As a general rule, it seems to me that if you’re going to call something dangerous, it behooves you to spell out exactly what it is you think it is claiming and exactly how you disagree with it. I see very little disagreement between the two posts and no even attempt to justify the word “dangerous.”
I hope made the case that high intensity interval training is good for you, even if you’re not very fit. Why do I think it is dangerous to advise people against endurance training? Because if you accept it, and update on it, and don’t do endurance training because you read on Less Wrong that it is useless, soul-crushing and you shouldn’t even try, you’ve increased your risk of getting sick and dying unnecessarily.
I also think it is dangerously misleading to warn people against certain vaccinations on the grounds that it may cause autism, if this claim is unsupported by evidence. If you tell people to not bother with endurance training they increase their risk of dying by listening to you. If you tell people to not vaccinate their children, they run a risk of getting sick children. Both are unsupported by evidence, and both are dangerous.
I started out writing “this paragraph is dangerously wrong”, and when I expanded my reply into a separate topic on it, I chose an unfortunate title. I believe that the Minimum Viable Workout Routine was made with the best intentions. Calling the whole post dangerously misinformative, was harsh and uncalled for on my part.
But still, unsound information that can actually kill you (if you believe it) is dangerous.
Again, you largely agree with Romeo Stevens on the facts of exercise.
As to the consequences of the advice, I think you are very wrong. The fact that you misread his advice is a bad sign about his advice. It is probably evidence that everyone will misread it, but I am skeptical that they will misread it the same way you do.
As a general rule, giving vague advice attacking specific advice causes people to do nothing. It is your post that is dangerous.
Another issue is that “endurance training” is extremely misleading. The obvious interpretation of it is probably less effective for all purposes than obvious interpretation of “strength training.”
It’s dangerous to tell people they can’t increase their cardiovascular fitness outside of lifting weights because that will make those people less likely to jog, skip, etc.
“a newbie will not be capable of a level of cardio exertion that results in a significant adaptation” seems to be saying most people who aren’t actively exercising can’t benefit from cardio without getting stronger first (via a high percentage capacity weightlifting scheme.
A bigger problem i neglected to talk about was that there are people who a lifting program is going to reinforce the bad biomechanics of, thereby damaging their long term fitness, or worse, straight up damage in the case of e.g. undiagnosed back problems which are quite common.
For example myself: I lifted weights for about a year with undiagnosed spondylolisthesis (I’ve heard the prevelance reported from 2-5%, mostly undiagnosed) before I noticed I was getting worse at stuff that wasn’t bench pressing deadlifting or squatting. Apart from my adductors and shoulders now being ridiculously tight, it was also dangerous. For all I know I could have had spondylolysis (just a fracture) before, which turned into spondylolisthesis (slippage) one day lifting something. Whether or not that happened I was risking injury without knowing it and if it weren’t for all the “one size fits all. Trust us we’re experts, your instincts are wrong” attitude all around I would have known it was a bad idea (and wouldn’t have known any type of exercise was a good idea.)
if you have trouble sticking to a program maybe it’s because you shouldn’t be doing a program.
edit: I should mention that I don’t get that unfit even if I totally neglect exercise for extended periods, or at least I can get decently fit quite quickly. If you’re someone who just turns to blubber if they don’t exercise I’ve heard weightlifting is the best way to improve your metabolism and there’s probably some safe lifting you can do.
Perhaps when I read RomeoStevens’ post, I am reading it through my preconceptions about the ‘factions’ in the exercise world. But to me it read like just another weightlifter talking about how lifting will make you fit, and dismissing cardio while providing no evidence.
(I have an acquaintance who is a weightlifter and takes this opinion to its most extreme, and shares it condescendingly with anybody who will listen, which I’m afraid gives me built-in bias against lifting.)
The post does seem to be recruiting for a particular faction. If it turns couch potatoes into lifters with false beliefs, it seems to me to produce a pretty good outcome, though a small change in the article might avoid the false beliefs.
But will it produce false beliefs? In saying that cardio is bad for beginners, it seemed pretty clear to me that it was saying it was good for some people. But it doesn’t matter what you or I think it says, only what it does to a beginner. The vagueness of “bad for beginners” will probably lead to more specific, likely false beliefs, but only if it produces beliefs at all.
If it causes beginners who have just started cardio to stop, that’s pretty bad. It might be good if it got them to switch from ineffective types of cardio to effective types of lifting, but the risk of a change being a change to drop the ball seem to me to outweigh possible benefits. Anyhow, I don’t think it will have much effect on beginners who have just started cardio. Maybe ones thinking about starting.
As a general rule, it seems to me that if you’re going to call something dangerous, it behooves you to spell out exactly what it is you think it is claiming and exactly how you disagree with it. I see very little disagreement between the two posts and no even attempt to justify the word “dangerous.”
Excellent point. I should have thought of that.
I hope made the case that high intensity interval training is good for you, even if you’re not very fit. Why do I think it is dangerous to advise people against endurance training? Because if you accept it, and update on it, and don’t do endurance training because you read on Less Wrong that it is useless, soul-crushing and you shouldn’t even try, you’ve increased your risk of getting sick and dying unnecessarily.
I also think it is dangerously misleading to warn people against certain vaccinations on the grounds that it may cause autism, if this claim is unsupported by evidence. If you tell people to not bother with endurance training they increase their risk of dying by listening to you. If you tell people to not vaccinate their children, they run a risk of getting sick children. Both are unsupported by evidence, and both are dangerous.
I started out writing “this paragraph is dangerously wrong”, and when I expanded my reply into a separate topic on it, I chose an unfortunate title. I believe that the Minimum Viable Workout Routine was made with the best intentions. Calling the whole post dangerously misinformative, was harsh and uncalled for on my part.
But still, unsound information that can actually kill you (if you believe it) is dangerous.
Again, you largely agree with Romeo Stevens on the facts of exercise.
As to the consequences of the advice, I think you are very wrong. The fact that you misread his advice is a bad sign about his advice. It is probably evidence that everyone will misread it, but I am skeptical that they will misread it the same way you do.
As a general rule, giving vague advice attacking specific advice causes people to do nothing. It is your post that is dangerous.
The crude way I understood these posts:
When you’re not very fit, maximum strength training is most rewarding.
It is better for your health to also directly train endurance.
There is a tension. However:
Maximum strength training also improves endurance.
This increased endurance makes direct endurance training more rewarding.
The call to action this suggest looks like:
If you’re reasonably fit, train maximum strength and endurance.
If you’re not, start with strength alone, it’s more rewarding. Look forward to train your endurance, though.
Would that be sufficiently accurate, precise and non-dangerous?
Another issue is that “endurance training” is extremely misleading. The obvious interpretation of it is probably less effective for all purposes than obvious interpretation of “strength training.”
It’s dangerous to tell people they can’t increase their cardiovascular fitness outside of lifting weights because that will make those people less likely to jog, skip, etc.
Did you get that message from Romeo Stevens? Were you less likely to jog, skip, etc?
Also, are you a beginner?
“a newbie will not be capable of a level of cardio exertion that results in a significant adaptation” seems to be saying most people who aren’t actively exercising can’t benefit from cardio without getting stronger first (via a high percentage capacity weightlifting scheme.
A bigger problem i neglected to talk about was that there are people who a lifting program is going to reinforce the bad biomechanics of, thereby damaging their long term fitness, or worse, straight up damage in the case of e.g. undiagnosed back problems which are quite common.
For example myself: I lifted weights for about a year with undiagnosed spondylolisthesis (I’ve heard the prevelance reported from 2-5%, mostly undiagnosed) before I noticed I was getting worse at stuff that wasn’t bench pressing deadlifting or squatting. Apart from my adductors and shoulders now being ridiculously tight, it was also dangerous. For all I know I could have had spondylolysis (just a fracture) before, which turned into spondylolisthesis (slippage) one day lifting something. Whether or not that happened I was risking injury without knowing it and if it weren’t for all the “one size fits all. Trust us we’re experts, your instincts are wrong” attitude all around I would have known it was a bad idea (and wouldn’t have known any type of exercise was a good idea.)
if you have trouble sticking to a program maybe it’s because you shouldn’t be doing a program.
edit: I should mention that I don’t get that unfit even if I totally neglect exercise for extended periods, or at least I can get decently fit quite quickly. If you’re someone who just turns to blubber if they don’t exercise I’ve heard weightlifting is the best way to improve your metabolism and there’s probably some safe lifting you can do.
Yes, there are dangers from lifting. Betterthanwell chose not to talk about them. Bringing them up in this subthread is a non sequitur.
Perhaps when I read RomeoStevens’ post, I am reading it through my preconceptions about the ‘factions’ in the exercise world. But to me it read like just another weightlifter talking about how lifting will make you fit, and dismissing cardio while providing no evidence.
(I have an acquaintance who is a weightlifter and takes this opinion to its most extreme, and shares it condescendingly with anybody who will listen, which I’m afraid gives me built-in bias against lifting.)
The post does seem to be recruiting for a particular faction. If it turns couch potatoes into lifters with false beliefs, it seems to me to produce a pretty good outcome, though a small change in the article might avoid the false beliefs.
But will it produce false beliefs? In saying that cardio is bad for beginners, it seemed pretty clear to me that it was saying it was good for some people. But it doesn’t matter what you or I think it says, only what it does to a beginner. The vagueness of “bad for beginners” will probably lead to more specific, likely false beliefs, but only if it produces beliefs at all.
If it causes beginners who have just started cardio to stop, that’s pretty bad. It might be good if it got them to switch from ineffective types of cardio to effective types of lifting, but the risk of a change being a change to drop the ball seem to me to outweigh possible benefits. Anyhow, I don’t think it will have much effect on beginners who have just started cardio. Maybe ones thinking about starting.