The Wednesday Wellness threads are meant to encourage users to ask for and provide advice and motivation to improve their lives. It isn't intended as a 'containment thread' and any content which could go here could instead be posted in its own thread. You could post:
-
Requests for advice and / or encouragement. On basically any topic and for any scale of problem.
-
Updates to let us know how you are doing. This provides valuable feedback on past advice / encouragement and will hopefully make people feel a little more motivated to follow through. If you want to be reminded to post your update, see the post titled 'update reminders', below.
-
Advice. This can be in response to a request for advice or just something that you think could be generally useful for many people here.
-
Encouragement. Probably best directed at specific users, but if you feel like just encouraging people in general I don't think anyone is going to object. I don't think I really need to say this, but just to be clear; encouragement should have a generally positive tone and not shame people (if people feel that shame might be an effective tool for motivating people, please discuss this so we can form a group consensus on how to use it rather than just trying it).
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I wanted to discuss this article and what it misses.
The core thesis of the article is this:
His primary concepts are progressive overload, training to (near) failure, eating enough protein, and cutting a low body fat. His secondary concepts are Compound lifts, optimal set numbers, and following a lifting program. The tertiary ones are essentially everything else, calling out trends or minor issues.
I think the article itself is kind of confused, why is following a lifting program a secondary concept but going to a class or working with a trainer is a tertiary one? But those are minor quibbles.
The real term in the equation I want to talk about is TIME. It's the unexamined assumption underlying the whole article, and a lot of "common sense" lifting/workout advice you see online. I want to examine that unexamined assumption.
Time as the author looks at is really combined with the word "adherence" used later, so it's something like "time adhering to a plan/program." Adherence is almost never 100%, even professional athletes don't always do every written rep of every written set in every written workout they planned across a multi-month program. Things happen. 70-95% program adherence is pretty typical informally for people who say they "completed" a program block. Anything over 60% adherence is pretty much "doing" the workout plan.
My learned friend in argument @sapph (no o) talked here about this comment discussing the idea that life is about doing 100 things every day that you don't want to do. Sapph says:
And that's my jumping off point for what I think is missing: for the formula above for GettingJacked, or for any other similar goal, it's important not to treat time and adherence as black boxes, that just need to be brute forced through. ChaoticNeutral views the world in that way: lifting is simple, and maybe or probably unpleasant, but you need to apply willpower to it so as to maximize time and adherence and thereby achieve the goal. At this point in my life, I can reasonably say I've been lifting for the better part of 15 years, and more and more I react against that style, instead choosing like Sapph to constantly chase a new thing I'm stoked about.
I don't seek to optimize my program around adherence to the xyz principles at all, but instead on maximizing the TIME I put in by choosing a workout I'm stoked about. For some time like Sapph that was rock climbing for me, lately it's been new sports like jiu jitsu and long distance bicycle rides. But often it's just a matter of picking a new lift, or a new program, or a new implement like a heavy kettlebell or landmine. Picking a new game for me always ends up looking like having four or five new ideas, and trying them all at once until I see which one sticks.
And while I'm not a competitor in any sport, I'm reasonably proud of the shape I'm in. More and more I notice my friends falling off, and I think a big part of it is that attitude that places fitness and athletics in that "100 things you don't like but have to do" category.
The irony that I think causes the disconnect is that for a certain mindset, what gets them stoked about a workout program is exactly the thought that they are following an optimal program, or the minimal effective dose.
But I think a lot of people get stuck on that simple-but-difficult formula, banging their head against the wall, because they think that the only way to solve the problem is to apply more willpower. There's a tendency to refuse to try other things, or pay for other things, out of a kind of ascetic sense that it isn't necessary. But that's wrongheaded: the thing that makes you stoked about working out is nearly always worth it. The value of being in shape is nearly inevitably higher than the cost, and if being stoked is what you need it is what you need.
Or maybe I'm completely wrong. Maybe I'm weird in that I do enjoy working out in a reasonably-decent way, and most people don't, no matter what they try.
Yes, Aristotle talks about this. So does TLP, in his own way. Time, commitment, action, none of these are black boxes. They're habits, and the question of getting to them is a practical one of habit-formation, not just willing yourself into doing something.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link