“Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”

– Benjamin Franklin

I know many people are intrigued (as am I) by the protocol, and the science behind the protocol, underpinning Doug McGuff’s Body By Science methodology.  During my travels over the past couple of weeks, and, in rather serendipitous fashion, I came across both a podcast and a book which offer complementary information to Doug’s work, so I thought I’d pass them along to you.

First up is a Super Human Radio Show podcast.  In this episode (#325), host Carl  Lanore interviews Joshua Trentine of Overload Fitness.  The subject is Super Slow/one-set-to-failure training.  If you’re curious as to how this methodology plays-out in someone with a favorable genetic hand, check out both the interview and Joshua’s website.  Of course, you can always consider Mike Mentzer as the genetically gifted, one-set-to-failure gold standard.  I would suspect that Dorian Yates leans toward this methodology as well.  One thing to keep in mind here is that we’re talking about enhanced hypertrophy, and not necessarilly improving sproting prowess.  But here is where it all gets very interesting to me.

If you look at the Long duration Isolation methodology proposed by Jay Schroeder (here’s a nice encapsulation of the method, thanks to Kelly Baggett of Higer-Faster-Sports.com).    You’ll see that there’s not a whole lot of real world difference between it and the super-slow (or HIT) methodology.  I feel like there’s definitely something to these methods, but, just like any other method out there, neither is a “one size fits all” or holy grail of training.  For a specific time and for a specific purpose, though, one (or a combination) of these methods might just be the best fit.

I will give Schroeder this — if in fact he was responsible for Adam Archuleta’s training leading up to the 2001 draft, he did a marvelous job.  Archuleta was, in my opinion, someone of (only) decent natural ability who trained/pushed/willed himself into a professional career.  How much credit Jay Schroeder can take for this is anybody’s guess.  It does, though, make for interesting speculation and conversation.   I can say that having personally experimented with a Long Duration Isolation protocol, that performance of the methodology is, in fact, brutal.  Was I a better athlete for having performed the methodology?  Hard to tell.  To be honest, though, I didn’t perform this methodology in a vacuum, nor did I keep to it for long (it’s boring as all hell for one thing).  I can report that I didn’t loose anything, though, with my strength, power and speed having not slipped any that I could tell.

Schroeder contends that a muscle in isolation is not static, but is actually in a rapid fire/release pattern, and that it’s precisely the fast-twitch fibers that are targeted during the set.  Now it’s difficult to tell (because Schroeder never lets on, and, to be frank, he’s a bit evasive) whether he means from the get-go, or after the slow-twitch fibers have dropped out.  In either case, I do think that there is at least some overlap between these two methodologies that I’d love to see explored.

My next find is a book by the publishers of Scientific American titled, Building the Elite Athlete.   The book is actually a collection of past articles, but still, it’s an intriguing read.  I found the couple of articles on gene doping especially interesting.  And by the way, you can pick up used copies of this book cheap — I don’t think I paid more than 5 bucks for mine, postage included.  It’s a 5 bucks well spent.

In health,

Keith

24 COMMENTS

  1. Another example of this comes from a gentleman named Dave Landau. He’s an exercise historian and natural bodybuilder, with examples of his training here:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zViyHsK7sHY

    Dave busts his ass and has amazing genes. The gentleman who built the machine I showed McGuff getting beat on is another one of these gnarly genetically-inclined individuals.

    Best,
    Skyler

    • Nice effort, and an interesting machine. Is that an example of next-generation Med-Ex equipment? It looks (the operation) and sounds very “smooth”, that is to say, it looks to be free of those “micro friction” sticking points found in the old Nautilus line.

      • That’s a Tru Pull from Southern Xercise. They used to have a website but I can’t seem to find it now.

  2. I got Doug’s book in the mail the other day. I have skimmed it quickly and think he has done a great service by defining Health, Fitness and Exercise and by outlining the dose-response relationship to exercise….but I remain skeptical of his predilection for machines and ostensible results.

    Shooting from the hip, a few criticisms, in no particular order:

    1) the pictures on pages 83 and 84, of the model deadlifting and squatting are anything but safe and recommended DL/SQ technique.

    a. there is no lumbar curve present, his ass is too low, and he is on his toes in the deadlift photo — unlike here: http://www.crossfitsandiego.com/.a/6a00d8341c738953ef0111689b50a5970c-800wi

    b. in the squat photo, the same guy is visibly on his toes and his knees are well forward of his feet. Not good.

    2) on xiii he argues that there is no causal relationship between activity and appearance.

    He is only partially correct. There is, of course, a tremendous amount of phenotypic self-selection involved in sports — but to say:

    “it wasn’t the activity that produced the body type; it was the body type that did well in the activity.”

    is a half-truth at best. We need only to go back to our famous twins — the bodybuilder and the runner and see the difference between the two.

    Not only that, from personal experience, the musculature I developed when primarily playing water polo and swimming was considerably different than when I was primarily playing judo.

    Why? Clearly, gene expression determined by the types of loads and frequency and duration of that my body had to handle.

    BTW Taleb made the same mistake in his book too. Ironic given that Taleb is super-smart and buddies with De Vany — who has written about how swimming produces a significantly different and less good musculature than ev fitness.

    3) Doug talks about diamonds and water. He misses the point. Water is cheaper than diamonds because of faster declining marginal utility of water. An additional/the next unit of diamonds is more valuable to me than the next unit of water.

    There are some more, but I gotta get back to work.

    • Patrik,

      I can’t help but think you’re gone looking for the bad, based on previous posts on the subject. I have no doubt that you’ll find plenty more, since that’s what you’re after.

      You’re a crossfitter, are you not?

    • To be fair, Doug did relay to me in an email about the difficulties involved in working with a publisher — namely, loss (or selling, to be more exact) of creative control of the end product. He was well aware of — and none too happy about — those “technique” photos you speak of. There are a couple of editing mistakes as well that will leave you scratching your head. Nothing substantial, though — and nothing you won’t catch and correct with a careful read-through of the material.

      …“it wasn’t the activity that produced the body type; it was the body type that did well in the activity.”

      “…is a half-truth at best. We need only to go back to our famous twins — the bodybuilder and the runner and see the difference between the two.”

      I agree, sometimes this is used as an excuse to “pack it in” instead of busting some serious ass over the long haul. I mentioned Adam Archuleta in the post, and he is a most appropriate example of desire overcoming a sub-par (as compared to the NFL “norm”) genetic hand.

  3. I’m not sure I agree that Archuleta had “sub-par” genetics. When he started with Schroeder he was still in high school and not fully mature. I have a hard time believing that anyone who can eventually post the numbers he did was sub-par genetically. He may not have shown it at age 16 or 17 as a lot of athletes do but the potential was there. If he was able to overcome average genetics and post those numbers in the combine then Schroeder was a miracle worker.

    David

    • “…I’m not sure I agree that Archuleta had “sub-par” genetics.”
      Note that I’m comparing him to those within the NFL, “genetic freak” community only. I think it’s safe to say that his “hand” far surpasses that of the average Joe. And I’m not certain he’s exclusively a “Schroeder” product, either. I believe that while at Arizona, he was doing a combination Az strength & conditioning protocol + Schroeder’s protocol (I could very well be wrong on this, though); maybe that was the magic combination?

  4. I can’t help but think you’re gone looking for the bad, based on previous posts on the subject. I have no doubt that you’ll find plenty more, since that’s what you’re after.

    You’re a crossfitter, are you not?

    @Skyler Tanner

    You write that comment like being skeptical is a bad thing.

    Your comment is interesting, and seems more interested in blindly defending Doug/his book then applying any sort of skepticism or reason to what he propounds.

    As you note, I have commented frequently on this blog and others, and have expressed my skepticism for his methods.

    And then, based on Doug’s sound arguments for free-market medicine, I thought, what the hell, this guy is pretty smart, I’ll buy the book and see for myself.

    And yes, I still remain skeptical. I know. That makes me a jerk/asshole/uncool/really lame/etc etc

    And yes, I do CrossFit. I like it a lot and have seen a tremendous increase in fitness and performance as well as fat loss and hypertrophy.

    But here is the best bit: I do not buy the CF philosophy wholesale either.

    For example, I think it is ridiculously easy to overtrain with CF. In fact, my guess is that most people ARE a bit overtrained via CF.

    And that is one reason, I will be experimenting by training somewhat less frequently – because I think Doug makes good arguments for less frequent training in a general manner. I will also be doing more sprints as well. In part, b/c of Doug’s book.

    But, in the end, I think there are quite a few weaknesses in his book/philosophy as well. Some of which are a bit self-serving — e.g. not a lot of visual evidence showing hypertrophy etc etc

    he counters by:

    claiming that he is not genetically blessed and therefore not a good example of his own methodology, but claims that his methods work

    and

    arguing that there is no causal relationship between activity and phenotype.

    Which, after you think about them, contradict each other.

    BTW something you may consider pondering:

    “GARY TAUBES: Yes, and the really good scientists are the ones, almost by definition, who are most skeptical of evidence that seems to support their beliefs. They’re most aware of how they could have been fooled, how they could have screwed up, or how they might have missed artifacts in their experiment that could have explained what they observed. They’re very careful about what they say. If you ask them to do play devil’s advocate, and tell you how they could have screwed up, then at the very least, they’ll say “Well, if I knew how I could have done it, I would have checked it before I made the claim”. So when I’m talking about discerning the difference between a good scientist and a bad scientist, I’m talking about how they speak about their research, the evidence itself, it’s presence or absence.”

    http://www.scientificblogging.com/seth_roberts/interview_with_gary_taubes_part_1

    • Patrik,

      As a rule, I wouldn’t reference Taubes, who has cherry-picked his science just as any of the scientists he references, as a beacon of light in the fog.

      RE Lack of hypertrophy: The evidence is certainly clear for those favorable to it; I even posted one in this thread, but if you’d like one more, here’s Vee (who was a big fatty before his slow training):
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_23cl5n8NaQ

      Or Doug, a powerlifter (500+lb deadlift at 140lbs):
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5-L8WKYpJY

      Or, if you’re just bashing HIT, every athlete Dr. Ken ever trained. I don’t think you are, but they’re a great example of what can be done.

      That said, it’s not the bees knees; I simply prefer to look for the similarities between methods, which is often exceptionally high, even between certain forms of crossfit and HIT.

      RE looking for fault: I used to do this often, as I think most crossfitters are black box cultists and the method is good at 2 things: making men smaller and women hotter. Glassman is also an internet douche, a big fatty championing his method to leanness yet never training himself. I think Arthur Jones could have kicked his ass whilst on his death bed, but I digress.

      That said, from a programming perspective, in the hands of someone with prior athletic experience (i.e. not some pvc pipe newb with 1000 dollars and a spare warehouse), it’s a great tool. The owner of the local Crossfit Studio seems quite the competent guy. Same goes for HIT/Slow newbies; the ones who do it best are the ones with the most prior athletic experience and no “product” to sell.

      RE Remaining skeptical: Dan John wrote a great article about getting bamboozled and how it’s a really good thing if you learn something about it:
      http://www.tmuscle.com/free_online_article/sports_body_training_performance/nautilus_crossfit_and_hihi

      Notice he rips both crossfit and HIT…and I’m recommending it! I just love Dan John. Perhaps I’m enamored by an old professor of mine, an atheist motorcycle mechanic with a doctorate in theological studies. He said, “I like to read everything as if it’s ‘the stuff’.” I can’t think of a better way to learn when and how something works…and when it doesn’t.

      Best,
      Skyler

  5. @Skyler

    Well, you are certainly in fine ad hominem form tonight. See my comments in-line below.

    As a rule, I wouldn’t reference Taubes, who has cherry-picked his science just as any of the scientists he references, as a beacon of light in the fog.

    I find Taubes to extremely logical, reasonable and much a skeptic, like myself. If you have a problem with the quote I pulled, please address the quote itself.

    BTW one cannot cherry-pick the “science” — this is a common misuse of the word. Science is a method and philosophy. You can, however, cherry-pick data or evidence.

    RE Lack of hypertrophy: The evidence is certainly clear for those favorable to it; I even posted one in this thread, but if you’d like one more, here’s Vee (who was a big fatty before his slow training):
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_23cl5n8NaQ

    Or Doug, a powerlifter (500+lb deadlift at 140lbs):
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5-L8WKYpJY

    Vee’s picture appears in the book, and he does provide evidence for Doug’s claims. The powerlifter in the second video does not have a very good physique.

    Or, if you’re just bashing HIT, every athlete Dr. Ken ever trained. I don’t think you are, but they’re a great example of what can be done.

    If expressing reasoned and logical skepticism means “bashing” to you, I guess I am bashing HIT.

    That said, it’s not the bees knees;

    I don’t know what you mean when you say, it is not the bees’ knees. The bees’ knees is an idiom meaning excellent or very good.

    I simply prefer to look for the similarities between methods, which is often exceptionally high, even between certain forms of crossfit and HIT.

    Okay. There are certainly many similarities. I don’t disagree.

    RE looking for fault: I used to do this often, as I think most crossfitters are black box cultists and the method is good at 2 things: making men smaller and women hotter.

    What is blax box cultist? If you are saying that many CF-ers are drinking the Kool-Aid. Sure, I don’t disagree. But so are many HIT-ers.

    Glassman is also an internet douche, a big fatty championing his method to leanness yet never training himself.

    Why call him an “internet douche”? No need for ad hominem. He, himself, admits he doesn’t eat his own dogfood. At least he admits it. Doug, if I understand correctly, says do what I do, but don’t look at what I look like.

    I think Arthur Jones could have kicked his ass whilst on his death bed, but I digress.

    Wow. NOW that is a compelling argument. I really need to start reading your posts and comments, b/c wisdom like that you cannot get just anywhere.

    RE Remaining skeptical: Dan John wrote a great article about getting bamboozled and how it’s a really good thing if you learn something about it:
    http://www.tmuscle.com/free_online_article/sports_body_training_performance/nautilus_crossfit_and_hihi

    Notice he rips both crossfit and HIT…and I’m recommending it!

    I like Dan John too, and it seems to me that in this article CF is coming off better than Nautilis. And interestingly enough, a pattern is emerging:

    >>>>>HIT has become a religion. And although the followers used to dominate the Internet (am I the only one that remembers “HIT Jedis?”), the bulk of the flock has vanished with their 14-inch-arms and continue to bemoan their parents for everything (the genetics argument).<<<<<

    Apparently, it is quote common for a HIT enthusiast to ignore the evidence to the contrary and then blame genetics. Interesting.

    Perhaps I’m enamored by an old professor of mine, an atheist motorcycle mechanic with a doctorate in theological studies. He said, “I like to read everything as if it’s ‘the stuff’.” I can’t think of a better way to learn when and how something works…and when it doesn’t.

    One of my evolutionary psych professors said of the most epistemlogcal humble things I have ever heard any professor say:

    “Much of what I am teaching you this quarter is completely wrong. I just don’t which parts. Come back in 10 years and ask me then.”

    Takeaway: Remain skeptical no matter how uncool.

    • (If this is a double post, I apologize. I’m used to seeing an immediate response on the forum)

      The cool sarcasm is appreciated, as I was a ball of fire last night; I’ll attempt to remove as much ad hominem from my reply as possible.

      I find Taubes to extremely logical, reasonable and much a skeptic, like myself. If you have a problem with the quote I pulled, please address the quote itself.

      BTW one cannot cherry-pick the “science” — this is a common misuse of the word. Science is a method and philosophy. You can, however, cherry-pick data or evidence.
      No problem with the quote directly.

      One can cherry-pick science, such as relying on one school for outstanding evidence; my meaning was specifically referred to in his idea that calories almost don’t matter. Both in lectures and in his book, he cites epidemiological evidence of tribes/societies in which the observed food intake averaged around 2000kcal/day. But this under-reports food intake, always. 3 examples of my meaning:
      -http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=562980

      -http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/77096/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

      -http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/71/1/130

      Cherry-picking the data is the over-reliance on the insulin argument, which was hashed out on this blog months ago. While I agree that for insulin-insensitive obese individuals, reducing one part of the equation (typically both fatty acids and blood sugar are excessively elevated) is an extremely easy and effective route to recomposition, the body is redundant and smarter than we are. Completely ignoring of ASP, FAT/CD36, FATP-1 to -6, FABPpm (for fat uptake), Glut 1 and Glut 4 (for glucose uptake) is my meaning in cherry-picking. But none of them matter, no matter how efficiently they do their job, if you agree 100% with Taubes (which I don’t think you do). That said, I like a lot of what Taubes is saying/drawing attention to, especially fat-is-good. I eat a very low carb diet, high in saturated fats because of the data.

      Vee’s picture appears in the book, and he does provide evidence for Doug’s claims. The powerlifter in the second video does not have a very good physique.
      Vee is in single digit bodyfat, while Doug isn’t in contest condition, nor does he care to be. Doug was an example of strength, which often (though not always) correlates with hypertrophy. I’d like to see him dieted down, as powerlifters who look like fat guys with big forearms typically crush bodybuiders in bodybuilder competitions if they diet down.

      Glassman/Jones/McGuff/Koolaid, both HIT and Crossfit
      I understand Glassman was once a gymnast and that’s great. For my money, especially a 1000 dollar certification, I want to take advice from someone who has the integrity to do what he’s saying.

      Little-known fact: Arthur Jones performed 3 weeks of the training used by Casey Viator in the Colorado experiment and gained 15lbs of muscle. This I can get behind, such is always why I like Dan John (more on that later).

      Have you ever met McGuff? He’s more muscular than you’re giving him credit for, not a bodybuilder by any stretch. To compare him to another individual I’ve seen in videos, I’d say somewhere near a Mark Twight in size (based on having met Doug in person and having seen videos of both).

      HIT’ers are especially koolaid-driven, Ayn Rand-loving types; you’ll get no argument from me. Hell, I was HIT cultish when I was young, if only because it was all I knew. My training has changed drastically, but a few times a year I pure HIT for 3 to 6 weeks and always come away impressed as to how hard a workout I can get in so little time.

      Beyond that, I don’t agree with everything Doug, or HITers in general, say even though this is primarily how I train clients. When Doug presented at our gym, I broached the subject of mobility during Q&A: Doug doesn’t think it’s needed, I think otherwise. We might not agree here, but that’s a minor part of the overall message, imo.

      I like Dan John too, and it seems to me that in this article CF is coming off better than Nautilis. And interestingly enough, a pattern is emerging:

      >>>>>HIT has become a religion. And although the followers used to dominate the Internet (am I the only one that remembers “HIT Jedis?”), the bulk of the flock has vanished with their 14-inch-arms and continue to bemoan their parents for everything (the genetics argument).<<<<<

      Apparently, it is quote common for a HIT enthusiast to ignore the evidence to the contrary and then blame genetics. Interesting.
      I took away that Dan John likes HIT in certain situations, especially from this:
      >>>I know, I know, it isn’t going to do this or that or this… but for a short experiment,
      I’m not sure much else can work better. The learning curve on the leg curl machine is quite low and you can have your buddies help you with negatives, rest-pauses, partials, or whatever, almost from day one. Don’t try any of that with snatches!<<<

      But he's right: most HIT/hardgainer types love to make excuses. Gaining muscle is hard under the best of circumstances past the first year of training, but that's no excuse to avoid training hard or with intent to improve. The Heavy Duty crowd waves this flag the most and you end up with a lot of people training once every 7 to 10 days with great specific conditioning for 3 machines. The plot, as they say, was lost.

      One of my evolutionary psych professors said of the most epistemlogcal humble things I have ever heard any professor say:

      “Much of what I am teaching you this quarter is completely wrong. I just don’t which parts. Come back in 10 years and ask me then.”

      Takeaway: Remain skeptical no matter how uncool.
      If you allow yourself to get sucked in, to try and stand where the author did, the useful and the useless become plain, imo. The large faults always jump out anyway.

      Takeaway: Being skeptical is cool; when that skepticism gets your mired in minutia, it becomes counter-productive.

      Best,
      Skyler

  6. To All,

    I think Patrik’s criticisms are quite fair. The self-selection arguments is a bit oversimplified in its attempts to make its point that observational errors can mislead us. In simplifying, I did not intend to throw the baby out with the bath water.

    Editing the book down from 896 pages of material to the 284 pages requested resulted in some loss of intellectual rigor that Patrik is detecting. I am proud overall of how BBS turned out. We have the blog up and running, and have participated in interviews and blog posts in order that discussions like this occur.

    Doug McGuff

    • @Doug

      Like I mentioned above, by exploding the myth that “Fitness” blindly, fixedly and infinitely correlates to “Health” on pages 5 through 8, I think you have done a great service and shown tremendous intellectual depth.

      Many, if not most, people still believe this myth. In fact, one of my wife’s colleagues runs some ridiculous number of miles every day, day in and day out. He also will not eat fat of any sort.

      He is much respected for his sado-masochism and is thought to be both “Fit” and “Healthy”,

      From my perspective, while I am sure he could run me into the ground without half-trying, ergo he is “Fit”, I doubt he is very healthy. He certainly doesn’t look it. He is scrawny at best, and looks constantly starved.

      In fact, IMHO, he is the classic case for:

      “Did you hear John Doe died of a heart attack jogging? Wow. What a mystery. He was soooo fit.”

      Last thing, like I said, I remain skeptical, but WILL be integrating some of what your propound into my workouts.

      Cheers!

    • Doug,

      When are you going to release the 896 page manuscript? Call it “UE Bulletin 2” and I’ll happily purchase a cottage-job copy.

      Best,
      Skyler

  7. Skyler,

    Thanks for your interest. We have some of the cutting room floor material edited and ready to go. We need clearance from McGraw-Hill as they have first dibs on offering to publish it commercially before we self-publish. Either way, there may be more in the future.

    Thanks also for your defense of HIT/BBS precepts. You are a great representative of how HIT methodologies traslate into other types of performances (I have seen your box-jump and powerlift videos).

    Doug McGuff

    • Doug,

      I get ahead of myself sometimes, but I try to stay civil. While not “pure” slow/bbs, my routines focus on compound movements and the minimal amount of work to get the job done. Closer to Leistner than Mentzer, but the same umbrella.

      Looking forward to part 2.

      Best,
      Skyler

  8. Keith,

    I saw where you’re trying some longer TUL work. First, I’d like to commend you on being open minded and trying other methods than the ones you’re used to. There’s way too much of the “I’m right, you’re wrong” stuff on exercise related sites. I can see why Dr. McGuff and Skyler visit and comment here regularly.

    Second, when you’re using the longer TUL’s what rep speed are you using?

    Thanks,
    David

    • I’m planning on a post about this in the near future — if my “paying gig” will ever lighten up a bit to give me time to freelance 🙂
      But, quickly, these points come to mind: (1) I much prefer my version of HIT work (25 reps in rest-pause fashion @ approx. 90% 1RM, 4 eccentric/1 or 2 concentric tempo, each “micro set” to failure, complete the total of the 25 reps as fast as possible) to the super-slow for time method. DeVany’s hierarchical set is a close second favorite (hypertrophy-leaning) method of mine. (2) I have nothing against the SS method, per se — I just can’t seem to make it work for me. In a nutshell, I think the reason is that, since I’m able to achieve inroad (props to McGuff for a great term) so very quickly, to be able to hit a 90 to 120 sec. constant TUL I have to use a weight that is such that the set winds-up feeling like a prolonged (albeit excruciating) stretch. Now, this isn’t a bad thing, per se — and it actually might be very therapeutic at times (something I intend to keep in mind) — I just feel that it’s producing an effect counter to that which I hit the weight room for. (3) My gut feeling is that the higher the concentration of slow-twitch fiber (in a single muscle group, or in an overall body), the better the results from a super-slow routine.

      • Keith,

        I’m quite fast twitch (as my 55″ box jump would indicate) and the way around this could be a classic variation of the Nautilus Pre-Exhaust. Make the weight heavy enough so that the cumulative time for the 2 exercises gets into that 90 – 120 range. A thought.

        Best,
        SKyler

        • And this is where all (hypertrophy) roads lead to Rome. If I calculate my TUL for 25 reps in a rest pause fashion, I’m looking at (depending on rep tempo) 75 to 125 seconds. And essentially, I am doing pre-exhaust work as I’ll bash-out my first micro-set in 5 — 7 reps, until failure. By rep 20, I’m eeking out only 1 — 2 reps per micro-set.

  9. Skyler,

    You’ve tried some dc-training haven’t you? When I did it my cumulative TUL seemed to be around 60 seconds or so per movement. What about you? How did you respond to that type training?

    David

    • David,

      I followed DC verbatim and put on some mass and strength. A couple maintained pounds over the 7+ weeks I was doing it. Went from 188 to 194 and now maintain 190-191 with a similar measured BF% and waist.

      Didn’t like having to force feed myself protein like he wanted, though I think it could be useful during a 2 week blitz before an intentional layoff.

      Best,
      Skyler

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.