never struck me until I was in my 30's - but really I have the body of a sick individual and the guy on the gym adverts is actually what the human body looks by design, not some sort of aspirational dream.
- droopyEyelids 9y agoHere's hoping you're young, and find the motivation to start testing the mental barrier that keeps you in this unhealthy state.
- jseliger 9y agoAll the men from teens to elders looked like gym models. It never struck me until I was in my 30's - but really I have the body of a sick individual and the guy on the gym adverts is actually what the human body looks by design, not some sort of aspirational dream. I've seen comments like this before, and they're valid, but I've also seen evolutionary biologists and/or anthropologists point out too that many if not most people who are wounded or sick die. So you're also seeing selection bias, where the healthy thrive and you don't see the unhealthy because they're dead.
- 1123581321 9y agoThat's valid if someone's saying hunter-gatherers lived healthier lives on average, but in this case, the OP is presumably healthy enough to do strength training so can fairly compare themselves to a healthy group of hunter-gatherers.
- donretag 9y ago"The average American flat-out loathes strength training. While about half of people do the recommended amount of aerobic activity each week, only 20% also do the muscle-strengthening moves that work major muscle groups." That definitely sums up myself. I am a cyclist. My totals for this week are 147.1 miles with 15,497 feet of climbing (I do nothing but mountains, flat is boring!), but if you ask me to do 10 push ups, I will complain! For me aerobic activity engages my mind. There is a destination. The environment moves and is changing. When climbing up a hill, I have no choice to push myself if I am ever going to get to the top. Push ups? I simply stop when my body resists. Despite my complaints, I do some strength training. Core strength is important in cycling and it is my upper body that fails during long rides, not my legs. My legs can keep going, but my shoulders give out due to constant vibrations.
- randlet 9y agoYou'd probably see nice returns in your cycling if you started doing heavy barbell squats too.
- brandonmenc 9y agoMaybe. afaik, most elite cyclists do not squat. I'm guessing endurance and low body weight are more advantageous to the sport. I'm sure there are studies. Can anyone else chime in?
- DrScump 9y agoI can see how fast-twitch fibers are less important for endurance athletes. For cyclists, only climbs and sprints would benefit much.
- dchapp 9y agoElite track cyclists--i.e., the ones who ride at 40+ kmph on velodromes--definitely do squat. I wouldn't be surprised if they also incorporated power cleans and deadlifts. Example: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aOImvJOaGiY https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aOImvJOaGiY
- deskamess 9y agoDo we always need additional/external weights, or are there any body weight exercises that can target your bones? Perhaps leg bones are easier since the body weight goes through them. How about upper body (like shoulder area) and the spine?
- narak 9y agoRunning has recently been shown, in contrast to previously held views, to strengthen spinal disks. [1] Pull-ups/chin-ups/dips are probably the best upper body weight exercise, followed by classic floor exercises pushups and leg raises for the core. Many of these stress bones in addition to the muscles. [1] http://www.deakin.edu.au/about-deakin/media-releases/articles/world-first-study-shows-running-can-strengthen-the-discs-in-the-spine http://www.deakin.edu.au/about-deakin/media-releases/article...
- js2 9y agoYou can do a lot with just bodyweight, but even the r/bodyweight folks recommend using a barbell for squats and deadlifts.
- tejohnso 9y agoYou can get pretty far with kettlebells too. And they're easier to deal with for a home gym.
- js2 9y agoDo you have a site you recommend with good routines? r/kettlebell maybe? I'm familiar with kettlebells from Crossfit, but I know CF catches a lot of flak for how they use them.
- tejohnso 9y agoHaven't been to r/kettlebell but I like what they have over at onnit[1] for beginners. I'm in the camp that would recommend against crossfit. [1] https://www.onnit.com/academy/full-body-kettlebell-workout-for-beginners/ https://www.onnit.com/academy/full-body-kettlebell-workout-f...
- havella 9y agoIndoor climbing/bouldering is a nice alternative for ppl who find lifting boring. Despite mostly engaging upper body, it really gives you a good workout with the added problem solving challenge, balance and flexibility training.
- agumonkey 9y agoWhat I like about climbing, despite never having done it, - blends power and subtlety - blends static and dynamic - involves almost all limb chains The added "route planning" effort also forces your brain into deep focus. A climber said for him every second is an hour. And on actual rock, having to judge a grabbing surface on the fly is beautiful to me, like playing violin.
- shahbaby 9y agoOne thing I wish I realized earlier in regards to strength training: It's very easy to do at home if you have the space for it. You don't need an expensive machine. A used power rack and bench can be found for cheap. I now get my workouts done in the amount of time it would've taken me to drive to/from the gym. Listen to whatever music I like. Don't have to worry about other people. Don't have to worry about weather.
- cameldrv 9y agoVery true. Dialing it down even further, a bench and a set of adjustable dumbbells can be had for even cheaper and take up a lot less space. You won't be able to progress as far, particularly with leg exercises, but a small flat bench with dumbbells under it fits in the corner of a room when not in use. The power rack, bench, weights, and barbell may not be too expensive, but the extra room to hold all of them is. That said, I'm a huge fan of the home workout. There's at least an hour worth of time overhead in going to the gym, and there's mental activation energy too. At home, I can easily start a workout, I never wait for a machine, I change in my bedroom instead of a locker room, I'm using my own shower, and it takes zero time to get there. Especially for beginners, the downsides of only having dumbbells are dwarfed by the benefits of doing it at home.
- fuwafuwa 9y agoIf you're really hard up for space or money, resistance bands offer one of the best tradeoffs. The modular sets scale up to high weight and will last a while. The issues that I think hit most people are not really with equipment, though, but time/motivation/energy. For that, it takes ordinary habit forming and logging progress.
- Chris2048 9y agoHonest question: I live in a small apartment, is another issue not smell? i.e, the room with gym equipment may begin to smell of sweat?
- hokkos 9y ago