HN Books @HNBooksMonth

The best books of Hacker News.

Hacker News Comments on
Body by Science: A Research Based Program for Strength Training, Body building, and Complete Fitness in 12 Minutes a Week

John Little, Doug McGuff · 11 HN comments
HN Books has aggregated all Hacker News stories and comments that mention "Body by Science: A Research Based Program for Strength Training, Body building, and Complete Fitness in 12 Minutes a Week" by John Little, Doug McGuff.
View on Amazon [↗]
HN Books may receive an affiliate commission when you make purchases on sites after clicking through links on this page.
Amazon Summary
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.
HN Books Rankings

Hacker News Stories and Comments

All the comments and stories posted to Hacker News that reference this book.
Julian Shapiro, YCombinator alum, has a very nice guide to building muscle.[0]

The gateway drug to the HIT tradition, which began with genius Arthur Jones and Nautilus in the early 1970s, is this video presentation by Doug McGuff[1], author of Body by Science[2]. Whether you follow a HIT protocol or not, you should be familiar with the theory covered in Body by Science. Doug covers the definition of fitness and health (which is unusual right there for a fitness book!), the confounding effects of genetics, fat metabolism, and much, much more. The High Intensity Business podcast has all the leading figures in exercise research as guests, with a rich back catalog and very detailed links in the show notes.[3] And if you plan to do this for the rest of your life, give your future joints a break by not destroying them in your youth.[4][5]

[0] https://www.julian.com/guide/muscle/intro

[1] https://youtu.be/2PdJFbjWHEU

[2] https://www.amazon.com/Body-Science-Research-Strength-Traini...

[3] https://highintensitybusiness.com/podcasts/

[4] https://www.amazon.com/Joint-Friendly-Fitness-Optimal-Exerci...

[5] https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/billdesimone/the-joint-...

moneywoes
The Shapiro guide is fantastic. Thank you so much.
Jul 12, 2020 · tacon on Dealing with Insomnia
It doesn't take much time to exhaust yourself physically, at least to exhaust specific muscle groups. Systemic exhaustion (steady state exercise, like running) is another matter. It doesn't even cause sweating, as it is over too quickly. I have been experimenting lately with pushups to failure just before I turn out the lights and climb into bed. By failure, I mean MMF (momentary muscular failure), not being able to repeat the motion as hard as I try. An alternative is body weight squats by the bed, to failure. Pick the range of motion to be in the hard (low) part of the squat, move slowly (SuperSlow protocol is 10 seconds concentric, 10 seconds eccentric) to failure, and make it hard enough to fail in less than 90 seconds. Crawl into bed and fall asleep easily (after your heart stops pounding). Of course, you will also build muscle mass over time, which doesn't hurt.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PdJFbjWHEU

[1] "Body by Science: A Research Based Program to Get the Results You Want in 12 Minutes a Week" https://www.amazon.com/Body-Science-Research-Strength-Traini...

Intensity is 80-90% of the determinant of a muscle's adaptive response to load. If you plan to get somewhere near your genetic potential in strength and size, you will need to use rather high intensity to deeply fatigue ("inroad") the muscle. But you also have to not repeat that stimulus for days to a week, to allow recovery in people like us with middle of the bell curve genetics. The ideal profile for building strength is exercise that is intense, brief, and infrequent. Yes, it is unpleasant for a couple of minutes per muscle group, once or twice a week. So what? Do you enjoy brushing your teeth? Or do you just do it and get it over with? Note, this is for strength training. Skill building for sports, or general physical activity, is a different protocol, depending on the activity.

One of my favorite recent book titles is "If You Like Exercise ... Chances Are You're Doing It Wrong: Proper Strength Training for Maximum Results"[0], which is another book about the work of exercise genius Arthur Jones, inventor of Nautilus and MedX equipment.

[0] https://www.amazon.com/Exercise-Chances-Youre-Doing-Wrong/dp...

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7GB3h82tcQ

[2] https://www.amazon.com/Body-Science-Research-Strength-Traini...

I like your reference to catabolic/anabolic processes. Alas, you then made some incorrect claims.

>you can't lift weights and gain muscle (i.e. grow) without also gaining fat

Of course you can. I'd be happy to share my Google sheet of daily weight, losing about 0.06lb/day, and my BodPod measurements showing going from 28% to 20% body fat while gaining 2.5lbs of muscle mass. Sarcopenia would have taken another 0.5lbs of muscle in that one year period.

Drew Baye has several articles on losing fat while gaining muscle[0]. In the first few pages of Body by Science[1], Doug McGuff defines health as (1) the absence of disease and (2) a balance between anabolic and catabolic processes. Except McGuff makes it clear that almost the entire population in the developed world lives in a catabolic energy state, eating way more than we need, never flushing the stored glucose out of our muscles, the tank is always full[2]. But while that is happening, sarcopenia [catabolic] is removing muscle mass as we age.

[0] http://baye.com/building-muscle-losing-fat/

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Body-Science-Research-Strength-Traini...

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PdJFbjWHEU

throwaway_tech
>Of course you can. I'd be happy to share my Google sheet of daily weight, losing about 0.06lb/day, and my BodPod measurements showing going from 28% to 20% body fat while gaining 2.5lbs of muscle mass.

Sure your muscle/fat percentages changes over time. But you didn't simultaneously grow muscle and lose fat, that is not possible.

>Drew Baye has several articles on losing fat while gaining muscle

Again its done over time. There is never a point you are "losing fat while gaining muscle" simultaneously, you gain both or lose both...you can certainly gain more of one than the other, or lose more of one than the other.

Just as an example:

1. You lift putting yourself into a catabolic state, you will lose both fat and muscle in this state (your body if burning more fat than muscle...but its is breaking down both, it is not burning fat and growing muscle);

2. You refuel after your lifting with protein like Whey and some glucose to spike your insulin to force the protein into your muscles, you are now anabolic (your muscle cells and fat cells are both growing and storing this new fuel you consumed, and the protein is rebuilding the muscle, as a result your muscle growth slowly outpaces the fat cell storage and growth)

3. rise and repeat over time and yes you will lose fat and gain muscle (like you did), but the growth/losses never happened simultaneously. Your body was always either catabolic or anabolic...never both.

It is over time you achieve net loss of fat and gain in muscle, but physiologically it is impossible for those processes to occur at the same time.

Cougher
This explanation/assertion is in sore need of citations.
throwaway_tech1
https://www.rsc.org/Education/Teachers/Resources/cfb/metabol...

>Countless chemical reactions take place in cells and are responsible for all the actions of organisms. Together, these reactions make up an organism's metabolism.

>When a chemical reaction takes place energy is either taken in or released.

>Two types of metabolic reactions take place in the cell: 'building up' (anabolism) and 'breaking down' (catabolism). Anabolic reactions use up energy. Catabolic reactions give out energy. They are exergonic.

At the lowest level there are chemical reactions, is it not fair to say that chemical reactions are binary? Either releasing or taking in energy?

Within the cell the net of the chemical reactions is the metabolism which are either anabolic or catabolic.

There is no doubt there are many processes where one reaction triggers the other in an ongoing but the chemical reactions or metabolic reactions (net chemical reactions) are either anabolic or catabolic.

etagobla
Wrestlers heal while cutting weight. That is anabolism.
labawi
I agree that (1) is plausible and probably true. (2) might be true in your training regiment, and also may be nearly true in most circumstances, i.e. a good approximation.

Your theory of absolute anabolic vs. catabolic body state is absolutely bonkers. Biology does not work that way. Comprehend-able things are the simplified ones and every rule has exceptions.

throwaway_tech
>Your theory of absolute anabolic vs. catabolic body state is absolutely bonkers. Biology does not work that way.

That is exactly how physiology works (I think you may be mixing up chemical reactions with metabolic reactions). Its why when people talk about losing weight there is always a certain number of people who refer to the laws of thermodynamics (calories in/calories out), and generally that is true (calorie surplus = growth and calories deficient = break down).

Of course there are exceptions such as the body has hormones which cause certain exceptions like HGH which can trigger growth (anabolism) in caloric deficits or cortisol can cause breakdown (catabolism) in caloric surpluses.

Can you identify any metabolic pathway that is simultaneously both anabolic/catabolic?

If you check, you will find it is incredibly rare for health and fitness books and articles to define "health", "fitness" or "exercise". Body by Science[0][1] gets right to it on pages 2 and 3 to define all three:

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.

Fitness: The bodily state of being physiologically capable of handling challenges that exist above a resting threshold of activity.

Exercise: A specific activity that stimulates a positive physiological adaptation that serves to enhance fitness and health and does not undermine the latter in the process of enhancing the former.

[0] https://www.amazon.com/Body-Science-Research-Strength-Traini...

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PdJFbjWHEU

It looks like the X3bar (really bands) suffer from the classic problem of mismatch to your strength curve, with the strongest resistance where your lifting is weakest. Nautilus equipment generally solved that problem by the 1980s.

Free PDF of Nautilus Training Principles: Bulletins No. 1-3 http://baye.com/store/nautilus-bulletins/

Summary of research and evidence-based exercise as of 2009: Body by Science https://www.amazon.com/Body-Science-Research-Strength-Traini...

Author Doug McGuff MD has been operating a training facility since 1998, 100-120 client sessions a week, and he reports zero injuries to date. Most injuries come from excess force/acceleration, so pick an exercise protocol with very low acceleration that seriously fatigues the target muscle.

It's surprising that no one has mentioned Body by Science[1], SuperSlow from Ken Hutchins, Arthur Jones and Nautilus, and other research based programs from the last forty years. Free weights can be very dangerous as you approach muscle failure, and all sorts of momentum, breath holding, etc. are problematic. Unless hypertrophy and/or bad time management are your goals, I prefer the system of deep muscle inroading in 12 minutes a week, and then I work on sport skills, not building muscle mass, the rest of the week. I have a median genotype, not the genetic makeup of a muscle magazine.

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Body-Science-Research-Strength-Traini... "Body by Science: A Research Based Program for Strength Training, Body building, and Complete Fitness in 12 Minutes a Week"

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PdJFbjWHEU

[3] http://techzinglive.com/page/1500/268-tz-interview-dr-doug-m...

I got my exercise list from [1]. Per training I typically do 3-4 different exercises with one or two sets. I do not do any warm ups or stretching. I train mostly with machines as that is safer for me. Training purely with barbell inevitably triggers back pain.

[1] - http://www.amazon.com/Body-Science-Research-Strength-Trainin...

Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind — Shunryu Suzuki [1]

Body by Science — Doug McGuff, MD and John Little [2]

1. http://www.amazon.com/Zen-Mind-Beginners-Shunryu-Suzuki/dp/1...

2. http://www.amazon.com/Body-Science-Research-Strength-Trainin...

While some are able to extract valuable benefit from gyms the vast majority are wasting time and money. In addition to that, most of these articles are very thin on reproducible facts and true research-based data.

This is, by far, the most interesting and useful resource I have found when it comes to fitness:

http://www.amazon.com/Body-Science-Research-Program-Results/...

The author covers cellular biology and debunks ideas such as "cardio workouts", treadmill bunnies, jogging and walking around your neighborhood to loose weight with plain-old science. Here you'll learn about the cellular metabolic process, Krebs cycle, Insulin resistance, fatty acid synthesis, glycolitic cycle, Cori cycle, Bohr effect, glycogenolysis, amplification cascade and whole host of other topics that are important, relevant and reasonably well understood.

What's more important is that everything that is proposed in this book is backed by science and scientific studies. It's like open-source software. If you care to dive deeper into why something works the way it does the scientific references are provided. The book has over 25 pages of listed references (about 10% of the book is reference data).

Anyhow, one of the claims of the book is "12 minutes a week" every seven to ten days. In other words, that's the actual time under load you need every seven to ten days to affect significant changes in your body. This does not include time walking around, watching TV or resting. Time under load.

I have to say that it works pretty much exactly as advertised. After reading the book I tried it and had a friend try it. We'd spend about fifteen minutes under load at the gym once a week. For me it changed to fifteen minutes every 9 to 12 days (you track your data in order to determine frequency). I got stronger with every passing week. Something that I was not able to do without a ton more effort in the past.

If you are interested in learning about this, start with Dr McGuff's (the author) videos:

http://www.bodybyscience.net/home.html/?page_id=2

akurilin
I wish there would be more studies done to support McGuff's theories. I find his ideas (including the ultra-high resistance machines) fascinating, and do hope they turn out to be correct, but I'm also really skeptical of anything that's not been proven by time.
robomartin
I can't find any holes in it. My wife is a doctor and she couldn't either. Just two data points.
Sounds like Chronic Fatique Syndrome to me.

My advice: cut simple carbohydrates out of your diet completely (veggies and animal protein only) and start exercising as much as your fatigue allows you. Read this book too: http://www.amazon.com/Body-Science-Research-Program-Results/...

yanowitz
Diet could be a huge factor. I would keep a food log along with notes on how you are feeling. Therevan sometimes be a lag between consumption and effect, but you may notice patterns.

I would also try the above diet (look into a paleo low carb diet).

And, look into Crossfit (Crossfit.com) in your area. Good affiliates will slowly scale you up based on your ability. That an diet might be a huge help, though it'll take a good month of clean eating to know If it helps.

Good luck, please post a followup on your plan of attack.

Tichy
Now that you mention it, I feel reminded of a friend who can not eat gluten (as in wheat and other cereals). Definitely something that would be worth testing, I suppose.
GFischer
That would be a Celiac.

That suggestion is posted a bit higher, but it's interesting that you noticed it as well.

pbhjpbhj
I thought it was spelt coeliac?
GFischer
Apparently it can be spelled both ways: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coeliac_disease

I'm a non-native english speaker, over here it's spelled "Celiaco" (in Spanish) so that influenced me.

Many foods are labeled "celiac-friendly" over here (Uruguay) with a no-wheat symbol.

celiacfacts
Celiac is the USA spelling. Coeliac is the way that English speakers countries other than the USA spell it.

Rick http://celiacFacts.wordpress.com

eliot_sykes
I know next to nothing about medicine, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome was my only guess http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronic_fatigue_syndrome
carbocation
Chronic fatigue doesn't give you Hashimoto, and it doesn't give you a gammopathy. My point is simply that if there is a unifying diagnosis to be had, CFS is not it. (Though I am absolutely aware of Saint's Triad, so if that's what you're going for, I understand.) If you really suspect chronic fatigue, consider talking to someone at the Whittemore Peterson Institute in Reno, NV. (Disclosure: Am friends with one of the authors on their paper that identified that a high proportion of those with CFS harbor a novel virus. This research is not in my field.) NYT write-up: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/09/health/research/09virus.ht...

But truly, I am discussing this because I find it interesting per se, though I feel it is a bit of a side track.

jwhite
There might not be a causal link between the Hashimoto and the CFS. All the symptoms described sound like CFS to me (my sister has had it for 15 years).
Ixiaus
Good reply, I don't know too much about the ins and outs; just layman reading and anecdotal experience. I remember being chronically fatigued (though it was not Chronic Fatigue Syndrome) for quite some time; what did the trick for me was simple: less carbohydrates (less calories, to be specific), more vegetables, and more animal protein (the Paleo Diet mixed with the Longevity Diet).

I also think people underestimate the body's ability to repair itself given the opportunity. I think fixing the diet and exercising would be worth while avenues of giving the body the break it needs. I've also been a big believer in fasting and/or juicing for a few days when I get sick, it seems to get wiped out much faster when I do that.

I notice, when I eat grain heavy foods (rice, and particularly wheat based foods) my allergies get worse and I feel "ickier". This correlates well with the description of Candida Albicans and the invasive behaviors the organism take on it, apparently, even makes you want to eat more bread (this is, unscientific, but it seems logical and has served me well thus far).

Something else I noticed as well: fatigue was often fixed/alleviated by consuming adrenal supplements...

HN Books is an independent project and is not operated by Y Combinator or Amazon.com.
~ yaj@
;laksdfhjdhksalkfj more things
yahnd.com ~ Privacy Policy ~
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.