3 ms·

> Take 90 minutes, same time, same place every day. Completely ridiculous and counter productive. Half an hour twice a week is quite sufficient to maintain a

> Take 90 minutes, same time, same place every day. Completely ridiculous and counter productive. Half an hour twice a week is quite sufficient to maintain a reasonable level of fitness if you're doing it right. > Get at least 9 hours a day. Who the hell sleeps 9 hours? Sleep when you're tired. Drink when you're thirsty. It's not complicated.

fallentimes 18y ago
Really? What types of exercise do you recommend? I'd have to be dead tired to sleep 9 hours.
- kingkongrevenge 18y ago
  Intense exercise. I usually come close to puking when I lift. Keep moving and breathing hard. I go to a track and do various kinds of intervals. Sprint 50m, walk 50m for example. It doesn't even take 20 minutes and if you do it right you should be quite sore the next day. Fitness comes from pushing your tolerance, NOT from investing a lot of time. You should be pushing yourself hard enough that working out the next day will not feel like an option.
  - fallentimes 18y ago
    Excellent. I just moved close to Tuft's where there's a track. I'll try it out - thank you.
  - fallentimes 18y ago
    Another couple of quick questions: have you noticed notable improvements with your methodology? Or is it more of a keep in shape type thing? Could you email me whenever you have a chance. Thanks man.
  - khafra 18y ago
    Excellent and oft-overlooked point. Yudkowsky's recent advice that a 'strong' effort leads to mediocre results, and that to actually progress you must strive as your life were at stake, fits fitness perfectly. Once you've picked off the low-hanging fruit by starting a regular exercise routine, you'll only get in really good shape by putting in a life-or-death effort.
wumi 18y ago
KKR - the idea here is to get in shape, not maintain a reasonable level of fitness. While certainly 1/2 hour 2x/week is better than no work outs at all, it's not the quickest way to get in shape. That being said, I do advocate start slowly -- I started just 3 days/week.
- kingkongrevenge 18y ago
  > KKR - the idea here is to get in shape, not maintain a reasonable level of fitness. I am in shape. I ran a 56 400m the other day. That's not competitive, but it's in shape. I average about 2.5 "workouts" per week, but it's not rare that I go a week without exercising at all. Nothing I do takes over 35 minutes, except for long bike rides, which I don't really do regularly. Unless you're training for an endurance event, you do not need to spend a lot of time exercising to get into the top 20%. And if you ARE training for endurance I would recommend against it if your goal is health, because endurance athletes have health problems.
  - wumi 18y ago
    I'll ignore your "endurance athletes have health problems" phrase. Not sure how you are defining an "endurance event" nor sure if there's any empirical data to back that up. The idea of the post, is not for those, such as yourself apparently, who are already in shape. Rather, it was written for those who are in different stages of trying to get into shape. You're essentially arguing that quality of workout is more important than the quantity. I agree, but I think most people, including yourself probably block out a certain quantity of time -- by 35 minutes I suspect you mean the actual minutes you are working out. Great, but perhaps for others there are certain steps involved -- commute, warm-up, cool-down, stretch, et. al
    - bootload 18y ago
      "... I would recommend against it if your goal is health, because endurance athletes have health problems ..." There is some truth to this statement. Endurance athletes do have the tendency to train beyond their limit running the risk of damaging cardiac systems for example. Especially as they age. I can think of 2 Olympic athletes in Aus who recently had to undergo medical checkups & procedures for this, Mark Tomkins a rower ~ http://www.nbcolympics.com/athletes/athlete=736/bio/ http://www.nbcolympics.com/athletes/athlete=736/bio/ and Lisa Curry-Kenny an Olympic swimmer ~ http://www.finda.com.au/story/2008/08/24/lisa-curry-kenny-heart-emergency/ http://www.finda.com.au/story/2008/08/24/lisa-curry-kenny-he... Both these athletes probably trained beyond what was probably good and suffered irregularities in their heartbeats. The risk of other injuries profiles include http://www.google.com.au/search?q=endurance+athletes+and+risk+of+injury http://www.google.com.au/search?q=endurance+athletes+and+ris...
zand 18y ago
Indeed, 90 minutes/day is just not necessary, unless the goal is training for sport or competition. In fact, the HN crowd in particular might benefit from the compressed workout routine known as CrossFit. The workouts seldom take longer than 30 minutes--usually less--and have the combined benefit of training strength and cardio-vascular fitness. Mental toughness place a BIG role here, too. (Think: Better, Faster, Stronger) Check it out: http://www.crossfit.com/ http://www.crossfit.com/ Each WOD ("Workout Of the Day") is different than the last, and all of the exercises can be done at a park or in a home/garage gym. Any equipment used has DIY instructions to build rather than buy. In short, it's perfect for us entrepreneur-types who are [by necessity] so stingy with our time and money. A quote from one of the CrossFit founders/coaches best sums up its benefits: "Strong people are harder to kill than weak people, and are more useful in general." -Mark Rippetoe
denglish 18y ago
It really depends on your goals. 30 minutes twice a week is probably fine to maintain fitness, but particularly if you want to lose weight taking the sessions up to an hour / hour and a half and increasing the number of sessions a week significantly speeds up the process. And I know I function much much better on at least 8 hours sleep a night.

fallentimes 18y ago

Really? What types of exercise do you recommend? I'd have to be dead tired to sleep 9 hours.

kingkongrevenge 18y ago
Intense exercise. I usually come close to puking when I lift. Keep moving and breathing hard. I go to a track and do various kinds of intervals. Sprint 50m, walk 50m for example. It doesn't even take 20 minutes and if you do it right you should be quite sore the next day. Fitness comes from pushing your tolerance, NOT from investing a lot of time. You should be pushing yourself hard enough that working out the next day will not feel like an option.
- fallentimes 18y ago
  Excellent. I just moved close to Tuft's where there's a track. I'll try it out - thank you.
- fallentimes 18y ago
  Another couple of quick questions: have you noticed notable improvements with your methodology? Or is it more of a keep in shape type thing? Could you email me whenever you have a chance. Thanks man.
- khafra 18y ago
  Excellent and oft-overlooked point. Yudkowsky's recent advice that a 'strong' effort leads to mediocre results, and that to actually progress you must strive as your life were at stake, fits fitness perfectly. Once you've picked off the low-hanging fruit by starting a regular exercise routine, you'll only get in really good shape by putting in a life-or-death effort.

wumi 18y ago

KKR - the idea here is to get in shape, not maintain a reasonable level of fitness. While certainly 1/2 hour 2x/week is better than no work outs at all, it's not the quickest way to get in shape. That being said, I do advocate start slowly -- I started just 3 days/week.

kingkongrevenge 18y ago
> KKR - the idea here is to get in shape, not maintain a reasonable level of fitness. I am in shape. I ran a 56 400m the other day. That's not competitive, but it's in shape. I average about 2.5 "workouts" per week, but it's not rare that I go a week without exercising at all. Nothing I do takes over 35 minutes, except for long bike rides, which I don't really do regularly. Unless you're training for an endurance event, you do not need to spend a lot of time exercising to get into the top 20%. And if you ARE training for endurance I would recommend against it if your goal is health, because endurance athletes have health problems.
- wumi 18y ago
  I'll ignore your "endurance athletes have health problems" phrase. Not sure how you are defining an "endurance event" nor sure if there's any empirical data to back that up. The idea of the post, is not for those, such as yourself apparently, who are already in shape. Rather, it was written for those who are in different stages of trying to get into shape. You're essentially arguing that quality of workout is more important than the quantity. I agree, but I think most people, including yourself probably block out a certain quantity of time -- by 35 minutes I suspect you mean the actual minutes you are working out. Great, but perhaps for others there are certain steps involved -- commute, warm-up, cool-down, stretch, et. al
  - bootload 18y ago
    "... I would recommend against it if your goal is health, because endurance athletes have health problems ..." There is some truth to this statement. Endurance athletes do have the tendency to train beyond their limit running the risk of damaging cardiac systems for example. Especially as they age. I can think of 2 Olympic athletes in Aus who recently had to undergo medical checkups & procedures for this, Mark Tomkins a rower ~ http://www.nbcolympics.com/athletes/athlete=736/bio/ http://www.nbcolympics.com/athletes/athlete=736/bio/ and Lisa Curry-Kenny an Olympic swimmer ~ http://www.finda.com.au/story/2008/08/24/lisa-curry-kenny-heart-emergency/ http://www.finda.com.au/story/2008/08/24/lisa-curry-kenny-he... Both these athletes probably trained beyond what was probably good and suffered irregularities in their heartbeats. The risk of other injuries profiles include http://www.google.com.au/search?q=endurance+athletes+and+risk+of+injury http://www.google.com.au/search?q=endurance+athletes+and+ris...

zand 18y ago

Indeed, 90 minutes/day is just not necessary, unless the goal is training for sport or competition. In fact, the HN crowd in particular might benefit from the compressed workout routine known as CrossFit. The workouts seldom take longer than 30 minutes--usually less--and have the combined benefit of training strength and cardio-vascular fitness. Mental toughness place a BIG role here, too. (Think: Better, Faster, Stronger) Check it out: http://www.crossfit.com/ http://www.crossfit.com/ Each WOD ("Workout Of the Day") is different than the last, and all of the exercises can be done at a park or in a home/garage gym. Any equipment used has DIY instructions to build rather than buy. In short, it's perfect for us entrepreneur-types who are [by necessity] so stingy with our time and money. A quote from one of the CrossFit founders/coaches best sums up its benefits: "Strong people are harder to kill than weak people, and are more useful in general." -Mark Rippetoe

denglish 18y ago

It really depends on your goals. 30 minutes twice a week is probably fine to maintain fitness, but particularly if you want to lose weight taking the sessions up to an hour / hour and a half and increasing the number of sessions a week significantly speeds up the process. And I know I function much much better on at least 8 hours sleep a night.