Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 08 February 2011 11:39:10PM 13 points [-]

At this point, my Expectancy for positive results from single changes like "just use a trainer at the gym" has hit essentially zero - I've tried all sorts of stuff, nothing ever fucking works - so I'm not willing to spend the incremental money. If I have a lot of money to spend, I'll try throwing a higher level of money at all aspects of the problem - get a trainer on weights, try the latest fad of "short interval bursts" for aerobic exercise, get LASIK and a big TV and a separate room of the apartment to make exercising less unpleasant (no, dears, I don't get any endorphins whatsoever), buy a wide variety of grass-fed organic meats and take one last shot at the paleo diet again, and... actually I think that's most of what I'd do. That way I'd be able to scrape up enough hope to make it worth a shot. Trying one item from that list doesn't seem worth the bother.

I did try Shangri-La again when Seth Roberts contacted me personally and asked me to take another shot. It was just wearing tight, uncomfortable noseplugs while eating all my food and clearing out time at night to make sure I took oil 1 hour away from eating any other food or brushing my teeth, a trivial inconvenience when I'd walk over broken glass to lose weight. I lost 20 pounds and then despite trying out around 10 different things Seth Roberts said to do, my weight slowly started creeping up again, and when after a while I gave up and stopped taking the oil to see what would happen, there was no change in the behavior of my weight - the same slow creep. It's clear that Shangri-La worked initially but then, contrary to all theory, it just mysteriously stopped working. So far I've gained 10 of those 20 pounds back, in accordance with the one truly reliable law of dietary science: 95% of the people who manage to lose weight put it back on shortly thereafter. BTW, exercise didn't lead me to lose any weight whatsoever, even when combined with an attempt at the paleo diet (albeit not one that spent lots of money, or involved a personal trainer).

So far as I can tell, all the advice here is from metabolically privileged folks who don't know they're metabolically privileged and don't comprehend the nothing fucking works phenomenon that obtains if you're not metabolically privileged.

If you want to give advice, that's fine. Don't tell me how well it's going to work or how easy it's going to be; that just tells me you're clueless.

Comment author: schemingreader 09 February 2011 01:50:59AM 7 points [-]

I replied to your other comment without being sure whether the "nothing works" part was about weight loss or the ability to gain strength and conditioning from exercise.

There is a current idea that exercise is beneficial no matter what you weigh. See for example http://haescommunity.org/ and this new article on exercise and depression: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lloyd-i-sederer-md/depression-treatment-_b_819798.html?ir=Living

I have a hard time not following the herd mentality and trying to measure my success with exercise by my size and shape. I can and generally do use another measure of success for exercise than what I weigh. You can measure increased strength either by seeing how much weight you can lift or how many push-ups or pull-ups you can do, or you can measure your increased cardiovascular fitness with your standing pulse rate, or how long you can walk or run without becoming exhausted. (I'm shooting for 45 push-ups in a row by age 45.)

Then it doesn't actually matter whether you're metabolically privileged. Or privileged with relation to losing weight anyway, some people would say your metabolism--and mine!--make total sense in a starvation environment. The problem getting the endorphins to let down is a big disadvantage, but you may be able to figure out a duration and intensity of exercise that will release endorphins. (And that would be a good goal to replace weight loss, too.)

I think the main thing is to stop walking over broken glass to get thinner. Where's the utility in that? Exercise is still going to benefit you, even if you stay at your current weight and grumpy every minute of your walk.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 08 February 2011 05:02:25AM 8 points [-]

Yeah, that kind of advice is not going to fill any procedural knowledge gaps, sorry.

Previously I've tried "exercise" with fitness machines, aerobic and resistance both, an hour apiece on both, and it doesn't seem to do anything at all. I currently walk a couple of hours every other day. I have no idea whether this does anything (besides exhausting me so much I don't get any work done for the rest of the day, of course). I once read that 40% of the population is "immune to exercise" and I suspect I'm one of the 0.40.

If I have enough money at some point I'll try hiring a fitness trainer, and then getting a larger apartment with an extra bedroom for exercise equipment (and maybe get Lasik so I don't have to wear glasses and use a TV and Dance Dance Revolution) but such expenses are beyond the reach of my current financial balance.

EDIT: Wow, lots of advice here from metabolically privileged folks who don't comprehend the nothing fucking works phenomenon that obtains if you're not metabolically privileged.

Comment author: schemingreader 08 February 2011 08:00:44PM 2 points [-]

I don't think it's easy to give universally-applicable exercise advice. If it were, there wouldn't be such a huge market for exercise advice! There seem to be changes in how exercise physiologists think about certain exercises every few years. Separate abdominal strengthening exercises, for example, seem to be out of vogue with some trainers. So one piece of procedural knowledge is, you have to read about exercise, it's not trivially obvious how to do it.

If I were going to try to give someone a universal piece of advice about how to get started, I wouldn't say, "don't bother with other things, try pull-ups and tricep dips," because only a small percentage of new exercisers can even do those exercises. I'd probably say, "try taking a walk." (But even that isn't universally helpful, since lots of people have problems with their knees and ankles or hips or back and may need to start with something even lower impact, like swimming or yoga.) So a second piece of procedural knowledge is, everyone's body is different, so the exercise you pick should reflect what you like and need.

Addressing the problem you pose here: Since walking is a low-impact cardiovascular exercise, why not try it for an hour every day instead of two hours every other day? That will help build endurance and make it less taxing. Or you could start with less and increase a little every day. There's a third piece of procedural knowledge about exercise: you can increase your capacity if you add on slowly and sneak up on your body, even if your body is being recalcitrant.

I'm not sure what you mean by "immune to exercise." Are you not experiencing endorphins from your walk? Is your heart rate staying below the target rate? Some good procedures are to walk with a friend and make sure you aren't going too slow or too fast or bring music if you're going to walk on a treadmill by yourself.

And if you think you'd enjoy Dance Dance Revolution, I'd say do it in your glasses--you can always wipe your face with a towel when you get sweaty. That's what I do in the gym. I recognize that no one REALLY needs equipment to be fit, but--if you want to do that, why not? Isn't fun one of the goals of exercise?

I don't see a widely informed consensus about how to exercise and I don't think it's in the same category as some of the other questions on this thread. It's not an ordinary skill--there's a lot of mystique around it.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit