Talk:2631: Exercise Progression

The bot appeared to have not created the page, so I created it- apologies for any mishaps that I might've caused as a result. Wielder of the Staple Gun (talk) 02:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I replaced the comic image, which was the 2x size image, with the correct size image from XKCD. Ianrbibtitlht (talk) 03:07, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

"CRAPDALIZER"?

Witw is a crapdalizer? 172.70.126.221 03:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I would guess WotSG couldn't think of what to put there and made up a silly nonsense word. It's also an anagram of "lizard caper"... Anyway, I've changed it to something a bit more relevant. (Not sure if I should have deleted the "Please change this comment" part as well.)172.70.174.159 05:02, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like more of the crapper syndrome we have had. It is confusing with such a comment here, when the word is removed from the explanation, so I have linked to a version of the explanation with the word in place in the incomplete reason. Also please do not add sections in the talk page... --Kynde (talk) 08:23, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

It was by an anonomous user, I tried to remove it but they reverted and it wasn't major enough to warrant an edit war Wielder of the Staple Gun (talk) 17:33, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Surprised that there was STILL no Explanation or Transcript at 2am EST, so since I fully understand this one (I feel like I wrote this comic, LOL!) I gave it a shot. I feel like they're complete and thorough, but last time my writing was completely replaced, LOL! NiceGuy1 (talk) 06:17, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I was a nerd, but discovered exercise around 2012 and became very active. After the social media political stuff around 2013-2016, my curve shifted from the normal one to Randall's, incredibly hard to do things other than what's supported by the patterns. I don't think Randall's curve is natural, I think he was hit by the influence stuff too. 172.70.110.121 11:05, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

My solution has been that I didn't increase the difficulty. I found a level I was comfortable with and don't whine about it. Barmar (talk) 12:55, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I never heard of this "up to six months" rule of thumb. Can someone add a citation or remove it? --172.68.132.108 21:43, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I didn't write that one, someone added it since I wrote the explanation, but I've heard this Rule Of Thumb many times. The thing is, a "Rule Of Thumb" is as opposed to "written down" :) so it might be difficult to find a citation, except maybe if somebody can find an advice article. Also, it's something that comes from personal experience, it's quite a vague amount. It might be 5 months for this person and 7 for that person, and it depends on frequency and dedication. This is basically "In my experience, in general, on average, it takes 6 months". It SHOULD stay because it's standard advice from any trainer NiceGuy1 (talk) 06:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Besides which, anybody seeking for explainxkcd to be a purely and fully-cited authoriterical work (except on matters of xkcd itself, which is at least our primary role, if not entirely our accomplished one) is already over-optimistic. If I don't think that a trainer would normally mention the six-months thing (either at all or with a differing period more suited for their own purposes of boasting/milking-the-naive-client-for-as-much-as-possible), I still wouldn't argue with the mention of the principle as it stands... 172.70.91.128 12:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

The X axis here is confusing. It's labeled 'workout difficulty' but the arrows are labeled 'progression in time.' 162.158.62.7 13:48, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

That's because the graphs are illustrating how, over time, people move through a graph of complaint-intensity vs workout difficulty. As time goes on, people can take on increasingly more difficult workouts.172.69.70.39 14:14, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

((Repeat of above, probably, as I hit an Edit Conflict from... Someone who did not sign their addition...<s>...someone who belatedly signed it and thus ECed me again! ;) )) It's a scattergraph of whine vs difficulty, with points joined to show (in leiu of a third axis) that a progression through the plane of those two variables is timelike. (It would be possible to have a loop on those two axes with a directional (or bi-directional/reversible) transit passage whichever way up or down either value.

Obviously, it has other interesting consequences/conclusions to it (dt is never nevatively correlated with dx on that graph, which is interesting, regardless of dt/dy or dx/dy having clear sub-zero stretches on at least one of the lines/ribbons), but there's no problem with time progressing (at an unknown rate, could still be non-linear while positive) alongside the labelled horizontal incrementing. 172.70.85.177 14:15, 13 June 2022 (UTC)