T Nation

Body by Science Doug McGuff and John Little


#1

Just ordered the book yesterday, has anybody read this or tried out any of his dose response training theories.
From what i have seen he is now recommending 12 minutes a week for maximum muscle size and strength.
Any opinions?


#2

I’ve read it. It has good information on the health/medical implications of strength training, but on the subject of training itself, I thought it was lacking. Recommend Darden’s book instead.


#3

I’ve read the articles on his sight several times. Looks good on paper. He comes out of the HIT camp (even Mentzer found McGuff’s stuff exciting), yet I know of no one who has developed any appreciable lean muscle mass on his prescriptions alone.


#4

He’s from the SuperSlow camp. That’s why I’m not on board.


#5

Yeah doing superslow just feels very wrong


#6

What’s wrong with the “superslow” camp? Does anyone have an legit argument against using McGuff’s program? I bought the book and the last ~25 pages of the book are, literally, citations of the peer-revieved research used to support their logical conclusions about exercise.


#7

[quote]Forkit wrote:
What’s wrong with the “superslow” camp? Does anyone have an legit argument against using McGuff’s program? I bought the book and the last ~25 pages of the book are, literally, citations of the peer-revieved research used to support their logical conclusions about exercise.

[/quote]

Where’s the anecdotal evidence though? Where are the guys who have actually gotten massive off of this style? And I’m not talking about guys who got the body they have first then just pickup the program a couple of weeks before their testimony.


#8

So lack of ancedotal evidence in the forum is sufficient enough reasoning to reject McGuff’s program? Whatever happened to trust in scientific research?


#9

[quote]Forkit wrote:
What’s wrong with the “superslow” camp? Does anyone have an legit argument against using McGuff’s program? I bought the book and the last ~25 pages of the book are, literally, citations of the peer-revieved research used to support their logical conclusions about exercise.

[/quote]

The problem with SuperSlow is that it sacrifices loading for fatigue. There is not a harder workout on the planet, but the weights are just too damn light. It also represents a neurotic level of concern for injury. Classical HIT, with heavier weights and faster speeds, is better.

The main value of “Body by Science” is that it makes excellent scientific arguments for the HIT ideology. However, the actual training information is relatively limited and lacking, at least compared to what you will find in Ellington Darden’s books.


#10

[quote]belligerent wrote:
The problem with SuperSlow is that it sacrifices loading for fatigue. There is not a harder workout on the planet, but the weights are just too damn light. It also represents a neurotic level of concern for injury. Classical HIT, with heavier weights and faster speeds, is better.
[/quote]

Does Darden’s book support classical HIT? If not, which program should I look for?

Thanks!


#11

Darden is classical HIT. I recommend his book titled “The New HIT.”

The training programs provided by Darden, plus the scientific information provided by McGuff, makes a powerful combo.

McGuff has a YouTube channel with workout demonstrations. The guy in this video is pushing 50 and is pretty strong:


#12

Damn, you guys read too much stuff.


#13

[quote]Forkit wrote:
So lack of ancedotal evidence in the forum is sufficient enough reasoning to reject McGuff’s program? Whatever happened to trust in scientific research? [/quote]

You can’t trust a program if they are only selecting the research that supports their point of view.

The majority of scientific research supports training at high intensity for muscle hypertrophy, not manipulation of tempo.

And yes, what you do is balance out the scientific evidence against the trends for what works best practically; in this case, not emphasizing slow tempo work.


#14

[quote]Forkit wrote:
So lack of ancedotal evidence in the forum is sufficient enough reasoning to reject McGuff’s program? Whatever happened to trust in scientific research? [/quote]

Watch this clip


#15

[quote]MODOK wrote:
Forkit wrote:
So lack of ancedotal evidence in the forum is sufficient enough reasoning to reject McGuff’s program? Whatever happened to trust in scientific research?

What scientific research have you EVER seen conducted over a long enough period of time to conclude ANYTHING about long-term maximal muscle hypertrophy? All the studies a short term studies, most using untrained subjects.

Please give me a study conducted over 3 years in which one group performed this super slow crap and the other uses progressive overload with explosive lifting. It doesn’t exist. You can get ANY protocol to grow a muscle over an acute period of time. Hell, hanging on an overhead bar a few minutes a day will hypertroph muscle for a little while.

The evidence to the contrary of your theory is 1. there are ZERO big strong guys doing “super slow” ( and the author weighs 140 lbs himself) and 2. A muscle is designed for EXPLOSIVE contractions. The body wasn’t designed to move around like a ground sloth. You want a bigger muscle, you have to force an adaptation by making a muscle move a heavier weight or in a faster time. Thats the ONLY way you get truly big.

Super slow has got a frog’s dissected gastroc in a petri dish on your side of the evidence. The other side has Reg Park, Reeves, Scott, Oliva, Arnold, Franco, Haney, Yates, Coleman, etc. Super slow loses.
[/quote]

Good points, how do you know McGuff weighs 140lbs?


#16

Is he giving birth? His Lamaze cadence is spot-on!

Well one thing’s for sure, his lactic acid tolerance and clearance will be excellent.

DH

[quote]MODOK wrote:
belligerent wrote:
Darden is classical HIT. I recommend his book titled “The New HIT.”

The training programs provided by Darden, plus the scientific information provided by McGuff, makes a powerful combo.

McGuff has a YouTube channel with workout demonstrations. The guy in this video is pushing 50 and is pretty strong:

That video is some funny shit.
[/quote]


#17

[quote]MODOK wrote:
Forkit wrote:
So lack of ancedotal evidence in the forum is sufficient enough reasoning to reject McGuff’s program? Whatever happened to trust in scientific research?

What scientific research have you EVER seen conducted over a long enough period of time to conclude ANYTHING about long-term maximal muscle hypertrophy? All the studies a short term studies, most using untrained subjects.

Please give me a study conducted over 3 years in which one group performed this super slow crap and the other uses progressive overload with explosive lifting. It doesn’t exist. You can get ANY protocol to grow a muscle over an acute period of time. Hell, hanging on an overhead bar a few minutes a day will hypertroph muscle for a little while.

The evidence to the contrary of your theory is 1. there are ZERO big strong guys doing “super slow” ( and the author weighs 140 lbs himself) and 2. A muscle is designed for EXPLOSIVE contractions. The body wasn’t designed to move around like a ground sloth. You want a bigger muscle, you have to force an adaptation by making a muscle move a heavier weight or in a faster time. Thats the ONLY way you get truly big.

Super slow has got a frog’s dissected gastroc in a petri dish on your side of the evidence. The other side has Reg Park, Reeves, Scott, Oliva, Arnold, Franco, Haney, Yates, Coleman, etc. Super slow loses.
[/quote]

Muscles are not “designed” to contract explosively; they are “suited” to contact as fast or slow as the nervous system commands them to. While SuperSlow may be unecessarily slow, speed of movement is not the most important factor in determining hypertropy. You can make gains without movinng at all (isomentrics). What matters is that you load the muscle fibers and fatigue them, not how fast you move.

I agree that scientific evidence doesn’t prove the supremacy of any method. But so-called “empirical” evidence is even weaker. You’re at the mercy of your perception, and most people will see what they want/expect to see.

For example, your insinuation that Sergio Oliva and Dorian Yates contradict Superslow is a blatant distortion, because Oliva was personally trained by Arthur Jones and Yates openly favors HIT to this day (SuperSlow is a subgenere of HIT). And you managed to completely ignore the success of Casey Viator and Mike Mentzer. People have been successful with this method, but your perception forbids you to see it. That’s why I don’t accept arguments that rely on “empirical” observations.

In any case, it is an outright logical fallcy to suggest that a training method is invalid simply because current pro bodybuilders don’t use it- this argument totally ignores the critical importance of genetics, the rampant drug use in bodybuilding, and the fact that SuperSlow and HIT have never been widely used. You can’t dismiss a training method on “empirical” grounds if most people haven’t even tried it.


#18

Gee, I wonder why…

[quote]belligerent wrote:
few, if any current pros have ever tried SuperSlow.
[/quote]


#19

[quote]rbpowerhouse wrote:
Gee, I wonder why…

belligerent wrote:
few, if any current pros have ever tried SuperSlow.

[/quote]

Same reason most people reject anything. Because it goes against their current ideology.


#20

[quote]DH wrote:
Is he giving birth? His Lamaze cadence is spot-on!

Well one thing’s for sure, his lactic acid tolerance and clearance will be excellent.

DH
MODOK wrote:
belligerent wrote:
Darden is classical HIT. I recommend his book titled “The New HIT.”

The training programs provided by Darden, plus the scientific information provided by McGuff, makes a powerful combo.

McGuff has a YouTube channel with workout demonstrations. The guy in this video is pushing 50 and is pretty strong:

That video is some funny shit.

[/quote]

holy shit a Disc Hoss post?