I thought this would be interesting for those who think Ferriss is full of shit. Here is a quick bit from my interview with Tim.
ROMAN: Okay, you've made some bold claims that seem nearly impossible for a person with any training experience to accept without skepticism -- skepticism which you encourage.
FERRISS: I'm happy to touch on that. Being called a huckster and a charlatan started several years ago, so that's something I'm very accustomed to. In most cases, it doesn't bother me.
I think that if you take a strong stance and have a clear opinion or statement on any subject online, you're going to polarize people. And without that polarity, there's no discussion. Discussion is what I want, which means that I'm fine with the consequences.
For example, let's say I give a case study that focuses on gaining 34 pounds of muscle in 28 days. I'm not saying that ANYONE can do that. I'm saying it's within the realm of physical possibility--and that is worth noting.
I think that you can learn a lot from the extremes, and this is why I also talk to people like Dave Palumbo, who went from 140 to 310 pounds. Again, not everyone can do that--perhaps almost no on else. That isn't the point. The point is that you can learn A LOT from looking closely at those extremes as opposed to focusing only on the middle.
But, that said, there are also two types of skepticism. I encourage active skepticism -- when people are being skeptical because they're trying to identify the best course of action. They're trying to identify the next step for themselves or other people.
I discourage passive skepticism, which is the armchair variety where people sit back and criticize without ever subjecting their theories or themselves to real field-testing.
If I make a claim, people should say, "Where's your evidence? Where's your data?" And I should be able to support that. I should be able to support whatever recommendation I'm making. Whereas if a skeptic says, "That doesn't work. This doesn't work. That doesn't work. Tim Ferris if full of shit." People should turn to them and say, "Okay, what's your replacement? How do you know it doesn't work and wheres your data?" So, if their criticism is completely unfounded on data, then I don't want to hear it. It doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
It's a good book, a great read. The chapters on steroids are particularly cool.
To summarize his points there, basically he feels that the medical community can learn a lot from bodybuilders. It's really a very interesting book. I think most T-Nation people would enjoy it.