I read it a couple years ago, which is why I remember things like testosterone in the 600 range, but I have to look it up to see... 653.3.
Did you look at the pictures on that page?
Note how many tricks there are:
* Tanning
* Shaving
* Different lighting
* Flexing vs. not flexing
...and the #1 trick: STANDING CLOSER TO THE CAMERA
It's just flat obvious in the back double-biceps pose. He's not flexing on the left; he IS flexing on the right, and he's about 8 feet tall in comparison. He's also closer to the camera in the first pic, making his biceps appear larger.
Then in the next two, his "after" photo is further away, making a direct comparison more difficult. Possibly as a misdirection, after firmly establishing the larger "after" pictures in the first two examples. But in the arms down pic, he's clearly standing with his arms and shoulders flexed in the after pic. Also note the pulled-up shorts which is worthless for comparing quads because it's only done in the after pic.
You'd think "careful documentation" would at least get the only photographic evidence done right. I checked the book and the sizing discrepancy wasn't nearly as bad but was still present, and always in favor of the after shots, including the side chest pose.
As for the claims of having someone at SJU do the weighings, you only have his word for it, AND you have no way to coordinate these pictures with those numbers. Or any verification of his workouts or diet. Or any testing for steroids (you can always trust an athlete's word on that one!).
In addition, hydrostatic weighing can be gamed by not exhaling for the "before" weight, which increases buoyancy and will make the bodyfat estimate too high. In addition, the hydrostatic method is known to underestimate bodyfat in muscular individuals.
This whole thing is the equivalent of Cosmopolitan or teen magazines for girls. They use airbrushing and photoshopping to sell makeup to females at the equivalent of $5,000/gallon.
Muscle magazines do the same for teen boys. They use bodybuilders on huge stacks of anabolics pretending that protein powder did it! to sell to males.
(And 4 Hour Workweek is the same principle except for entrepreneurs.)
The general tenor of the discussion I recall was that his "after" pictures look a few pounds heavier, bodyfat is not noticeably different (note waist INCREASED 3.5 inches), and the rest is flexing, tanning, lighting, etc.
Did you look at the pictures on that page?
Note how many tricks there are:
* Tanning
* Shaving
* Different lighting
* Flexing vs. not flexing
...and the #1 trick: STANDING CLOSER TO THE CAMERA
It's just flat obvious in the back double-biceps pose. He's not flexing on the left; he IS flexing on the right, and he's about 8 feet tall in comparison. He's also closer to the camera in the first pic, making his biceps appear larger.
Then in the next two, his "after" photo is further away, making a direct comparison more difficult. Possibly as a misdirection, after firmly establishing the larger "after" pictures in the first two examples. But in the arms down pic, he's clearly standing with his arms and shoulders flexed in the after pic. Also note the pulled-up shorts which is worthless for comparing quads because it's only done in the after pic.
You'd think "careful documentation" would at least get the only photographic evidence done right. I checked the book and the sizing discrepancy wasn't nearly as bad but was still present, and always in favor of the after shots, including the side chest pose.
As for the claims of having someone at SJU do the weighings, you only have his word for it, AND you have no way to coordinate these pictures with those numbers. Or any verification of his workouts or diet. Or any testing for steroids (you can always trust an athlete's word on that one!).
In addition, hydrostatic weighing can be gamed by not exhaling for the "before" weight, which increases buoyancy and will make the bodyfat estimate too high. In addition, the hydrostatic method is known to underestimate bodyfat in muscular individuals.
See http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~ens304l/uww.htm
This whole thing is the equivalent of Cosmopolitan or teen magazines for girls. They use airbrushing and photoshopping to sell makeup to females at the equivalent of $5,000/gallon.
Muscle magazines do the same for teen boys. They use bodybuilders on huge stacks of anabolics pretending that protein powder did it! to sell to males.
(And 4 Hour Workweek is the same principle except for entrepreneurs.)
The general tenor of the discussion I recall was that his "after" pictures look a few pounds heavier, bodyfat is not noticeably different (note waist INCREASED 3.5 inches), and the rest is flexing, tanning, lighting, etc.