wedrifid comments on Minimum viable workout routine - Less Wrong

12 Post author: RomeoStevens 21 June 2012 04:19AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (114)

Comments (114)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: RomeoStevens 21 June 2012 08:23:56AM *  0 points [-]

I would argue that 2 days a week of full body work IS the minimum viable to gain longevity benefits. Anything less than that does not reliably produce an adaptation.

People can do all the cardio and ignoring of calories they like, I wish them luck in their fitness goals :p

Comment author: wedrifid 21 June 2012 08:32:37AM 1 point [-]

I would argue that 2 days a week of full body work IS the minimum viable to gain longevity benefits. Anything less than that does not reliably produce an adaptation.

If this was supposed to be minimum for longevity rather for general well-being my disagreement is even stronger. The high intensity work would be far superior for that particular purpose.

Comment author: bcoburn 22 June 2012 03:14:38AM 0 points [-]

Do you have a specific recommendation for what the minimum for longevity actually is?

Three days doing three different high intensity weight bearing activities isn't the best overall workout program but it is certainly viable and far more minimal. It would give acceptable (but less) muscle growth and far better cardio improvements.

Comes pretty close, but still leaves a little room for guesswork.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit