[delluminatus]

Good point about the caloric density of fat vs. muscle. It's kind of embarrassing to have forgotten about that point.

However, that still doesn't address the question of how someone could seriously put on 34 lb of muscle in one month... I think even if you're regaining "lost muscle," this still strikes me as implausible or at the very least unreproducible. I am not convinced that having some historical muscle suddenly entitles you to a ten-times-normal rate of muscle growth.

Also, I can tell you right away that the Colorado Experiment was BS. It would take a remarkably naive reader to think that the reported results of the "experiment" are legitimate.

I think you might be right about the "finding a loophole" type of thinking. In my mind, if someone uses a loophole to achieve a metric like "pounds of muscle gained," the accomplishment is nullified in the sense that it becomes useless as a learning tool, and as an anecdote it is downright dangerous... even if he actually gained 63 pounds of muscle by abusing "the rules," that's not useful (although it may still be rather impressive).

Well, I haven't read anything else Ferriss has written, so I don't have any background. But the claim itself is pretty outrageous.

[jere]

Just because I find it interesting, let me just point out a couple examples Ferriss gives (and is up front about) to elaborate on "loopholes":

-Winning a kickboxing championship by 1) pretty drastic water loss to fit into a lower division and 2) TKO by repeatedly knocking his opponent out of the ring.

-Winning a world record in tango by getting the most consecutive spins in a minute.