Body Beast

stroutman81

A fellow MFPer emailed me today asking for a little guidance. She's currently using a program called Body Beast. I don't know anything about it, but here is the information she gave me straight from the program. This is why I feel so damn bad for the average consumer.

"By taking the best of old-school bodybuilding and fusing it with a breakthrough in sports science we call Dynamic Set Training, Body Beast is proven to put on up to 10 pounds of muscle mass in just 90 days. You'll crank out Single Sets, Super Sets, Giant Sets, Progressive Sets, Drop Sets, Tempo Sets and more—exercises you've probably seen before but now put together in an entirely new way. Now you'll add resistance and execute elite moves at crazy angles to exhaust the muscle, activate more muscle fibers, and naturally boost testosterone levels far beyond what's been possible before in a home training system.
+ What's included in Body Beast?"

stroutman81

Someone asked what I take issue with regarding these claims. Maybe it's just me, but that passage screams a desperate attempt to wow the consumer with a bunch of BS.

I mean nothing there looks like old school body building or breakthrough sports science. Yet they're claiming that it's an amalgamation of both. Yea, no.

Hell, what is breakthrough sports science? I stay abreast of that research field on a regular basis, and while there's always new data coming out, there's really nothing earthshatteringly meaningful or new.

Also, 10 lbs of muscle in 90 days? That's nothing exciting at all. Any structured progressive resistance training program can do that to the novice.

And then they go in for the kill with every single set structure imaginable. Well almost. They let out the the stuff that actually is "cutting edge" such as rest-pause sets. But I wouldn't expect a high level marketing... err... I mean fitness company to know about that.

Elite moves? Google the exercises they're doing. They're your standard gym exercises. Talk about hyperbole.

Crazy angles? Yeah, that's not exactly how this whole muscle growth thing works.

Activate more muscle fibers? Haha, all muscle fibers will be activated or recruited from rep 1 when you're using loads equivalent to approximately 85% of your max. They've found a way to recruit more than all? Wow. Oh, and in terms of growth, activation does not equal training a muscle. And it's the training of the muscle the yields the results.

Boost testosterone? Acute increases in testosterone have been shown not to make a lick of difference... you're talking about very transient increases in T in response to working out... nothing like the supraphysiological doses you see the users using.

Honestly, I take issue with pretty much every nuance they said. It's nothing but flashy hyperbole in a sad attempt to dupe the consumer from opening his or her wallet.

AnvilHead

Yep, sounds like typical marketing hype BS. I'm admittedly not as up on the cutting edge of things as you are, but I haven't seen anything truly revolutionary as far as weight training goes. Pick up heavy things and put them back down, repeat as necessary and periodically increase/cycle the workload. I guess they have to find ways to gussy it up and make it seem like there are "secrets" in order to sell things to people who don't know any better.

stroutman81

I can't agree more. I mean this is nothing new. It seems every big fitness company is doing it. And the average consumer doesn't know any better. Pair their lack of awareness with their desperation for secrets and success and they get duped every single time. At least some of these programs aren't terrible. Take p90x for example. It's definitely nothing special even though the marketing makes it seem revolutionary. Even though they lie in their marketing and exaggerate like it's their job... the underlying program could be much worse.

About the only thing that's relatively new and has be really interested lately from a research standpoint is the stuff that's been coming out on occlusion training.

AnvilHead

I can't agree more. I mean this is nothing new. It seems every big fitness company is doing it. And the average consumer doesn't know any better. Pair their lack of awareness with their desperation for secrets and success and they get duped every single time. At least some of these programs aren't terrible. Take p90x for example. It's definitely nothing special even though the marketing makes it seem revolutionary. Even though they lie in their marketing and exaggerate like it's their job... the underlying program could be much worse.

Although I'm not a "video workout" kind of guy, I agree with what you're saying - it has its benefits and definitely could be worse. I completely agree about the lying/exaggerating part - they really pump it up like it's something "never seen before", when it's really just Richard Simmons or Jane Fonda cranked up a notch, minus the headbands and leg warmers. You're also right about the average consumer being painfully un- (or mis-) informed...not to mention, often unwilling to spend time doing the research and sorting the wheat from the chaff ("...but Dr. Oz said..."). Combine that with the desperation for success and it's easy to see how the diet/fitness industry has become a multi-billion dollar ripoff machine (noting, of course, that there *are* ethical, scrupulous and dedicated individuals mixed in there - unfortunately, they often get overwhelmed and lost in the shuffle.)

About the only thing that's relatively new and has be really interested lately from a research standpoint is the stuff that's been coming out on occlusion training.

I've read a couple blurbs about the studies, interesting stuff indeed. On the surface, the takeaway message being tossed about on the internet is that low weight/high reps are just as effective as high weight/low reps....but then you read deeper and discover that a muscle occlusion method must also be used to reap the touted benefits. Predictably, test subjects have reported that occlusion during the training is pretty painful.

stroutman81

Although I'm not a "video workout" kind of guy, I agree with what you're saying - it has its benefits and definitely could be worse. I completely agree about the lying/exaggerating part - they really pump it up like it's something "never seen before", when it's really just Richard Simmons or Jane Fonda cranked up a notch, minus the headbands and leg warmers. You're also right about the average consumer being painfully un- (or mis-) informed...not to mention, often unwilling to spend time doing the research and sorting the wheat from the chaff ("...but Dr. Oz said..."). Combine that with the desperation for success and it's easy to see how the diet/fitness industry has become a multi-billion dollar ripoff machine (noting, of course, that there *are* ethical, scrupulous and dedicated individuals mixed in there - unfortunately, they often get overwhelmed and lost in the shuffle.)

Not to mention that even the up and coming professionals who want to be ethical and dedicated don't have a lot of direction. Many wind up in the commercial gym pipeline. Not a bad place to be from the standpoint that there's a constant flow of prospective clients to learn from. Unfortunately, the management is only concerned about bottom line and numbers. They don't really care who's wearing the trainer shirts. There's no continuing education or anything like that. And frankly, unless you're equipped to read research, the non-research, quality material isn't very accessible. There's too much voodoo bull**** drowning out the quality stuff.

It's not an easy industry to get into if you're trying to be serious with it. Thankfully it seems to be improving with more and more seminars and continuing education avenues in place. We'll see.

I've read a couple blurbs about the studies, interesting stuff indeed. On the surface, the takeaway message being tossed about on the internet is that low weight/high reps are just as effective as high weight/low reps....but then you read deeper and discover that a muscle occlusion method must also be used to reap the touted benefits. Predictably, test subjects have reported that occlusion during the training is pretty painful.

It's definitely some interesting stuff. The way I see it, these models simply explain why positive adaptations aren't solely linked to the level of loading. It's also about how hard the muscle is worked from a metabolic standpoint. If you use light loading relative to your maximum, yet go to or near failure, positive adaptations can still occur. I mean, just look at the bodybuilding population. Many of them have been pumping and toning for decades now with success. Granted, many of them are drug induced. But still... I think there's something there.

Granted, I'm not advocating picking up the pink dumbbells and doing nothing but. I think heavy work needs to be at the nucleus of most programming. But if hypertrophy is the goal, I think 'you're' mistaken if that's the only thing you're focusing on. At least after an initial base of strength is established.

I'll also add that this isn't a score for those DVD programs out there that don't practice PROGRESSIVE OVERLOAD. You can certainly overload with the light weights they're using in those DVDs per what I said above, assuming you do enough work with them. From what I've seen though, the majority of them do not do enough work at those light weights. What's worse is they don't practice progressing the stress, which as you know, is one of, if not THE primary tenet of a successful program.

Yeah, a lot of the interesting data has been coming out of the occlusion work. However, there's this sort of stuff too which is promising:

http://jap.physiology.org/content/early/2012/04/12/japplphysiol.00307.2012.abstract

I've actually been toying around with some "occlusion" training in my own programming. Let's actually refer to it as blood flow restriction training, as you're not completely occluding. But I've been using knee wraps wrapped high up on my arms while doing isolation arm training twice per week. It's definitely painful. Not the first set, but the forthcoming sets are brutal. I've been at it for 4 weeks now and have had some success. Maybe it's just the novelty of the stress, but I'll likely cycle some of it in and out of my programming going forward.

AnvilHead

Yeah, a lot of the interesting data has been coming out of the occlusion work. However, there's this sort of stuff too which is promising:

http://jap.physiology.org/content/early/2012/04/12/japplphysiol.00307.2012.abstract

Thanks for the link, interesting read! That may be the study that I've read about because I don't recall occlusion as being one of the parameters discussed - it was just 30%1RM vs. 80%1RM. As a side note, reading that study opened a new door for me, as I had to go research what "phosphorylation" entailed. :bigsmile:

stroutman81

Yeah, a lot of the interesting data has been coming out of the occlusion work. However, there's this sort of stuff too which is promising:

http://jap.physiology.org/content/early/2012/04/12/japplphysiol.00307.2012.abstract

Thanks for the link, interesting read! That may be the study that I've read about because I don't recall occlusion as being one of the parameters discussed - it was just 30%1RM vs. 80%1RM. As a side note, reading that study opened a new door for me, as I had to go research what "phosphorylation" entailed. :bigsmile:

Great! I admire a person who doesn't just gloss over the words they don't recognize. Heck, that's how I built and continue to build my base of knowledge.