6 months ago I started committing 3 days a week to a strength training program which I've strictly followed since. Making gains in the gym has motivated me to sleep better and eat better which both have had huge effects on every aspect of my life.
Not only that, but the exercise has helped a ton with anxiety I've had throughout life and even the few gains I've made have been a huge boost in confidence.
I urge everyone here to take up lifting as a hobby and stick with it.
It's less easy to quantify your progress than with weight lifting (whose easy conversion into numeric growth I wonder isn't one of its attractions when you're a data-driven kind of person) but has further reaching benefits beyond basic physical strength.
After 3 years of fairly regular yoga practise (3-4 sessions a week), even when combined with a fairly poor diet/lifestyle alongside it (way too much fun), left me feeling stronger, fitter, calmer, more centred, more energised* than I ever had before.
For those of you who, like me, are put off by the more 'hippy' aspects, I'd say it's a question of finding the right teacher rather than writing off the entire practice (my teacher at the time was nicknamed 'El Sargento' for her, shall we say 'strict' approach -- she taught Iyengar yoga with is a lot about details. This didn't suit everyone but suited me down to a tee).
There is an awful lot of pseudo religious bollocks that surrounds it but within that there's a really solid method for improving the quality of your life.
I bet Christian yoga will eventually become really popular in the US. I'd imagine it would keep the physical elements of yoga but infuse light Christian meditation into it, rather than the vague eastern spirituality that's currently everywhere in the industry.
Unfortunately I see too many people in my job (academia) who don't exercise despite the huge potential benefits to their productivity and life. So this makes me wonder: what is it about exercise that turns people off? Is it a communication issue? Is it the lack of confidence? Lack of knowledge? It seems that there are constant pushes in the media to be more healthy and exercise but it never seems to stick.
1. Convenience. If I have a gym in the building I live in, I'm about 10x more likely to use it. If it's a block down the street, I might go once a week. If it's two blocks down the street, it might as well be in Algiers.
2. Knowledge. I don't know how to lift weights, and I'm afraid I'll do it wrong and end up injuring myself. Apparently even running isn't trivial to do without potentially hurting yourself. If you don't have a friend who can show you how to do things right, it's not as easy to get started with confidence. (And let's face it, most of us here are probably not super likely to ask a stranger at the gym for help.)
3. Laziness. I've got work to do and video games to play, man! Working out isn't fun. I like riding my bike, but I'm not doing it in 30 degree weather, or in the rain, or in the snow.
We immediately enjoy entertainment. We clean because we see a mess, clean it, and see a nice clean area. We enjoy food right now.
Even if enough time has gone by to see the ill effects of neglecting health, it's still only a (strained) mental connection. We give up eating junk food and we go to the gym, but we still feel lousy two days later.
The feedback from healthy habits is generally slow, so you need some kind of form of lasting motivation or, more helpful, grit.
Start with grit. Determine that you'll do something miserable for 21 days before giving up. If that thing provides positive feedback within 21 days, you might actually stick to it.
For that reason, a combination of efficient workouts (full body / chain movements with sufficient loads) as well as the necessary sleep and diet improvements can work within 21 days.
We often "pick 1" when it comes to changing habits, but this is a case where you might want to pick 3 or 4 that all work well together, and try to stick to them for 21 days. But it all starts with grit.
Yes, yes, audiobooks, I know. Audiobooks/podcasts are great at lower intensities.
You use 5 compound exercises and work out 3 times per week. Recommendation is to start as light as possible.
From what I've read online, the 5x5 structure often leads to quicker stalling in progression for some than doing 3x5 like starting strength has you do for squat, overhead, and bench.
Also, some people really don't need to start as light as SL will have you starting on. Anecdotally, a friend of mine with an athletic background says when he starting weight training for college sports, he could bench over 200lbs for one rep having never seriously trained before. Starting with just the bar like SL recommends would be a big stall in his progress. On SL it'd take him about 53 weeks to bench 200 for 5x5 if starting with the bar and increasing by 2.5 pounds each bench exercise (1.5 times per week).
Also, Mehdi has no proper training in the background. Someone like Rippetoe, author of starting strength, has years of experience in powerlifting and coaching.
Quick article for further reading.
http://www.powerliftingtowin.com/stronglifts-5x5/
It mostly looks at SL from a powerlifting perspective, but much of the criticism is still valid.
Everyone I've spoken to got into lifting because they think it gets girls. They won't admit it directly or perhaps realize it themselves, but a series of questions leads to women: Of all types of exercise, why weights? -> So then why do you need to be toned? -> OK, then why do you need to look good in a T-shirt, or at bars, or in your profile pic? -> Because women like it.
Probably there are some fraction of women for whom this is an important factor in choosing men. Since I see many beautiful women choosing men with average physiques, I'm going to say that being highly muscled is not an important factor for most women.
NOTE: I'm not questioning exercise in general, cardiovascular fitness, being healthy, being free of disease, and not being overweight. All those are very important. I'm saying that of all the efficient ways of exercising, many people seem to pick lifting because of the misguided agenda that it attracts women.
Why be stronger? Many reasons, but it boils down to health and being strong enough to do activities that you otherwise wouldn't be able to do, both now (such as hiking or cross-country skiing) but also 30-50 years from now (not breaking a hip bone when you fall in the shower, for example).
For me, lifting heavy weights is a great counterpoint to spending time sitting still in front of a screen. Humans weren't made for that, and most humans nowadays are, to put it simply, weak (compared to what we were evolutionary selected for). As much as we would like to, we aren't just brains on a stick, we are also animals with physical demands.
Did some resistance training a few years ago - felt good, lost fat while doing it.
Shifted to cardio for a few years with an employee sponsored cardio-centric wellness program. Experienced a gradual fat gain and knee and back pain, although I was running 20-30 miles per week, using far too much time per week.
Shifting back to weights the last few months. Not being very rigorous, but doing the exercises in "Starting Strength". Back pain* and knee pain now very infrequent. Strength is increased. Some muscle definition improvement (though lots of excess fat still).
* Lower back pain actually made me very hesitant to do deadlifts. I started with the bar and the very lightest weights and gradually progressed, being VERY cautious about strain on the lower back. I'm only dead lifting ~200 lbs at this point, but my back is much happier.
We are hard-wired for this.
That said I utterly agree with the other poster's assessment of the benefits of exercise - less stress, better sleep.
You could run through the same questions for cardio and land at the same result. Of all types of exercise, why running? -> So why do you need to be thin? -> Ok, then why do you need to look good? -> Because women like it.
Getting fit is, for most people, an issue of both health and attractiveness. People who chose weights might be leaning more toward the attractiveness issue, or they might believe it's the healthier option, or they might simply enjoy it more.
For me personally, I lift weights (though I've really slacked off again lately) because it makes me feel better in ways that cardio does not. My back feels much better. My posture improves. I'm stronger. These are the main reasons I prefer weights to running now.
I think it's common for a lot of guys to start lifting for that reason, especially when they're younger. Lifting helps immensely with posture, confidence, overall happiness, energy levels, etc. etc. which does actually help "get girls", even if you don't get "jacked".
As time goes on, that becomes less important and all the other benefits shine through. The reason I've been lifting for 10 years is because of how it makes me feel - I walk out of the gym feeling a million bucks, I sleep like a rock, and my neck/back never give me trouble.
Most people seem to find it moderately to extremely difficult to exercise regularly. So I think you're looking at this wrong. Any time someone manages to stick with a regular exercise routine, my default assumption is that they stick with it because, for whatever reason, that is an exercise they are _able_ to stick with. The reasons they exercise are all the benefits you listed, the reason they choose a particular exercise is because they can find the motivation to do that particular exercise.
Maybe in your social group, being able to fantasize about being toned and hooking up in bars is a key component to being able to lift regularly, but -- and I know I am hypothesizing about people you know and I don't -- I would guess the first reasons they want to exercise regularly are all the benefits you listed, and the reason they stick with this particular exercise is because they are able to. So, OK, perhaps they are able to stick with it only because of the vision of being toned -- that's roughly your conclusion, as far as I can tell, but I think the perspective matters.
However, you also listed leading questions that lead directly to your conclusion that it's just about hooking up. Ask about what exercises their friends do, and you might find they have friends that lift, that it's a social commonality that helps them to keep exercising, or that they lift with friends. Ask about metrics and it might be that they find the metrics they can keep on lifting to be more motivational than they find metrics in other exercises. Ask about how they got started and you might find that this was just the first exercise where they found good information or a good mentor to start with that helped them feel competent and accomplished and helped them form a habit. What keeps people doing something is a lot more complex than can be divined by asking a few leading questions and coming to a conclusion that the interviewee won't directly agree with.
I personally started lifting in college because I thought it was fun and was sick of being super skinny (6' 130lbs). I wanted to be stronger and healthier because lord knows the rest of my time was spent programming, playing video games, or drinking. And I think that's the key, you should be working out for yourself not for others. Do it because you want to look better for yourself, do it because you want to be healthier.
(Anecdotally, I didn't notice that girls found me any more or less attractive after working out and putting on 20 lbs of muscle. That would be have been shitty if that was my end goal.)
I think you are just hanging out with the wrong people if all (or even most) of the people you know who lift are doing it for "girls"
Oh, and c), I heard it helps with depression.
Me personally - I climb, bike, run, and lift. I like variety, and I usually only do one of those activities a day. I find yoga to be too slow, with little mental engagement, and thus boring. My wife, however, loves yoga. And we run and climb together when we can.
It's all about finding some form(s) of exercise / physically-intense-activity that works for you. I found that I'm attracted to things that engage both my mind and body. Rock climbing is incredibly hard physically and mentally engaging; each boulder problem is like solving a puzzle. And for the progression minded, each route or climb is graded so one can measure progress and overall fitness improvement. Mountain biking is fast, furious, and mentally demanding because you have to pick the right line to stay rubber side down. I tend to ride as fast and as hard as I can, both up and down trails to keep it demanding and fun.
Cross-training is important as it forces you to work different muscle groups, which promotes overall better body awareness and health. I also find that when I take breaks in the middle of the day to do these kinds of activities, I find I'm able to focus better and get more done. I've also found that when I'm stuck on a particularly thorny challenge, be it a defect or algorithm / design problem, taking a break and getting some exercise usually opens up new avenues of thought and ideas I hadn't considered previously.
No more back aches at all. I never realized just how much and how constant the back pain I had was. Even when I was sleeping - tossed and turned all night.
I think it is also worth looking at kettlebells and gymnastic rings. Here are some good exercises using gymnastic rings. They're a bit challenging at first, but worth the effort, I think.
The inner conflict went FROM $60 gym membership/long-term health vs going home TO $175 gym membership/long-term health vs going home. I chose the gym a lot more often then, and I am much more healthy than 1 year ago.
Just my 2 cents, if you enjoy your gym all the better for you. But I also think that many people give up because they find it boring.
That said, not everybody has exactly these goals, so if learning construction skills is more appealing to you than spending time in a gym, by all means.
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that a gym is much more accessible than construction projects.
If you don't want to be serious about fitness, because you just want to be healthier, just do the lifting. This will already be a great improvement. If you become used to it, feel better about yourself and feel like there's more room for improvement, then start watching you diet.
Per the original article, minimizing the frictions that make it less likely you'll do something was really important for me. Not every exercise works for everyone - I found that I prefer a group, or solitary, environment and that mainstream busy gyms don't work well for me. Since I can't afford 1:1 coaching, I do the group stuff, but I'm picky about my gym and coach.
When I moved, I did seek out a local weightlifting gym and met with a coach occasionally, but finding a local gym with even a proper squat rack (not a smith machine) was a challenge. I enjoyed doing the Starting Strength program, though dealing with setbacks from illness, travel etc got annoying (I felt like I was always retreading the same ground) and I missed doing more rounded cardio/plyo/flexibility work, so I've since gone back to Crossfit for a while to get my base fitness back up again.
If I had to make a recommendation for a beginner who might feel stressed out going while being overweight or skinny, I'd suggest you do some research into a program to follow strictly first, then go with a good plan. I recommend reading through Starting Strength for your first time.
Also like everyone says, no one is going to fault you for trying to get in shape. Most people are actually willing to help out if you talk to them and let them.
Edit: I'm surprised by the downvotes, I was just asking for a clarification, "committing 3 days per week" could mean dedicate 3 days just to that.
I didn't, and was fine for over ten yeares, before I started to have bad RSI problems. I managed to get well, but it took a lot of effort and time: http://henrikwarne.com/2012/02/18/how-i-beat-rsi/
I really like Awareness[0]. Stand[1] is good too, but I prefer having 5 minute breaks every 15 minutes, which Stand doesn't allow.
[0] http://iamfutureproof.com/tools/awareness/ [1] https://getstandapp.com/
Some other ergonomic changes that I have found helpful are to use a standing desk with a monitor arm and placing my monitor so I'm looking slightly up.
Yes, that's actually how Fitbit started. From http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/223780
Fitbit got its start after founders James Park and Eric Friedman sold their peer-to-peer photo-sharing company Windup Labs to CNet in 2005. While pondering their next move, Park, a former cross-country runner and avid swimmer, realized two things: that years of startup life had left him in terrible shape, and that he had the resources to come up with a solution. In early 2007, the two launched their fitness gadget company in San Francisco's Financial District, with Park as CEO and Friedman as CTO.
I set this resolution for myself last year, and have been able to work on three projects via http://socialcoder.org/ - feels very fulfilling!
[As an aside, it was really depressing to see how smaller charities without adequate tech knowledge or budget get taken for ride by scam artists.]
If I might suggest an alternative way of thinking, I would argue that even if your day job is figuring out ways to entice people to click on ads, it can still be important because it allows you to make arseloads of money which you then turn around and redistribute to the charities of your choice. Me, I like my work and like to think my work makes the lives of the people that use it just a teensy bit better. But like my work or not, when the local charity says "help, we're in a crunch and need money for $GOOD_CAUSE" I can whip out the checkbook, write a $1000 check and still make the mortgage payment.
And this isn't theoretical, I've actually gone through this mental exercise with the local animal shelter. Is it better that I do a job that doesn't have quite as high a hiring bar as software, for less money, but doing "good work"? Or continue pulling down fat stacks in software, physically volunteer when I can, and write big checks? I chose the latter. As Tyler Durden said, "you are not your job." You are, however, what you do with the fruits of your job.
Time just makes more sense that way. Otherwise you get weirdness like this: 12:00 AM occurs before 11:00 AM on the same day.
I too prefer a 24-hour clock, but when I don't use it I always use 'midnight' and 'noon' (or, sometimes, '12:00m' for 'meridiem'), just to be completely clear.
Let's make a day be 86400 seconds (already a SI standard), and then you can divide that into tenths, hundreds or whatever. One thousand of a day is 84.4 seconds, which is close to a minute (which is (/ 60 (/ 24 one-day))).
We have metric for measurements in space, but something as simple for day-to-day time measurement would be nice.
I'm sorry I'm making fun of you, but I just can't help myself as this happens all the time -- somebody comes up with a reasonable idea, and then the next commenter takes it so widely out of proportion, willing to re-engineer the whole society just to marginally improve his own comfort.
It's not a bad idea in principle, but the massive cost of switching wouldn't be worth the marginal gains.
Why not keep the day as it is, which can be conveniently divided into halves, thirds, fourths, fifths, sixths, eights, ninths, tenths and twelfths, as well as any multiples of those you like?
It's expensive, the benefits are minor, and our system is fine (it could be better of course: a switch to nautical miles would be nice, and making a gallon 256 cubic inches would be great). I've never seen a compelling reason to convert — and neither have Americans in general.
> Every other country faced the same expense and learning curve.
If every other country jumped off of a bridge, would you? The French system really isn't as good as it's cracked up to be.
French units optimise for abstract unit conversion (e.g. inches to feet or millimetres to kilometres); standard units optimise for concrete manipulation (e.g. dividing a gallon into cups, or a litre into decilitres). The thing is, unit conversion really isn't that common compared to manipulation (after all, what do units of measure exist for if not to manipulate objects?).
One look at any news site is enough to help you avoid the first 12 resolutions.
I recently read the 4-Hour Workweek by Tim Ferriss and he has some great exercises called Comfort Challenges that really push you to go outside of your comfort zone. Some examples include
* Maintain eye contact for a long time
* Approach attractive males/females and get their numbers
* Lie down in the middle of a public place
# http://people.cs.kuleuven.be/~bart.demoen/PrologProgrammingC...
# http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~pjh/prolog_module/sem242.html
# http://www.learnprolognow.org/
I'm getting an itch now, I think I'll give Prolog a second go this new year.
But Prolog is really something different. I only know some basic ideas but definitely want to dig deeper in the future.
3D maths and game development worked out somewhat in the past (I forgot most of it though, and as that was the DOS days it wasn't really more than high school level geometry). But I doubt that I could find enough real noticeable application for e.g. category theory.
(Just being the basis for something often isn't enough. You don't need to know much about physics to hop on a trampoline.)
I'd love it if people had suggestions for other engaging ways to apply math while programming!
My current job has me messing around with linear algebra and statistical analysis on occasion, though I've found the cobwebs in that part of my brain are rather thick :)
Switch to emacs + evil, or alternatively to Spacemacs: https://github.com/syl20bnr/spacemacs
As a text editor, I find vim's paradigm to be absolutely superb. As an editing environment, emacs offers so much more in terms of extensibility and functionality.
I tried for a long time to love readline's vi-mode, but the level of customization to get a bad vim experience (I know vi and vim are different beasts, that's part of the problem) makes this not too valuable a task. On the other hand, with emacs + evil, I get emacs in any REPL I want, and in a pretty capable shell, with evil editing everywhere, which is much less painful to configure than readline.
http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-comput...
I'm currently waiting to see what comes back from fsck on a 4TB drive connected to a Raspberry Pi (don't ask). Drive is 390 days old according to SMART and reporting unrecoverable read errors.
Most of the stuff was in other locations but I know there was one repo I was waiting to push... waited too long, I guess.
Edit: ouch.
root@kiwi:/media/files2# ls -lah
total 12K
drwxrwxrwx 3 nobody backup 4.0K Dec 22 22:19 .
drwxr-xr-x 5 root root 4.0K Dec 30 20:19 ..
drwx------ 32 root root 4.0K Dec 31 00:54 lost+foundHolidays are almost over and new SSD/W10 install went rogue. Old HDD got somehow damaged so bad sectors appeared. Spent good part of holidays playing with Hirens boot CD, dd and other tools.
This year they have a Mac and everything is automagically backed up to a USB drive.
I typically type ~90 wpm, and using Dvorak I was up to ~110.
That's great and all, however I am very seldom typing words. More often, I'm inputting key-bindings and pressing shortcut combinations. Some programs offer Dvorak-based keybindings, but not all, and unlearning all those keybindings on top of the typing instincts provides yet another layer of frustration. Not to mention the fact that every time I used my wife's computer I was effectively crippled ;)
Overall, I would say learn Dvorak if you just are really curious or do a lot of very serious word-based typing. Otherwise, it's just a waste of time.
I used Dvorak for ~2 years and then switched to using colemak for the last 3+. OS support for both is widespread.
You can get back up close to your QWERTY speed in about a month or so (maybe less if going from QWERTY straight to colemak).
I switched to the alternatives to reduce RSI rather than speed and found it helped me with both.
[1]: http://colemak.com/
- Relearn what you already know.
> 1. Go analog.
Hahahaha NO. I get paid to solve problems, not be happy or healthy.
> 2. Stay healthy.
"Stay" healthy? Heh, for me and a lot of programmers I've known, that ship has long since sailed. Maybe "become" healthy would be more appropriate.
> 3. Embrace the uncomfortable.
Well, if more people did this, we'd probably not have religious conflicts.
> 4. Learn a new programming language.
Yes. Usually a good idea.
> 5. Automate.
Yes. Automate more, hire less.
> 6. Learn more mathematics.
This could be useful for most people.
> 7. Focus on security.
I already do this, but I agree that most programmers should focus more on security every day.
> 8. Back up your data.
Ditto with security.
> 9. Learn more theory.
This could be useful for most people.
> 10. Engage the arts and humanities.
Ugh, hell no. That's for other people to enjoy.
> 11. Learn new software.
Yes.
> 12. Complete a personal project.
Wait, you mean to tell me that "start a personal project and actually finish it" is a thing people are capable of?
> that ship has long since sailed
> that's for other people to enjoy.
> is a thing people are capable of?
You seem very unhappy.