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.

The problem is how it's measured.

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.

Same as his "4 hour work week" measurement...

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.

Somehow a gym subscription that you're going to use for 4 hours a month seems like a waste of money.

Derp? If you're getting the damn results, who cares how many hours you spend?

Someone who would like to spend their money more efficiently.

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.

I believe it's working out 4 hours a month, not a week.

I believe it's 4 hours a month.