[HN Gopher] The Internet's Richest Fitness Resource Is a Site fr...
___________________________________________________________________
The Internet's Richest Fitness Resource Is a Site from 1999
Author : prhrb
Score : 382 points
Date : 2023-03-09 13:14 UTC (2 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.newyorker.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.newyorker.com)
| Eupraxias wrote:
| When I see sites like this, I want to give them money and support
| them, whether the content is worth it or not.
|
| This made my day.
| dbcurtis wrote:
| Looks like you can. I clicked one of the "special populations"
| links and the content is behind a subscription sign-up.
|
| Also site seems to be getting creaky - we may be pounding the
| server a little hard.
| pessimizer wrote:
| > Also site seems to be getting creaky - we may be pounding
| the server a little hard.
|
| Maybe the help they need is architecture/infrastructure
| improvements.
| sboomer wrote:
| Some content is only for premium subscribers. When you try to log
| in/subscribe the site throws php exception with error stack as if
| it is running on dev environment.
| asddubs wrote:
| works for me
| ale42 wrote:
| Looks like too many people are on the site... "SQLSTATE[HY000]
| [1040] Too many connections"
| joenot443 wrote:
| Was anyone else expecting bodybuilding.com? Not that I spend much
| time there, but I've always liked the forums. One of the few old
| 2000s style forums left complete with avatars, quote text, shared
| shibboleth. and a healthy skepticism of newcomers.
| zoklet-enjoyer wrote:
| Bodybuilding.com forums got me interested in nootropics. Those
| guys are trend setters and some of the first people I would
| consider biohackers
| jokowueu wrote:
| For me it was longecity that got me into nootopics . I got in
| the first group buy , it was nsi-189 since then I've been
| invited in underground groups that go far beyond that .
|
| Super interesting world we are living in
| zoklet-enjoyer wrote:
| Oh yeah! I was on longecity too
| jokowueu wrote:
| If you are interested add me on discord and I'll add you
| to some rocket chat servers just to look around
|
| https://pastebin.com/nYqPfWq5
| kilroy123 wrote:
| What kind of underground groups?
| jokowueu wrote:
| Group buys for meds related to untreatable illnesses, etc
| through independent chemists or labs either in china or
| eastern Europe
| travisporter wrote:
| I'm still extremely skeptical. How would a newbie go about
| learning about this stuff? Wiki is not very encouraging
| rTX5CMRXIfFG wrote:
| Not me, no. I decided to be formally educated in sports science
| precisely because the internet is awash with disinformation
| regarding fitness, bodybuilding.com included (and, honestly,
| HN). There are some posts there that get the science right, but
| there's a lot of falsehoods too, or unindividualized, "over-
| engineered" advice.
|
| On a more on-topic note: I've never consciously held ExRx in
| high regard, but considering how exhaustive and encyclopedic
| its curation of exercises is, perhaps I should have. One also
| couldn't argue that it contains false content because it merely
| collects exercises instead of prescribing them (unless of
| course they've added some section where they do, which I don't
| know of and cannot comment against).
| pokot0 wrote:
| I feel like every field where science is lagging behind has
| this problem. Is this not the case? It seems to me that we
| know very little about how the body works, processes food,
| etc. Saying "Sports science" feels very different to me than
| saying (for example) "rigid body physics". The latter can
| predict the behavior of objects very precisily, the former
| struggles a lot and can hardly use the scientific method to
| begin with.
| rTX5CMRXIfFG wrote:
| Sorry, what do you mean we know very little about how the
| body works and processes food? That sounds to me like
| fields like medicine or physical therapy or nutrition
| should be impossible, and yet they exist.
|
| And correct me if I'm wrong but it doesn't sound like you
| know the scope of sports science? It's a combination of the
| fields that I made an example of above _plus_ physics, too,
| and many more (such as business and psychology), but
| oriented specifically for the purposes of sport and
| recreation.
| sdwr wrote:
| Scientists and "put up or shut up" people optimize for diff
| things. People who get results, in my experience, do the
| right things but don't usually have correct explanations.
|
| Part of it is the subconscious figuring out what works, and
| hanging it onto the closest known concept. The other half
| is that false beliefs are practical and helpful sometimes.
| bluGill wrote:
| The results I want are long term health. That is much
| harder to measure and study. I can see which exercise
| methods results in competitive wins quickly (though some
| may be a few years), but what will my efforts today
| change about my life span or old age quality of life?
| operator-name wrote:
| What resources do you consider in high regard?
| rTX5CMRXIfFG wrote:
| Essentials of Anatomy and Physiology by Scanlon and Sanders
|
| Physiology of Sport and Exercise by Kenney, Wilmore, and
| Costil.
|
| Strength Training Anatomy by Delavier, though this is more
| like ExRx and is far less exhaustive
|
| And the above should be more than enough but it won't harm
| to read NSCA's Essentials of Strength Training and
| Conditioning.
| hash872 wrote:
| >There are some posts there that get the science right
|
| I'm sorry, I don't mean to be uncharitable, but 'exercise
| science' is not an empirical scientific field like physics or
| chemistry. It's very difficult to conduct genuine experiments
| or isolate causes in the human body. It's pretty well-known
| that lots 'exercise science' studies that prove X were
| conducted with relatively untrained undergrad volunteers, who
| would probably gain on any program because they're a) young
| and b) exercise newbies. Political science has 'science'
| right in the name too, but I think everyone understands it's
| not an actual empirical field either (which is fine!)
|
| I'm certainly open to hearing contributions from exercise
| scientists, but I weight folk wisdom from say the
| bodybuilding or powerlifting fields at least as heavily
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_envy
| nelblu wrote:
| Also, back in the day there were some legacy bodybuilders
| giving free advice on those forums. I remember discussing with
| serge nubret around 2008ish, good old days :)
| iamacyborg wrote:
| Similar to the letsrun forum which used to have olympic class
| coaches (ie Canova) dropping words of wisdom.
|
| It is a toxic hellhole now, unfortunately .
| dylan604 wrote:
| I was really hoping it would have been something outlandish
| like website for Richard Simmons.
| rchaud wrote:
| That a 24-year old site still exists in largely the same
| format today, without drowning in a million affiliate links
| is plenty outlandish.
| inopinatus wrote:
| As soon as I saw the title I knew it was gonna be exrx.
| raverbashing wrote:
| Yes
|
| Rich discussions yes, but also discussions like these
| https://old.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/2rbqzh/bodybuilders_...
| Gunnerhead wrote:
| Incredible!
| brandonmenc wrote:
| [dead]
| theFletch wrote:
| Yes, that was one of my first resources for online information.
| I've never heard of the site from the article.
| bbarnett wrote:
| Indeed! Bodybuilding.com helped this guy too (this is an old,
| classic post from there):
|
| https://imgur.com/a/EOpfb
| lr4444lr wrote:
| I liked the site, but let's be honest: they didn't vet
| contributors too well, and they were full of contradictory
| advice.
| Snowbird3999 wrote:
| The _lack_ of advertisements, popups, cookie consent,
| propogandist language and fluffy content makes for such a
| pleasant reading experience.
|
| It's a real pity that this is not more common with modern
| websites, especially in the "recipe" or "news" domains. I am
| grateful for Wikipedia however.
| joisig wrote:
| I'm seeing a pretty big ad at the top of every page. Is my
| experience unique?
| tambourine_man wrote:
| I'm a sucker for nostalgia, but this site is completely
| responsive. It has a spartan design, but it's a long distance
| from what you could do in 1999.
| djha-skin wrote:
| The reason why the article is good to read and not just going to
| the site[1] it talks about is that it tells you why getting rid
| of JavaScript is sometimes just fine for your user base:
|
| > ExRx makes its organizational logic plain. Its pages adopt the
| structure of unordered lists--uniform and sturdy...unlike
| elsewhere on the modern Internet, on ExRx you are never lost.
|
| > the site's plain face lends it a certain authority. In a
| fitness ecosystem dominated by new- and old-school flash, from
| personal trainers on the hard sell to influencers with soft
| power, _exrx.net treats me like an adult._ If Instagram Reels and
| TikTok videos are the solicitous pusher on commission, ExRx is a
| librarian--or, better yet, the library itself.
|
| (Emphasis my own.)
|
| 1: https://exrx.net
| mostlysimilar wrote:
| - Simple design with dense information and verbose navigation
|
| - Loads immediately, no frustrating and slow skeleton loading
| gray boxes
|
| - No popups asking you to subscribe, register, or download a
| mobile app
|
| Why do we tolerate the modern web treating us so poorly when
| the example of how to do it better has been around since the
| 90s?
| bobthepanda wrote:
| I am wondering who pays for it. Most of the free websites
| from that era disappeared because their business models went
| belly-up during the dotcom boom.
| ilrwbwrkhv wrote:
| Those loading skeleton irritates me to no end. Sometimes they
| don't go away, and I'm left wondering what is going on. This
| is just so much better. Solid, dependable, nothing shifts
| around.
| jpmattia wrote:
| > _No popups asking you to subscribe, register, or download a
| mobile app_
|
| https://exrx.net/Drugs/Caffeine
| mostlysimilar wrote:
| Premium features and gated content are not inherently bad.
| We all want to make money. Gaudy and intrusive pop-ups,
| banners, and things that try to pull me to that content is
| bad.
|
| The difference between being pulled into it and seeking
| content myself is an important one. Services that annoy
| people into doing what they want may get short term results
| but are generating a lot of ill-will for the medium and
| long term.
|
| This website even has reasonable advertisements in the
| side-bar. No floating videos that auto-play, no ads
| injected right in the middle of the content I'm reading.
| Just a plain old ad on the right side of the content.
| rchaud wrote:
| When I was using this site a lot back in 2009, it really
| was ad-free. Even more minimal than what it is now. Each
| exercise page had a super-small dithered GIF image of a
| person doing the exercise. Those seem to be gone now.
| travisporter wrote:
| Still not a pop up
| scottLobster wrote:
| Why did the Turks tolerate crappy construction in an
| earthquake zone? Large businesses are by definition hard to
| compete with.
|
| As for why they do it, businesses are fundamentally amoral.
| Take your average Silicon Valley entrepreneur and transplant
| them into Somalia with no way to leave, and they'd be
| figuring out the ideal way to capture cargo ships and hold
| their crews for ransom. Then if said crews were raped by some
| misbehaving underlings, they'd try to disguise it to maximize
| the profits.
|
| It's the meta joke behind the entire Silicon Valley TV
| series. Some characters are more likeable than others, but
| almost all of the key players are fundamentally
| incompetent/insecure/exploitative people that you wouldn't
| want in your life given the option.
| naniwaduni wrote:
| Locations are fundamentally scarce, but I'm sure they're
| totally willing to adopt earthquake-resistant construction
| techniques from elsewhere?
| 2muchcoffeeman wrote:
| To solve a housing shortage, there were construction
| amnesties. Which the president even boasted about.
| canadianfella wrote:
| [dead]
| altairprime wrote:
| It's time-expensive and not easily automated to write
| "rewrite" logic for sites. Think an order of magnitude more
| difficult than Reader Mode, because you need to incorporate
| the nav links and forms.
| criddell wrote:
| > - No popups asking you to subscribe, register, or download
| a mobile app
|
| I've been wondering why ad blockers aren't better about
| blocking these. I'm not sure when the last time was when I
| got a popup on a website that was something I wanted to see.
| strulovich wrote:
| I know very little of the subject. But maybe since ads
| generally arrive from other domains, making them easy to
| differentiate from the site's content, while these popup
| are part of the website and are much harder to distinguish
| reliably, making it harder to build such a tool (which I
| assume does exist).
| milsorgen wrote:
| I let my personalized Google feed on Android open links in
| Chrome and it is astounding how hostile some of these sites
| are getting in regards to their advertising. I had no idea
| it had gotten this bad again without at least some ad
| blocking. Popups haven't returned to any meaningful degree
| but even so surely this isn't sustainable as I would
| imagine a sizable portion of web users are not using ad
| blocking.
| rchaud wrote:
| Adblockers usually apply a combination of a network filter
| and a CSS filter to block the offending 3rd party script,
| and make the HTML element containing the ads invisible.
|
| While network filters are still working well, it's getting
| harder to block on-site elements like popups because web
| frameworks often generate nonsensical class names to apply
| on divs, to prevent Developer A's class names and styles
| from conflicting with Developer B's. So if previously you
| could successfully hide the HTML email popup container by
| looking for the class/id "ad-container", you won't be able
| to do that if the class/id changes to "xxgsgshhmahbgsg"
| stanac wrote:
| uBlock origin has annoyances filters for exactly that. They
| aren't turn on by default.
| OrwellianChild wrote:
| I did not know this - thank you!
| lr4444lr wrote:
| The modern web makes more money than the "spray and pray" ad
| affiliate links model that crashed in 2001.
| ericmcer wrote:
| Yeh this was an ad riddled nightmare. I would call it more an
| example of how to subvert modern ad blockers than an example
| of great web design. The bullet point lists are literally
| broken up with targeted ads that look like relevant info to
| the page itself.
| newaccount2023 wrote:
| [flagged]
| stonogo wrote:
| That's funny, I see GDPR popups as serving two functions: a
| daily reminder that Europe has better privacy protections
| than I do, and website project managers would rather plague
| the world with unnecesary bullshit than just stop serving
| unnecessary cookies.
| charcircuit wrote:
| >just stop serving unnecessary cookies.
|
| If they were truly unnecessary they wouldn't use it
| because cookie banners are bad ux.
| 2muchcoffeeman wrote:
| Is this a serious comment?
|
| Have you never worked on a large website or even looked
| at the cookies in the browser?
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| And over-leveraging your bank is bad business, but they
| do it anyway.
| drstewart wrote:
| >a daily reminder that Europe has better privacy
| protections than I do
|
| So you're seeing the popups but not benefitting from
| them? What are the "better" protections that these popups
| are giving European users that you aren't getting by
| being served them as well (that isn't just better served
| by a good cookie / ad blocker)?
|
| Please restrict your answer to the POPUPS specifically,
| as these are your daily reminder.
| stonogo wrote:
| I'll respectfully decline your arbitrary limitations on
| my speech, primarily because to follow them would render
| me incoherent.
|
| I said they serve as a reminder, and here you demand to
| know what protections the popups provide. They can remind
| me of things without delivering those things directly,
| which is why I used the phrasing I did. Hope this helps.
| SkySkimmer wrote:
| But it does have javascript, it's used for image lazy loading
| and possibly other stuff (I didn't investigate deeply).
| djha-skin wrote:
| Fair enough, I really just meant simple, not crazy websites.
| gofreddygo wrote:
| Another one in the same league - looks old and gets the job
| done
|
| https://www.bikesdirect.com/
| tommek4077 wrote:
| Looks like a spam site.
| lawrenceyan wrote:
| Is there a definitive understanding of how plastics (hormone
| disruptors) have affected us?
|
| Should I be treating this as equivalent to smoking or drinking in
| harm? https://exrx.net/Nutrition/Disrupters
| alecco wrote:
| https://archive.ph/k4lXm
| lumb63 wrote:
| Been lifting for 15 years and never heard of this website.
| joisig wrote:
| Same here, been lifting since 1989 and online since the year
| after, and this is the first I hear of this website.
| pbnjay wrote:
| As soon as I read the title I knew it was exrx.net - I've used
| the site off and on since 2003!
| petesergeant wrote:
| Love it. "exrx" and "examine" are by far my two biggest health
| and fitness search prefixes
| VLM wrote:
| I used to use examine to find direct links to medical journal
| articles about the latest supplement research, but they've
| locked away all the details so I have to run dual monitor with
| examine as a lead generator and search for articles on real
| websites in the other window.
|
| Regardless of the above usability issues, examine is a pretty
| good supplement research site.
|
| Edited to add: I don't like examine's pricing. Examine is
| essentially the "consumer reports" of supplements and I'd
| expect to pay magazine subscription rates, not a month of gym
| membership annual rate. Its not that I can't afford it or it
| doesn't fit in the budget, it doesn't fit in the worldview of
| this is how much you pay for that kind of service. Even $50/yr
| and I'd sign up, but two hundred? Really?
| petesergeant wrote:
| Yes, far too expensive. I got grandfathered into an older
| plan, or I'd no longer be a subscriber
| rchaud wrote:
| One of the advantages of old-school websites like these is that
| they were desktop-first, so they actually made use of the width
| that a laptop screen offers. It's nice to see multiple columns of
| content, rather than the usual mess of ad sidebars and "readers
| also liked" blocks interrupting the content.
| Semaphor wrote:
| > SQLSTATE[HY000] [1040] Too many connections
|
| Funnily enough, the error message [0] looks far more modern than
| the rest of the site. I guess they updated the backend (a PHP
| framework called Doctrine, I think) without updating the design
| ;)
|
| [0]: https://i.imgur.com/pwJzVUj.png
| ffhhj wrote:
| According to BuiltWith it uses a whole bunch of new things:
|
| https://builtwith.com/?https%3a%2f%2fexrx.net
| jeffbee wrote:
| I like that it helpfully disgorges the source code where the
| exception was thrown. Very old school. I hope there are no
| database credentials hard-coded in PHP.
| jeroenhd wrote:
| The title of that page is "concrete has encountered an issue".
| Concrete is a PHP based CMS and Doctrine is a PHP ORM used in
| all kinds of modern (and less modern) web frameworks. The stack
| trace specifically shows concrete5-8.5.7, released November of
| 2021.
|
| So it's outdated alright, but not quite as ancient as the
| article makes it feel. The HTML may feel hand crafted but
| that's often because PHP frameworks often rely on templating
| languages to set up a base theme for the website, which then
| gets filled in by content generated by a WYSIWYG editor, saved
| to the database.
|
| It's quite possible that they've used their old website as a
| basis for their theme/templates, keeping all their old HTML in
| place.
| epilys wrote:
| The site is https://exrx.net/
|
| No need to read the article.
| endisneigh wrote:
| ironically you could have just posted the link without your
| opinion, just like the article!
| gibbonsrcool wrote:
| A link by itself might be another site that the person who
| commented likes, not necessarily the one mentioned in the
| article.
| password4321 wrote:
| No one suggested posting the link by itself.
|
| " _The site ishttps://exrx.net_ " is enough.
| gibbonsrcool wrote:
| "you could have just posted the link without your
| opinion"
| password4321 wrote:
| Ha, I fell victim to the same issue (not including my
| opinion) in my comment! The portion you quoted may as
| well have been directed at me.
|
| I am indeed being very pedantic here but the parent to
| your initial comment as you quoted did not exclude the
| additional context noting the relevance of the link (as
| per my quote) but rather emphasized leaving out the
| opinion portion. The difference between "just posted" and
| the theoretical "posted just" you seem to be implying.
|
| Upvotes all around; cheers!
| [deleted]
| RobotToaster wrote:
| I tried to look up advice for people with my disability and got
| a paywall, how nice.
| replwoacause wrote:
| The article is good and worth a read IMO.
| MikeDelta wrote:
| Been a happy user of this site since early 2000, it thought me
| a lot about technique.
| rationalist wrote:
| Did we hug it? Doctrine \ DBAL \ Driver \
| PDOException (1040) SQLSTATE[HY000] [1040] Too many
| connections
| [deleted]
| geewee wrote:
| And it's a wonderful website too. Been looking up things in it
| for what feels like a decade at this point
| steve1977 wrote:
| It feels like a decade, but it's actually 20 years ;)
| blairbeckwith wrote:
| The article includes the link in the first paragraph and is
| worth reading if this type of thing [exercise/websites]
| interests you more than a no context link.
| cush wrote:
| You can't get swole unless you're living life at maximum
| efficiency. Reading is for wimps!
| seb1204 wrote:
| I disagree here, the article does not include a link to the
| website but merely the website address written in text,
| nothing to click. So no link.
| rTX5CMRXIfFG wrote:
| I find this rather ironic considering how no-context links is
| exactly how not a few HN posts are submitted.
| velox_neb wrote:
| Similarly, the best source for nutrition information used to be
| whfoods.org. Unfortunately it's been down for a while now, and
| while there are some imperfect archives, you can't easily search
| through the site anymore.
| dw_arthur wrote:
| The information is out of date, but I still occasionally use
| the pdfs i have from whfoods. You can find them on archive.org
| under TheWorldsHealthiestFoods.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| marcrosoft wrote:
| Don't let this think you need to do 100s of different exercises.
| A handful of good ones like squat, bench, deadlift, etc are all
| you really need.
| cgh wrote:
| It depends on your athletic goals. Exrx is geared towards
| athletes and coaches more than the normal folks who, as you
| said, would benefit from a simple, limited slate of fundamental
| movements.
| brap wrote:
| Ha, I knew this was about exrx from the title alone. Such a
| valuable resource, unfortunately not as well known as it should
| be.
| derbOac wrote:
| Reminds me a bit of Sheldon Brown's bicycle website:
| https://www.sheldonbrown.com/
| Scarblac wrote:
| Reminds me of http://pagat.com for rules of card games.
| glacials wrote:
| And The Man in Seat 61: https://www.seat61.com/
| malermeister wrote:
| That site is an incredible treasure for anyone interested in
| planning a train journey.
| m3kw9 wrote:
| I'm afraid someone looking to monetize it gonna make them an
| offer and then out ads on it.
| jeffbee wrote:
| It already has ads. Big graphic ads at the tops of every
| article, and further down as well.
| cratermoon wrote:
| It's a shame exrx.net doesn't rank higher on google searches. It
| just shows that SEO and search engine company priorities have
| moved away from what people are looking for when they use the
| internet.
| ratchetclank wrote:
| In the same vibe I've been using https://darebee.com/ for quite a
| while. Good exercise library and great programs, all free for
| everyone.
| kilroy123 wrote:
| At first I thought it was talking about darebee.
| okaramian wrote:
| Absolutely amazed this isn't littered with ads for supplements.
| The good ol' days
| laserlight wrote:
| ExRx [0] has been a very valuable resource in my study of
| exercise science. I found it after developing an injury because
| of wrong training program given by a trainer in the gym. The site
| let me discover almost everything to learn about physical
| exercise better than all trainers in my gym. I'm thankful to
| everyone who has contributed.
|
| [0] Exercise Prescription on Internet (ExRx.net)
| https://exrx.net/
| q7xvh97o2pDhNrh wrote:
| If you don't mind me asking, how was that injury-recovery
| journey for you?
|
| I'm in the same spot -- injured myself because I foolishly
| trusted an incompetent trainer. It's been weirdly difficult to
| pick myself back up; I'm still stuck at the "blaming myself for
| trusting bad advice when I should have known better" phase.
| laserlight wrote:
| Of course I don't. That injury was an inflammation because of
| overuse. I take it seriously applying prescribed topical
| anti-inflammatory medicine, however inconvenient it might be
| to do so for up to six times a day. I, of course, updated my
| exercise selection not to hit the same muscle in consecutive
| days, but to give rest days. I reduced the weight hitting the
| affected muscle to almost nothing and progressed slowly from
| there.
|
| I hope you get well soon.
| q7xvh97o2pDhNrh wrote:
| That is helpful. Thank you.
| scarface74 wrote:
| I was a part time fitness instructor from 2000-2012 and the
| ultimate gym rat. How did I not know about this site?
|
| Now, for $reasons, I'm not as much of a gym rat. But I am
| training to at least run 5Ks again (as opposed to 10Ks and a
| couple of half marathons). I'm going to make myself get into
| resistance training again and this is going to be a great
| resource
| rTX5CMRXIfFG wrote:
| Ha! I'm curious to know where you got your vocabulary of
| exercises without ExRx.net (of course the site also merely
| curates from other sources such as the books that came before
| and along it). I don't remember the exact search keywords, but
| I'm pretty sure I found it while building my own program and
| looking for exercises for specific muscle groups.
| scarface74 wrote:
| I worked for an organization that contracted out fitness
| instructors to various gyms, apartments, churches, etc.
|
| So I would go to their classes to pick up moves. There were
| also various certifications and conferences (SCW).
|
| I got started in lifting weights ironically enough because I
| was a short (still short), fat (I got better), kid with a
| computer (still a software developer...sort of) and had
| cerebral palsy (still do).
|
| While I didn't have any coordination to play sports (my CP
| basically effects my left hand and a very slight limp), I
| could "lift things up and put them down" with the best of
| them and my "physical therapy" turned into weight lifting at
| 12 and I was paired with a personal trainer early on.
|
| When properly conditioned as an adult, I found that I could
| run up to 9 miles (a 15K) in races and come in the middle of
| the pack (a little more than 6 miles an hour) before my legs
| gave out on me.
|
| At my old age of 49, I wouldn't put my body through the kind
| of training it takes to do anything above a 10K and probably
| no more than a 5K.
|
| I also took advantage of remote work to buy a "Condotel" unit
| in a resort in Florida for half the year specifically because
| it had 3 pools (swimming is much easier on my body) and a
| gym.
|
| The other half of the year, I "nomad" and fly around the US
| and stay in hotels instead of AirBnbs partially to have
| access to gyms and pools.
|
| My wife took up the mantle a few years ago and now she
| teaches dance/fitness classes.
| andrewmcwatters wrote:
| I really enjoyed this comment about a month ago or so from "Why
| the conventional wisdom on how to grow muscles is wrong,"[1] so
| much so that I favorited it.
|
| "I have lifted for 30 years. The standard bullshit line in the
| fitness industry has always been "everyone else is wrong".
| Practically what every single trainer ever in the world has said.
| The reason is because of all the things I have done in my life,
| lifting is the most trivially simple activity there is. It is as
| complex as shoveling dirt. The only way to differentiate if
| trying to make money is to bullshit. Pick the weights up, put
| them down, eat food. It just not that complicated."[2]
|
| - epistemer
|
| [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34677471
|
| [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34679482
| rchaud wrote:
| Lifting is complicated for the same reason that dating is
| complicated. Not everyone is starting from the same place. Not
| everyone will see the same results, in the same time. That is
| where the complexity arises. People will see others doing
| better, and try to find shortcuts, or magic panaceas.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| Futhering this:
|
| You lift incorrectly, you get trauma, injuries, I've seen a
| guy in a gym lose an eye. I've seem people leaving weights
| where they shouldn't, others trip over them.
|
| You choose your date poorly, you could get trauma and injury
| too I guess.
| VLM wrote:
| Is this what they mean by submarine marketing? Because I've been
| a gym rat since the 80s and never heard of this site, and never
| heard anyone at the gym mention it, and never heard anyone in any
| other fitness group mention it. Other than that, sure.
| rchaud wrote:
| This site is from the OG Web 1.0 era. Plenty of people know
| about it; in fact I would say that they've modernized it quite
| a bit from what I remember from back when I used it 2009.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-03-11 23:00 UTC)