Body by Science Workout

Questions on how we spend our money and our time - consumer goods and services, home and vehicle, leisure and recreational activities
User avatar
gatorman
Posts: 2493
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 9:35 am
Location: The Swamp

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by gatorman » Thu Aug 22, 2013 4:19 am

I would second what the Moderator is saying. I don't want the thread to get permanently locked, so please refrain from discussion of unallowable topics and please keep it civil. It seems to me that anyone who is wondering whether the BBS workout would benefit them should simply give it a try for 6 months, If it works for you, great! If it doesn't work for you, then you can go back to what you were doing before or try some other approach. Using yourself as a guinea pig will tell you more, and more quickly, than will any amount of discussion of theory. If you decide to do it, please post your results here, good, bad or indifferent.
gatorman

protagonist
Posts: 5463
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 12:47 pm

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by protagonist » Thu Aug 22, 2013 2:47 pm

Workout #2- 6 days after workout #1:
I made small incremental gains in performing the 5 core exercises since workout #1. Too early to evaluate my progress.
When I finished the 5 exercises, I could not do one ab crunch on the floor or one pushup, so I believe I successfully worked to failure.
Again, I seriously doubt the author's cardio claims. After the workout I was not particularly winded and my pulse rate only rose to 120, not sustained for long. After my shower I actually jogged into town for lunch.

Rodc
Posts: 13601
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 9:46 am

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by Rodc » Thu Aug 22, 2013 3:58 pm

4stripes wrote:


Take a look at these two endurance athletes, operating on different ends of the aerobic/anaerobic spectrum:
Olympic Tri Image
Olympic Track Cycle Image

Which one would you call to move your couch? I think the strong one, that does less long aerobic exercise, is the clear winner.
Any of these guys would have no trouble helping me move my couch. Or shoveling my driveway of a bunch of snow.

At any rate these are world class athletes that have almost nothing to do with what is useful for the other 99.44% of us.

Also, to a large degree our build is determined by genetics, though yes the type and amount of exercise has an influence.

I also don't understand the debate in this thread about aerobic vs weight training for some middle aged overweight sedentary person. Why would anyone suggest they go 100% either? Do we suggest people, other than in special cases, must choose between 100% stocks and 100% bonds?

Why not do both, starting slowly?

Once they gain some level of general fitness they could, if they wish, begin to tilt their investment of time and energy in their exercise portfolio in any manner that fits their need, willingness and desire (to bring it back investing).

Unless you have very specific athletic goals, any more or less diversified portfolio of exercise is going to be good enough for the bottom 99.44%. And at any rate, no matter your goals a 100% tilt is probably not optimal for health: Graham's advice to always stay within the bounds of 75/25 and 25/75 likely applies here as well.
We live a world with knowledge of the future markets has less than one significant figure. And people will still and always demand answers to three significant digits.

stoptothink
Posts: 4514
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 9:53 am

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by stoptothink » Thu Aug 22, 2013 4:27 pm

Rodc wrote:
I also don't understand the debate in this thread about aerobic vs weight training for some middle aged overweight sedentary person. Why would anyone suggest they go 100% either? Do we suggest people, other than in special cases, must choose between 100% stocks and 100% bonds?

Why not do both, starting slowly?

Once they gain some level of general fitness they could, if they wish, begin to tilt their investment of time and energy in their exercise portfolio in any manner that fits their need, willingness and desire (to bring it back investing).

Unless you have very specific athletic goals, any more or less diversified portfolio of exercise is going to be good enough for the bottom 99.44%. And at any rate, no matter your goals a 100% tilt is probably not optimal for health: Graham's advice to always stay within the bounds of 75/25 and 25/75 likely applies here as well.
Not to start the debate again (and please delete if it is inappropriate), but what you just stated was pretty much my point. I took offense to the idea that "20min of running developed plenty of strength" and that endurance running was more "functional." Fact of the matter is, for optimum health you need a combination of both anaerobic and aerobic activity, and doing some resistance training becomes increasingly important as you age. And, to get technical, most of life activities are more anaerobic in nature. I, like Lightheir, am a former competitive triathlete, but I have no idea where he was going with his argument in a thread about a resistance-training program. I am also an active member of a triathlon board (which Lightheir is as well) and a lot of endurance athletes have an illogical disdain for resistance training, so I may have responded inappropriately.

protagonist
Posts: 5463
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 12:47 pm

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by protagonist » Thu Aug 22, 2013 4:45 pm

stoptothink wrote:
Rodc wrote:
I also don't understand the debate in this thread about aerobic vs weight training for some middle aged overweight sedentary person.
The "debate" was precipitated by a rather radical claim by the authors of Body By Science that (if I understand correctly) their 12 min/wk weight training workout also doubles as an effective cardio workout routine, and that adding traditional cardio training can be detrimental, as it does not allow the body enough time to recuperate. I'm not weighing in on this 'debate", other than to say that, both on theoretical as well as short-term, limited empirical grounds, I am skeptical. I am neither overweight nor sedentary....perhaps if I was it would produce more results, I don't know. I'm just passing on my own subjective and objective experience as I try the system. I do intend to add aerobic exercise to my routine, despite what the authors suggest.

User avatar
gatorking
Posts: 1103
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:15 pm
Location: Burlington MA

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by gatorking » Fri Aug 23, 2013 9:39 am

http://video.pbs.org/video/2364989581/
This PBS video has some very interesting information on effects of exercise, especially HIT. Enjoy.

protagonist
Posts: 5463
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 12:47 pm

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by protagonist » Fri Aug 23, 2013 10:02 am

gatorking wrote:http://video.pbs.org/video/2364989581/
This PBS video has some very interesting information on effects of exercise, especially HIT. Enjoy.
Thanks for the link!! I'll watch it tonight.

Rolyatroba
Posts: 207
Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2013 1:14 pm

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by Rolyatroba » Fri Aug 23, 2013 6:49 pm

protagonist wrote:The "debate" was precipitated by a rather radical claim by the authors of Body By Science that (if I understand correctly) their 12 min/wk weight training workout also doubles as an effective cardio workout routine, and that adding traditional cardio training can be detrimental, as it does not allow the body enough time to recuperate. I'm not weighing in on this 'debate", other than to say that, both on theoretical as well as short-term, limited empirical grounds, I am skeptical. I am neither overweight nor sedentary....perhaps if I was it would produce more results, I don't know. I'm just passing on my own subjective and objective experience as I try the system. I do intend to add aerobic exercise to my routine, despite what the authors suggest.
I wanted to chime back in on a few points in this topic over the weekend, and will start with the cardio assertions in the book.

First--going back to your observation that your heart rate was only 120 after the workout, I'd guess that the pulse was taken after one or more upper body exercises. Know that upper body exercises generally do not spur your CV system to work at high capacity--there's not enough muscle volume in action to stress the capacity of the heart/lungs. Maybe try taking your pulse right after the leg press--there's ample volume there, and that's why virtually all of the cardio equipment at the gym get the legs involved. I did the BBS workout today and took my pulse after the leg press, and it was at 170 (almost exactly my LT heart rate).

Further on the cardio concept, what the authors are saying about about how their program gives you an aerobic workout, is that each exercise pushes the Krebs Cycle to its maximum capacity and then upon completion of the exercises, the process of recovering from lactic acidosis further engages aerobic pathways for some amount of time. I'm not exactly sure of how the latter part works--maybe stoptothink can chime in on that.

So it is clear that the workout well engages the aerobic energy system, but what isn't so clear to me is if doing this once per week is sufficient to mitigate the risk of CVD (lifestyle risks, that is). As I mentioned previously, as a hedge, I also do a couple of 45-minute sessions per week on a bike or treadmill, with 6-10 minutes at a barely sustainable pace (HIT). There is a lot of literature suggesting that an aerobic HIT approach has similar CV benefits as traditional volume aerobic exercise, so I'm doing that at least until we see some studies on the CV benefits of a once-per-week strength workout.

protagonist
Posts: 5463
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 12:47 pm

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by protagonist » Fri Aug 23, 2013 7:55 pm

Rolyatroba wrote:
First--going back to your observation that your heart rate was only 120 after the workout, I'd guess that the pulse was taken after one or more upper body exercises. Know that upper body exercises generally do not spur your CV system to work at high capacity--there's not enough muscle volume in action to stress the capacity of the heart/lungs. Maybe try taking your pulse right after the leg press--there's ample volume there, and that's why virtually all of the cardio equipment at the gym get the legs involved. I did the BBS workout today and took my pulse after the leg press, and it was at 170 (almost exactly my LT heart rate).
The last of the 5 exercises I did was the leg press (as per the order in the book)....I think I did about 7 reps. I then removed the weights from the machine, placed them back on the rack, and went to the mat and tried unsuccessfully to do an ab crunch and then a push-up. So I would estimate there may have been up to a 2 minute delay after I did the leg presses before I took my pulse. Nonetheless, when I do a high intensity cardiac session I get my pulse up to around 160, it is still quite high 1-2 minutes later, and I feel exhausted to the point where conversation is difficult for a minute or two. This was not the case with BBS. I'm interested that you get your pulse up so high......I wonder if the difference between us is physiological, or if somehow you are working much harder than I am.

I plan to do a 25 mile bike ride tomorrow and another in a couple of days. I am not going to rely on BBS for cardio fitness. I have done high intensity sprinting interspersed with longer runs or rides and it is both exhausting and has a very positive effect on my ultimate endurance. I can't do that now because I injured my achilles tendon which prevents running....cycling is fine. I suppose I could do it on a stationary bike, but I would rather be outside in this beautiful weather.

protagonist
Posts: 5463
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 12:47 pm

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by protagonist » Fri Aug 23, 2013 8:28 pm

gatorman wrote:The key is to do the exercises with preferably no or, at worst, minimal rest between exercises, which can be a challenge in a commercial gym situation.

Another important bit to this kind of workout is the slowness of the lifts. Getting rid of momentum really maximizes the efficiency of each lift.

Also, the focus on never allowing the weight to rely on bones for support, and only on muscle, makes this quick kind of workout effective.
I was aware of all of those factors while exercising and tried to maintain as proper form as possible as described for each exercise in the book....I think I was doing a pretty good job. I jogged between exercises and never took more than a minute, often less. Occasionally I caught myself speeding up or lifting in fits and starts rather than smoothly but I corrected myself each time. I'm sure my form will get better with time.

When I was doing separate aerobic training I would do 3-4 aerobic sessions/wk, including one session of sprints (30-60 secs. at max intensity each on the treadmill followed by a 60 sec slow jog cooldown, 8 sets- total 4-8 min of running and total exercise time 20-30 mins including warmup and cooldown), and one session of what were described in a magazine as lactate threshold blocks (6 sets of 3-5 minutes of very hard treadmill running but not max intensity, each followed by equal slow jog cooldown time- the whole thing would take 45-60 mins, including warmup and cooldown). Both of those exercises got my pulse up to at least 160 at the end, I would be exhausted, and dripping in sweat. The lactate threshold blocks are brutal and I would dread them. The other 1-2 runs were long runs at a steady pace, HR usually up to about 140.

arkerr123
Posts: 92
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 5:17 pm

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by arkerr123 » Fri Aug 23, 2013 9:06 pm

Anything will make you feel better... The trick is to actually do it. Ya cant get fit by sitting on the sofa.

Tigermoose
Posts: 556
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2012 5:02 pm

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by Tigermoose » Tue Aug 27, 2013 9:44 am

Gatorman, thanks for the book and workout recommendation.

I got a lot of results from doing the big five core with Mark Rippetoe's starting strength - bench press, shoulder press, deadlift, power clean, pullups. Unfortunately, once the weight gets intense it gets a little too hard on my joints and bad knee. I also have not been able to lean up doing this workout. My experience is that it is good for gaining strength, but not leaning.

This Body by Science workout looks like a lower impact, endurance muscle type workout that could give me a good break from the stress imposed by Starting Strength. I read the sample from the iTunes bookstore, and I've now purchased the ebook. This morning I followed the advice you gave on your original post and did a variation of what you suggested. I'll modify as I read the book. I think this will be better on my bad knee and lead to a healthier balance. I hope to lean up but retain a decent level of strength.

Again, thanks for the recommendation.
Institutions matter

protagonist
Posts: 5463
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 12:47 pm

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by protagonist » Tue Aug 27, 2013 4:38 pm

BBS Workout #3. 5 days after the last workout (I shortened the time interval from the recommended week because I did not feel particularly achy days after the last workout). One 25 mile bike ride in between workouts, averaging 14 mph.

Again, I made incremental gains. I increased the resistance on 3 of the 5 exercises and did 1-2 more reps on a fourth. No progress on one. It's actually difficult to assess progress, since, as anybody who has done this rather grueling short workout can tell you, one second per rep on an exercise can make a big difference, and I have not been keeping track of the amount of time I spend on each exercise. I should know in a few months. It still feels amazing to me to be in and out of the gym so quickly.

Again, I believe I worked to failure, as I could not even begin to do an ab crunch or push-up after the workout.

After the workout I was only slightly out of breath for a couple of minutes and my HR immediately after leg presses was only 122 bpm. Thus, again, I have serious reservations about the cardio benefits.

User avatar
gatorman
Posts: 2493
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 9:35 am
Location: The Swamp

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by gatorman » Tue Aug 27, 2013 6:09 pm

Tigermoose wrote:Gatorman, thanks for the book and workout recommendation.

I got a lot of results from doing the big five core with Mark Rippetoe's starting strength - bench press, shoulder press, deadlift, power clean, pullups. Unfortunately, once the weight gets intense it gets a little too hard on my joints and bad knee. I also have not been able to lean up doing this workout. My experience is that it is good for gaining strength, but not leaning.

This Body by Science workout looks like a lower impact, endurance muscle type workout that could give me a good break from the stress imposed by Starting Strength. I read the sample from the iTunes bookstore, and I've now purchased the ebook. This morning I followed the advice you gave on your original post and did a variation of what you suggested. I'll modify as I read the book. I think this will be better on my bad knee and lead to a healthier balance. I hope to lean up but retain a decent level of strength.

Again, thanks for the recommendation.
You are very welcome. I hope it works great for you.
gatorman

User avatar
gatorman
Posts: 2493
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 9:35 am
Location: The Swamp

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by gatorman » Tue Aug 27, 2013 6:18 pm

protagonist wrote:BBS Workout #3. 5 days after the last workout (I shortened the time interval from the recommended week because I did not feel particularly achy days after the last workout). One 25 mile bike ride in between workouts, averaging 14 mph.

Again, I made incremental gains. I increased the resistance on 3 of the 5 exercises and did 1-2 more reps on a fourth. No progress on one. It's actually difficult to assess progress, since, as anybody who has done this rather grueling short workout can tell you, one second per rep on an exercise can make a big difference, and I have not been keeping track of the amount of time I spend on each exercise. I should know in a few months. It still feels amazing to me to be in and out of the gym so quickly.

Again, I believe I worked to failure, as I could not even begin to do an ab crunch or push-up after the workout.

After the workout I was only slightly out of breath for a couple of minutes and my HR immediately after leg presses was only 122 bpm. Thus, again, I have serious reservations about the cardio benefits.

I don't think there is anything magic about 7 days. everyone is different, so if you feel you are recovered after 5 days- go for it. Your body will tell you soon enough whether you are correct. If you feel good and keep making progress on 5 days rest, that is probably what is optimum for you. But if you find you aren't making much progress, are unusually tired or aren't really recovered after 5 days, stretch it out. It is not a crash program for getting in shape, it is a program for staying in reasonable shape for the rest of your life.
gatorman

Rodc
Posts: 13601
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 9:46 am

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by Rodc » Mon Sep 02, 2013 7:47 pm

Ok. I bought and read the book.

I like the ideas for strength training and will give it a try (more or less as discussed below).

Book review:

The authors have two primary largely independent ideas. The first is that you can get all the health and fitness you need from 10 minutes or so of proper strength training once a week, or even once every couple of weeks; other than that you can, even should be a couch potato. The other primary idea is if you exercise hard you need (a great deal of) rest to recover and have your body respond positively to the stress you have placed on your system.

The authors, like virtually all self-help/health/fitness authors probably over-sell their ideas and overly-poopoo other ideas. It is simply the nature of humans to be overly confident in their ideas and have trouble seeing shortcomings in them, as well as the nature of authors who have a product to sell. For examples of the later, their evidence that running is a really bad idea is that 2,500 years ago a couple of Greek warriors ran much father than 100 miles and dropped dead. One right away and one the next day when he ran an additional marathon or so. So, clearly a 5 mile run is bad for you. Running is also a huge waste of time, and for evidence they invent a story about a man who takes nearly 2 hours a day to run 3 miles and in the process misses his daughter's dance recital. Sounds to me like a fictional story of someone utterly lacking in time management skills and with a poor set of priorities. But, I certainly agree, if you need two hours to run 3 miles you might want to work on being more efficient. They take such a contrary position that they can't possibly address the question of how people who actually like to run might benefit from their ideas, which is really too bad.

After putting up and knocking down some strawmen, the book moves on to the author's ideas and the going gets much more worthwhile.

First who am I to have an opinion? I have been active for nearly 40 years, though never at the level of the top athletes in this thread. I have never been a competitive athlete; I just like being active and pushing myself. I'm 56 years old, 5ft 8in, and 145 lbs. I have always been slow, weak and skinny; by nature if I am built for anything, it would be endurance. Several years ago it became clear I needed to work in some strength training which I have been doing on an admittedly ad hoc basis. Running has always been in my execrise mix, but at times only 3 miles 2 or 3 times a week, up to running more than 4 hours at a pop. My last race was 16 years ago at age 40 when I ran a 3:39 marathon - nothing to write home about for a serious runner, but for an off again on again 40 year old desk jockey not bad. I really like to run. At times I did a lot of swimming, up to 20 miles a week, with the occasional 10K thrown in for fun. There have been times when I was rock climbing 3-5 days a week at a pretty good level, back in the 1980s. I still climb some, last month I went out to CO and did this climb http://www.mountainproject.com/v/casual-route/105748496. You can see some pictures at the bottom of the link. It is about 1,600 ft of climbing all told as you climb 600 ft to get to the start of the 1,000 ft Diamond face on Long's Peak. About 1,000 ft is basically vertical and It ends on an overhanging face at 14,000ft. Not terribly hard by modern standards, but not bad for a 56 year old desk jockey.

I have spent years on the edge of overuse injury, not infrequently on the wrong side of the edge. In getting ready for that climb I was in the climbing gym twice a week, and running twice a week for about 15 miles. Other days in my standard gym I did 60-100 pull ups, plus 100 push ups, 100 squat-to-leaps and some overhead lifts with modest weights, core work, and hard interval workouts on the stairmaster, and now my right shoulder is cranky. So, back to the book: the idea that you need a generous amount of rest to recover fully is something I have often failed to do. I keep trying to work more recovery into my routine, and I try to really mix up exercises to cut down on over use. According to this book I clearly need to work much harder to get more rest, and I think that is true. I think this is an important point that is often overlooked (by myself and others).

The idea that you need adequate recovery really has nothing specific to do with strength training; it would cure many of the ills the authors point out about other types of exercise. I don't find this controversial and I find it helpful.

Now to the heart of the book: Can 10 minutes of really hard lifting once a week or every other week make you stronger? I expect the answer for many of us is yes. And I think their method is likely to do so and do so with lower rates of injury. Can it, in and of itself, make you "fit"? I personally am very skeptical. If all you mean is sure you can lift the occasional box of books or help your friend move the occasional couch without throwing out your back sure. But, I want to wake up, see the sun shining and decide on a whim to go for an 8 mile trail run through the local woods or a couple of hour trail ride on my bike. Or go on a 20 mile hike over a couple of mountains, or go rock climbing, or as I did recently, spend most of a day helping a friend move. I need real endurance, and I really don't see how 10 minutes of even hard work is going to prepare me for a 10 hour mountain hike or 10 hour climb, or even half of that. To me, that is fitness.

In part, it really comes down to things that sound too good to be true, probably are not true. In fairness though, I do have to give credit. They are very careful to caution, at length, that the vast majority of us are not going to become super strong - we just don't have the genetics. I have lifted at times, run a lot at times, etc., and I get better, but clearly I don't have serious athlete genes. Sad, but true. :)

One big problem with this book is they claim you have to do nearly nothing between lifting days. If you are a football player or soccer player, you likely have to drop strength training during the season - you just don't have the resources to properly recover. Someone who really likes a year-round active lifestyle is going to have a lot of trouble with this approach.

I think my best bet, as I do think their method sounds good, is to strength train on Monday, take a few days off, exercise as desired for a week, take a few days off, then lift Monday, and repeat the two week cycle.

I started last Monday. I did not really lift to positive failure. I need to get the weights and technique right. I can tell that in part the difficulty is just psychological; it is hard to push that hard in that way. I beat myself up a little "playing" this weekend, so I need some recovery before trying again.

Stay tuned. Future posts will be much shorter. :)
We live a world with knowledge of the future markets has less than one significant figure. And people will still and always demand answers to three significant digits.

User avatar
steve roy
Posts: 1588
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 5:16 pm

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by steve roy » Mon Sep 02, 2013 11:32 pm

Nice post, Rod, for which thanks.

I've gotten good advice from BBS. I use what is useful for my life, and modify the rest. Pretty much what I do with investing advice here.

protagonist
Posts: 5463
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 12:47 pm

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by protagonist » Tue Sep 03, 2013 9:05 am

Rodc wrote:Ok. I bought and read the book.

I like the ideas for strength training and will give it a try (more or less as discussed below).

Book review:

The authors have two primary largely independent ideas. The first is that you can get all the health and fitness you need from 10 minutes or so of proper strength training once a week, or even once every couple of weeks; other than that you can, even should be a couch potato. The other primary idea is if you exercise hard you need (a great deal of) rest to recover and have your body respond positively to the stress you have placed on your system.

The authors, like virtually all self-help/health/fitness authors probably over-sell their ideas and overly-poopoo other ideas. It is simply the nature of humans to be overly confident in their ideas and have trouble seeing shortcomings in them, as well as the nature of authors who have a product to sell. For examples of the later, their evidence that running is a really bad idea is that 2,500 years ago a couple of Greek warriors ran much father than 100 miles and dropped dead. One right away and one the next day when he ran an additional marathon or so. So, clearly a 5 mile run is bad for you. Running is also a huge waste of time, and for evidence they invent a story about a man who takes nearly 2 hours a day to run 3 miles and in the process misses his daughter's dance recital. Sounds to me like a fictional story of someone utterly lacking in time management skills and with a poor set of priorities. But, I certainly agree, if you need two hours to run 3 miles you might want to work on being more efficient. They take such a contrary position that they can't possibly address the question of how people who actually like to run might benefit from their ideas, which is really too bad.

After putting up and knocking down some strawmen, the book moves on to the author's ideas and the going gets much more worthwhile.

First who am I to have an opinion? I have been active for nearly 40 years, though never at the level of the top athletes in this thread. I have never been a competitive athlete; I just like being active and pushing myself. I'm 56 years old, 5ft 8in, and 145 lbs. I have always been slow, weak and skinny; by nature if I am built for anything, it would be endurance. Several years ago it became clear I needed to work in some strength training which I have been doing on an admittedly ad hoc basis. Running has always been in my execrise mix, but at times only 3 miles 2 or 3 times a week, up to running more than 4 hours at a pop. My last race was 16 years ago at age 40 when I ran a 3:39 marathon - nothing to write home about for a serious runner, but for an off again on again 40 year old desk jockey not bad. I really like to run. At times I did a lot of swimming, up to 20 miles a week, with the occasional 10K thrown in for fun. There have been times when I was rock climbing 3-5 days a week at a pretty good level, back in the 1980s. I still climb some, last month I went out to CO and did this climb http://www.mountainproject.com/v/casual-route/105748496. You can see some pictures at the bottom of the link. It is about 1,600 ft of climbing all told as you climb 600 ft to get to the start of the 1,000 ft Diamond face on Long's Peak. About 1,000 ft is basically vertical and It ends on an overhanging face at 14,000ft. Not terribly hard by modern standards, but not bad for a 56 year old desk jockey.

I have spent years on the edge of overuse injury, not infrequently on the wrong side of the edge. In getting ready for that climb I was in the climbing gym twice a week, and running twice a week for about 15 miles. Other days in my standard gym I did 60-100 pull ups, plus 100 push ups, 100 squat-to-leaps and some overhead lifts with modest weights, core work, and hard interval workouts on the stairmaster, and now my right shoulder is cranky. So, back to the book: the idea that you need a generous amount of rest to recover fully is something I have often failed to do. I keep trying to work more recovery into my routine, and I try to really mix up exercises to cut down on over use. According to this book I clearly need to work much harder to get more rest, and I think that is true. I think this is an important point that is often overlooked (by myself and others).

The idea that you need adequate recovery really has nothing specific to do with strength training; it would cure many of the ills the authors point out about other types of exercise. I don't find this controversial and I find it helpful.

Now to the heart of the book: Can 10 minutes of really hard lifting once a week or every other week make you stronger? I expect the answer for many of us is yes. And I think their method is likely to do so and do so with lower rates of injury. Can it, in and of itself, make you "fit"? I personally am very skeptical. If all you mean is sure you can lift the occasional box of books or help your friend move the occasional couch without throwing out your back sure. But, I want to wake up, see the sun shining and decide on a whim to go for an 8 mile trail run through the local woods or a couple of hour trail ride on my bike. Or go on a 20 mile hike over a couple of mountains, or go rock climbing, or as I did recently, spend most of a day helping a friend move. I need real endurance, and I really don't see how 10 minutes of even hard work is going to prepare me for a 10 hour mountain hike or 10 hour climb, or even half of that. To me, that is fitness.

In part, it really comes down to things that sound too good to be true, probably are not true. In fairness though, I do have to give credit. They are very careful to caution, at length, that the vast majority of us are not going to become super strong - we just don't have the genetics. I have lifted at times, run a lot at times, etc., and I get better, but clearly I don't have serious athlete genes. Sad, but true. :)

One big problem with this book is they claim you have to do nearly nothing between lifting days. If you are a football player or soccer player, you likely have to drop strength training during the season - you just don't have the resources to properly recover. Someone who really likes a year-round active lifestyle is going to have a lot of trouble with this approach.

I think my best bet, as I do think their method sounds good, is to strength train on Monday, take a few days off, exercise as desired for a week, take a few days off, then lift Monday, and repeat the two week cycle.

I started last Monday. I did not really lift to positive failure. I need to get the weights and technique right. I can tell that in part the difficulty is just psychological; it is hard to push that hard in that way. I beat myself up a little "playing" this weekend, so I need some recovery before trying again.

Stay tuned. Future posts will be much shorter. :)
Rodc....thanks for your analysis....your thoughts (and body) are fairly similar to mine.
I would be interested in your results.
Do you feel like you got any significant cardio workout during your BBS workout?

My BBS Workout #4 (6 days after workout #3): Could do one more rep (8 reps) at same weight on seated row. I will add 10 lb to seated row next time. All other exercises unchanged. HR 118 immediately after leg press. I did one 20 mile bike ride between workouts #3 and 4.
BBS workout

Rodc
Posts: 13601
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 9:46 am

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by Rodc » Tue Sep 03, 2013 9:39 am

Do you feel like you got any significant cardio workout during your BBS workout?
No. In fairness though, I didn't do a really good job with the first attempt at really pushing to total failure. Also, I'm pretty fit, resting HR is around 53 bpm and I can hold a steady pace for 10s of minutes at 170+, with a peak in the 180s (standard formula would suggest that is a max for someone in their mid 30s), and I do a couple of hard interval sessions per week on a stairmaster so my version of significant cardio may not match everyone's definition.
We live a world with knowledge of the future markets has less than one significant figure. And people will still and always demand answers to three significant digits.

protagonist
Posts: 5463
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 12:47 pm

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by protagonist » Tue Sep 03, 2013 11:25 am

Rodc wrote:
Do you feel like you got any significant cardio workout during your BBS workout?
No. In fairness though, I didn't do a really good job with the first attempt at really pushing to total failure. Also, I'm pretty fit, resting HR is around 53 bpm and I can hold a steady pace for 10s of minutes at 170+, with a peak in the 180s (standard formula would suggest that is a max for someone in their mid 30s), and I do a couple of hard interval sessions per week on a stairmaster so my version of significant cardio may not match everyone's definition.
Similar- though I think you are more active than I am. BP about 90/65, resting HR about 58. Not bad for a guy my age. That said, I was never able to "bulk up" regardless of how hard I push it. I build endurance rapidly but not speed. I assume that is genetics.

Tigermoose
Posts: 556
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2012 5:02 pm

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by Tigermoose » Tue Sep 03, 2013 11:32 am

I thought that the point of the authors was that there is no such thing as "cardio" as we generally think about it. Instead, certain muscles are conditioned to operate more efficiently when we train them in certain activities, and we develop better technique through practice, and thus we require less oxygen and energy to perform those activities as our muscles adapt to that skill specific activity.

So, for example, when your BPM reduce as you train yourself at running, this isn't because your "cardio" is improving, but rather because the muscles that are being used during running are being conditioned to be more efficient, and your technique in running is becoming more efficient. Thus, your body does not have to exert itself as much and that is reflected in a lower BPM score.
Institutions matter

Rodc
Posts: 13601
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 9:46 am

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by Rodc » Tue Sep 03, 2013 12:19 pm

I thought that the point of the authors was that there is no such thing as "cardio" as we generally think about it.
I think that is accurate. (And a place I think they over-sell. To be fair, perhaps also a place where endurance enthusiasts also over-sell in the opposite direction. But I don't have the background to say with any authority.)

Others in favor of BBS in this thread comment on how hard your heart/lungs/circulation system works when you do this sort of work out. The question as I took it was, in my one try did I experience this effect.
We live a world with knowledge of the future markets has less than one significant figure. And people will still and always demand answers to three significant digits.

protagonist
Posts: 5463
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 12:47 pm

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by protagonist » Tue Sep 03, 2013 12:46 pm

Rodc wrote:
I thought that the point of the authors was that there is no such thing as "cardio" as we generally think about it.
I think that is accurate. (And a place I think they over-sell. To be fair, perhaps also a place where endurance enthusiasts also over-sell in the opposite direction. But I don't have the background to say with any authority.)

Others in favor of BBS in this thread comment on how hard your heart/lungs/circulation system works when you do this sort of work out. The question as I took it was, in my one try did I experience this effect.
I am not disputing the authors' claims regarding the benefits of muscular conditioning on the cardiovascular system (related to efficiency and demand), but to state that there is no such thing as "cardio" is false. Your heart definitely responds positively to "aerobic conditioning". For those who want technicalities, here is one reference of many: http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/122/12/1221.full As for relative importance of muscular conditioning vs cardio conditioning, I'm no expert.

Rolyatroba
Posts: 207
Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2013 1:14 pm

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by Rolyatroba » Tue Sep 03, 2013 1:28 pm

protagonist wrote:I am not disputing the authors' claims regarding the benefits of muscular conditioning on the cardiovascular system (related to efficiency and demand), but to state that there is no such thing as "cardio" is false. Your heart definitely responds positively to "aerobic conditioning". For those who want technicalities, here is one reference of many: http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/122/12/1221.full
The authors do not state that "cardio" is false. Note the conclusion/summary of Chapter Two: "Low-intensity, steady-state activity is not necessarily the best way to improve your cardiovascular system."

What they are saying is that aerobic conditioning, especially low-intensity, steady-state exercise (i.e., no intervals), might be highly over-rated compared to what a proper strength training routine can give you. "Cardio" certainly has it's benefits, but strength training, in addition to giving a cardio benefit, does a couple of key things that cardio does not: 1) more greatly utilizes the glycolytic energy system, and 2) more thoroughly employs available motor units in the muscle fibers

Further, they go on to say that the CV system is largely autonomic, meaning it quite easily adapts to the requirements that the muscular system places on it. This is why VO2 max improves very quickly in study subjects, and peaks very quickly in one's athletic training career. As your link shows, there certainly are CV adaptations to aerobic exercise, but do we know if those adaptations would also accompany a strength-only routine? This is not clear to me, and I believe it is something that doesn't have an adequate answer in the professional medical/physiological communities, and thus they advise to do both. The authors think that strength only is sufficient, and for that we might be able to accuse them of over-selling.

Last, don't confuse the health aspect of cardio with the endurance aspect. No amount of strength training can get you to your maximum level in an endurance sport, like cycling or running. It is very clear that more traditional aerobic training, including a combination of steady-state and high-intensity sessions, is needed to maximize one's aerobic performance.

lightheir
Posts: 2303
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 11:43 pm

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by lightheir » Tue Sep 03, 2013 3:27 pm

A more succinct summary of your statement above is that the authors assume that the level of cardio needed for health is so minimal that it doesn't need to be specifically trained.

I would definitely disagree with this. Given that cardiovascular disease is always a top cause of mortality in the US, I'd say that achieving as high a level of cardiovascular fitness as possible is perhaps the most important thing you can do for your overall health.

While running or other pure cardio isn't going to be a magic bullet and solve your genetics or poor diet, it's pretty universally agreed that if you specifically train your cardiovascular system (and especially if you also lose significant weight by doing it), you're reducing your cardiovascular health risks. Sarcopenia is a much lower health risk in comparison.

(Doing both cardio + some strength training is still the best approach, no argument there.)

Rolyatroba
Posts: 207
Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2013 1:14 pm

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by Rolyatroba » Tue Sep 03, 2013 7:38 pm

lightheir wrote:A more succinct summary of your statement above is that the authors assume that the level of cardio needed for health is so minimal that it doesn't need to be specifically trained.
That's not at all what they are saying. What they are saying is that strength training alone well engages the aerobic pathway of metabolic energy, and thus the CV system. So, by doing strength training alone you are indeed specifically training the CV system.

The question is whether or not 12 minutes a week is enough for good CV health. We've learned in the last 10-20 years that replacing high volume low-intensity aerobic exercise with low-volume, high-intensity aerobic exercise results in similar adaptations, both in the CV system and in skeletal muscle--so it is certainly plausible that the BBS workout can attain similar CV benefits. It just remains to be seen whether this occurs at the volume level prescribed by the BBS authors.
Given that cardiovascular disease is always a top cause of mortality in the US, I'd say that achieving as high a level of cardiovascular fitness as possible is perhaps the most important thing you can do for your overall health.
That sounds like medical advice, so I won't debate it, other than to say there's a bit of faulty logic in this argument.
While running or other pure cardio isn't going to be a magic bullet and solve your genetics or poor diet, it's pretty universally agreed that if you specifically train your cardiovascular system (and especially if you also lose significant weight by doing it), you're reducing your cardiovascular health risks. Sarcopenia is a much lower health risk in comparison.
Stating this doesn't bolster your argument. We already know that aerobic exercise does lower the risk of CVD. Unfortunately, there just isn't a good study that reveals with certainty what the absolute minimum amount of vigorous exercise is required for good CVD health.

stoptothink
Posts: 4514
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 9:53 am

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by stoptothink » Tue Sep 03, 2013 7:49 pm

lightheir wrote: Given that cardiovascular disease is always a top cause of mortality in the US, I'd say that achieving as high a level of cardiovascular fitness as possible is perhaps the most important thing you can do for your overall health.

While running or other pure cardio isn't going to be a magic bullet and solve your genetics or poor diet, it's pretty universally agreed that if you specifically train your cardiovascular system (and especially if you also lose significant weight by doing it), you're reducing your cardiovascular health risks. Sarcopenia is a much lower health risk in comparison.
And where is the evidence that endurance activity (such as you mentioned) is the most effective way to induce these beneficial adaptations?

User avatar
LadyGeek
Site Admin
Posts: 49146
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:34 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by LadyGeek » Tue Sep 03, 2013 8:19 pm

Repeating my prior posts, providing medical advice; which is diet and (medical conditions or treatments), is off-topic.I removed the referenced article. Please stick to the exercise aspects.
Medical Issues

Questions on medical issues are beyond the scope of the forum. If you are looking for medical information online, I'd like to suggest you start with the Medical Library Association's User's Guide to Finding and Evaluating Health Information on the Web which, in addition to providing guidance on evaluating health information, includes lists of their top recommended sites in the following categories: consumer health, cancer, diabetes and heart disease. They also provide a larger, but less frequently updated, list called Top 100 List: Health Websites You Can Trust
Refutation or support of medical information cannot be accomplished in an anonymous internet forum (qualifications cannot be verified, readers may misinterpret discussion), which is another reason medical discussions are not permitted.

Update: After receiving a PM, I restored the article (physiological in nature, did not give medical advice).
Wiki To some, the glass is half full. To others, the glass is half empty. To an engineer, it's twice the size it needs to be.

User avatar
LadyGeek
Site Admin
Posts: 49146
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:34 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by LadyGeek » Tue Sep 03, 2013 9:27 pm

gatorking wrote:http://video.pbs.org/video/2364989581/
This PBS video has some very interesting information on effects of exercise, especially HIT. Enjoy.
I'd like to point out that this video link expires on 9/14/13 - there's only a few days left.

I'm intentionally trying to avoid participating in the thread so I can maintain an independent perspective. However, that video was very interesting to me.

Everything discussed here (and in the video) is very reminiscent of a technique I learned quite some time ago- interval training. (See: interval training military - Google Search). Along with basic calisthenics, I would use interval training techniques when I jogged. I never looked back.

Fast forward a bunch of years :P, I do a similar technique with my elliptical trainer. Hop on it at the maximum resistance to fail in 1 minute. On some days, I can barely stand. Others, I could go longer. When I'm in the mood, I'll go longer at a lower resistance setting, but reverse direction at regular intervals, e.g. forward for 5 minutes, 2:30 minutes reverse, then forward again. I consider the reversal of direction as a mini-interval.

It's a great way to stay warm in the winter. If you've been sitting down all day, hop on the elliptical for a minute.

Now, we have "high intensity" training in various forms. I'll keep doing what I know works for me.

Update 04-Sep: Clarified my elliptical technique. For completeness, I have a chin-up bar across the top of the doorway entrance.
Wiki To some, the glass is half full. To others, the glass is half empty. To an engineer, it's twice the size it needs to be.

lightheir
Posts: 2303
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 11:43 pm

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by lightheir » Tue Sep 03, 2013 9:51 pm

stoptothink wrote:
lightheir wrote: Given that cardiovascular disease is always a top cause of mortality in the US, I'd say that achieving as high a level of cardiovascular fitness as possible is perhaps the most important thing you can do for your overall health.

While running or other pure cardio isn't going to be a magic bullet and solve your genetics or poor diet, it's pretty universally agreed that if you specifically train your cardiovascular system (and especially if you also lose significant weight by doing it), you're reducing your cardiovascular health risks. Sarcopenia is a much lower health risk in comparison.
And where is the evidence that endurance activity (such as you mentioned) is the most effective way to induce these beneficial adaptations?
You can google it. There's far more literature on the CVD benefits of aerobic exercises than by using weight training to induce CVD benefits. Bruce protocol, etc., whatever endurance test you choose. Weightlifting will almost certainly not improve your Bruce protocol performance, particularly compared to a walking or jog/run training regimen.

Just because there's no minimum level established for 'good CVD health' doesn't at all mean that by conclusion CVD is either useless, or that weight training is superior.

Again, I think the authors of that book are really making the claim that the level of CVD of 'health' is so low that you can get it through their prescribed hi-intensity weight resistance training. As others have posted above, you really don't get sufficiently out of breath with weight training hi-resistance low-rep exercises to actually improve CVD.

I think part of the debate here is what we consider 'good minimum health.' My definition is almost certainly different than what the authors of this book are supporting.

stoptothink
Posts: 4514
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 9:53 am

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by stoptothink » Tue Sep 03, 2013 10:23 pm

lightheir wrote:
stoptothink wrote:
lightheir wrote: Given that cardiovascular disease is always a top cause of mortality in the US, I'd say that achieving as high a level of cardiovascular fitness as possible is perhaps the most important thing you can do for your overall health.

While running or other pure cardio isn't going to be a magic bullet and solve your genetics or poor diet, it's pretty universally agreed that if you specifically train your cardiovascular system (and especially if you also lose significant weight by doing it), you're reducing your cardiovascular health risks. Sarcopenia is a much lower health risk in comparison.
And where is the evidence that endurance activity (such as you mentioned) is the most effective way to induce these beneficial adaptations?
You can google it. There's far more literature on the CVD benefits of aerobic exercises than by using weight training to induce CVD benefits. Bruce protocol, etc., whatever endurance test you choose. Weightlifting will almost certainly not improve your Bruce protocol performance, particularly compared to a walking or jog/run training regimen.

Just because there's no minimum level established for 'good CVD health' doesn't at all mean that by conclusion CVD is either useless, or that weight training is superior.

Again, I think the authors of that book are really making the claim that the level of CVD of 'health' is so low that you can get it through their prescribed hi-intensity weight resistance training. As others have posted above, you really don't get sufficiently out of breath with weight training hi-resistance low-rep exercises to actually improve CVD.

I think part of the debate here is what we consider 'good minimum health.' My definition is almost certainly different than what the authors of this book are supporting.
I think we both agree that the program is not ideal for optimum health/performance by any stretch, and I get the impression from the posts of those who have read it that it isn't the purpose. I just get a kick out of endurance athletes' complete disdain for resistance training, it is every bit as important for long-term health.

lightheir
Posts: 2303
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 11:43 pm

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by lightheir » Wed Sep 04, 2013 6:57 am

It's not a complete disdain for resistance training. It's just that the likely reality is that if you run for 20 mins/day, you're likely going to get all the resistance training you need for general health. As I've stated repeatedly, the weight-bearing nature of running is enormous - every step you take running is 2-5x/your body weight of impact, directly loaded onto the areas that need it most, particularly lumbar spine, and strengthening your core stabilzers. That's the most crucial resistance training you need.

Again, don't misinterpret this as a position on thinking resistance training is useless. It's in fact quite useful for acts of daily living for older folks or for inactive folks who don't run, and extremely useful (crucial) if you play a field sports or other sports that require strength. But in the context of a severely time-limited workout regimen (like 3-4x/week, 20mins at a time), I'd argue that the combined benefits of cardio, core strength, coordination, and bone density from spending most if not all of that meagre 20 mins running, will exceed that of weightlifting, particularly the older you get. (Young teenagers and young adults are typically free of CVD or bone loss, etc., so I could see how that group would think weightlifting does more for them.)

This is coming from somebody who lifted weights for 15 years in the style of a competitive weightlifter, so I'm no stranger to the benefits and the techniques involved in optimizing strength. I admittedly don't do minimalist training anymore since I am a competitive endurance athlete now, but I will definitely say that at my age (approaching middle age), endurance training is far more relevant for my health than weight training is - mainly for the CVD and the weight loss maintenance issue. (I'd be 20-30 lbs heavier at my age without the endurance training judging from my father and brother who lift weights instead - that alone almost completely negates the benefits of weight training for health.)

Actually, it's hard to even come up with a single real health benefit I'd get on that 20 minute weightlifting program compared to running for that whole time, as the functional strength I get from endurance training is far more than sufficient for even the most demanding acts of daily living and then some. I'd get stronger in some motions, yes, but that's almost all of the effect.

Rodc
Posts: 13601
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 9:46 am

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by Rodc » Wed Sep 04, 2013 7:42 am

Actually, it's hard to even come up with a single real health benefit I'd get on that 20 minute weightlifting program compared to running for that whole time, as the functional strength I get from endurance training is far more than sufficient for even the most demanding acts of daily living and then some. I'd get stronger in some motions, yes, but that's almost all of the effect.
As noted above, by nature I am weak and skinny. For me, when I moved into my 50s, I found I really needed some strength training, even though I was doing a lot of running, stairmaster, some biking and some occasional rock climbing. I was losing too many battles when trying to open jars or lifting heavy things around the house, etc. :) If I were stronger by nature this may not have been needed. Or if I was still swimming regularly as you do, that likely would have been enough.
We live a world with knowledge of the future markets has less than one significant figure. And people will still and always demand answers to three significant digits.

protagonist
Posts: 5463
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 12:47 pm

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by protagonist » Wed Sep 04, 2013 8:29 am

Rodc wrote:
Actually, it's hard to even come up with a single real health benefit I'd get on that 20 minute weightlifting program compared to running for that whole time, as the functional strength I get from endurance training is far more than sufficient for even the most demanding acts of daily living and then some. I'd get stronger in some motions, yes, but that's almost all of the effect.
As noted above, by nature I am weak and skinny. For me, when I moved into my 50s, I found I really needed some strength training, even though I was doing a lot of running, stairmaster, some biking and some occasional rock climbing. I was losing too many battles when trying to open jars or lifting heavy things around the house, etc. :) If I were stronger by nature this may not have been needed. Or if I was still swimming regularly as you do, that likely would have been enough.
You and I have a lot in common genetically. I couldn't imagine benching 310 even if I spent 24/7 in the gym, doped myself with steroids, and lived on nothing but protein shakes. So I would be very interested to hear your experiences with the BBS program as well.

FRANK2009
Posts: 355
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2007 6:16 pm

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by FRANK2009 » Wed Sep 04, 2013 10:56 am

For optimal health you've got to do a little of both strength and CV work. Add in a daily 2 mile walk if you're a couch potato i.e. office worker.

http://www.ageless-athletes.com/

stoptothink
Posts: 4514
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 9:53 am

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by stoptothink » Wed Sep 04, 2013 12:00 pm

FRANK2009 wrote:For optimal health you've got to do a little of both strength and CV work. Add in a daily 2 mile walk if you're a couch potato i.e. office worker.

http://www.ageless-athletes.com/
It really is that simple. If your aim is simply to maintain overall health, not an explicit athletic goal, your time is best spent incorporating both; even if that means splitting the time between 10min running/biking/swimming/rowing intervals and 10min resistance circuit or alternating days.

stoptothink
Posts: 4514
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 9:53 am

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by stoptothink » Wed Sep 04, 2013 12:02 pm

lightheir wrote: Actually, it's hard to even come up with a single real health benefit I'd get on that 20 minute weightlifting program compared to running for that whole time, as the functional strength I get from endurance training is far more than sufficient for even the most demanding acts of daily living and then some.
Knowing you are both a serious athlete and medical professional, I have a hard time believing you are saying this with a straight face.

Rolyatroba
Posts: 207
Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2013 1:14 pm

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by Rolyatroba » Wed Sep 04, 2013 12:07 pm

lightheir wrote:You can google it. There's far more literature on the CVD benefits of aerobic exercises than by using weight training to induce CVD benefits. Bruce protocol, etc., whatever endurance test you choose. Weightlifting will almost certainly not improve your Bruce protocol performance, particularly compared to a walking or jog/run training regimen.
On the statement that weightlifting will not improve your Bruce protocol performance, are you referring to the cardiograph results or the VO2max results? The latter is irrelevant to CV health, so I'm thinking you are referring to cardiograph results, and if so, can you provide some data that corroborates that? That would go a long way to convince me that the authors are indeed over-selling.

User avatar
ursineogre
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 7:17 am

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by ursineogre » Wed Sep 04, 2013 2:19 pm

I think the BBS workout seems similar to the Lean Gains or Strong LIfts 5x5 workouts. Both emphasize focusing on a finite set of exercises, primarily bench press, squats, deadlift, overhead press and rows (or chinups/pullups), resting 1 or 2 days between workouts and getting back to it.

In two weeks of using the 5x5 program, I've increased my 5x5 squat weight from 275 to 305lbs. That isn't that much, but I think it is respectable.

For reference, I am 6'2", 210lbs, try to eat paleo except for the infrequent treat and have been lifting since I was 14.

If we are allowed to say paleo on here (assuming stating what I eat in a 24 hour period is okay as long as I don't insinuate that eating x will improve your y), then I'll add some fun diet meals or whatever.

For more info:

http://lean-gains.org/leangains-training/
http://freetheanimal.com/2010/11/leanga ... roach.html
http://stronglifts.com/stronglifts-5x5- ... g-program/
http://www.fitnessinfographics.com/lean ... fts-paleo/

Tigermoose
Posts: 556
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2012 5:02 pm

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by Tigermoose » Wed Sep 04, 2013 2:33 pm

ursineogre wrote:I think the BBS workout seems similar to the Lean Gains or Strong LIfts 5x5 workouts. Both emphasize focusing on a finite set of exercises, primarily bench press, squats, deadlift, overhead press and rows (or chinups/pullups), resting 1 or 2 days between workouts and getting back to it.

In two weeks of using the 5x5 program, I've increased my 5x5 squat weight from 275 to 305lbs. That isn't that much, but I think it is respectable.

For reference, I am 6'2", 210lbs, try to eat paleo except for the infrequent treat and have been lifting since I was 14.

If we are allowed to say paleo on here (assuming stating what I eat in a 24 hour period is okay as long as I don't insinuate that eating x will improve your y), then I'll add some fun diet meals or whatever.

For more info:

http://lean-gains.org/leangains-training/
http://freetheanimal.com/2010/11/leanga ... roach.html
http://stronglifts.com/stronglifts-5x5- ... g-program/
http://www.fitnessinfographics.com/lean ... fts-paleo/
Hi Ursineogre -

The BBS workout stresses waiting a week or more before using a muscle group again.

The problem I've had with lifting is that after making great gains for several weeks, my joints and knees and lower back and various miscellaneous "frame" issues creep in because my body is being degraded by the heavy intense training. I'm giving BBS a try because I think my body can do it long term. Maybe a mix-up of the training methodologies would work for the long haul -- intense strength training followed by BBS slow lifts for a period, then switching back once my body has recovered. For now I will see where the BBS program takes me.

As far as I. F. -- skipping breakfast is a convenient way for me to reduce calories when trying to lean. :P
Institutions matter

Rodc
Posts: 13601
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 9:46 am

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by Rodc » Wed Sep 04, 2013 2:44 pm

As far as I. F. -- skipping breakfast is a convenient way for me to reduce calories when trying to lean.
I would never skip breakfast. As I have aged and my metabolism has decreased I have found I need to cut out the second breakfast, at least most days. Some times I cut out a later meal. So now I am down to about 4 meals a day. Some days even down to 3. I count this among the losses of increasing age. I imagine some day I will be fully down to 3 meals a day.

It does help the budget. :)
We live a world with knowledge of the future markets has less than one significant figure. And people will still and always demand answers to three significant digits.

lightheir
Posts: 2303
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 11:43 pm

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by lightheir » Wed Sep 04, 2013 3:42 pm

stoptothink wrote:
lightheir wrote: Actually, it's hard to even come up with a single real health benefit I'd get on that 20 minute weightlifting program compared to running for that whole time, as the functional strength I get from endurance training is far more than sufficient for even the most demanding acts of daily living and then some.
Knowing you are both a serious athlete and medical professional, I have a hard time believing you are saying this with a straight face.
I'm saying it with a dead straight face.

Weight training offers me NOTHING in terms of overall health benefits compared to what I get as a pure runner if I consider weight loss, core muscle coordination, bone density, and true cardiovascular health. Sure, I can lift slightly heavier objects if I'm training weights, but that's meaningless for health once you're over a basic level of lifting (which my wife who is 50% my strength easily qualifies as.)

Again, I LIKE weightlifting. I love the strength it gives me when I'm playing field sports, and yes, it gives you a better look of health from the muscle added. But - given a time limitation of 20 minutes of training total per day, I do not think I'd be healthier lifting 20 minutes a day intensely vs running 20 mins a day. I'd take the run 20 mins every time, without question. I've got my reasons for saying it when I've mentioned ad nauseum above (better weight loss, coordination, bone density, true functional core strength, overall metabolic adaptations), so if you disagree, that's fine - we agree to disagree.

Rolyatroba
Posts: 207
Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2013 1:14 pm

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by Rolyatroba » Wed Sep 04, 2013 3:49 pm

lightheir wrote:I'm saying it with a dead straight face.

Weight training offers me NOTHING in terms of overall health benefits compared to what I get as a pure runner if I consider weight loss, core muscle coordination, bone density, and true cardiovascular health. Sure, I can lift slightly heavier objects if I'm training weights, but that's meaningless for health once you're over a basic level of lifting (which my wife who is 50% my strength easily qualifies as.)

Again, I LIKE weightlifting. I love the strength it gives me when I'm playing field sports, and yes, it gives you a better look of health from the muscle added. But - given a time limitation of 20 minutes of training total per day, I do not think I'd be healthier lifting 20 minutes a day intensely vs running 20 mins a day. I'd take the run 20 mins every time, without question. I've got my reasons for saying it when I've mentioned ad nauseum above (better weight loss, coordination, bone density, true functional core strength, overall metabolic adaptations), so if you disagree, that's fine - we agree to disagree.
Since you're still engaged in this discussion, would you please respond to my question about the Bruce protocol?

You made quite a claim with that argument, and I'd like to see it supported. If you can't support it, you should retract it.

stoptothink
Posts: 4514
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 9:53 am

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by stoptothink » Wed Sep 04, 2013 3:53 pm

lightheir wrote:
stoptothink wrote:
lightheir wrote: Actually, it's hard to even come up with a single real health benefit I'd get on that 20 minute weightlifting program compared to running for that whole time, as the functional strength I get from endurance training is far more than sufficient for even the most demanding acts of daily living and then some.
Knowing you are both a serious athlete and medical professional, I have a hard time believing you are saying this with a straight face.
I'm saying it with a dead straight face.

Weight training offers me NOTHING in terms of overall health benefits compared to what I get as a pure runner if I consider weight loss, core muscle coordination, bone density, and true cardiovascular health. Sure, I can lift slightly heavier objects if I'm training weights, but that's meaningless for health once you're over a basic level of lifting (which my wife who is 50% my strength easily qualifies as.)

Again, I LIKE weightlifting. I love the strength it gives me when I'm playing field sports, and yes, it gives you a better look of health from the muscle added. But - given a time limitation of 20 minutes of training total per day, I do not think I'd be healthier lifting 20 minutes a day intensely vs running 20 mins a day. I'd take the run 20 mins every time, without question. I've got my reasons for saying it when I've mentioned ad nauseum above (better weight loss, coordination, bone density, true functional core strength, overall metabolic adaptations), so if you disagree, that's fine - we agree to disagree.
Better weight loss, coordination, bone density, functional core strength? That's the triathlete in you speaking, and we can agree to disagree.

User avatar
Sammy_M
Posts: 1888
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 8:30 am

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by Sammy_M » Wed Sep 04, 2013 4:20 pm

Sammy_M wrote:Sounds interesting so I decided to give it a try. I'll provide an update in the fall as to how it went. I'm around 165lb, early 40s, and have lifted on and off for 25 years. My 1 rep max bench press around 300 now. Given the bench:body weight ratio is already high, I expect limited gains under this (or any) strength building program. We'll see.

Tried it for the first time today and it went something like this:
(1) I went way too heavy at 155lb for bench. My 5 rep max is 275, so I thought 155 would be relatively easy. The slow down/up is killer! And man does it HURT! To finish the 15, I had to stop and drop to 135 which is where I'll start next time. I'm taking the 10 seconds up/down thing literally, and am using Bluetooth headphones and an Android app that beeps every 10 secs. Feels like forever!
(2) After bench press, I had to use just the bar (45lb) for overhead presses.
(3) Next were pullups at bodyweight. I only have free weights so will have to substitute these for both pulldowns and cable rows. My lower back couldn't take bent-over barbell rows at that slow pace. As far as body weight pullups, I can normally bang out 20 with no problem. I struggled to get 6 with the 10 sec up/down approach.
(4) Next were back squats and I decided to keep it at 135lb in order to finish. I don't have a leg press machine.
I was so winded after going through this routine, with virtually no rest, that I had to lay down afterwards. Reminded me of the feeling after a Crossfit workout.

In addition to this training program, I'll probably do 3-4 mi slow pace runs once or twice a week and an interval/tabata style workout once a week.
Just thought I'd close out on this. I followed the routine loosely since my initial post above from Jun 30.

The positive: I maintained most strength with only 20 minutes of weight training per week. The time savings allowed me to do other stuff.
The negative: I did not gain strength. Ex: I tried 275# benchpress for reps and failed on 5. Could've just been a bad day, but it's fair to say I didn't gain strength at typical controlled lifting pace.

There are probably a number of other variables, but my diet did not change noticeably. Aside from the weights, I ran a little more than usual - probably a 3-5 miler twice a week, and either intervals or sprints another time per week. I'll probably go back to a 5x5 or reverse-pyramid routine for a while with a little less running. I did not particularly enjoy BBS despite the time savings. It was good to have a change of pace (literally), but I guess I like working with more lbs and less discomfort.

lightheir
Posts: 2303
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 11:43 pm

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by lightheir » Wed Sep 04, 2013 5:28 pm

Rolyatroba wrote:
lightheir wrote:You can google it. There's far more literature on the CVD benefits of aerobic exercises than by using weight training to induce CVD benefits. Bruce protocol, etc., whatever endurance test you choose. Weightlifting will almost certainly not improve your Bruce protocol performance, particularly compared to a walking or jog/run training regimen.
On the statement that weightlifting will not improve your Bruce protocol performance, are you referring to the cardiograph results or the VO2max results? The latter is irrelevant to CV health, so I'm thinking you are referring to cardiograph results, and if so, can you provide some data that corroborates that? That would go a long way to convince me that the authors are indeed over-selling.
If you are doing poorly on the Bruce protocol, the best way to get better at it is to do cardiovascular exercise, be it walking, then jogging, and if possible, even running.

Weightlifting, like squats, bench presses, and deadlifts will do almost nothing for your Bruce protocol performance. You can bench 500 lbs and squat 1000lbs and still do horribly on the Bruce protocol.

I am also aware that the Bruce protocol is far from the definitive answer for cardiovasculr fitness, but it's a decent objective measure if you're doing very poorly on it relative to age-matched peers.

Rolyatroba
Posts: 207
Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2013 1:14 pm

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by Rolyatroba » Wed Sep 04, 2013 5:53 pm

lightheir wrote:If you are doing poorly on the Bruce protocol, the best way to get better at it is to do cardiovascular exercise, be it walking, then jogging, and if possible, even running.

Weightlifting, like squats, bench presses, and deadlifts will do almost nothing for your Bruce protocol performance. You can bench 500 lbs and squat 1000lbs and still do horribly on the Bruce protocol.

I am also aware that the Bruce protocol is far from the definitive answer for cardiovasculr fitness, but it's a decent objective measure if you're doing very poorly on it relative to age-matched peers.
This doesn't answer my question. You've taken a stand that running is better for CV health than is strength training. You quoted the poor performance of weightlifters in the Bruce protocol stress test, as an argument in defense of your position.

Now, without digressing or dancing around the question, can you tell us if this performance gap is in the cardiograph or VO2 max metrics of the test results? And, if the former, produce some corroborating data?

lightheir
Posts: 2303
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 11:43 pm

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by lightheir » Wed Sep 04, 2013 6:21 pm

Rolyatroba wrote:
lightheir wrote:If you are doing poorly on the Bruce protocol, the best way to get better at it is to do cardiovascular exercise, be it walking, then jogging, and if possible, even running.

Weightlifting, like squats, bench presses, and deadlifts will do almost nothing for your Bruce protocol performance. You can bench 500 lbs and squat 1000lbs and still do horribly on the Bruce protocol.

I am also aware that the Bruce protocol is far from the definitive answer for cardiovasculr fitness, but it's a decent objective measure if you're doing very poorly on it relative to age-matched peers.
This doesn't answer my question. You've taken a stand that running is better for CV health than is strength training. You quoted the poor performance of weightlifters in the Bruce protocol stress test, as an argument in defense of your position.

Now, without digressing or dancing around the question, can you tell us if this performance gap is in the cardiograph or VO2 max metrics of the test results? And, if the former, produce some corroborating data?
I honestly don't know what you're really harping over, but I'll just clarify this point:

I'm not sure why you're obsessing over the VO2, but this is the reality of Vo2 testing INCLUDING Bruce protocol:

Contrary to what the authors say, you will NOT hit your genetic VO2 max (or anywhere near it) without training for the test you're using to measure it. For the Bruce protocol, which is a treadmill test, you will likely not come anywhere near your true VO2max unless you're a competitive runner. If I'm trained vs untrained, my measured Vo2max will differ by a huge amount on the maximal Bruce protocol test.

Similarly, it's very logical and fair to argue that if you're doing very well on a Bruce protocol test, your odds of dying from an unexpected burst of cardio activity, like shoveling snow or playing pickup sports, are correspondingly lower. Even if your VO2max is genetically low.

Strength training is good in itself, but has almost no effect on CV testing.

Rolyatroba
Posts: 207
Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2013 1:14 pm

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by Rolyatroba » Wed Sep 04, 2013 9:39 pm

lightheir wrote:I honestly don't know what you're really harping over, but I'll just clarify this point:

I'm not sure why you're obsessing over the VO2, but this is the reality of Vo2 testing INCLUDING Bruce protocol:

Contrary to what the authors say, you will NOT hit your genetic VO2 max (or anywhere near it) without training for the test you're using to measure it. For the Bruce protocol, which is a treadmill test, you will likely not come anywhere near your true VO2max unless you're a competitive runner. If I'm trained vs untrained, my measured Vo2max will differ by a huge amount on the maximal Bruce protocol test.

Similarly, it's very logical and fair to argue that if you're doing very well on a Bruce protocol test, your odds of dying from an unexpected burst of cardio activity, like shoveling snow or playing pickup sports, are correspondingly lower. Even if your VO2max is genetically low.

Strength training is good in itself, but has almost no effect on CV testing.
It is well understood that VO2 max is affected almost entirely by adaptations of the aerobic energy system within skeletal muscle. This has been proven time and again in studies comparing athletes of different sports performing VO2 max tests in the opposite sport. Elite swimmers, for example, will have very low VO2 max results on a treadmill test, compared to elite runners.

But, certainly you would agree that elite swimmers are no more at risk of CVD than elite runners. So, how would you explain that if both swimmers and weightlifters both have lower Bruce protocol results on a treadmill test compared to runners, that only the weightlifters have the higher risk of CVD?

That can't be explained logically, so the only conclusion you can draw, pertaining to CVD risk of weightlifters that underperform runners on a treadmill test, is no conclusion.

That is why I'd like to know about differences in cardiograph results. VO2 max taken on a treadmill, is no indicator whatsoever for the risk of CVD among swimmers or weightlifters.

So, I wouldn't call this harping. If you're going to rebut the authors claim, you need to use meaningful metrics and have verifiable data.

lightheir
Posts: 2303
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 11:43 pm

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by lightheir » Wed Sep 04, 2013 9:48 pm

Umm, ok, if you want to put strange words in the air and incorrectly attribute them to me, go ahead.

Elite swimmers have AWESOME VO2. They're just not being tested properly on a Bruce protocol. Adapt it to a swim-type Bruce protocol and they'd do awesome. That's the exact same thing I was saying when I said you have to TRAIN to get to your true VO2max, and train specifically for the type of test you're going to use to measure it.

However, elite swimmers would absolutely trounce the weightlifters on the same test unless the weightlifters had specifically done run-type training (and a lot of it) in addition to weights. There is some overlap with cardio through multiple activities - but to max it you do have to specifically train your muscular system specifically for it.

Again, the cardiogram (ECG) component of the Bruce protocol really doesn't become crucially important until you get arrythmias or ST-elevations, which can be signs of serious underlying illness. With the exception of some known mild types of arrythmias (that typically resolve with exercise), you should never have those ECG changes in healthy individuals, even ones that are totally out of shape. So comparing ECGs between healthy individuals (such as athletes) on a Bruce protocol is essentially pointless, which is why I fail to understand why you're harping on it except to try and 'disprove' my ideas using some incorrect faulty logic.

Post Reply