I am very skeptical of the article. It seems highly unlikely that with only four hours of weight training that he packed on 34 lbs of muscle. The research he quoted wasn't as esoteric as he purports. I was a regular reader of misc.fitness.weights around '01-'04 where the adherents of various methods slugged it out. The general consensus was that High Intensity Training (HIT) is no worse than other workouts at best, and even the proponents of HIT made no such outrageous claims as he did. There are enough bodybuilders and weightlifters out there that every technique has likely been tried hundreds if not thousands of times, especially with money on the line, and any technique that had such a dramatic result would have spread like wildfire.
The photos on that webpage already exhibit several of the tricks used by the exercise equipment infomercial industry to make the difference between before and after pictures more dramatic: untightened versus tightened muscles, posture, tanning, shaving, strategic placement of clothing. I will not guess at any other techniques he used which can't be proven by examining the photographs.
If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
the pictures are definitely played up, as is a lot of the rhetoric.
for me, the process worked because i wasn't very strong to begin with, but was athletic. its much easier to put on muscle mass when you don't have much to begin with, as opposed to being a bodybuilder to start and then try to use this process to bulk up even more. there are diminishing returns.
the point of the post is valid, imo -- minimal time and work, when done intelligently, does show large results. in this case.
Comments
I am very skeptical of the article. It seems highly unlikely that with only four hours of weight training that he packed on 34 lbs of muscle. The research he quoted wasn't as esoteric as he purports. I was a regular reader of misc.fitness.weights around '01-'04 where the adherents of various methods slugged it out. The general consensus was that High Intensity Training (HIT) is no worse than other workouts at best, and even the proponents of HIT made no such outrageous claims as he did. There are enough bodybuilders and weightlifters out there that every technique has likely been tried hundreds if not thousands of times, especially with money on the line, and any technique that had such a dramatic result would have spread like wildfire.
The photos on that webpage already exhibit several of the tricks used by the exercise equipment infomercial industry to make the difference between before and after pictures more dramatic: untightened versus tightened muscles, posture, tanning, shaving, strategic placement of clothing. I will not guess at any other techniques he used which can't be proven by examining the photographs.
If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
the pictures are definitely played up, as is a lot of the rhetoric.
for me, the process worked because i wasn't very strong to begin with, but was athletic. its much easier to put on muscle mass when you don't have much to begin with, as opposed to being a bodybuilder to start and then try to use this process to bulk up even more. there are diminishing returns.
the point of the post is valid, imo -- minimal time and work, when done intelligently, does show large results. in this case.