I wish to make the world a place where "Sunshine and sweating feel awful, so I'm not taking your advice" elicits the same reaction as "Putting my hand on a hot stove feels awful, so I'm not taking your advice", rather than being told to man up and being psychanalyzed by strangers.

I'm going to start with the subset of the world named Less Wrong.

I personally consider communicating with others about one's life woes to be a form of winning. I suppose that could happen in a place peripherally connected to LW instead of on the main site or discussion page.

I think I just bristled at the suggestion that I (or anyone) should avoid talk about social problems simply because I might alienate a smart extrovert. Any smart extrovert that I would want to know would not be so easily turned off by social difficulty. Especially if it's super-clear that the person having the difficulty is working through it to the best of his/her ability.

If there was a Socially Awkward Pride Parade, I'd march.

Instead, he/she might think that we are a bunch of nerds who are claiming to attempt to be more rational, but just have problems with social interaction. He/she leaves.

This hypothetical intelligent extrovert isn't very perceptive or curious. Why pander to her/him?

Inferential Distance Out Of Bounds Exception: Fundamental premises and expectations about probable future outcomes incompatible.

So I fail to see how evolution can ever be irrelevant.

Off the top of my head the options include

• Everything is dead
• Things stop dying
• Things solve the critical cooperation problem.
• Somebody just wins.
• Grey goo (doesn't die/mutate fast enough to evolve. Consumes all resources)
• Paperclipping. It'll self replicate probably but there will be no incremental changing based on the whim of selective pressure.
• AGI of any other kind (FAI or otherwise).
• Any other scenario in which the earth becomes a non-viable habitat without first seeding to somewhere else.

Ice cream and condoms didn't exist in the ancestral environment; using them as criticism of evolution is like using a screwdriver to pound nails and then blaming it for being a poorly designed hammer.

No, it is precisely the point. I am cleverer than a hammer. Evolution is dumb enough to have gone ahead and created its usurper. Evolution really will go ahead and evolve itself to irrelevance. By the time it figures out that the current state of it's cleverest creations isn't one where they optimise their response to future selective pressures it'll be too late. We'll have solved the relevant cooperation problem or we'll have messed up evolution's existing creations and resources beyond all recognition.

The backward retina may be an interesting case in point here: I've seen an article (years ago, don't remember the link) claiming it makes maintenance easier; an important advantage if so, considering that unlike your cell phone camera, this is a piece of hardware that has to operate without replacement for a timescale on the order of a century. I don't know whether it's a good trade-off on balance, but even if it's not the optimal design, it might still make the retina a relevant example of something that actually makes more sense than it would seem at first glance.

I consider that an example of human cleverness. If there is one thing we are good at it is creating arguments for things that are caused by something completely irrelevant. Take that Urist McHatedRival!

Interesting. I like to see forays outside the usual narrow LessWrong tracks.

The answer from Body by Science is yes, very much so. I can drown you with quotes from the book if you like. Sadly, Amazon seems not to have fully implemented page numbers into the Kindle highlighting feature.

The overall argument as I understand it (my understanding may be faulty) is this:

1) Low intensity exercise does not do any part of you including your heart much good because it fails to significantly stimulate the kind of adaptation you want. You need to get your heart pumping hard if you want to trigger an adaptation, and low-intensity aerobics does not do that. High intensity aerobics does, but that is (3).

2) Long-duration furthermore potentially does your body much bad through wear and tear and accidents (don't forget probability of accident per second is multiplied by time to get total probability). As you'll see in the quotes, they claim (and have evidence for the claim, but you need to consult the actual book for full details) that exercising for long periods does not give you additional body-adapting benefits over and above exercising for short periods. So the long duration is (a) mostly wasted (except I suppose for direct calorie burning, but they emphasize that exercise is overrated as a calorie burner) and (b) potentially harmful.

3) High intensity (this can be high intensity aerobics such as the stationary cycle and it can also be high intensity resistance) does your body good (including your cardiovascular system, because your heart is working hard) by stimulating adaptation (for example, muscle building, but not only that). You can get much more information on the benefits of high intensity exercise (for all parts of you including your heart) if you google "high intensity interval training".

As a consequence of (1), (2), and (3), they recommend high intensity short duration exercise with a long rest period in between (for your body to recover and build).

They make the interesting additional point that steady-state activity (which is necessarily low-intensity long-duration exercise), while not benefiting you physiologically, creates the illusion of physiological adaptation when in fact what is adapting is essentially your nervous system. You learn to move your body more efficiently. So for example, if you walk for long periods, then as a result you will learn to walk for long periods (through economy of motion) but your learning will be limited to that one activity (because each activity has a different set of efficient motions which has to be learned anew).

Keep in mind that here I am only relaying the claims of the book's authors. Much of what they say makes sense to me but I have suspicions about some bits of it and I do not vouch for it.

Quotes (with some bit boldfaced by me):

Strength training is actually the best way to train the cardiovascular system precisely because, unlike what we refer to as “aerobics,” strength training actually involves and stimulates all of the components of metabolism. This includes the metabolism that goes on in the cytosol (the liquid portion of the cell and in the absence of oxygen) and the metabolism that occurs in the mitochondria (i.e., in the presence of oxygen).

and

Your cardiovascular system, it should be remembered, is always engaged. It’s engaged when you are standing in a room talking to someone: your heart is beating, your blood is circulating, and your lungs are taking in air and expelling carbon dioxide 24-7. The only way to get your cardiovascular system to work harder is by performing mechanical work with muscle. Any increase in muscular demand simultaneously increases the involvement of your cardiovascular system to a much greater extent. So, you are always “doing cardio” in the popular sense of the term whenever you do anything—or nothing.

Given the interrelatedness of the various metabolic cycles, the notion that you can separate any of these metabolic cycles out from each other is erroneous; they are always running concurrently and together, though some of them can outpace the others. Anything that defines exercise from a metabolic sense is raising the intensity level above its baseline, and even if such pathways could be isolated, they shouldn’t be if your goal is total health and fitness.

and

Remember that the purpose of the cardiovascular system is to supply certain nutrients that are needed by the muscles and to help remove the by-products of the consumption and utilization of these nutrients. Cardiovascular health is often confused with aerobic conditioning, the latter of which is always specific to a particular activity, such as running or stationary cycling. Cardiovascular health, by contrast, equates to the ability of the heart, lungs, and bloodstream to supply whatever the muscles need. According to an abundance of studies, the cardiovascular system receives tremendous stimulation and benefit from resistance exercise.

and

Indeed, there is no additional physiological advantage afforded to one’s body, including endurance or cardio benefits, by training that lasts more than six to nine minutes a week.

and

(Most of the perceived conditioning in steady-state activity is actually a result of the body’s finding a way to make the exercise easier through improved economy of motion, and not because of improved cardiovascular condition. This is why a runner who performs another steady-state activity such as cycling will be gasping for air.

and

Your heart and lungs cannot tell whether you’re working your muscles intensely for thirty seconds on a stationary bike or working them intensely on a leg press. The heart and lungs know only about energy requirements, which they dutifully attempt to meet. Four thirty-second intervals of high-intensity muscular exertion is four thirty-second intervals of high-intensity muscular exertion, whether that takes place exclusively in the lower body, as in stationary cycling, or in both the upper and lower body, as in resistance exercise. In either scenario, it is mechanical work by muscles that is the passkey to the aerobic and other metabolic machinery within the body’s cells.

and

If the intensity of exercise is too low, nothing much in the way of a stimulus is presented to the body. On the other hand, if the intensity is too high in an activity such as running, you will increase the stimulus for positive adaptation, but you will also appreciably increase the chance of doing damage that will undermine your health.

Gaining weight: for all the string beans out there, there is one secret to gaining weight. Ready for it? Eat. Eat a lot. Eat all the time. I hindered my progress for years by not eating enough, and made my best progress when I was drinking a half gallon of whole milk a day. Also, if I didn't make this clear, you have to eat.

Lifting: Heavy compound movements should be the cornerstone of any hypertrophy program. Squats, deadlifts, bench press, overhead press, pullups, rows. (Google "squat exrx" to see demonstration and description of exercise.) While I agree with nazgulnarsil that you can obtain a good level of fitness with bodyweight exercises, a lot of movements are difficult to load with your bodyweight, additionally, your bw may be too light or heavy for a movement. Moving iron, barbells and dumbbells, should by your base. Cable machines are acceptable. Machines that force motion along a track are least acceptable. Most people do not go heavy enough when lifting. You should be grimacing through all of your work sets. In general, don't go above 12 reps, but don't be afraid to occasionally do singles or triples. (work sets should generally be 4-10 reps.) The 5x5 method mentioned earlier is a fine program, but keep track of what works for you and adjust accordingly. Just use some program and STICK TO IT.

Make sure you consume enough protein, which will be much more than needed for sedentary individuals. You can shoot for 1g of protein per lb of body weight. Now, I mentioned eating a lot earlier. If you are naturally very thin, that is very important. If you are less so, slowly ramp up your calories, and if you start seeing a little pudge growing just scale them back slightly. But if you are gaining no weight, fat or muscle, not eating enough is probably the culprit.

There is a difference between a specific exercise program not working for you and exercise working for you. About 90% of the people I see at the gym are not working effectively towards their goals.

Losing Weight: First, burning calories is not the same as burning fat. People may burn a lot of calories jogging for an homakes, but because their metabolic rate is high they are burning mostly carbohydrates. This steady state cardio results in depleted glycogen, so your body will just want more food to stock up. Additionally, steady state cardio makes your metabolism work more efficiently, which is the opposite of what you want when you are trying to lose weight. Additionally, this type of cardio breaks down muscle, which makes it even harder to lose weight. (If you don't really have a muscular base it is more acceptable.)

Alternative: Morning fasted cardio. Wake up, pop a caffeine pill or drink some black coffee (rev up metabolism and increase utilization of fatty acids) and BEFORE EATING just walk 30-60 minutes on an incline treadmill (or around the neighborhood) With a book on tape this is easy and enjoyable. Because you have enough oxygen your body can actually burn fat. And it will not break down muscle tissue like jogging will. (If you are less averse to exercise look into HIIT, but walking every morning is easier so you are more likely to actually do it.)

Diet: I second those hating on carbohydrates. Your body likes carbs. It likes to use them for energy. Don't let it. Make it use fat. Every time I have made great progress, it is because I made a concrete goal with a concrete time frame. Set a goal to lose x lbs by y date. Not 30 lbs in one year. Try 8 lbs in a month. Commit for that month to some sort of diet, I recommend a ketogenic (almost no carb) diet. By having that time frame it becomes a lot easier not to cheat, and you know exactly what type of progress you should be making.

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.

It was only recently that I actually found a type of exercise that does something: doing squats, bench presses, and deadlifts with barbells. By using a lot of weight, you only need to do around 5 sets of 5, and because you're using free weights, a few exercises work your entire body, unlike a weight machine. By increasing the weight each time you work out and doing a small number of high-weight exercises, you can build muscle quickly. It's the only exercise routine I've ever found that I've been able to stick to.

This site gives one example of such a weight lifting program: there are others out there as well.