Body by Science: A Research-Based Program for Strength Training, Body Building, and Complete Fitness in 12 Minutes a Week by John Little

Body by Science: A Research-Based Program for Strength Training, Body Building, and Complete Fitness in 12 Minutes a Week Reviews

• 
  Tony61

  Five Stars out of Five. Highest recommendation.
  
  STOP. Read this book before you do one more exercise routine.
  
  McGuff is an Emergency physician with an avocation for fitness and John Little is a professional fitness trainer. Body by Science is subtitled “A research-based program for strength training, body-building and complete fitness in 12 minutes a week.” The authors cite empirical studies relating workout regimens and formulate a specific routine to most efficiently build muscle while burning fat.
  
  Many of the principles outlined here are in contradistinction to modern convention about exercise. For example, the authors show that prolonged aerobic activity does little to contribute to overall fitness, most individuals can achieve their fitness goals in very little time per week, most faddish regimens-- Tai Bo, Crossfit, P90X-- do little more than waste your time and can lead to serious injury.
  
  While I am usually skeptical of anybody who purports to know a quick and easy way to achieve a difficult goal, I have to say that this book has extremely useful information about metabolism, biochemistry and muscle kinetics. The authors explain the evolutionary rationale for the exercise routine they advocate and also discuss diet, limiting grains and emphasizing whole foods.
  
  On the savannah, prehistoric man evolved to exert himself in short bursts of highly intense activity: avoiding predatory lions or chasing game. Successful individuals were also able to endure famine and dehydration and certain body types were selected. Today, endomorphs who store body fat are often looked upon as less fit than, say, Arnold Schwarzenegger or Sylvester Stallone, who are mesomorphic with more lean mass. Counterintuitively, however, individuals who have adequate fat stores are able to survive seasonal food shortages better than mesomorphs (muscled individuals), or ectomorphs (skinny individuals).
  
  In fact, Stallone and Schwarzenegger are genetic mutants who likely would not do well on the prehistoric savannah. Large muscle mass inefficiently burns calories even at rest and these individuals, while looking fit in modern civilization must consume an inordinate amount of resources to maintain their basal metabolic rate.
  
  The purpose of any exercise routine is not to look like Stallone. First of all, it would impossible for most of us. McGuff and Little explain the genetics of muscle development and review the specific mutations discovered over the last decade, including myosin light chain kinase and myostatin genes, among others.
  
  The kernel of the book is the Big Five workout, encompassing slow movements using the largest muscle groups in the body. The authors liken exercise to a medical prescription, looking for the dose that will give the greatest benefit with minimal side effects. The Big Five includes latissimus pull-downs, chest press, seated row, seated military press and leg press. The safest, most efficient method is to use Nautilus or other progressive cam machines.
  
  Loss of muscle mass-- sarcopenia-- has deleterious implications as we age, limiting our activity and increasing our risk of injury. Building muscle is all-important to overall fitness, and the authors cite studies that show this regimen not only build muscle but also increase aerobic capacity and flexibility. Complex routine, such as Crossfit, on the other hand, are more likely to lead to injury, and other practices like stretching actually can lead to muscle weakness.
  
  The key to the Body by Science workout is to continue each exercise in a slow sustained movement until muscle failure. Done properly, you should feel quite uncomfortable at the end of each exercise. Think Neanderthal running from a lion. The upside is that nothing builds mass and aerobic capacity as quickly as high intensity exercise ending in muscle failure.
  
  The authors recommend 5-7 days rest between workouts. Youtube videos are available to view by googling “Doug McGuff doing the Big Five” or “Body by Science.” The videos make the routine look deceivingly easy, but with heavy weights and slow sustained muscle contraction your heart rate and respiratory rate elevates.
  
  The review of diet is also important. I have always worked out and would consider myself fit-- able to run 5K’s and lift weights-- but chronically overweight. McGuff and Little are quick to implicate the workout industry in giving false expectations that exercise alone can lead to weight loss. Nope. The fact is that I eat too damn much and no amount of exercise will make up for that.
  
  Personally, I found this book an invaluable and readable review of metabolism, genetics and muscle function. It has changed the way I exercise, reducing my risk of injury and increasing the efficiency of each workout. I still do other things, namely an hour-long highly intense full body aerobic regimen with a trainer once a week, but the Body by Science workout has also become a weekly ritual. I have noticed a significant increase in lean muscle mass, as measured by my trainer, and a generally improved sense of well-being.
• 
  Zack Ward

  Body by Science does an excellent job at explaining the science of fat metabolism. It advocates a once a week, superslow, high intensity training regimen with emphasis on getting sufficient rest for optimal muscle growth. They make the argument that the training stimulus must be powerful enough to shock your body into survival mode, citing several studies in scientific journals that showed elevated growth in response to the superslow method (or HIIT bike training).
  
  However, they do not mention that strength gains are specific to the way the muscle is trained. You're 1 rep maxes will not increase much in this program. You'll get really good at lifting weights slowly, which is not very useful from an athletic perspective. You'll gain muscle mass, yes, but this muscle mass will not be able to produce the explosive forces associated with jumping or hitting a baseball. It'll be the kind that drags heavy grocery bags around.
  
  Further, the authors do a terrible job of explaining how any of the barbell exercises work. Novice trainees trying to squat superslow with free weights might actually get themselves killed (pinned under the bar). If you are going to follow their program, use nautilus equipment. Its safer.
  
  This book is helpful in explaining basic exercise physiology. Before you decide to follow their training protocol, it would be a good idea to decide what you are training for, and then decide where strength training fits into your training program.
  
  
• 
  Aaron Gertler

  What can I say? It worked for me.
  
  This is not a book for sport-specific athletes or aspiring Olympic lifters. This is a book for people who want to build and/or maintain muscle mass without spending very much time. In other worlds, this is a book for most people, especially older people.
  
  I'll stay specific from now on. I am 22 years old. I weigh 180, bench 225, squat 275, deadlift 350 (with some variation around these numbers). I can do 20 strict chin-ups without stopping. I work out once every four or five days, for 20-25 minutes of actual lifting (and about the same amount of rest time), with some Tabata intervals thrown in once in a while for cardio. Most of the time, I'm either lifting 90 seconds to failure (as the book recommends) or lifting for 1-2 sets of 3-5 reps, followed by 90 seconds to failure.
  
  From ages 17-20, I built up to my current level of strength by working out 3-4 times per week, with slightly longer workouts. Since then, I've used the workout pattern described above to maintain that strength. My bench hasn't gone down in two years (and has gone up a bit). My body fat percentage hasn't really changed. I still sleep well at night, have a resting heart rate of 58 bpm, and have near-optimal blood pressure.
  
  Admittedly, I don't power-clean as much I once did, and I don't see my main lifts increasing much unless I do something fancy. But I can see myself following my rough Body By Science protocol pretty much as-is for the next 20 years without losing strength. (I'm certainly lucky to be young, but I'd be happy to compensate for aging by working a bit harder and cleaning up my diet.)
  
  * * * * *
  
  Anyway, you don't really need to buy this book. Visiting the website and watching the YouTube videos of people working out with the method should suffice to get you started. I mostly bought BBS to support Dr. McGuff's work. It's the sort of book I'd give as a gift, or lend out to a friend.
  
  What else can I say?
  
  The scientific bits are interesting. The writing is crisp, and the authors don't repeat themselves too often. The photos show people lifting heavy weights with questionable form: ignore them.
  
  Also, if you like this book or the ideas within, you might also like Tim Ferriss' The Four-Hour Body, and Martin Berkhan's essays on "Reverse Pyramid Training" (which have also been influential on helping me figure out my workouts).
• 
  Tina

  Loses a star because while most of it seems to be backed up by pretty decent science (I'm basing this judgment on descriptions of studies, not on looking up the studies myself, because I'm far too lazy), it has some unsupported claims sprinkled in.
  
  The gist (and what does seem well supported) is that our health and fitness are best served by infrequent bouts of high intensity exercise -- basically, about 12 minutes of hardcore strength training (heavy weights that lead to muscle failure in 45-90 seconds) once a week. It also talks about why most cardio is not only not a very good way of working out, but it's actually fairly to very harmful.
  
  I'm eager to hit the gym and try this out, and -- if it works like it should -- get rid of my treadmill. It was also just a flat out interesting read about how exercise works on our bodies at the cellular level.
• 
  Shaun

  I'm going to start this review by adding some perspective. Mine.
  
  A chunky 10 year old, early on I developed an interest in exercise. This interest ultimately manifested itself in a request for some weights that Santa brought me on Christmas. They weren't much, 5-10 pound sand weights. Enough to curl and press and make me feel as if I were doing something.
  
  These weights were soon followed up with a Joanne Greggins exercise tape. We're talking about the late '70s so think thongs, leg warmers, sweat bands and high impact aerobics topped off with a gazzilion hydrants.
  
  I have this vivid memory of aerobizing away as my mother, perpetually entertained by my efforts, sat and watched.
  
  I'm not sure what spurred my interest in exercise. Maybe it was the fact that my mother was not only a Tom-boy, but an accomplished high school athlete. Or maybe it had something to do with the fact that prior to having a growth spurt, I suffered through a chunky period. Whatever, the reason, it happened, and almost four decades later I'm still going at it.
  
  I joined my first gym at the age of 14. Dr. Lauber's Family Fitness. It was a small generic gym tucked away in a small generic shopping center that specialized in the martial arts but that also offered Nautilus machines, a free-weight room, and a nightly line-up of aerobic and martial arts classes.
  
  A well-developed and muscular 14 year-old girl who was sporting the curves of a woman, I was kind of a novelty, and there were no shortage of male members coaxing me into the free-weight room. Needless to say, it wasn't long before I was completing my first bench press with the bar.
  
  Around the same time, I became friends with another fitness-focused classmate. She was a dancer, but her mother taught aerobics and her brothers and father were power lifters, and at sixteen we both joined a hard-core powerlifting gym called "The Training Center." It was tucked away in an dumpy, otherwise abandoned strip mall, and it attracted a certain type of fitness enthusiasts, big, muscly, sometimes roided-out guy, who was super serious about lifting some very heavy weight. I'll never forget the first time I saw a guy literally crap himself during a lift. Or the time another guy busted his head open on the bar, psyching himself up for a lift.
  
  Ah, those were the days.
  
  As you can imagine, there were few women in the gym which meant my friend and I got a lot of attention. We never had to worry about finding a workout partner. And boy did we work out. We lifted with the big boys (literally and figuratively) and somehow kept up. Super setting till our legs burned so bad, we could barely stand. Leg day. Back and Bi day. Chest, shoulders, and Tri day. Repeat. But it was all good. I learned a lot about lifting, for which I am still thankful.
  
  By age 18 I was teaching aerobics and really any type of fitness class you could imagine. A teenage girl growing into my adult body, cardio seemed necessary to keep me slim and trim, or at least I thought so. Still, I never stopped lifting or lost my passion for the weight room.
  
  Fast forward almost 30 years and I still lift weights on a regular basis. Over the years, when it comes to fitness, I've pretty much taken it, taught it, or at least sampled it. Yoga, kick-boxing, step aerobics, spin, physioball classes, Zumba, Cross-fit, Red Zone. Seriously, the list goes on and on and on.
  
  During the past thirty years, I've also completed a degree in the Nutritional Sciences as well as a professional Masters of Physical Therapy. I've worked as a sport's and orthopedic physical therapist for almost 25 years. I've also worked as a massage therapist and personal trainer, eventually teaching a personal training certification course at a local community college.
  
  So when I read books like this, I do in the context of my lifelong personal experience with fitness, my professional education and training, as well as my observations of patients and peers along the way. I consider the claim being made, look at the research cited, and then ask myself how it fits in with my years of experience and observation.
  
  I can honestly say there's some good stuff here.
  
  Basically, the author(s) offer a science-based approach to training that not only takes less time than most traditional training programs but that also appears to yield superior results.
  
  I agree with the author, that many people approach fitness haphazardly. There is this Rocky Balboa mindset that more must be better, even though we know that this is never true. The reality is that "smarter" will trump "harder" every time.
  
  I also think that the topic of recovery is relevant. I have spent years watching people working against themselves, sometimes to the point of injury.
  
  I totally agree with the sentiment that fitness is not synonymous with health. In fact, I constantly remind my athlete patients that training isn't necessarily about promoting better health. It's about optimal performance, and the two aren't always one and the same.
  
  Finally, I think the "12-minute" once a week work out appeals to the average person who believes that fitness and health require hours and hours in the gym doing burpees.
  
  The authors do discuss how their approach to training factors into sport, which requires a certain level of fitness, but ultimately requires skill that is part genetics, part specific skill-development.
  
  And while they spend a lot of time poo-pooing steady state endurance activities like running, it's more to build a contrast between what people think and what science tells us, I think.
  
  For example, I love to walk. I walk on average 7-10 miles a day. I would argue that it contributes to my health and well-being. What it doesn't necessarily do is tax my system sufficiently to increase my cardiovascular health. But that's not really the goal, at least not for me. Then again, I also lift, sometimes heavy, and tend to focus on the "big five" they outline in the book. Still, after reading this book, I'm going to experiment with their protocols.
  
  All in all, there's a lot here that is scientifically based and that should make any "gym rat" stop and pause. They may enjoy their grueling cross-fit style workouts. They may live for "hard." "Hard" may even be working for them, but that doesn't mean there isn't a better, smarter way.
• 
  David Rubenstein

  This is a very interesting book about an approach to strength training. The approach is to perform a small number of high-intensity resistance exercises for a short duration, about once a week. The exercises involve slow repetitions to the point of muscular failure, and then holding the weight against resistance for about ten seconds, even after further full repetitions are impossible. The idea is (1) to break down the muscles to a significant extent and then (2) to give the body an adequate time to recover.
  
  The authors are firmly against performing "aerobics" exercises just for the sake of improving fitness. They give well-researched reasons for their opinions, and well thought-out scientific explanations.
  
  Up until today, I have been performing moderately intense strength training about twice a week. I intend to try the approach described in this book, to see if it improves my results.
  
  My only complaint about this book is the picture of the deadlift exercise. The guy doing the deadlift shows terrible form--there is no excuse for this.
• 
  Chuck Claunch

  I grabbed this book after watching Doug McGuff's youtube video regarding medical proof of the paleo diet (seen here:
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PdJFb...). The book explains the medical science behind various types of workouts. The authors do a great job of going into extreme medical detail of how and why various workout techniques work or don't work. I found it refreshing for someone with a fitness plan to actually explain to me how things work and why their routine works best rather than just going off of the "conventional wisdom". If you don't really care about the gory details then this book probably isn't for you. They include the full regimen of workouts which is very simple and very short and sweet compared to the more conventional workout methods. Highly recommended for anyone like myself who needs to know both the hows and whys about fitness.
• 
  Jacob

  The argument in this book actually seems clear and reasonable, and makes sense to me. It also tracks with my own training experience. The premise is that low intensity workouts don't benefit our muscle and cardiovascular development nearly as much as high intensity workouts because they never use some of the most significant muscles. The authors believe they have developed the maximally efficient workout regimen for the average individual in a 10-minute workout once per week. This workout does not cover training for any specific athletic event that an individual might want to participate in.
  
  Although biology is not one of my strong points, I was able to understand the authors' description of metabolism and cell energy pathways. The arguments are sound and many of them are backed up by studies. What excites me is that this seems like a workout regimen that is much more doable for someone with a busy lifestyle, for example a parent of small children.
  
  The only caveat is that the authors advise using machines to workout, and the exercises do look like they'd be easier to do correctly on a machine. However, the use of machines drastically lowers the convenience of the workout, which was one of its strong advantages. Maybe there is a lower-tech equivalent - I wish the authors had spent a bit more time discussing how to do that, but since one of them runs a gym chain I guess I'm not too surprised.
• 
  Dave Bolton

  I found the science in this to be credible (not having the background of the authors, I can't debate it), but I was not so taken with the implementation. While short and hard "to-failure" workouts seem fine according to the theory, I'm doubtful that I could build up the overall strength that a system like Starting Strength has given me. They also quote large improvements from new recruits (I don't have the book to hand, but it was in the order of "50% improvement over 12 weeks!", which sounded great, but in reality for someone with no current strength is actually not all that impressive).
  
  I was also astounded that they spent only a few sentences explaining a barbell squat, and that the explained and photographed form was terrible. Starting Strength spent over thirty pages explaining the same thing. I don't think a SS level of detail would be strictly necessary, but the detail provided was negligent in my opinion.
• 
  Sean Goh

  Such statements of "you ought to take up swimming, because you want long, lean muscles, not big, bulky muscles." are the result of misapplied observations and of assumed cause-and-effect relationships that are actually inverted: it wasn't the activity that produced the body type; it was the body type that did well in that activity.
  
  It is a common practice to "seek a doctor's advice" regarding what type of exercise program one should follow to be healthy. This seems to most of us a logical thing to do. However, a legitimate problem can arise when soliciting the opinion of a physician on what fitness approach one should employ to optimize health, owing to the fact that physicians live and operate in a world of pathology that is so far to the left on the bell curve of health that many can't understand the concept of what is sitting at the mean. Because doctors (one of the authors included among them) deal on a daily basis with people who are not healthy, accurately assessing the links between exercise activity, illness, and health can be difficult.
  
  Health: A physiological state in which there is an absence of disease or pathology and that maintains the necessary biologic balance between the catabolic (tearing down) and anabolic (building up) states.
  Fitness: The bodily state of being physiologically capable of handling challenges that exist above a resting threshold of activity.
  
  The real cardiovascular benefit that can come from exercise is strengthening, so that, per unit of work that you do, the cardiac and vascular system will have to support a recruitment of a smaller number of motor units to accomplish a specific task. The real cardiovascular benefits from exercise, then, occur as a result of peripheral adaptations, not central adaptations.
  When you're running on ground, there's a two- or three-part component: foot strike, push-off, and then a recovery stroke, whereas on a treadmill, because the ground is spinning underneath you, so to speak, there is a foot strike, no push-off, and then recovery — so one entire component of the stride is missing on a treadmill run. The mechanics and the skill factor for running on the earth versus running on a treadmill are completely different.
  
  The reason for this is that the fast-twitch motor units account for perhaps only the last two to twenty seconds of contraction. You would normally tap these fibers only in a true emergency situation, which, in hunter-gatherer times, would have occurred relatively infrequently. By their nature, these fibers, once tapped, can take four to ten days (or longer) to fully recover. Consequently, were you to return to the gym three days after your last workout and attempt to perform another set of leg presses, you would find that you are now hitting a point of momentary muscular failure two to three repetitions earlier than you did in your last workout. That's because the fast-twitch motor units would not be available for recruitment after three days of rest. Your slowest-twitch motor units, by contrast, would be available for recruitment again after a rest of ninety seconds.
  
  The bottom line is that a single set taken to a point of positive failure is a sufficient stimulus to trigger the growth and strength mechanism of the body into motion. Additional sets produce nothing but more time spent in the gym.
  
  Our rule of thumb for rep cadence is that whatever cadence you can employ that will allow you to move as slowly as possible without it turning into a stuttering, stop-and-start scenario is the right one for you.
  
  We tell our clients, "We don't care if the weight bogs down, and we don't care if it stops moving. Just keep pushing in the same manner that you did in the beginning, and if it stops moving, don't panic: just keep pushing. It's not important at the end if the repetition is completed." An understanding that your instincts run counter to achieving this degree of fatigue, and that you have to intellectually override your instincts in order to achieve it, is crucial. The most important thing for you to grasp is the nature of the process. To be able to push to the point where physical activity becomes a stimulus for productive change, it helps to understand that it's OK to feel a little anxious or panicky during the set. After all, the purpose of the exercise is not to make the weight go up and down; it is to achieve a deep level of inroad, to reach the point where you can no longer move the weight but still keep trying. If you have that degree of intellectual understanding, then you will be able to override the instincts that otherwise would intercede to prevent you from stimulating the production of a positive adaptive response from your body.
  
  So, the ratio of HDL to LDL is largely an indirect marker of the body's generalized inflammatory state. Restoring insulin sensitivity decreases that systemic inflammatory state, which results in a less-generalized inflammation of blood vessel walls, thus requiring less need tor cholesterol to be transported for this purpose on LDL molecules.
  our generalized inflammatory state is largely related to the amount of circulating glucose and insulin in the body
  
  The human spinal column devoid of musculature is incapable of carrying the physiological loads imposed on it. It has been shown experimentally that an isolated fresh cadaveric spinal column from T 1 to the sacrum placed in an upright neutral position with sacrum fixed to the test table can carry a load of not more than 20 N before it buckles and becomes unstable. Therefore, muscles are necessary to stabilize the spine so that it can carry out its normal physiologic functions.'
  
  One thing we have learned over many years of training clients is that venturing off the hub to pursue one of the "spokes" seems to take a disproportionate toll on recovery. This caution particularly applies to protocols such as SuperSlow that emphasize a deep inroad — in which a large reduction in the volume and frequency of training is going to require significant periods of recovery for the body to replenish its energy reserves and to make the adaptive response.
  
  Your goal is not simply moving a weight from point A to point B, but rather the inroading, or weakening, of muscle. The more effectively you can load a muscle, the more efficiently you will inroad it. In addition to building more strength, training with a more controlled cadence significantly reduces the risk of injury." Therefore, in terms of both efficaciousness and delivering a better stimulus for positive adaptation, slower is better.
  
  From our evolutionary ancestors' standpoint, the ability to easily develop large muscles would be a principal disadvantage to surviving in an environment ol food scarcity such as existed back then. Muscle is metabolically active tissue, and sustaining and supporting even a normal-size musculature is a trial when energy is scarce, so it would be well-nigh out of the question for people with supranormal levels of this tissue, because of its high caloric demands. Reluctant as a trainee may be to accept it, there is a distinct evolutionary disincentive for having too much muscle—and a related need for an internal mechanism that constrains how large the muscles can become. Nature has answered that need by providing myostatin.
  
  People get fat in modern times because, having evolved a metabolism that allows for storage of energy during times of food scarcity, the body never developed a compensatory negative feedback loop to reduce energy storage during periods of food abundance. That's because such periods never existed—until now.
  
  You should practice skills exactly as you would be required to perform them in competition. You should not attempt to combine (as many coaches do) your skill practice with your physical conditioning practice. Don't lay down neuromuscular connections that serve no purpose for the sport you are playing.
  
  The temptation to train when they should be recovering drives far too many athletes. This proclivity underscores the importance for athletes as well as coaches of understanding the stimulus-response relationship of exercise.
  To obtain the best skill and metabolic conditioning possible for players, many coaches would be better off staging scrimmages rather than practices.
  
  Since stretching does not "contract" muscles, and since contraction is what draws blood into a muscle and generates metabolic activity to provide a "warm-up," there is no warming up imparted by stretching.
• 
  Sonja Tyson

  It was my exercise book for when I'm too tired to read much else. I've read it before, so nothing new. The book argues for working out maybe once a week, but really really hard.
• 
  Colin Larcombe

  I tried to apply it but it requires a lot of thought whilst training
• 
  Mindaugas Grigas

  Definitely one of the best books I ever read regarding activity. Highly recommend! Searching for the pill of anti-aging? There is one. It calls slow resistance training. One more to my Golden library!
• 
  Michael

  Bad title, very good book. Also not just about strength training but covers diet as well.
• 
  Alan Gou

  The most interesting parts of this book was not the actual fitness program recommended, but rather the extensive information it contains about the body's metabolic pathways and how they interact to build muscle, replenish energy stores, break down or build up fat, and all the cellular interactions and hormones that ties it all together.
  
  I recommend it to anyone who is interested in their health and wants to make the most of their time, plus those who enjoy learning about the details of how it all works.
  
  The main takeaways for me are:
  - Cardio is terrible bang for the buck —Our current mainstream conception of how to increase "cardiovascular fitness" is flawed — concentrating on aerobic exercise does not fully utilize the totality of the systems that help our body function optimally, and instead greatly incurs the wear-and-tear your body gets
  - High intensity training is our most time and force efficient way to build muscle, and muscle equals health across our entire body — increased muscle mass equals healthier organs, more efficient metabolic pathways, better ability to go about life, more durability, higher basal metabolic rate, which is our resting caloric expenditure — and gaining it through HIT is the most time-efficient and minimizes wear-and-tear on the body
  - We underestimate the amount of time needed to recover from high intensity exercise, which is critical in building muscle — their program has you working out only once a week for not more than 20 minutes, instead of our more common 3-5 days per week of over 1 hour-long gym sessions
  
  Here's a small sample of the many things you'll learn that will round out your knowledge of our body:
  - What happens to incoming glucose when existing glycogen stores are full
  - The distinctions between slow and fast-twitch muscle fibers and how they are utilized as we perform actions
  - What the role of omega-3 fatty acids are
  - The ways adequate hydration enable the kidneys to unburden the liver in waste processing, freeing up the liver to metabolize fat
  - How the thermic cost of digestion and many other caloric expenditures are levers to increase total caloric expenditure to aid in fat loss
  - How the body sets off a cascading chain reaction of activated enzymes that let it massively deplete your stored glycogen at once during high intensity exercising
  - ...and much much more
• 
  Bastian

  Durch eine Empfehlung bin ich auf dieses Buch gestoßen. Da ich selbst seit fünf Jahren Krafttraining betreibe, bin ich immer neugierig, welche Trainingsmethoden es gibt. In diesem Buch geht es um hochintensives Training. F��nf Grundübungen, ein Satz bis zum Muskelversagen, ein mal die Woche. An sich nichts Neues. Jetzt das "Aber": Goeff und Little skizzieren im Buch die biochemischen Zusammenhänge von Fitness und Gesundheit, von Kraft und Ausdauer. Ich habe viele ganz neue Denkansätze gefunden: Z.B., dass man nach deren Ansatz nicht auf die Anzahl an Wiederholungen schauen sollte, wie es 99% aller Trainingspläne der Fall ist, sondern auf die "Time-Under-Load" (Zeit, in der der Muskel belastet wird). Diese sollte bis zum kompletten Muskelversagen bei ca. 90 bis 120 Sekunden liegen.
  
  Auch die Ausführungen zu den verschiedenen Muskelarten und zur Regeneration (die z.T. über 14 Tage bedauern kann) fand ich sehr erhellend.
  
  Bevor ich dieses Training nicht selbst probiert habe, gebe ich keine 5 Sterne :-).
• 
  Suhrob

  An interesting book. I liked the introductory passages on muscle biology - clear and well written.
  
  Concerning the program itself:
  
  1) it sounds it *could* work in *theory*
  2) But: training to failure is very hard to do without a trainer. The program really requires failure and without a trainer it is hard to achieve consistently both due to physical and psychological factors. Measuring time under load is also a slightly larger hassle than volume+reps.
  3) Special type of equipment is recommended (though some alternatives are provided) . The affiliation of the authors with the manufacturer is unclear
  4) Back to point 1) there is newer research that puts the need to go to failure into question even theoretically. I'm not saying this is a resolved question, but it seems that the assumption behind the program are not necessarily as solid as the authors think.
  
  Still overall enjoyable and well written book.
• 
  Nick Short

  Well written and thoroughly researched. Caused huge reversal in thinking in a domain I considered myself knowledgeable. Advocates high intensity, low frequency exercising. Not against "'cardio' exercises" as some think, rather the authors explain (very well, and repeatedly) that taking each rep to its extreme forces one to use deeper, fast twitch muscle fibers which is in turn much more productive to your cardiovascular system. Also genetics, fat, and muscle growth explained and some human biology/physiology knowledge required. The program is not time consuming, but instead when done right the intensity leaves you feeling very uncomfortable. Not easy to get over the idea that training less (allows proper recovery) is beneficial but the gains are in fact exponential. Good for females, males, athletes, seniors alike.
• 
  Michael

  The most time-efficient and productive strength training program is one based upon the principles of high-intensity.
  
  Productive exercise must be of a specific threshold level of intensity. In other words, any exercise level below the threshold will not stimulate positive adaptations.
  
  Additionally, high-intensity exercise sessions will be comparatively brief and dose appropriate as opposed to conventional exercise a thought process driven largely by 'exercise angst.'
  
  My earliest and most productive development was as a college athlete following a high-intensity training program. As a coach, I have worked to offer programming that is dose appropriate and productive.
• 
  Ann

  This book makes a compelling case for working towards complete fitness with a 12-minute workout once a week.
  
  Strong muscles prompt a strong body in every way and too much repetitive movement (running, cycling) is actually detrimental to your body over time.
  
  This book turns everything that we have come to believe about health and fitness upside down.
  
  Weight lifting is for everyone -- not for body building as we traditionally know it, but for building a healthier body. Seniors especially should read this, though I will admit that I skimmed some of the "technical science" portions.
• 
  Dio Mavroyannis

  This is all the science you need to know to swim through the bullshit. It's kind of insane how much misinformation there is out there on healthy research programs, but here it is, the end all be all. The book slowly tries to get rid of common popular illusions around what it is that makes us healthy. It is a book that gets technical yet, you don't need to understand the details on the first read, you only need to get the intuition, once you have the intuition you will understand why this is something you have always known. Be a roman, stop with this jogging bullshit.
• 
  Kristin

  The science they reference is solid, but I feel like their interpretation of it is off, as in a bit too far extrapolated. And then they promote the use of machines to attain their promise of fitness. Yes, having a cam on a pulley does create consistent resistance through a full range of motion, however, so what? That's not how our body is meant to work and relate to the rest of the body or the rest of the world.
  
  I got about a third of the way in, felt it derail, and skimmed the rest. Meh.
• 
  Lynda

  Dave Asprey referred to 'Body by Science' in his 'Headstrong' book. I am glad I came across this book. I have highlighted many sections from the book for later reference, and fortunately, Dr. McGuff has also remained active with his seminars, being a guests on podcasts, and making many videos available on YouTube. This book came out in 2009. And it still feels like a long-tail book about an important topic that has not become mainstream yet.
  
  After reading this book it is clear to me that the conventional protocols and practices in the mainstream fitness industry that grew in influence in the late sixties and beyond have not really helped me personally (and I gather for millions of other people) to achieve my most important aims, one of which is to remain physically strong through slow but high intensity training well into my later years. Independence in life, that is, being able to move around, to go about your life without a walker, a cane, without chronic disease, is guaranteed if one follows Dr. McGuff's thinking and practices. There are gyms around the country that offer the type of equipment (Nautilus, which is what Dr. McGuff recommends, short of that, Hammer Strength machines work well too) where you can conduct the Big 5 workout with experienced professionals who can assist you along the way (and the costs are not necessarily greater than paying for a regular gym).
  
  Dr. McGuff cuts through all the myths that the human body needs to be subject to constant exercise (i.e. running, jogging, doing aerobics, doing lots of stretching, etc. several times every week) in order to be in great shape; in fact, the opposite is true. We only need a few minutes of high intensity strength training a week to achieve total fitness. He does an excellent job explaining the differences amongst the words 'exercise', 'fitness', and 'health' and his compelling opening chapter paves the way for more detailed explanations around the biochemical and metabolic processes our muscles and our body go through when we subject ourselves to slow but high intensity strength training. There are some photos of him doing the workouts on the 5 machines (namely, Seated Row or Chest Row; Lateral Pulldown; Shoulder Press or Overhead Press; Chest Press; and Leg Press) and he provides detailed explanations for how to do the workout properly; again, he also provides detailed instructions on YouTube.
  
  If you want to take the time to adopt a new way of working out, save a bundle of time while maximizing your fitness level, and improve your health, I cannot think of any other book that will help you reach these goals. Of course, one's diet is important; eat whole foods not junk foods. Get eight hours of sleep to avoid injury while doing the workout. These are all mentioned in Body by Science because it is a holistic approach yet one deeply rooted in science.
  
  I have already started to put Dr. McGuff's teachings into practice and have only been going to the gym once a week for the last five weeks, doing the Big 5 workout on the Hammer Strength machines; I'm amazed with the fact (being a middle-aged woman) that I can haul around really heavy objects around the house or garage without going out of breath or hurting myself. The results are tangible and the benefits are clear-cut to me.
  
• 
  Sergiusz Golec

  That book promotes Hyper Intensive Trainings (HIT). Train 6-9-12 minutes a week (in a gym).
  The science around the subject.
  
  For me, some parts of the book are strongly disappointing and subjective.
  "There are lies, big lies and statistics". I remember that from my studies at university. Like "90% of doctors like Chinese food", where in the 10 doctors sample 9 are Chinese.
  
  In that book, you can find statistics and DNA justifications. Here I felt that I observe many biases. Like the errors of perspective.
  
  6-9-12 minutes can be attractive to minimize the effort time.
  There are alternatives, where you can do what you like longer, more than 12 min, because of fun. "Body-active" hobby, sex or ...Wim Hof Method.
  
  There are not so many examples where Intensive Trainings are not advisable. As if I read a big long advertisement of the authors (Doug McGuff, M.D., and John Little) - train like we say because it's the best for you. Because it helped many. Because evidenced.
  
  "HIT" is not a solution for everything & everybody. For sure it can be trendy and attractive.
  Some facts are great to consider and others are misleading.
  At the end - I'd focus more on the "what's practical, fun & working" for me.
  That book is filled with the doubtful content - therefore the material with the biggest added value also becomes questionable. (So I stopped reading that book in the middle.)
  
  
  P.S.
  Spoiler alert!
  Here is the "47 years old" sentence from the book:
  "While we tend to regard our ancestors as being far more active than ourselves and as being a group that ate "natural" foods and, consequently, enjoyed much better health than we do in the twenty-first century, the fact is that our ancestors' life expectancy up to the beginning of the twentieth century was the ripe old age of forty-seven".
  That's misleading because:
  -> Without media (like radio, TV and Internet) entertainment required a bit more of the movements. Life was a bit tougher without many simplifiers and "office/desk" jobs. I strongly suspect that people moved a bit more. Books written in wood or stone required bigger strength to become literate than with grams weight devices.
  -> In many times and places, people lived longer and healthier lives. (As if now diversity is available for the average expected life longevity.) Read about old-time philosophers and the longevity around those times. That's another statistical frame /perspective which brings strong bias.
  I've noticed that "callisthenics" ("calisthenics") was mentioned but no any "C." long-living enthusiast. And "calisthenics" is now interesting for me. Even if for the authors they may be statistically irrelevant, "C." optimists live much longer than 47 years old. Also "C." can be linked to the intensive trainings. The historical "C." examples can be found all the way between sculpted Greece athletes of the past and modern street-workouts performers.
• 
  Davytron

  This guide was written by inquisitive people on the hunt for the most effective, most efficient, and safest exercise program that humans can do to maintain their health. In the process of their research, they discovered that there weren't a lot of defined operational terms in the health industry to measure anything by to even begin creating a database of this information. The book starts with their definitions of three main words:
  
  Health: a physiological state in which there is an absence of disease or pathology and that maintains the necessary biologic balance between catabolic and anabolic states.
  
  Fitness: The bodily state of being physiologically capable of handling challenges that exist above a resting threshold of activity.
  
  Exercise: a specific activity that stimulates a positive physiological adaptation that serves to enhance fitness and health and does not undermine the latter in the process of enhancing the former.
  
  As you might have already guessed, these definitions rule out a number of activities that people engage in as exercise, such as running. This book spends a lot of time saying that cardio, for example, is really not exercise because of the high risk of injury and the low amount of actual benefit obtained from the activity in the first place.
  
  Their alternative is something called HIT: High Intensity Training. There are variations presented in the book but it mostly involves doing a single set of 5 main exercises: Leg press, overhead press, chest press, seated row, and pull down. Each set consists of super slow reps (6-10 seconds up and 6 - 10 seconds down) until complete and utter failure, usually 40-90 seconds of work. You work out hard but in the end it only takes about 20 minutes to do their full workout. They posit that because you will have recruited every single muscle fiber by doing this, you are in fact getting your cardio in and you'll need at least a week to recover between each session.
  
  The book cites many resources and their theory has been tested for decades at their training centre. I am very intrigued by the method and am considering adding one of these training days to my current regimen.
  
  The book is written like a reddit post/rant. It's very unprofessional at times and the overall quality of the writing, style, and organization of the book is adequate at best. There are dubious/unsubstantiated claims made without citations and incomplete or outdated information in other areas. I would love to read a revised and expanded edition following a brutal editing and fact checking/elaborating.
• 
  Florence

  The book starts out with a rant about how running isn't exercise, which definitely makes me fire up inside and start disliking this book because I love running
  https://www.florencehinder.com/27-km-.... John used lots of hyperbole to explain why running is bad, taking the extreme cases of running (i.e. ultra-endurance events and marathons) and didn't consider where it excels, an incredibly accessible form of cardio! I would also argue that extremes of basically every sport are bad for you (including weight lifting).
  
  I think he overlooks many of the benefits of running and only considers the extreme scenarios. He writes the book with a huge bias toward bodybuilding (due to his expertise and background in this domain). I wish the author had been more open-minded, less hyperbolic, and biased.
  
  According to a meta-analysis in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, running participation is associated with 27%, 30%, and 23% lower risk of all-cause mortality, respectively, compared with no running. Analysis showed no significant dose–response trends for weekly frequency, weekly duration, pace and the total volume of running, suggesting that consistency is more important than quantity. (British Journal of Sports Medicine, Is running associated with a lower risk of all-cause, cardiovascular and cancer mortality, and is the more the better? A systematic review and meta-analysis)
  
  Another literature review (a study of many studies in the research field) showed that all-cause mortality decreased by about 30 to 35% in physically active as compared to inactive subjects. Eleven studies included confounding risk factors for mortality and revealed an increase in life expectancy by 0.4 to 4.2 years with regular physical activity. This review also looked at the difference between different sports and showed consistently greater life expectancy in aerobic endurance athletes (e.g., running, cycling) but inconsistent results for other athletes. (National Library of Medicine, Does Physical Activity Increase Life Expectancy? A Review of the Literature).
  
  It is easy to find lots of evidence similar to this with very little effort, yet none of it is mentioned.
  
  One good thing from this book is that it made me look up the effects of ultra-endurance running on the heart and it does seem to have detrimental effects at its extreme.
  
  His advice on more strength training seemed okay, but I lost trust in the author with his hyperbolic start to the book and struggled to take what he was saying seriously.