Product Information. Building muscle has never been faster oreasier than with this revolutionary once-a-weektraining 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. Foreword Introduction 1: Exercise: Who Can You Trust?
![]()
Body by science Download body by science or read online books in PDF, EPUB, Tuebl, and Mobi Format. Click Download or Read Online button to get body by science book now. This site is like a library, Use search box in the widget to get ebook that you want.
![]()
Body by Science, by Doug McGuff, MD and John LittleIf you buy only one book on exercise this year, I recommend Doug McGuff, MD and John Little’s. If you buy only two books, I recommend getting 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. Drew,Just got my copy of “Body by Science”. McGuff is one of my main influences in turning to strength training and away from “aerobics”.
Also, if I only saw the bodybuilding stuff I’d never weight train. It’s about long term health and function.The info is all gold, but I particularly like the sections on athletics, and the discussion of epigenetics.At almost 59, I can still practice arnis and hike vigorously and I owe this to strength training and watching what I eat. Wish I could convince some of my peers.Griff.
Hey drewi think its important to be open minded about new approaches to fitness and using science to help improve how we apply ourselves, especially when it comes to strength training. Scott,Obviously someone who is new to exercise will have different requirements than an experienced trainee or competitive athlete, and competitive athletes may require specific metabolic conditioning for their sport.
This is addressed in the book.While “12 Minutes A Week” does sound like a typical infomercial pitch, it is important to differentiate between time spent exercising and time in the gym. Most people make very inefficient use of their time in the gym, and someone who is at the gym for an hour or two may actually spend less than 20 minutes performing exercise.I currently train about once every five days, alternating between two workouts, each typically consisting of six or fewer exercises. I use a repetition range of 7 to 10 for most exercises, which results in a time under load of about 40 to 60 seconds per exercise.
Not including about a one minute rest between exercises, I spend less than six minutes of training time in a single workout. While someone who hasn’t experienced one of these workouts might scoff at this, those who have tried them know why the volume needs to be kept low. Thanks for that answeri know it might appear that i am “scoffing” at that training approach, i actually find it fascinating and having worked with static contr training and use its appl’s, i think there are plenty of good questions to be asked; one question ishave YOU, yourself, seen gains in size in strength that are noteworthy, with 12 min’s a week and are you willing to discuss specifics about those results; where can i go to talk to people who have had actual success with this?btw, we totally agree that a vast majority of people in commercial gyms spend their time very inefficiently.scott. Thank you Drew for taking questions in regard to this book.On page 56 it is stated “Optimally, we’re looking for forty-five to ninety seconds for particular set of exercises”.
Above you mention your load time of 40 to 60 seconds. On page 86 it gives an example of reaching failure at six reps, with a cadence of ten seconds up and ten seconds down,adding this up to only a minute and thirty seconds, and a minute and forty seconds. Six reps at twenty seconds each is two minutes. On page 90 a set is described and it states “This whole process ocurred over a span of roughly two minutes”. Then on page 91 it says to keep the exercise under ninety seconds.Am I correct then in stating that if an exercise takes me twenty seconds per rep., at a 45 second load time I will have done two reps., and at a 90 second load time four and a half?I don’t care about the number of reps, I’m just looking for the optimum load time. Additionally, any detractors will jump on the above to argue contradictions. It would be nice to be able to intellegently reply.Thank you for your consideration.
Not trying to Hijack this thread but I would like some advice. As I mentioned earlier I am 42, a high school head football coach and in pretty good shape for my age. I have found that at my age recuperation after workouts is a must.
I recently completed my sixth week doing max ot and had some strength gains but boy did I pay the price in my shoulders and knees. To the point of not being able to sleep at night. My question is regarding the Body for Science workout for older individuals like myself. I still love to be in the gym and feel I can still add muscle. I am becoming increasingly aware that I simply can’t handle heavy volume even the max ot way. I researced tom venutos fit over 40 but have not read it.
Do I need to adjust the body by science workout in any way to see gains? I have read both Max Contraction books by John Little where he recommends a 1-6 second hold for all exercises. However, on pg 155 of Body by Science, where the author(I’m assuming it’s John Little) is discussing Max Contraction protocol, it states “The time under load for the exercises above should be approximately sixty to ninety seconds (or whatever ideal time signature is for the individual trainee”I am missing something here? So should the hold time be 1-6 seconds for 60-90 seconds?Also, shouldn’t the individaul muscle type determine the individual TUL?Thanks. Farhad,Max Contraction is an advanced bodybuilding method, focused purely on stimulating strength and size increases, while the high intensity training methods described in Body by Science are meant for a more general audience and improvements in total conditioning and fitness.Individual TULs will vary somewhat with either protocol, but more with the longer sets. The guidelines in either book should be considered starting points from which individuals should make adjustments based on how their bodies respond.
I teach college biology, and I was just given a copy of Dr. McGuff’s book by a student. I wanted to know if the weight-training community thought it was effective and safe for amateurs like myself. I’m not trying to add strength or size so much as “tone up” and control blood chemistry (lipid metabolism foremost). Thanks for hosting this discussion; it’s cleared up a lot of my questions.One unresolved issue in McGuff’s book — at least for people like me, who have limited training or experience in weight-training — is the selection of initial weights for the “big 5” exercises. Can you point me to a good reference for selecting the amount of weight to use?I tried McGuff’s workout this morning and found, for example, that my usual leg-press maximum weight (from my 3rd set, 185 lbs) was not sufficient to cause positive failure. I don’t want to risk tearing up my knees and hips, though, by adding too much more weight.
I had the same problem with the overhead pull-downs.Thanks to anyone who can offer a suggestion.As for bloodstream lipid control, I’m hoping this boosts HDL:LDL ratios and lowers bloodstream triglycerides as Dr. McGuff says it will. Does anyone here have any experience with that? I’m a scientist, so I’ll run the experiment and then collect my own datagenetics is a serious factor here, I suspect. Greg,The Body by Science program is both very safe and very effective even for amateurs if done correctly.
I’ve trained hundreds of people using the same principles including everyone from professional football players to octogenarians with very good results and no injuries.As for weight selection my recommendation is to start with a weight that is only moderately challenging for the prescribed time and increase the weights gradually so by the time they become more challenging you’ve had plenty of time to rehearse proper form. In my book, McGuff is a scammer. What he sells is Pseudo-“Science”.Arthur Jones would not have taken him seriously (like the Hutchins guy (similar type and business mode).If anybody is really interested in serious HIT, please do read and listen what the (real) HIT-oldtimers have to say (Kim Wood, Jim Flanagan, Kein Leistner, Jim Bryan, Dan Riley and the like).
They are the real deal, not pretenders like McGuff, Hutchins & Co.Superslow may be ok for old and sick people, but it is not useful to athletes at all. And that thing with “only 12 Minutes per week” is just Marketing BS, what his clientele want to hear. His Big 5 thing is maybe ok to attract buyers from the General public that otherwise would not train at all (too lazy), but is lacking and not sufficient for using on a long term basis (for example does not contain the very important lower back muscles). I still like HIT and respect Drew Baye, but sellers like McGuff are giving HIT a bad name in my opinion. Kevin,I’ve known Ken Hutchins and Doug McGuff for nearly twenty years now and both are honest and honorable, and SuperSlow is definitely not only for old sick people or not useful to athletes. Bob Hoffman, who coached the US Olympic Weightlifting team from 1948 to 1964 had them perform some of their workouts using a protocol similar to SuperSlow called muscle contraction with measured movement (MCMM) for years and had good results with it.
This consisted of a ten second positive and a ten second negative like SuperSlow, as well as a ten second rest-pause between reps. I have used SuperSlow with professional athletes in the past and they did fine with it.
It may not be necessary to move that slowly, but it certainly isn’t ineffective either.While I prefer to have people train more frequently using more exercises, starting at three times per week instead of one and cutting back only when necessary, and I no longer rush my clients between exercises, it is possible to get very good results from such a brief and basic workout if it is done hard and progressively. I can’t see any reason why SS and TUL wouldn’t produce more muscle gain (bodybuilding results) than traditional HIT.
David Hudlow (from Darden’s The New HIT) made his most startling muscle gains in the two weeks in which he did SS.Why do BodyByScience and the TUL advocates say this method is for general fitness, not bodybuilding? Anything that builds strength quickly, especially accessing and intensely fatiguing fast twitch fibers, would seem to me to produce the fastest and largest strength and size gains, as long as the subject is consuming enough calories to gain muscle. Am I missing something?
![]() Comments are closed.
|
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
March 2023
Categories |