I'm the rare defender of Tim Ferriss on HN. A lot of what he says is common sense, a lot of it is crazy, a lot of it is probably wrong, but here's why I think he doesn't deserve the scorn given to him:
Everything he says is backed up by this premise: "Don't just accept this - try it! I'm only recommending it because I found it to work."
I've done his slow-carb diet before and am doing it again now. I lost 25 pounds in two months the first time, and I've lost 5 pounds this week since I restarted it. These results, which are on par with what he claimed, make me hesitant to flatly deny anything else he recommends.
I basically agree with you. The 4 Hour Body is chock full of a bunch of stuff that isn't scientifically proven, which I'm always suspicious of. But, the science is solid on a lot of the stuff he really pushes hard.
The slow-carb diet is an excellent diet for weight loss and does avoid some of the problems of other rapid weight loss diets; it controls calorie intake without forcing you to count calories. I counted calories for the first week or so I was on it (in vegetarian form, which is a little bit of a challenge, to get enough protein without resorting to soy and wheat gluten products), and found I was eating about 200-300 below my resting metabolic rate every day, while eating enough to never feel hungry or get snacky. There's no way I could avoid losing weight if I'm eating significantly fewer calories than what I burn just sitting at my desk, and there is pretty solid science that the ingredients in the diet encourage loss of fat rather than loss of muscle...you're getting plenty of the stuff you need to maintain muscle mass, and adding some things to increase burning of fat for fuel.
As an aside, I've found the easily testable bits (particularly the "boost testosterone and libido" chapter) to have very evident results. That may be just because I was deficient in a few of the vital nutrients, and returning to nominal made things better, but I definitely saw a change. I plan to keep Brazil nuts in the house at all times, henceforth, regardless.
Nothing related to libido and sexual performance is easily testable for an individual. Libido and sexual performance are strongly affected by psychological factors as well as physical ones.
That's true. Nothing to do with the human body or mind is testable with scientific rigor on an individual basis. You have no control, and you have no way to prevent placebo effect. That doesn't make it entirely worthless, however. I know my own body, and I know what it's historically capable of.
Without getting T-levels and other indicators tested at several intervals during the trials, I only have gut feelings. But, well, as with software, if it Works For Me(tm), I'm gonna keep using it.
It depends on what your studying. Much of the early research into how high G's effect the body is based on a single test subject (John Stapp). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stapp
When he began his research in 1947, the aerospace conventional wisdom was that a man would suffer fatally around 18 g. ... In one of his final rocket-propelled rides, Stapp was subjected to 46.2 times the force of gravity."
I have to second the brazil nut recommendation. I've been chomping through three before sleep and three on waking and the difference in appetite is... pronounced. That plus the butter fat/fermented cod liver oil and extra kimchee.
Are the brazil nuts shelled or unshelled? I read somewhere that there are a lot fewer nutrients in the shelled nuts. But the unshelled are harder to find.
Yes, he hit me with this one as well. It's a specific supplment, fermented cod liver oil with added butter fat (from cows who have grazed on rapidly growing grass). Its an actual thing that exists:
Several people have referred me to Mark's blog in the context of paleolithic dieting. I've been going through the archives, and it seems pretty solid. Of course, like many blogs now, it's really half blog, half sales funnel for information products.
(Which is totally cool, but it sometimes overshadows the fact that the blog posts themselves are valuable.)
The foods our ancestors ate don't exactly exist anymore. Animals are smaller and we eat fewer wild ones. Fruit is sweeter. I'm not big into supplements, but I do recognize it's hard to get the right nutrients even eating paleo.
It's not necessarily a contradiction. Example: we used to get regular doses of minerals from our water supply. Today, we largely filter these minerals to make "hard" water "soft."
Doing what our ancestors did ≠ ingesting what our ancestors ingested. Supplementation can close these sorts of gaps.
Mark seems to see the main problem with the carbs contained in grains. This does not apply to Gluten protein obviously, as it is nearly free of carbohydrates. The only problem with Gluten seems to be that some (up to a third according to Mark) people seem to be intolerant to Gluten. From what I could gather from the two links you provided, you should be ok with a Gluten-heavy diet as long as you make sure that you are not sensitive to it (which can be diagnosed easily)
I'm pretty suspicious of Robb Wolf's stuff, because it's almost entirely anecdotal and based on microscopic studies rather than actual data about what's going on inside a human body. He criticizes studies that disagree with his assertions (like The China Study), while promoting studies that are far less convincing that happen to support his opinions. Several of the studies he cites about "leaky gut syndrome" seem to be based on watching chemical reactions in a petri dish, which is nearly nonsensical when trying to understand a system containing billions of organisms.
"Leaky gut syndrome" is, historically, an alternative medicine diagnosis, and conventional medicine doesn't really have much science on the subject. That's not to say it's completely fabricated, just that whenever someone is a "leaky gut syndrome" expert, as Robb Wolf is, there will be tons of people who will go see him, get his "treatment" and feel better for a while because of placebo effect. Everybody in the chain believes in the disease and the cures, so it tends to work a lot of the time, at least long enough for it to be considered a successful case study for Wolf's purposes.
That said, where there's smoke there's often fire, and there does seem to be a lot of smoke around grains in the human diet, and some of the fire may be caused by gluten. So, in the interests of keeping things simple, I've cut gluten out of my diet during the week. On "cheat day" I eat plenty of grains, mostly brown rice, as it's a food I love (with curry and such), but also pastries and breads and beer.
I don't really buy the leaky gut syndrome argument, as wheat has never caused me intestinal distress, while numerous other foods have due to always having had a sensitive stomach, but I'm willing to take a chance on the idea that wheat and gluten might have negative outcomes. Also, eggs are shown to help burn fat and build muscle, so I eat a lot of organic eggs from free range chickens (4-6 per day), and I've also added mussels and shrimp back into my diet (the first meat I've eaten in 17 years, and the only meat I can feel ethically comfortable eating).
I read it . . . loved parts of it . . . and simultaneously thought it was most random book ever.
He does give a disclaimer at the beginning, where he says the book is not meant to be read from beginning to end. When looked at that way, the work is somewhat more coherent.
I bought the Kindle version, and when reading on the iPad, this work really comes into its own: it's more of a collection of linked content than a book proper. The chapter notes are important, and the links to YouTube and content on his website are useful. One the iPad, I can access that content quickly and then return to where I was reading.
I will say that whatever the flaws in this work, Tim Ferris has changed two important aspects of my life forever with his two books: how I work, and now how I eat.
Interestingly enough, I found that by structuring The 4HB like this, Tim addressed one of my main problem with his previous book, The 4HWW:
The 4HWW "introduced a few interesting concepts but was pretty poorly written. Specifically because the information was scattered and the chapters didn't lead into each other."
(The above is quoted as it is from an email a friend sent to me yesterday: he summed-up my thoughts better than I could have.)
I enjoyed both of Tim's books. Yes, his methods are a bit... unconventional, but the underlying principles are good:
Book 1: "Do less..."
Book 2: "...and measure it."
Book 1 (4 Hour Work Week) is especially interesting in contrast to other productivity books; books like GTD are about cramming more into your day. 4HWW is about identifying the highest impact things and cutting out the rest.
Was his diet a type of protein sparing modified fast? I think Tim Ferriss is a shining example that how you deliver your message is a factor in your overall influence just as much as what your actual message is. If your goal is to influence as many people as possible, his strategy is probably not ideal. If your goal is to influence a significant number of people in a very significant way, it's hard to argue against it: it's very effective.
He covers that type of diet in the "living forever" chapter, I believe, if it's what I think you're talking about (having an 18 hour minimal protein "fast" once a week where you eat anything except protein, while the rest of the week you eat a very high protein diet). Or, if you mean a cyclical ketosis high protein diet, he merely mentions it in passing rather than delving into details.
The primary diet he advocates is a "slow-carb diet", which means lots of legumes (the slow-carb part of the diet), lots of vegetables (usually spinach), and lots of protein, and no carbs that have a high glycemic index or insulinemic response (nearly no grains, for instance). The prototypical slow-carb meal is spinach, lentils, and eggs. It fills you up with very sturdy, nutrient dense, calories, and supposedly prevents the self-reinforcing hunger cycle that fast carbs (like white rice or bread) triggers.
One thing that is important to keep in mind is that if you think there might actually, truly, be one piece of advice in this book, the cost plus time investment is trivial compared to the potential gains. None of his information is so bogus that you can throw it in the trash with other random "Be Slim in 24 hours" books.
Also, note that the placebo effect is still an effect. Fifteen bucks to cure insomnia because you believe it will be cured rather than the ice bath having scientific backing? Sign me up!
Not all information is a sure thing, sometimes it pays to start looking at the "this guy is either a genius or a madman, but it is hard to tell" section.
FWIW, it's easily obtainable online, so it could just be a $0 loss.
(The only section I've carefully read is the sleep section. It's a strange mixture. On the one hand, the Zeo advice is good - I like my Zeo and expect a lot of utility from it. On the other hand, the polyphasic sleep parts read like he is making it up completely and has never actually done it. So...)
I thought exactly the same thing about the polyphasic sleep section. To be fair, most of it is admittedly written by Dustin Curtis.
If anyone else thought that chapter sounded familiar, it's basically this web page with minimal editing.
http://dustincurtis.com/sleep.html
Going back, I see Tim mentions using the "Everyman" schedule with "great success." If you were cynical, you could interpret that as 'I managed to do Everyman for a while, but the Uberman plan was impossible for me to adapt to long term.'
I would personally say that even if nearly everything in the book fails for me, it was a good enough read to be worth $15 (roughly what I would pay for a novel, let's say).
The writer of the article was indeed very funny, but honestly anyone can be made to look like a buffoon if their words are taken out of context, and the results aren't examined.
Personally, I'd recommend to anyone interested in health and fitness at all to grab the 4 Hour Body - there's some stuff worth reading.
While reading it, it read more like Freakanomics than an encyclopedia of "how to lose weight". Its more about heres some cool shit i/we've saw happening, heres what we did, try it out. He never advocates heavy drug use or any of that shit. He even mentions: "Medication = can give you weight loss, but trade off is long term damage to your body"
Now heres one interesting thing... if you think "eat whatever you want and you will lose weight" is bullshit, consider this: I used to love drinking soda. Drank it by the gallons. I stopped due to weight gain. Now I don't crave it, I am mostly repulsed by it, and am quite happy just drinking water, in fact I can drink whatever I want because I want water.
Over time your mindset will change, you simply got used to a lifestyle of excessive eating and thus... "I don't want to give up my donuts in the morning". Just eating fruits daily makes me repulsed by eating processed sweets (donuts and the like) because there is so much more and better flavor out there that is not due to just adding tons of sugar.
" I used to love drinking soda. Drank it by the gallons. I stopped due to weight gain. Now I don't crave it, I am mostly repulsed by it"
I've had a similar experience. A few months ago I moved overseas and as a result have drastically changed my diet, including large reductions in salt, sugar and caffeine. The results have been mixed:
- I get huge sugar cravings at times which I've never had before,
- I can't stand the quantities of salt I would have eaten before and it makes me physically sick,
- I have no desire to consume more or less caffeine but when I do have it I can't sleep at all.
I don't know what any of these particular changes mean but I've been surprised by the strength of my bodies reaction to the changed diet.
> but here's why I think he doesn't deserve the scorn given to him: Everything he says is backed up by this premise: "Don't just accept this - try it! I'm only recommending it because I found it to work."
Isn't this a stock phrase in EVERY and ANY telemarking ad?
Conveniently, in order to "try it" you have to buy his book to find out what "it" is, in which case he already haves your money --and unlike telemarketing there is no refund policy...
I've read 4 Hour Body and think it was terrible. Self indlugent, misleading (at best) and dangerous (at worst).
There were numerous 1 star reviews on Amazon.com that summed up my thoughts pretty well, so I'll not drone on here about it... I do however wonder about all the legions of 5 star reviews that are in there.
I wonder if Tim tore a page out of 4 hour work week and outsourced an indian marketing firm (brickwork?) to write a large number of 4 and 5 star reviews.
How exactly is that different from the usual publishers' practice of sending early copies of the book to a ton of reviewers and ask them to, well, review it in newspapers and magazines?
1) Professional critics are not usually the friends and acquaintances of the author. They have reputations and rules (enforced by their publication) that govern their behavior.
2) Amazon reviews are intended for customers who have paid for the book. Not for friends of the author that received it for free with the expectation that they would review it on Amazon.
It's Amazon's failing that they don't protect against this. If you did the same thing on HN the anti-voting ring software would kill the submission.
The vast majority of books on Amazon would have zero reviews if they only let you review a book after purchasing it on Amazon. Yes, it does suck that Amazon won't delete reviews even when the person admits they haven't read the book, or when they are just complaining that the Kindle version doesn't have a long enough free chapter. But other than that I have no problem with anyone writing a review as long as they've read it. Reading the book takes several hours, so the vast majority of people aren't going to sit there cranking out reviews just to get free books. There are people who do that, but it's really only a couple dozen on all of Amazon.
I think there is some assumption that Amazon reviews are representative of a large population of users, so if there are 10 great reviews and 5 good reviews and 1 bad review, it's representative of how a much larger population of users feels.
If you're writing a review commercially, with limited space, it only makes sense to write a review if:
* It is very positive and leads to purchases
* Negative reviews of popular/well known products (or, from big/well known companies -- a negative review of the Apple Cube is quite popular)
* It is part of a review of a class of products (either "top 10 devices of CES" or "all digicams compared")
There is no incentive to publish negative reviews of obscure products
Based on my experience with AnyNewBooks.com, I can tell you that pastors are phenomenal at this. It's stunning how many books by evangelical preachers have dozens of 5 star reviews the very day their book is published.
In Australia for a number of years -- the largest mega-church Hillsong would have the nationwide no. 1 CD for one week every year.
Essentially -- they had a massive conference and launched a new cd there. The sales where enough to top the charts. Just to be clear -- this is the overall charts - not just the religious ones.
Honestly, I really quite like 4HWW - it changed my point of view on a lot of things. I felt really ripped off by 4HB and still think there is a dangerous 'signal to noise' ratio in there.
With just over a week to have calmed down though - I can admit that there are some good bits in there.
I for one have a very non-creepy (bright, cheery lights, lots of foot traffic, bright colors) bridge I may interest you in. My reptile oil, however, is very run-of-the-mill.
I just started some of it this monday. Specifically, the slow carb diet (seems legit enough)... and some of the workout stuff he recommends.
There's an ab exercise that did tear apart my abs (in a good way) - and I workout a lot and do medicine ball ab stuff frequently; I'm not some shlub starting a new years thing.
He also says only do 1 set of an exercise and do each rep very slowly (like 5 seconds up, 5 seconds down on a bench press) - this also made me very sore the next day so I'll keep doing it.
However he basically says don't bother with cardio, and recommends a ton of obscure foods - I probably will continue running and not buy that crap.
Hopefully this will work as I've been unable to lose any weight trying other stuff (not very fat - just want abs).
I've been in the fitness industry for 26 years now. I can tell you there are better ways to achieve results, but good or great long term results require consistency and dedication.
20 - 25lbs of lean mass per year in an untrained 18 year old is very reasonable but quite an accomplishment. What he claims is extremely improbable if not impossible without chemistry.
A master at taking the next suckers money selling half truths. The number of people buying into it is frightening.
I don't know much about Ferris, and haven't read the book but I've been a quite devoted life extensionist for a while, researching diets and studies and nutritients relentlessly, and a favorite researcher and blogger of mine is Chris Masterjohn, whose scientific rigor and sobriety is ever unwavering, who wrote a favorable review of 4-hour body.
Have you actually read the book? Everything is subjective, but I feel it offers plenty of value, and my life is improved for reading it. Specifically relating to nutrition & weight gain.
I don't really care for or about Tim's marketing methods, but to say it has no substance at all is to miss the point. Same goes for 4HWW.
getting a nice body - looking beautiful - is probably one of the most valuable benefits you could offer to someone. rule of marketing - human drives. 4HB appeals to drive to bond, drive to defend, drive to acquire.
The ridiculousness of this stuff is not the content, it's the linkbait hyperbole he uses to market it. He draws people in with shit like "The 4 Hour Workweek", even though his content doesn't say that's actually going to be the case - at least not until deep into the process. And it pervades everything he does - shady marketing tactics that cover up content that's actually pretty decent.
Are they shady tactics if they actually work and the content is decent as you say? The point of marketing is to get the eyeballs, if your content is garbage then that's a whole other issue. Maybe you can go into more detail about what's shady about his tactics?
4HB reads like a hacker's book, and that's why I loved it.
Conventional wisdom says you kill yourself at the gym to bulk up. But a muscle isn't strengthened by fatigue -- it's strengthened by the body's response to that fatigue. So shouldn't your goal be triggering the response?
That makes for an exciting read. The book is full of it -- tracking down the extraordinarily successful in a given field, taking their advice himself, and sharing the results.
Working four hours a week is revolutionary. Working out four hours a week is ... average. If you spend four hours a week doing any sort of strength training in a semi-competent manner, you are going to look good after a period of months. (And you won't even need to weigh your feces!)
I fail to see why we need 571 pages of rebelling against conventional wisdom here.
Indeed, he claims he achieved his results by working out 4 hours in 28 days.
Even so, working out 4 hours per week without changing your diet or just working out in a "semi-competent" manner will probably not bring you the results he claims to have gotten.
You should at least familiarize yourself with the claims before denying them.
Is that measured as door to door at the gym? Weight room door to weight room door? Or time on the iron?
If you measure time on the iron, it is very short. The reality is a lot of your time is spent between sets, recovering, and then showering and changing afterwards.
A 20-30 minute workout a few times a month is much less than anyone expects to spend on exercise for dramatic gains, no matter how you slice up the time and how much ancillary stuff you include in the "time at gym" equation. All of the classes at my gym are ~60 minutes. I'm doing Occam's Protocol from the book, and I get in, do my lifts, shower, and get back out, long before those classes finish their workout. And, I go much less frequently than I thought was necessary: a couple times a week. I haven't been doing it long enough to know what the results will be, but the science is solid.
Because, according to him, >90% of what you'll do in the gym isn't necessary.
So he offers training programs for a bunch of different goals (speed, strength, vertical, etc) while citing elite coaches that work with some of the most extraordinary and accomplished athletes for each case.
Very hacker like, I was excited about the pilot of his show, Trial by Fire, that ran a year ago but unfortunately it didn't catch on so it never went beyond the pilot episode.
The approach of looking at an end result, deconstructing it and then rebuilding from scratch (even with a few shortcuts to expedite the process) is a great way to reverse engineer a product, behavior or as shown in the pilot, a new skill.
It doesn't have any "I tried this and it worked" or "I tried this and it didn't work" or "This goes against XYZ scientific study, so I'm hesitant to try it."
In fact, I don't see any substance at all really, aside from gathering that the guy doesn't like Tim Ferriss.
>Here’s a better analogy: “The 4-Hour Body” reads as if The New England Journal of Medicine had been hijacked by the editors of the SkyMall catalog. Some of this junk might actually work, but you’re going to be embarrassed doing it or admitting to your friends that you’re trying it. This is a man who, after all, weighs his own feces, likes bloodletting as a life-extension strategy and aims a Philips goLite at his body in place of ingesting caffeine.
Just... wow. The book sounds ridiculous, and the review is fantastic.
Ferriss is a hacker...but the system he works on is his own body. I respect him for the experiments he does, and his willingness to share the results and the mistakes and embarrassing stuff, even if his science isn't always complete. To be fair, he generally admits when he's not discussing actual science and just correlation or limited data.
I'd no more insult him for doing what he does than I would for someone releasing a new product in its minimal viable product form. Yeah, it's a bit on the hyperbolic side, as such things go...but, honestly, I think we as entrepreneurs could probably learn a thing or two about marketing from watching him.
That's exactly the same impression I got, and with that mindset, it is a great read. He's doing something that I've always wanted to do, but haven't had the motivation or money to do systematically.
The example "bloodletting as a life-extension strategy" refers to donating blood. In this section of the book (one page), Ferris references Drs. Eades who make the same recommendation.
At that point, it becomes a matter of different writing styles for different audiences. Ferris writes short sections, as if the book contains hundreds of blog posts, while Drs. Eades' books are more scientific and verbose.
The section on the Philips goLITE is the same way. Ferris spends 200 words telling us how he uses it and why. In his book, The Vitamin D Solution, Dr. Michael Holick spends pages covering the same material,
Is it really "ridiculous" to make this information available to the public in different formats so people can choose the one that fits best with their reading style? It seems perfectly reasonable that some people just want a list of "try these things" while others will want to do extensive research.
Funny review overall through not very telling about the book (more about Ferriss himself). I've only read small snippets of the book (and don't intend to read much more), but it's pretty clear that the writer is outside of Ferriss' target audience for this (especially if the author is afraid of becoming embarrassed in front of some friends for trying to improve his health). It sounds like he misunderstands the point of Ferriss' experiments a bit.
I'm not sure why this comment got so many up votes when I can't even begin to see this book as any sort of con.
Ferris released free content (at least two blog posts) that garnered a ton of responses, followers, etc. He built on that to make this book. In regards to the book, he makes the table of contents and a sample chapter freely available. Want to know if this book is for you? Read the table of contents, read the blog posts that came before the book and read the sample chapter. That should clearly let you know if this book is worth your $15 because it's just hundreds of pages of the same. I honestly cannot name one other advice book that's given me such a preview before I bought it.
On top of that, with the low price point and pre-order give aways, I actually saved money on other things I had planned to buy because Ferris gave them to me for free with a pre-order.
The victim of a scam is often known as a mark[1]. It seems to me that jonhendry was implying that Ferriss is a con artist, using his book to defraud people of their money, by making them pay for something which is worth far less than they think. I am, however, not familiar enough with Ferriss or his books to pass such judgement myself; I'm just interpreting.
Every author has a target audience. Although I find Ferriss' marketing strategies unethical, I think his judgement on the book itself to be a bit unfair.
The fact that a major manufacturer like Phillips is releasing a line of medical products around this very use case should tell the author that it's not ridiculous. Outside social norms, maybe, but the whole point of the book is that Ferriss is trying things that are unconventional and seeing what works.
I got one of these lights as a gift, and it's been great. I was a bit skeptical/curious as to whether it was just placebo, but it turns out there's evidence that blue light helps the body schedule melatonin release.
Because they are completely unrelated and work though entirely different mechanisms. I'd use an "apples and oranges" analogy but apples and oranges are more similar than sunlight and caffeine.
Hahaha okay, awesome review. Still (and I've said something similar on HN before) for all Tim's giddy arrogance I still think he brings something valuable to the table. Yeah, he thinks his shit don't stink and yeah, he sort of sounds like a walking infomercial but guess what? So does almost every wildly successful person I have ever heard of. (Exceptions might include the likes of Bill Gates.) Tim is out there getting things done (commercially successful author, entrepreneur, etc) while a bunch of bloggers sit around making fun of him for having confidence and for maybe being a bit of an ass.
I like Tim, I consider him a personal friend (take that as a disclosure of bias), but for me the take-away is that success is rarely found on merit alone.
There are a ton of diet books that give the same suggestions as Tim's book, but his will sell because he's out there pimping it and creating buzz. I think that's the bit many on HN don't like but it's how things work.
How is it an awesome review? Because it goes hating on Tim without any logical back up? Or debunking of Tim's claims? He doesn't even say he tried any of it. Sounds to me like he just doesn't like him.
Because it's funny, in a roast-y sort of way. And more importantly, it makes it easier for people who completely disagree with the middle part of my post to at least read what I have to say. Ironically, this is similar to a technique which Tim talks about in 4HWW (he calls it the "compliment sandwich" - cheesy goodness) and it's a perfect example of how Tim recycles and condenses old ideas because this basic social tactic has been around forever (How to Win Friends and Influence People, the biblical book of Proverbs, etc).
One of the things I've noticed from my earliest days on the net is the degree that folks seem willing to be humbled and belittled by what they think of as celebrity. Geesh, I remember some YC application deadlines that the sucking up got so bad I was afraid I might get pulled into the screen of my laptop.
Ferriss seems to be capitalizing on this. He's the guy that had the new book over on Amazon with something like a thousand positive reviews. A thousand! Something has gone wrong somewhere.
This was a great review. I am reminded of the beer commercial with "with most interesting man in the world". Sounds like Ferriss could have been a model for this idea.
Obligatory link for those outside the states who haven't seen "The most interesting man in the world" beer commercials and don't know what I am talking about: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Bc0WjTT0Ps
Ferris made no mystery that he likes to use shortcuts and exploit loopholes whenever possible, like when he basically cheated to win the chinese kickboxing championship.
"
At the risk of seeming disgusting, permit me to say that several days after I started this practice, I experienced what was probably the largest bowel movement in my life. I've also lost a few inches around the waistline and my energy level seems to be rising. "
A couple years ago I bought two copies of that book to give away as jokes because the Engrish is just that awesome. Both recipients were appropriately baffled. :)
The part of the book that you MUST take seriously is the part about the methods of rehabilitating your body after an injury.
Most of you will be sitting for in a chair for a good chunk of the next 10 years, so bad backs and bad knees are a given. So understanding why this happens and on how to fix it is huge.
Getting all that info in one place took me 2 years of learning as only leading strength coaches know this stuff. Your doc probably won't.
a friend recommended to me the 4-hour workweek. After the first few pages, I bound the entire book in duct tape. I didn't want to be responsible for anyone else reading it.
I've been reading it and it's nowhere near that bad. I can summarise it in two sentences, but he has a point in that most people seem content to just live the same routine day in and day out, too lazy/fearful/inert to seek some excitement.
2. Don't be afraid to try new things, they're easier than you think.
Those two sentences seem to be the entirety of the book (I've read 20% so far). The rest are just anecdotes and stories that illustrate this, but there's nothing else I can recall right now.
I've scoffed at his claims of 5K to 50K in 12 weeks, in the past. I went from couch potato to runner. I've run several marathons and ultras and have done quite a bit of experimenting on my body over the years. I managed to borrow a copy of this book tonight and pounded through quite a bit of it.
From what I read, it's actually 4 weeks of bone/muscle/ligament conditioning, followed by 12 weeks of running training -- IF you can run a 5K at an 8:00 pace or faster. If you can't, then yep, you guessed it, more training time.
This is doable and pretty much falls in line with conventional training (though Tim reorganizes it a little bit, and throws in the all important and generally under-emphasized benefits of cross-training), but it isn't "in 12 weeks" at all.
I've done quite a bit of iterative experimenting with cross-training (especially cycling and swimming) and it unilaterally improved my running speeds and my long run recovery times.
His graphs and charts seem rather superfluous to me. Meant to intimidate rather than inform.
I'm not so concerned about permanent damage because of the initial 4 week conditioning process. If you're not already a seasoned runner, this program will take you as long or longer as Galloway or Joe Henderson's training plans.
His advice and data are solid, but don't meet his "in 12 weeks" mark. As far as I know, he still hasn't actually run 50K. The book links to http://www.fourhourbody.com/ultra for his results, but its still a dead page.
Personally I thought this review wasn't funny and quite shallow. I got the impression the author had only read the introduction and one or two other chapters.
> In the 1920s, he promoted health practices including vegetarianism and claimed to have found the secret of living to 200. He also developed his own highly unusual theories of physics, according to which such concepts as "penetrability", "suction and pressure" and "zig-zag-and-swirl" were discoveries on par with Einstein's Theory of Relativity. He published numerous books on these concepts, all set in a distinctive typography. Lawson repeatedly predicted the worldwide adoption of Lawsonian principles by the year 2000.
The only interesting thing that I got out of the 4-Hour Work Week was the idea of traveling somewhere long-time to learn a new skill. Hardly groundbreaking, but a new idea to me.
The rest of the book varied between obvious, sleazy and cheating. So I'm not surprised that the new one is pretty much the same, only this time with health risks instead of financial ones.
Not that this is particularly new. It's basically Charles Atlas in the age of twitter and ADHD. The review is pretty fantastic, though.
I have to admit I did get one thing from the 4-Hour that has worked for me: It is OK to email the CEO or other high person of a company. I was surprised at how quickly I would get responses (although generally short ones) from CEOs of billion-dollar, global companies.
I read it as well and thought that deep down it was really just a rip off of other studies and advice, just done in a quirky (and sometimes downright crazy) way.
For example, his "diet" is really nothing more than a suggestion to cut carbs and "anything white," eat a few square meals a day and take a day off once a week to convince your body you are not on a diet. I've read that same advice hundreds of times before. Disappointing (not that I had high expectations going into it).
So what? I hadn't read that advice before. I found it on his blog and lost 20 pounds in a month. Following exactly his advice. I wouldn't call that a rip off.
I had heard this advice many times before, but he added just one comment that completely made it for me.
He advises to have just a few basic meals to choose from and then stick with those. Don't try to put variety in your diet at all or try and keep it interesting. It's that wandering eye that will cause you to go off diet.
That simple change made it completely easy for me to stick to my diet because now I don't have to think at all. It's like I'm stuck on a starship and this is what the kitchen computer makes every day, and it doesn't matter if I want something else, because this is what the meal is.
At risk of echoing others, I too found his approach a bit different from stuff I had read, decided to try it, and lost a couple kilograms in the first week (started on Jan 1).
I appreciate his hyper self-promotion, too, because otherwise I would have never heard of this book; it's the first diet book I have ever read.
The big question here is: is Tim Ferriss that self-righteous naturally, or does he do it on purpose to gain more attention?
Few people can deny that being so self-righteous that other people get provoked is one hell of a personal marketing strategy. I just keep wondering if the people who succeed in personal branding have thought this out and planned their self-righteousness strategically, or if they just are that way naturally and got lucky.
"Tim Ferriss that self-righteous naturally, or does he do it on purpose to gain more attention?"
Your personality is just a strategy that was devised by your two-year-old self in order to keep you safe and get attention: http://vimeo.com/16260822
That said, once you're an adult and you no longer rely on others for safety, you get to start over and make whatever changes you want. Obviously if you want to be famous then you need to choose live a life and adopt a personality that will make you famous. The whole package isn't especially natural or fun for anyone, but some people naturally have bits and pieces of their private persona that also work well in public if you ham them up a bit.
It's like Richard Branson. Do you think that Richard Branson wants to fly to tahiti to go rock climbing every weekend? Of course not. Some weekends he'd much rather curl up with a pot of tea and read the newspaper. But he can't, because he's Richard Branson and that's not what Richard Branson would do. Does he enjoy being Richard Branson? I'm sure there are things he likes about it, but most likely his personality was only really developed after he made a bunch of money to spend on personal coaching and stuff.
That's really ridiculous, actually. Why wouldn't a billionaire just do whatever the fuck they want? Do they think that everyone is going to notice that Sir Richard isn't rock climbing this weekend and never fly virgin again? Does this go for all billionaires or just the more extreme ones? Would bill gates and Warren buffet rather be climbing everest and running marathons on the great wall of china than playing bridge online, but can't because of the shackles of their personal-coach-inspired fake personalities?
"Would bill gates and Warren buffet rather be climbing everest..."
Different people have different schtick. Why do you think that Bill Gates has a 12-year-old autistic kid do his powerpoints instead of hiring Nancy Duarte or whoever?
There are a lot of forces that influence what personalities will resonate with people, but one of them is that people tend to like stuff that's masturbatory. That is, things that make themselves feel like they could be successful doing what they're already doing. That's why for every life choice you could conceivably make, no matter how stupid, there is some incredibly successful person who has made it. There has to be, the market demands it, and if there wasn't then the market would anoint someone. Hence cheech & chong, william s. burroughs, ann coulter, etc.
Is it just me, or does every self-appointed culture snob find the need to make the gratuitous digs on Dan Brown's work? The man's an amazing storyteller.
I think you could take the manuscript for a Tom Clancy novel, replace each instance of "Jack Ryan" with "Robert Langdon", "CIA" with "Harvard", and "Kremlin" with "Vatican", and you'd be 80% done with the next Dan Brown novel.
How, exactly, an Italian, crypto-Opus Dei-member, 747 pilot crashing a plane into Harvard's Tercentenary Theatre during Freshman Convocation would result in Langdon becoming the next President of Harvard, though, would indeed require an amazing storyteller. That one doesn't quite write itself.
Langdon would be the only survivor of the senior faculty and would be automatically elevated to the post. He, and a sexy bimbo who is ostensibly an aerospace engineer, would engage in a whirlwind tour of the world, including
* Finding 14th century patterns in the flight paths of major airlines
* A gripping episode at the Boeing High Technology Escapades Centre near Seattle, Washington (warning: location may not exist)
* 50 pages of hastily cribbed history notes about ancient greece
* The discovery that the descendants of the Cult of Pythagoras and the the Eleusinian Mysteries have been secretly at war for thousands of years and that this explains all historical events up to and including Facebook.
Apparently you're not culturally elite unless you can find new ways to make fun of Dan Brown and Tim Ferriss. I would respect this if the snubbers wouldn't trade their soul for the success of either author.
Every snarky review I've ever read comes off as sour grapes and tends to devolve into a character assissination instead of a constructive criticism of the content. These guys write books that people evidently want to read. I fail to see the problem.
When I make digs at Dan Brown’s work, they are anything but gratuitous. I should have thrown The DaVinci Code across the room when the narrator declared that Leonardo had invented public-key cryptography.
I'm amazed by the similarity between the way some people seem personally offended by the existence of Timothy Ferriss and the way some people seem offended by Harry James Potter-Evans-Verres. I wonder if they're the same people.
What is the similarity? Is it just that both groups of people dislike a person (albeit, in one case, a fictional person)? Because there are an awful lot of people who have people who dislike them.
I greatly dislike how the NYT hijacks my browser's text selection. I'd much rather be able to right click the selected text and search for it on Google than have that silly word lookup hover.
One of my New Years resolutions is "Be more ridiculous more of the time." As I get older, I realize that being embarrassed of the things you want to do, or the experiments you want to try, is one of the most damaging aspects of human behavior.
There's an interesting idea in, I think, Next: The Future Just Happened by Michael Lewis, that part of the reason the Internet is such a huge phenomenon is because people can try on a new "self" just by creating a new account on some website. So, I thought, "Why can't I do that in real life, too?" There's no reason I can't wake up one day, and decide, "I'm going to be a really healthy person, and if it takes doing some odd things and causing friends and family to be a little baffled by my behavior now and then, that's OK. It's a worthy endeavor and a price worth paying to have the body and overall health I want."
In short, yes, my friends think my new diet is odd, and wonder why I'm not having pizza or beer with them (except on Saturday, my chosen "binge day"). And, yeah, some of the exercises look a little strange when I do them at the gym. But, so what? I just explain to my friends what I'm experimenting with, and why, and whether it's working or not (it seems to be, two weeks in). And I'm only at the gym for 20 minutes a couple times a week, following the protocol to the letter, so it's a small price to pay. I'm not touching on any of the extreme stuff that I can't back up with reliable science, but the diet and the muscle building regime are both well-backed and entirely fit with pretty conventional thinking. I could have constructed both from existing research on my own, had I taken the time to do so, the book just made it easy to follow (I have the book with me on my phone whenever I buy groceries or go to the gym, so I know I'm doing the right things).
Can't agree more. Doing something ridiculous led to us creating the largest live video site. I try to do ridiculous shit all the time for the hell of it, just to practice thinking unconventionally. Last month I ran through a carwash with my clothes on.
My colleagues and I are actually all trying different tips in the book now, and comparing notes. It's really fun, and gives us something to chat about at lunch.
I think it doesn't hurt to tell people what you're experimenting with -- or, put another way, it can help more than it can hurt if they decide to join forces with you.
The one thing that absolutely drives me up the wall is the recent touting of "Tim Ferriss's 'Slow-Carb' Diet" as if this was some sort of revelation previously withheld from the masses. Every time I hear somebody saying they're following it from 4HB I think, "These principles have been freely available and many times presented through a variety of media channels for years. Why is this news now and why is it being credited to Tim Ferriss?"
I won't downplay Tim's mastery of self-marketing, but seeing this kind of thing makes me go bonkers.
What I find tiresome are entire books dedicated to a diet that can be described in a few pages. In Ferriss's book, this diet described in a few pages, with the usual self-help testimonials to fill it out to a whole chapter. He put out the same diet in a blog post a few years ago:
http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2007/04/06/how-to-lose-...
so at this point I don't begrudge him putting it in a book chapter.
His first book was kind of ridiculous IMHO, but I liked this one. You can cherry pick silly bits out of it like the reviewer did, but a lot of it is pretty reasonable and does motivate people to actually try stuff.
None of what he has is new or revolutionary, it is just that he has gone through research and experiments to distill the key 2.5% of what you need to do for your body and poses everything as "try this as an experiment" instead of traditional books telling you to adopt their entire philosophy (Atkins, South Beach, etc.). It is much more actionable self help.
I've read most of the book and it's an entertaining read at worst and full of fitness tips you may use at best.
You just have to glance around America to see that whatever the media spews at us about health isn't working. I say, good for him for trying to hack away at the medical / weight loss / media / diet establishment.
Well, the part of the media that's filled with Coca-Cola and McDonald's commercials needs to be taken down a notch, but I don't think "orthodox health techniques don't work" are an adequate explanation for why people are in bad shape. After all, not many people are good at following any kind of health technique at all.
Yes, I completely agree but it's kind of like kids reading comic books over literature. At least they are reading.
Having a health book at the top of New York Times bestseller list is never a bad thing (unless it's something unhealthy like Atkins).
It's a good read and it's not as unorthodox as you think. There is some over the top stuff that he doesn't suggest that you do in there but it's mostly just good living tips that would help almost anyone.
That wasn't scathing, it was fawning. Ferriss dreamed of that review. I'll bet money he has it framed somewhere in his house.. What more could he have wanted someone to write?
I have developed an interest in health and longevity and I read this book.
Full of many interesting ideas, but I was left a bit lost.
I'm going to try his Occam mass gaining protocol, which is entirely taken from Doug McGuff 'Body by Science'.
I'm still a bit skeptical because I think that if something really works,sooner or later it will be adopted by the professional in the field.
But bodybuilder (even natural ones) are still trainig in the classical way...
Bodybuilders would tend to go for the 100% method, not the 80/20. Although reading through some responses to the book on bodybuilding forums is an entertaining way to spend an hour.
Indeed, the book is incredibly entertaining. Seems like people here seem to put it down, but it's a real hackers' book -- lots of practical, effective recipes for getting results. I'd definitely recommend it.
I'm willing to give it a shot with an open mind, since it doesn't seem completely unreasonable and I sure as hell am not taking good care of my body right now.
Taking a short-cut when the well established long route is clearly more sustainable, more likely to produce results and going to be cheaper.
Hacks are just that, hacks. Used short term to solve a problem, not fix the cause. Tim's studies are short term, and the long term effects of his hacks is not really known.
Loved both the book and the review. Tim is damn crazy and his lunacy, but practical one is what makes 4HB distinct from the other average books claiming nothing new, nothing to make fun of.
It says a lot about where our industry is in right now that Ferris is celebrity for us. There's a lot in common between the 4 hour body and the 50 billion dollar Facebook.
This was a reader question he answered in an interview I saw. He said he's accepted his hair loss ("going Jason Statham") and that existing solutions have too many negative side-effects.
The worst part about the 4-hour body is how inconsistent Ferriss is. Are you support to take PAGG 3x a day? Why does he only take it once or twice when he details his hour-by-hour schedule?
The second worst part about the 4-hour body is how much bullshit he fills the pages with. His section on jumping higher (for me, a major selling point of the book) is totally worthless and difficult-to-follow. (A few black and white diagrams did not do it for me... I would have preferred a workout routine.) Mostly he just spends the pages waxing poetic about some sexy ex-NFL gym trainer, and then he talks about how he set the one-day record at his gym for improving vertical leap.
The third is that it's just very difficult to distill any practical information from the book. Man, I just want ONE workout plan, ONE meal plan, and they don't want to think about the rest of it. In order to properly synthesize the 4HB you'd have to do a lot of research, bring a healthy sense of skepticism, and basically spend a lot of time. I don't want to think! I want someone trustworthy to tell me SAFE things I can do that will more or less bring me results.
But it motivated me to buy a caliper, and measure regularly, so I guess that's pretty good. And maybe I'll start stocking up on Brazil nuts.
Not a metric anyone keeps track of. Maybe he beat it because one was never set prior to that. Or perhaps he gamed the system. But most importantly, there are virtually no long term gains you can realize in a day that will increase your vertical leap.
I hate to rag on the guy, but this just sounds ridiculous.
>there are virtually no long term gains you can realize in a day that will increase your vertical leap.
Eh, I'd bet you five bucks that if you measured my leap now, then had someone who knew what the hell they were doing show me proper form, maybe walk me through it a few times, you'd see a pretty radical improvement within the hour. Not, of course, due to any sort of muscular growth, but instead because I imagine my current vertical leap form is horrible, and you can usually get pretty good gains out of that sort of thing just by doing it correctly.
I'll take the bet, though it ultimately proves nothing.
Just because you learn whatever proper technique is needed (if any) for vertical jump and can kind of emulate it the same day does not mean you've realized long term gains. It only means you've memorized some technical points. Will you actually internalize those techniques? If you were randomly tested later would you still have those gains?
Not only that, it also has nothing to do with my point --
The vertical leap parts of the book aren't him telling people to learn proper technique; They are based around strength gains. And I stand by my point that he didn't "bulk up" in the morning and then jump higher that afternoon, as the book would imply.
>Just because you learn whatever proper technique is needed (if any) for vertical jump and can kind of emulate it the same day does not mean you've realized long term gains. It only means you've memorized some technical points.
If you are trying to jump higher and not become more generally fit, I disagree. Memorizing some technical points /can/ bring long term gains to various physical activities. Learning to squat properly, for example, massively decreases the chance of injury long-term.
>The vertical leap parts of the book aren't him telling people to learn proper technique; They are based around strength gains. And I stand by my point that he didn't "bulk up" in the morning and then jump higher that afternoon, as the book would imply.
this, I agree with completely.
My only point was that even short periods of time spent learning the proper form can greatly improve performance and results. Those technical points, quite often, mean significantly better performance and a significant decrease in injury.
You are of course right that you aren't going to work out one day and end up significantly stronger the same day.
I don't know anything about training for the vertical leap; perhaps form is completely intuitive, and training brings no same-day gains. But, for example, cross country skiing? a few hours of lessons can massively boost performance of someone who is completely untrained, not because it makes you stronger, but because there is a skill to moving efficiently on Skis.
Addressing your third point, I had a lot of trouble with this as well, especially since I'm trying to do the same thing as you, put together both a workout plan and a meal plan (in my case to aid weight loss).
This sounds like an opportunity for somebody to read carefully through the book and generate a bunch of one-sheet summaries.
I'm going to write a book with two pages in it. Page one will say "Eat Right!" in a big bold font. Page two will have "Exercise!" on it. A few years later I'll release revised versions with extra chapters, er, I mean, pages, with statements like "Sleep Well!" and "Relax, Don't Worry!", etc. I mean, all I have to do is just promote the hell out of it.
Everything he says is backed up by this premise: "Don't just accept this - try it! I'm only recommending it because I found it to work."
I've done his slow-carb diet before and am doing it again now. I lost 25 pounds in two months the first time, and I've lost 5 pounds this week since I restarted it. These results, which are on par with what he claimed, make me hesitant to flatly deny anything else he recommends.