I’ve been doing the Body by Science big 5 protocol with my girlfriend for over a year. Here are my thoughts:
First of all, the book is called Body by Science, but I think it should really be called Body by Philosophy. It takes more a first principles approach, taking what we know about biochemistry and biology from science, and then extrapolating a proper workout routine from that.
If it were truly Body by Science, it would take the next step, and correlate the hypotheses it makes to actual studies of the workouts it recommends, but it rarely does so.
This leads to a lot of wrong hypotheses. For instance, it says that one set to failure gets 100% of the strength benefit of the exercise—In testing, it only gets about 60% of the benefit.
However, even if the first principle approach leads to a lot of errors like the one above, it still manages to be “kinda” right… it allows for consistent strength gains.
In this sense, the protocol is about as optimal you can get for time (15 minutes a week), while still making consistent gains. This is what really keeps me going with it. It’s something I know I can commit to for the rest of my life if necessary, and it’s something that I could easily convince my girlfriend to start (and stick with for over a year now).
If you’re looking to minimize time while still becoming stronger, this is the protocol for you.
My two cents—their first principles sound seasonably sound, but the conclusions they draw from them are sometimes questionable. There were several times reading it that I almost sputtered in disbelief, thinking “dammit, that’s not how it works!” Now, some of these I can accept as simplifying things for the sake of argument, others I cannot. (Sadly, I didn’t keep notes of them. In retrospect I guess I should have.)
At times I felt the authors were somewhat condescending, too, especially when it concerned stretching. I got the impression that strength was the only measure of success they accepted, and any exercise form that contributes to other goals—like stretching to promote limberness—are therefore worthless.
I have continued to look for ANY logs of people who actually got strong on a BBS approach. I have found zero to date. BBS will make you stronger, anything will make you stronger with consistent effort. But few programs give you years of improvement at close to the most rapid pace possible.
Now strength might not be the be-all end-all proxy for health when it comes to resistance training, but I’d need to see some evidence for better outcomes along some other parameter to entertain it.
I’ll try to put my log in excel at some point and post it up.
One problem is that most programs measure progress in reps and sets, Body by Science measures in Time Under Load. This could make direct comparison hard.
Right, but a variety of tests such as vertical jump, overhead press, TuT like a farmers walk or something, should be able to give you an idea. For instance, squatting increased my sprint speed tremendously, do BBS people see similar gains in functionality? I haven’t seen any evidence that they do yet.
One thing BBS is probably very useful for is maintenance of strength/lean body mass under extreme time pressure. If I really only had time for a 30 minute session once a week I think I would do BBS. I don’t think I would get much stronger, but I also probably wouldn’t get much weaker.
I’ve started this, using the Navy seal entrance exam, and just did my first three month follow up test, which was better but not by much. Will evaluate after a yearif I keep seeing improvements and should continue BBS, and post the data either way
A couple measures each of various exercises, weightlifting, cardio, bodyweight movements. Like I’d probably test overhead press, squats, running, rowing, fireman carry, climbing. Or something like that. This and the log itself should at least be some evidence for or against.
I see that the original commenter deactivated their account here, I am curious if your thinking on BBS changed since then at all or if you’ve seen any additional evidence on the topic?
Do you have an opinion about the Body by Science book? The authors are really big fans of the low-reps-to-failure approach.
I’ve been doing the Body by Science big 5 protocol with my girlfriend for over a year. Here are my thoughts:
First of all, the book is called Body by Science, but I think it should really be called Body by Philosophy. It takes more a first principles approach, taking what we know about biochemistry and biology from science, and then extrapolating a proper workout routine from that.
If it were truly Body by Science, it would take the next step, and correlate the hypotheses it makes to actual studies of the workouts it recommends, but it rarely does so.
This leads to a lot of wrong hypotheses. For instance, it says that one set to failure gets 100% of the strength benefit of the exercise—In testing, it only gets about 60% of the benefit.
However, even if the first principle approach leads to a lot of errors like the one above, it still manages to be “kinda” right… it allows for consistent strength gains.
In this sense, the protocol is about as optimal you can get for time (15 minutes a week), while still making consistent gains. This is what really keeps me going with it. It’s something I know I can commit to for the rest of my life if necessary, and it’s something that I could easily convince my girlfriend to start (and stick with for over a year now).
If you’re looking to minimize time while still becoming stronger, this is the protocol for you.
My two cents—their first principles sound seasonably sound, but the conclusions they draw from them are sometimes questionable. There were several times reading it that I almost sputtered in disbelief, thinking “dammit, that’s not how it works!” Now, some of these I can accept as simplifying things for the sake of argument, others I cannot. (Sadly, I didn’t keep notes of them. In retrospect I guess I should have.)
At times I felt the authors were somewhat condescending, too, especially when it concerned stretching. I got the impression that strength was the only measure of success they accepted, and any exercise form that contributes to other goals—like stretching to promote limberness—are therefore worthless.
I have continued to look for ANY logs of people who actually got strong on a BBS approach. I have found zero to date. BBS will make you stronger, anything will make you stronger with consistent effort. But few programs give you years of improvement at close to the most rapid pace possible.
Now strength might not be the be-all end-all proxy for health when it comes to resistance training, but I’d need to see some evidence for better outcomes along some other parameter to entertain it.
I’ll try to put my log in excel at some point and post it up.
One problem is that most programs measure progress in reps and sets, Body by Science measures in Time Under Load. This could make direct comparison hard.
Right, but a variety of tests such as vertical jump, overhead press, TuT like a farmers walk or something, should be able to give you an idea. For instance, squatting increased my sprint speed tremendously, do BBS people see similar gains in functionality? I haven’t seen any evidence that they do yet.
One thing BBS is probably very useful for is maintenance of strength/lean body mass under extreme time pressure. If I really only had time for a 30 minute session once a week I think I would do BBS. I don’t think I would get much stronger, but I also probably wouldn’t get much weaker.
I’ve started this, using the Navy seal entrance exam, and just did my first three month follow up test, which was better but not by much. Will evaluate after a yearif I keep seeing improvements and should continue BBS, and post the data either way
I didn’t actually do an outside strength test when I started, so I unfortunately won’t have that data.
I can however do some basic strength tests now, and report back in a year. Any suggestions?
A couple measures each of various exercises, weightlifting, cardio, bodyweight movements. Like I’d probably test overhead press, squats, running, rowing, fireman carry, climbing. Or something like that. This and the log itself should at least be some evidence for or against.
I see that the original commenter deactivated their account here, I am curious if your thinking on BBS changed since then at all or if you’ve seen any additional evidence on the topic?