Buying Options
| Digital List Price: | $18.90 |
| Kindle Price: | $9.99 Save $8.91 (47%) |
Your Memberships & Subscriptions
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required. Learn more
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
Follow the Authors
OK
Body by Science: A Research Based Program to Get the Results You Want in 12 Minutes a Week Kindle Edition
| Price | New from | Used from |
|
Audible Audiobook, Unabridged
"Please retry" |
$0.00
| Free with your Audible trial | |
|
Spiral-bound
"Please retry" | $35.95 | — |
|
Audio CD, CD, Unabridged
"Please retry" | $27.29 | — |
Building muscle has never been faster or
easier than with this revolutionary once-a-week
training program
In Body By Science, bodybuilding powerhouse John Little teams up with fitness medicine expert Dr. Doug McGuff to present a scientifically proven formula for maximizing muscle development in just 12 minutes a week. Backed by rigorous research, the authors prescribe a weekly high-intensity program for increasing strength, revving metabolism, and building muscle for a total fitness experience.
- LanguageEnglish
- PublisherMcGraw Hill
- Publication dateDecember 17, 2008
- File size3285 KB
-
Next 4 for you in this series
$53.98 -
All 18 available for you in this series
$250.73
Customers who viewed this item also viewed
Editorial Reviews
From the Publisher
Doug McGuff, M.D., owns the state-of-the-art personal training facility Ultimate-Exercise. He lectures on exercise science all over the world.
John Little is a columnist for Ironman magazine and the innovator of three revolutionary training protocols, including Max Contraction Training. He and his wife, Teri, own Nautilus North Strength & Fitness Centre and have supervised more than 60,000 workouts.
Learn more at www.bodybyscience.net
--This text refers to the paperback edition.Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.
Body by Science
A RESEARCH-BASED PROGRAM FOR STRENGTH TRAINING, BODY BUILDING, AND COMPLETE FITNESS IN 12 MINUTES A WEEKBy DOUG McGUFF JOHN LITTLEMcGraw-Hill
Copyright © 2009 Doug McGuff and Northern River Productions, Inc.All right reserved.
ISBN: 978-0-07-159717-3
Contents
Chapter One
Defining Health, Fitness, and ExerciseStrange as it may sound, fitness is a state that lacks a precise definition. Most of us use the term without really knowing what it is we're talking about. The fitness industry offers no definitions, nor does the medical industry.
A similar problem arises when one attempts to obtain a valid definition of health. In preparing to write this book, we looked extensively into the scientific literature, including many medical textbooks, to seek out a definition. We were surprised to discover that the terms health and fitness—while bandied about liberally within the fields of medicine, health care, and physical training—have never been given a universally agreed-upon definition. When examining his textbook from medical school, The Pathologic Basis of Disease, Doug discovered that while this book had no difficulty defining pathology, it never once presented a definition of health.
The balance of catabolism and anabolism
People routinely refer to health and fitness as if the two concepts were cojoined. The popular assumption is that as one's level of physical fitness rises, the level of health rises along with it. Unfortunately, no direct scientific link between these two conditions exists. The human body, you see, is never static; it is a dynamic organism that carries on a perpetual balancing act between breaking down (catabolism) and building up (anabolism). This is how your blood-clotting system functions, for example. It is continually breaking down and building up clots, keeping a balance between your blood viscosity and coagulability to ensure a smooth flow and still stem any bleeding that should occur (but not so aggressively as to produce clogged arteries and infarcts). Your pH balance, blood gases, hormone levels, electrolytes, fluid levels, and innumerable other complex processes are constantly shifting and changing as well within these catabolic and anabolic processes. Life, in essence, depends on this precise balance between a catabolic state and an anabolic state, and this balance is what defines the health of the organism.
In brief, these states can be summarized as follows:
Catabolic: Anything that results in the breakdown of the organism.
Anabolic: Anything that results in growth and differentiation of the organism.
Looking back at our species' hunter-gatherer days, we know that there were long periods when starvation was a real threat. During those times, a catabolic state would have predominated. Despite the obvious negative effects, research into calorie restriction and life extension has revealed that during such catabolic states the vast majority of DNA repair occurs. The lesson here is that a catabolic state is a necessary component of health, rather than something to be avoided. Knowing this, we must factor the catabolic and anabolic processes into any definition of health that we create. Health implies a disease-free state, and so the definition must acknowledge this component as well. Thus, given the lack of a working definition from the fitness and medical worlds, we cautiously offer the following:
Health: A physiological state in which there is an absence of disease or pathology and that maintains the necessary biologic balance between the catabolic and anabolic states.
The body's ability to sustain this balance between the catabolic and anabolic states manifests in an ability to make adaptive adjustments, thereby allowing for survival. Each and every day, your body must face numerous challenges, such as exposure to the various elements, muscular exertion, and the presence of pathogens. If it does not successfully adapt to these challenges, it is ill equipped to survive. Fitness, then, can be said to be the body's ability to withstand, recover from, and adapt to environmental threats in the form of stress-producing agents that act upon the organism. Or, stated another way:
Fitness: The bodily state of being physiologically capable of handling challenges that exist above a resting threshold of activity.
What is exercise?
To fully understand the relationship among exercise, fitness, and health, it is necessary to know precisely what exercise is, as opposed to mere physical activity. 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. Therefore, we advance the following as our definition of exercise based on known facts:
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.
Thousands of activities are popularly thought of as exercise, ranging from walking and running to calisthenics, weight training, and yoga. However, many of these activities do not qualify as exercise by our definition, either because they are inefficient at stimulating the mechanical and metabolic adaptations necessary to benefit the fitness (and, to a large extent, the health) of our bodies or because their continued performance results in an undermining of bodily health.
It is for this latter reason that we must exclude activities such as jogging and running from being considered as exercise. This determination may be upsetting to some, particularly those who run or jog, but the hard truth is that those who select running as their modality of exercise are taking a huge risk. Studies have documented that 60 percent of runners are injured in an average year, with one running injury occurring for every one hundred hours of performance.
The damage caused by running will often manifest after a period of fifteen to twenty years of performing the activity, such as when runners who started in early adulthood reach the age of forty or fifty and find that they are no longer able to climb a flight of stairs without their knees aching; or they experience difficulty in lifting their arms above head level because of osteophytes (bone spurs) that have formed in the shoulder joint; or they can't turn or bend anymore because of chronic lower-back pain. These are progressive conditions, rather than immediate ones, and are consequences of inappropriate activities and activity levels that are chronically catabolic and are performed far too frequently to allow an anabolic state to manifest.
Even activities that are considered "mild" can become problematic in this respect. For instance, the thousands of rotations of the shoulder and elbow joint that take place over a career of playing recreational tennis can lead to osteoarthritis, even though the actual weight being moved in a tennis racket is modest. Any activity that is highly repetitive has wear-and-tear consequences that will sooner or later override the body's ability to recover and repair itself. If these types of activities are performed frequently (many times a week), they will typically manifest sooner.
Health and fitness-what's the connection?
When we looked at the scientific literature, we found not only a lack of definition for fitness and health but also, and even more surprising, a minimal (at best) correlation between exercise and health.
Many people have it in their minds that athletes are healthy because they are fit. However, if you look across the board at the professional level of sport, and if you analyze the statistics and health profiles of these athletes, you will find that, while they have supranormal levels of fitness, the means they employ to achieve this level of fitness may actually undermine their health. Most athletes who compete at a world-class level do not achieve that level of world-class performance in a way that enhances their health, and this is simply because it is not possible to do so. This is particularly the case if the sport in question is looking for a level of physical performance that is not necessarily part of the natural evolutionary background of our species.
A classical example is the tale of Euchidas, which comes down to us from the famed Greek historian Plutarch (C. A.D. 46–A.D. 120). After a Greek victory over the Persians at the battle of Platæa in 479 B.C., Euchidas ran to Delphi and back:
... Euchidas of Plaæa, who promised that he would fetch fire as quickly as possible, proceeded to Delphi. There he purified his body, and having been besprinkled with holy water and crowned with laurel, took fire from the altar, set off running back to Platæa, and arrived thereabout sunset, having run a distance of a hundred and twenty-five miles in one day. He embraced his fellow citizens, handed the fire to them, fell down, and in a few moments died.
And then there is the oft-told legend of Euchidas's contemporary, another distance runner named Pheidippides, which was originally reported by the Greek historian Herodotus (c. 484 B.C.–C. 425 B.C.), and transmitted to future generations by Roman historians such as Lucian (C. A.D. 125–after A.D. 180).4 According to the legend, a Greek runner by the name of Pheidippides ran in excess of 145 miles (from Athens to Sparta) in roughly twenty-four hours, which was quite a display of ultraendurance athleticism. Pheidippides followed up on this feat by running an additional twenty-six miles from Marathon to Athens to announce the Greek victory. When he reached Athens he proclaimed (depending upon which ancient historian you read) either "Nike!" ("Victory!") or "Be happy! We have won!" Regardless, the ending to this tale is the same as that of Euchidas's: Pheidippides then fell to the ground—dead.
It's little wonder that an athlete's health would be gravely impaired by such an activity. According to the account of Herodotus, in that first run, from Athens to Sparta, Pheidippides completed the equivalent of back-to-back ultramarathons totaling more than two hundred kilometers.
Even more mind-boggling is the fact that, rather than being put off the notion of running such distances because of the health dangers, people instead raise monuments to the memory of Pheidippides by staging "marathons" and even the International Spartathlon race, which has its athletes running over purportedly the same 147.2-mile route from Athens to Sparta. To no surprise, some modern extremists in the realm of fitness have either met the same premature end as their Grecian counterpart (such as the author and running guru Jim Fixx) or suffered a host of ailments that are not compatible with long-term health and survival. The scientific literature is filled with data that strongly make the case that long-distance runners are much more likely to develop cardiovascular disease, atrial fibrillation, cancer, liver and gallbladder disorders, muscle damage, kidney dysfunction (renal abnormalities), acute microthrombosis in the vascular system, brain damage, spinal degeneration, and germ-cell cancers than are their less active counterparts.
Unaware of the anabolic/catabolic relationship, or that the pursuit of fitness can result in decidedly negative health consequences, most people still associate fitness (or exercise) with health. Instead of recognizing health as a delicate balance of opposite yet interrelated processes, they believe it to be something that is expressed across a broad continuum that never caps out. They assume there are increasing degrees of "better" health, as opposed to picturing health as the absence of disease. In reality, fitness and health are not extrinsically linked; as one goes up, the other does not necessarily go up with it.
With the correct modality of exercise, health and fitness can in fact track along together, at least to a point. However, simply performing physical activity can create a physiological situation whereby fitness levels rise, but health actually declines. This is the consequence of attempting to drive a level of specific metabolic adaptation for fitness that results in an imbalance between the anabolic and catabolic states.
We evolved as an organism that had to expend energy to acquire energy. This was the work-based way by which we acquired food and shelter to survive. It required a minimal level of activity, with intermittent high levels of muscular exertion and intensity. A balance was struck between the catabolic state that was a by-product of the exertion necessary to sustain ourselves and the anabolic state of being able to rest and recoup the energy required to obtain the nutrition needed to fuel the activities involved in our survival.
Fast-forwarding to our present-day situation, rather than a food paucity, there is a food abundance, and laborsaving technology relieves us from needing to expend as much energy to obtain that nourishment. As a result, there has been a compromise in our health that is the exact opposite of the problem that the endurance athlete faces; that is, there is now a huge portion of the population whose physical activity is of such low intensity that catabolism doesn't occur to any meaningful extent. There is no mechanism by which to drive a physiological adaptation for health or fitness.
It has been assumed that physical activity, per se, is responsible for health enhancement, but that assumption is flawed at the core. Such "health" benefits as might occur result only from one's current activity levels being so subnormal compared with our species' DNA blueprint that even a slight increase in activity produces some improvement. Raising one's muscular effort from a near sedentary state to a level slightly closer to what our species' DNA has encoded over tens of thousands of years (and which has changed significantly only in the past forty or fifty years) is by no means an optimal route to health.
People who believe that there is a constant and linear relationship between fitness and health are akin to a person who decides to measure water levels while standing at the beach. He takes the first measurement at low tide. When he sees the tide turn, he takes another measurement and notes that the tide rose five feet in twenty minutes. He checks it again and discovers that it has now risen fifteen feet in thirty minutes. He then concludes that in two weeks, the whole continent will be underwater.
This is the nature of the mistake we make when we observe increased activity levels supporting a slight upward tracking in the improvement of health. Health will improve—but only up until it rises to a normal physiological baseline. One thing that quickly becomes apparent from studying the scientific literature on overly active groups such as extreme-endurance athletes is that, in their quest to achieve higher and higher tiers of dominance in their field by extending their physical activity level to its limit, it is entirely possible (and probable) that the methods they typically employ in their training, combined with the rigors of long competitive seasons, will result in serious compromises in their health and shortened life spans.
The good news is that science now has a better understanding of how the human organism adapts and recovers. With that understanding comes the knowledge that it is possible to participate in a form of exercise that produces supranormal levels of fitness without compromising health and that, in many ways, serves to enhance health. This scientific knowledge has been gained through rational analysis, understanding, and application, based on the variables of volume (amount of exercise), intensity (effort and energy expended), and frequency (how often the activity is performed). When applied to an exercise program, these findings can result in the achievement of supranormal levels of function, in terms of fitness, while simultaneously maximizing health so that it reaches its natural peak.
The quest for longevity
As we grow older, we naturally desire to grow older still. In this pursuit, we associate life with health, and health with fitness. So, it seems natural to inquire as to what exercises, what nutritional supplements, and even what drugs are available to aid us in our goal of living longer. It should be acknowledged that longevity, as with fitness, is not necessarily linked to health. It can be, but the important thing to remember is that health is ultimately linked to DNA—the self-replicating molecule that creates our bodies. The purpose of the body from the DNA's standpoint is merely to function as a vehicle to carry it forward into the future.
In our species' hunter-gatherer days, health was important to the degree that it allowed us to survive, as what brought us down most of the time were environmental factors such as disease, predators, childbirth, and trauma. Those are events that occur irrespective of one's level of fitness. Only through the application of human intellect and technology did longevity ever become an issue, or ever have an opportunity to track along with health.
(Continues...)
Excerpted from Body by Scienceby DOUG McGUFF JOHN LITTLE Copyright © 2009 by Doug McGuff and Northern River Productions, Inc.. Excerpted by permission of McGraw-Hill. All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
About the Author
Doug McGuff, M.D., owns the state-of-the-art personal training facility Ultimate-Exercise. He lectures on exercise science all over the world.
John Little is a columnist for Ironman magazine and the innovator of three revolutionary training protocols, including Max Contraction Training. He and his wife, Teri, own Nautilus North Strength & Fitness Centre and have supervised more than 60,000 workouts.
Learn more at www.bodybyscience.net
--This text refers to the paperback edition.Product details
- ASIN : B001NLL38S
- Publisher : McGraw Hill; 1st edition (December 17, 2008)
- Publication date : December 17, 2008
- Language : English
- File size : 3285 KB
- Simultaneous device usage : Up to 4 simultaneous devices, per publisher limits
- Text-to-Speech : Enabled
- Screen Reader : Supported
- Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
- X-Ray : Enabled
- Word Wise : Enabled
- Sticky notes : On Kindle Scribe
- Print length : 306 pages
- Best Sellers Rank: #73,120 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
- #9 in Quick Workouts (Kindle Store)
- #20 in Weight Training (Kindle Store)
- #24 in Quick Workouts (Books)
- Customer Reviews:
About the authors

John Little is uniquely suited to the task of relating the philosophy of Bruce Lee and his approach to life. Little has a degree in philosophy from McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, is the author of two books on health and fitness (having spent over fifteen years as a writer for several fitness magazines), and is himself a student of Lee's art of jeet kune do.
Selected by the Bruce Lee estate, Little is the only person who has ever been authorized to review the entirety of Lee's personal notes, sketches, and reading annotations and to edit books on the subject of Lee's martial art and its far-reaching philosophical underpinnings. Little's keen awareness of the subtleties of both Eastern and Western philosophy coupled with a respect for the preservation of the essence of Lee's words and meaning give this book an integrity that is all too rare.

Discover more of the author’s books, see similar authors, read author blogs and more
Customer reviews
Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.
To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.
Learn more how customers reviews work on AmazonReviewed in the United States on July 1, 2019
-
Top reviews
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
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.
Why, you might ask, am I still here at an age where very few people are able to do a high intensity whole body workout? The answer to this is that several years ago, I discovered Ken Hutchin's work with Super Slow exercise protocols. I studied these, took them to heart, and because I did, I'm still here.
I see Body by Science as an interesting extension of Ken's work. Here is my experience with telling my exercise story of slow, smooth reps, smooth turnarounds, and working to muscle failure. I will list these observations in no particular order because some will be more important than others depending on the audience.
1. Most gym rats who buy the argument that more is better will simply not accept the 20 minute workout once a week routine, and will find all kinds of arguments against it. (I still get questions from thirty-somethings about how I maintain my strength and physique at such an advanced age. When I tell them about what I do, they just don't believe it is possible. This, I think, is due to bilge put out by the fitness/supplement industry, and a general lack of knowledge in the average gym dweller.)
2. These 20 minute workout sessions are extremely intense, and mind numbingly boring. Most gym goers will not stay with this long enough to realize the striking gains they will experience if they do.
3. Most do not/will not keep records, and have no idea where they stand, or how to analyze the results if they do. Accurate record keeping is essential with this protocol.
4. To me, the big plus of slow reps is the ability to use lighter weights with slower movements, all but eliminating the injuries that plague those always wanting to go higher in the bench press, dead lift, etc.. This "go higher" foolishness is how I wrecked my right shoulder. Nonetheless, most people working out in gyms buy the "more is better" mantra.
5. Students starting out on this protocol will still need a trainer. This will be true for some time well into the protocol - some will need a trainer indefinitely. "Inroading" as described in this book is extremely intense, really hard to do, and the stronger you get the harder it is.
6. Finally, most people who pay big bucks to join a trendy gym will not be satisfied using it once a week for twenty or even fewer minutes. They will be tempted by all the fancy equipment and the often absurd (box jumping for example) urban legends infecting the modern fitness movement.
The book touches only briefly on these issues. Admittedly, they are mostly psychological in nature, but they still would be the ones most likely to stop the book's slow/inroading protocols in their tracks. These mental road blocks should, I think, be examined more in depth, as the actual exercise protocols are really quite simple compared to tackling the ingrained mind sets that feed into fitness in all its iterations.
One last thing, the book does a great job of stressing that recovery, not more and more exercise, is what builds strength. But there is another kind of recovery the authors totally miss, here it is: Muscle strength increases rapidly with the inroading technique, but muscle strength increase is always ahead of supporting tissues like tendons, fascia, ligaments, and joints. This, and yanky-jerky movements explains why most injuries associated with weight bearing exercises are not to the muscle but to supporting tissues (tendonitis is ubiquitous, sore joints are a close second).
Yanky/jerky movements are replaced by the protocol's slowing down of reps and turnarounds, but the strength gap is still there, maybe even more pronounced due to the rapid muscle strength gains resulting from the inroading process. What to do?
I have found from my personal experience, that I have eliminated tendonitis completely, and lessened joint aches to the point they're hardly noticeable, simply by plateauing every third month. This does not mean taking time off, but means just holding steady in my training so my muscle's supporting tissues can catch up.
I wish the book or a newer addition of it would address this issue - I'd like to know more about it myself. Couch potatoes and the elderly especially, could easily see a doubling of muscle strength in their first three to four months after starting this protocol - you can bet that by comparison, their supporting tissues are weak. I am not a medical professional, but this plateauing works in my case, and it makes logical sense for certain classes of individuals using the protocols.
All in all, I found this book interesting in that I discovered many things I did not know. It was well worth the price.
P.S. Another request for the next edition...Where does the protocol stop? Where and how do you level off and go into a maintenance mode? Nobody can make strength gains indefinitely.
Top reviews from other countries
The only trouble with 'Body By Science' is that it is 95% science, most of which I skipped over because I don't need to know how my individual muscle fibres work and which genes do what, I just want to know what exercises I need to do and how to do them to get big.
If he hadn't waffled on about the science bit so much, the actual instruction part would have filled a small 20 page 99p Kindle book and would basically tell you that you need to use a weight heavy enough to lift each rep ten seconds up and ten seconds down for a maximum of ninety seconds once a week and increase the weight by 5% the following week. That's it really and you can find all this on the Internet. It's hard though, much harder than normal weight lifting, though I'm not suffering from the DOMS as much as I thought I would.
Alternatively if you like science and reading about human biology, buy the book.
It's tempting to lean on my own anecdotes to support McGuff's claims but that's entirely missing the point of this book. The point is that this book *is* really just a summarised compendium of a huge amount of meticulously assembled, high quality, scientific research - we are way past the point of requiring anecdotal evidence so I don't need to go on about my mate who got bigger and stronger even though he cut his total gym-time by a huge percentage. If you really are committed to actual, rather than bro, science, then you can just depend on the studies for your information.
Without getting too conspiratorial, there are some understandable reasons that this way of training is not predominant, ranging from simple convention and ritual (e.g. you must train 45 minutes 4-5 times a week because that's what people have been doing for a long time) through commercial interest in sustaining this mythology. I found that I didn't want to accept this information as first, and I like to think I'm reasonable, i.e. open to changing my mind if presented with a new model of fitness that has greater explanatory power than my existing one. I like going to the gym, I like seeing my mates there, I like the sense of sacrifice that comes with putting in a good hour, I like burning out and perversely, I like the DOMS. There is a lot to let go of and after changing your life for the better once when you started training, you probably don't want to have to change again, right? Be honest with yourself about this before you attempt to engage with this material or you'll probably reject it out of hand.
The long and short is that unless you somehow figured this out on your own, before you have read this book you are probably quite seriously wrong in your understanding in the biological phenomena underpinning metabolic function, muscle fibre stimulation for maximal growth, session length, intensity and optimum recovery time (this last one is particularly challenging; guess what, you really shouldn't be hitting a muscle group more than once a week at most). As it turns out, intensity is the key, folks - you might not be in the gym so long after reading this but my God, when you do you will be hitting it hard.
However, the main concerns with this book is the terrible demonstrations of the free-weight examples of the lifts. It's horrifying to look at the photos of the deadlift and squat demos, and these people seem to know very little about barbell technique.
Also, Mike Mentzer is often cited. He is the bodybuilder most closely linked to HIT - a one-set to failure, low frequency monster. He trained every 10 days, and was huge. But he was huge because he was on drugs. All bodybuilders of that age (and most ages) take drugs. Studies shows you can put on more muscle by taking steroids and doing nothing than by lifting weights and NOT taking steroids. So Mentzer could have sat on his couch all day and STILL put on mass due to the stacks he was on. So dreadful example, really.
But, you know, the workout is sensible for non-serious gymgoers.
I came across this book after reading Headstrong by Dave Asprey.
The book is grounded in science and explains how infrequent but intense exercise can be more beneficial for your body than hours of slogging it out in the gym.
The book makes a great point: Fitness does not equal health!
Years of jogging may improve your cardio conditioning but sooner or later expect to develop joint problems.
The whole premise is too focus on building fitness that improves your health, not erode it.
Great book!







