This correlates with my personal experience. Lifting is a good idea, but my optimum for it is perhaps once a week, else I fall into overtraining. The rest of the time when I want to exercise mild cardio seems more beneficial.
Maybe that works for you, but you'll never be strong/look strong weight training weekly. If you're "overtraining" from one weight training session per week, there's something very wrong. The average human only takes 48-72 hours to fully recover for most muscle groups in the body.
It's also been proven that HIIT is much more beneficial for your system than LISS.
It might "seem" more beneficial to you, but likely is not more beneficial than the alternatives. However, something is definitely better than nothing, and do what works for you and makes you happy.
>It's also been proven that HIIT is much more beneficial for your system than LISS.
Source? What is your definition of 'better?' The context is in longevity, and my link offers some evidence against your statement, so I think you should provide some source for your claim that HIIT is consistent with living longer than LISS because that's not what I've seen published in the last 10 years.
Long time lurker, finally registered to answer this. What's your definition of "strong"? I've been weight training once a week since March, following Doug McGuff's "Body By Science" method, and I have doubled my weights in 4 of the "big 5" in the last 3 months. While I'm led to believe McGuff's methods will never make anyone look absolutely massive, I disagree with your premise that you have to train more than once a week to be strong or look strong. Incidentally, McGuff mentions in his book that the optimal gap between workouts is 8 days.
No offense meant for something working for you. If it works for you, keep doing it.
I've competed now in three separate strength sports (powerlifting, strongman, olympic lifting). There isn't a single person on any competitive circuit that only lifts weights once every 8 days. You might be getting strong for you. You started in March, so you are on the ultra-beginner slope that means you can basically do any training in existence and make gains. That will steadily slow.
Regarding a definition of "strong", there are many, but the one most people in the strength industry agree on is:
As usual, people say "no offense" when they are about to offend me :)
I have actually read more than one "person". McGuff actually has some credibility, and cites many scholarly articles in his book. However his method is not aimed at competitive weightlifters, which suits me as I don't have hours to spend at the gym every week, or a desire to get huge. I do expect to be stronger than approximately 99% of my peers by the end of the year though, which in my book is a bit better than "strong for me".
> However his method is not aimed at competitive weightlifters
Yes, but you said a workout every 8 days was optimum. I'm saying that's completely bad information. You don't have to compete to learn from people who compete.
You wouldn't learn an optimal golf swing from someone who only plays mini-golf at an arcade would you? No, you'd look at the true greats in the game.
Here are just a few people to read instead of McGuff, all of who have some actual strength credentials.
* Wendler
* Coan
* Rippetoe
* Dan John
* Pavel
* Abadjiev
* Kilgore
Hey nosequel, can you recommend me succinct reading or ideally a great training program to follow for strength building with calisthenics? In my situation with my lifestyle of travel at the moment, access to gyms can be expensive and infrequent, and I like the athleticism and balance involved in calisthenics anyways.
Body shape is hugely influential. Limb length compared to torso length, back width, arm length compared to leg length all will have huge influences. These were general guidelines kind of thrown around over the years, but it is expected that for each person on of those will be easier than the rest to achieve. Most really good deadlifters are not necessarily good squatters, and vice versa.
You are correct. In fact, you can get really strong training once a week. Fact is, this guy's training methods are basically kind of appoaching an optimization for bulking (building the most muscle mass possible) combined with laziness (only training once a week).
The big criticisms of this kind of training would be:
1.) athleticism (he recommends machines, but free weights and calisthenics--replacing lat pulls with pull ups, muscle ups, etc is much better for athleticism)
2.) strength (he recommends machines, no momentum in movements, long recovery periods... this is basically how bodybuilders train to build the most muscle, but power lifters and athletes will optimize for maximum power, which includes momentum in their movements, and more endurance in their muscles)
3.) cardio/weight loss (you will burn more calories and build better cardio with higher volume, repitions)
4.) Injury (machines, low reps, high weights, all increase risk of injury)
Basically, you have three components of the future organization that get "architected" early on - how it sells things(marketing, sales, support), how it makes them(engineering, manufacturing, services, etc.), and how people in the organization are treated(hiring and management). These things need a design to them, or at least a rough strategy, and they have to cooperate in some way. Once you have a design in place, then you have your work cut out for you.
It is possible to make viable businesses by leaning on any one of those three elements. You can find the anecdotes: "I sat in my basement making weird computer art and it turned out internet people fell over themselves to get their hands on it", or "I pitched something that I made up while in the waiting room and they funded me to make it", or "We were a bunch of talented school friends and decided to go into business together without knowing what the business was". Those are all at the extreme ends. A balanced approach is also possible - you make a little bit, then you try to pitch it to some people, then you try to convince people(perhaps even the same people you pitched to) it's worth working on. Step by step you go from "we don't know what we're doing or know what's going on or who should work on what" to "we've solved all the major questions of this market and have a team that delivers good value."
The way in which you execute on these plans should ideally stay in line with how you feel comfortable doing business - your philosophy, your ethics, your motivations, etc. There are plenty of ways to cut corners and do wrong, or to try to lead when you aren't actually a good fit, and this may stop you from pursuing an otherwise worthy concept. Entrepreneurship isn't a job title or even necessarily about business so much as it is an extension of the act of poking at things and people and seeing if it gets some gears turning.
So, in any case, the validation is good, but the most important thing a company needs to continue operating is to close deals - hence there's always an undercurrent of "build up your pitch, build up your leads, product later" to a lot of biz advice. You know you can execute on the technology again - you already did it once - so that's not a big issue, as long as your technical ambitions stay in line with the original work. But progressing on the sales front is a big deal, and with the client work you're at a generous "0.5". A clear next step is to distill everything you learned from working on it into a better, more saleable pitch, and build up contacts and leads. You may want to get someone already in the industry to do some of this work, but at no point can you expect to be completely hands off.
It's both player count and "weakest link" syndrome. Games more like TF2, where weak or out-of-position players don't necessarily break a team, don't grow as toxic over the long haul, even if you're playing them competitively. But all the MOBA-style games have feedback loops that require everyone to play at a minimum standard or the game is definitely lost, and that just isn't conducive to a good experience in online/pub games.
You might not succeed at 100%, but you can remove "classes of error" by adopting particular styles or techniques backed by formal analysis. That's one of the biggest appeals of compiler technology - it can encode an understanding of patterns proven to detect failure, and in so doing lower your resulting bug count.
A soft renderer wouldn't fit in 4096 bytes, too. The overwhelming preference of the demoscene when doing PC filesize compos is to lean on OS provisions in order to free up space for more algorithms. Hence you have demos that use files in C:\Windows as source data. Likewise, you have demos for older computers that require aftermarket RAM upgrades and employ preprocessing techniques that require modern computing resources. In unrestricted compos modern game engines get employed these days, too, and while many of those entries suffer the downside of having a low entry bar, good work has been made too.
Pointing at the GPU as a particular cheat or a make-easy button is not relevant to the conversation, in this light. Having a Gravis Ultrasound was also a cheat back in the day ;) It's all fairly arbitrary stuff, and in the end, the point is to present something cool running on the hardware and within the nominal restrictions, even if you get tricky to do so.
"It's all fairly arbitrary stuff, and in the end, the point is to present something cool running on the hardware and within the nominal restrictions, even if you get tricky to do so."
Another good, detailed perspective on it. Appreciate it. I'll especially agree with the part I quoted. :)
Modding basically recoups the investment into making a game's community - an individual can present their result to an existing player community directly, with a brief forum post, and a small website with some images or video to advertise. That is enough to build a small empire on, going by the most popular examples.
That's different from the typical lifecycle of a commercial game, which has a deeper level of marketing work to do before it can even consolidate a playerbase. There isn't a "Unity modding community", per se. There is a community of Unity developers, and players of individual games made in Unity, who have no broader associations. A game transitioning from the mod sphere of an existing game to an independently produced commercial title still has to overcome this gap, and most of them don't make it over the line.
The advice is sensible, nevertheless. If you can extend the schedule to focus on the core elements of the design as a "R&D" process where the majority must be thrown away, and only scale it up towards a shipping product as the concept proves itself, you minimize the risk of the budget being wasted on a flawed concept. Modding scenes, game jams, and micro-budget productions all have the benefit of weeding out most of the really early, risky design experiments, without wasting enough of people's time or money to care.
Even when conceiving the marketing for a larger production, the same advice works. The "trial balloon" or "landing page" method, etc. You still do design thinking when you market, but it's design on the topics of "how do we build a funnel" or "how do we make this a franchise." Still very easy to spend a lot of money on making a splash without getting the blueprint right.
Human-size applies to many activities, too. You only get so much time in the day, so "someday" can be put off no matter how long you wait. You never become so exceptional that all problems are within your comfort zone as if you were an overpowered game character. Long term, you can only sustain about 4 hours of max effort on a difficult, out-of-flow mental task like a hard coding problem. You can never entirely brush aside your ordinary failings just because of your accomplishments elsewhere.
Likewise kick scooters. Fast and quiet enough to make pedestrians think "you are like a bike and I should treat you like one," but in fact far too slow for roads and unexpectedly agile on sidewalks.
Basically, all the vehicles that sit in the intermediate gradients of speed/acceleration are in a position for their simple existence to offend everyone else.
The "19" figure is mythical - just google "average age of soldiers in Vietnam" and you'll see that the real figures are known to be younger than other recent wars, just not so extreme - around 22-23 years old depending on the exact statistic you're working from.
That said, the Paul Hardcastle song "19" is still pretty good. [0]
