Show HN: No Bullsh*t Guide to Fitness (for Men)
andhart.github.ioA few recommendations. I have been working out with a few breaks for 7 years and will try to refrain from bro science (ironic as I have no sources)
Diet:
Telling people to not snack is counterproductive to what that section is saying if I am reading it correctly. Everyone is different. Some fast and have one huge ass meal. Some have two meals. Some more. I eat almonds as snacks throughout the day. Perhaps for simplicity of starting it is more work to count snack calories. Maybe say that?
Mention the importance of hydration throughout the day. Most people do not drink enough water throughout the day - no source but I firmly believe it is true.
Lifting:
Mention the dichotomy of strength vs muscle growth. Lower rep range focuses more on strength while higher rep range focuses on muscle growth. Some workout for strength exclusively (me), while others work out for physique exclusively. I do like how you combine strength and physique in the Big 4, but let the reader understand how.
Additional FAQ information:
How do I get abs? Abs are insulated by fat, reducing their visibility. Bodyfat reduction reveals them. Eat a deficit of TDEE, maintain proper protein intake, and consistently workout. Cardio exercise increases the TDEE deficit.
That is all I can come up with at the moment. Writing was fine! Thanks for working on this!
Wow, thanks for the awesome feedback!
You have a good point about snacking. I put it underneath "Tactics for eating" because I was trying to say it's a tactic that has worked for me. Obviously, yes, everyone is different, and I'll try and rephrase that to make my point clear.
Hydration. Good point as well. I should touch on this.
On strength vs muscle growth. My goal with Hart's Guide was to show a workout plan that didn't require a bunch of time in the gym, and lifting for strength is better for that goal, as it's more time-efficient. I was trying to simplify, but yeah, I can agree that I should add a little more information on alternatives.
FAQ Information. Great idea, I'll definitely add a section for that.
> Mention the dichotomy of strength vs muscle growth. Lower rep range focuses more on strength while higher rep range focuses on muscle growth.
As far as I'm aware there's still no conclusive evidence for rep ranges affecting muscle growth vs strength. I'm well aware of all strength program routines and follow this method myself, but would love a source.
This study has some interesting findings backing the claim: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00421-002-0681-6
Honestly, the first 3 words ("untrained men") of that study make me instantly reject any validity of the study.
Hey HN!
I'd love to hear what you think, especially about my writing style, as I realize I'm not the world's best writer.
I tried to keep the design simple, and somewhat crude. I wanted something that looked different than the majority of fitness websites/blogs today. But let me know if I achieved that or if it could use some work.
I didn't see a single source referenced, which may be why so many of the claims are totally wrong. When I saw claims such as, "(low-carb diets) simply trick you into eating foods that are less calorically dense", I gave up altogether.
Can you explain why you gave up? Low-carb diets cut out sugar, flour, etc which greatly reduce caloric intake. It's not a far stretch to call them a "trick" to reduce your calories, is it?
Take a look at https://examine.com/nutrition/will-carbs-make-me-fat/ if you need more proof that carbohydrates are not what make people fat.
What other claims did I get wrong?
I don't disagree with you that I should put in some sources. Thanks for the input!
I gave up on the article because of its inaccuracies and lack of current sources. I've been a successful lowcarb dieter for over 17 years.
I guess the key that I'm trying to get at here is find a diet approach that works for you.
Low-carb diets "trick" you (again, I'm going to use that phrase) into eating less calories. When you eat less calories, you will lose weight. So, sure, it's great that it worked for you, but there's easier ways for most people to lose weight.
What other inaccuracies were you talking about?
So sugar, carb and fat intake don't matter? It's all about the total calories plus getting the amount of protein you recommended?
That surprises me.
I should probably be more clear. In overall health, fats, carbs, and protein do matter. However, I find it's hard to convince beginners to make drastic changes to their diet.
So thats why I recommend tracking only calories at first. Get used to tracking food and hit your weight goal. Then, when already used to being mindful of your diet, you can adapt it to be more overall healthy.
Change fitness to "bro-fitness".
Why is that? I realize I should probably provide my sources at the bottom, but everything was derived from personal experience and research.
If you have something specific to point out, I'd be happy to provide you a source for it.
I used to be quite into doing exactly what you've written here. Even wanted to compete in an NPC competition. Your guide is the exact same stuff that's written about ad nauseam everywhere. That's fine, because it works for achieving this type of "fitness". Just seems to me that this is a very narrow definition of that. I don't look great shirtless, but I'm becoming a decent trail runner and can do 25-ish pull-ups. My 70 year old dad can't run, but he walks 1500 miles per year. Are we not fit/healthy? This is a standard bodybuilding routine, and seems like a very 20-something, American college male, Instagram idea of fitness. No problem, it's a good, concise guide. There's just a lot more to fitness than bodybuilding.