Scan barcode
iamedterry's review
informative
medium-paced
5.0
Lots of scientific information but it helps build the necessary picture to understand the high level reasoning. Don’t get hung up on the terms but let them illuminate the knowledge.
mercin's review against another edition
4.0
Very interesting read on how let is more. It boils down to five exercises once a week for about 12 minutes. Is it real?I don't know yet. TUL is the interesting concept - time under load. It is slow movement up and down.
florenceh's review against another edition
2.0
The book starts out with a rant about how running isn't exercise, which definitely makes me fire up inside and start disliking this book because I love running https://www.florencehinder.com/27-km-to-celebrate-my-27th-birthday/. John used lots of hyperbole to explain why running is bad, taking the extreme cases of running (i.e. ultra-endurance events and marathons) and didn't consider where it excels, an incredibly accessible form of cardio! I would also argue that extremes of basically every sport are bad for you (including weight lifting).
I think he overlooks many of the benefits of running and only considers the extreme scenarios. He writes the book with a huge bias toward bodybuilding (due to his expertise and background in this domain). I wish the author had been more open-minded, less hyperbolic, and biased.
According to a meta-analysis in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, running participation is associated with 27%, 30%, and 23% lower risk of all-cause mortality, respectively, compared with no running. Analysis showed no significant dose–response trends for weekly frequency, weekly duration, pace and the total volume of running, suggesting that consistency is more important than quantity. (British Journal of Sports Medicine, Is running associated with a lower risk of all-cause, cardiovascular and cancer mortality, and is the more the better? A systematic review and meta-analysis)
Another literature review (a study of many studies in the research field) showed that all-cause mortality decreased by about 30 to 35% in physically active as compared to inactive subjects. Eleven studies included confounding risk factors for mortality and revealed an increase in life expectancy by 0.4 to 4.2 years with regular physical activity. This review also looked at the difference between different sports and showed consistently greater life expectancy in aerobic endurance athletes (e.g., running, cycling) but inconsistent results for other athletes. (National Library of Medicine, Does Physical Activity Increase Life Expectancy? A Review of the Literature).
It is easy to find lots of evidence similar to this with very little effort, yet none of it is mentioned.
One good thing from this book is that it made me look up the effects of ultra-endurance running on the heart and it does seem to have detrimental effects at its extreme.
His advice on more strength training seemed okay, but I lost trust in the author with his hyperbolic start to the book and struggled to take what he was saying seriously.
I think he overlooks many of the benefits of running and only considers the extreme scenarios. He writes the book with a huge bias toward bodybuilding (due to his expertise and background in this domain). I wish the author had been more open-minded, less hyperbolic, and biased.
According to a meta-analysis in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, running participation is associated with 27%, 30%, and 23% lower risk of all-cause mortality, respectively, compared with no running. Analysis showed no significant dose–response trends for weekly frequency, weekly duration, pace and the total volume of running, suggesting that consistency is more important than quantity. (British Journal of Sports Medicine, Is running associated with a lower risk of all-cause, cardiovascular and cancer mortality, and is the more the better? A systematic review and meta-analysis)
Another literature review (a study of many studies in the research field) showed that all-cause mortality decreased by about 30 to 35% in physically active as compared to inactive subjects. Eleven studies included confounding risk factors for mortality and revealed an increase in life expectancy by 0.4 to 4.2 years with regular physical activity. This review also looked at the difference between different sports and showed consistently greater life expectancy in aerobic endurance athletes (e.g., running, cycling) but inconsistent results for other athletes. (National Library of Medicine, Does Physical Activity Increase Life Expectancy? A Review of the Literature).
It is easy to find lots of evidence similar to this with very little effort, yet none of it is mentioned.
One good thing from this book is that it made me look up the effects of ultra-endurance running on the heart and it does seem to have detrimental effects at its extreme.
His advice on more strength training seemed okay, but I lost trust in the author with his hyperbolic start to the book and struggled to take what he was saying seriously.
tulio's review against another edition
4.0
I enjoyed McGuff's concept of Global Metabolic Conditioning, where the authors use the theory of cellular respiration to explain why High Intensity exercise is aerobic and anaerobic, and that long after you are finished with exercise the body is still stuck in a cycle of recycling aerobic byproducts, which is equivalent to be doing aerobic exercise. That's an entire new perspective to me, and explains why I don't get winded anymore from a flight of atais after years of doings squats.
They managed to convive me why High Intensity Training is the best way to go.
As a negative point, I found the book lacking in references, many claims found in the book were unsubstantiated.
They managed to convive me why High Intensity Training is the best way to go.
As a negative point, I found the book lacking in references, many claims found in the book were unsubstantiated.
ildottore's review against another edition
4.0
Never thought a book about workout and metabolism could be so gripping. Best book I've read on these topics so far, it completely changed the way I work out and the results didn't disappoint.
linorosa's review against another edition
4.0
The idea of training 12 minutes a week is tempting, but sounds like infomercial garbage. However the book backs it up.
The gist of it is you work out once (or twice) a week by doing 5 exercises. Each exercise has one set, and it should be done as slow as possible. Aim for 45 to 90 seconds and adjust for the next time to stay on this range. Progress is measured by the time under load (TUL) and weights used.
It goes very deep into the science of movement, metabolism, fat loss, but I wish there was a bit more practical advice on the programs themselves. Some of the explanations are better than I've read anywhere else.
Some ideas that stuck:
- Fitness should be defined as being limited to not impact health. There are programs that look more efficient, but have long-term health effects.
- Running, cycling will not make anyone lose weight. Also, they only train for that specific activity (no wonder why running on a treadmill feels so much different than on asphalt)
- Good machines are better than free weights. First reason is because they're safer. Second is because our bodies aren't equally strong on the full range of motion of exercises. Good machines discount for that, making each exercise "easier" on the part that our body is weaker, and thus improving the efficiency of the exercise by removing bottlenecks.
The gist of it is you work out once (or twice) a week by doing 5 exercises. Each exercise has one set, and it should be done as slow as possible. Aim for 45 to 90 seconds and adjust for the next time to stay on this range. Progress is measured by the time under load (TUL) and weights used.
It goes very deep into the science of movement, metabolism, fat loss, but I wish there was a bit more practical advice on the programs themselves. Some of the explanations are better than I've read anywhere else.
Some ideas that stuck:
- Fitness should be defined as being limited to not impact health. There are programs that look more efficient, but have long-term health effects.
- Running, cycling will not make anyone lose weight. Also, they only train for that specific activity (no wonder why running on a treadmill feels so much different than on asphalt)
- Good machines are better than free weights. First reason is because they're safer. Second is because our bodies aren't equally strong on the full range of motion of exercises. Good machines discount for that, making each exercise "easier" on the part that our body is weaker, and thus improving the efficiency of the exercise by removing bottlenecks.
davidr's review against another edition
5.0
This is a very interesting book about an approach to strength training. The approach is to perform a small number of high-intensity resistance exercises for a short duration, about once a week. The exercises involve slow repetitions to the point of muscular failure, and then holding the weight against resistance for about ten seconds, even after further full repetitions are impossible. The idea is (1) to break down the muscles to a significant extent and then (2) to give the body an adequate time to recover.
The authors are firmly against performing "aerobics" exercises just for the sake of improving fitness. They give well-researched reasons for their opinions, and well thought-out scientific explanations.
Up until today, I have been performing moderately intense strength training about twice a week. I intend to try the approach described in this book, to see if it improves my results.
My only complaint about this book is the picture of the deadlift exercise. The guy doing the deadlift shows terrible form--there is no excuse for this.
The authors are firmly against performing "aerobics" exercises just for the sake of improving fitness. They give well-researched reasons for their opinions, and well thought-out scientific explanations.
Up until today, I have been performing moderately intense strength training about twice a week. I intend to try the approach described in this book, to see if it improves my results.
My only complaint about this book is the picture of the deadlift exercise. The guy doing the deadlift shows terrible form--there is no excuse for this.
oznelson's review against another edition
5.0
Simple science-based workout ideas that are easy to fit into my schedule and produce results.
bionicjulia's review
5.0
An excellent, well-written book on the not-much-discussed method of training known as high intensity strength training. The book explains the science and biology behind this training method, and also provides practical advice on how to use the technique. Learnt shedloads from it - this is for anyone who wants to improve their health, maintain a lean physique and increase their strength - basically everyone!