How Strength Training Changes Your Body for Good

[spodek]

Since 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]

Not 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.

[tzs]

I'd guess that what our ancestors did would be more akin to endurance, stamina, and agility training exercises than strength training exercises.

[shahbaby]

One 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]

Very 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.

[trentmb]

One can get pretty far with just a pull up bar and gymnast rings.

[donretag]

"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.

[frobozz]

That quote from the article isn't at all surprising.

The aerobic recommendation is 2.5hrs of brisk walking (i.e. 7 to 8 miles, e.g just over a mile a day). You'd have to be pretty dedictated to a sedentary lifestyle not to manage that.

On the other hand, you have to think about doing the equivalent of 1 set of 12 reps to exhaustion on each major muscle group twice a week.

[randlet]

You'd probably see nice returns in your cycling if you started doing heavy barbell squats too.

[shakestheclown]

Have you tried changing up your strength training? There's no fun to doing more push ups, crunches, etc. but my goal is to beat my high score at deadlifting, etc. each week which keeps me motivated. Or flipping a tractor tire from X to Y; there's a destination.

There's a lot of different ways to strength train, it's not all seemingly pointless tasks.

[Aron]

Weight 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]

Simply 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.

[garraeth]

Even 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).

[dnackoul]

Because 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.

[tybit]

I 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.

[DrScump]

Genetics and epigenetics.

If muscle isn't needed and used, it's expensive to maintain.

[eberkund]

Simply 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.

[cma]

Probably 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.)

[oh_sigh]

Because 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.

[amelius]

A related question would be: why doesn't my body dump all the fat, since I'm eating a surplus of calories anyway?

[ChemicalWarfare]

muscles 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.

[innerpeace1]

Bravo, spoken like a true geek, if only evolution was as simple as building machines.

[havella]

Indoor 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]

What 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.

[deskamess]

Do 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]

Running 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/article...

[fuwafuwa]

Stretching indirectly helps with bone health by improving joint activation and range of motion. If you're getting an increased ROM that's generally better for the bone than if it's stiff and limited.

[swiley]

Get weights and get a trainer.

The difference is absolutely incredible, I thought it was supposed to take weeks to see changes and then I tried that and it was nearly instantaneous.

[js2]

You can do a lot with just bodyweight, but even the r/bodyweight folks recommend using a barbell for squats and deadlifts.

[bane]

Isometrics are pretty good. You have to do them at various angles to build strength up across a range of motion, but they're very effective.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isometric_exercise