RSS

Individual Genetic Differences And Your Results With Exercise

0 comments By admin Filed in Strength Training Tagged with , July 5th, 2010 @ 6:00 pm

The hereditary differences between individuals are such that some men who have never trained will be actually stronger and more muscular than some men who have trained properly for years – but it does not follow that neither type should train; without training, the individual with very poor potential will literally remain a weakling, while with proper training he can usually build muscle fast – without training, an individual with very good potential may well be far above average in strength and muscular size, but with proper training he can probably become almost a superman.

But while it is perfectly true that the potential for growth varies enormously, it is not true that such differences require different methods or systems of training – the best methods and the best style of training will produce best-possible results in ALL cases, regardless of what individual potential may be in a particular case.

The fact that an individual has finally managed to produce “apparently good” final results proves absolutely nothing – since it is never then possible to determine just what that same individual might have done if he had trained properly; since almost anything is at least possible, it may well be true – and probably is true, that at least “some” bodybuilders, somewhere, are training properly, or at least in a fashion that is in some ways close to being proper; but if so, then they have so far managed to evade my attention – since I have yet to meet such an individual, not even one such individual.

Nor have I yet encountered an individual that seems capable of directing his own training properly – even after he clearly understands what is required, and fully realizes that the involved factors actually are required; left up to their own devices, even such apparently aware individuals almost always permit their training schedules to degenerate into
something more closely approaching what they would like a proper training program to be – and then usually make all sorts of attempts to rationalize their actually irrational actions.

In practice, some individuals suffer badly from such traits – and other individuals suffer worse – but all seem to suffer to some degree; for that reason, we tried to make our machines and exercise systems as foolproof as possible – which, quite literally, means “proof against fools.” Which, apparently, all of us are to at least some degree – and some of us to an actually great degree.

A .600 Nitro-Express will kill no elephants if it is left standing in the gun-closet – and it will kill no elephants if you merely shoot them in the tail (the actual “tail,” not the backside); you must muse it properly for proper results – and the same thing is true in regard to any tool. Properly placed, one bullet from a .600 will literally knock a charging elephant to his knees – like sticking a pin into an inflated balloon, one second it is there, and a split second later it isn’t; properly performed heavy exercise will produce a very similar type of result – and no amount of improperly performed exercise, no matter how heavy it may be, will produce an equal result.

But just as a .600 rifle has an understandable tendency to kick the user a bit, heavy exercise performed properly is not an entirely pleasant feeling; and in unwise attempts to produce the same sort of results in a more comfortable fashion, quite a few people have been stomped to death by elephants that they tried to kill with light rifles – and millions of weight-trainees have been almost literally beating their own brains out for years in attempts to produce good results from actually-light training, even when they had access to the tools for heavy training they almost always used the tools incorrectly in attempts to make the exercises more comfortable.

Within the next two years – and perhaps sooner – we fully expect to have both the tools and the required knowledge for the proper use of these tools that will make it possible for anybody, regardless of their individual potential, to learn how to build muscle fast, as individuals, from a training program that will be almost completely standardized for EVERYBODY and very brief for ANYBODY; then all we will have to figure out is a means to induce proper utilization of the tools and system – and that may well, probably will, prove to be the biggest problem of all.

If for no other reason – and for no logical reason in any case – than people like to consider themselves individuals; but shooting yourself through the head with a .600 will produce certain results no matter how “individual” you are. Twenty years ago, I finally learned that an actually-proper workout with barbells had to be brief in the extreme – so brief that I was always tempted to increase the number of exercises or sets, since the workouts never appeared to contain “enough”; but when I did increase anything in the workouts, the production of results was always reduced, ALWAYS.

Twenty years later, with a total of at least a million active weight-trainees in the country, it is doubtful if as many as a thousand (or literally one out of a thousand) trainees have any slightest idea of how to gain muscle; in the meantime, almost all trainees have moved firmly in the exactly-wrong direction – constantly increasing the amount of their training, and decreasing the intensity of their training, which is WRONG for ANYBODY, regardless of his potential.

During that same “meantime,” several parties have made themselves far richer – and millions of other people far poorer – by preaching outright nonsense; well knowing that most people are more than willing to lend an attentive ear to “what they want to hear”, in this case that good results can be obtained by the use of some “easy” factor.

Recovering From Hard Strength Training Workouts

0 comments By admin Filed in Strength Training Tagged with , , April 6th, 2010 @ 7:15 pm

When a muscle has been worked to a point of momentary failure by heavy exercise, the situation is just that – the muscle has “failed MOMENTARILY.” But in most cases, within three seconds – or less – the muscle has recovered approximately fifty per cent of the strength which it had lost as a result of the exercise; but it does not follow that it will then be fully recovered in six seconds, or even six minutes – full recovery usually takes MORE THAN twenty-four hours, frequently as much as forty to sixty hours. But even if the muscle itself does recover entirely, this is no indication that the system – which supplies the muscle – is fully recovered.

In order to build muscle fast, the muscles must be induced to make certain (but largely unknown) demands upon the system as a whole – demands for the materials required for growth; but growth cannot result even then if the system is unable to supply the needed materials – and do NOT misread this to mean that this is simply a matter of assuring that the right food has been eaten. Far from it; the primary limiting factor in this case is the ability of the system to make the required physiological (apparently largely chemical) changes within the allotted period of time – and if another workout occurs before these processes are complete, then little or nothing in the way of growth can occur.

In effect, it takes hard work to induce growth – and time to permit growth.

There will be individual variation, of course – but only within the limits of a certain rather limited scale; and it is also true that the recovery ability of a well-trained individual will be better than it was before he started training – but again, only to a certain degree. And, please note, I said “well-trained”, not “LONG TRAINED”; in fact, many long-experienced bodybuilders have very poor recovery ability – having overworked their systems for months or years they have far less recovery ability than the proverbial “90 pound weakling”.

Within the human system as a whole there exist a number of regulatory sub-systems, whose functions are obvious – even if almost entirely unknown; some of these are fairly well understood, some are the subject of heated controversy at the moment, and some remain entirely mysterious – the only people who even claim to understand all of these factors are people like the self-proclaimed “nutritional expert” who dropped dead recently on a television show, moments after proclaiming that he would live to be at least a hundred years old “unless killed by a sugar-crazed taxicab driver”. He was seventy years old when he died.

While it should be obvious from a reading of previous chapters that I am certainly making little or no attempt to avoid controversial subjects, it should be equally obvious to intelligent readers that an attempt to explore all of the seriously-proposed theories on the subject of the human recovery factor would be far beyond the scope of a bulletin of this nature; but in fact, such an in-depth examination is not even required for our purposes here – if we are at least aware of the existence of these factors, and able to make practical use of this awareness. After all, just how many people know “exactly what happens” when they turn the ignition switch and activate the starter of their automobile?

When anything is in limited supply, then it is simply common-sense practice to make the best-possible utilization of the quantity that is available -and when you are not sure just how much is available, it is equally good practice to use as little as necessary; in the field of exercise, the implication is clear – use your limited recovery ability as wisely as possible, and as little as possible in line with the actual requirements for producing the results you are after.

It really doesn’t matter just “why” intense exertion is required to gain muscle mass, or exactly “how” this is brought about – and it is equally unimportant that we understand the actual reasons responsible for the limitations in our recovery ability; but it is necessary to know that hard work is required, and that recovery ability is limited. A failure to understand – or even be aware of – these factors has led to the presently-existing situation in body building circles, where almost all trainees work far too much and very few trainees work hard enough. Rather than constantly trying to increase the length of workouts, ALL trainees would be well advised to attempt to reduce their training to an absolute minimum. It is my personal belief at this point in time that we will eventually – and rather soon – replace the requirement for training to about one and one-half hours weekly; and I mean the requirement for an advanced bodybuilder who is training for world-class physique competition -and I also mean that any more training would actually reduce the production of results.

Part of this requirement for sharply-reduced weekly training time will not be produced by the use of “cycle training” – but it should be clearly understood that we are NOT using cycle training merely in an attempt to save training time; we are using it because it is an absolute requirement for producing best-possible degrees of results – and it is a requirement because of the extremely short initial recovery time-factors encountered in muscular activity. In order to work a particular muscle as hard as it must be worked to induce maximum growth stimulation – while staying within the limits imposed by the overall recovery ability of the system – you must use cycle training. And when this is done properly, then only one or two such very brief cycles are all that are required – or even desirable; doing more cycles may or may not induce more growth stimulation – but even if so, it would exhaust the recovery ability of the system to a point where growth would be impossible in many cases and very slow in all cases.

At the moment, we are producing extremely good results from the following training schedule for the arms . . .

1 – One set of 10 repetitions, standing curl with barbell

2 – One set of 12 repetitions, Nautilus Triceps Machine

3 – One set of 12 repetitions, Nautilus Curling Machine

4 – One set of 15 repetitions, wrist-curls with a barbell

5 – One set of 15 repetitions, reverse barbell wrist-curls

That completes one cycle, and up to this point in the schedule there is no requirement for the “rush factor” – performed at the proper pace and with a brief pause between sets, the above five exercises should require about four minutes to perform; although little or no harm would result if as much as ten minutes was used.

6 – One set of 12 repetitions, Nautilus Triceps Machine

7 – RUSH – One set of parallel dips, maximum-possible repetitions

8 – One set of 12 repetitions Nautilus Curling Machine

9 – RUSH – One set of “front pulldowns” on a Nautilus Torso-Arm Machine, using a close grip, approximately 10 repetitions

10 – One set of 15 repetitions, wrist-curls with a barbell

11 – One set of 15 repetitions, reverse barbell wrist-curls

The “rush factor” occurs only twice during the schedule – between the 6th and 7th sets, and between the 8th and 9th sets – at those points in the workout you must move from the end of one set to the start of the next-following set as quickly as possible, and certainly in less than three seconds.

Properly performed, this schedule requires a total of seven minutes and twenty seconds – or exactly twenty-two minutes weekly, since our trainees use it three times weekly; but it would make little or no real difference in most cases if a trainee used as much as sixteen minutes for each arm workout, a total of forty-eight minutes weekly – however, it certainly would make a big difference if he rested at those points where the rush factor is called for.

And please note, the above schedule is not intended only for beginners -it is the exact schedule being used at this time by our largest and strongest trainees, some of the strongest men in the world. At times we do a bit more – but at other times we do quite a bit less; and when any doubt exists, we always do LESS. And we NEVER do MUCH MORE.

Training schedules for other muscular structures of the body that gain muscle fast are – for the most part – even briefer, and usually involve the rush factor between all sets within the cycles being used. The rush factor – movement from the end of one set to the start of the next set with almost zero delay – makes it possible to work a muscle far beyond its normal point of failure; in the above arm routine, for example, it works as follows – the 6th set, the second set on the triceps machine, works the triceps to a point of normal failure, thus “pre-exhausting” the triceps muscles for the work to follow immediately, and then the parallel dips force the triceps to become involved in work that is actually beyond the normal point of failure.

And while it might appear that a similar result could be produced in another obvious way – by gradually reducing the resistance on the triceps machine, so that the triceps could continue to work until simply unable to continue even with no resistance – in practice this does not produce results on the same order; for at least two reasons – because the repetitions thus become far too high, and because the change of exercises provides needed variety of work. In this case, moving from the triceps machine – which provides full-range work for the primary function of the triceps muscles – to the parallel dips – which provide work in the position of contraction for the secondary function of the triceps, as well as the position of contraction for the primary function – makes it possible to work much more of the actual mass of the triceps muscles, while still not moving outside the limits of the recovery ability.

A very similar principle is involved in the work for the biceps, when you move immediately from the second set on the curling machine to a set of front pulldowns.

No amount of exercises performed in another fashion will produce equal results – and increasing the amount of exercise almost always reduces the production of results, even when similar principles are employed; or, in fact, especially when similar principles are employed, because this actually is HARD exercise – you not only don’t need much of such exercise, you literally can’t stand much of it.

Direct Exercises and Their Importance for Building Strength

0 comments By admin Filed in Strength Training Tagged with , , April 6th, 2010 @ 7:10 pm

Most exercises are “direct” in no sense of the word – and many exercises are direct only at one point during a movement that extends over a wide range-of-movement; a squat is not direct at any point during the movement -a curl is direct at only one point during the movement, an infinitely small point, the so-called “sticking point.”

In order to be “direct” in the above sense of the term, the resistance provided by an exercise must be directly opposed to the movement, 180 degrees out-of-phase with the movement – if it is direct in this sense, then an inch of movement of the involved body-part produces an inch of movement of the resistance; in effect, any movement of the body-part produces an equal movement of the resistance – and if the resistance is provided by gravity, this means that body-part movement must produce an equal degree of “vertical movement” of the resistance.

The reaction of the average bodybuilder to the above paragraphs will undoubtedly be, “So what?” But if so, then an extremely important factor is being misunderstood or overlooked; the lack of directness of resistance application is one of the major shortcomings encountered in barbell exercises. In the case of a barbell curl, this lack of direct resistance results in a situation where you encounter literally NO RESISTANCE during a fairly large part of the movement – and this occurs in the most important part of the movement if you want to build muscle fast, at that.

But the above covers only one of two distinct meanings of the term “direct” as it applies to exercise; to be direct in the other sense, the resistance must be applied against the “prime body-part”, against the body-part that is directly moved by the involved muscle. For example; in a curl, the involved muscles are attached to, and directly move, the forearms; thus, in a curl, the resistance must be applied against the forearms. Which, for all practical purposes, is the actual practice in the curl – since the hands are effectively an extension of the forearms.

To be perfectly technical about it, for totally direct resistance in a curl, wrist joints would have to be fused – in order to prevent any possible movement between the hands and forearms; but in practice, because of the limited range of possible movements of the wrists, and because of the positioning of the related arc of this movement, no significant reduction of the effective degree of directness of resistance application is produced by wrist movement. So – for all practical purposes, at least – a curl is a direct exercise in this sense of the word. While the squat is not.

An example of a “perfectly direct” exercise – in both senses of the term – is the movement performed on a thigh-extension machine; in this exercise, the resistance is always directly opposed to the possible direction of movement, and is applied directly against the prime body part. Or at least it is in some machines; and, rather paradoxically, the least-expensive thigh-extension machines are generally the best ones. In the Universal (brand name) thigh extension machine, the resistance is provided by a vertical-rise weight-stack that is driven by a cable – which cable, after passing over redirectional-pulleys, is attached to the movement-bar of the machine; which makes it very convenient – but which also goes a long way in the direction of ruining the function of the machine. Because the resulting geometry is such that the resistance is highest at the start of the movement, and then decreases as the movement progresses. It is undoubtedly possible to design a machine in such a manner that it would be WORSE; but you would be required to think about it first.

In the Universal thigh-extension machine that we have been using for more than a year in experimental weight-training programs in Florida, the primary source of resistance is limited to 150 pounds – but since that isn’t enough for many of our trainees, we have been adding additional resistance in the form of barbell plates, adding them to a rod incorporated into the machine for that purpose; the somewhat amusing part of the situation is the fact that the “added resistance” is far superior to the primary resistance -since the geometry of resistance in this case is at least not backwards, if perhaps not perfect.

Quite recently, one of our trainees exerted such force against the movement-arm that one of the redirectional-pulley brackets was torn entirely loose from the machine – thus rendering the primary resistance inoperative; so we didn’t use the machine for a few days, intending to repair it when we got around to doing so – but then it occurred to me that such a break-down was actually an improvement in the machine, so now we don’t intend to ever repair it. because by using only resistance provided by the secondary resistance source – barbell plates added to a rod on the movement arm – we have a much improved-exercise.

Much less-expensive types of thigh-extension machines, which have only cross-bars for holding barbell plates, are actually far more productive -because the “resistance curve,” while certainly not perfect, is at least not backwards.

I do not know if the people who design most machines are simply unaware of the desirable characteristics and actual requirements of exercise – or if they don’t care, perhaps being interested only in appearance and convenience; but the results of such incorrect design are the same in either case – the geometry of the machines is not what it should be, and could be, and it thus becomes literally impossible to produce fast muscle gains from the use of such machines, results in proportion to the training-time and effort expended.

Most barbell exercises provide no direct resistance, some barbell exercises provide direct resistance only during a small part of the movement – but a few barbell exercises provide fairly-direct resistance over a wide arc of movement; the barbell wrist-curl – if performed in the proper manner – is almost literally a “perfect” exercise, since it provides full-range directness of resistance and even automatically varying resistance which comes very close to being exactly “right”.

To begin with, the resistance in a wrist-curl is applied directly to the prime body-part (the hands) – secondly, the arc of movement is such that the resistance increases throughout the movement, and if the angle of the forearms is proper then the resistance reaches its highest point just as the involved muscles reach their strongest position – thirdly, the geometry of the involved joints and muscular attachments is such that the strength curve increases throughout the movement, steadily (if not quite evenly) increasing as the muscles move from a position of full extension to one of full contraction.

If a trainee can be taught to perform this exercise properly – and if he will then practice it properly – nothing but a barbell is required for producing results that are so close to being maximum-possible results that no slightest difference is of any significance; secondly, while it would at least be “possible” to design and build a machine what would provide better exercise for the involved muscles, the degree of improvement would not be justified.

And an almost exactly parallel situation exists in regard to the calf muscles; which is paradoxical – and amusing – because the forearms and the calves are by far the easiest parts of the body to develop, and because the required exercises have been in existence for many years, and because these exercises can be properly performed with absolutely; nothing in the way of special equipment – and yet, most bodybuilders are firmly convinced that the calves and forearms are the “hardest” body-parts to develop.

I have consistently refused to waste my time and energy designing and building a calf-machine – because no such machine is needed; but we will eventually offer forearm-machines – even though they will almost-exactly duplicate barbell exercises, and in spite of the fact that they will offer absolutely nothing in the way of actual “improvement” to gain muscle fast by comparison to barbell exercises. These machines apparently are a necessity, because it seems to be almost impossible to teach most trainees the proper style of performance using a barbell; and it seems to be utterly impossible to get trainees to use the proper style even when they do understand it. So a machine that forces the trainee to use the proper style does seem to be a requirement in this instance.

It might be a source of interest to some readers to mention the fact that the entire Nautilus method and system of training was a result of a search for “direct exercises” – at the start, we were looking for a method that would provide direct exercise for the latissimus muscles of the back, since it was obvious that all conventional exercises for those muscles left a great deal to be desired. “Pullups” (or “chins”), pulldowns, behind-the-neck chins, rowing exercises of a wide variety, and all other conventional exercises for the latissimus muscles certainly do provide “some” work for those muscles; but they all have one fault in common – they all involve the muscles of the arms as well as the muscles of the back that you are trying to work.

The latissimus muscles are attached to, and move, the upper arms – thus, for direct exercise, the resistance must be applied against the upper arms; what happens to the forearms, and-or the muscles of the upper arms that move the forearms, is of no slightest importance – or would not be of any importance in a direct exercise for the latissimus muscles.

You hang a man by suspending his weight from his head – thus imposing the resistance on his neck; if you tried hanging him by his hair, the hair might pull out before any results were produced in regard to the neck. A very similar situation exists in conventional exercises for the latissimus muscles; instead of applying the resistance directly against the prime body-parts (the upper arms), such exercises apply resistance against the forearms – thus creating a “weak link” in the form of the proportionate lack-of-strength of the muscles in the upper arms. You fail in such an exercise when your arms reach a point of failure – not when the latissimus muscles become exhausted.

So you are constantly limited in such exercises by the limits of existing strength of the upper arms – which, being smaller and weaker than the latissimus muscles, fail long before the much larger latissimus muscles have been worked hard enough to induce much in the way of growth stimulation.

All of which is obvious, and all of which we were clearly aware of nearly thirty years ago – and vaguely aware of more than thirty years ago; since then, we have gone through many intermediate steps in our attempts to provide direct exercises for the latissimus muscles – and while we make no claim that our present machines are literally “perfect,” they are, at least, so close to being perfect that no significant shortcomings remain. Additionally, we are clearly aware of the actual shortcomings that do exist – and also aware that they are the results of unavoidable compromises imposed upon us by unchangeable mechanical limitations and-or physical laws. In effect, our machines are as perfect as they can be – as they ever will be; in function, at least.

But we certainly did not reach the presently-existing state of development in one jump; which is why, I think, that some people do not understand the actual principles involved – or think that “just any” similar-appearing machine will produce similar results – or feel that the machines should be used in a fashion similar to the style of training usually employed with a barbell.

Automobiles would be far safer and more efficient if they didn’t have doors and windows – and less-expensive, too; but in practice, you must be able to enter and exit an automobile, so you must have at least one door – and for any sort of practical function, an automobile must provide some view of the outside, so you must have at least one window. In order to use one of our Pullover-type Torso Machines, you must be able to get into it – with your elbows in the proper position; so we had to provide a means of entry (and exit), and in so doing we reduced the efficiency of the machine slightly -but a “not quite perfect” machine that can be used is certainly better than a perfect machine that can’t be used.

Some of our earlier machines were actually “better” – or, at least, more efficient (very, very SLIGHTLY more-efficient) but they were literally “three-man machines,” it took the help of two other people to get you into (or out of) these machines. So we compromised – as we were forced to; but at least we were clearly aware of what we were doing, and why we were doing it, and also knew what the results would be – and since it is my personal inclination to work for absolute perfection, I have now designed and built more than forty different models of the Pullover-type machine in efforts to get the function as close to being perfect as it can be in practical application.

Which might explain why I was so irritated when a man on the west coast altered one of my machines in a stupid attempt to improve its convenience and safety; which action was fully on a par with a remark a primitive African made to me immediately after I had given him a ride in a helicopter – I asked him if he thought he could fly the helicopter, and he said, “. . . oh, yes; I saw what you did, you turned that switch (meaning the ignition switch), and then you held onto that stick. I can do that, too.” But the African, at least, was innocent in his ignorance – he wasn’t arrogant enough to think that he could improve something that he didn’t understand. He didn’t remove the engine and rotor from the helicopter – replace them with a tree – and then complain it wouldn’t fly.

Having spent more than twenty years of his life almost desperately searching for direct and “actually proper” exercise, this man on the west coast not only remained totally unaware of what he was really seeking but promptly ruined it when it was provided.

With a barbell, direct exercise CANNOT be provided if rotation occurs around more than one axis – and it will not be provided even in single axis exercises unless the position of the involved body-parts is correct; and even then, usually only at a certain point during the movement.

Written by Arthur Jones.

The Great Debate: Using Barbells or Machines To Build Strength and Muscle

0 comments By admin Filed in Strength Training Tagged with , April 5th, 2010 @ 7:04 pm

Barbells have several advantages over exercise machines – even Nautilus exercise machines; and if the available exercise machines do not provide some sort of advantages that more than compensate for their inherent disadvantages, then you are better off using a barbell to build muscle fast. Nautilus machines do provide advantages that far more than compensate for their disadvantages -conventional exercise machines generally do not, and never to any really worthwhile degree.

An “opinion” of the inventor of Nautilus machines? Certainly it is my opinion – but it happens to be supportable fact as well. With only two or three insignificant exceptions (which I will list a bit later in this chapter), almost all conventional exercise machines are actually less productive than barbells – and this is true for obvious reasons; one of the limiting characteristics inherent in all exercise machines (including Nautilus machines) is the factor of “guided resistance” – instead of being free to move in any direction, as it is in almost all barbell exercises, the resistance is confined to a single “track of movement.” Another such limitation encountered in most exercise machines (but NOT in Nautilus machines) is “reverse geometry” – the mechanical designs used in most machines actually decrease the efficiency of the exercise movements.

Early attempts in the direction of building conventional exercise machines were usually limited to “redirecting gravity” – changing the “direction of resistance” from “down” to “up,” or from “down” to “across.” Barbells provide resistance in only one direction – vertically down, as a result of gravity; by the use of pulleys you can “redirect” the resistance, change the direction-of-resistance to any direction desired – but you will still have resistance in only one direction (uni-directional resistance). So at best you still have an exercise almost identical to a barbell exercise – and in most cases, and exercise not quite as good as a barbell exercise – and at the worst, an exercise far less effective than a barbell exercise.

Where and when such simple machines make it possible to work muscles that can not be worked with a barbell, then they are justified; conventional “lat machines” are examples of worthwhile applications of redirected barbell resistance – a leg-press machine is at least a practical example of another such application. But in general, such applications seldom provide any advantages over barbell exercises – and frequently are less effective for gaining muscle mass than barbell exercises.

The state of the art remained at that stage for a number of years, and during that period there were neither any significant improvements nor backward-steps in the nature of available training equipment; but when a major step finally was taken, it was a move in the wrong direction -perhaps primarily because of new and very plush “health studios”, the attentions of most equipment manufacturers turned towards improvements in convenience and appearance. But very little, if any, attention was given to function – and in almost all cases, the functions of exercise machines became worse.

Two companies in particular seem to have devoted most of their attentions and efforts towards attempts to design exercise machines that work on leverage principles – because, if cables could be eliminated and replaced by levers, the machines would then not be subject to such frequent breakdowns from cable wear; which would be fine, if the functions of the machines were not harmed in the process – but in fact, most such machines do suffer from greatly reduced function.

Secondly, the same companies were also greatly interested in trying to cram as many different “stations” into the smallest possible space, and wrap the whole thing into one package – eventually the term “jungle” resulted from this practice; and such machines are certainly just that, jungles, mixed-up multi-exercise monstrosities of little or no actual value by comparison to a barbell. It may be possible to cram fourteen people into a phone booth, too – but if so, then don’t plan on any of them using the phone.

In later chapters devoted to exact step-by-step examinations of the supposed purposes and actual functions of many different types of exercise machines and devices, I will point out a large number of the obvious mistakes that were incorporated into the design of most of the current crop of exercise machines; but for the moment, it is enough to state that a barbell is usually better – far better – than an exercise machine which is supposed to duplicate a barbell exercise. If you want barbell exercises, use a barbell – don’t try to make an elephant out of a mouse; barbells are very productive tools if they are properly used – and almost all conventional exercise machines are a firm step in the wrong direction.

Written by Arthur Jones.

The Four Steps of Meaningful Progression in The Field of Physical Training

0 comments By admin Filed in Strength Training Tagged with , , April 5th, 2010 @ 7:00 pm

The four steps of meaningful progression in the field of physical training have been (1) calisthenics, (2) gymnastics, (3) weight training, and (4) Nautilus training. In the field of transportation there have been four similar steps, (1) walking, (2) animal-powered transport, (3) internally-powered transport, and (4) aerial transport.

Each step in the field of transportation provided a marked increase in the speed of transportation at first, and eventually a reduction in the cost of transport; in the field of physical training, the various steps have each provided a a way to gain muscle fast, and simultaneously a reduction in the required amount of training (in effect, the “cost”).

Both the increases in the production of results and the decreases in the “cost” (the amount of exercise necessary) were provided by the same factor in all cases – each step produced a marked increase in the possible “intensity of effort”; gymnastics are harder than calisthenics -weight-training is harder than gymnastics (or, at least, it can be and shnbe, and will be if it is properly employed) – and Nautilus training is harder than conventional weight-training, to a degree that literally must be experienced to be understood.

All of this is so obvious that it seems almost needless to even say it -yet, in fact, it must not be obvious to many current weight-trainees, since they train in a fashion that clearly indicates that they are not even aware of the real facts of the matter.

From the very start of the investigations that finally produced the Nautilus methods and systems of training we were clearly aware of “what was needed” – HARDER EXERCISE; the problems have all been concerned with how to provide such harder exercise. I have long been aware that (in physiology, at least), ” . . . the sum of the parts is not always equal to the sum of the parts.”

In order to have an elephant, you must have an elephant’s head, an elephant’s body, four elephant legs, and a number of other parts – but you can have all of the required parts and still not have an elephant. In order to kill an elephant quickly with a .600 Nitro-Express rifle you must hit him in the brain, with a 900 grain bullet delivering an impact force of about 8,000 foot pounds – but you can shoot an elephant ten-thousand times with a .22 rifle delivering a total of both grains of bullet weight and foot-pounds of impact force many times as great as the totals from the .600 and still not kill him, and certainly not quickly, if at all.

In exercise, we find a similar situation – many light movements do not always equal one heavy movement.

In calisthenics you are primarily working against the resistance provided by only a small part of your own body weight – in gymnastics you are working against the resistance of all, or most, of your body weight – in weight-training you are (or should be, where possible) working against resistance far in excess of your body weight – and the only really “break” in this chain of progression from easy exercise to harder exercise to yet-harder exercise comes with the step up to Nautilus training, which provides “harder” exercise in an entirely different manner from that involved in the moves between previous steps; with Nautilus training, you will certainly work against greater resistance, but it isn’t simply a matter of increasing the poundage involved – instead it means that you will be using almost literally all of the mass of the muscles you are trying to work, rather than only a small part of the total mass of the muscles.

Until, and unless, you have experienced Nautilus training, you simply don’t know what “hard training” really is; but since the average person is too lazy to even do calisthenics, and most people are too lazy to do gymnastics, and even almost all weight-trainees are too lazy to use a barbell in an actually “hard” fashion, I do not expect very many people to quickly accept and practice a form of training that makes them all seem like child’s play by comparison – but a few people will, and the results they produce will eventually (and sooner than you might think) produce an entirely new breed of strength athletes.

You can slice it as thin as you can, or pile it as high as you like – but you still end up with cheese; if you started with cheese. You can kid yourself any way you like – but you can’t change facts; hard exercise -and ONLY HARD EXERCISE – will build muscle fast. If you are not willing to work hard, then forget it – there simply isn’t any other way to do it.

The Function of your Muscular Structures

0 comments By admin Filed in Strength Training Tagged with , March 30th, 2010 @ 6:57 pm

Human muscular structures – at least the type of muscular structures we are primarily concerned with here, which might be defined as the “visible muscles” by bodybuilders or the “useful muscles” by weight-lifters -perform work by contracting, by reducing their length, and thus exerting a pulling force on the body parts to which they are attached. While the body is fully capable of fast muscle gains and performing a number of “pushing” movements with great force, the actual power for all movements is provided by muscles which “pull.”

Since a significant degree of reciprocal movement (“in and out” movement, or “up and down” movement like that of a piston in the cylinder of an engine) is impossible for human body parts, almost all such movements are rotational in nature – but this rotary movement of body parts is powered by reciprocal function of muscular structures.

Unavoidably then, the ratio of efficiency of bodily movements is not constant; at the start of a movement such as a barbell curl, the involved muscles are exerting force almost straight “up,” approximately in line with he center-line of the muscles providing the power (primarily the biceps) -but the body part which is moved by this force, the forearms, cannot move “up,” they can only move “forward” by rotating around the axis of the elbow. Thus a large part of the force being exerted by the biceps is wasted, since the angle-of-pull is such that the efficiency ratio is very low at that point in the movement; in effect, that is the “weakest” point in the movement – paradoxically, however, it may well appear to be the strongest point in the movement, because (as in a barbell curl) there is literally no resistance at the start of the movement in most conventional exercises.

As the rotational movement of the forearms proceeds during the performance of a curl, the ratio of efficiency rapidly improves – up to a point, the so-called “sticking point” at which point the ratio of efficiency is at its best; but again, appearances are opposite to the facts – because, at that point in the movement, the moment-arm of the resistance is at its highest point and the “effective resistance” or torque is at its highest point, and thus the weight will feel heaviest at that point in the movement and the muscles will seem weakest.

In fact, that point in the movement is NOT the position of maximum strength – but it is the point of best efficiency; the position of maximum muscular strength is reached at the finish of the movement, in the position of full contraction – at that point, and only at that point, it is possible to involve all of a muscular structure in the work. It should be clearly understood that the ratio of efficiency has little or nothing to do with “measurable efficiency” – not, at least, if attempts are made to measure it on the basis of the ability to perform standard strength tests. The ratio of efficiency is based strictly upon a comparison of the amount of power being produced by the muscles and the amount of power reaching the involved body-parts; at the start of a curl, for example, very little of the power from the muscles is useful for any measurable purpose – but at the sticking-point in a curl, a very high percentage of the power is useful. After the movement has passed the sticking point in a curl, then the ratio of efficiency starts to decline again – although, in a curl at least, it will never return to the low point of efficiency that was experienced at the start of the movement.

Thus in a conventional curl, it seems that you are getting weaker as a curl moves from the starting point to the sticking point – when in fact you are getting stronger; and it seems you are getting stronger after you pass the sticking point – when in fact you are getting weaker. Or, at least, the efficiency ratio is improving when it appears to be declining – and vice versa. But all of these false impressions are due to the fact that the resistance in a conventional curl is reciprocal in nature – and thus not constant throughout the movement.

But even that isn’t the full story; because, in addition to the constantly changing efficiency ratio involved, you also have the factor of constantly changing muscular strength. At the start of a curl, the muscles are extended – and in the extended position a muscle can produce only part of its actual power. In order to produce power in proportion to its existing potential, a muscle must be in the position of full contraction. Thus the “input of strength: is constantly rising as a muscle moves from a position of full extension to one of full contraction; in effect, in a curl, the muscles provide constantly increasing amounts of power for the movement as you move from the straight-arm position to the bent-arm position. Although it will not appear that this is happening – for the reasons mentioned above.

When all of the factors are taken together, and when the curling muscles are exposed to rotary-form “direct” resistance so that it becomes possible to judge on the basis of actualities rather than appearances, it is immediately obvious that the usable strength for curling is at its lowest point at the start of the movement, increases to – and past – the sticking point, and then gradually falls off near the end of the movement. Up to the sticking point, all factors are contributing towards an increase in usable strength – the ratio of efficiency is improving and the power input is increasing at the same time; beyond the sticking point, the ratio of efficiency starts to drop off again, but the input of strength from the muscles continues to increase – and the net result is an overall increase in usable strength, up to a point. But beyond a certain point, the drop in efficiency is no longer fully – or more than fully, as is the case in some areas of the movement -compensated for by the increase in input of power from the muscles; and beyond that point, a drop in usable strength must occur.

Such interrelationships are actually quite simple in the case of a movement such as the curl, where movement is confined to rotary movement around one axis (the elbow axis), and where the angle-of-pull factors are easy to visualize and understand; but in some cases the situation is far from being simple or easy to understand – although the factors are known and have been carefully considered and allowed for, it is not an easy task to try to describe them to a person without the required background in physics and physiology.

For example, in a standing press with a barbell the movement is rotational around several axis points – and the angle-of-pull factors are also far more complex; likewise, the changing moment-arm factors in this movement are not as simple as they are in a curl, so it is not so easy to calculate effective resistance, or torque.

Nor is it enough to simply design an exercise – or an exercise machine -that “feels right,” that apparently has no sticking points or points of little or no resistance; the very fact that such an exercise did feel right to the average person, or almost ANY person, would in most cases be solid proof that it was “wrong.” Muscles cannot develop properly unless they are exposed to proper resistance – which is impossible with conventional exercises; thus actually proper resistance will almost always “feel wrong” at first contact. Our new curling machines “feel” almost perfectly even to me – that is, no point in the movement feels any heavier than any other point, the weight seems to be the same in all positions; while in fact it is constantly changing throughout the movement. Yet to a man with actually much larger arms – a man that has previously trained with conventional equipment – the machine feels decidedly “wrong” when it is first tried; many such individuals have been literally shocked to realize that they could not pass the mid-range of the movement with an actually very light weight – a weight that much smaller men who have used the machine for a while can handle easily in any position.

But the above must not be misconstrued to mean that the machines build “smaller” arms – on the contrary, the machines build muscle fast; the potentially largest and strongest part of a muscle is the center of the muscle – the center as determined by its position between the two ends of the muscle – and in conventional exercises this part of the muscle is seldom if ever involved in the work at all. As a result, most people – and this is even more true of men who have trained in a conventional manner than it is of men that have never trained at all – have very little strength or muscular size in the areas that should be largest and strongest; never having trained that part of their muscles – the major part, the potentially largest and strongest part – they have almost no strength or size in those areas. At this point in time, we still don’t know just what a fully developed muscular structure will even look like – but it is at least likely that the overall “shape” of fully-developed bodybuilders will be quite different from the shape that is seen today. To some degree, Casey Viator is already an example of “things to come” – standing relaxed, he looks much like many other bodybuilders, but when he flexes his muscles “things happen,” things that don’t happen when other bodybuilders flex their muscles, he seems to “grow” right before your eyes.

A year ago, a former Mr. America told me very heatedly that Casey could not possibly get any larger without becoming fat – but he did get larger, much larger, and he actually improved his degree of muscularity at the same time, and he did so while maintaining an overall symmetrical appearance; when Bill Pearl won the Mr. America contest it was noted that he did not win any of the “best body parts” awards, and it was mentioned that his failure to win these sub-divisions of the contest was proof of his symmetrical development, that no one body part “stood out” in such a fashion that it appeared outstandingly developed – yet Casey Viator won all of the body-parts awards except best abdominals, and he easily could have won that subdivision as well since his abdominal area is on a par with that of anybody living or dead.

Casey probably failed to win the award for best abdominals simply because that area of the body is never as obvious in a really bulky physique as it is in the case of a much thinner man: the average viewer – even the average judge of a physique contest – is so impressed by the rest of the physique that he simply overlooks the abdominal area, unless it is obviously poorly developed. But if the rest of the body is properly developed, then it is literally impossible for the abdominal area to be really poor; Casey’s abdominals are outstanding – yet he has done absolutely no direct work for that area of his body in more than a year – if you train the rest of the body properly, then the abdominal area will take care of itself. The billions of situps and leg-raises that have been performed by millions of trainees have been almost a complete waste of time and effort; if you have fat “anywhere” on the body, then you will have “more fat” in the abdominal area __ and if you have “any” fat in the abdominal area, then you will have “some” fat everywhere. You can get rid of all visible fat only by regulating the input of food in relation to the output of energy.

Our efforts have been primarily directed towards attempts to determine the exact functions of muscles – so that exercises could be provided in a logical manner, in a manner suitable to the functions of muscles rather than barbells. Later chapters devoted to particular exercises will help to make the real functions of most of the major muscular structures clear to the average reader; and while you might not care “why” a muscle functions as it does, it should at least be obvious that you must know “how” it functions in order to know how to provide proper exercise.

Written by Arthur Jones.

Your Ultimate Potential And Development

0 comments By admin Filed in Personal Tagged with , March 30th, 2010 @ 6:53 pm

“Potential” – in this sense, the ability to build muscular size and strength – can only be judged in retrospect and then only with a limited degree of certainty; after all who can say “what might have been?”

Nevertheless, the potential muscular size of the average individual is far beyond existing average muscular size; in effect, almost any healthy man can build muscle fast and strength to such a degree that most medical doctors would refuse to believe accurate “before” and “after” measurements and photographs. And at least a fair percentage of apparently average men can build literally huge muscular size.

In earlier chapters I have mentioned the relationship between muscular size and strength, and have noted that producing maximum-possible degrees of strength will also produce maximum-possible muscular size; but since this is a point of very great importance – and a point that is generally misunderstood by almost everybody in the weight-training world – I will go into a bit more detail in an effort to make this relationship perfectly clear.

Most weight-trainees are convinced that muscular size has little or no relationship to strength – and at first glance it might appear that there is quite a lot of evidence to support that belief; for example – (1) some men with 14 inch arms can curl or press more than other men with 16 inch arms – (2) almost all champion weight-lifters lack the muscular size of advanced bodybuilders, yet they are much stronger in spite of their smaller muscular mass – (3) many of the men with really outstanding degrees of muscular size are actually not very strong, certainly not as strong as they look.

Most of the above points can be answered in one short sentence, “… there is no valid basis for comparing the strength of one individual to that of another individual.”

Let us examine the points one at a time; first, assuming an equal length of the muscular structures, a 16 inch arm contains approximately twice as much muscular mass as a 14 inch arm – and if everything else is equal, then the larger arm will be capable of producing approximately twice as much power as the smaller one. But it does not follow that the larger arm will be able to “demonstrate” twice as much power – or lift twice as much weight; if the 14 inch arm is favored (it would be a favor in this case) with very short forearms – and the 16 inch arm is burdened with very long forearms – then the weight is being moved a greater distance in a curl by the larger arm, and more power (and thus more muscular size) will be required to move it the greater distance.

And the length of the forearms is not the only such “leverage factor” -additionally, such things as attachment-points and angles-of-insertion are involved; factors which have the effect of increasing or decreasing “measurable strength.”

And even if you are comparing a man’s 14 inch arm to the same man’s arm at a later date – after it has increased to 16 inches – the leverage factors will still not be exactly the same; as the size of an arm increases, the angles-of-insertion change – always unfavorable. This happens because a muscle can gain muscle mass only by becoming thicker – and because muscles produce power in a basically reciprocal fashion, exerting a pull in approximately straight lines; obviously then, as part of the mass of a muscle moves “out” due to an increase in the thickness of the muscle, the displaced portion of the muscle will no longer be pulling in the previous direction-of-pull – and as the direction-of-pull changes, the efficiency ratio is reduced, particularly in the strongest ranges of movement.

An increase in measurable strength will be produced in some cases – in some positions; but in general, displacement of the angle-of-pull resulting from an increase in muscular mass will produce a decrease in efficiency.

In effect, if a man increased his arm from 14 inches to 16 inches, then his curling ability would not increase in exact proportion to his gain in muscular size; even though the muscles were twice as large as they were previously, and could produce twice as much power, the curling strength would not be doubled as well – because some of the increased power would be wasted as a result of changed angles-of-pull.

Two, champion weight lifters may well be champions primarily because they have far better than average leverage factors helping them – and if so, they may not need much in the way of actual muscular bulk to lift heavy weights; and, of course, weight-lifting is an art requiring far more than strength – form, style, and other factors are equally important.

Also, the muscular mass itself may be very efficient in such individuals -since such efficiency is an individual thing.

Three, a bodybuilder with literally huge muscular size may also be primarily a result of his leverage factors – bad leverage factors; in such a case, an actually great mass of muscle would be required to lift only an average amount of weight.

Once this is understood, then the implications become obvious – a bodybuilder seeking to increase his muscular size should strive to increase strength, knowing that increases in strength will produce at least proportionate increases in muscular size; and weigh-lifters should strive to gain muscle fast for their sport, realizing that their strength will be increased as a result, if perhaps not in exact proportion. Such things as the length of bones, attachment points, etc. are determined by heredity; and by and large they cannot be altered -at least not to your advantage (my left triceps worked much better before it was ripped loose from the original attachment point).

It is at least possible that such individual differences have resulted in the gradual “drifting apart” of weight-lifters and bodybuilders – since it is only natural for a man with huge muscular size to resent the fact that a much smaller man can outperform him in strength demonstrations; and equally natural for the smaller man to look upon the bodybuilder’s muscles as “useless.”

But in so doing, by drawing apart, both factions have suffered – to at least a large degree because the training styles have gradually become almost two distinct practices; while neither the bodybuilders nor the weight-lifters realized that both should be training in an almost identical fashion – apart from training for style and form.

Some people can rather easily build great muscular size – some others can build great strength – and a few can build remarkable degrees of both; but the style of training should be almost identical in all cases, regardless of individual differences in potential, and no matter what the goals may be.

You cannot change your potential – but is probably greater than you think. And it might be of some interest to a few people to learn that recent evidence indicates that the best age (on the average) for making muscular size-strength gains is thirty-two.

Perhaps it isn’t “too late” after all.

Written by Arthur Jones.

Women Use Weight Training to Build Strength

0 comments By admin Filed in Strength Training Tagged with , March 30th, 2010 @ 3:32 am

“Spot reduction” is a myth – for men or for women – a physiological impossibility; the overall amount of fat is just that, an “overall” condition – the result of too much food and-or too little exercise. But in certain sections of the body of women or men, a very noticeable degree of “apparent spot reduction” can be produced – sometimes in as short a period as a day or so, or even a matter of hours.

When a fat appearance is a result of poor muscle-tone, as it frequently is – particularly in young women, but not uncommonly in men – then literally spectacular “apparent results” can be produced if direct exercise is applied to that area of the body; with little or no change in the body weight, and no measurable reduction in the actual fat content of the body – and with no change in the diet. And without increasing the size of the involved muscles to any noticeable degree – and with no increase in the size of other muscular structures in the body.

Since this condition is most commonly developed in the upper-thighs and in the buttocks, and since conventional exercises for these muscles involve working the much larger muscles of the frontal thighs as well as the muscles you are actually trying to reach – exercises such as squats and leg presses – and since most women are not anxious to increase the overall size of their thighs (even if they are willing to use such hard exercises, and few are), it is obviously necessary to provide some form of direct exercise for the buttocks and upper-thigh muscles that work in connection with each other; with conventional exercise equipment, the closest approach is with a “thigh curl” machine – an exercise machine that applies direct exercise for the primary function of the thigh biceps, the muscles that bend the lower-legs back against the rear of the thighs.

Such exercise will produce some results in the area – and will do so without involving the much larger frontal-thigh muscles; but there is still a lot lacking in this “closest approach.” Primarily because you really need to involve the secondary function of the thigh biceps – moving the thigh back into line with the torso – and because you also need to directly involve the buttocks muscles, which have a very similar function. For these specific purposes, we have recently developed a new machine that works the muscles of this area directly; the Nautilus Buttocks (“Glute Curl”) Machine.

Of little or no use to the average man, who should be willing and able to work this area of his body heavily in a normal manner while performing heavy exercises for the legs, such machines will undoubtedly find widespread acceptance by women – for several reasons; primarily because these machines can and will produce the desired results very quickly, but also because they will do so without requiring much-heavier types of exercise involving the major muscles of the thighs, and because no skill or practice is required on the part of the user.

However, I have mentioned the above described machine for a very good reason – because it is one of a very few “exceptional” exercise devices (or exercises), exceptional in that it is primarily limited to the use of women; but by and large, women should practice almost all of the same exercises that are used by men – and they can do so without the “danger” of building huge muscles. Which danger simply does not exist in the case of a normal woman.

The average woman could not build muscle fast if her life depended on it – and for health purposes, for reducing purposes, or toning purposes, women should use the same basic exercises that men do. But in an almost opposite manner; instead of trying for maximum-possible “intensity of effort,” they should strive for nothing more than a medium intensity – and instead of trying to reduce the “amount” of exercise to its lowest possible point while still meeting the other requirements, they should practice as much in the way of exercise as it is reasonably possible to do without resulting exhaustion. In short, women should train more than men – but not as hard.

Apart from these general considerations, practically all the rules for training of men apply to with almost equal validity to women.

Steroids – the so-called “growth drugs”

0 comments By admin Filed in Personal Tagged with , March 30th, 2010 @ 3:27 am

A few years ago, bodybuilders on the west coast were beating-up hippies -today, many thousands of bodybuilders have adopted the hippie style of life, drugs and all. Steroids – the so-called “growth drugs” – have become an almost universal fact of life in the weight-training world; and stupid as such utilization of these dangerous drugs may be, it is at least understandable. But drugs are no longer restricted to the steroid category – at a recent lifting meet, one of the heavyweight lifters was so stoned he literally didn’t know where he was or what he was doing.

There is no rational excuse for the use of nay kind of drugs by healthy individuals – but since it is apparently not in the realm of possibility for me to say anything that might influence people already involved in such practices, I will limit my remarks to a simple statement of the facts as they exist.

Large numbers of young men are attracted to the field of weight training every year – and under the circumstances, it is inevitable that many of them will be influenced by common attitudes and habits that will literally destroy no small numbers of them; in the present state of affairs, the parents of young men attracted to weight training would be well advised to do everything possible to channel this interest into another direction -and if that is not possible, then extreme care should be used in selecting a training environment. If possible, training should be restricted to the home; and for the benefit of those readers who may assume that this is an attempt on my part to sell more equipment, I will add that absolutely nothing in the way of special equipment is required. Very good results can be quickly produced by the use of a barbell, a chinning bar, a pair of parallel bars, and a squat rack – none of which items are manufactured or sold by myself.

The above is not meant to imply that there are literally no decent commercial training environments – there are many; but they do not exist in proportion to the need.

To the young trainee still in doubt on the subject of drugs, I can only say that the use of drugs WILL NOT help you to build muscle fast – regardless of what you may hear or read to the contrary; during the last few months alone, we have observed several cases of very serious effects from the use of drugs by bodybuilders – and no slightest sign of any worthwhile results from their use.

Written by Arthur Jones.

The Incredible Benefits of Weight Training

0 comments By admin Filed in Personal Tagged with , , March 30th, 2010 @ 3:18 am

Are the benefits of weight-training worth the price? If the price is that paid by many – perhaps most – currently-active trainees, then the answer can only be negative; for a physically-normal individual, the possible benefits of weight-training are simply not worth the price of fanaticism -if a man must become a slave to his training, then it simply isn’t justified on any rational basis.

For a physically-subnormal individual, the situation may be entirely different – sometimes almost any amount of training is not only justified but is an actual requirement for anything approaching a normal existence. But in normal situations – in most situations – the value of the possible results must be carefully compared to the price. And if the price really is that which it is assumed to be by most advanced bodybuilders, then the possible results are grossly overpriced. Fortunately, the opinions of advanced bodybuilders can seldom be considered gospel – personally, I have finally reached a point where I am highly suspicious of anything that such people believe; the very fact that something is being supported by advanced bodybuilders is enough, to me, to raise strong doubts on the subject -after thirty years of interest and no small amount of involvement in the field, I have yet to meet a bodybuilder that understood the basic physics involved in barbell training. Somewhat like lemmings – and with very similar final results – they all seem to be rushing blindly in the same direction, simply because everybody else is doing the same thing.

In my carefully considered opinion, most currently-active advanced bodybuilders will never accept an actually-rational method or style of training – primarily, I think, because many of them are too stupid to understand the real factors involved, and too biased to accept them even if they can understand them; which is a far more pitiful commentary on the state of affairs than it might appear to be at first glance – because the actually-important factors that must be understood for the most practical utilization of weight training ( for any purpose) are really very simple, perhaps too simple.

Sour grapes hopefully intended to explain a lack of acceptance of my ideas or my machines? Some people will think so – but opinions don’t change facts; and as a matter of fact, we have been simply swamped by orders for our machines since long before they even went into production on a commercial basis – and with very few exceptions, the people who bought the machines from us at first on a sight-unseen basis have promptly ordered more machines. So, since we have literally ad more business than we could handle up to this point, and since the flow of orders is constantly increasing, it would seem that both my ideas and my machines have achieved at least a reasonable amount of acceptance – in many cases, even if somewhat to my surprise, from advanced bodybuilders.

The simple fact of the matter is that rationally-practiced progressive weight-training is capable of producing results in the way of increases in strength and muscular size that cannot be duplicated by

ny amount of any other type of presently-existing training; strength for any purpose – for a normal life, for sports, for improved health and-or appearance.

And it is equally true that you can build muscle fast with less than four hours of weekly training – very quickly produced; and for individuals with more reasonable goals, and hour and a half of weekly training will produce results within a period of a few months that must be personally experienced to be appreciated.

Weight-training certainly is not the answer to all health problems – but it just as certainly is the answer to a long list of physical problems, many of which can be solved in no other practical manner; and where strength is a factor, it is the only rational choice.

Most people have no desire to be either as big or as strong as Casey Viator – but regardless of your personal goals, it is only common sense to use the most productive method available; and the system of employing the best method is of great importance as well – but the most likely-looking source of information on that score is in fact the poorest possible source of any meaningful information. The simple truth is that advanced bodybuilders in general have no slightest idea what they are doing – or even why they are doing it.

So far without single exception, the advanced bodybuilders that I have trained or closely associated with seem to be unable to progress beyond a certain point if left up to their own devices – and actually good results are to be produced, they must be constantly supervised in their training; if not, they quickly start backsliding. Under the circumstances, I can reach only one logical conclusion; regardless of their statements, the either do not understand or will not accept the validity of the actually important points – and when permitted to supervise their own training, they quickly fall back into habits of overtraining insofar as amount of training is concerned, and under-training in intensity of effort.

For the average person, however, no such drive or self-discipline is required; you can gain muscle fast from a very small amount of the proper type of training.

Read previous entries

Copyright © Bushido History

Powered by WordPress