As she says, her reasons are her own, but now that I have three months of Body by Science under my belt, most of them resonate with me, particularly:
- short workouts, once a week
- low injury risk
- workouts you feel, but that don’t leave you debilitated
And most importantly (see embedded video below), this type of exercise totally supports health by helping increase or maintain lean body mass and enhancing insulin sensitivity.
However, mentioning SuperSlow or BBS is likely to elicit a comment from a hard-core exercising type about it’s “superficial appeal” to non-experts or that “no respected strength coach” would recommend such a program.
I think Keith Norris illustrates the disagreement — and reason for it — in his post on chasing performance at the expense of health.
Those of us who want to get to (or maintain) point A are different from the folks arguing the details in the “heady land of peak performance in the C-zone.”
While there are many effective training methods, not all of them are equally safe over the long term or as time efficient, both of which are advantages of the type of high intensity training in Body by Science. The goal of exercise shouldn’t just be to improve fitness, but to do so without undermining your long term health or functional ability, and while you can’t argue the conditioning benefits of CrossFit, it is a lot harder on the body than a program needs to be for good results.
Back when I was in my 30s, I was happy to work out hard like the CrossFitters. Now? Not so much.
BTW, this seems like a good place to embed Doug McGuff’s presentation that Drew also mentioned in his comments (I’ve tweaked the embed so it skips the evolutionary dating stuff geared towards the 21-year-old male conference attendees ;).
There are good reasons why exercise — especially chronic cardio — may not make you thin. And for a while, I thought focusing on diet was sufficient. But now I’ve come around and realized that doing the right exercise is well worth it for both health and weight loss.