Blog - Book - Authors

Fred Hahn's Slow Burn Fitness Revolution


Posted on December 21st, 2010 by Matt Schoeneberger

We were originally turned onto “The Slow Burn Fitness Revolution: the slow-motion exercise that will change your body in 30 minutes a week” by Jimmy Moore during our podcast interview with him. Jimmy said this book and one other made a compelling argument for Super Slow training. The book is written by Frederick Hahn, Michael R. Eades, M.D. and Mary Dan Eades, M.D. We had forgotten about this book and it’s Super Slow exercise prescription until recently. We decided to take a look at the claims made in the book and a close look at the evidence and report on them both.

*** There is a more in-depth Part 2 here***

If you don’t want to read the entire article and you just want to know what we think of the book and its recommendations, here you go; We feel that this book is filled with misleading, incorrect and unsubstantiated claims regarding the benefits of a type of exercise referred to as Slow Burn. Therefore, it is not worth reading.

Now, if you’re interested in knowing why, read on…

The book makes extraordinary claims about the benefits of super slow exercise, trashes other forms of exercise and activities like running, golfing, skiing, tennis, raquetball, and basketball, and does it all with very little evidence provided. The authors speak in hyperbole, making these other activities seem outrageously dangerous and grossly ineffective, while promising that Slow Burn will be far more safe and more effective than any of them.

On page 10,

“Slow  Burn is a form of exercise that has been shown to provide all the benefits you seek from an exercise regimen in only 30 minutes per week, with negligible risk of injury”

The rest of the paragraph rambles on in some sort of “Slow Burn will rule the world” style rant. The opening sentence, however, is of particular interest. It’s a sentence like this that requires some sort of scientific support. This is an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. (shout-out to Truzzi!) Unfortunately for us, the authors don’t provide any references at this point. This happens often throughout the book, and is sometimes followed by a “we’ll cover that later in the book” sort of thing, giving us hope that evidence is coming. Alas, it never does – because there isn’t any.

On page 31, the authors get one thing right; for losing weight and more specifically losing fat, diet is far more effective than any type of exercise, even Slow Burn. If you’ve read our book or have been following us for a good amount of time, you know we agree with this. Exercise is a wonderful thing, but it just can’t compare to a great, whole food, low carb diet for fat loss and health improvement purposes.

Then, on page 32, they blow it:

In fact, studies show that slow-speed weight workouts build muscle about twice as fast as traditional weight training and faster by a mile than aerobics, jogging, walking, biking, or similar types of exercise.

Once again, an extraordinary claim. I agree weight training will build muscle better than aerobics (possibly not for maintenance, however) and I don’t think anyone would argue that. But, that slow-speed weight workouts will build muscle two times faster than traditional weight training? Absurd and unsupported! If anyone out there has a reference to a study showing super slow training builds muscle faster than traditional weight training, please send it to me.

On page 34, the authors throw out this gem regarding the addition of aerobics to a calorie-restricted diet:

If you add aerobics to the mix, believe it or not, you can actually lose more muscle on a typical low-calorie eating plan than if you didn’t exercise at all – a finding that ‘s been published in a number of scientific research papers (and about which we’ll have more to say later).

It makes me want to scream! If you claim to have science in your corner, show us the freaking science already! In reality, there are quite a few studies that show adding aerobic exercise to a calorie-restricted diet can help attenuate muscle loss and there are some that don’t. Of course, that’s not as sexy when you’re trying to claim that your method of exercise is the best and only way to exercise. An excerpt from SPEED:

Some evidence shows aerobic training is a viable agent against fat free mass loss during dietary restriction,4,15,16,18,19,23 while some evidence shows otherwise.9,13

Do you see those little numbers behind each claim? Those are references to scientific research papers. How hard is it to include that? After all, if you’ve read the papers, the hard part is over. You can find the references cited in the SPEED excerpt at the end of this post.

On page 37 the authors claim that 30 minutes of Slow Burn per week will give a person as much endurance as three hours of jogging, again without evidence cited. Do you see a pattern here? Although I can agree somewhat with the general sentiment of this chapter, which educates the reader to the fact that cardiovascular fitness really takes place at the cellular level, and so strength training can help improve this.

The Slow Burn chapter on flexibility claims that strength training will make you more flexible by making you stronger and that flexibility-specific activities like stretching will make your joints unstable and prone to dislocation. The exciting thing about this chapter is that there is a reference!

Matt: I found a reference!

Jeff: A reference?!

Matt: Yes, finally! A reference.

Jeff: Holy Shit. It’s a bout time.

The authors point to a study performed on inactive elderly subjects to see if strength training, aerobic training, or a combination of both will increase flexibility. The study shows positive effects of strength training or a combination, but not of aerobic training for flexibility of most joints measured. This makes sense; put formerly inactive seniors into a resistance training program that takes joints through a complete range of motion and their mobility/flexibility improve. What this study doesn’t prove is that specific stretching exercises wouldn’t also result in a difference in joint range of motion, or that stretching or resistance training would be better than the other. In contrast, this study from 1995 would lead us to believe that strength training inhibits the effects of a stretching routine in the elderly.

Unfortunately, there are no references for the claims that getting stronger is what really makes you more flexible and that stretching causes joint instability. This is because, in fact, stretching increases flexibility (Thacker, pdf here) and the earth is still round. Some things are just supported by the facts, no matter how much fun it might be if there were some new, interesting hypothesis.

The authors surmise that since getting strong makes you flexible, and since Slow Burn makes you stronger than any other form of exercise, Slow Burn will make you more flexible than anything you could do. Someone alert the ballerinas and gymnasts, they should be doing Slow Burn! The truth is, getting stronger does not make you flexible, Slow Burn does not make you stronger than any other good form of resistance exercise, and so the conclusion is absolutely unfounded.

Other unsubstantiated claims in Slow Burn Fitness Revolution include curing back pain by isolating the lumbar extensors and taking them to failure, building strong bones and improving balance, maximizing athletic performance, and growing a wicked-awesome goatee. But enough of talking about the unfounded claims, let’s take a look at the research that has been done specifically on super slow resistance training.

Super Slow- A Quick Look at the Studies

Super Slow research has been reviewed previously by Baye, Nelson and Kravitz, and Greer.

Hunter GR, Seelhorst D, Snyder S. Comparison of Metabolic and Heart Rate Responses to Super Slow Vs. Traditional Resistance Training. J Strength Cond Res. 2003;17(1):76-81

“Traditional resistance training increases energy expenditure more than SST (super slow) does and thus may be more beneficial for body weight control.”

Keeler LK, Finkelstein LH, Miller W, Fernhall B. Early-Phase Adaptations of Traditional-Speed vs. Superslow Resistance training on Strength and Aerobic capacity in Sedentary Individuals. J Strength Cond Res. 2001;15(3):380-14

Keeler found greater strength improvements in the traditional resistance training group compared to the super slow group, although both showed strength improvements over 10 weeks. Training did not effect VO2Max but improve total work on the cycle ergometer. The authors address Hutchins’ claim that super slow training should increase aerobic capacity greater than traditional resistance training, citing a lack of evidence to support his claim. (Hutchins is the author of Super Slow: The Ultimate Exercise Protocol)

Wescott, W, Winett R, Anderson E, Wojcik J, Loud R, Cleggert E, Gover S. Effects of regular and slow speed resistance trainig on muscle strength. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2001; 41:154-58.

Wescott showed a greater strength improvement in a super slow group compared to traditional, but both groups were tested in their specific protocols. So, in other words, the super slow group got more better at super slow than the traditional group did at traditional training. Yes, I just said “more better.”

Three abstracts from a group of researchers are available which found super slow to be less effective than traditional strength training at improving maximal aerobic capacity, anaerobic threshold, increasing lean tissue, or lowering resting blood pressure. Details are not available, but the abstracts say the super slow program was supervised by a certified Super Slow practitioner.

*I have contacted the lead researcher, Philip Blount, MD, in hopes that he can fill us in on some details.

There just isn’t much evidence that Super Slow training is any more effective than traditional strength training at improving strength, muscle mass, flexibility, athletic performance, or any disease risk factor. The truth is most resistance training studies show mild differences in the benefits of varying set/rep protocols, such that it all boils down to the basics; lift some heavy stuff and run around from time to time.

Conclusion

The Slow Burn Fitness Revolution is low on evidence and high on anecdotes. This means one of two things: they don’t think you’re smart enough to understand the science, or they’re not smart enough to understand the science. You decide which one it is.

References for aerobic training’s attenuation of lean tissue

For:

4 – Hill JO, Sparling PB, Shields TW, Heller PA. Effects of exercise and food restriction on body composition and metabolic rate in obese women. Am J Clin Nutr 1987; 46(4):622-630.

15 – Janssen I, Fortier A, Hudson R, Ross R. Effects of an energy-restrictive diet with or without exercise on abdominal fat, intermuscular fat, and metabolic risk factors in obese women. Diabetes Care 2002; 25(3):431-438.

16 – Janssen I, Ross R. Effects of sex on the change in visceral, subcutaneous adipose tissue and skeletal muscle in response to weight loss. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 1999; 23(10):1035-1046.

18 – Rice B, Janssen I, Hudson R, oss R. Effects of aerobic or resistance exercise and/or diet on glucose tolerance and plasma insulin levels in obese men. Diabetes Care 1999; 22(5):684-691.

19 – Ross R, Rssanen J, Pedwell H, Clifford J, Shragge P. Influence of diet and exercise on skeletal muscle and visceral adipose tissue in men. J Appl Physiol 1996; 81:2445-2455.

23 – Ross R, Pedwell H, Rissanen J. Effects of energy restriction and exercise on skeletal muscle and adipose tissue in women as measured by magnetic resonance imaging. Am J Clin Nutr 1995; 61:1179-85.

Against:

9 – Bryner RW, Ullrich IH, Sauers J, Donley D, Hornsby G, Kolar M, Yeater R. Effects of resistance vs. aerobic training combined with an 800 calorie liquid diet on lean body mass and resting metabolic rate. J Am Coll Nutr 1999; 18(2):115-21.

13 – Geliebter A, Maher MM, Gerace L, Gutin B, Heymsfield SB, Hashim SA. Effects of strength or aerobic training on body composition, resting metabolic rate, and peak oxygen consumption in obese dieting subjects. Am J Clin Nutr 1997; 66(3):557-563.

Please share with friends...

39 Responses to “Fred Hahn's Slow Burn Fitness Revolution”

  1. Fred Hahn says:

    “The likelihood of one individual being right increases in direct proportion to the intensity with which others are trying to prove him wrong.”

    That about sums up this review in a nutshell.

    First, the editor of our book chose NOT to put a bibliography in the book. She also did not want too many technical references. She also felt that since two physicians were writing the book, this was authority enough.

    We never claimed that Slow Burn is the “only way to exercise.” We said we felt that it was the best way to perform resistance training as it is more efficient and safer than traditional forms of weight lifting and that research supports this. And it does.

    Slow Burn is not Super Slow. Slow Burn sets last 60-90 seconds. SS sets last well over 2 minutes well out of the anaerobic range. There are many other differences. SB uses more total exercises, a low carb diet, heavier weight loads, etc.

    We do not “trash” any other form exercise or activity in th book. This is a lie. We state that resistance training done in a high intensity fashion improves cardiovascular function and flexibility therefore there is no NEED to perform aerobic activity, stretching, yoga, etc. And this is true. S

    Clearly you are not up on your reading on stretching. Research is quite clear that stretching does not improve the viseo-elastic properties of the muscle. You gain range of motion from stretching (temporarily) because you become accustomed to the discomfort of the stretch.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8951730
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8669996
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9721053
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9298773

    And there are many more.

    As you pointed out there are several studies that show improvements in joint range of motion due to resistance training. What do you think moves joints around? Muscle. Your statement:

    “The truth is, getting stronger does not make you flexible…” is incorrect.

    The fact is that resistance training will indeed improve joint flexibility.

    http://bit.ly/epQWay

    “The results—which may surprise advocates of stretching to improve flexibility—showed no statistically significant advantage of stretching over resistance training. Resistance training, in fact, produced greater improvements in flexibility in some cases, while also improving strength.”

    And there are dozens more papers indicating such.

    If you carefully read the two research papers you referenced on slow training which showed worse outcomes for the slow group compared to traditional rep tempo group, you’d see that in both cases the slow group was given half the 1RM load of the traditional speed group. IOW, a worthless study. Apples to oranges.

    Dr. Westcott has performed 3 studies comparing slow reps to traditional reps and in each case the slow group gained 50% greater strength gains. Your assessment of the Westcott study is imprecise. In the Westcott studies they used weight loads that allowed for nearly equal set times for both groups. If you ask Dr. Westcott he will tell you that slow reps are indeed superior but so grueling that most people cannot tolerate them.

    As for page 37 where we claim that SB strength training will give you as much endurance as 3 hours of jogging, we say this in this way to invoke an idea. We reference Dr. George Sheehan’s paper Take The Muscle and Run where he discusses the issue of improved cardiovascular function and that improvement of the muscular system are most responsible for the improvements.

    You said:

    “Other unsubstantiated claims in Slow Burn Fitness Revolution include curing back pain by isolating the lumbar extensors and taking them to failure.”

    Once again I see that you are not up on your reading.

    http://www.medxonline.com/downloads/articles/lowbackstrengthening.pdf

    http://www.medxonline.com/downloads/articles/lumbarstrengtheninginchroniclowback.pdf

    http://www.medxonline.com/downloads/articles/restorativeexercise.pdf

    And there are dozens more.

    As for aerobic and a reduced calorie diet, you’re right – we should have put the references in there. But the fact is if you reduce calories and perform too much aerobic exercise you will invoke large secretions of cortisol, damage hormonal tone and lose significant lean mass as the weeks go by. Usually low cal diets are deficient in protein. If you are deficient in protein you will lose lean mass. If you burn even more energy by doing aerobics, you will hasten lean loss since aerobic exercise does not stimulate muscle gain.

    That’s about all the time I think I’ll spend on this mean spirited, strawman, red herring, logical fallacy “review” of my book.

    Oh – thanks for the compliment on my beard!

  2. Fred Hahn says:

    Just for kicks, I thought I’d add this link:

    http://bit.ly/dIRaNU

    Here Tim Ferriss adds 34 pounds of muscle in 4 weeks using a very similar method to Slow Burn. In fact it is nearly identical. Dr. Ellington Darden has also produced similar results in many subjects using similar training principles. Of course, diet has to be spot on for this to work but it has to be spot on for any training program to work.

    I’d like to see a good study using standard training methods that show greater gains then what Ferriss and Darden have achieved.

    Now, do the results that Ferriss, Darden and many others have achieved using slow speed, infrequent, high intensity training prove anything? I suppose not. I suppose only science “proves” things. But science is usually many years behind the times and often in the trenches results can have merit.

    • Jeff Thiboutot M.S. says:

      Fred
      Fred,
      Tim Ferriss adds 34 pounds of muscle in 4 weeks using a very similar method to Slow Burn. In fact it is nearly identical.”

      Nearly identical, really Fred. Let’s look at what Tim did and what you recommend in your book.

      Variables Slow Burn Tim Ferris
      # of exercises 6-13 2-10
      # of sets 1 1
      Speed of movement 10s(3+7)/10s(3+7) 5s/5s
      Reps per set 3-6, 3 seems to be the goal # 7+ for all movements except
      10 for leg press
      workout per week 1-2 1-3
      Rest between sets ~1 min 3 min
      Supersets No Yes
      Exercises Exercises (pp.140-164) Exercises (p.187)
      *superset Neck Extension Pullover + Yates bent row*
      **different from Tim Chest press** Shoulder-width leg press
      Knee flexion Pec deck + Weighted dips*
      Leg press Leg Curl
      Hip adduction** Reverse thick bar curl
      Pulldowns** Seated Calf raise
      Shoulder side raises** Manual neck resistance
      Overhead shoulder press Machine crunches
      Rowing back**
      Biceps curl**
      Abdominal crunch
      Lower back extension**
      Heel raise
      7 of the 13 exercises (54%) were NOT used by Tim

      There is a significant difference in all of the following; number of exercises, the speed of movements, reps per exercise, amount of rest between sets, the exercises used. The only thing similar, but not identical, was the number of workouts per week. The one thing “identical” is the number of sets per exercise. So how does having one thing identical among the many variables lead you to the conclusions that what Tim did was “nearly identical” to the Slow Burn workout?

      “Now, do the results that Ferriss, Darden and many others have achieved using slow speed, infrequent, high intensity training prove anything? I suppose not. I suppose only science “proves” things. But science is usually many years behind the times and often in the trenches results can have merit.”

      Why do you bring up anecdotal evidence and the say that it probably does not prove anything, but then imply that it does. Anecdotal evidence is not meaningless; we can sometimes get some useful data from it. However, without a high level of control, i.e., the experimental design with a randomized, cross-over, format with as many variables as possible controlled, it is very difficult to know what is the causal agent or agents? Therefore, the results of one person or many people in a very uncontrolled environment, that have likely made many lifestyle changes, are difficult to determine the causal agents. Not to mention it is impossible to know if what they did was the most effective way to achieve a result. For instance, could Tim have achieved the same results or maybe better by using the protocol in the Colorado Experiment (Ferriss, p.p.188-189)? Clearly this program produced huge results. But, it has the same problems as Tim’s program. Would results be the same or better for Tim or Casey if the typical training variables, such as #of sets, total reps, speed of movement, workouts per week, and so on were different? We can’t know from this type of evidence. Another problem is the lack of external validity with this type of evidence. This means that the ability to confidently apply it to those who are different from the individual, i.e., age, gender, exercise habits, starting bodyweight (under or overweight), genetics and so on, is often not possible. The information gathered is interesting and can help form a hypothesis but without further quality evidence there is no way to move the hypothesis to a useful theory that can then be confidently applied to many people.

      “Of course, diet has to be spot on for this to work but it has to be spot on for any training program to work”

      How do you know that the diet has to be spot on? Is it due to the quality studies on the subject? Is it possible that the diet was likely the reason for the majority of the results and the training could have varied quite a bit and still achieved the same results? I would say the diet was likely the main reason for most of the changes. What type of body changes occurred in the two Westcott slow training studies? Was there any change in lean weight, body fat? It is likely there was little change in these measurements even though they were doing the perfect type of training.

      “Be spot on for any training program to work” Does this mean that any training program will work if you have the right diet?

      Without science (the scientific method) you could not prove (we don’t think you do, but more about that later) that Slow Burn is the best, most effective, REVOLUTIONARY, type of exercise for strength, health, low-back function, etc. Without the science being done how would you KNOW that Slow Burn is the best? You couldn’t know, anymore than Kevin Trudeau can know that hCG is the best thing for weight loss success. All the thousands of testimonials/anecdotal evidence still prove nothing! If it did then a lot of silly shit would actually work but it doesn’t no matter how many people think that it does. The problem is that we humans often have problems figuring out what causes what. Have you read Predictably Irrational, Black Swan, Snake Oil Science, Why People Believe Weird Things or How We Decide? If you have not, please do. I would recommend Snake Oil Science by Bausell first.

      • Jeff Thiboutot M.S. says:

        The comparison of Slow Burn vs Ferriss did not format correctly. I will post the comparison chart in a new blog post so that it will be much clearer to understand.

  3. Fred Hahn says:

    And apparently SPEED is “the only weight loss book worth reading!” Now THAT’S quite a claim!

    Do you have any scientific evidence to support that statement? ;)

  4. Fred Hahn says:

    Here’s one paper discussing the idea that stretching makes your joints unstable and impairs performance:

    http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=16600450

    Here’s more information on the subject:

    http://prevost.pascal.free.fr/public/pdf/Shrier2000.pdf

    Once you’ve read these and the other papers I’ve cited, perhaps you will then get to the hard work of reading ALL of the relevant research on the subject and then come back and tell your readers you were mistaken.

  5. Paul Hurley says:

    You claim to be reviewing the Slow Burn method, yet you constantly refer to as Superslow. The fact that you don’t even know the difference between the two proves that you truly know little to nothing about it in the first place. So before you try selling a book based on your “years of research”, perhaps it might be a good idea to first learn the basics about how to research a subject in the first place. Very embarrassing.

  6. Neil Holland says:

    You should be embarrassed for even putting this “review” for anyone to see. The simple fact that you refer to this workout as Super Slow, when it is absolutely NOT Super Slow, shows that you have no idea what you are talking about.

    Your “review” has no substance, and quite frankly comes off as mean spirited and arrogant. You should focus on getting your facts straight, before you start trashing other people.

  7. Fred Hahn says:

    Matt a question -

    We didn’t give any references to support our low carb Slow Burn Power Eating Plan – how come you didn’t mention this? Is it because you too support low carb eating?

    • Matt Schoeneberger M.S. says:

      Fred,

      Thank you for your responses. Jeff and I truly appreciate them and we’re working on responses. As you asked, we’ll be reading carefully the papers you’ve linked to if we’re not already familiar with the work.

      A few quick thoughts. I didn’t mention the eating plan because it was a small part of the book and the reader was pointed to Drs. Eades’ work. Since the focus of the book was the workout plan and its effects, I think it sufficed.

      We have no evidence to support the claim of our subtitle :) In fact, we’re discussing changing our subtitle recently because as we gain exposure we no longer need the shock value it provides.

      I’ve gotten my hands on a copy of Ferriss’ new book and was interested to read the Superhuman chapters. You’ve said you’d like to see a good study show standard training methods achieving better results than those claimed by Ferriss and Darden. I don’t think you would, but on the same token I’d like to see a good study that replicates those results with Ferriss’ and Darden’s methods. I don’t have Ferriss’ book in front of me, but I believe he says this program will add 10 or more pounds of muscle in 4 weeks, which is much less sexy than his star subject’s 34 lbs in 28 days. I like his Occam’s approach to eating, especially for those looking to gain who tend to over-think diet and end up just not eating enough.

      -Matt

  8. When you asked for the endorsement for SPEED, I did not hold it to the standard of a scientific paper which it would not begin to meet. I consider that the test of a popular book is whether there is evidence that the basic ideas is useful to people who try it. I suspect that, like the low-fat proponents who would oppose your ideas, you have not spoken to many people who have tried slow burn. More important, there is more to science than science. There is basic understanding of common goals and I at least try to maintain a collegial approach with people whose ideas I disagree with.

    • Jeff Thiboutot M.S. says:

      Hi Richard,
      Thank you for the feedback.
      We are not holding it to the same standard of a scientific paper either. However, “popular books” still have the burden of proof. Additionally, is there not a basic tenet of writing non-fiction that you should support your views with evidence? We feel that there is. For example here is an overview of what non-fiction writing is;

      Definition of Nonfiction Writing
      By Robert Vaux, eHow Contributor
      Nonfiction writing is essentially factual writing, intended primarily to provide information rather than entertainment or speculative truths. Though the details and conclusions may include a certain amount of opinion, they must be backed up by concrete date and stem from a belief that the details are factual.
      Types
      Nonfiction includes newspaper articles, magazine articles, autobiographies, travel essays, political essays and product reviews.
      Thesis and Support
      Many forms of nonfiction start by positing a thesis, then citing pieces of evidence in support of it.
      Citation
      Because nonfiction can be colored by conjecture and opinion, proper citation of sources is very important. A piece of nonfiction backed up by hard data becomes much more persuasive.
      Objective Nonfiction
      Objective nonfiction means nonfiction that presents only concrete, verifiable facts. A list of historical dates is an example of this kind of nonfiction.

      Retrieved from http://www.ehow.com/facts_5506969_definition-nonfiction-writing.html

      Otherwise you can just say anything you want. Is it okay for Dr. Campbell and the China Study book to misrepresent the facts, how about Dr. Ornish and his books? When bold statements are made then there needs to be bold evidence to support it, as the late great scientist Carl Sagan said “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. We will have more to say about this is our more detail response to our critics.

      Regarding talking to people who have tried slow burn; what does that have to do with the argument of evidence and the validity of claims? Anecdotal evidence is very poor evidence for the efficacy of anything. It itself is not meaningless, but when it comes to figuring out if a particular intervention works or not, it is full of problems. Based on the “asking people what they think” who have tried something then we should start recommending everyone to us hCG. Even though there is no quality evidence that it has any physiological effects that would make losing fat any better. However, there are thousands of people who would swear that this hormone was the trick for them losing weight. So if I talk to these people should I then conclude that the use of hCG is an effective strategy for weight loss? I could then write a book, i.e., The Weight Loss Cure They Don’t Want You to Know About by Kevin Trudeau and sell thousands of copies. Is there a problem with this type of book? He can say that thousands of people have had success using hCG, so there is no need to site references to quality information to support his view. Really? Would it not be justified to call him out, and say that his “weight loss” book is crap?

  9. Fred Hahn says:

    Matt -

    For what its worth, trashing people’s work is not the best way to make friends or to earn the respect of others in your field. If you think Slow Burn training is a “piece of crap,” try it first for a time and then, if it doesn’t produce the benefits we claim, write about it in a civil and formal way.

    If you think my book is a “piece of crap” because it is under referenced, in your opinion, there are better ways of communicating your disappointment in the work.

    As I am sure you are aware, high intensity strength training can produce profound results ITO muscular strength, power and lean mass in those who eat well, sleep well, and are consistent with their training. Slow Burn is a form of HIT. It works and works well. Look at the landing page of my website and read the testimonials. Many of these people do not give out their endorsements lightly especially Tony Robbins. Again, does this prove anything? I suppose not.

    After you’ve done some further reading as you mentioned you would, I welcome a dialog with you and Jeff on the subject. Do remember to look at the two studies you referenced that concluded that “traditional” rep tempos were superior to slow rep tempos. You’ll see that the 1RM used for the slow subjects would not bring the subjects into the anaerobic range. Only Westcott’s studies did. I am curious as to how you missed this when you read the papers the first time.

    As for the study we referenced on seniors and flexibility, using seniors as an example is actually better than referencing young subjects as young subjects generally do not have impaired joint ROM. FE: If you took a group of young subjects, measured their joint ROM, strength trained them for 16 weeks and then remeasured their ROM and found no improvements in ROM, what would this tell you? Not much since the joint ROM of young people are generally not yet compromised.

    As for aerobic capacity, this is a complicated subject. Take a look at Dr. Doug McGuff’s book Body By Science. He gets very technical about the issue and comes to the same conclusions we did. Strength training is more than sufficient for maintaining and improving cardiovascular/cardiorespiratory health and “fitness.”

    Be well,

    Fred

  10. Fred Hahn says:

    Jeff -

    You said:

    “When bold statements are made then there needs to be bold evidence to support it, as the late great scientist Carl Sagan said “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. We will have more to say about this is our more detail response to our critics.”

    Our claims are not extraordinary. They are true and based in science.

    And no, you NEVER EVER call a colleages work a “piece of crap” in public. If you do, you’re wrong for doing it. The only time it might be ok is if the work could cause or will cause harm. Even then it is not a professional approach.

    As you know, referencing scientific papers can also be misleading. You and Matt referenced two studies that supposedly indiacted that slow rep training was inferior to traditional rep tempos. Both of those studies were poorly conducted and essentially worthless. Now both of you should have known that after reading them. Since you both are degreed exercise professionals and are staunch advocates for using “science as a candle in the dark,” why did you cite these two papers as proof against Slow Burn? Either you never read the papers, misread the papers or have a bias against slow burn and facts be damned.

    None of the claims we make are extraordinary. Strength training improves joint flexibility. Strength training improves aerobic capacity. Strength training in a high intensity fashion produces profound effects and said benefits can be achieved in as little as 2, thirty minute sessions a week.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11676593

  11. Fred Hahn says:

    “We will have more to say about this is our more detail response to our critics.”

    I gather you meant “critique?”

    Matt and Jeff, please make sure to take your time when composing your response. I welcome the effort and will respond in kind. But if you do not do your due diligence in your reading efforts, I won’t have the energy to respond if the responses I am forced to give require me to send you papers you should have read in the first place or if I have to expose obvious flaws in the papers you do cite.

    Cheers and happy holidays!

    Fred

  12. [...] « Fred Hahn’s Slow Burn Fitness Revolution [...]

  13. Terry O'Carroll says:

    Somewhat off topic; Is the Kevin Trudeau you mention the same character who got into trouble in Canada for misrepresenting a product (a memory course)? I got burned by that guy. He has a history of making false claims for his products, and is, IMO, a lying sociopathic crook.

    • Matt Schoeneberger M.S. says:

      Terry,

      Yes, that’s the Kevin Trudeau Jeff is referring to. He’s a great salesman and marketer but I wish he would stay out of the health arena.

      Matt

  14. Fred Hahn says:

    Jeff -

    Why you are trying so hard tot prove that Slow Burn is a “piece of crap” and is completely different from what Tim did to gain 34 pounds of muscle is very, very odd indeed. Give it up already. It’s making you look foolish.

    It appears that you are in acceptance of Tim’s methods and believe that he did indeed achieve the results he claimed. Good because he did. Let’s take a look at the differences a bit more closely:

    We both advocate single sets
    We both perform sets to failure
    We both use a slow rep tempo
    We both use a handful or two of exercises per session
    We both use a total of ~30 minutes of actual exercise per week

    If you are well read in the scientific literature you know that there is no evidence that supersets produce better outcomes than single sets or that the choice of exercises (leg press vs squat, Yates row vs. single arm dumbbell rows, etc.), pre-exhaust vs. straight sets, rest time between sets, etc. makes any difference in the overall outcome.

    http://versita.metapress.com/content/c7u4385456704860/fulltext.pdf

    And Slow Burn is not limited to the exercises listed in my book (which you purposefully left out many of like lumbar extension, cervical extension, etc. from your comparison).

    You can perform any exercise you can think of using SB. So what that Tim did different exercises? Are you really suggesting that his gains were achieved because of the minor differences you tried so hard to find? C’mon Jeff. Do you have ANY experience with SB at all?

    The rest of your post is just a ramble. You’re trying very hard to prove that SB is not a beneficial form of resistance training and you are failing terribly in that regard.

    You’re comparison of Tim to Casey shows your lack of understanding of genetics. Tim could never have achieved Casey’s results.

    As for your speculation as to whether or not Tim and Casey could have gotten better results by doing something different, please produce a study where this has occurred. I suppose if they both became born again Christians and prayed to Jesus their results could have been better too. The results they achieved are only achievable using HIT.

    How do I know that diet is an important factor in building muscle? Are you seriously asking me this question? Do you train people on a daily basis? Are you suggesting that people can build 34 pounds of muscle in a month or two without making sure that an adequate protein intake is achieved? How do I know? Because I read the literature and train people on a daily basis. That’s how I know.

    Show me something better Jeff.

    As I said earlier I am unaware of any research to suggest that there is a better way to train for improvements in health and positive tissue remodeling than HIT training. Do you have such evidence? If so please produce it.

    • Jeff Thiboutot M.S. says:

      Fred,
      First of all, you mentioned Ferriss’s workout first. Do you agree with that fact? You stated that it was “nearly identical”. I am guessing that you mentioned what Ferriss did because he had excellent results, (who would argue with that) and this would somehow lend support for the efficacy of your method of training (Slow Burn). Is that what you were trying to do? Seeing that I was currently reading Tim’s book I thought it would be a good idea to see how close the workouts are.

      Let’s review the facts again because apparently if I write more than a few sentences you seem to be unable to understand what I am saying. I will do my best to make this very clear and understandable. However, I guess anything longer than a couple of sentences is a “ramble”. Sometimes it is necessary to spend a bit of time on a topic in order to make a clear and valid point. Please do your best to follow along.

      First do you know what the definition of “identical” is? Just in case here it is “1. Being the same 2. Exactly equal and alike. 3. Having such a close similarity or resemblance as to be essentially equal or interchangeable” from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/identical.

      Would you agree that the speed at which that each rep is performed is extremely important? Based on your book I will assume that this would be an unequivocal yes. If I am wrong on this point please let me know. Therefore, a 100% deviation from your recommended rep tempo could not be considered nearly identical. You recommended a 10/10 cadence and Tim did a 5/5 cadence. So you cannot say “we both use a slow rep tempo”? This is ridiculous! Could I suggest that a 2/2 speed is “nearly identical”. This is only a 60% difference than Tim’s speed. So this pace would actually be a more similar, “nearly identical”, rep pace than yours. Again, you base your Slow Burn exercises on a very specific speed of rep tempo. You mention it many times throughout your book; do I need to give you the pages? Apparently you are not sure if you “mentioned 120s at one point”.

      Set times are similar, but a huge variety of rep tempos could be used and still end up with the same set times. This is a complete red herring. Again, what is the most important is the speed of the rep. Why are you not acknowledging this fact? Are you saying that as long as the set times are similar then any tempo of rep can be used?

      You state in your book that a set should last ~60-90 seconds. However, you also state that you should do 3-6 reps so there is clearly the potential for a set to last about 120s (6 reps x 20s). You state on pp.133-134 “If you continue lifting the weight in perfect Slow Burn form for LONGER than 120 seconds and do more than 6 reps, it’s NOW time to raise the bar; you need to add more weight” (emphasis added). Does this not suggest that going up to 6 reps and 120 seconds is acceptable? It does to me and most likely anybody that reads your book.

      Could you please explain to me how a person could do 5 or 6 reps at the recommended cadence (10/10) and not have a set last more than 90 seconds? Would 5 or 6 reps not equal 100 to 120 seconds, respectively?

      Yes I said in my other comment that you both did single sets, yes that is “identical”

      Yes both do exercises to failure, yes another “identical” aspect

      So 3-5 reps is “nearly identical” as 7-10 reps, even though there is about a 100% difference. Therefore I could say that a rep range of 14-20 is “nearly identical” as Tim’s reps.

      “We both use a handful of exercises per session” Could you be anymore vague? So is any type of exercise is fine? Single joint, multi-joint, large or small muscle groups? Does a forearm curl have the same physiological, strength, and health effects as a back loaded squat? Is that what you are saying?

      My point was that there was a noticeable difference between the exercises that Tim did and what exercises you recommend in your book. I did NOT say that any either of the exercises where necessarily better. Also, I mentioned the supersets because that was another variable that was different. I did NOT say that it was better or worse to do supersets. But you do not recommend any super setting. Therefore his exercise routine is different. So, again, how can you say “nearly identical”?

      I did NOT leave out lumbar extensions or cervical extensions, that is completely false. Look at the chart again. I list 13 exercises, which I took directly from your book, I listed the pages, but here they are again, pp.140-164. I listed neck extensions (p.140), which is cervical extensions, and is the first of 13 exercises. I also list lower back extensions (p.162), which is lumbar extensions and is exercise #12. So NO, I did not leave anything out. You are just making stuff up.

      Also, where in your book do you mention other exercises the person can do instead of the 13 you describe? I am unable to find any mention of substitute exercises for the gym routine. Yes, of course you can do any exercise in a slow fashion; do you really think I don’t know that? Anyway, that has nothing to do with what you say in your book. Where in your book do you tell the reader that they can do an overhead shoulder press, with the proper pacing, instead of the seated shoulder press machine you display and recommend? I could go on but I hope you get the point.

      Final thing about your gym routine, why do you state “perform them [exercise described] in the exact order given” Why did you say this? Based on the paper you posted with you last comment, sequence of exercises likely does not matter (Carpinelli). So, I ask again, why tell the reader to do the exercises in the “exact order given”?

      Apparently the amount of rest between exercises is irrelevant? You do specifically say “If you spend a couple of minutes on each exercise with a minute or so in between…” (p.29). What would a person reading your book think when they read this? It is likely that they would think it should be close to a minute, a little more or less, say 45 seconds to 90 seconds. Why didn’t you say in your book what you said in your comments “Rest as long as you need to before going to the next exercise”? That is very different than what you said in your book. Tim said that he rest exactly 3 minutes and that is likely to be double of what you recommend. Again, I did NOT say that more resting was better, I said it was different. That was my whole point.

      So, to be clear, there is no specific rest time that you think is important?

      After looking at all of the variables and the clear differences between SB and Ferriss, particularly two very big variables, rep speed and # of reps per exercise, how do you conclude that the two workouts are “nearly identical”. Do you really think anybody else would think the two are “nearly identical”?

      You clearly did not understand the point I was trying to make when I was discussing Tim’s and Casey’s results. Please read that again. I was talking about research and how we can ascertain causal agents.

      Actually I do have a good understanding of genetics, thanks for asking.

      Regarding the diet stuff. The point I was trying to make, and you clearly did not get it, was the reason we know that diet was a big player in the results of Tim and Casey is because there has been a lot of research on diet and muscle hypertrophy. I stated “I would say the diet was likely the main reason for most of the changes.” The stimulus was important but without the right diet the results would have been nothing compared to what happened.

      I will ask again, what type of body changes occurred during the two Westcott studies? Body fat changes, lean mass gains, etc.?

      I don’t care what you do at your studio in NYC. I care about what you have written in your book. Does the reader of your book care what you do with your clients? I am assuming they think that what you present in your book is what you do with your clients. Is that not a reasonable assumption?

      One final question; why do you conflate the abundance of benefits/research on strength training and general HIT style training with Slow Burn? Are you not presenting a non-sequitur argument? How can you say that SB is the BEST type of strength training?

      Matt and I, in no way are saying that SB is not a beneficial form of resistance training. I will state here, categorically, that SB is ONE type of resistance training that can likely produce good improvements in muscular strength and probably bone strength/density. That is not at all what we are arguing about or what Matt said in his initial comments/review. We are NOT trying to prove that SB is a “piece of crap” and we are not really trying to discredit your training method. Our problem is with your book and the way in which you present the material and the many things you say SB can do. We feel that you said many things in your book that are not factually correct. Therefore, that is why we gave it a poor review. Our concerns will be thoroughly explained in our Part 2 Review of your book. We should have it done in the next couple of days.

  15. Fred Hahn says:

    Jeff -

    This is getting tiresome. You are evading most of the salient points I’ve been making one being that is is rude and childish to call a colleagues work “a piece of crap” especially when it isn’t. You were and are wrong for it. Man up and apologize. Not that I NEED the apology mind you but it would show your readers you’ve got some tact.

    Most importantly you have not yet admitted that you were wrong about strength training and flexibility, strength training and aerobic capacity and health and about your misinterpretation of the two research papers you used to supposedly prove that a slow rep tempo is inferior to a fast rep tempo.

    You said:

    “First do you know what the definition of “identical” is? Just in case here it is “1. Being the same 2. Exactly equal and alike. 3. Having such a close similarity or resemblance as to be essentially equal or interchangeable” from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/identical.”

    Spare me the attitude Jeff alright? First of all I said “nearly identical.” You’re nitpicking misses the point entirely. But apparently you want to miss the point entirely which is that both of us train using an HIT approach – single sets, to failure within the anaerobic range, slow rep tempo, a handful or two of exercises, machines and free weights, a couple of sessions a week with sufficient recovery time in between.

    My training method would not be considered “nearly identical” if I was a high volume, periodization advocate who trained using multiple sets of the same exercise, avoided failure, trained 5X a week in a periodized fashion, used an explosive rep tempo, etc.

    Now do you understand why I said that Tim and I train “NEARLY identically?” Must I be any clearer? Tim has trained at my gym (he’s a friend) and agrees. Send him an email and ask him.

    As for the rep tempo, Tim advocates 5 seconds for the lift. I am certain his rep tempo will vary on one end or the other by a few seconds especially the last rep or two which will be much longer. This is true at my gym as well. If someone starts the rep carefully and finishes the lift in 5 or 6 seconds this is fine. In my book I actually advocate a 7 second positive – the first inch should take 3 seconds or so just so that a person doesn’t launch the weight upward exposing themselves to potentially injurious forces. One has to give some guidance in this regard when writing a book. Do you not understand this?

    You said:

    “We both use a handful of exercises per session” Could you be anymore vague? So is any type of exercise is fine? Single joint, multi-joint, large or small muscle groups? Does a forearm curl have the same physiological, strength, and health effects as a back loaded squat? Is that what you are saying?”

    Well in fact yes I could be more vague if I wanted to be. I could have said “We both perform a cornucopia of exercises.” And most people I think would know exactly what is meant by “a handful.” Since you don’t I’ll explain it for you – 5.

    And no, I did not mean that a forearm curl is more physiologically beneficial than a back squat. Why you think I might have meant that is very odd. However, is there any scientific evidence to support the back squat as a physiologically superior exercise to the forearm curl? If not then it very well might be superior, right Jeff? Is your apparent belief that the back squat is a physiologically superior exercise to the forearm curl supported in any scientific paper? Q: Does it need to be Jeff? Are there situations where scientific research is unnecessary?

    Since you were unable to glean what I meant about types of exercises, I’ll explain it to you.

    Both Tim and I train the body as a whole. The major muscle groups are addressed. He might do a squat, I a leg press. He might do a Yates row, I a MedX compound row. Tim might do barbell forearm curl, I a Hammer gripper. Tim might do a machine chest press I a free weight bench. Or you could flip-flop that.

    Clearer? I hope so.

    I actually misread what you said about Tim and Casey. I thought you said Tim could have achieved Casey’s results which of course he could not have. My bad. You’re point was that Tim might have been able to achieve better results using Casey’s protocol. Well he might have gotten better results doing half of what he did do or even less. “He might have’s” can go on forever and they are totally beside the point.

    You said:

    “Could you please explain to me how a person could do 5 or 6 reps at the recommended cadence (10/10) and not have a set last more than 90 seconds? Would 5 or 6 reps not equal 100 to 120 seconds, respectively?”

    Because no one is going to do every rep exactly the same Jeff. You train people right? Don’t you know this? The important thing is to make sure that the weights are heavy enough to reach failure in the anaerobic window. Research indicates that as long as the set is taken to complete fatigue a wide range of reps appears to produce equal benefits. Again, you appear to want to miss the point.

    What you and Matt appear to be so against is that we said that we think that SB is the best way to train. It’s a book Jeff. What should we have said? “SB is a kind of ok exercise method and not any better than anything else.” I feel that it is the best way to strength train and so I said so. Look what you said about your book:

    “The only weight loss book worth reading!”

    Really? Your book is the only weight loss book worth reading? Do you have any scientific evidence to support this claim? Hey – you are indeed entitled to your opinion and so am I.

    You said:

    “We are NOT trying to prove that SB is a “piece of crap” and we are not really trying to discredit your training method. Our problem is with your book and the way in which you present the material and the many things you say SB can do.”

    You called the book “a piece of crap.” Rather than apologize, you now try to weedle your way out by saying that you think SB is in fact potentially beneficial but the way in which we presented the info was a piece of crap (even still!). Why didn’t you say that from the get go?

    Here is what you said:

    “If you don’t want to read the entire article and you just want to know what we think of the book and its recommendations, here you go; it’s a piece of crap.”

    Remember?

    And one other thing is that you called Slow Burn Super Slow. If your such a stickler for details, why are you calling Slow Burn Super Slow? Wouldn’t the two protocols have to be identical for you to refer to SB as SS? Let me give you the definition of identical:

    “1. Being the same 2. Exactly equal and alike. 3. Having such a close similarity or resemblance as to be essentially equal or interchangeable” from.”

    You said:

    “Regarding the diet stuff. The point I was trying to make, and you clearly did not get it, was the reason we know that diet was a big player in the results of Tim and Casey is because there has been a lot of research on diet and muscle hypertrophy. I stated “I would say the diet was likely the main reason for most of the changes.” The stimulus was important but without the right diet the results would have been nothing compared to what happened.”

    That is why I said that diet plays a major role and unless one sticks to the proper muscle building diet, the gains that Tim and Casey achieved are not possible. Glad you agree with me.

    “I will ask again, what type of body changes occurred during the two Westcott studies? Body fat changes, lean mass gains, etc.?”

    Why ask me? Go read the studies. Haven’t you already? We said gains in strength. What body changes do we guarantee in our book Jeff?

    You said:

    “One final question; why do you conflate the abundance of benefits/research on strength training and general HIT style training with Slow Burn? Are you not presenting a non-sequitur argument? How can you say that SB is the BEST type of strength training?”

    As I said it is my opinion that SB is the best. Research indicates that HIT training produces as good or better outcomes than any other form of resistance training in a fraction of the time when compared to high volume training. You must know this.

    As for your requirement that specific research be given or provided before making any recommendations, you recommend a low carb diet in SPEED don’t you? Low carb diets as we both know have ample scientific evidence to support them as being healthful. However, do you have any scientific evidence that the specific diets you prescribe for your clients will be beneficial? Do you feel you need to conduct any? Or are you satisfied that since your diet plans are low carb, they will produce positive outcomes? Why do YOU “conflate” your diet recc’s with those of other low carb diets?

    You have an interesting penchant for pointing your finger at other people without pointing it first at yourself.

    • Jeff Thiboutot M.S. says:

      Fred,

      We are not evading the salient points at all. We have discussed a couple of the key points in these comments. However, as I mentioned in the last comment and during another one, Matt and I are thoroughly going through the research regarding the many things you say about what SB, high-intensity resistance training can do. I said “Our concerns will be thoroughly explained in our Part 2 Review of your book. We should have it done in the next couple of days”. So that means we will have a response to the flexibility, aerobic and other topics in just a couple more days. My hope is that we will have it completed by Thursday. So we are not evading anything, and as you will see, we are not wrong.

      “What you and Matt appear to be so against is that we said that we think that SB is the best way to train. It’s a book Jeff. What should we have said? “SB is a kind of ok exercise method and not any better than anything else.” I feel that it is the best way to strength train and so I said so.”

      Yes Fred, that is exactly what you should have said. Don’t you get it? It is not okay to make profound statements if they are not true just because it is a book, unless you are writing a fiction book. That is ridiculous. You did NOT say “I feel that it is the best”, you said multiple times that research has shown that it (SB) is the best for a bunch of things.

      “As for your requirement that specific research be given or provided before making any recommendations”

      That is not what we have been saying. Yes, there should be some level of quality evidence before you give recommendations and those recommendations should be very similar to what has been shown, through clinical research, to be useful. Again, the problem with your book is you make an assortment of claims for the benefits of SB with no references to support such claims and we feel that most of your claims in your book are incorrect or misleading.

      Anyway, whether we did something right or wrong has absolutely nothing to do with the information you present in your book. Talk about a red- herring. Try to stay on track. We are more than open to a discussion of the merits of our book at another time, but at this moment that is NOT what is being debated.

      I was asking about the Westcott study because I am guessing that you would no these studies like the back of your hand. I am guessing you didn’t want to respond because these two studies say nothing about bodyweight changes or anything regarding body changes. The ONLY clinical endpoint they looked at was strength changes.

      “What body changes do we guarantee in our book Jeff”. How about these;

      “You’ll learn how to do a controlled Slow Burn that will improve your strength, rebuild your bones and muscles…”(p.23)
      “…there is no type of exercise that will aid your fat loss effort more and get you to your goals faster than the Slow Burn Fitness Revolution” (p.32)
      “In fact, studies show slow speed weight workouts build muscle about twice as fast as traditional weight training” (p.32)

      There are more. Do these not clearly suggest that Slow Burn will change a person’s body? You say many things throughout the book about how SB can have a significant effect on all kinds of things besides strength.

      We are not trying to “weedle” our way out of anything. What we have said from the beginning and have continually said, is we have a big problem with the book and the many claims made in it. We have NEVER said a super-slow or very slow or slow-burn, or a slower than typically recommended rep speeds for strength are “crap”. Show me where we said that.

      We will be addressing many things in the second review, so if I did not answer it here we will in the second review.

      Just a couple of questions;

      Are saying that a rep tempo range of 5/5 to 10/10 is basically the same?

      Do you state anywhere in your book that the rep tempo should be anything other than 10/10?

      Where in your book do you suggest to the reader that a variety of exercises could be used at the gym instead of the 13 you describe?

      So 5 exercises is the same as 13?

      You didn’t answer it last time, so I will ask again. How does doing 5 or 6 reps, at the rep tempo you state is the ideal speed (10/10) not equal more than 90 seconds?

      Why do you not use the exact same training protocol that Westcott used in his two studies that demonstrated better strength gains? This would be 2-3 x a week, for about 30 minutes (interestingly Westcott does not give the exact length of the workout time nor the amount of rest between exercises, but based on some simple calculations the length of the workouts could range from 25 to 37.5 minutes), with a 10/4 rep tempo, but I am sure you already knew that.

  16. Fred Hahn says:

    I’ve already addressed these issues Jeff. I am not going to do it again.

    I look forward to your part II. Make sure you are thorough. Given the many things you’ve said already, you appear to have a lot of reading to do.

    And do make sure you evaluate the research you read correctly. Don’t forget how you misinterpreted the two studies you used to show that slow rep tempos were inferior to faster.

    And try to act like a gentleman. Try to avoid the behaviors of others in this field who act unprofessionally.

    Remember, I am entitled to my opinions as you are yours. I think I’ll pick up a copy of your book and give it a good go over. We’ll see if it holds up to scrutiny.

    • Jeff Thiboutot M.S. says:

      Fred,
      The Part 2- In-depth review of your book is up. We hope we “showed you something better” and when it comes to “looking foolish” lets see who will be wearing the dunce hat?

  17. Fred Hahn says:

    Oh and I should say “thanks” for these reviews. It helps to keep book sales going!

  18. [...] will cover a few things mentioned in some of the comments from our first post on this subject first and then will go through the book, chapter by chapter, highlighting the many bold statements [...]

  19. Fred Hahn says:

    While it doesn’t appear that many people read this blog, I still wish to point out to those who do read it that this paragraph below:

    “If you don’t want to read the entire article and you just want to know what we think of the book and its recommendations, here you go; We feel that this book is filled with misleading, incorrect and unsubstantiated claims regarding the benefits of a type of exercise referred to as Slow Burn. Therefore, it is not worth reading.”

    It originally read like this:

    “If you don’t want to read the entire article and you just want to know what we think of the book and its recommendations, here you go; We feel it’s a piece of crap.”

    Shame, shame, gentlemen. At least have the honesty to admit you were wrong for what you said and that a retraction and correction was warranted. You’ll never develop a loyal following with behavior like this.

    • Jeff Thiboutot M.S. says:

      Fred,

      Have you actually read what we said in the Part 2 review of your book? We clearly explained the crap aspect. Did you miss this paragraph? It is near the beginning of it. We are not wrong, so we have nothing to admit to. Again, read the dam review, seriously Fred, we explained it there. Also, we are not trying to hide anything. If we were then why explain the “crap” aspect in the second review and why not block your comment about it from our comments section? We have nothing to hide. We are very transparent with what we say and do. So for you (Fred or should I call you Metabolic Medicine or maybe Serious Strength?) to accuse us of not being honest is ridiculous.

  20. Matt Schoeneberger M.S. says:

    Fred,

    We explained it all right here:

    http://speedweightlossbook.com/book-review/fred-hahn%e2%80%99s-slow-burn-fitness-revolution-book%e2%80%93-part-2-an-in-depth-analysis-of-the-information-presented-in-the-book/

    Frankly, we felt crap was a little nicer than saying you were misleading and incorrect. But, we’re here to please. :)

    Take care, Fred.

    -Matt

  21. Fred Hahn says:

    Sorry. You can’t point to others who commit a crime to absolve yourselves of the same crime. Life doesn’t work like that.

    If I called your book “a piece of crap” I’m wrong for such behavior. We’ve all gotten heated and said things of this nature for various different reasons. It’s still wrong no matter how you look at it.

    Given what you’ve said here, if you thought your first stab at an objective critique calling our book “a piece of crap” was so spot on and fair, why did you change the wording? You changed the wording because you know it was wrong to say what you said. Neither of you have the guts to admit this however. Says a lot.

  22. [...] Fred Hahn’s Slow Burn Fitness Revolution We feel that this book is filled with misleading, incorrect and unsubstantiated claims regarding the benefits of a type of exercise referred to as Slow Burn. Therefore, it is not worth reading. Now, if you’re interested in knowing why, read on… [...]

  23. Dilbert says:

    Hutchins > Hahn

  24. protandem says:

    Do you put Body by Science and Power of 10 in the same category as Fred’s book?

    • Jeff Thiboutot M.S. says:

      protandem,
      I have not read the Power of 10 and have only skimmed Body by Science. Therefore, I can’t say much about either one. But, when it comes to the proposition, likely put forth by both books, that super-slow training is superior to some other high-intensity training protocols I would say I disagree with their position. One thing I did like about Body by Science, after just skimming it, is the authors did a pretty job of referencing their position statements throughout the book.

  25. Matt Schoeneberger M.S. says:

    @protandem

    I have not read either of those books, so I can’t comment on those. Have you read them?

    Matt

  26. [...] Fred Hahn about “Super Slow” training that was filled with utterly absurd claims (click here for a concise debunking of said claims), and who arrogantly and chauvinistically lambasted two [...]

  27. [...] “Ah, but sumoman!” I hear you cry. “Surely my adrenals will shrivel unless I adhere to the scientific, infrequent HIT training promoted by notable strength experts such as Fred Hahn!” [...]

  28. Jay Horn says:

    THIS

    is good sHIT!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>