Body by Science vs Younger Next Year

[braumeister]

I'm using a new program called LIIFT: low-intensity, infrequent training.

Working like a charm...

Sounds like my evening routine of arm curls with a one pound weight that gets slightly lighter with each rep.

 

[haha]

Sounds like my evening routine of arm curls with a one pound weight that gets slightly lighter with each rep.

That's called a pyramid.

Ha

 

[braumeister]

That's called a pyramid.

Ha

No, it's called a pint.

 

[eytonxav]

That's called a pyramid.

Ha

Actually, that would be a reverse pyramid

 

[TromboneAl]

OK, I finished reading the book yesterday. Thanks, Don, for bringing this up.

I find the arguments pretty compelling. One problem is that I'm not impressed with the authors.

If I'm going to bet my life on what the authors say, I want to be convinced that they are smart. When reading Younger Next Year (YNY) or Taubes' books, I felt that the authors were smart guys who had done a lot of thinking. The books demonstrated their logical thinking and reasoning skills.

In Body by Science (BBS), there were many things that made me feel that it was written by two jocks, one with a medical degree but no scientific training (I've seen lots of MDs with a poor understanding of science). Perhaps they just aren't good at expressing themselves, but at least they should have recognized that they needed some help.

Here's an example. In the intro, they say (paraphrasing): "We couldn't find any definitions of health, fitness, and exercise, so we have written our own." Here is their definition of "exercise:"

That's great that they want to make the point that some exercises are not prodctive, but there's no point in redefining the word "exercise." Running may not be good, productive exercise, but if you are saying that going for a five-mile run is not exercise, you are not communicating well.

And then, they never actually use the word exercise in their redefined sense. That is, they'll say things like "To qualify as productive exercise..." By their definition, all exercise is productive, so they are actually using the term in the traditional sense. This whole thing about redefining the word exercise is unnecessary. Just say that some exercises are not productive.

Just semantics? Maybe, but it demonstrates a lack of the critical thinking I want to see. If they are stupid here are they stupid in their interpretation of the science?

Minor point? Yes, but I saw many examples of things like this.

Another example: To make the point that not everyone can get big muscles, they use an analogy related to trees: some trees stand out from the others due to genetic variation, and in the same way Arnold is probably just genetically different from you.

But the analogy is not useful. I'd expect that genetic variation would produce a wide range of tree heights, those big trees might be older, might be next to a pond, might be on higher ground, or might be a different species.

My point here is that this analogy didn't make anything clearer. If they were smart, careful thinkers, they would have noticed that and used a better analogy.

Another example, check out this graph and explanation:

The lines and axes are not labelled, and the graph doesn't match up with the text ("...the other two lines."). Yes, perhaps the publisher just got the wrong graph. But there are other examples of poorly conceived illustrations and carelessness in the book. If the authors are not meticulous in things like this, are they also not meticulous in their review of the research?

Finally, although the authors see the problems of carbohydrates, their explanations of why people are fat (primarily: "there's too much food available") are easily refuted by research. They didn't do their homework here.

---------------------

Having said that, the research they cite certainly suggests that short once-per-week, slow, intensive weight training might be the best way to exercise. Perhaps, like Don, I'm just attracted to something that will eliminate those "Oh no, I have to exercise this afternoon!" moments.

I like the idea of designing the lifts so that all the different muscle fibers are recruited. I can see how that's the best way to promote cardiovascular health, and I can understand how long, low intensity work leaves many muscle fibers dormant.

I'm not sure I could make myself go through with the superslow lifts, however, since I've found them to be so unpleasant. The authors pretty much say that you can't get full benefit without someone to exhort you to work harder, and without well-designed Nautilus machines.

Many of you have talked about a compromise between BBS and YNY -- doing some walking or biking in addition to the once/week lifting. I'm not sure a compromise is possible. According to BBS, if you don't rest, you will benefit less from the lifting. OTOH, they only cite studies that say that lifting more than once per week is inefficient. They say nothing explicitly about doing other exercises during the rest period. That is, there are no studies that show that walking prevents the healing/resting time.

My current plan is to try this system and see how it goes, but I'll probably still do other exercises during the week.

 

[HFWR]

Using Arnold as an example?

 

[W2R]

Al, the problems you point out with the authors' thinking processes would have bothered me a lot too. It sure doesn't show me the kind of intelligence, education or training, and careful thought that I would hope to see in a book of this type.

I am a great believer in doing what works for you that you enjoy, and paying attention to the responses of one's body when working out. If I enjoy a particular workout regimen, and it is giving me the results I want, then there is no reason to change that I can think of.

 

[donheff]

---------------------

Having said that, the research they cite certainly suggests that short once-per-week, slow, intensive weight training might be the best way to exercise. Perhaps, like Don, I'm just attracted to something that will eliminate those "Oh no, I have to exercise this afternoon!" moments.

I like the idea of designing the lifts so that all the different muscle fibers are recruited. I can see how that's the best way to promote cardiovascular health, and I can understand how long, low intensity work leaves many muscle fibers dormant.

I'm not sure I could make myself go through with the superslow lifts, however, since I've found them to be so unpleasant. The authors pretty much say that you can't get full benefit without someone to exhort you to work harder, and without well-designed Nautilus machines.

Many of you have talked about a compromise between BBS and YNY -- doing some walking or biking in addition to the once/week lifting. I'm not sure a compromise is possible. According to BBS, if you don't rest, you will benefit less from the lifting. OTOH, they only cite studies that say that lifting more than once per week is inefficient. They say nothing explicitly about doing other exercises during the rest period. That is, there are no studies that show that walking prevents the healing/resting time.

My current plan is to try this system and see how it goes, but I'll probably still do other exercises during the week.

I share a lot of your concerns. I feel like the super slow HIT lifting is working better than my thrice weekly more extensive but far less intense lifting. But -- and it is a big but -- I just can't buy the idea than some sort of endurance exercise is not needed in addition to that. I also found the lack of clear discussion about the impact of endurance exercises frustrating. I guess that is some of the lazy critical thinking you mentioned. So, I will stick with the HIT once a week lifting and stick with my frequent 25-30 mile bike rides. If I view those rides as YNY's "exercising hard" (maybe a stretch?) I guess I am compromising between BBS and YNY

 

[eytonxav]

I am a great believer in doing what works for you that you enjoy, and paying attention to the responses of one's body when working out. If I enjoy a particular workout regimen, and it is giving me the results I want, then there is no reason to change that I can think of.

I am a believer in what W2R says above. Find out what works for you and keep working it until it stops working. I have always believed in the adage, if it sounds too good to be true it probaby is, and BBS registers high on my BS meter.

 

[GregLee]

But -- and it is a big but -- I just can't buy the idea than some sort of endurance exercise is not needed in addition to that.

The key question is: needed for what? I haven't looked at the book, but reading on the web site, and here, I get the idea that all the BBS folks are interested in is strength. One of the web site articles overtly equates getting/staying young with increasing/maintaining strength. They mention health occasionally, but really don't seem interested in that. I think it is a very well established result that endurance/aerobic exercise is required for maintaining health, and if BBS doesn't care about health, it's not surprising that they don't recommend that type of exercise.

 

[TromboneAl]

I quit chocolate about midway into this and lost about 10 pounds as a result -- is that a two pack I'm seeing?

You can still have chocolate, but without the sugar:

Chocolate Bars


6 tsp Erythritol (granulated)
2 tsp Splenda powder
1.5 Tbs Coconut Oil
1/16 tsp KCl salt or regular salt (optional)
4 Squares unsweetened Baker’s Chocolate chopped
.5 cup Well-roasted pecans, chopped

Do not allow any water to touch the ingredients. Even a drop can cause the chocolate to “seize.” Also, do all heating slowly, and don’t let the chocolate get too hot.

Place sweeteners and oil and salt in a saucepan and heat on low
Once they melt add the chocolate
Stir frequently until melted, don’t overheat the chocolate
When it has melted, add the pecans
Pour into forms or onto waxed paper
Place in freezer until hardened


​

 

[Nords]

I find the arguments pretty compelling. One problem is that I'm not impressed with the authors.

Al, the problems you point out with the authors' thinking processes would have bothered me a lot too. It sure doesn't show me the kind of intelligence, education or training, and careful thought that I would hope to see in a book of this type.

I wonder how many books get published because it's easier & more profitable than submitting research papers to peer-review boards.

Editors are hell on wheels at catching grammar, spelling, and format errors. But for a truly critical evaluation of a controversial concept, you have to fling it out there in front of [-]a pack of starving wolverines[/-] an Internet discussion board.

You can still have chocolate, but without the sugar:

As much as I'm happy to see sugar-free chocolate, why haven't manufacturers jumped on this?

 

[W2R]

As much as I'm happy to see sugar-free chocolate, why haven't manufacturers jumped on this?

You can buy sugar free chocolate pretty easily. I get it at World Market, where they carry several varieties. Unfortunately, it's sugar free but not calorie free.

 

[TromboneAl]

Most of the sugar free choc you can buy is flavored with maltitol which about as bad as sugar, and can cause gastro problems.

One exception is chocoperfection which is great but expensive.

 

[haha]

I am not sure that these research reports are exactly on point WRT the books you are discussing, but they do suggest science based guidelines for strength training.

Weight Training With Effort - Many Ways

Ha

 

[Nords]

Thanks. I think it's time to try a little semi-sweet shopping.

... which is great but expensive.

I guess I shoulda seen that one coming...

 

[TromboneAl]

I am not sure that these research reports are exactly on point WRT the books you are discussing, but they do suggest science based guidelines for strength training.

Weight Training With Effort - Many Ways

Ha

Here's a summary:

Both high and low reps are problematic. Moderate reps, 6 to 20, are probably best—for practical and scientific reasons.
From the practical standpoint, very high reps are unpleasant. For most people (me included), they’re mind-numbing, a drag. Low reps, on the other hand, are cumbersome and potentially dangerous. Except for competitive power or Olympic lifters, as we’ve seen, there’s little or no reason to do low reps.


and


“Recommendations to train with very heavy resistance (loads heavier than 6 RM [Repitition Max]), because they purportedly result in superior strength gains, are based on a faulty [understanding of the size principle] and have very little supporting evidence,” Carpinelli concluded.


Resistance is largely a matter of “personal preference,” says Dr. Carpinelli. “If a maximal—or near maximal—effort is applied at the end of a set of repetitions, the evidence strongly suggests that the different external forces produced with different amounts of resistance elicit similar outcomes.”
​

 

[haha]

Here's a summary:

Yes, these I have read. What I haven't read, so did not have any realism on is Body By Science. I did see McGuff on YouTube though, talking about his ideas.

Ha
​

 

[TromboneAl]

The thing that BBS and the above have in common is the idea that maximum effort is the most important thing. BBS says that you should lift very slowly, and go to failure, whereas the other says is that the only important thing is that your last rep be very difficult.

 

[TromboneAl]

Doing some more overthinking on this issue: If you need to have a week between sessions because healing is necessary, what about stretching? If the healing consists of repair of micro-injuries to muscle fibers, you could argue that stretching could be the worst thing to do between sessions.

 

[W2R]

Doing some more overthinking on this issue: If you need to have a week between sessions because healing is necessary, what about stretching? If the healing consists of repair of micro-injuries to muscle fibers, you could argue that stretching could be the worst thing to do between sessions.

Al, I think you might be right about the overthinking. People who lift have also done stretching since time began as far as I know. I lift three days a week and stretch each time, and I can comfortably lift at least twice what I could earlier this year on all machines. That's a fast enough increase in capability to suit me, given that I don't even have the testosterone advantage.

I have no excessive pain, feel healthy and capable, and have been making steady, consistent progress without any injuries with regular stretching on the stretching station. When I didn't stretch regularly or at all, injuries impaired my progress. Overall I love the results I'm getting.

But I suppose that if you don't mind injuries, then you could just do an inadequate job of stretching or skip stretching. Just kidding.

 

[TromboneAl]

And another thing, these back exercises that I'm doing to strengthen my core, like this one:

take such little effort, that according to the research we've been discussing, they shouldn't help much. Perhaps the rules are different for these postural, slow-twitch muscles?

 

[W2R]

I don't know, Al. Guess what you can do depends on your present condition and injuries.

I use the back extension machine at the gym more or less like the one below, set at 120-130 pounds currently. That seems to strengthen my lower back nicely (you just push backwards slowly for each rep). But then I haven't had a back injury since I resumed stretching last January.

It takes me a while to recover after injuries and that requires backing off a bit. After I first injured my back in early January my back, sciatic, and so on hurt so much! I didn't use this machine for a week and then gingerly re-started at 30 pounds. I have been cautiously working up to higher weights since then, and I think my back has been fully healed for several months by now

P.S. - - if I can't be Eva, I'll settle for looking like the blonde in the photo below, too! Oh well. Old, gray, and dumpy, that's me in real life.

 

[haha]

The thing that BBS and the above have in common is the idea that maximum effort is the most important thing. BBS says that you should lift very slowly, and go to failure, whereas the other says is that the only important thing is that your last rep be very difficult.

Going to failure is an interesting thing. Our strongest athletes like NFL players and Olympic lifters and power lifters mostly do not train to failure. And for me anyway, failure is kind of subjective, depending at least to some extent on one's pain tolerance.

I decided to try this "to failure" program, mostly because I have pulled every kind of muscle along my thoracic spine with my kettlebell HIIT intervals.

I can do the upper body stuff at home, by skipping the chest press and only doing dumbell overhead presses, curls, rows and pullups. But I have no safe way to do squats or deadlifts to failure at home, so I went to the gym. It's been a long time since I used the hip sled, so I didn't know where to start weightwise. I just used what was already loaded on the machine, 140#. (This is not like doing 140# squats, because the load gets pushed up an angled ramp.) Anyway, I did 40 of these, fairly slow. My legs were shaking and starting to cramp, but no failure. So I added another 50 #, and did 40 more- more cramping, more shaking, but still no failure.

Then I went to another plate loaded machine which created a different work pattern- more on my glutes and hams than on the quads. (Quads are what the sled seems to hit hardest.)

I did the same thing here. Next time I will up the starting weight by 50# on each exercise and see if I become unable to finish a rep before I cramp up.

One thing I like about this type of workout, just getting started, is that I don't have to walk around with a clip board keeping track of weights, reps, and sets. Just put on a good bit of weight, and move it until I can't anymore. Last thing I need is another thing to keep books on.

Ha

 

[W2R]

One thing I like about this type of workout, just getting started, is that I don't have to walk around with a clip board keeping track of weights, reps, and sets. Just put on a good bit of weight, and move it until I can't anymore. Last thing I need is another thing to keep books on.

Each to his own, and I can understand why you feel that way (though I don't, really). I usually remember what I lifted for an hour or two, until I can get to a computer and record it on another message board in a thread devoted to logging exercise. Then I can look back several months on that thread and see what I was lifting earlier in the year. Seeing the improvement is an extra motivator for me.

Also, I record my feelings (like "this workout was tough for me and I will probably not be increasing weights for at least a month"). Then, when I am ready to increase weights in a week or two I can laugh at myself a little.