Customer Reviews

Body by Science: A Research Based Program to Get the Results You Want in 12 Minutes a Week

5 star:		(42)
4 star:		(8)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

I have been lifting weights for about 2 years on a multiple times per week basis. I have a home gym with both a Vectra machine and bench and free weights. I am a victim of Dr. Kenneth Cooper's aerobic revolution of the 70's and 80's, now with bad knees and bad ankles and chronic tendinitis and 2 herniated disks and spinal arthritis, which is what brought me to weight training in the first place. Over the years I have tried my own program, and I have purchased several programs from the "Guru's" and I pretty much always wound up either injured or I would make progress for a while and then it would seem I would start going backward. My most recent program was the New Rules of Lifting program which I have found to be a very good program. I've done that for a year and have made progress and remained injury free. That program is basically a two or three times per week program and I noticed that I needed the rest between sessions to keep improving. Sometimes I would go down to one session per 5 or 6 days and I found when I lifted next it was easier to make an advance. That couple extra days allowed a more complete recuperation. The exercises in the new rules program are basically the big 5 that is described in the Body by Science program, so over the course of the year I have developed good form with each exercise and a good knowledge of how my body feels during the lift and post lifting.

When I read this program it seemed to fit well with what I had been doing. I was of course skeptical of the 12 minute claim as the New Rules program is a timed set of reps across the exercises of about 45 minutes per session. In the New Rules program if you were anal about the timed aspect you would be forced into an anaerobic state of metabolism which I think is desirable in a workout. You can tell you've gone anaerobic when you quit lifting and ten minutes later your respiratory rate is still elevated. Your body at that point is working off the metabolic acid load it accrued during the anaerobic activity and converting it to CO2 and that extra CO2 load is being expelled by your increased resp rate. I could tell the by the way I felt that was the hormonal changes and increased metabolism associated with micro damage. I decided to give slo mo pumping as described in Body by Science a whirl. What it claims is true. I do 6 exercises bench press, reverse grip pull down, overhead press, seated row, squats and dead lifts, using the time under load method of accounting and trying to maintain 10-15 seconds during reps and it kicks my hind end. I go deep into anaerobic metabolism as I start huffing like a choo choo. I can also tell I am going deep into anaerobic metabolism because I get hot and start to sweat, signs of big sympathetic outflow and my heart starts beating like a trip hammer. I can tell the muscle micro damage and metabolic changes are greater with this slo mo methodology and I find I NEED a week to recover. I could probably compress that to 5 full days but the difference between 5 full days of rest and a week is not enough to push it. I'm still getting into the method trying to keep my form perfect during the time under load.

I am a physician, so I read with interest the physiology described in the book, and what is described in general is correct. I'm not sure I would hang my hat on the "fact" that we grow big muscles so we can run away from tigers, in fact to me that is an unlikely reason. If you have to run away from a tiger once a week in order to build big muscles its unlikely you are going to escape from being dinner. I think it is probably more steeped in a protective adaptation to inflammation response that lifting causes, than running away from tigers. The cardiovascular information is absolutely true in terms of this kind of training being better than the typical "cardio" kind of exercise. Your heart responds to the demand of your muscles. The whole reason you have a heart and lungs is to deliver 2mm of Oxygen tension to the mitochondria in your cells to provide for aerobic metabolism and to wisk away CO2 and metabolic byproducts. When your energy utilization overwhelms your aerobic potential that is when your muscles need more oxygen than your heart and lungs can deliver that is when you get a cardiovascular adaptation. Aerobic exercise by definition NEVER gets you there precisely because it is aerobic. If you ain't huffing like a choo choo (the sure sign of anaerobic metabolism) you may as well be sipping a drink by the pool in my opinion. I also believe every single beneficial claim proposed in terms of anti-hypertension and anti-diabetes improved flexibility and relief from back pain etc etc to be true. I have a pain management practice and I encourage my patients to do weight training to the extent they can, especially those who have managed to escape surgery.

So I think this plan is a worth while plan. I think if you are not well trained in weights you absolutely MUST have someone who truly knows about weight training train you. If you go off half cocked in this kind of program eventually you will hurt yourself. If you have a home gym like I do then I think you should spend 6 months learning how to lift with perfect form using something like the New Rules program before you venture into the Body by Science program. If you have a trainer he can adjust you during an exercise, but if you don't then you need to take a good while getting to know your own body and lifting with not other expectation than developing perfect form until it become second nature. Once you get into lifting it will become a long term part of your life so there is no reason to be in a hurry and not learn to do it right.

I think the exercises proposed are the exact correct exercises. I am a big fan of multi-muscle complex exercises like the dead lift as opposed to doing a billion of hammer curls with a dumbbell trying to increase the size of the third head of the triceps (total waste of time) I have also come to believe based on my experience over the past 2 years you won't see results quickly if you over train. In other words you need the time for the biochemistry to work and to let the damage you are producing heal. If you sprain an ankle (a big injury, not a micro injury) it doesn't get better in 2 days in gets better in 3 to 6 weeks. In other words you need to give your body the real time it takes to heal and that is based on its own physiology, not on some artificial schedule of lifts per week. If you are an old pro at lifting then before each exercise run over in your mind what perfect form means. I like to take 5 seconds to read a card I have prepared that forces me to think about the few things that define perfect form for each exercise. It takes me out of remote control mode and brings my focus back to the task at hand. Finally for this exercise regimen I have a big clock with a second had sitting right in front of each station, and I keep records so I can watch my progress.

As to the diet, I'm less involved. I like the idea of eating non processed food, but I think a ration of about 1:1:1 of fats, carbs and protein on a calorie adjusted basis is probably easier to maintain. I think the problem with processed foods is they tend to really concentrate the calories

OK, this book has some things going for it that help set it apart from other exercise books out there. There are some decent footnotes and the main points all have some scientific backing behind them. It also gets bonus points for pointing out that super levels of fitness, low body fat, and big muscles do not actually equal high levels of health, longevity, and well-being. There is also truth to the author's assertion that there is a quality of life issue involved in the time spent working out when you could be doing other things.

There are a lot of other good points, too, but they are all pretty general and common sense. For example, "The Big Five" (or "Big Three") has been exercise 101 for over a century because of one simple reason: there are really only 5 natural movements that the human body can reasonably perform with weights: Overhead pressing, pulling/pushing down with the lats, pushing out from the chest, pulling into the chest, and standing up to extend the legs. It's also been long understood that the three pillars of weight training are training, diet, and rest: if you're struggling to make gains, you should look at all three instead of just training harder, which can be potentially counterproductive. Again, this should be common sense, but it must be said nonetheless.

However, for a book that's supposed to be so predicated on "science," the science that's presented is often poorly understood or perhaps even deliberately confused to support the author's own selling points and shortcomings of their training system.

Example #1: There is no scientific evidence supporting "Max Contraction," just John Little's marketing. None. The authors' emphasis on doing reps very slowly and counting the time spent under stress are also scientifically dubious with mixed support in the literature.

Example #2: There is no scientific evidence that says old Nautilus machines are conclusively better for fitness than free weights or other manufacturors, but the authors own a gym that specializes in this equipment so it's cited as being the ultimate in training. There is some truth to machine-based workouts being easier on certain joints, and they get bonus points in HIT because they allow you to safely go to failure without a spotter, but the authors barely reference those key points.

Example #3: The studies that are cited are often sort of thrown together. Some will involve elderly or extremely out of shape clients who would have benefited greatly from the introduction of just about any physical activity. The authors point this out when the studies in question apply to aerobic exercise as a reason not to trust those studies, but fail to keep this in mind when studies on similar parameters agree with their own conclusion.

Example #4: If you look up pictures of John Little and most of his clients, you'll mostly find a group of fairly average looking men with very few impressive physical specimens. You'd be hard pressed to tell if some of them work out at all, and I think most people at least want noticable gains from their gym experience. Little asserts time and again that success in sports and bodybuilding is mostly because of genetics and that less than 2.5% of men have the "genetic potential" to build large muscles. However, if you go to just about any gym with a reasonably large clientelle, you'll see several amateur bodybuilders who show that the genetics necessary for this kind of size are not so rare, if in fact they have any "special" genetics at all. Little's "12 minutes a week of max contraction" disciples tend to look absolutely puny by comparison.

That's what I found most disturbing about this book: the misrepresentation of science in the book's emphasis on "genetic potential," particularly the role of genetically determined levels of myostatin as the holy grail, when it comes to building muscle. While myostatin inhibition does help produce large muscles with little bodyfat, the science simply does not say what the authors assert it does. That section is badly written, poorly researched, and misleading.

For examples, the book says that professional bodybuilders refused to be tested for myostatin levels because it may harm their endorsement deals, when in fact many (such as the FREAKISH Ron Coleman, who bags millions in endorsements) were tested for a variety of genetic differences and the results usually came back that they were, in fact, fairly average. Only a couple of examples of genetic irregularities were found and those came from lesser known bodybuilders--most famously, "Flex Wheeler," who has extra muscle fibers. The science just didn't find that bodybuilders are necessarily genetic freaks when looking for the things that it expected to find.

But the myostatin discussion gets worse when discussing myostatin inhibition in racing whippets (and the rare, super muscled freaks known as "bully whippets"), the authors say that "Bully whippets" win most of the races. This is the exact OPPOSITE of reality: Bully whippets are typically euthanized by breeders as puppies because they perform very poorly in races. Their added bulk slows them down and they tend to be injury prone.

That gets to another point the authors overlook: high levels of myostatin inhibition is not associated with greater athletic performance. In fact, myostatin-inhibited mice have been determined, pound for pound, to have weaker muscles than typical mice and much more prone to tendon and joint injuries. Belgian cattle have major problems dealing with stress, are more injury prone, and are also weaker, pound for pound, than typical cattle. It remains to be seen how the handful of positively identified humans with the special genetics that the authors say will make them champion bodybuilders will turn out.

The authors also hint that myostatin inhibiting drugs, their perceived holy grail for supplimentation, were stopped by pharmaceutical companies "for no reason," perhaps even because it may cost them sales of other suppliments, but the truth is that all the drugs that were tested were having potentially lethal effects, such as causing enlargement of the heart. Even then, a couple of myostatin inhibitors were sold as bodybuilding suppliments for a while in the 2000s, but they never caught on because they proved worthless. I don't know if any of them are on the market today.

All of this casts doubts on this book's "scientific" marketing angle. If you follow the authors' advice you may become fitter and happier, as their suggestions will help you achieve and maintain a modest level of fitness, but take the authors' discussion of genetics and unusual training techniques (like "Max Contraction") with a healthy grain of salt.

If you want to get in and maintain a "normal" baseline level of practical fitness with an average body type, you could do a lot worse than to do what this book says. However, if you wish to be a bodybuilder or athlete, you should look elsewhere my friends.

I have mixed feelings about Body by Science. It strives to prescribe a work-out routine that properly takes advantage of physiological knowledge to promote fitness, defined as the ability to take part in non-sedentary activities. The book does derive a work-out routine from a presentation of physiology. The recommendations include one short strength-training work-out per week with no traditional cardiovascular work (e.g., jogging) and a "hunter-gatherer"-type diet.

The physiology presented in this book is more extensive than what I've seen in traditional weight-lifting or diet-exercise books aimed at the public. Compared to two text-books for university courses in nutrition and exercise science, the physiology here is about as broad, presented in a slightly more truncated and easy to read format.

The thing that really distuingishes Body by Science, however, is that the physiology is presented in a manner that deconstructs traditional concepts of exercise. To sum up, the book contends (1) that cardiovascular fitness is something that occurs primarily in a diffuse manner throughout the body at the level of the musculature, not primarily as adaptations in the heart and lungs, and (2) that the musculature does not know if it is getting stressed by resistance training or traditional cardio work. The logical conclusion from these two premises is that the best overall fitness training is pure resistance strength training done in a manner that stresses the muscles without stressing joints, ligaments, etc.

I must confess that although I was aware that cardiovascular adaptations occurred at the muscular level, I was also under the impression that there are adaptations in the heart that occur specific to traditional styles of aerobic work such as jogging. However, I am at a loss to say what those are. I have a vague notion that sustained moderately elevated heart rate is important to the heart, but I couldn't tell you what exactly it achieves.

Of course, my failure to refute the physiological and exercise science presented here does not make it correct. That is the biggest draw-back with this or any exercise book--you are always at the mercy of those with more expertise. The only recourse you have as a reader is to educate yourself with some basic knowledge about research and publishing standards and try to evaluate how honest and accurate a book appears to be.

From this perspective, Body by Science holds up well, but not as well as its hype. Subtitled "A Research-Based Program...," you expect a book swamped by citations like an academic paper. The book does have more citations than a typical exercise book, but it is not near what I expected. For example, it says, "Virtually every study undertaken to assess the cardiovascular effects of proper strength training has concluded that they at least equal the effects of more conventional approaches such as running or other steady-state activities." However, the citations given to support this statement are two studies from 1985 and 1988. This is really not acceptable, even if the statement is accurate. Either many more (recent) studies need to be cited or a review paper that examines this issue in depth. This is one example, but I think it fair to say it characterizes the whole book.

The book's biggest drawback is its failure to present evidence that its specific program has been demonstrated to work. The authors repeatedly mention the years of experience they and other trainers have in using their techniques, but they present no study they've conducted and only one photo of someone they've trained. The use of photos showing muscled young men is dismissed at the beginning of the book by referring to genetic variability in response to weight training. This is true, but in the absence of studies, anecdote shows something. Maybe doing the Bill Phillips Body-for-Life workout won't make you look like his contest winners, but at least we know it can do anything at all. Maybe eveybody's training will stagnate with Body by Science. Who knows?

In addition to its central message, the book touches briefly on a variety of peripheral issues. Some, such as the connection between an attempt to moderate training and a regression in training, confirm my personal experience. Others are silly, like the suggestion to drink cold water all day in order to burn off about 125 Kcal through thermodynamic effects. Any lifestyle cost-benefit analysis of this proposal could not hold up, especially for people living north of Florida.

As other reviewers have mentioned, from what I can tell, the static contraction training discussion in the latter half of the book is hogwash. Although one of the authors is a doctor, the other's major claim to expertise is sycophantic followership of a dead bodybuilder and having "published in every major fitness and martial arts magazine in North America." Well, whoopy-do!

Despite the criticisms, I think this is a useful book for fitness hobbyists to read. I really want its core recommendations to be correct, and even if it is not the best program for otherwise fit and healthy individuals, I can see that it might still have applicability for the elderly, those needing rehab, or those with cardiac or respiratory disorders. It is worth investigation by health professionals.

If I were going to tell these authors how to get more stars out of my rating, I would say they really need to demonstrate more thoroughly how they live up to the claim of being "research-based."

I have owned 2 copies of Dr. McGuff's self published books "Ultimate Exercise" since 2002. Basically I have been using this routine or a derivative since then. I have also had a few phone consultations with McGuff during those years. These are basically the "Consolidated" type routines from Mike Mentzer's last two published books performed in a Super Slow type cadence.

I agree with all of the routines on the "Global Conditioning" aspect. I myself find that fixing your mind into a once a week frequency becomes fact for you and you may be delighted if you decide to maybe split up the A/B workouts but perform both in one week. You must be very in tune with overtraining but at the same time, not be paranoid and turn it into a Boogieman. Overtraining is not a disease nor is it irreversible. When you find yourself overtraining, cut back. I realize for the High Volume Trainers this is not even an option.

My absolute best results from these routines were in 2007 when I added the Trap Bar Deadlift (done at 2/2 Cadence). This really triggered growth in my body and transferred to all of the other exercises. I was working with 555 pounds on this for low reps (Started at about 365) and did not experience any injuries. This added exercise had to really be monitored because it definitely would lead to overtraining if done along with the other movements.

Lately, I decided to add more exercises and was doing 8 movements once a week and then split it into the A/B (still done during same week) and then used 7 days in between. I have tried 14 day layoffs and I don't care what any studies show, I got weaker, lost size, muscularity and gained fat. Perhaps it was my diet.

As far as John Little, I have used both Max Contraction Training and Static Contraction Training. Besides being almost impossible to perform in a gym, I did not experience any meaningful gains on these routines and got noticeably weaker and smaller until I ended them. They (Sisco and Little) both adamantly claim that these are NOT isometrics yet the verbatim results of Dr. EA Mueller and Dr. Theodore Hettinger's Classic Isometric studies of the mid 1900s are the basis for both of these books. the machines that Sisco peddles are basically big immovable platforms on machines with a tension meter attached. There is no outside resistance of any kind. For isometrics, I will use my body and doorway. Since John Little is co-author of Body by Science I find it valid to question his theories.

A serious question I have about John Little's writings and research is the thoroughly documented and hyped up "Research Programs" like "Nautlus North" always have the subjects making like 200% strength gains after 1.2 workouts yet the experiments never last more than a few weeks (or workouts). He does say in everyone of the books (even the ones he did for Mentzer) "If these people gained that much muscle in just 2 weeks, just think what you can achieve in 1 or 2 years", The experiments (Nautilus North, etc) will never tell us, they only lasted a few weeks. He did have a special follow up web page for Max Contraction Training but that lasted as long as the experiments. No follow through.

I suspect that John Little is on this book because of name recognition. John puts down the Super Slow protocol in both Static Contraction Training and Max Contraction Training. Also, Quoting from another reviewer "It also strikes me as odd that John Little is giving a strongly implied endorsement to full-range exercise, after all the promotion he's done for limited range work & static weight holding. Where do you stand, John Little?"

If anyone has made sustained gains from either MCT or SCT I never heard of them. I know McGuff says to use them for just for short periods of time. I would discard the MCT training totally. I believe John Little will just squeeze his SCT and the "even more revolutionary" MCT anywhere he can. If you gave SCT and MCT a try, you will have discovered that MCT was a method discovered for Little to distance himself from Sisco rather than a revolutionary form of SCT.

With that being said, I HIGHLY RECOMMEND this book especially for the insight in Global Conditioning and the Faux Cardio Culture. I would have enjoyed it more without John Little's 2 cents (Revelation that he can apply his son's 3-way Mentzer Routine to his Max Contraction Training and other Anecdotes) but then again, he may have Tony Robbin's endorse it and make an entire science, philosophy and religion out of it complete with 30 minute infomercials a 20 DVD set and the ability to walk over hot coals at completion.

Seriously though, this book is a big notch for H.I.T. and I totally respect the education, research, personal training experience and passion that Dr. McGuff put into it. As I first stated, I have had phone consultations with him and have nothing but praise and respect for him. His insight on the medical aspects of strength training put him in a different class than most writers.

I also recommend Ellington Darden's "The New Bodybuilding for Old School Results" as a companion volume. Darden's book provides inspiration which really makes you want to hit the vintage Nautilus machines. Ellington Darden also recommends more movements per workout (about 8) and higher frequency. I say the reader experiment what works best for them and then adjust volume and frequency accordingly over time.

Both of these books together provide history, nostalgia and research. They do not contradict each other but compliment. A Yang to the other's Yin. Finally, if you can find a copy of Dr. McGuff's self published "Ultimate Exercise", I would snatch this up.

This is a dynamic, very unique fitness book. It strips away the myths of fitness and weight loss and replaces it with true science. Turns out all the running and lifting we've done over the years has only injured us, made us unhealthy --- not built us up, made us fit or made us healthy as we had hoped.

Rather than make us a more healthy population, the fads of aerobics and running, among others, the authors argue, has made us far less healthy.

"The important distinction is that exercise is purposefully directed activity that stimulates the body to produce a positive adaptation in one's level of fitness and health. Physical activity in general, while yielding the potential to produce certain adaptations in one's fitness and health, can unfortunately also undermine one's health."

We also read, "In reality, fitness and health are not extrinsically linked; as one goes up, the other does not necessarily go up with it." I found this a very important point of truth.

"Almost every form of exercise other than proper strength training carries with it a good chance of undermining your health because of the accumulated forces involved," the authors say.

We learn that less is more if it's intensive. "On June 6, 2005, CNN reported on the startling (to some) findings of a McMaster University research group, proclaiming that "six minutes of pure, hard exercise once a week could be just as effective as an hour of daily moderate activity."

Now we know that in just a few minutes a week, anyone, at any age and in any condition, can grow strong, can function a their peak and actually enjoy good health as a result. Moreover, you can lose body fat doing high intensity training in a few minutes a week. Spending hours on machines, lifting and running are not only unnecessary, but bad for you.

I didn't like the fact the author pushed the Natalus machines. Turns out, he owns a Natalus center. Moreover, he assumed everyone went to a gym to workout or had someone with them when they worked out. It didn't adequately address the person who works out alone in his home. He also didn't address other forms of resistance, such as rubber tubing. After all, the body doesn't know if you're lifting a bath tub, weights or rubber tubing.

I do this program with great success and I use free weights and rubber tubing. My doctor stared at my back and was amazed at the muscles. "Your back looks so powerful and like it should be on a young person," he said at my last exam.

It's wonderful to be able to workout for twelve minutes or so once a week and get all the great benefits, including a great cardio workout.

The authors say, ". . . there is no additional advantage in devoting hours per week to the pursuit of health and fitness improvement."

Since I hate cardio and especially hate what it's done to my knees, I appreciate the fact that cardio as we know it is both unnecessary and harmful.

"Four thirty-second intervals of high-intensity muscular exertion is four thirty-second intervals of high-intensity muscular exertion, whether that takes place exclusively in the lower body, as in stationary cycling, or in both the upper and lower body, as in resistance exercise."

We learn from the book that the center of metabolic health, then, is not the heart and cardiovascular system; it is the muscular system.

"The higher the intensity of muscular work, the higher the degree of cardiovascular and respiratory stimulation."

I read this book twice. I just finished a second reading after a year or so and got much more out of it than in the first reading.

The science is there. It's proven to work. I personally know it works. I may not agree with every single thing the authors say. But I know this program works.

"The Big Five is a protocol that has a scientifically validated track record of success." Indeed it is and it can be done by just about anyone of any age.

Highly recommended.

- Susanna K. Hutcheson

I had read "Power of 10" by Zickerman and was intrigued by the prospect of a once-a-week workout but wanted some more meaty information. I ordered "Body by Science" after reading the very thorough reviews posted here, and found it hard to put down. I have done a small amount of weight training in the past and find that my body usually responds well to it. Knee pain has made it difficult for me to exercise in my usual ways (walking or running) and time and energy constraints have made it difficult to get into any kind of a routine. (I own my own business painting houses, which is very physically tiring work)

Everything about "Body by Science" resonated with me. I'd actually been doing a workout adapted from "Power of 10" for about 4 weeks but after reading about the "big five" I switched to rows, lat pulldowns (with my palms facing up), squats, bench and shoulder presses. The first day I tried these I worked so hard that I had to lie down for awhile. . .my muscles were too shaky for me even to drive my car. I was glad I'd read that sometimes it even takes longer than a week to recover, because the next week I could only do a couple of reps each of 2 sets. But by the third week, I was eager to lift again. I've been following the protocol as closely as I can. (By the way, I do have a Marcy Smith weight cage and full complement of free weights in my dining room! : )

The bottom line for me is this: over the past 6-8 weeks of doing "Power of 10" and "Body by Science", this middle-aged, overweight woman is feeling muscles everywhere, even at rest. The best part for me is that for a few years now I haven't been able to stand up from a low seat without pushing off with my arms. About a week ago I noticed that I can now stand up without using my arms. . .and without the huge "groan" that used to accompany that procedure.

Best of all. . .a 20 minute once-a-week workout is something that I can and will actually do. My body feels good and strong. Now I just have to start following the nutritional advice (sigh.)

If you buy only one book on exercise this year, get this one. If you buy only two books, get a second copy of it because you're going to want to share it with friends, and if you're a trainer you're going to want to keep one at work to show clients.

Body by Science explains the how and why of high intensity training, balancing enough scientific background to convey key principles and concepts without overwhelming the lay reader, and practical in-the-gym how-to. It is well organized, well researched, and well written, and an enjoyable and informative read. Every one of its eleven chapters contains a wealth of information, clearly explained with the assistance of numerous graphs and diagrams.

The chapters include:

1. Defining Health, Fitness, and Exercise
2. Global Metabolic Conditioning
3. The Dose-Response Relationship of Exercise
4. The Big-Five Workout
5. The Benefits of the Big-Five Workout
6. Enhancing the Body's Response to Exercise
7. Tweaking the Exercise Stimulus
8. The Genetic Factor
9. The Science of Fat Loss
10. The Ideal Training Programs for Athletes
11. The Ideal Training Program for Seniors

The book thoroughly and conclusively debunks the belief that aerobics or "cardio" is necessary for cardiovascular fitness or fat loss, and provides scientific explanations for why high intensity strength training is the most effective way to accomplish both of these. For those of you still harboring doubts about this, Body by Science will put them to rest. McGuff and Little also explain why high intensity strength training is the safest and most effective exercise protocol for improving:

* resting metabolic rate
* glucose metabolism
* insulin sensitivity
* body composition
* cholesterol levels
* blood pressure
* bone mineral density
* symptoms of arthritis
* lower-back pain
* and enhancing flexibility

All of this is backed up by properly performed studies published in reputable, peer-reviewed scientific journals, comprising nearly 30 pages of references contained at the end of the book.

Body by Science goes into great detail on the dose-response relationship of exercise and proves just how little high intensity exercise is actually required for best results - far less than many people believe - also backed up by scientific research and the results of a combined 30 years of supervising and tracking the progress of thousands of trainees through tens of thousands of workouts.

While the book is not heavy on routines - and once you'll read it you'll understand why it doesn't need to be - it offers a solid starting point along with recommendations for variations using different equipment and for more advanced trainees. It also covers the appropriate use of advanced high intensity training methods such as forced reps, partials, static holds, rest-pause, negative-only, SuperSlow and Max Contraction.

Body by Science also explains the numerous genetic factors determining individual muscular potential and response to exercise, and how this information can be used to fine tune your workouts to get the best results possible. The chapter on genetics also contains an interesting discussion of epigenetics - how high intensity strength training influences the expression of your genes.

Chapter 9, The Science of Fat Loss, destroys numerous myths while explaining how training, diet and other factors combined to produce discriminated fat loss. It further debunks the popular misconception that aerobics or "cardio" are effective or even necessary for fat loss.

Chapters 10 and 11 address the training requirements of athletes and seniors and how the concepts and principles explained in the book should be adapted for those populations, including specific routines for football, hockey, baseball and golf. Chapter 10, The Ideal Training Programs for Athletes, also addresses numerous popular misconceptions about skill training, conditioning, stretching, warming up, and cross-training. Chapter 11, The Ideal Training Programs for Seniors, explains the numerous benefits high intensity strength training has for seniors, including how strength training reverses the effects of aging on the expression of numerous genes.

All in all, Body by Science is one of the best HIT books I've read in a long time, and I highly recommend it.

Dr. McGuff has written a thought provoking book that when discussed with people who exercise regularly, will spark conversation, thought, and even argument. It is amazing how wedded we are to our beliefs about exercise, myself included. I have been involved in fitness for 25 years, and considered myself fairly knowledgeable. However, I began to rethink my beliefs and realised that I had held on to some old dogma that needed to be discarded. I began to apply HIT principles to my weight workouts and dropped my "cardio", which my aching knee promptly thanked me. I then started cleaning up my diet with Paleo style eating and the results are great! No more pounding the pavement or my knee to reduce bodyfat, it is all about muscle and diet. If you can open your mind to this material then the sky is the limit.

I was working out 3 days a week for about 2 hours a day for about a year with no noticeable gains in strength or stamina. I was running, jogging, walking, lifting weights, swimming etc etc etc.... sure I got better at running and such eventually but I still felt like crap. I still had nothing to really show for my work.

a friend started doing this program and sent me a basic over view of the workout routine and asked me to try it. I only did it for 4 weeks and each week I saw decent gains in strength (either more reps or more weight or more time per set). I ordered the book read it cover to cover and have not looked back since. 10 minutes once a week. I am getting in the best shape of my life and it only takes a few minutes out of my week?!

I would also like to point out that the book suggests against normal cardio and I can see why. your blood gets pumping just fine after this workout. more importantly once you start feeling good about your physical shape you are much more likely to take up sports and hobbies that get you cardio done just fine. I have taken up kayaking, rock climbing, cycling and hiking. 2 years ago I was 280lbs and could not climb a flight of stairs without feeling like I was going to pass out. I am down to 210 (I am 5'11") and still making great progress both in fat loss and building muscle.

I coupled this program with the information from "How I lost xxx lbs .pdf" from Rob - [...] and the paleo diet. Been going great so far.

oh as for numbers I will give you a brief example. when I started this program I could only do the leg press (squat machine so my weight + machine weight) @ 60lbs for 8 reps to failure 6 months later I am doing 400lbs (max on the squat machine I am using) and failing at 18reps. I need to find a new machine to work my legs on.... yeah this program works... no question about it.

thanks
Thomas

There has been a lot of buzz over this exercise concept during the last fifteen years or so, with a gaggle of books out hyping the idea that slowing down rep speeds during resistance exercise is the "best" way to exercise, bar none. Readers have probably seen many titles promoting variations of this theme, such as "The Slow Burn Fitness Revolution", "Power of 10", and so on. Slowing down concentric and eccentric reps is not a new idea, it probably goes back over a century (heck, maybe even back to Cro-Magnon times, Fred Flintstone probably experimented with it), but the idea really started taking off due to the efforts of Ken Hutchins promoting his "SuperSlow" (TM) protocol in the 90s and beyond. Soon thereafter, SuperSlow "Zones" starting branching off from central Florida and appearing in various cities around the country, offering very short workouts twice a week for people "short on time". Certainly there were lucrative business opportunities here...
Mr/Ms. Average American never has any time, except 6 hours of TV a night, and certainly does not like to move more than required, so these promises of "20 minutes, twice a week", or in the case of Body By Science, "12 minutes a week", certainly appeal to folks who want to get in their 12-20 minutes and get out. The trouble is, slo-mo training is painful, which unfortunately tends to hurt long-term compliance. Bad for business.

So what is so hot about slowing down rep speeds that encourages its proponents to hype it as the ultimate form of exercise? Indeed, many of the staunchest proponents say no other form of exercise is necessary, especially steady-state aerobics. Most slo-mo proponents actually poo-poo ANY type of cardiovascular training, even HIIT interval-training that has been shown to be very effective in numerous studies. Ken Hutchins is well-known for nixing cardio, especially. And in this book, Dr. Doug McGuff echoes the same theme, viewing any cardio as probably unnecessary or even worthless. Certainly it is fair to say this is a minority opinion among exercise physiologists and researchers in general, and the actual scientific literature usually points out a synergistic effect of combining strength training with some type of cardio. Indeed, these are two separate modalities of training that produce different physiological effects on muscle tissue, glucose transport, insulin sensitivity and so on; each form of exercise affects these parameters in different ways. It is difficult, therefore, to buy the SuperSlow arguments that only one form of exercise is necessary (i.e., muscle strengthening), or that slo-mo strength training should *replace* all cardiovascular work. Hutchins and Co., in fact, have received a huge amount of backlash from exercise experts on this idea of "all cardio is worthless". The idea that the only form of exercise that is worthwhile is "strengthening muscle", which all of the slow-mo proponents spout, is a creative re-visioning of the term "exercise". And it is an idea, if taken to the extremes that McGuff does, that has zero support in the clinical literature. I have gone over some of the limitations of exercise done ONLY above the anaerobic threshold in another review (interested readers can read my comments in a review of Craig Ballantyne's "Turbulence Training" system; his book is entitled "Just Say No To Cardio"). I submit a different working definition of "worthwhile exercise", which is more in tune with the goals everyone should be looking for: "that which in general decreases low-grade systemic inflammation and oxidative stress, and improves one's endothelial health, insulin sensitivity, and lean muscle tissue."

Yes, weights are important, especially for that last component. But weights aren't necessarily superior in promoting some of the other parameters, alas. Saying weights produces superior results, say, in insulin sensitivity to traditional steady-state aerobics, is selectively ignoring a lot of clinical research. And that should be a problem for an MD like McGuff, who only sees the anaerobic side of the picture. Defining your goal (narrowly) to only "muscle exertion" completely ignores the role of type-I oxidative muscle fibers -not to mention the role of fatty-acid metabolism- in fitness and health, and McGuff's biased presentation on this point should be pointed out. Readers-ask yourselves here- do you know anybody who certainly has some serious muscle mass, yet gets out of breath doing simple routine tasks? I certainly do. In fact, in my observation, the situation is common among muscle-heads. Fact is, some of these folks are NOT training in a balanced manner, regardless of what "experts" like McGuff are telling you about the superiority of intense muscle exertion. Quite clearly, this should be a warning flag that there is something wrong with this scenario. We can't really make the excuse that we are only talking about "specificity of training" here when someone can't even perform simple sustained tasks without being breathless, can we? Obviously, the problem is more general: a complete lack of conditioning of the cardiovascular sytem.

I also have a problem with the slo-mo proponents trying to use studies done on HIIT (i.e., interval or sprint-type exercise) to justify the methodology of slo-mo weight training. True enough, both these forms of exercise utilize "muscle exertion" and very high intensity, but, for example, is one prolonged set of the leg press really the same as a series of bicycle sprints? For McGuff and Co., since their premise is that muscle exertion is the key here, and both these examples utilize the leg muscles in high-intensity exertion, we could substitute one for the other and get equal results. Well, this premise is something folks should be questioning; are we really looking at an apples-to-apples comparison? If you just read what McGuff and his slo-mo buddies are saying, one should be able to freely extrapolate the results of studies on HIIT to a slo-mo session on weights. McGuff and his slo-mo friends love those studies on interval training, such as the famous Tabata protocol, or the recent one where subjects sprinted all-out 30 seconds, 4-6 times per session, three times a week. Is that exactly the same as doing McGuff's routine in his book? In his paradigm, these are all similar examples of "high-intensity muscle exertion" and should produce the same results....I say, reader, beware of invalid comparisons. Certainly the burden is on McGuff and Co. to produce the evidence; there isn't anything in the exercise literature, to my knowledge, that compares HIIT "sprints" with McGuff's slo-mo routine and gets equal results. And that is the problem here- McGuff has his theory and is making some questionable comparisons with no real published data. (And I won't belabor the point that most of these HIIT benefits were typically a result of sprint-type-training 3 times a week, which McGuff says isn't necessary). Slo-mo fans, if you know of such studies, please provide us readers with the data. Otherwise, we need to take this borrowing of HIIT "sprint" results with a large grain of salt.

But enough on the anti-cardio sentiments seen in these books. Let's comment briefly on the results claimed by slo-mo proponents. This book, Body by Science, certainly offers many arguments supporting the idea that slo-mo training (in this case, intense 10-second concentric with 10-second eccentric reps) is valuable in a variety of health areas. I won't argue with these claims, they are supported by numerous studies involving resistance exercise in general, and there is no reason to believe the particular protocol offered by McGuff and Co. would be any different. Where things start to go wrong here, however, is when slo-mo proponents claim their methods are *superior* to any other type of resistance training for producing these results. Proponents are usually fond citing a couple studies by Wayne Westcott that seemingly "showed" superior results for slo-mo training, but these studies have been reviewed by skeptics and have received criticisms, which would make them interesting studies but of questionable worth. Other studies have compared slo-mo with more traditional training protocols and found the slo-mo methods inferior. I guess it boils down to which studies you want to select to "prove" your point.

And what is with this "10-second concentric, 10-second eccentric" hype? Is there anything magical about "10 seconds", as if we've suddenly discovered the gospel of resistance training now? The claim, of course, is that by demanding long periods of what exercise geeks call "time-under-tension", muscles receive a maximal amount of microtrauma, and therefore, long extended-reps produce the best muscle gains. While there is some truth to the idea that extended periods on reps produce greater microtrauma, especially on the *eccentric* portion, there isn't any documented literature supporting the protocol of 10 seconds being anything magical. Why not 8 or 6 seconds? Heck, if 10 is good, why not 50 seconds each direction, using a weight so light a parakeet could lift it?
As a case in point on the folly of drawing premature conclusions on rep-speeds, which is hardly an exact science, a recent 2009 study compared a typical 2-3 second concentric plus 2-3 second eccentric cadence, vs. the same eccentric period but only a 1-second (explosive) concentric. What did they find? The latter actually produced better results mass-wise.

Well, this is getting long so let us sum up. Is slo-mo training actually worthwhile? I think it is. The observation that most weight lifters use too much momentum certainly strikes home- just observe the guys in your local gym bouncing heavy weights up off their chest, etc.. So using slo-mo reps certainly teaches one to pay more attention to the quality of one's reps. Slowing down the eccentric portion, specifically, is valuable in producing optimal microtrauma, which means more lean muscle during the rebuilding process. Which leads us to another good observation. The argument from slo-mo proponents that most folks lift too much per session, and much too often, is certainly valid. Better recovery is a strong argument, considering how much the typical weight enthusiast trains... Plus, all of the health benefits of weight training in general, as laid out so well in this book, argue that weights, particularly a HIT (high-intensity) protocol, should be an essential part of anyone's exercise program.

Negatives? The hype over very long reps being somehow "superior" to traditional forms of weight training is certainly questionable. Just because slo-mo training CAN produce good results, as HIT guru Drew Baye has observed, it doesn't follow that the results are necessarily superior to other rep speeds... Also, we don't have space here to discuss slo-mo claims to improve sports/athletic performance, which is an area where often explosive movement needs to be trained specifically as part of the skill-set. Specificity-of-training is an important physiological concept, and slo-mo doesn't really address these sports concerns well, as critics have pointed out.

So, is the book worth buying? Yes. But go light on all the hype.