14 ms·

Here this guy claims to have put on 20 pounds of muscle in 8 weeks, and in another article he claims 34 pounds in 4 weeks. Hmm... I wouldn't invest in anything

by ledge 13y ago

Here this guy claims to have put on 20 pounds of muscle in 8 weeks, and in another article he claims 34 pounds in 4 weeks. Hmm... I wouldn't invest in anything he was associated with, he is clearly full of shit.

normloman 13y ago
I was surprised there were tips to begin with. After seeing the crap-ads on his site, I expected a sign-up form asking $100 for his productivity guru webinar (a $300 value!).
jere 13y ago
So what? The previous 34lb gain happened about 8 years ago and that was probably his main focus at the time. Then, he was in his late 20s. Now, he's in his late 30s and obviously spread thin. I love HN, but damn the negativity and dismissal. The guy is opening up on some pretty personal stuff and I for one appreciate it. [edit: I've explained why I think the original 34lb gain is possibly legitimate in this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6669680 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6669680 (though you should note that wasn't the point of this comment.)]
- delluminatus 13y ago
  Gaining 34 lbs of muscle in 4 weeks is impossible, even for a young man. Even gaining 34 pounds of weight in 4 weeks (not just muscle, but fat as well) would be a serious challenge: 34 pounds of weight equates to about 119,000 kilocalories[1], meaning you would have to eat 119k/28=4,250 kcal a day in addition to your "maintenance" calorie level (i.e. the caloric energy that you burn with everyday activity -- usually 1500-2500 kcal). So he would have to eat about 7,000 kcal a day in order to gain weight at that rate. Furthermore, gaining weight and gaining muscle are very different beasts. Muscle is only "built" when muscle fibers are broken down through strenuous activity and then rebuilt. This is not a rapid process. It's widely accepted in the weight training community that without steroids, muscle can be built at a rate of a pound or two a week at most. So either the author is lying about his muscle gain, which throws his other statements into doubt, or more likely he's simply confused about how to actually measure weight vs. muscle gain, and reporting erroneous conclusions. There are many fitness-related misconceptions out there. [1] http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/calories/WT00011 http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/calories/WT00011
  - jere 13y ago
    Original article for reference: 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... >Gaining 34 lbs of muscle in 4 weeks is impossible I'm not so sure it's impossible. Claiming such seems like black swan fallacy. Lots of people were skeptical about it of course and I don't blame you for being skeptical. My original comment above was mainly in response to the divergent 2 numbers being clearly bullshit... they're not. I'll try to tackle what you said below: The calorie part isn't much of an argument. With enough exertion and access to calorically dense, highly palatable foods, it's not that hard to eat several thousands calories in excess daily. A large pizza can easily be 2500 calories; a cheesecake can easily be 3000 calories. But... your calculation is actually a straw man, since fat requires more calories than muscle. I can't find an exact number, but taking just knowing that caloric density of dietary protein is less than half that of dietary fat and that muscle mass is mostly water, I'm guessing at least half as much as fat, so closer to 1500 calories than 3500. Add a small detail to that in that he lost 3lb of fat during the same time period and the calculation is more like ((34 X 1500 kcal)-(3 X 3500 kcal))/28 = 1446 kcal a day in excess. So he'd be eating about 3500 calories per day. That's actually a fairly typical number for an American. I really don't think he was confused about how to measure... he went to a human performance lab and used hydrostatic weighing, one of the most accurate methods. Finally, call me naive, but I don't think he's lying either. I've read a lot of Ferriss's stuff and one theme that has come out is he's really good at finding loopholes that allow him to win by just barely staying within the rules. I'm no expert, but I've noticed that improvements in body composition are rapidly achievable for people who had a similar composition in the past and only temporarily deviated. I'm pretty sure Ferriss was jacked when younger (he used to wrestle). Ferriss also references the Colorado experiment and the same point is brought up on the wikipedia page (the claim here by the way is a 63lb gain in one month... so you must really think that is BS): >These claims are considered controversial because it was only performed with two subjects who were not "average," but regaining pre-existing muscle mass. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Experiment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Experiment He may very well not have "built" the muscle, but simply regained the existing mass.
    - 13y ago
- avenger123 13y ago
  Tim is an incredible marketer. If anyone believes he actually says anything on his blog that is a real reflection of the real him should really think twice.
  - normloman 13y ago
    That would make him an incredible liar, not an incredible marketer. But I understand your confusion: Both types of people are successful at marketing.

by ledge 13y ago

normloman 13y ago

I was surprised there were tips to begin with. After seeing the crap-ads on his site, I expected a sign-up form asking $100 for his productivity guru webinar (a $300 value!).

jere 13y ago

So what? The previous 34lb gain happened about 8 years ago and that was probably his main focus at the time. Then, he was in his late 20s. Now, he's in his late 30s and obviously spread thin. I love HN, but damn the negativity and dismissal. The guy is opening up on some pretty personal stuff and I for one appreciate it. [edit: I've explained why I think the original 34lb gain is possibly legitimate in this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6669680 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6669680 (though you should note that wasn't the point of this comment.)]

delluminatus 13y ago
Gaining 34 lbs of muscle in 4 weeks is impossible, even for a young man. Even gaining 34 pounds of weight in 4 weeks (not just muscle, but fat as well) would be a serious challenge: 34 pounds of weight equates to about 119,000 kilocalories[1], meaning you would have to eat 119k/28=4,250 kcal a day in addition to your "maintenance" calorie level (i.e. the caloric energy that you burn with everyday activity -- usually 1500-2500 kcal). So he would have to eat about 7,000 kcal a day in order to gain weight at that rate. Furthermore, gaining weight and gaining muscle are very different beasts. Muscle is only "built" when muscle fibers are broken down through strenuous activity and then rebuilt. This is not a rapid process. It's widely accepted in the weight training community that without steroids, muscle can be built at a rate of a pound or two a week at most. So either the author is lying about his muscle gain, which throws his other statements into doubt, or more likely he's simply confused about how to actually measure weight vs. muscle gain, and reporting erroneous conclusions. There are many fitness-related misconceptions out there. [1] http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/calories/WT00011 http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/calories/WT00011
- jere 13y ago
  Original article for reference: 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... >Gaining 34 lbs of muscle in 4 weeks is impossible I'm not so sure it's impossible. Claiming such seems like black swan fallacy. Lots of people were skeptical about it of course and I don't blame you for being skeptical. My original comment above was mainly in response to the divergent 2 numbers being clearly bullshit... they're not. I'll try to tackle what you said below: The calorie part isn't much of an argument. With enough exertion and access to calorically dense, highly palatable foods, it's not that hard to eat several thousands calories in excess daily. A large pizza can easily be 2500 calories; a cheesecake can easily be 3000 calories. But... your calculation is actually a straw man, since fat requires more calories than muscle. I can't find an exact number, but taking just knowing that caloric density of dietary protein is less than half that of dietary fat and that muscle mass is mostly water, I'm guessing at least half as much as fat, so closer to 1500 calories than 3500. Add a small detail to that in that he lost 3lb of fat during the same time period and the calculation is more like ((34 X 1500 kcal)-(3 X 3500 kcal))/28 = 1446 kcal a day in excess. So he'd be eating about 3500 calories per day. That's actually a fairly typical number for an American. I really don't think he was confused about how to measure... he went to a human performance lab and used hydrostatic weighing, one of the most accurate methods. Finally, call me naive, but I don't think he's lying either. I've read a lot of Ferriss's stuff and one theme that has come out is he's really good at finding loopholes that allow him to win by just barely staying within the rules. I'm no expert, but I've noticed that improvements in body composition are rapidly achievable for people who had a similar composition in the past and only temporarily deviated. I'm pretty sure Ferriss was jacked when younger (he used to wrestle). Ferriss also references the Colorado experiment and the same point is brought up on the wikipedia page (the claim here by the way is a 63lb gain in one month... so you must really think that is BS): >These claims are considered controversial because it was only performed with two subjects who were not "average," but regaining pre-existing muscle mass. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Experiment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Experiment He may very well not have "built" the muscle, but simply regained the existing mass.
  - 13y ago
avenger123 13y ago
Tim is an incredible marketer. If anyone believes he actually says anything on his blog that is a real reflection of the real him should really think twice.
- normloman 13y ago
  That would make him an incredible liar, not an incredible marketer. But I understand your confusion: Both types of people are successful at marketing.