3 ms·

For many years, weight lifters thought that by increasing the number of repetitions, they could increase their strength. Eventually, they found out this wasn't

For many years, weight lifters thought that by increasing the number of repetitions, they could increase their strength. Eventually, they found out this wasn't true. What's needed is a very few reps and a great amount of weight. The same is likely true with intellectual pursuits. Better to struggle with Bach's inventions 30 minutes a day than to play "Smoke on the water" for 10 years.

hhm 19y ago
Very interesting! Do you have some source / link for this?
- vlad 19y ago
  You would probably want to go for size, not just strength, so about 10 reps per set instead of 4 or 5, about 3 sets plus a warmup set, and about 3-5 exercises per body area, and repeat about once a week. So, about four times per week. You really want to take about 45 to 55 minutes, unless you do cardio for 20 minutes beforehand to build up cardiovascular strength as well, in which case you would spend about 1:30 at a gym, four times per week. That's all it takes. Tomorrow, I'll try to find some links. But the main thing is to eat a lot of protein, drink plenty of water (to flush your kidneys), eat many meals throughout the day, and get lots of sleep. That's what's harder to do than going to the gym.
nanijoe 19y ago
The original author is actually wrong..especially using his chess analogy. Incremental improvements will get you nowhere. The best way to raise your chess game is to play against people who are faaar better than you. Do this for one week, and you will find yourself crushing your [former] peers. Using the same analogy, Mark Zuckerberg should have beeen aiming to build facebook into a 10 million dollar company (or something)
- deleted 19y ago
  [deleted]
- michael_nielsen 19y ago
  The original author is arguably the world's best mathematician. He certainly hasn't gone nowhere. It may be worth considering that he knows what he's talking about.
  - nanijoe 19y ago
    It may be worth considering that I am talking about chess.
    - michael_nielsen 19y ago
      You made an analogy to Facebook, so you weren't just talking about chess.
- whacked_new 19y ago
  That point about chess is highly debatable. Brain scans on domain-specific experts (math and chess are domain-specific skills) have shown activation in areas that store episodic memory. What this means, is that a large part of the "expertness" comes from efficient retrieval from long term memory (a fast pipeline between RAM and HDD, if you will). Writing to HDD, in the brain at least, is usually an incremental process. I am not a chess player, but in go, this makes perfect sense. You start with the most basic strategies and build on them as you advance. If the skill gap is too wide you'd probably drown in confusion trying to take apart what is going on. Granted, it's not black and white. If you're smart you'd be able to take bigger jumps and piece together several steps with each jump, in which case, for you, playing somebody faaar better is simply a reasonable next step for you, but relative to your skill level it's still a "slow" process.
- brl 19y ago
  I think it doesn't matter if you play people who are slightly better or far better players than you are. The secret is getting your ass kicked as often as possible.
- vidar 19y ago
  I will have to disagree with you there. If the gap between you and your coworker/chessopponent is too great there are no lessons learned. Trying to assimilate knowledge too fast will only lead to superficial understanding and frustration.
  - ambiversive 19y ago
    Sadly, you're describing me and quantum mechanics.
menloparkbum 19y ago
Bach's inventions aren't really that hard.
- deleted 19y ago
  [deleted]
- mynameishere 19y ago
  ...they're used in education, unlike e.g. Rachmaninoff's 3rd.

hhm 19y ago

Very interesting! Do you have some source / link for this?

vlad 19y ago
You would probably want to go for size, not just strength, so about 10 reps per set instead of 4 or 5, about 3 sets plus a warmup set, and about 3-5 exercises per body area, and repeat about once a week. So, about four times per week. You really want to take about 45 to 55 minutes, unless you do cardio for 20 minutes beforehand to build up cardiovascular strength as well, in which case you would spend about 1:30 at a gym, four times per week. That's all it takes. Tomorrow, I'll try to find some links. But the main thing is to eat a lot of protein, drink plenty of water (to flush your kidneys), eat many meals throughout the day, and get lots of sleep. That's what's harder to do than going to the gym.

nanijoe 19y ago

The original author is actually wrong..especially using his chess analogy. Incremental improvements will get you nowhere. The best way to raise your chess game is to play against people who are faaar better than you. Do this for one week, and you will find yourself crushing your [former] peers. Using the same analogy, Mark Zuckerberg should have beeen aiming to build facebook into a 10 million dollar company (or something)

deleted 19y ago
[deleted]
michael_nielsen 19y ago
The original author is arguably the world's best mathematician. He certainly hasn't gone nowhere. It may be worth considering that he knows what he's talking about.
- nanijoe 19y ago
  It may be worth considering that I am talking about chess.
  - michael_nielsen 19y ago
    You made an analogy to Facebook, so you weren't just talking about chess.
whacked_new 19y ago
That point about chess is highly debatable. Brain scans on domain-specific experts (math and chess are domain-specific skills) have shown activation in areas that store episodic memory. What this means, is that a large part of the "expertness" comes from efficient retrieval from long term memory (a fast pipeline between RAM and HDD, if you will). Writing to HDD, in the brain at least, is usually an incremental process. I am not a chess player, but in go, this makes perfect sense. You start with the most basic strategies and build on them as you advance. If the skill gap is too wide you'd probably drown in confusion trying to take apart what is going on. Granted, it's not black and white. If you're smart you'd be able to take bigger jumps and piece together several steps with each jump, in which case, for you, playing somebody faaar better is simply a reasonable next step for you, but relative to your skill level it's still a "slow" process.
brl 19y ago
I think it doesn't matter if you play people who are slightly better or far better players than you are. The secret is getting your ass kicked as often as possible.
vidar 19y ago
I will have to disagree with you there. If the gap between you and your coworker/chessopponent is too great there are no lessons learned. Trying to assimilate knowledge too fast will only lead to superficial understanding and frustration.
- ambiversive 19y ago
  Sadly, you're describing me and quantum mechanics.

menloparkbum 19y ago

Bach's inventions aren't really that hard.

deleted 19y ago
[deleted]
mynameishere 19y ago
...they're used in education, unlike e.g. Rachmaninoff's 3rd.