RSS

Category Strength Training

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.

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.

Your Mental Relationship with Strength and Muscle Gains

0 comments By admin Filed in Strength Training Tagged with , March 27th, 2010 @ 11:08 pm

By this point, intelligent readers will be well aware of – and perhaps irritated by – my previous comments alluding to the psychology of bodybuilders; so I feel that a clear statement on the subject is in order. In this direction, a few case histories from my personal files may help to establish some sort of a meaningful pattern.

SUBJECT “A”

A man of about thirty when I first met him, the winner of many physique contests – but a seething mass of emotions under an apparently calm exterior. Atypical in that he was willing to work and was reasonably successful in his own business.

I had been out of direct contact with the body building field for a number of years when I first met this subject, and I was then unaware of the use of drugs by bodybuilders in order to build muscle fast – but he openly admitted that he was using at least one type of drug, and told me that he was as yet undecided about the effects, if any. Ten years later he heatedly denied ever having used drugs of any kind during several conversations on the subject and roundly condemned other leading bodybuilders for being “drug freaks;” but in another conversation – apparently having forgotten his previous denials – he admitted that he had used drugs, “once.”

During my first contact with this individual I broached the subject of weight-training but immediately realized that doing so was a mistake, his totally closed-minded attitude was far too obvious to overlook; so, since our relationship was not based upon physical training activities, and since I liked him as an individual, I never opened the subject with him again for a period of about ten years.

In the meantime, information that I considered of great significance had gradually come to my attention as a result of my continuing interest in the field of weight-training – and eventually, I felt that I should at least attempt to communicate some of these new developments to the individual under discussion. Which attempt was made – with, up to the moment, entirely negative results; at first he pretended interest while obviously not understanding even the basic principles involved – later he apparently started to suspect that there might at least be some financial opportunity, and he then promised full cooperation, but somehow always managed an excuse for failing to live up to any of his promises – still later, by which time the financial opportunity was obvious, he attempted, in his own words, “to jump on the bandwagon,” but he still failed to live up to any of his promises – finally, in cooperation with a number of associates, he started making outright attempts to belittle the significance of the new developments, while at the same time attempting to produce and market exercise machines based on the new principles, which principles he plainly did not understand.

When reports of his actions – which contrasted sharply with his statements – first reached me, I called him and asked for an explanation; and he denied all of the reports that had been brought to my attention. Repeatedly. Finally, in an effort to get the facts, I sent a friend around for the purpose of making an investigation, and then I telephoned and demanded an explanation.

During the course of a one-hour telephone conversation, his emotions ran the gamut from calm denials of obvious fact to outraged and irrational accusations; but he still attempted to deny undeniable facts.

None of which above-listed reactions are limited to bodybuilders, of course – but all of which (apart from this individual’s attitude towards gainful employment) seem to be typical of at least a very high percentage of advanced bodybuilders. Eighty percent? Ninety percent? Ninety-five percent? I don’t know, exactly – but a very, very high percentage.

SUBJECT “B”

A man of thirty-five, married to – or at least living with – a woman with a rather large number of children. While claiming a somewhat better than average educational background that qualified him for high school-level teaching positions, he sought low-paying employment in Florida in order, he said, to be able to devote most of his time and attention to body building training. In spice of his education, this subject avidly read all of the body building periodicals and admittedly believed everything he read.

Loud and pushy in situations where he felt confident, he was extremely hesitant and obviously unsure of himself in unfamiliar situations. Quick to jump to mistaken conclusions based on misunderstood hearsay, he was just as quick to change side. Totally without regard for the rights or feelings of other people, he expected great consideration from everybody.

In the end he made the mistake of offering drugs to one of my children.

SUBJECT “C”

Approximately thirty, the picture of a man – or, at least, his picture of a man; sporty automobile, flashy clothes, unused sporting equipment of a wide variety, a wig. In short, a great assortment of possessions and attitudes, none of which were unusual or significant in themselves – but all of which, taken together, spelled “self doubt”.

In common with the previously-mentioned subjects – and with a very high percentage of advanced bodybuilders – everything in his life was strictly secondary to his body building aspirations.

SUBJECT “D”

In his late twenties, the owner of a business in a field related to the primary subject of this bulletin – which in itself is apparently part of an emerging pattern, since most advanced bodybuilders seem to eventually become involved commercially in the field. A cause – or and effect? Are such people unable to conform to normal society? Are they rejected by society and thus forced to seek the company of their peers?

While almost all advanced bodybuilders are jealous of contemporaries, and critical in the extreme, they nevertheless go to great lengths to seek approval from their imagined competition. Competition for what? Just what are the prizes, where is the hoped-for reward – the approval of an extremely closed society of individuals like themselves, who are apparently constitutionally incapable of bestowing actual approval on anybody? But this subject was atypical in that he could not – or would not – conform to the accepted rules of even his own chosen society, and was thus openly rejected even by his own. Perhaps a result of the fact that – unlike most advanced bodybuilders – he had been make independent by inherited wealth?

SUBJECT “E”

In his early twenties, an extreme example of a self-created freak – at least capable of apparently relaxed charm, an uncommon trait among bodybuilders in general: perhaps the result of having reached what he probably considers an unchallengeable pinnacle in his own limited world? Or is he really as confident as he appears on the surface? And if so, why must he make such efforts to constantly reprove himself?

This subject displays a trait that is currently very commonly encountered in body building circles – deceit; having lied about their measurements, their body weight, their strength, their training routines, their fast muscle gains, and many other things almost as a matter of course, many advanced bodybuilders finally drift into a habit of habitually lying about almost everything.

SUBJECTS “F”, “G”, “H”, etc.

Having a lot in common with the general pattern of character traits displayed by the subjects mentioned above, they typical advanced bodybuilder of the moment is certainly not the “Ideal Man” described by weight-training publications.

The only question of real importance seems to be, “… are such traits a cause, or an effect.”

But the fact of these common traits is beyond question; and under the circumstances, it is only common sense to question the whole subject. There are exceptions, of course, but on the whole the character traits outlined above are extremely common – far more common than might be expected, far too common.

I can offer no solution to the problem – but I have personally learned to approach bodybuilders with great suspicion, expecting the worst.

Written by Arthur Jones.

If You Want to Build Strength and Muscle Mass Then Keep Your Workouts Short.

0 comments By admin Filed in Strength Training Tagged with , March 27th, 2010 @ 11:04 pm

Reasonable determinations of rates of progress must be based on two separate time factors, “total training time” and “elapsed training time.” Total training time is determined by the total number of hours devoted to training during a certain period of time – elapsed training time is the time period involved, days, weeks, months, or years.

Other related time factors are “actual training time,” the time actually devoted to working against resistance – or, in effect, total training time minus resting time that occurs during the workouts; the “pace of training,” which is determined by the delay between sets and the speed of movement; and, of course, the “speed of movement” itself.

Final results that appear quite good when measured against only one of the above factors may in fact be quite poor – but most bodybuilders seem to be concerned only with elapsed training time, and are apparently willing to devote almost any amount of total training time to their workouts if they feel that such marathon workouts will reduce the elapsed training time; but in fact, quite the opposite is true – and such long and frequent workouts actually (and enormously) retard progress as measured on any scale.

So – back on the treadmill; running faster and faster and getting nowhere. But even when it is possible to make an individual aware of the real facts, it still remains almost impossible to make all of the involved time factors clear in relation to each other; if, for example, you are finally able to make a particular trainee aware of the requirement for an almost zero time delay (or resting period) between sets of different exercises performed “in cycle” in keeping with the “pre-exhaustion” principle of training, this information is then usually misinterpreted to mean that the exercises themselves should be rushed through – which is of course not at all desirable.

Instead, each set of every exercise should be performed properly – with absolutely no consideration for how much time is involved; and only after one set has been correctly completed, should the “rush factor” be involved – in effect, do each set right, but then move immediately to the next set in the cycle.

Our primary interests have been aimed in the direction of how to build muscle fast from each week of training – and within reason, we have been willing to adjust the other time factors to almost any extent in order to improve weekly rates of progress; in effect, we did not care how much total training time was involved – we, like most bodybuilders, were willing to extend the total training time if such an extension would reduce the elapsed training time.

But eventually – even if somewhat to our surprise – it became obvious that it was necessary to reduce total training time in order to reduce elapsed training time; which result, on the face of it, at first seems ridiculous – after all, in how many other situations can you produce faster results by devoting less time to the job? In this instance, faster results meaning “better results” – in every sense of the word better.

But in situations with interrelated physiological and psychological factors, rather strange results are frequently forthcoming – unavoidably plain, if not always clearly understood; for example, during the course of several years devoted to capturing large animals in Africa, we learned that the method of capture which appears to be the least damaging to the animals is actually the most damaging – while another method of capture that we at first avoided because it seemed to be obviously detrimental to the animals, in the end proved to be the best method.

Capturing animals by running them down in broad daylight with a vehicle would appear to be a very dangerous method of capture – since it obviously involves very strenuous and sometimes long-extended efforts on the part of the animals; while capturing the same animals at night, using the element of surprise, would seem to be the easiest method – and the least damaging to the animals, since such captures can normally be made with no chasing at all. But in fact, quite the opposite is true in both cases.

I have never been able to determine just why the results turn out as they do, but the results themselves are obvious – an animal captured at night with no chasing stands a very good chance of dropping dead shortly afterwards, apparently from shock – while an animal that might appear to have been chased almost literally to death in broad daylight will seldom suffer any bad effects and will usually do quite well in captivity afterwards. There is, of course, a limit to just how much chasing an animal can stand – but within reason, such chasing actually seems to reduce the chance of shock from the capture.

In a similar vein, an animal that is shot by surprise will frequently drop dead from a wound that would not have bothered him much if he had been warned of danger in advance of the shot. While an animal that is aware of danger prior to the shot will sometimes continue frantic efforts with a wound that would seem t make any movement impossible – there are many accurate reports of large animals killing hunters after having their hearts destroyed by heavy bullets.

In such instances, the actually involved factors are far from being clearly understood – while the results are obvious; and in exercise of human muscular structures – particularly when such exercises are compound movements involving several large muscles – somewhat similar results are observed.

In effect, it is obvious that a certain amount of time is required for a muscle to prepare itself for intense exertion – without which preparation, damage may result; secondly, it is also obvious that a muscle so prepared is then capable of working at greater intensity. Most weight-trainees are at least aware that such time factors are involved in strenuous exercise – but very few trainees actually understand the implications; for example, the great number of theories regarding the requirement for “warming up” indicates a total lack of widespread agreement on this subject.

Again, it is not necessary to understand the cause-effect relationships involved – so long as the implications are clear. But when an understanding is possible, it is then sometimes also possible to make practical use of the knowledge in apparently unrelated applications; for example, on the practical level it has long been obvious that a resting muscle recovers more quickly if it is exposed to a workload of low intensity during the resting period between heavy exertions – I say that this has been obvious on the practical level because people have made use of this knowledge in practical ways while really not understanding the cause-effect relationship, and frequently without even knowing that they were making use of this knowledge. Horses are walked after a fast run, and this is practical utilization of the factor under discussion – but few people have ever wondered why this is done.

In body building, so-called “super sets” have been in wide use for a number of years – yet nobody seems to have noticed the actual cause-effect relationship responsible for the good results produced from such a style of training; and being unaware of the real factors involved, other practical applications of the same factors have thus been overlooked by almost all bodybuilders – while a few bodybuilders have made more or less accidentally-proper use of these factors.

Heavy work performed by a muscle results in much-lighter work by the opposing muscular structure – in effect, working the triceps results in a much lower order of work by the biceps, and vice versa. So doing a heavy set of curls for the biceps between two heavy sets of a triceps exercise will actually result in faster and more complete recovery by the triceps than would have been experienced if total rest had been employed instead of the work for the opposing muscles.

You might, for example, perform a set of triceps extensions to the point of failure with 100 pounds – and during the first set you might reach a point of failure after ten repetitions; then, following a rest period without exercise of any kind, you might be able to perform only eight repetitions during the second set of triceps work with the same resistance. But if, instead of resting between sets for the triceps, you had performed a heavy set of curls for the biceps between the two triceps sets, you might then have been able to get nine or ten repetitions during the second set for the triceps; because the heavy biceps work would have provided a much lower order of triceps work during the period when the triceps muscles were recovering between heavy sets – and this reduced workload for the triceps would have hastened and improved the recovery of the triceps.

A similar result can be produced without using super sets – but with an unavoidable disadvantage; instead of doing biceps work between two sets of triceps work, you could perform a very light set of triceps work between heavy sets for the triceps – but in that case you would be increasing the amount of exercise involved. Whereas, by using super sets, no additional exercise is being added to the workouts.

From the above, it should be obvious that working the biceps one day and the triceps on another day is a very poor style of training – yet such a style of training is very common among bodybuilders.

In a body building magazine dated September, 1958, apparently-first announcement of the so-called “Inter-set Relaxation Principle” was made; a long article under the byline of the publisher of the magazine made extravagant claims regarding the supposed value of this “discovery – and urged readers to later remember where they first read about the new training style advocated. Or the new “resting style,” since the article dealt with the time periods between sets of an exercise.

This article urges “more than total rest” between sets – instead of merely resting in the usual manner, the reader was advised to relax “totally,” whatever that means; and the statement was made that this new principle was the “ultimate” step toward achieving the perfect human body.

In the same article, the author also claimed credit for other supposedly revolutionary training principles – and listed among others the “Flushing Method” the “Muscle Cramping Method,” and “The Mental Contraction Method,” all of which, from their very names, were obviously intended to produce results almost exactly opposite from the results being sought by users of the Inter-set Relaxation Principle. So the readers are simultaneously being urged to do everything possible to prevent muscle-recovery and to hasten and improve muscle-recovery.

And as should be obvious if the previously mentioned result produced by a lower order of work between heavy sets of exercise is clearly understood, total relaxation immediately following heavy work – or between heavy sets of exercise – is certainly NOT the way to hasten or improve muscle-recovery.

It was suggested in the same article that trainees – by making use of this “new principle” – could thus manage to squeeze even more exercises, or more sets, into their workouts; the obvious implication being that the “amount” of exercise is the most-important factor – when in fact, a large amount of exercise will literally prevent muscular size and strength increases. All of the evidence clearly supports the contention that the “intensity of exercise” should be as high as possible – and that the “amount of exercise” should be limited to the absolute minimum that will produce the desired growth stimulation. If one set of one repetition of one exercise would produce maximum-possible growth stimulation – which, unfortunately, it will not – then that would be the ideal amount of exercise.

The truth of the matter s that weight-training publications ran out of anything significant to say over twenty years ago – and having said the same things in a thousand different ways, the publishers of such periodicals are understandably quick to give attention to almost anything that might be considered new or original; but originality is no proof of validity.

The publisher of one such group of magazines has gone to great lengths in his efforts to prove that the “science of body building” has made great strides during the last few years – primarily as a result of his personal efforts, of course; but the obvious fact remains that this same period of time has actually produced a decline in the average degree of results produced by weight-trainees.

The average weight of a group of 100 men selected at random might be 160 pounds – but within that group you could probably expect to find one individual weighing 190 pounds, and another weighing 130 pounds.

And if the group was extended to 1,000 men selected at random, the average weight would still be 160 pounds – but now you would have ten individuals weighing 190 pounds (instead of only one) and one individual weighing 210 pounds. Likewise, there would be more below-average individuals, and probably at least one individual that was far below average.

And if the group was extended to 10,000 men selected at random, the average would remain the same 160 pounds – with a hundred men weighing 190 pounds, ten men weighing 210 pounds, and one man weighing 230 pounds.

And so on – as the sample increases in size, the “peaks” and the “valleys” will move farther away from the average, but the average will remain the same.

The last twenty years have resulted in an enormous increase in the number of individuals involved in weight-training activities – so it is only to be expected that the actual size of a few outstanding individuals would be greater now than it was twenty years ago; but this is certainly no proof that the overall results produced by weight-training are better now than they were previously.

Such proof of an improvement in method, or tools, or the systems of employing the available tools must come from – CAN ONLY COME FROM – a rise in the average production of results; and this has certainly not occurred in weight-training circles – on the contrary, there has been a distinct decline in the average production of results during the last twenty years.

Most of the decline, I feel, has been a direct result of commercially biased advertising – trainees have been led to believe that they can “buy success,” that they can eat and gain muscle fast, or find strength in a bottle. Weight-trainees, being only human, have been quick to believe what they wanted to believe, to listen to what they wanted to hear – if there really was such an “easy” road to the top, they were more than willing to follow it.

Most people will take the apparently “easy” way out in any situation, and for that very reason truly outstanding individuals are rare in any field; this apparently basic “law” of human behavior has certainly not been set aside in favor of bodybuilders – who by and large, if anything, seem to be even quicker than average to grasp at straws in search of “easy” solutions to their problems.

At least a practical knowledge of the relative time factors will probably result if careful attention is given to later chapters dealing with the correct style of performance of exercises; but I repeat, do not fall into the common habit of rushing through the exercises themselves – when the “rush factor” is involved, it is applicable ONLY between sets.

Barbell Weight Training vs Machine Training

0 comments By admin Filed in Strength Training Tagged with , March 25th, 2010 @ 10:43 pm

By comparison to any previously-existing tool intended for the same purpose to gain muscle mass, the barbell is almost a miracle machine – with proper use, a barbell is capable of producing degrees of muscular size that are almost unbelievable; so the barbell is certainly a good tool – but it still leaves a great deal to be desired.

The physical – and physiological – factors responsible for the shortcomings of the barbell are actually quite simple, but largely misunderstood. Because the “direction of resistance” provided by barbells is unidirectional (one-directional), it is obviously impossible to provide “rotary resistance” with barbells; and, because the involved body parts moved by human muscles function in a rotary fashion, it is thus impossible to provide resistance against such movement throughout the entire possible range of movement involved in most exercises.

Also, because of the way in which muscular contraction occurs, it thus becomes impossible to provide any resistance at all in the position of full contraction inmost barbell exercises – and since all of a particular muscular mass can become involved in any form of exercise only in a position of full contraction, it is thus impossible (with barbells) to exercise muscles in their strongest positions.

To an individual with even a reasonable knowledge of basic physics (as it applies to barbell exercises) and a knowledge of human muscular function, the above two paragraphs should make the situation very clear; but, unfortunately, those qualifications eliminate almost all weight trainees -the very people who most need to understand these simple facts generally lacks the educational background for anything even approaching an actual understanding. And, equally unfortunately, most of them “think they understand,” when in fact they don’t.

The very existence of a so-called “sticking point” – a point during the exercise movement where the resistance feels heavier than it does at other points – should make it obvious that the muscles are being worked harder in some in some positions than they are in other positions. Likewise, if you are aware that you can “lock out” under a barbell in some positions – and thus support the weight without any significant muscular action – then you should also be aware that the muscles are not being worked in those positions.

All experienced bodybuilders are aware of both sticking-points and their ability to lock-out under the weight in some positions, but few have any idea of the significance of such things; both of these factors (sticking points and lock-out ability) are direct results of the fact that you are trying to provide constant resistance against a rotary form of movement by using a reciprocal form of resistance – an obvious impossibility.

You cannot proceed around a curve in the road by continuing to move in a straight line – and rotary resistance must be provided against rotary movement if you are trying to exercise muscles in all positions.

Using Nautilus exercise machines – which do provide rotary forms of resistance – we can produce a degree of muscular “pump” that is several times as great as the maximum degree of pump that can be produced by any amount of barbell exercise: and this is clear proof of the fact that a far higher percentage of the actual number of fibers contained in the muscles being exercised are involved in the work. Such pumping is a result of the fact that working muscles require more circulation; if only part of a muscle is working, then a small degree of pump will be produced – but if the entire muscle is working, then a simply enormous degree of pumping is produced from a very small “amount” of exercise.

In several cases – with extremely muscular individuals – we have been able to produce a degree of pumping that resulted in a temporary doubling of the mass of the upper arms; after less than eight minutes of such exercise, the arms of these subjects were swollen to literally grotesque proportions.

With a less muscular individual, a very similar degree of pumping will be produced but will not be so obvious – because a large part of the mass of the arms will be fatty tissue (which, of course, does not pump as a result of exercise), and the actually muscular mass of the arms may represent as little as fifty per cent of the total mass of the same limbs.

In a similar vein, we have long noted that there is very little difference in the measurement of a “fat” arm hanging in a straight and relaxed position and the measurement of the same arm in a bent and flexed position; a recent visitor had a relaxed upper-arm measurement of 18 1/8 inches and a flexed measurement of 18 1/4 inches – a difference of only 1/8 of an inch. When he asked me why there was such a small difference, I told him, “… because you can’t flex fat.”

But, back to the subject at hand – the value of barbells, and the problems with barbells; when the basic physics involved in the situation is clearly understood, it becomes obvious that barbell exercises tend to provide resistance for muscles only in their weakest positions (or nearly-weakest positions), and that little or no resistance is provided in the strongest positions of the muscles involved. Just “why” a muscle responds (by growing) when it is exposed to a work-load of great intensity is really of no importance – so long as we are aware that this response is thus created; but it should be obvious that growth-stimulation cannot be induced if there is literally no imposed resistance – and in most barbell exercises, that is exactly the situation that is encountered in the fully contracted positions of muscles.

In later chapters devoted to the correct style of performance of barbell exercises, I will go into exact details of the physics involved; but for the moment, I will restrict my comments to general observations on the subject.

In spite of the lack of rotary resistance in barbell exercises, we do encounter a certain amount of “variation of resistance” in such movements -which is a mixed blessing; in some cases the variation of resistance encountered in barbell exercises is a decided advantage – and in some instances it is disadvantageous. Sometimes both advantages and disadvantages are encountered in the same exercise; for example, in the barbell curl (or in any form of conventional curling) the effective resistance or actual “torque” increases as the movement progresses from the starting position up to the sticking-point – but having passed the sticking-point, the torque rapidly decreases to the point of zero. This effective variation of available resistance is a decided advantage during the first part of the movement because the resistance is thus increasing at the same time that the available strength for producing the movement is increasing – but after passing the sticking point, the resulting decrease in resistance is a decided disadvantage.

In a few conventional exercises, because of the restricted ranges of movement or because of other factors, it is possible to perform the movements in such a sway that the available variations in effective resistance are entirely positive in nature – even if perhaps not perfect; in such cases, a barbell is the tool of obvious choice – for several reasons, because of cost, ready availability, and convenience. The best of such exercises are wrist curls, calf raises, stiff-legged deadlifts, shoulder shrugs, side raises, sit-ups, and leg raises. All of these should be performed in such a manner that the resistance increases throughout the movement – which style will not result in the exactly “right” rate of resistance increase, but will at least be a great improvement over the normal style of performance.

As should be obvious by this point, a general practice should be to avoid barbell exercises which involve definite sticking points and-or points where it is possible to lock-out under the weight – and seek barbell exercises that are not so restricted; but there are exceptions to that general rule -the squat, the press and the curl are such exceptions, and these movements are productive in spite of the limiting factors encountered, if not nearly as effective as they would be without such limitations.

But as the intelligent reader might expect by this point, the fact of the matter is that most bodybuilders avoid the hardest – and thus the most productive in terms of trying to build muscle fast – styles of performing these good basic barbell exercises; paradoxically, these movements are avoided for the same reason that they are productive – because they are a very “hard” group of exercises if properly performed.

Written by Arthur Jones.

Read previous entries

Copyright © Bushido History

Powered by WordPress