I think it's a possibility if targeting earlier stage companies or startups.
Larger companies are unlikely to make a drastic change in process to suit one or a few candidates, especially considering this idea is something risky from a legal & social perspective.
Location: Calabasas, CA
Remote: Yes
Willing to relocate: With a good relocation package, willing to relocate to DTLA/Santa Monica
Technologies: React, Vue, Redux, Ruby, Rails, Postgres
Résumé/CV: E-mail
GitHub: github.com/matisoffn
Email: noah at matisoff dot me
Looking to do full-stack development ideally with React or Vue and Redux, and some back-end development ideally in Ruby, Python, or JavaScript.
Of the two (money coming in and money coming out), you can only restrict money going out so much.
You have your basic expenses you need to live (food, shelter, water), which cost most people at least tens of thousands per year.
If you live miserably only allowing money out to expense those needs, you're still only saving tens of thousands.
You have a lot more ability to increase money coming in than money going out.
I think this is the point OP's father was trying to make. Don't get stuck in a loop of allowing your employer to pay you $xx,xxx (or $1xx,xxx) for decades and restrict yourself for your whole life just to retire old and live an average lifestyle. Take control of your life and control your success.
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)
I've seen some people here insist that they want their work station and/or laptop ready to go. If I were in the position of hiring an engineer, and made a hire, I would ask said engineer what they would prefer. Having everything setup or letting them unbox and setup, or maybe a combination of both.
Other things not specific to work environment should be ready to go. Their e-mail account, phone (if applicable), or any other virtual or physical materials used on a frequent basis.
As others have suggested, prefer something like a 75/25 social/engineering split for the first day. Introduction to team members and others, company processes, goals, HR stuff, go to lunch, etc.
It's tough to weed out the bad resources on the internet, but you've come to a good place to find the good resources that are available (free or paid).
You'll get out of it how much you put into it. If you spend countless hours learning and then building projects you will learn new things very quickly. Don't get caught watching tons of videos & screencasts while not building anything.
You can read 1,000 books about surfing but when you go to surf you'll fail repeatedly. The same goes with building software. Read code and then write code 5x as much.
The courses are good for beginners, but to take it to the next level you need to build a sizable app and get it to production. There are things you'll learn from putting a project to production that you wouldn't learn otherwise. Remember: software is built for users & actual people, not just machines.
Larger companies are unlikely to make a drastic change in process to suit one or a few candidates, especially considering this idea is something risky from a legal & social perspective.