[zfnmxt]

VR exercise is a remarkably poor allocation of time (if your interest is physical fitness, efficiently). It also leaves out the most important adaptation of all: strength.

Effective training (not exercising) requires a progression model. That is, on some time frame you must exceed your performance at the end of that time frame when compared to the beginning of the time frame. This must be done in some measurable way--trying "harder" is ineffective. For example, if you squatted 120 kg x 5 two days ago, today you need to squat 122.5 kg x 5. VR cannot support such a progression model because it is incapable of producing a sufficiently intense stimulus (obviously for strength, but also for cardiovascular fitness) to result in continued adaptations; i.e., you cannot effectively scale the stress to produce meaningful adaptations after an initial period of adaptations. I'm sure if the author of the post continues for another 80 days, you'll see progress mostly stall.

At any rate, the bigger issue is that the most important component of fitness--strength--is left out entirely. Strength is extremely correlated with decreased morbidity/mortality but, perhaps more tangibly, becoming strong results in vast, systemic changes to your body and (especially if you're older or extremely unfit already) similarly vast improvements to your quality of life. You are a physical entity and the way you interact with your environment is expressed through forces; the degree to which you can produce such forces is strength. We all depend on strength.

As anyone who is strong will tell you, being strong is a far superior state to being weak. If you only "exercise" or just go for runs or only do VR exercise, you are weak.

(Effective) strength training trains your entire body. Your bones, your nervous system, your balance, and yes, even cardiovascular fitness. You can become very strong lifting just 3x a week for one hour each time. Throw in some HIIT (which takes 15 minutes and results in better cardiovascular fitness than VR exercise because it has a progression model and is sufficiently intense to result in sufficient stress to evoke an adaptation) on a rest day and you have a far, far more effective recipe for general fitness with significantly less time spent. All other factors being equal, the man who can squat 400 lbs will always be fitter than the man who plays VR for 45 minutes every day--and the former can do it with a smaller time investment.

For any naysayers arguing that strength training isn't fun (like VR is): it is fun. You're playing Pokemon, just leveling up IRL instead of your Clefairy. The progression model I explained above makes it fun.

[hombre_fatal]

1) The best exercise is the one you do.

2) You are too dismissive, hand waving/wringing behind the word “effective”. You don’t need to min/max and obsess over progression and optimization to get good exercise. I’m jacked just doing push-ups, pull-ups, and body weight squats here and there. I don’t count them, I just do some, but I do some every day.

Where people fail is the daily consistency and making the lifestyle change of actually exercising at all regularly, not because they aren’t exercising optimally.

If VR compels someone to exercise, it kinda seems like you would butt in with this “well actually” sort of unhelpful discouragement before you even know what their goals are. Sounds like you may only have one narrow goal in mind.

Your posts in these threads remind me of all the instant guru redditors that just read Starting Strength and now dunk on people in r/fitness.

[zfnmxt]

> You don’t need to min/max and obsess over progression and optimization to get good exercise.

You're right, but I'm not talking about exercise, I'm talking about training. You do need to "obsess" over progression if you intend to progress.

> I’m jacked just doing push-ups, pull-ups, and squats here and there.

You almost certainly are not. Having low bodyfat is not the same thing as being "jacked". Weight/height? How much can you squat?

> Where people fail is the daily consistency and making the lifestyle change of actually exercising at all regularly, not because they aren’t exercising optimally.

My argument is that these things are highly related. That is, lifting effectively makes lifting consistently much easier--if you're seeing continued, measurable progress (every time you lift your numbers go up--how exciting!) and actual physical changes and improvements to your quality of life, it really isn't so difficult to be consistent because the process itself is incredibly enjoyable and rewarding. Continued habits are not formed by discipline, they are formed by finding something you enjoy in the habit; at least some component of the habit itself must become compelling.

[Tade0]

> My argument is that these things are highly related. That is, lifting effectively makes lifting consistently much easier--if you're seeing continued, measurable progress (every time you lift your numbers go up--how exciting!)

I've found that I don't experience this at all. I went from being extremely weak to benching as much as I weighed, but once the college program that I participated in was done I didn't continue, because for me it was always a chore and remained so.

Nowadays I swim, because it's enjoyable for the sake of it. Also I have a small child now, so most of my daily exercise just sort of happens.

I have friends who enjoy this progress, pushing themselves to do more etc. - I can't relate to this at all.

Bottom line is that there's a chunk of the population that doesn't feel this at all and it's better that they exercise using VR than not at all.

[Broken_Hippo]

Continued habits are not formed by discipline, they are formed by finding something you enjoy in the habit; at least some component of the habit itself must become compelling.

You keep applying this to exercise, though, and obviously you have gotten enjoyment from it that others don't - but then you are putting down what other people manage to do. I don't care how much I could lift, nor do I think that I need more strength than what I need in everyday life - and realistically, that's just generally carrying groceries home from the grocery store and things like that (I'm in a walkable location and just walk 15 minutes each way).

[zfnmxt]

> but then you are putting down what other people manage to do.

This is a bizarre argument to me. If I argue that Rust is better than Pearl am I "putting down" Pearl programmers? There is no personal attack here--I firmly believe the methods I outlined in my post are superior. If you cannot find it in your being to find something enjoyable in that method that's unfortunate and if that means you have to do something else that's less optimal, so be it.

[waterproof]

> If I argue that Rust is better than Pearl am I "putting down" Pearl programmers?

Only if you come in telling the Perl programmers that they can’t possibly have written useful code. Which is what i hear when zmmmmm says

> I actually started bulking up in my upper arms for the first time in my life.

and you say

> No you didn’t

Or when Kiro says,

> Pistol Whip is great for building leg muscles

and you say

> bodyweight squats don't make you stronger.

To give you the benefit of the doubt, maybe you are using some very specific definition of the word strong. But it’s not the definition that the rest of us are using. Body weight exercise can absolutely help folks reach all kinds of fitness and life goals, which is all we’re trying to say here.

Plus as some folks have pointed out, there’s no reason you can’t wear some weights in VR either.

So yeah, it’s fine to extol the virtues of weight training, but you’re sounding to me like a Rust programmer saying Perl can’t possibly be used to save time or practice your problem solving.

[zfnmxt]

> Only if you come in telling the Perl programmers that they can’t possibly have written useful code. Which is what i hear when zmmmmm says

In hindsight, perhaps the analogy was poor. Perl and Rust can express exactly the same computations (and no more and no less) and are in some sense interchangeable which is not what I was trying to express.

I am indeed arguing that the utility of the strength training I outline exceeds that of VR exercise and that VR exercise is less useful in developing physical fitness.

> Body weight exercise can absolutely help folks reach all kinds of fitness and life goals, which is all we’re trying to say here

I agree with this and your quote

> bodyweight squats don't make you stronger.

is out of context, since I qualified it with people who already have a decent level of fitness. And that is indeed the case. You cannot increase the loading on the bodyweight squats and--assuming your bodyweight isn't drastically changing--that means you cannot change the intensity and hence you will not get appreciably stronger. Doing more reps just puts you in the realm of sarcoplasmic hypertrophy followed by cardiovascular adaptations.

Doing something is always better than nothing; there is no contention there and I agree. What I disagree with is the degree of benefits (especially in regards to strength) people are claiming things like VR exercise can provide and relative of importance of cardiovascular fitness vs. strength and how to best obtain fitness in each area.

I'm strongly opinionated, absolutely. And I absolutely think a lot of the approaches featured in this comment section are ineffective if the goal is to obtain physical fitness. If your goal is to just have fun and just do something you enjoy, then who cares--have fun! It's fine to not especially care about physical fitness and I have no personal interest in your physical fitness. But I believe that life is better physically fit and that the best path to fitness involves lifting weights in a manner which features progressive overload. A lot of people go to the gym with the intent to become strong and most of them fail--not all approaches are equally valid and a lot of them are ineffective.

[pastage]

Yes you are puttning people down, even thick skinned Perl programmers, you do not show perspective. Most people will not care and just ignore you, the ones who argue with will at best have an interest in you explaining what you mean in a meaningfull way.

Responding with "well that's just your opinion man" is tiresome. You need to understand who you are having a discussing with. I know no one who cares about strength outside the training nerds, if that is your argument that strength is important and you need to prioritze it. Then you have to be really humble, and show how that can be. Do not say Perl sucks to make that point.

[tifadg1]

On the offchance you're not trolling, these are quite the outdated views you're holding.

It's fine to muck around doing 120kg squats if that's your thing, but you're continuously putting yourself to increased risk of injury as the years go by and you're increasing weight. To mitigate that risk you then have to start doing additional warm up, foam rolls, recovery routines. Oh and lets not forget that most people can't even do squat properly, so add static stretching too. That's hell of a commitment to someone who likely hates the process and just wants to be healthy.

That said, I also do weight training, but I don't emphasize it due to above. 2x/week full-body base, 2x/week 30 min cardio, 2x week static stretches. Am I advanced in anything? No. Am I rounded more than person going to the gym 3 times a week? I'd think so.

[zfnmxt]

> To mitigate that risk you then have to start doing additional warm up, foam rolls, recovery routines

How do you know that any of this is effective?

> Oh and lets not forget that most people can't even do squat properly, so add static stretching too.

If you don't squat correctly, you need to do static stretching to ameliorate it? What?

> It's fine to muck around doing 120kg squats if that's your thing, but you're continuously putting yourself to increased risk of injury as the years go by and you're increasing weight.

Being strong decreases risk of injury and death. We're not talking about becoming competitive weightlifters or powerlifters here, we're talking about becoming decently strong. To become strong, you must learn to execute the lifts with sufficiently good technique to not injure yourself. If you can read a book and think somewhat critically (so, hopefully, the entire Hacker News readership) you can learn to execute the lifts correctly.

Would you have the same defeatist attitude if I was talking about joining a recreational soccer team, where injury rates are literally magnitudes higher than in the weight room?

[silexia]

I did weight lifting for years in my 20's... I could squat 500+ lbs, bench 325 lbs several times, do 25 consecutive pullups with a wide grip or narrow grip, etc. I looked like a bodybuilder.

Then I did Crossfit for several years in my late twenties... more cardio, a bit less weights.

Then rock climbing for several years in my early thirties.

Now I ride my bike competitively on Zwift and have tons of fun doing it.

All exercise is good. If I could go back in time, I would greatly reduce the amount of weight lifting I did and focus more on fun cardio centric activities. You get all the muscle you need from those.

[matwood]

I think your comment is a bit myopic, and I power lifted for years (my #s weren't great, just ok 525 DL, 395 sq, 315 bench all at 200#).

Step one is getting people to train at all. That alone means they are improving if they do something consistently.

Next, progression can take many forms. Adding weight is one way, more reps is another, adding explosiveness (body squat with jump for example) yea another. There's also things like time under tension where you do 1/2 squats and never come out of the contraction for the whole time. I did heavily weighted pull ups for years, then one day decided to focus on reps instead and my lats got bigger.

We also need to define how much strength does the average person who doesn't want power lifting to be their sport need. I've seen some people say, the ability to goblet squat the weight of a typical toddler is a good goal. If someone is doing 100s of bw squats consistently multiple times/week, they should feel comfortable picking up their kid.

Someone mentioned studies showing increased strength is good for health, and that's right. But if you look closely, they are not talking about huge increases. Again, bw stuff probably meets the study parameters for increases.

At the end of the day, people need to find something they like doing and do it consistently. They'll progress to some level, and then maintaining is fine if they don't want to squat 400# or do 500 pull ups in the workout.

I finally stopped power lifting when it no longer fit my other sport goals. I needed more agility and endurance for what I wanted to do so had to move my focus.

[Tenoke]

This post is clearly about cardio while your whole comment dismisses it for not being strength training and talks of strength training. Just because you do strength training it doesn't mean cardio is useless and in fact many people do both.

As for progression you do it the same way as running presumably - by putting more time and/or doing it faster.

[zfnmxt]

The title of the post is "Virtual Reality: My Digital Dojo for Mental & Physical Fitness". The post is about physical fitness and I think the author is conflating physical fitness with cardiovascular fitness.

> in fact many people do both.

And I argued for both and that strength training also results in cardiovascular adaptations.

[usrusr]

How would the term physical fitness, used as the complement of mental fitness, not include the cardiovascular? The blog never claimed anything about bulking up or maximising strength!

[zfnmxt]

And I never claimed that physical fitness doesn't include cardiovascular fitness.

[usrusr]

What you said boils down to "but that's just cardiovascular, not proper physical fitness." By that measure, Lance Armstrong on the height of epo abuse wasn't fit.

[Broken_Hippo]

None of this matters if you find exercise and training of this sort so mind-numbingly boring that you active avoid the it due to hate of activity. You might try your best to convince me that it is fun, but I whole-heartedly disagree. It is repetitive boredom, about as fun as housework and maybe worse (which is why I keep a messy house).

I'll be physically weak and happy instead and continue to put concepts into my mind and enjoy the activity I do get, thank you.

[microjim]

For that, you'd need to be convinced that exercise/strength training results in better health outcomes long term, and that better health outcomes are an important factor in emotional wellbeing.

Supposing that, it is safe to acknowledge that particular behaviour can be created by building reward circuits and overcoming initial aversion common when building any habit.

[zfnmxt]

> For that, you'd need to be convinced that exercise/strength training results in better health outcomes long term, and that better health outcomes are an important factor in emotional wellbeing.

On top of this, being physically fit generally results in increased longevity, giving you more total time to enjoy the things you do enjoy. (And enjoy them in a physically superior state.)

> Supposing that, it is safe to acknowledge that particular behaviour can be created by building reward circuits and overcoming initial aversion common when building any habit.

I think humans have a surprising capacity to learn to enjoy things (or, at least, tolerate) and that sticking with something is largely a question of overcoming an initial "enjoyment" curve. Besides, why does everything need to be enjoyable or stimulating? There is certainly value in a lack of stimulation.

[Kiro]

I've done a lot of stronglift and don't think it's fun. It's a chore I do because it's good for me. VR training on the other hand is extremely fun and I still look forward to each session. It's not until I take off the headset I notice that I'm soaking in sweat.

[zfnmxt]

That's too bad. Out of curiosity, do you have meaningful progress on Stronglifts? Can you tell me what your starting lifts were and what you're at now?

[Kiro]

I always start with just the bar and keep adding every time until I hit a plateau. I don't do stronglifts right now (just VR training) but something like 120 kg in squats and 150 kg in deadlift last time.

Normally when I hit the wall I transition to a regular split program with biceps curls and whatnot, which I find much more stimulating and fun but it's still a chore compared to VR training.

[bluecalm]

I am tired of the HIIT nonsense. When it comes to cardiovascular fitness it's not even remotely enough to throw a HIIT session here and there. It's not enough to rely on intensity alone. You need volume and volume before everything else. By volume I mean a lot of light, easy exercise. You will benefit by adding some intensity once you you have enough volume in your training, probably not all year round and probably not too much.

Just talk to anyone who trains endurance sports. Read the recent "how to skate 10kms" that is making rounds lately. Look at any training program of competitive endurance athletes and you will see low intensity volume before anything else. The reason is there is that it works. There are adaptations that only happens during long easy sessions.

If you just care about carrying heavy stuff then you can ignore all of the above but there is more to fitness than that.

>>All other factors being equal, the man who can squat 400 lbs will always be fitter than the man who plays VR for 45 minutes every day--and the former can do it with a smaller time investment

Plenty of guys who can squat 400lbs who would be totally gassed after running a few miles or cycling up a moderate length hill. I wouldn't call it fit. I am betting on 45mins per day VR guy.

[zfnmxt]

> There are adaptations that only happens during long easy sessions.

What sort of adaptations? As far as I'm aware, adaptations are the result of significant stress. What are the stressors of a "long easy session"?

At any rate, my post was about physical fitness and health, not how to become a competitive athlete.

Many competitive athletes are not fit. A marathoner who has no muscle mass and who is physically weak is not fit--regardless of the fact if they can run a 2:15 marathon. Said marathoner is not resistant to adversity, e.g., consider how they'd do on a wasting disease like cancer versus an athletic 215lb male.

What competitive athletes do generally is not a useful consideration when deciding on training modalities. Assuming that what the pros do is effective because they're pros is logical fallacy and, regardless, these people are (genetic) outliers with differing goals.

Low-intensity, long endurance cardio is adversarial to increasing strength. If you want to be a competitive endurance runner then, sure, you need to adapt your training and you will need to do long endurance cardio. If you're just an average Joe who wants to be healthy and fit then it is not in your interest to do long endurance cardio. Injury rates are higher, it makes it harder to become strong, and many of the resulting adaptations are undesirable.

[multjoy]

Someone who can lift 440lbs but who sweats when they eat isn't fit, either.

>What sort of adaptations? As far as I'm aware, adaptations are the result of significant stress. What are the stressors of a "long easy session"?

The adaptations come from the cardiac system. Basically, the body can use more oxygen more efficiently.

>Low-intensity, long endurance cardio is adversarial to increasing strength

Increased strength is adversarial to improved cardio efficiency.

[zfnmxt]

> Increased strength is adversarial to improved cardio efficiency.

This is absolutely untrue. If you take a runner who doesn't squat and get them to squat (and get stronger) they will become a better runner. By becoming stronger, each stride becomes more submaximal. Of course how strong they can become will be modulated by how much weight they can gain--in the case of a runner, that will probably be a very modest amount before the increase in weight begins to negatively impact their performance. But even with extremely minimal weight gain, they can become significantly stronger from an untrained state in a way that only positively impacts their running performance.

> The adaptations come from the cardiac system. Basically, the body can use more oxygen more efficiently.

You misunderstood my question. If the session is easy, what is the stress which sufficiently disrupts homeostasis to lead to an adaptation? Easy things do not result in adaptations.

> Someone who can lift 440lbs but who sweats when they eat isn't fit, either.

Sure, they should do their cardio.

[multjoy]

>If the session is easy, what is the stress which sufficiently disrupts homeostasis to lead to an adaptation? Easy things do not result in adaptations

An "easy" run is a stressor on the cardiac system, because you don't spend all day with an elevated HR and commensurate lung work.

[zfnmxt]

Everything is a stressor. Doing nothing is a (negative) stressor. The question is is it a sufficient stress. And it is not.

Squatting 120 kg x 5 every day is a stressor, and provided you do no other strength training, it will feel hard. But you'll never get stronger than you already are.

[mutatio]

> The adaptations come from the cardiac system. Basically, the body can use more oxygen more efficiently.

I'm quite sure HIIT is near optimal for improving VO2max - and if you look at it through the less of time vs. benefit then it's unrivalled in terms of cardiovascular health.

[multjoy]

Arguably it's the only way! A rising aerobic tide lifts all boats...

[multjoy]

>You need volume and volume before everything else.

There's volume and then there's volume. Obviously five minutes of HIIT between picking things up and putting things down isn't going to do a great deal, but especially in the cycling world there's a lot of research around easy volume work and high intensity sessions (Neal Henderson at The Sufferfest/Wahoo, TrainerRoad etc) and the general consensus is that if you're time crunched, then the long Z2 work is not where you want to be focusing your efforts.

The article isn't about a trained athlete, it's about the untrained/hobbyist for whom getting in sufficient volume just isn't possible.

>Plenty of guys who can squat 400lbs who would be totally gassed after running a few miles or cycling up a moderate length hill. I wouldn't call it fit. I am betting on 45mins per day VR guy.

Picking things up and putting things down barely raises HR. Cardio appears to be a dirty word around these parts.

[watwut]

HIIT is not meant to train you for long distance and I never ever heard anyone to claim so. How to skate 10kms is competitive athlete program and had literally nothing to do with goals of normal sedentary person exercising.

For a lot of people, actual ability to run up stars higher or be active for 20 mins with kids is what they want and need.

And it is fun. It feels good. You see improvements in own ability to do day to day things. It takes a while till those wear off and you start to stagnate.

[edanm]

I highly disagree with the gist of your comment.

First, I'll mention that I generally agree that most people are not fit, that most people should get fitter, and that includes getting stronger. I'll also agree that getting stronger has tremendous real-world benefits, especially as you get older.

That said, you're pushing that message way too far and discounting cardio completely.

I think the main reason to get fit, for most people, is one of:

1. They want to live longer.

2. They want to have a healthier/better life.

3. They want to look better.

4. They enjoy it.

Different people have different goals, which are all valid. But you deciding that strength is the most important component of fitness is not true, for someone who doesn't share your goals.

For living longer, cardiovascular health is more important than strength, as is having lower body fat. That's the generally accepted view today - if you think otherwise, what evidence do you have for that?

For being healthier, after a certain amount of strength, I'm pretty sure that cardiovascular fitness is also more important, though admittedly I'm a bit less sure about that point.

For wanting to look better, this very much depends on the person. For most people, losing weight is the easiest thing to do to improve their appearance, though building muscle is probably the second most important thing. (I'm excluding makeup/fashion/etc which are completely different).

For enjoyment, well, that's completely dependent on the person. I personally love strength training and dislike many forms of cardio, but that's me.

[ChildOfChaos]

Umm what a load of nonsense.

I play FitXR which has HIIT and I use resistance bands that I connect to a belt, so I’m adding plenty of strength.

Plus I’m not a Gym rat, I’m not trying to do what you are doing, I use it because I hate going to the gym, i hate any exercise, I want to be able to do something at home on my lunch break and most of all it really makes me feel great for the rest of the day, it’s the best thing I do for myself so I’m not sure how it can be a ‘remarkably poor allocation of time’ it’s literally the opposite of that, i do it for an hour, my heart rate goes way up, I sweat a lot and I’m buzzing for hours afterwords with a great amount of focus. Your comment is complete and utter nonsense.

I don’t care about ‘training’, I care about exercise. Your post makes no sense. Nobody doing this is trying to become some brain dead nobody builder like yourself.

[zfnmxt]

When calling me "some brain dead nobody builder" it would be nice if your response actually faithfully represented mine. I did indeed write

> VR exercise is a remarkably poor allocation of time (if your interest is physical fitness, efficiently).

But notice the parenthetical which you left out. My response was about obtaining physical fitness and doing so efficiently. Your response is about exercising and feeling good for today. And that is a totally fine thing to do, but you are not becoming physically fit in the process and it is not a method by which to become physically fit.

Of course it's better than nothing and it's great you do it and it's great you enjoy it and it's great it helps you focus, but the goals my post address are different from yours; even a brain dead nobody like myself can realize that.

[Ataraxiaist]

The fitness industry is an endless string of fashions and fads to get people motivated to workout and convince themselves that this new method is the one they will actually do.

The novelty of VR aerobics will have the shelf life of Tae Bo, Jazzercise, on and on. I have seen more variations on this theme than the Fast & Furious franchise.

At least when you get sick of the workouts you still have the VR headset that can do other things instead of a rowing machine or treadmill that collects dust.

I even have a decent home gym but go to the commercial gym 90% of the time because working out at home is boring and demotivating. You can't replicate the stimulation of the gym at home. The ritual of going, the other people, not to mention the variety of physical stimulus.

[multjoy]

Other people are the reason I don't go to the gym (I'll make an exception for colleagues at the work gym because I can expect them to be respectful). The ritual of going is a pain in the arse because that's time I don't have.

>You can't replicate the stimulation of the gym at home

What works for you doesn't work for other people, which seems to be the one thing in this thread that the typical HN denizen forgets.

Any exercise is good exercise. Cardio, which somehow seems to be a dirty word here, is vital to good health and longevity and is the sort of exercise that leaping around with a VR headset is geared towards (and if you doubt the efficacy of computer based training, there's an entire ecosystem of cyclists that would take issue with that).

[zfnmxt]

> What works for you doesn't work for other people

I think this mindset is extremely destructive. You do not have some unique fitness journey and have to find some niche thing that works for you. Barring significant physical abnormality, strength training--on a physical level--works for everyone and it works for everyone with the same basic programming tenants and the same exercises.

If by this you meant mentally (i.e., what sticks and what is appealing to them) sure, I'll concede that and agree. On a physical level it is absolutely not the case.

[watwut]

But also, people who chase those fads and jump from Tae Bo to Jazzercise to boxdance to VR are having fun and exercising the whole time. These people sign up to classes, go, have fun, they get bored with it, sign up again to whatever is new.

Starting new activity is more fun then mastery for many people - you progress faster. And that is actually ok I think.

There is this tendency to turn exercising into chore that tests your moral quality and discipline or what not. But, it is OK to just chase fun.

[seanmcdirmid]

> Throw in some HIIT

VR has HIIT already, FitXR has many different levels of it.

VR fitness is mostly just aerobic workouts that you would get from a kickboxing or more tradition aerobics class with an instructor. You aren’t using weights in those classes either, it isn’t suited to anaerobic exercise.