There seem to be basically two arguments against "exercise pills."
1) Self-discipline is virtuous in and of itself. We shouldn't develop alternative ways to control weight and/or maintain muscle tone without controlling food intake and exercise, because that undermines the tangible rewards of virtue.
2) Biology is extremely complicated, and the drug that keeps you compact and muscular in your 40s might end up promoting the growth of cancerous tumors all over your body in your 60s. (As happened to the older mice who received high doses of GW501516.)
I don't agree at all with the first argument. The second one is alarming enough that I'm not going to be the first or even the millionth person in line to obtain these compounds through grey-market channels and dose myself. Similarly, I would love a drug cocktail that prevents the unwanted physical effects of aging, but I'll let other people blaze a trail with human trials (clinical or self-experimentation.)
I find #1 funny, in that appetite and "self-discipline" seem to be biologically inversely correlated in at least some sense. Boost dopamine (such as with the old amphetamine-based "diet pills"), and you get more control over your impulses... but also your appetite goes away, so you don't even need to exert control over it. Lower dopamine (such as with a typical antipsychotic), and you get hungry, but also find it harder to override your impulses in general. (If you're curious, this is thought to help in psychosis because "skepticism"/"being realistic" is one of the lower-level impulses that dopamine overrides.)
If self-discipline were virtuous, would the "best" exercise pill be one that only enhances self-discipline (with no stimulant-like side-effects)—and thus makes it easy to be one of those people who just "decide to exercise and eat healthy" and end up doing so? Or would people likely still consider that "cheating" in some sense? And if so, do you think such people would be able to be convinced at that point that they're literally just measuring the "virtue" of people's genetics, rather than of their choices?
This line of reasoning is why giving children (or anyone, really) medication for moderate behavioral problems is an ethical gray area. If there is a pill that helps an unruly-but-otherwise-healthy kid sit still and stay focused, do you have them take it? At what point does an element of your personality become a medical issue?
Also why are issues past an arbitrarily-drawn "medical" line the only ones we can treat via medication?
No one thinks working out should be illegal. So why should doing the same thing via other means be illegal?
Maybe it's the lingering Protestant-work-ethic-laced morality of the U.S., but we seem to be disproportionately likely to exaggerate the dangers of anything that seems like a drug, relative to things that don't seem like drugs (even when they clearly are -- i.e., alcohol).
I have taken stimulants on and off through my life. I certainly don't need them, but it is very unlikely I would own a tech company if I hadn't taken them. They have almost certainly improved my life immensely.
I'm against giving addictive pharmaceuticals to children as a solution to structural problems in compulsory schooling. Consenting adults should be able to make their own choices.
As a once-kid who was fundamentally incapable of paying attention to uninteresting topics for longer than about 30 seconds, I'd have loved to take that pill any day.
It's not that I didn't care about paying attention, I really wanted to pay attention, it just wasn't happening. I think that's the difference - you wouldn't be forcing me to do something I didn't want to do, you'd be helping me do something I did want to do.
Yeah I understand there are benefits, and I didn't mean to make it sound like I am against medication. It is just interesting because our culture dictates what behaviors are successful, which in turn informs which behaviors are undesirable. In the end we medicate against unwanted behavior not for medical reasons but for cultural ones.
3) There other benefits to exercise, including stretching and loosening joints and ligaments, building coordination and body awareness, mental benefits, etc. Sweating has benefits as well. I'd find it really hard to imagine that some pill that mucks with metabolism or muscle growth or some other single dimension would cover even a small portion of the benefits of exercise.
There are lots of benefits, and it's very unlikely a pill, or even a cocktail of pills, could emulate all those benefits.
That said, if you found a safe pill that would merely give the cardiovascular benefits of exercise, or help elderly patients maintain muscle mass, or move obese people to just being overweight, it would be worth tens or hundreds of billions of dollars.
When discussing a thought experiment, it’s helpful to assume that you are in The Least Convenient Possible World[1]. In this case, the GP is considering a pill that actually provides any actual effect of exercising that you deem useful or important. In a world where we had such a pill, is having such simple solutions to problems, having to avoid things like learning self-discipline or commitment, too big a downside?
In this case your point that such a pill wouldn’t help with your joints being limber or sweating is a cop-out. It’s not actually addressing the point of the discussion, instead focusing on details irrelevant to the point of the thought experiment.
I don't see any reason you couldn't take the pill and exercise. In many cases people who aren't doing any sort of exercise are held back by being so out of shape that they can't really get into the habit, in which case having a pharmaceutical head start might be reasonable.
I would love it if I had some help with something other than a straight up pain pill. My body hurts all the time with arthritis and from using a cane for the past several years. To be able to simply move around again without constant pain would be a Godsend.
The article has a certain bias and tone. A lot of points are just kind of swept under with this quote "the biological processes unleashed by physical activity are still relatively mysterious. For all the known benefits of a short loop around the park, scientists are, for the most part, incapable of explaining how exercise does what it does."
The biological process in the human body that depend on upright motion include far more than just simple muscle stimulation and growth. The circular system is meant to work against gravity in concert with muscle contraction. It should be relatively obvious that there's indeed far more to exercise and basic bodily functions than this pill covers.
A lot of the exercise we get is sort of implicit: it's "non-exercise activity thermogenesis" — a.k.a., fidgeting.
I'd expect a drug that "mimicked exercise" would really do so in part by making you exercise more, without realizing you're doing so: i.e., by making you fidgety (and sweaty, and achier in your joints so you'd want to stretch more, etc.)
Aside from the neurotoxicity and the fact it destroys appetite, it certainly does work well for burning fat I believe. If one could gain the effects minus the amphetamine downsides, I wonder what it would be like.
Do people really bother "microdosing on Adderall"? The drug companies have already handled that bit for you. That's what Adderall XR is (and in a funkier way, Vyvanse, also): Adderall that is manufactured in such a way that it will enters your system a little at a time.
I dunno, I know a lot of people that are prescribed stonking doses of the high-test original formula, and break their tabs into quarters or eighths. Then again, the going rate in the cubicle streets is, I've been told, $30-$50 a pill, so that might have something to do with it.
Look around. When, as the article mentions, the option is no pill vs some pill that helps in some way; for most people the pill makes sense.
As it is today, many people could alter their diets and improve their health. Yet they do not.
In an ideal world this pill makes little sense. But our First World world of today is far from ideal. Put another way, they say that worldwide more people die from eating too much than not eating enough.
I hear ya. I do, in theory, agree with you. But the reality is most people don't care to take care of themselves. And they wonder why healthcare costs are so high.
But there is a third option: make that First World world more ideal.
Sugar water and other high calorie stuff could see the same treatment tobacco got; cars could be banned from city centers to make room for bicycle lanes and lush pedestrian zones, parking lots could be required to be at least half a mile from offices and shopping malls, with nice walking paths between the two, etc.
Or maybe we could just play loud patriotic music over loudspeakers every morning, and use armed guards to force people to fall out for PT.
"cars could be banned from city centers to make room for bicycle lanes and lush pedestrian zones, parking lots could be required to be at least half a mile from offices and shopping malls,"
Screw old people and the handicapped, eh?
Here's a better idea: live your life the way you want. Don't force others to live the way you want.
Because, you know, granting government that level of power that doesn't end up where you imagine that it ends up.
Old people and the handicapped would IMO be fine. Car free streets make street crossings a lot less scary and allow for streets that are less wide.
Those that still need it could safely use strollers and wheelchairs.
There also would likely be fewer handicapped. Allowing healthy people to drive huge four-wheel drive “wheelchairs” from the time they are 18 doesn’t make the population healthier.
I also doubt people currently live the way they want. If you ask a 40 year old with diabetes and a BMI of >30 whether they do, do they say so?
“Government of the people, by the people, FOR the people, shall not perish from the Earth.”.
Governments should shape society to make people happier. Just as with other tasks (product design, educating kids) that doesn’t mean giving them what they say they want.
Judging by things such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index, some governments are better at providing what their people want then others. Call me an optimist, but I think the top ones have been granted “that level of power”.
So you are saying that if we grant our governments the awesome power of city planning (which the government already has, do you think cities are just a random collection of buildings brought up by the first person who could buy a spot of land?) what slippery slope would we go down?
Yes cars are harmful, to everyone, and they don't make a city more accessible (old people also can't drive when they start losing their sight for instance). Public transport makes cities accessible. You can live your life however you want, until you start hurting everyone else's.
Yes, but there are also negatives associated with exercise: injuries, joint wear and tear. Many, many people who where athletes in their prime end up with permanent damage to their body by the time they are middle aged.
It's ridiculous, but it's ubiquitous (and thus worth bringing, at least to acknowledge its existence in the discourse and decision making around this topic). Most people simply don't think very hard, and "no pain no gain" virtue arguments are apparently deeply ingrained in most people's approach to things like this.
What if some of the commonly known positive effects of exercise, such as battling depression, are actually psychological effects of that discipline and motivation rather than physical fitness? I find it hard to argue this can't be the case.
Then that would be another point in favor of actually exercising, if the pills don't hit enough of the same biological systems to mimic the anti-depressive effect. I'm not rejecting any benefits of exercise that can be empirically demonstrated. I just want to distinguish "X has historically been the best way to achieve Y" from "X is virtuous, and should not be neglected even if technical progress provides easier ways to achieve Y."
There is virtue in working hard to achieve good outcomes, but not in working harder than actually necessary to achieve those same outcomes. (If you want to do things a harder way than strictly necessary because it's a fun pastime for you, that's fine too. Then the experience itself rather than the end state is what you are seeking.)
Ah fair enough, I misunderstood. I agree doing things for the sole reason of being virtuous doesn't make sense.
Although I do think the origin of "virtue" is because some things had good general effects, but nobody was able to explain why or how. Of course the concept has been abused since then.
Some societies found it virtuous to kill anyone not of the right race/religion. Some societies found/find it virtuous to genitally mutilate women.
I'm not sure we can come up with a principled way to distinguish the "good" kind of virtuous from the "bad" kind of virtuous without just deciding by ourselves what is virtuous and what isn't, at least to some degree.
If that would be true, then anything that requires discipline and motivation would help with depression. That is not the case - regular washing dishes or reading or most crafts don't have the same reported effect.
That being said, the help with depression is not because you become physically fit. Exercise works even if you train in an ineffective way. It has more to do with chemistry (e.g. endorphins) in your brain then with overall result.
Nobody is suggesting that a pill should replace exercise in all scenarios; most of us do it because it's damn enjoyable which is why there are so many different forms. Depression is a problem that would exist regardless, the difference is that with a pill existing depressive people would only be depressed instead of depressed and suffering from the other problems caused by lack of exercise.
Well, it's not germane to the discussion. The issue of whether there are positive psychological consequences of discipline and motivation and whether there are positive moral implications of virtue are completely unrelated topics. Pancakes taste good with maple syrup, but it doesn't do much to address the thing the first argument actually says.
In terms of ways in which "discipline" and "motivation" might provide benefits such as battling depression... I could see arguments both for and against as plausible. Feeling that restrictions on your actions are entirely of your own choosing is tremendously helpful at reducing the negative consequences of harmful stimulus, that is supported by research. I am unaware of any research that says it can actually tip the needle the other direction and make a negative stimulus into a positive, but it could be possible. Then again, there are a billion other ways in which our volition is infringed upon on a daily basis by society flagrantly which probably contribute far more to depression and anxiety and similar problems than anything minor like what limits you might put on yourself, so taking away just that bit should probably not be a noticeable change.
The problem most people have with "virtue" arguments (and I share in this) is that if there is a REASON something should be avoided, then the reason suffices. If there is no reason, then you are inherently wrong to advocate that other people avoid it. And trying to paper over the situation with societal shame is just repugnant.
I think 2a is 20 minutes per day of exercise produces known benefits with known risks. It's not like it's an exercise pill or nothing. It's crazy to me that people are willing to take drugs that would require 70 year clinical trials to understand their safety rather than putting in 20 minutes per day of work...
1.) People who exercise because they want to look good or like it are no more virtuous. That is pretty much an equivalent of saying that if you spend hours choosing just the right dress and makeup, you are more virtuous.
I exercise because I enjoy it and partly to look better. I really don't think it makes me more virtuous then, say, fat people who don't exercises, but are overall nicer or more helping to people around then I am. Or simply people who read more book then I am or people who teach kids in their free time or whatever.
A better argument against this line of development is that it is demonstrably expensive and low-yield.
There are far better R&D approaches to maintaining health over the course of aging, but they get a tiny fraction of the effort lavished on exercise and calorie restriction mimetics, despite the continued absence of concrete therapeutic outcomes resulting from all of that investment.
The reason for this is probably that exercise and calorie restriction mimetic research dovetails well with the real underlying scientific goal of mapping metabolism, where as better approaches tend to bypass this need for mapping, focusing instead on well-known forms of damage that cause age-related decline.
I'm almost regretting including item 1, because the percentage of HN commenters who embody that attitude appears to be much lower than in comment sections on other parts of the web. Anecdotally, I can tell you that a significant minority of modern humans who comment on news articles are just furious about actual or projected technological advances that allow people to prevent e.g. obesity or pregnancy without relying on strenuous mental and/or physical discipline. That's why I mentioned it.
"Anecdotally, I can tell you that a significant minority of modern humans who comment on news articles are just furious about actual or projected technological advances that allow people to prevent e.g. obesity or pregnancy without relying on strenuous mental and/or physical discipline."
Yep. And yet you never see these people volunteering to make their livings as agricultural stoop labor peasants or (if female) volunteering to have 15 or 20 pregnancies over the course of their lives.
Someone wanting e.g. avoiding pregnancy to rely on "physical discipline" doesn't mean they are in favor of anybody having 15 or 20 pregnancies -- just that they are in favor of people having the discipline.
I agree with that judgment. I think we have seen that some in the cultural reaction to Soylent, which is mentioned in the article. Even setting aside questions about nutrition, cost, and cultural weirdness, some people are simply opposed to it as a matter of principle, and feel extremely strongly about it.
There is another argument, these pills don't seem to do anything for bone density even though the article suggested it for astronauts lower bone density - it appears to be an entirely muscular effect.
If one has to exercise to help build bone density anyways ( a concern for anyone who wants to have a healthy life after 40) the pill if it worked would only eliminate one component of an exercise regime.
I still lean on item 1 being the most correct. I know modern society is built on a "do anything" approach but in reality we're under the gun of biology and evolution and as such only certain behavioral patterns are actually successful. I found losing weight and staying fit got a lot easier when I focused on discipline instead of quick fixes like Atkins. There's an art to pushing back on that neurological trigger craving that dopamine shot and it can be learned. (Of course, if a pill comes out to help you with that trigger, then we're golden). Or more practically, a way to produce leptin and ghrelin in the body so hunger and craving response goes way down.
I'm not saying I'm "against" the pill, but no pill is going to magically erase 1,000+ calories of over-eating or clear out all the awful things excess sugar and other carbs may do. It may certainly mitigate them, but like the person I know who got lapband surgery eventually found out, his eating just adapted to his new limitations (ice cream, sweets, etc dont take much room and are very high energy) and he gained weight after a while. We'll pop the pill, eat like pigs, and be at the same weight or higher after a while.
I imagine if this becomes a mass market medicine, its effective applications will be outside of weight control and more towards helping people achieve a certain level of fitness especially those with limited mobility or illness. Its not something you're going to buy able to buy over the counter for 'free' workouts. The same way you can't buy testosterone or steroids OTC.
The situation with GW was really interesting, the study had incredibly high doses, but I don't doubt that they had reasons for pulling the drug, although I'm sure WADA pressure didn't help.
with regards to #2, it is controlling its use that will be problematic. seems far too often new methods to reduce fats and sugars in foods becomes a inhibitor remover for too many.
remember the horror stories from olestra's introduction, people shoving tons of chips because they were guilt free down their maws only to have digestive issues
"After the age of forty, all of us, even the athletic, lose about eight per cent of our muscle mass each decade, with a further fifteen-per-cent decline between the ages of seventy and eighty. "
This has not been my experience. I have added pretty substantial muscle mass between the ages of 48 and 55 with fairly conventional weight lifting and diet with no PED's. My back squat has gone from 185 to 385 (pounds)and my deadlift from 265 to 465. 40 seems way too early to start packing it in.
You're misinterpreting the statement. It is obviously not claiming that muscle mass follows a specific trajectory regardless of all other factors. It is claiming that muscle mass follows a statistical trajectory holding other factors constant.
It's as if someone said that a car coasting to a stop slows by roughly 1% of speed every second and you tried to refute this by pointing out that if you hit the accelerator it goes faster.
This metric is without targeted anaerobic exercise like weightlifting. Decreases in hormones and neurotransmitters result in the body maintaining less muscle mass, even with aerobic exercise.
As far as I know, there really isn't too much risk associated with hormone replacement therapy. If you add that into the mix, I'd be surprised to see any significant shifts over the human lifespan.
So as far as I understand, the answer to that is really "it depends". I'm not a doctor, I just find this stuff interesting. If you do it properly, I think you can supplement things like testosterone in a sustainable way, you'll have to cycle on and off the drugs to prevent long term damage to your body's ability to produce endogenous hormones, and then you'll take things that decrease side effects of the doping.
For example, a lot of fighters get caught taking drugs that decrease the estrogen production in the body, rather than actually getting caught taking steroids. Leagues ban steroids AND things that are used in coordination with steroids to increase the ability to enforce the steroid ban.
Now, I would argue that even if it does cause a long term dependency, it should be viewed, for the average person, the same way heart pressure medication is viewed. You have a medical condition, and this is a prescription you'll take for the rest of your life, but it will make you live a longer, healthier life.
No, I _started_ lifting seriously at 48. I was objecting to the observation that loss of muscle was inevitable after 40 "even the athletic". Its not. That doesn't address the value or danger of GW501516 since I didn't use.
Most of the people using this drug are using it with more serious exercise than I'm doing. In practice its being used as an exercise supplement, not replacement.
I'm assuming he means that's when he started with the weight training.
I'm 52, and recently started a strength/interval training regimen. In just a few weeks, I've increased my resistance loads 25-50%, and I'm losing a steady 1.5 pounds per week or so without a drastic diet change. It's a lot easier to control my eating now, too.
2x improvement just depends on where you start in relation to where you have been. If you haven't lifted legs heavily for a while you'll have to start lower but you'll quickly regain that lost grown. Well, you'll regain the lost ground faster than you'll go up past your old max.
The regimen isn't really the amount of weight involved. It's how often you do it, how many reps, etc. For example, I'm doing interval training - something like, say, 10 chest presses, 10 lateral pulls, 30 seconds of crunches, and repeat this cycle three times. Then go to the next cycle, which might be something like incline pushups, bicep curls, and squats, again 3x.
If I were to change to, say, 5 reps at maximum weight just one time(heavy strength train), that would be a change in regimen.
That’s not a lifting regimen. You don’t need crunches if you’re doing heavy squats or deadlifts. You don’t need bicep curls at all. And chest press must be balanced with barbell rows. As to how many reps, I only do 10 or more reps during warmup. From there on out it’s 5 reps per set or so, and at the end I do a few heavy singles at about 85-90% of PR.
That is a lifting regimen; it's just not your lifting regimen. While mine has generally been more like what you're talking about, there's nothing wrong with people doing that kind of interval training.
Curls and crunches often give normal people better aesthetics than they had before. Some people want a 4/5/6 bench/squat/dead, other people want to look slightly better at the beach without utterly killing themselves in the gym. I know a couple order of magnitude more people with good aesthetics who control their diet and do a relatively candy-ass workout vs those rare powerlifting dudes who never do any ab work yet have abs visible through their squat suits.
I'm doing barbell rows as well. I typically do four sets of three different exercises each (plus warmup and cooldown), so I'll do 12 different exercises over the course of a workout, and what those 12 are vary somewhat week to week. It's typically about 2/3 weights, 1/3 bodyweight exercises.
It's lifting, it's a regimen, so it's a lifting regimen. And it's been very effective at quickly adding strength, endurance, and flexibility to my initially bad starting position.
Don't assume your way of doing things is the only way to do things.
Congrats on the gains! Though of course you are just an anecdote. But I'm curious how much of this muscle mass loss is due to biological changes vs lifestyle changes.
Yeah. The article's sentence also fails to account for people dying, who lose much more than 8% of muscle mass, and really stupid robots reading the article, who lose none of their muscle mass, but will have trouble understanding that, sometimes, language is ambiguous and requires a modicum of contextual reasoning, or else every sentence would require dozens of qualifications and would read like a regulation on insurance law.
I think my exercise and physiology textbook stated an age related decline in muscle mass happens in everyone after about 40 without a concerted program of strength training to stave it off.
That certainly sounds more credible. I encourage all the HN'ers north of 40 to try weightlifting. We have members older than myself seeing good results.
This holds for bodybuilding, too, though that is admittedly a very subjective (appearance-based) sport compared to powerlifting where there are real numbers by which to compare everyone. Dexter Jackson placed 4th at this year's Mr. Olympia at age 47.
> In animal trials, there are dose equivalence calculations you have to do first. Since rats were used in the study you have to divide their dosage by 6.2 for the human equivalence. So the 5 mg/kg/day for males and 3 mg/kg/day for females works out to 0.806 mg/kg/day and 0.484 mg/kg/day, respectively. For example, a 115 lb female would have an equivalent dosage of ~25 mg. That's a whole lot closer to the doses some of you are taking.
>
In the study, cancer was seen even in rats on the lowest dosage. For all we know, they could have gotten cancer at lower doses too.
My biggest barrier to staying healthy isn't motivation or willpower, it's time. A lot of us waste a lot of time sitting in offices when more hours there don't make us more effective or productive at what we do. Give me some of that time back to go on 2-3 hour bike rides every day, and I suspect I'd be happier, and find some way to be more productive.
You are downvoted as I write this reply, but I do that as well.
If you look at my sibling comment, you'll see how controversial it is when I point out that this is possible. People are always like "but you don't know me nor how much time I have" but the vast majority of people can sneak in some exercise if we really wanted to. It's just inconvenient.
Or people will say "won't others look at me funny if I do pushups in the office?" Who cares? I can certainly imagine offices where this is impractical, but we of all people are most likely to be able to pull it off.
Meanwhile at the last two places I worked, a few people ended up doing mini-workouts after a week or two of watching me. We ended up using one of the spare meeting rooms as the quick pushup room. It's a comical sight for visitors and new hires. But really, it shouldn't be such an oddity to do some light exercise in life. It just shows how backwards our social norms are, and how they work against us.
But what's also inconvenient are the health issues that arise from sedentary lifestyles.
Majority of are just excuses. Sure there are some people who legitimately can't exercise but majority can if they had the will power. Just look at The rock/Kevin hart, they are travelling, shooting and still sneaking in their workouts. You don't need to be a meat head like them to live a healthy life-style, a 45 minute work out is good enough. I personally feel people don't want to accept that it is their own fault that they are not living healthy life style and thus blame it on external circumstances.
> Or people will say "won't others look at me funny if I do pushups in the office?" Who cares?
Not your main point but many people care what things while understanding that they shouldn't and saying "but you shouldn't!" won't change that, so it's a completely useless sentence which just serves to hand wave a valid problem of your strategy.
It's not a hand-wave. It's acknowledging that where you fall in your own cost-benefit analysis is a personal distinction that you're capable of changing. It's a self-development issue, a process that we hopefully continue until we die.
For example, some men never approach women our of fear of rejection or lukewarm reception. Any man that wants success with women and dating will have to challenge his self-limiting beliefs.
So what if they are reminded of it in an HN comment? Whether that's useless to them only indicates how unwilling they are to change. But it's a prerequisite for the advice in my post.
You know, one of the biggest parts of the warmup of an improv class I once took was to stand up and make noise. Like pretend you are a dinosaur. Embarrass yourself. Without fail, it would snap you right into the headspace of what it took to do improv -- being able to look past yourself and perform.
I was flabergasted as well, its crazy to think that we need so little excersise. Maybe the problem is that people think they have to hit the gym once a week for a few hours, while a few minutes every day is much more effective.
I mean you wouldn't learn an instrument or a language that way, why should your physical response be any different.
I've had periods of my life where I'm very active and fit, and periods when I'm not. To be honest, I have more time now than I ever have before (I work from home), but I'm actually less active.
I think it's a fundamental misunderstanding that staying active is associated greatly with free time or will power. In my experience it's more like a habit. For example, most people would not leave the house without brushing their teeth in the morning. It would just be disgusting. Most people will bathe once a day. Most people will wear clean laundry. None of these things take tremendous amounts of willpower because the aversion to not doing them is so strong.
In the active times of my life, that's exactly how I've felt about exercise. It's just feels awful not to do it. Just like you find time to brush your teeth, bathe, do your laundry, etc, etc -- you find time to exercise. You have a routine in your life and deviating from it makes you feel bad. It seems almost morally wrong to deviate from that routine.
Somewhat ironically, having more free time (and more options), I actually have a harder time doing all of these things now. I work from home and my wife goes out first thing in the morning. I'm alone. Do I need to eat breakfast? Do I need to brush my teeth? Do I need to bathe? Do I need to change my clothes? It's a running joke that remote contractors don't do these things, but there is some truth to it. Where I never needed willpower to do these things before, now I do!
Luckily the fix is simple (because even if you aren't motivated to do those things, you still feel awful not doing them). You make a routine and you stick to it. You remove options. Although you might reasonably think that sticking to a routine requires willpower, it's actually the opposite. Allowing yourself an option and still doing it is what requires will power.
So just like you would never leave for work without brushing your teeth and having a shower, now you must never leave without doing your exercise. And just like having a 3 hour bath is awesome (I live in Japan and go to the hot springs to do that every time I can!), it's not reasonable in most people's lives. You've got 20 minutes to take a shower. Well, you've got 20 minutes to exercise too (I recommend doing it just before you take a shower). Sure it limits your options about what you can do, but that's not necessarily bad.
If you can't find 20 minutes in your day -- then you have some big problems that you need to sort out. Sort them out because not having even 20 minutes to call your own will burn you out pretty darn quickly.
Confessions of a long time remote worker: once I didn't bathe for two months (I was really depressed). The funny thing is, after a week or so my skin and hair seemed to dry up and stop producing oils/smells (confirmed by a neutral third party). When I started bathing again I got really bad acne for weeks. I'm better about it now, but I'm still working at home and still hate taking showers and brushing my teeth. Try not to think about this the next time you're on a conference call with one of your remote coworkers. :)
Remote working is a lot harder on the psyche than most people think (before they do it ;-) ). Especially if you've done 1 or 2 days a week remote for a while (which IMHO is an optimal way to work), you start to think that working remote full time is going to be all sorts of amazing with no drawbacks. This is my second stint (first one I did for about 18 months, this one is 3 years this week). I'm definitely happier doing the remote thing now, but there are days/weeks/months where I would kill to go into the office (too bad it would cost me about $5K to get there...)
BTW, I've heard that there are bacteria that live on your skin that keep it relatively in good shape if you don't wash. It lives on the oils and urea that you excrete. When you wash frequently, the bacteria doesn't have a chance to sustain a healthy colony, so you end up greasy/stinky. Apparently still better to wash, but not nearly as horrible not washing as people assume (eventually).
You can get a really excellent ROI with things like kettlebells. I'd recommend the book Simple & Sinister and finding a Strongfirst coach in your area (the organization associated with the book).
If you can find a way to manage your time more effectively, barbell work is even better. Rippetoe's Starting Strength and a Starting Strength coach in your area would be your best introduction.
Not that I think you were being literal, but you don't have to ride your bike 2-3 hours per day to get the benefits of exercise. The biggest problem most people face is not knowing what to do and how to do it. The above suggestions should be sufficient to overcome that IMO.
It does take time. But I would put it up in the trifecta of Most Important Things a person can do. Everyone says exercise makes you happier, but I will take it a step further: it fulfills a fundamental need for a person to be comfortable in their own body. Denying yourself exercise for any reason at all is self abuse.
> My biggest barrier to staying healthy isn't motivation or willpower, it's time.
To be fair, if you had more willpower, you'd be more willing to exercise in what limited time you do have. So it's fundamentally a willpower limitation.
This is a very arrogant and insensitive thing to say. Work hours + commute + family obligations doesn't leave a lot (or any) time for many people. And you have the gall to imply they don't have the "willpower" to commit the remaining time they have left to yet another chore.
I mean time seems to be the default excuse for failing to do many things, but it is not literally the reason. You can exercise in only 5-10 minutes a day.
they don't have the "willpower" to commit the remaining time they have left to yet another chore.
Wouldn't them having remaining time, and spending it in another way, imply that it is a matter of will?
We like to think that exercise takes much time, but the reality is that it's just an inconvenience. In fact, the more time we pretend it takes to exercise, the easier it is to disqualify it from our agenda.
It is a willpower issue for the majority of us on this forum who have it well off compared to most people.
You have to make time for it just like you have to make time to budget vegetables into your diet when it's more convenient to eat fast food on the way home. It's your health.
That you think it's insensitive for me to point this out just shows that there are some health issues, like obesity, that are taboo subjects. But we're not at the dinner table.
No, it's not a willpower issue here. I bike to and from work 11 miles, and when I don't have a meeting at lunch, go to the gym. Otherwise, I'm actually productive probably 4 hours a day, tops. Most of my time is spent just waiting on other people at work, because of corporate rules and life. I don't need to be told to work out, it's one of my favorite things to do. But add 10 hours to the 8 hours of sleep we're supposed to be getting, and you're left with 6 hours to deal with everything else in life, including making dinner for your family, dealing with kids in college, etc.
It's not taboo, you're just assuming too much here and instead of asking for a clarification you went right to "nope, it's your willpower". "Willpower" is a hotly contested idea in the psychological community as is, so, yeah, it's more than just "an inconvenience".
Because people justify use of their time with things like "require a certain amount of wind down time to relax". I do the same, so not dodging it. "Had a tough day. After the kids are asleep, I just need to relax for five seconds, is that too much to ask?"
We're all prioritising time. If you can't fit in 1-3 hours of riding a bike, fit in 10 minutes of something else.
(We built https://streaksworkout.com/ to help this. People choose the exercises that suit them and then start a 6-30 minute workout based on how much time they have.)
I have a feeling such a pill would go the way of testosterone which, even though it could be safely administered to people who don't necessarily have "Low T" to positive ends, is still only a treatment for those who desperately need it. People on the low end of whatever arbitrary, non-standard serum testosterone scale often don't get treatment because they are technically "normal", which completely disregards the benefit someone can see from being brought to the high-end of the scale. Likewise, an exercise pill might only be given to those who are morbidly obese rather than mostly sedentary office workers who would rather get more work done than dedicate another hour every day towards mindless exercise.
You're 100 percent right. I was just explaining why some doctors are reluctant to prescribe it.
The fact it's banned is total bullshit. There are no testosterone addicts in the same way there are cocaine or heroin addicts. It doesn't have any societal harm, and it's risks aren't any worse than maintaining a poor diet.
There are plenty of clinics that specialize in just what you are talking about. I believe they commonly call themselves balanced hormone clinics. I also think that is a common thing they do in anti-aging clinics.
> Mice that had been given large doses of the drug over the course of two years (a lifetime for a lab rodent) developed cancer at a higher rate than their dope-free peers. Tumors appeared all over their bodies, from the tongue to the testes.
> ...
> Since then, he has developed a less potent version that he hopes will also be less toxic.
So yeah, this isn't exactly ready for mass consumption.
Whereas the link between anabolic steroids and cancer is pretty weak. If someone is interested in getting fit (or fit looking) with pills, we already have some pretty good stuff out there.
Pretty much. For anyone interested in how anabolic-androgenic steroids got banned in the USA, check out Bigger, Faster, Stronger - The Side Effects of Being American for a much fairer viewpoint than your high school counselor shoved on to you. tl;dr: Steroids were banned due to non-scientific scares equivalent to "poison in candy" arguments around Halloween.
The inconvenient truth is that we already have the fountain of youth [0] - it's injectable long-ester testosterone, which is cheap, easily obtainable, and safe [1].
EDIT: I see you said "pills." While safe-ish, they're much more dangerous due to liver toxicity. Injectable testosterone is much more effective, cheaper, and safer.
[0]: For men. For women, the results are different and comes with worse side effects.
[1]: Safe is a relative term. But exogenous test use done correctly is very, very safe. And compared to the alternatives that are sold, like prohormones, they're orders of magnitude safer.
Yes, low dosages (200 mg/week) of eg testosterone enthanate will make most guys over 35 feel ten years younger. Bodybuilders would laugh at such low dosages as this is far less than one would take on a typical cycle, but the benefits are undeniable, with few negatives. However, it's illegal unless prescribed.
This is quite the generalization, plenty of drugs have negative side effects in high doses (see: tylenol). It doesn't mean they aren't still widely useful in small ones. If anything we need to learn more about the drug, just like any other.
> The combination of effects made 516 seem like a promising treatment for what’s known as “metabolic syndrome,” a cluster of symptoms—including obesity, high blood pressure, and high blood sugar—that is a precursor to heart disease and diabetes. More than a third of adult Americans are estimated to have metabolic syndrome, which made 516’s potential profits seem rather attractive.
The dangers of rampant heart disease and type-2 diabetes can't be understated either in this context.
Also the next paragraph notes it only caused cancer in later stages of the mouses life which may translate to 60-70yrs in humans. It's possible there are potential trade offs still at lower doses for people in their 50s at a high risk of dying from heart failure.
Whenever numskull journalists write the phrase "exercise pill" they're talking about growth hormone secretagogues or anabolics. This one is an anabolic SARM; a particularly nasty one that seems to be pretty carcinogenic.
Note that people who take SARMs or regular anabolic steroids look pretty good, but they're certainly not achieving any real health benefits. Long term use nets you cardiovascular problems and eventual chemical castration.
Anyone who would tout taking this as some kind of supplement is insane. Soylent arguably more healthy.
There's a lot of discussion here about "virtue" and "self-discipline" - I'd like to offer an interesting possibility that "discipline" is not about motivation or willpower, but is actually an intellectual exercise of avoiding motivated reasoning in the mind.
The simplest example: I resolve to wake up in the morning to run before work. However, when I wake, I feel exhausted. "You need more rest; you can always make it up tomorrow," I might think to myself. If I accept this as a reason to stay in bed, I am falling to motivated reasoning; I am believing as fact an excuse made by my mind looking for a way out of discomfort. I can rest easy when I believe my excuse. I can rest easy when I can say "I have plenty of discipline, I just needed to rest today."
Exercise is merely one of many ways to illuminate your logical fallacies to yourself. The fallacy of motivated reasoning is what causes alternative facts - the mind can always come up with a reason to avoid the discomfort of getting out of bed, just like it can come up with reasons to avoid the discomfort of saying "I was wrong."
I imagine that, if successful, this could make more money than Viagra. I'd happily pay several hundred dollars a month to have a fit body without ever exercising.
Depends on the benefit. It will decrease fat, increase strength and increase muscle mass. I don't know about VO2 max or lactic threshold stuff, though.
It (supraphysiological doses of testosterone, meaning more than any human produces naturally) causes cancer, hair loss, interferes with endogenous hormonal function, and entails many other deleterious side effects that exercise does not. It will increase aerobic capacity by increasing red blood cell count but too much added viscosity of the blood also poses a health risk. So this is rather different from "exercise in a pill".
Source? Because 200 mg of Testosterone E a week is already more than human organism can produce. In study linked above they gave them 600 mg a week.
Most professional bodybuilders are doing minimum of 1g of test a week for years. Most of them have heart problems if any from test. Most problems they have are from different compounds like Trenbolone, GH etc. but not testosterone.
I don't know any study that links testosterone to be a main reason of developing cancer, that's why I ask for source.
>>Most of them have heart problems if any from test. Most problems they have are from different compounds like Trenbolone, GH etc. but not testosterone.
Additionally, they are stacking anabolic steroids with amphetamines and derivatives of such, as well as compounds like clenbuterol, liothyronine sodium, and even dinitrophenol.
You could always take a SARM like Osterine [1] instead. They don't tend to have the side effects of Testosterone and other steroids with a lot of the benefits (but do your own research).
I knew this was about GW50156. A version of this article has been published every six months or so in various outlets. GW50156 is widely available via research chemical sites and various underground bodybuilders/powerlifters/athletes are using it + peptides + various other drugs to skirt AAS testing.
I think you will find the self-reported side effects and gains of GW50156 to be.... much different than stories like this one portray.
It is amazing the chemicals and hormones that bodybuilders will put into their body to build muscle or cut body fat. They really are the original body hackers.
One of the things that exercise does for you is it helps your body take out the trash. I see no means for a pill to replicate that function. Without that, it seems pretty obvious that there will be negative long term consequences to getting your "exercise" in pill form.
This is how this works:
Lymph is basically the clear part of the blood with stuff like red blood cells removed. One piece of the lymphatic system is powered by the heart. But lymph is also called interstitial fluid. It exists throughout the body. It circulates, moving back and forth between tissues and your blood.
When it moves back to your blood, it takes waste products with it, leaving behind cleaner, healthier tissue. These wastes mostly get removed when you urinate.
Physical activity dramatically increases the rate at which lymph gets moved back to the blood. I have seen figures anywhere from 3 to 8 times as fast as when you are sedentary.
Walking a whole lot, sometimes hours a day, has played a big role in my healing journey. I believe this increased cleansing process is a key detail as to why that has helped.
Before the exercise pill, it’d be good to have a pill which helps with exercise. For instance strengthens the ligaments without destroying flexibility too much. Or boosts endurance without having horrible side effects, stuff like that. Seems like an easier problem than an all encompassing “exercise pill”.
If you look at sports like Olympic weightlifting and gymnastics, you'll see that strength and flexibility aren't fundamentally opposed. You can develop both concurrently.
Fascinating -- as much as I enjoy to be active and stretch out, I imagine the benefits of sustained exertion could be entirely replaced by an artificial mechanism. This would be a nice time saver, and if it provides the same good feelings that you get after a good workout, then health in an active person could even be improved by preventing the need for heavy exertion and focusing on stretching and movement. This could reduce joint stresses and put more hours in the day. Very excited to see the effects of this drugs in humans.
>>“If you’ve been to London, then you know,” Bill Hayes, a writer and photographer who is at work on a history of exercise, told me. “The driver sits at the front and drives the bus, and the conductor hops on and off the bus and climbs up and down the stairs taking tickets and getting people to their seats.”
Er, not for a long while. It's all Oyster cards now. Bus conductors went ages ago.
Well, that kind of reminds me how in the 90s the media published articles saying that Prozac is about to make sadness disappear, and our society is about to turn into a Brave New World. Turns out it was just stealth marketing.
Also, fwiw, (iirc) they observed huge benefits to exercising even when GW and AICAR were taken in tandem, so it's probably most useful as an exercise amplifier.
1) Self-discipline is virtuous in and of itself. We shouldn't develop alternative ways to control weight and/or maintain muscle tone without controlling food intake and exercise, because that undermines the tangible rewards of virtue.
2) Biology is extremely complicated, and the drug that keeps you compact and muscular in your 40s might end up promoting the growth of cancerous tumors all over your body in your 60s. (As happened to the older mice who received high doses of GW501516.)
I don't agree at all with the first argument. The second one is alarming enough that I'm not going to be the first or even the millionth person in line to obtain these compounds through grey-market channels and dose myself. Similarly, I would love a drug cocktail that prevents the unwanted physical effects of aging, but I'll let other people blaze a trail with human trials (clinical or self-experimentation.)