Is it true that … there's no gain without pain?
The words may have been printed on gym vests for decades, but is 'no pain, no gain' actually true when it comes to the benefits of exercise, such as improved cardiovascular health or increased muscle mass?
'Not strictly,' says Dr Oly Perkin from the University of Bath's Centre for Nutrition, Exercise and Metabolism (CNEM). 'A better way of putting it is that you may make more gains if you experience a bit of pain.'
The kind of 'pain' we're talking about isn't necessarily harmful. It's your body's way of signalling effort – 'and more effort tends to signal more reward'. This may include a feeling of discomfort and a desire to stop if you have a racing heart or burning muscles: a stress response that evolved to regulate exertion. Perkin adds: 'If exercise didn't induce some discomfort, we'd all just do it constantly, and be fatigued.'
Then there's delayed onset muscle soreness (Doms), the ache you can feel a day or two after a workout. 'It's thought it may be a protective mechanism – your body's way of telling you that muscle needs time to recover,' says Perkin.
But your starting point matters. When you begin exercising, movement may feel more uncomfortable, but as your body adapts, you may move more efficiently or develop stronger mental resilience. Then it will feel easier, but you'll probably still be making gains.
Doms is also more likely to be caused by some exercises than others, no matter your level of exertion. Workouts that are new to you are more likely to trigger it, so can those, like running downhill, that cause muscles to stretch while under tension.
'You don't need to experience a lot of pain to make improvements,' says Perkin, especially if you're starting from a low baseline. Low-impact exercise such as walking and cycling can be really effective – particularly when done for extended periods of time. 'Any movement – even if it doesn't feel tough – is far better than doing nothing,' he says.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
43 minutes ago
- The Independent
Sir Chris Hoy backs calls for overhaul of prostate cancer screenings
Sir Chris Hoy, 49, revealed he was diagnosed with terminal stage four prostate cancer in 2023, with the disease having spread to his bones. Diagnosed at 47, below the typical NHS high-risk age of 50, he is advocating for systemic change to prostate cancer testing protocols. Hoy urges earlier screening, specifically for high-risk men like those with a family history or Black men, starting from age 45. His advocacy aims to prevent late diagnoses, emphasizing that earlier detection makes the disease easier to treat. Prostate Cancer UK supports his call for an overhaul of NHS guidelines to empower GPs to proactively discuss testing with high-risk men.
BBC News
an hour ago
- BBC News
Somerset woman with a double mastectomy walks topless for charity
A woman who underwent a double mastectomy after having breast cancer several times has walked topless to raise money for cancer research charities. Julia James, 55, from Weare in Somerset, completed a fundraiser walk at Blenheim Palace. The 55-year-old driving instructor, was first diagnosed more than ten years ago, and has had cancer three times in total. She said: "I hope to be a campaigner for other women with cancer and continue to share my story to support others."If you have been affected by the issues raised in this story you can visit the BBC Action Line for support.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Wes Streeting questions affordability of setting up NHS assisted dying service
Wes Streeting has voiced doubts over whether the NHS can afford to establish an assisted dying service, after MPs passed a bill to legalise the procedure last week. The health secretary was previously a supporter of assisted dying but switched sides last year, expressing concerns about the ethics of offering such a service before significant improvements could be made to the NHS. 'The truth is that creating those conditions will take time and money,' he wrote in a message to constituents. 'Even with the savings that might come from assisted dying if people take up the service – and it feels uncomfortable talking about savings in this context, to be honest – setting up this service will also take time and money that is in short supply. There isn't a budget for this. Politics is about prioritising. It is a daily series of choices and trade-offs. I fear we've made the wrong one.' The bill will now head to the House of Lords, where there are expected to be continued battles over its progress, with campaigners urging peers to use 'dark arts' to impede it. MPs who backed the legislation have said it would be anti-democratic for peers to block the private member's bill passed by the elected house. Writing on Facebook, the health secretary said he wanted to speak directly to his Ilford North constituents on the issue. 'There is no doubt that this is a major and profound social change for our NHS and our country. I can understand why many people who are facing terminal illness, or fear terminal illness, are seeking the right to die at a time and manner of their choosing and I have enormous respect for their position,' he wrote. 'I also have the utmost respect for Kim Leadbeater and my other friends and colleagues in parliament who have supported this bill. I've seen first-hand how hard Kim has worked to listen to everyone's views and take onboard amendments to her bill with integrity.' But Streeting said he was disturbed by the concerns about the bill that have been voiced by the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of Physicians, the Association for Palliative Medicine and disability campaigners. Streeting said the department would work closely on the technical aspects of the bill, even though the government was neutral, and that Stephen Kinnock, the care minister, would work on the bill should the Lords pass it, in order to make sure 'we do a good job with it for the country'. The impact assessment produced by the government on the bill suggested that panels set up to approve procedures would cost about £2,000 a day, adding up to between £900,000 and £3.6m over a 10-year period. The total cost of running the panels – and employing a dedicated commissioner – would be between £10.9m and £13.6m a year. Sign up to First Edition Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion However, the assessment estimated that the bill would ultimately cut end-of-life care costs by millions, with a central estimate that 2,183 people would use the service by its 10th year. The bill, which passed with a majority of 23 on Friday, would allow terminally ill adults in England and Wales who have fewer than six months to live to apply for an assisted death. This would be subject to approval by two doctors and a panel including a social worker, senior legal figure and psychiatrist. The Labour peer Charlie Falconer, who is expected to take the lead on the legislation in the House of Lords, said despite the depth of feeling on the issue, peers should not use procedural devices to block it. 'The overwhelming instinct in the Lords will be not to block or delay but to see whether there can be any improvements which do not interfere with the bill's principles,' he wrote in the Sunday Times. 'The last time there were votes of real substance on this issue was on a bill I introduced in 2014 for which the votes in the Lords were in favour. There have been many new peers introduced into the House since then, and many departures. Where the House's views are now is difficult to judge but they will work towards a bill that gives effect to the Commons' view.'
