5 ms·

In a nutshell, get Tim Ferriss's book: The 4-Hour Body [1] I got it last December and have slowly, but steadily implementing some of the strategies he prescrib

by bgraves 15y ago

In a nutshell, get Tim Ferriss's book: The 4-Hour Body [1] I got it last December and have slowly, but steadily implementing some of the strategies he prescribes. You don't necessarily have to follow everything he suggests (and probably couldn't) but it's full of good advice. [1] http://goo.gl/38rZ6 http://goo.gl/38rZ6 (amazon affiliate link)

allwein 15y ago
I couldn't agree with you more. I'm down 50 pounds on the slow carb diet and I'm loving the kettlebell workout.
- bgraves 15y ago
  I made my own kettle bells and love them http://diystrengthgear.blogspot.com/2011/02/diy-kettlebell-handle-seen-in-tim.html http://diystrengthgear.blogspot.com/2011/02/diy-kettlebell-h...
polyfractal 15y ago
I haven't actually read the book, and some of his tips may be useful, but I stopped reading when I saw this in the book synopsis: "How Tim gained 34 pounds of muscle in 28 days" I'm a biologist and I'm calling bullshit on this claim. It is physiologically impossible to gain that much lean muscle mass in a month under the best conditions. Your body can only synthesize about 2lbs of lean muscle per month. The rest of those 32 pounds is likely glycogen (water weight) and fat.
- bgraves 15y ago
  Well, here's how he did it [1] I would be interested in your opinion -- you aren't the first to be dubious of his claims. http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2007/04/29/from-geek-to-freak-how-i-gained-34-lbs-of-muscle-in-4-weeks/ http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2007/04/29/from-geek-to...
  - perucoder 15y ago
    This sounds like so much bullshit. Aside from it being physically impossible to add so much muscle in such a short time, here's a few things that jump right out as being obviously fake: Suit size went from 40 short to 44 regular. The short and regular is the sleeve length. I'm not seeing how this changes regardless of how much muscle you put on. The before photos look obviously bad, visible shadow. The after pictures look much better, better lighting. No tan in the before pic but tan and hairless in the after. Bodybuilders do this to give the appearance of more muscle. The distance from camera changes in the before pics. Gives the appearance of being smaller or it stretches him out so he looks skinnier.
alastair 15y ago
which strategies of tim's have you implemented, and what have been the results?
- bgraves 15y ago
  Well, for me, it's always about being aware. So, I may not eat 100% slow-carbs all the time (it just isn't possible given my particular situation). But, when possible I avoid white foods (dairy, bread, pasta) and eat fiber rich foods (legumes especially). For example, I used to eat low-fat yogurt with granola and fruit every single morning. I've given that up with a low-sugar high-protein bar and it's really made a difference (400 calories / high sugar to 180 calories / low-sugar for breakfast). I also have hypoglycemia issues so it's better to avoid sugar anyways. I wish I had more hard data to share, but I don't.
mhd 15y ago
It's a prime example of good 21st century marketing, so at least that's something of use for a lot of HNers. The scientific and nutritional parts are a "bit mixed", to put it nicely. If I remember correctly, parts of it basically went "this is scientifically proven because Wikipedia says so". His "slow-carb" diet is basically a easier to digest low-carb diet mixed with a bit of CKD. Kettlebells are good, but surely not the workout panacea he promises (and actually somewhat risky for people with back or knee problems who are doing this without proper supervision). You should be able to get most of that info on the net, and there you often have some much-needed perspective and discussions about it. And those are the moderate parts of the book. If I can poke some holes into that, I don't even want to know what might be wrong with the more risque parts (injury prevention, bodybuilding, supplements). And the sex chapters would fit in nicely into drivel like "The Game"... Don't get me wrong, I would love to have a "body hacks" book, but I'd prefer if it were done with a bit of scientific rigor, not just "this worked for me, control group: me".
- bgraves 15y ago
  Sorry, you come off as just another "hater" looking to pick apart a basically good book on hacking ones body. It's not just about weight loss or gaining strength. There are chapters on sex, sleep, free diving, etc. that would probably interest many people on HN. ------------------- >It's a prime example of good 21st century marketing, so at least that's something of use for a lot of HNers. The scientific and nutritional parts are a "bit mixed", to put it nicely. If I remember correctly, parts of it basically went "this is scientifically proven because Wikipedia says so". I don't think one should read it as a scientific or nutrition text book, but it's not fair to dismiss it as pure marketing either. There's lots of works cited and professional observations through out the book. You can't write a 500+ page NYT and Amazon bestseller based off of information you pull from Wikipedia articles no matter how good the marketing is. >His "slow-carb" diet is basically a easier to digest low-carb diet mixed with a bit of CKD. To me, the slow-carb way of life differs from the low-carb way of life in that you don't avoid all carbs, but be smart about the ones you choose. That's an important distinction. For instance, choosing dense nutrient-rich vegetables like spinach and broccoli over corn and green beans. He really encourages legumes like lentils and beans in the book, which I haven't seen as much in other low-carb style books. >Kettlebells are good, but surely not the workout panacea he promises (and actually somewhat risky for people with back or knee problems who are doing this without proper supervision). Yeah, if you have serious health issues, please consult a physician. Every diet/health/fitness book has this basic disclaimer in the front pages. If it hurts, you are probably doing something very wrong. >You should be able to get most of that info on the net, and there you often have some much-needed perspective and discussions about it. Scouring the net for this information from various sources of questionable authority is a very bad use of one's time/money. Purchasing a 500+ page book for less than $20 which contains all of the information you need to get started on your body-hacking journey is a very good use of one's time/money. >And those are the moderate parts of the book. If I can poke some holes into that, I don't even want to know what might be wrong with the more risque parts (injury prevention, bodybuilding, supplements). And the sex chapters would fit in nicely into drivel like "The Game"... I'm not so interested in the "risque parts" and I wouldn't knock the sex parts until you've tried them ;) Really, you can avoid those parts if you want and still have loads of material to dive into and research farther. >Don't get me wrong, I would love to have a "body hacks" book, but I'd prefer if it were done with a bit of scientific rigor, not just "this worked for me, control group: me". Honestly, I was skeptical at first too. But Tim really doesn't say "this worked for me, control group: me". There are dozens of on-the-field and in-the-lab experts he mentions (you can research their credentials/expertise further very easily, as I did) and hundreds of subjects. Again, it's not a scientific thesis -- it's a guide book on hacking one's body in a very efficient manner.

by bgraves 15y ago

allwein 15y ago

I couldn't agree with you more. I'm down 50 pounds on the slow carb diet and I'm loving the kettlebell workout.

bgraves 15y ago
I made my own kettle bells and love them http://diystrengthgear.blogspot.com/2011/02/diy-kettlebell-handle-seen-in-tim.html http://diystrengthgear.blogspot.com/2011/02/diy-kettlebell-h...

polyfractal 15y ago

I haven't actually read the book, and some of his tips may be useful, but I stopped reading when I saw this in the book synopsis: "How Tim gained 34 pounds of muscle in 28 days" I'm a biologist and I'm calling bullshit on this claim. It is physiologically impossible to gain that much lean muscle mass in a month under the best conditions. Your body can only synthesize about 2lbs of lean muscle per month. The rest of those 32 pounds is likely glycogen (water weight) and fat.

bgraves 15y ago
Well, here's how he did it [1] I would be interested in your opinion -- you aren't the first to be dubious of his claims. http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2007/04/29/from-geek-to-freak-how-i-gained-34-lbs-of-muscle-in-4-weeks/ http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2007/04/29/from-geek-to...
- perucoder 15y ago
  This sounds like so much bullshit. Aside from it being physically impossible to add so much muscle in such a short time, here's a few things that jump right out as being obviously fake: Suit size went from 40 short to 44 regular. The short and regular is the sleeve length. I'm not seeing how this changes regardless of how much muscle you put on. The before photos look obviously bad, visible shadow. The after pictures look much better, better lighting. No tan in the before pic but tan and hairless in the after. Bodybuilders do this to give the appearance of more muscle. The distance from camera changes in the before pics. Gives the appearance of being smaller or it stretches him out so he looks skinnier.

alastair 15y ago

which strategies of tim's have you implemented, and what have been the results?

bgraves 15y ago
Well, for me, it's always about being aware. So, I may not eat 100% slow-carbs all the time (it just isn't possible given my particular situation). But, when possible I avoid white foods (dairy, bread, pasta) and eat fiber rich foods (legumes especially). For example, I used to eat low-fat yogurt with granola and fruit every single morning. I've given that up with a low-sugar high-protein bar and it's really made a difference (400 calories / high sugar to 180 calories / low-sugar for breakfast). I also have hypoglycemia issues so it's better to avoid sugar anyways. I wish I had more hard data to share, but I don't.

mhd 15y ago

It's a prime example of good 21st century marketing, so at least that's something of use for a lot of HNers. The scientific and nutritional parts are a "bit mixed", to put it nicely. If I remember correctly, parts of it basically went "this is scientifically proven because Wikipedia says so". His "slow-carb" diet is basically a easier to digest low-carb diet mixed with a bit of CKD. Kettlebells are good, but surely not the workout panacea he promises (and actually somewhat risky for people with back or knee problems who are doing this without proper supervision). You should be able to get most of that info on the net, and there you often have some much-needed perspective and discussions about it. And those are the moderate parts of the book. If I can poke some holes into that, I don't even want to know what might be wrong with the more risque parts (injury prevention, bodybuilding, supplements). And the sex chapters would fit in nicely into drivel like "The Game"... Don't get me wrong, I would love to have a "body hacks" book, but I'd prefer if it were done with a bit of scientific rigor, not just "this worked for me, control group: me".

bgraves 15y ago
Sorry, you come off as just another "hater" looking to pick apart a basically good book on hacking ones body. It's not just about weight loss or gaining strength. There are chapters on sex, sleep, free diving, etc. that would probably interest many people on HN. ------------------- >It's a prime example of good 21st century marketing, so at least that's something of use for a lot of HNers. The scientific and nutritional parts are a "bit mixed", to put it nicely. If I remember correctly, parts of it basically went "this is scientifically proven because Wikipedia says so". I don't think one should read it as a scientific or nutrition text book, but it's not fair to dismiss it as pure marketing either. There's lots of works cited and professional observations through out the book. You can't write a 500+ page NYT and Amazon bestseller based off of information you pull from Wikipedia articles no matter how good the marketing is. >His "slow-carb" diet is basically a easier to digest low-carb diet mixed with a bit of CKD. To me, the slow-carb way of life differs from the low-carb way of life in that you don't avoid all carbs, but be smart about the ones you choose. That's an important distinction. For instance, choosing dense nutrient-rich vegetables like spinach and broccoli over corn and green beans. He really encourages legumes like lentils and beans in the book, which I haven't seen as much in other low-carb style books. >Kettlebells are good, but surely not the workout panacea he promises (and actually somewhat risky for people with back or knee problems who are doing this without proper supervision). Yeah, if you have serious health issues, please consult a physician. Every diet/health/fitness book has this basic disclaimer in the front pages. If it hurts, you are probably doing something very wrong. >You should be able to get most of that info on the net, and there you often have some much-needed perspective and discussions about it. Scouring the net for this information from various sources of questionable authority is a very bad use of one's time/money. Purchasing a 500+ page book for less than $20 which contains all of the information you need to get started on your body-hacking journey is a very good use of one's time/money. >And those are the moderate parts of the book. If I can poke some holes into that, I don't even want to know what might be wrong with the more risque parts (injury prevention, bodybuilding, supplements). And the sex chapters would fit in nicely into drivel like "The Game"... I'm not so interested in the "risque parts" and I wouldn't knock the sex parts until you've tried them ;) Really, you can avoid those parts if you want and still have loads of material to dive into and research farther. >Don't get me wrong, I would love to have a "body hacks" book, but I'd prefer if it were done with a bit of scientific rigor, not just "this worked for me, control group: me". Honestly, I was skeptical at first too. But Tim really doesn't say "this worked for me, control group: me". There are dozens of on-the-field and in-the-lab experts he mentions (you can research their credentials/expertise further very easily, as I did) and hundreds of subjects. Again, it's not a scientific thesis -- it's a guide book on hacking one's body in a very efficient manner.