I don't think we disagree. I'm not saying you shouldn't go to a gym if you like it, nor that the equipment there is non-functional. I'm saying, it's not necessary for health benefits.

The context of the discussion was the claim that one needs to go to a gym to maintain a healthy regimen of exercise, which I vehemently oppose.

In this context the main goal of exercise is longevity and staying healthy as possible through senescence.

I don't think there is any conclusive evidence of how much muscle mass is needed for better longevity. My long bet is that regular farmers walks with enough weights are enough for that (combined with some body weight exercises like pull ups).

I don't need the gym for my farmers walks. I have a few rubbery bikes handles strapped to 40 kg weights which I lug around outside my house. I have a pull up bar at home. Done. No need to go to gym.

This is partly a lifestyle choice - I don't enjoy exercise, but I've seen relatives go in a bad way after they forgot to take care of themselves for a couple of decades. I want a regimen that provides sufficient benefits, with as few excuses not to do them as possible.

>it's difficult to serious build muscle mass without lifting weights.

Who said anything about building serious mass? There are many, say, professional fighters who do very little weight training and they look exceptional (literally).

You want to get in shape, you don't need a gym. Do hard work for 30 minutes a day. Work that makes you sweaty and tired. Run, sprint, pushups, burpees, anything. You will get in shape. If you don't believe it, try it for a couple months.

Wait until you get an injury. Professional fighters might be an exception because the type of workouts they do (like grappling) recruit many different muscles, but there's a reason that nearly all sprinters for example train with weights. If you don't do any weight training, definitely make sure to cross train with a variety of activities to avoid becoming imbalanced.

That said, you only need a rack, a bar, a bench, and some plates to get the best possible workout with weights. Doing squats, deadlifts, bench press, rows, and olympic lifts is all it takes to become extremely strong and hardened against injuries. Machines are totally unnecessary.

And I'm not even so sure about fighters. Which fighters do you have in mind that explicitly don't do weight training?

"Which fighters do you have in mind that explicitly don't do weight training?"

The fighters at my gym.

I guess I can't say for certain what the pros do or do not, but I assume some of the competition amateurs I see are doing the best they can. And they look like it. And I know that guys like Conor McGregor have made statements about doing purely "functional exercise". I'm sure some pro fighters weight-train, because it has obvious benefits. It's also hard to sustain muscle in a cardio-focussed sport.

I'm definitely a weight-training advocate, as well. I'm a believer that in order to "get stronger" you have lift heavier and heavier things. That's only really feasible at the gym. I try to get there a couple times a week.

On the other hand, so many people who are starting out try to get some heavy duty "system" in place before they feel they can begin. I see these people at the gym; there for 2 hours, putting everything in their phone, not even working up a sweat. It's not that complicated; just do work.

I am definitely also a functional strength advocate, and I'm not gung ho about needing to deadlift 500 lbs or something to be athletic. I personally prefer olympic lifts, because they force you to be explosive and I'm training for a sports that involve pure speed and jumping ability. I try to do all my other lifts explosively too. And I can't stand the dudes on their phone in the gym -- I can tell I make them uncomfortable even with the relentlessness of my workouts!

> Machines are totally unnecessary.

Machines are actually worse than free weights; you don't get a full body workout, especially all those stabilizer muscles that help prevent injury.

> hardened against injuries.

I can second this; while I've not become extremely strong, I credit strength training for my lack of broken bones after taking a 600ft tumble down a hard pack snow slope. Strength training in recovery also helped me heal faster.

>Machines are actually worse than free weights; you don't get a full body workout

Yes and no. Free weights are the better of the two choices, but machines are head and shoulders better than free weights for solo trainer safety, which is a problem for us guys and gals trying to "fit it in" to our schedules, as well as beginners.

So, I don't discourage people from machines simply because they aren't optimal. They have their place. I generally use the rack to bench. I love the AirDyne and Concept 2, if those count!

> So, I don't discourage people from machines simply because they aren't optimal.

Any exercise is better than no exercise. And yeah, things like bench press you should ideally have a spotter for. Myself, I stick to the five lifts from Rippetoe's "Starting Strength" (a recommendation I got from HN of all places!), so squats I use a power rack with pins, and overhead press, deadlift and power clean need no spotters. Bench you can do without a spotter if you leave the collars off (just dump the plates on one side, then the other), but most gyms frown on that.

But we're talking about health, not muscle mass.

Also, you don't need a gym to use weights. A few dumb-bells and a pull-up bar are cheap enough and easy to stow away at home.

Beware of the Diderot effect once you buy those, though!

So buy a bar bell and weight bench off Craigslist or Amazon and stick it in your garage. Free weights are cheap, and better for you than machines.