Nautilus training bulletin #1

[Goosey]

The Arthur Jones Collection

Nautilus Bulletin #1

12 Secondary Growth Factors

Regardless of how much growth stimulation is induced, little in the way of results will be produced unless the requirements of several other factors are also provided.

Basically these factors are as follows:
(1) nutritional,
(2) provisions for adequate rest,
(3) the avoidance of overwork, and
(4) psychological (various).

Most of these factors have been mentioned in the preceding chapters, and it now remains necessary only to view them together; but it should be clearly understood from the start that – in the author's carefully considered opinion – nothing even bordering upon any form of fanaticism is required by any of these factors.

Yet such fanaticism exists on a wide scale in weight training circles today; primarily, I think as a direct result of commercialized fraud – the carefully calculated encouragement of fanaticism, performed for the sole purpose of selling worthless products. Literally thousands of weight trainees are almost entirely existing upon diets of nearly pure protein, others completely stop or greatly curtail their sexual activities, and quite a number are taking various forms of so-called "growth drugs."

And none of these things can be justified in any slightest degree. Maximum possible gains from any sort of training program can be produced while living a completely normal life; and, in fact, there is great weight of evidence that supports the contention that a normal existence is actually a requirement for best possible gains.

A man on a program of heavy physical training will obviously require enough extra calories to supply the energy required by such training – or, at least, he will if he hopes to maintain his existing bodyweight; and if he wishes to gain additional bodyweight, then he will require even more in the way of nutritional factors.

But such requirements can come – and, indeed, should come – from a fairly normal diet; such a diet should be well rounded in makeup, and should contain enough protein to meet the requirements of the moment.

Absolutely nothing else in the way of a special diet is required. There is little or no evidence to support the need for supplementary vitamins – if a well balanced diet is provided; indeed, the great weight of available evidence clearly indicates that such vitamin intake is of absolutely no value.

Where additional protein is required – in the case of a trainee that wishes to gain weight rapidly as a result of his training – this can easily and cheaply be provided from commonly available sources; raw eggs, powdered, non-fat milk solids (powdered milk), and soy powder will provide enough protein for any possible requirements.

Two or three daily "milkshakes" made according to the following recipe will provide enough protein for a 250 pound man that is anxious to gain weight rapidly – if taken in addition to a well rounded, normal diet.
1. Four raw eggs
2. One-half cup of soy powder
3. One and one-half cups of powdered milk, non-fat
4. Enough chocolate powder to provide suitable taste
5. Enough skim milk to bring mixture to proper liquid state.
Mixed in a blender, the above mixture provides a very heavy load of well-balanced protein – at a very low price.

For a trainee who wishes to gain weight as rapidly as possible, three such milkshakes should be consumed daily – one shortly after a normal breakfast, a second immediately after work or school, and a third just before retiring for the night.

While the soy powder is the cheapest ingredient in the above mixture –costing only about 40¢ per pound retail – it should be limited to the above ratio; taken by itself, soy protein is not complete, and cannot be utilized by the body properly unless it is mixed with elements provided by the milk and eggs.


But – for some people – soy powder presents a problem; should it be found that it is causing excessive amounts of intestinal gas, then discontinue its use – and in that case, replace it in the mixture with an addition half-cup of milk powder.

Unflavored gelatin is another good source of protein at a low price, but it is a bit difficult to consume in large quantities – simply because, if mixed with cold water, it almost instantly solidifies, and if mixed with hot water it is unpalatable for most people. Far too much freely available literature exists on the subject of making up a well rounded diet for me to devote any space to it here, so I will simply refer you to any one of several thousand books on the subject.

But some care should be exercised in order to make certain that such books do not contain commercial bias.

The requirements for adequate rest are no more involved than those dictated by common sense and good health habits; some people require more sleep than others – so get as much as is normal for you as an individual.

Your results will obviously be less if you make a common practice of getting too little rest – but excessive amounts of sleep probably retard your progress also; so simply continue with your normally practiced good habits in regard to sleep. Other activities should continue as before; better progress will almost always be shown by an individual that is regularly employed in some sort of full-time activity, such as a normal job or a normal load of schoolwork.

But – to many weight trainees – the above statement probably borders on heresy; such people thinking – as thousands of them do – that activities should be strictly limited to workouts, eating and sleeping.

Insofar as other sports activities are concerned, their effect upon training progress can be either good or bad; so it becomes a simple matter of "first thing is first".

It will be almost impossible for a man to gain bodyweight rapidly if he makes a daily practice of running several miles; but if such running is a necessary part of his training, then it obviously should be done.

The same rule is equally applicable to any other sort of activity – do that which is necessary, or desirable, and the weight training program will markedly increase your strength and improve your overall condition even if it doesn't result in great increases in muscular size or bodyweight under such conditions.

However, many coaches make the mistake of trying to get all things out of the same individual – and this, of course, is literally impossible; if it is considered desirable for a particular athlete to gain forty pounds of bodyweight for football, then such an individual should not involve himself in a heavy program of track activities.

Some running should be done weekly – at least twice weekly – by all trainees, but this should be limited to the amount that will maintain the required amount of endurance for running and the existing degree of speed, or it should be, at least, if it is desirable for such subjects to gain weight rapidly.

In the case of overweight or "out of condition" subjects, then almost any amount of running should be employed until such time that the subject has removed the surplus fatty tissue he is carrying; but it should be realized that such an individual will almost never have much in the way of an existing endurance or energy level at the start of such a program – and thus great care must be exercised in order to prevent such a subject from working himself to the point of nervous exhaustion.

It is neither necessary nor desirable to work any individual to a point of such muscularity that no visible fatty tissue remains on the body; on the contrary, better performances will almost always be provided by subjects that show at least some slight degree of fatty tissue in some areas of the body.

Removing the last traces of such fatty tissue almost always involves overwork – and if this is carried to extremes, such overwork can, and probably will, lead to nervous exhaustion. In this respect, individuals vary, of course, but do not expect a well-conditioned athlete who weighs over 200 pounds at a normal height to show no traces of fatty tissue.

 

[Goosey]

The Arthur Jones Collection

Nautilus Bulletin #1

13 The Limits of Muscular Size

In a recent medical article read by the author, it was stated that the average individual's size, by weight, consists of forty percent muscular tissue; in effect, that an average 150 pound individual would have a total muscular mass of approximately 60 pounds.

But even if true, such a ratio of muscular mass to total weight can be demonstrated by the employment of what can only be called rather dubious means. Perhaps – if you include such body parts as the heart, the muscles of the head, feet, hands, skin and internal organs – you might be able to demonstrate such a ratio.

But if consideration is given only to the muscles that are directly employed in performing normal muscular activities, then it will be found that the actual ratio of muscular bulk to total weight is very close to fifteen percent (15%) – little more than a third of that indicated above.

An average individual weighing 150 pounds at a height of 5 feet and 11 inches will have approximately 20 pounds of such muscular tissue; thus, if his body weight can be increased to 170 pounds, in the form of additional muscular tissue, this will literally result in a doubling of his muscular bulk. But if such is true, then why won't his strength be doubled as well?

In at least some aspects it probably will be; but as a general rule, strength does not increase in direct ratio to increases in muscular bulk – for a number of reasons. For one thing, bodily leverage is changed as the muscular bulk increases – and almost always to your disadvantage.

Secondly, the human circulatory system is not capable of properly supporting muscular bulk beyond a certain degree of development. Strength of muscle is almost entirely dependent upon its bulk, but it is extremely difficult to accurately estimate the bulk of a muscle; size is frequently confused with muscular bulk – and while great size is obviously required for great muscular bulk, it does not follow that great size presupposes great muscular bulk.

Secondly, most people have no slightest idea of the real relationship that exists between measurements of the circumference of various body parts and the actual muscular bulk contained within those same body parts. The average 150-pound individual previously mentioned might have a 12 inch upper arm measurement – flexed; but increasing that measurement by only two inches, to 14 inches, will literally double the muscular bulk of the upper arm.

Thus an increase in the circumference of only about seventeen percent (17%) will produce an increase in muscular bulk of approximately one-hundred percent (100%) – or a doubling of bulk. While that may sound like a gross overstatement, in fact, it may well be an understatement; if you would stand a man like Bill Pearl, at the weight of 210 pounds, alongside our average 150 pound individual of the same height, the comparison between their arms would be ridiculous. And in total overall muscular bulk, Pearl will obviously display at least four times as much bulk as the smaller man – though only 60 pounds heavier.

Then why isn't he four times as strong as the smaller man? I repeat, in some ways he will be – and he will be far stronger than the lighter man in all ways, everything else being equal.

But what degree of this size is useful? That, of course, depends upon how you define "useful."

But for most purposes, all of it – any reduction in size would also cause a reduction in strength – and in any activity requiring all-round great strength, all of this size will be useful.

Speed of movement? That, of course, depends upon several things; upon the overall bodyweight, upon the individual's initial potential insofar as speed of reflexes and bodily proportions are concerned, and upon his individual training history.

But in almost all cases, it will be far greater than you would probably expect. Some years ago, during the Olympic Games, careful measurements of the speed of movement of most of the athletes involved clearly proved that a weightlifter was the fastest man competing in any sport, and that almost all of the weightlifters were faster than the other athletes.

As I said in an earlier chapter, it is expecting far too much from any form of physical training to expect it to produce a super athlete that will be a champion in all sports; this is literally impossible, because the basic requirements for sports are far too varied for such a possibility to be realized.

And it is equally obvious that no form of training can produce a champion athlete in any sport – from just "any" individual. Until quite recently, any form of weight training was looked upon almost in horror by most coaches; if you had stated, thirty years ago, that almost all athletes would now be using weight training, you would have been considered totally insane – and a great deal of that earlier prejudice still exists.

At the present moment, almost all coaches have at least heard from reliable sources that weight training is good for athletes – but, knowing little or nothing about it from personal experience and having heard all sorts of highly biased stories about it, many of them are "not quite sure" about it; some obviously are afraid of weight training – primarily, I think, because they know so little about it.

This situation is changing, but a lot of this bias will still exist fifty years from now – or a thousand years from now.

So you can reasonably expect some degree of improvement in any athletic activity from weight training – and in many cases, enormous improvement will be produced; but do not expect miracles.

Critically decide exactly what results you are most interested in, and then follow a weight training program that is designed to give the most in the way of the type of results that you are after.

 

[Goosey]

NAUTILUS BULLETIN #1
By Arthur Jones
CHAPTER 14
RECIPROCITY FAILURE
Why do some trainees produce good results from weight-training, while others -- using apparently identical program and exactly the same equipment -- 53
experience such slow rates of progress that they eventually stop training in disgust?

A tricky question, obviously -- and one that cannot be answered in general terms that apply in all cases; but in most cases, the real culprit is a factor that most bodybuilders never heard of, reciprocity failure -- which might be defined as the failure to produce expected results.

Which definition is not quite as meaningless as it may appear at first glance -- although it is one that will require careful explanation.

To readers well versed in the technicalities of photography, the term may be familiar in another context, and my first attempt at an explanation will be based on an example from that field.

Correct exposure of film depends upon several factors; the so-called "speed" of the film being used, the type of light source, the length of time that the film is exposed, and the relative size of the lens aperture, as well as other factors which are of no importance in this example. But in practice, the average photographer is usually concerned with one or two of the above factors; the length of exposure and the size of the lens aperture -- or "shutter speed" and "f stop".

If one of these factors is changed, then the other must be changed in exact proportion; if exposure time is doubled, then the aperture must be reduced in area by fifty percent -- and so on.

And in almost all cases, if this relationship is maintained, the result will be the same insofar as exposure is concerned. More time, less light -- or more light, less time; the same exposure in either case.

But the formula doesn’t always work.

As either end of the scale is approached, it will be observed that actual exposure will always be less than that which was expected from the combination of exposure time and lens aperture being used; never more -- always less.

If extremely long exposure times are used, then the resulting exposure will be less than that which was indicated by the formula; and if very short exposure times are used, the result 54
will again be underexposure.

And this result will be produced in spite of the fact that the formula being used is accurate; or, at least, is accurate within a certain area.

When such a result is produced, it is called "reciprocity failure". The produced result failed to live up to expectations -- even though the formula used was correct.
And a very similar factor is encountered in bodybuilding -- or in physical training of any kind.

Thus, in practice, we find that doubling the length of a workout will not give as much in the way of results -- and that a set of one repetition will not produce ten percent of the results of a set of ten repetitions.

But, many weight-trainees seem to think that merely doubling the number of sets, or the number of exercises, will also double their rate of progress; such thinking has led to the recently proposed "total tonnage" theory, a theory which suggests that the only factor of importance is the total amount of weight lifted during a workout -- but a theory which, in fact, is so ridiculous that it doesn’t even deserve rational consideration or discussion.

And please don’t write me to state that "...nothing is undeserving of ration consideration." What about the theories of the Flat Earth Society, the people who still don’t believe that this planet is a sphere?

However, for the benefit of those readers who might have much background in physics, I will point out that the Total Tonnage theory ignores the factors of vertical distance of movement, and speed of movement -- without which factors, no reasonable discussion of power or strength is even possible.

And it also ignores the factor of reciprocity failure -- which the inventor of the Total Tonnage theory probably never heard of, and certainly doesn’t understand.

So much for theory; but just how does this factor apply to physical training in a practical manner?

In simple terms, it can probably best be understood in much the same context that applies in the previously mentioned example from photography; within a certain range -- on a certain scale -- then the production of results can be 55
calculated with a rather high degree of accuracy, but the upper and lower limits of that scale must be understood and allowed for.

In practice, in very simple terms, this means that either "too much" or "too little" exercise will have much the same final results -- and that in both cases, these results will be poor.

It also means that the production of best-possible results depends upon a clear understanding of this scale; the trainee must be aware of the limitations -- and must stay inside the bounds of most-productive work.

And while a complete understanding of this factor is not going to result even if you memorize this entire bulletin, a practical understanding probably will be reached by readers who take the trouble to read it carefully and with an open mind.

 

[Goosey]

NAUTILUS BULLETIN #1
By Arthur Jones
CHAPTER 15
STRENGTH AND ENDURANCE

The subject of this chapter will probably arouse as much heated controversy as any of my other major points of emphasis -- even though it is certainly not a new idea; and while it is not my intention to create such opposition to any of the points I am attempting to explain, I feel that an effort to avoid controversy -- by writing only on subjects most likely to be widely accepted -- is outright dishonesty.

Secondly, such a style of writing -- or such a selection of subjects -- would necessarily avoid many points of importance; all of which are essential to an understanding of the factors involved in a training program capable of producing good results.

Point #1 -- There is no slightest evidence which indicates a difference between strength and endurance; accurately measuring one of these factors clearly indicates the existing level of the other.

That is to say; if you know how 56
much endurance a man has, then you should also know how strong he is -- or vice versa.

But such a relationship between strength and endurance is meaningful only in individual cases; it does not hold true for the purpose of comparing the performance of one individual to that of another -- thus you cannot fairly compare one man’s endurance to another man’s strength.

Secondly, I am using the term "endurance" only in the sense of "muscular endurance", the ability of a muscle to perform repeatedly under a particular load -- I am NOT momentarily concerned with cardiovascular endurance, which is an entirely different matter.

Point #2 -- By training for endurance, increases in strength are produce in direct proportion to increases in endurance -- and vice versa.

Point #3 -- Accurate measurements of muscular mass clearly indicate existing strength levels within a very narrow range of variation -- if all factors are taken into consideration. But again, such measurements are only meaningful in individual cases -- not for comparison purposes.

Point #4 -- Increases in muscular size make strength gains possible -- but do not produce such strength gains in direct proportion; and increases in strength force increases in muscular mass, when strength reaches a certain point in relationship to existing muscular mass then no additional strength increase is possible until after an increase in muscular size, and such a size increase will invariable occur if all of the requirements for such growth are provided.

Great misunderstanding in regard to the above points exists primarily because attempts to measure strength and
endurance levels have almost invariably been based on different scales; but when the same scale is applied to both measurements, the above mentioned relationships will be obvious.

The following example should make this clear.

If you have been training for a period of time and have reached a point where you are capable of a bench press of 300 pounds, and are also capable of performing ten repetitions in the bench press with 250 pounds, you would probably look upon the best single-attempt as an indication of your strength 57
level and the best performance for ten repetitions as an indication of your endurance level; and if so, you would be basically correct in your opinions.

But if you then stopped training for a period of several weeks, and upon resuming training wanted to measure both your strength and endurance after such a layoff, you would probably make an understandable error in the latter measurements -- by applying different scales; an error which would lead you to believe that your endurance had decreased more than your strength.

Whereas, in fact, if such measurements were accurately made, it would be obvious that both strength and endurance had decreased in exact proportion.

After such a layoff, you might find that your best single-attempt was one with 270 pounds and that your best performance with 250 pounds was only repetitions.

And such results could easily lead to the mistaken conclusion that your endurance had decreased by sixty percent while your strength had decreased by only ten percent.

But you didn’t use the same scale for both measurements; while you decreased the single-attempt weight by ten percent, you left the endurance-attempt weight unchanged.

If, instead, you had decreased the weight used for the endurance-attempt by the same percentage -- in this case to a weight of 225 pounds -- then you would still have been able to perform ten repetitions.

Or, taking the reverse approach to the same situation, you might be led into an apparent result that would be so ridiculous that it would be obviously incorrect to anybody; if both test weights remained unchanged, and if you performed four repetitions with 250 pounds -- but failed with 300 pounds -- would that then indicate a decrease in endurance of sixty percent, and a decrease in strength of one-hundred percent?

Similar examples could be given to establish the validity of the other points listed above, but restrictions of space make this impractical in this bulletin.

 

[Goosey]

The Arthur Jones Collection

Nautilus Bulletin #1

16 Speed as a Factor

Using normally applied methods, it is literally impossible to accurately measure strength and the figures produced by most currently practiced methods of testing strength have little or no significance.

Strength is the ability to produce power – and while it is extremely difficult to measure strength directly, we can measure power; and having done so, a reasonable estimate of strength can be made. "How much can he press?" is a meaningless question – unless we also consider "how far does he press?" and "how fast does he press?"

Both of which points – distance and speed – are generally ignored in strength tests.

During a recent workout, one of our test subjects was accurately tested while generating slightly over three horsepower; disregarding the power required for raising a good part of his own bodyweight, he raised 275 pounds a distance of over two feet in less than one third of a second.

Such accurate measurements of strength require a logical approach to the matter and the use of very sophisticated equipment capable of measuring both the distance and speed factors with great accuracy; but – for most applications where measurements of strength are required – such methods are certainly not practical, and they are never inexpensive.

Thus, for practical measurements of strength, another – far simpler – method is required.

Apart from actual competitive lifting, the only real need for strength tests exists as a factor required for properly charting training progress – where a subject's performances are compared to his own previous performances.

This can be done with a far greater degree of accuracy if such comparisons are not made on the basis of "single attempt" lifts.

Relative levels of strength should be determined by comparing a set of several repetitions to another set of exactly the same number of repetitions – but both sets must be maximum possible sets, involving the performance of as many repetitions as possible, stopped only when another repetition is impossible.

But – since maximum possible sets will not always produce the same number of repetitions – it is thus impossible to compare every set of each exercise with every other set of the same movement; accurate comparisons are possible only when maximum possible sets result in the exact same number of repetitions.

In practice, it has been found that comparisons should be made only when maximum possible sets result in ten repetitions – or twenty repetitions, as the case may be.

Within a given week of training, at least one such set will usually be performed in every exercise being practiced – and thus it is possible to judge the progress of individual trainees on a fairly regular basis.

But it is important that first sets of a particular exercise be compared only to first sets of the same exercise – and second sets to second sets, etc.

Comparing a first set of squats performed during workout with a second set of squats performed during another workout would produce no reasonable basis for comparison.

For the greatest degree of accuracy from such methods of strength measurement, it is best to compare the last performed set of an exercise with the last set from another workout – assuming that both workouts involve the same number of sets, and that the sets being compared involved the same number of repetitions.

Or, at least, this will produce greater accuracy of results when you are dealing with well-conditioned test subjects. However, when dealing with poorly conditioned subjects, then comparisons should be made on the basis of first sets; many such subjects will perform quite well during a first set, but then display a very great drop in strength when performing a second set of the same exercise.

While it is not necessary to measure the time required to perform a set of an exercise – so long as it is performed at a reasonable pace – it is necessary to consider the time involved for the performance of all the sets included in the workout.

A first set should be followed by a second set of the same exercise at an interval of exactly four minutes, and a third set should be performed four minutes later – thus the total time for all three sets will be eight minutes plus the time required to perform the third set, a time somewhat over eight minutes and probably well below nine minutes, depending upon the type of exercise being performed and the number of repetitions employed.

With well-conditioned, experienced subjects it is not necessary to actually measure this time factor; such subjects will almost always perform second and third sets at very nearly the exact time specified – having become accustomed to working at a particular pace, they will "feel" when they are ready for another set, and the variation in time will usually be less than ten seconds.

But inexperienced trainees must be timed – and must be informed when to perform the next set of an exercise; if meaningful results for charting progress are desired.

Apart from the above described significance of speed as a factor for measuring strength, it is of even more importance for producing the best results from training.

Every repetition of every set of most exercises should be performed as fast as possible – consistent with proper form and safety considerations; which latter point can be disregarded if the selected resistance is proper for the movement being performed.

Insofar as safety is concerned, no additional element of risk will be introduced if the weight is heavy enough – but if the weight is too light for the movement being performed, then some danger of injury will be added. For example; in performing standing presses with a barbell – or any other kind of presses – if the weight is too light, and if the lift is performed with maximum possible speed of movement, then the elbow tendon attachments may be damaged seriously.

Exactly similar injuries occur with rather great frequency in baseball – when a pitcher "throws his arm out."

A fast lift involving too little resistance will tend to keep moving at the high point of the movement, and the resulting jerk can cause damage.

But if the selected weight is heavy enough, then little or no danger will exist – the bar will stop at or very near the proper high point regardless of how fast the subject attempts to press it.

I will return to this point in more detail in later chapters dealing with the proper performance of exercises; but it should be remembered that best training results will always be produced when exercises are performed with as much speed as possible under the proper conditions.

Quite contrary to the stereotyped opinion that most people have of weightlifters – thinking of them as slow, ponderous individuals slowly raising a great weight – well conditioned weightlifters perform at a speed that must be seen to be appreciated; but they literally must do so – the production of much in the way of power is impossible without speed of movement.

NOTE: The following chapter – "Accurately Measuring Power Production" – is included for the purpose of carefully detailing the method required for such measurements; for most readers, it will be of little or no interest, and no significant points will be missed if the chapter is skipped.

However, for anybody that is concerned with such accuracy of measurement, the next chapter will probably prove of great interest – detailing, as it does, the only method we have been able to devise for accurately measuring power production by humans.

 

[Goosey]

The Arthur Jones Collection

Nautilus Bulletin #1

17 Accurately Measuring Power Production

While it is quite simple to determine the resistance employed in strength tests, accurately measuring the time and distance factors is anything but a simple procedure; for anything approaching meaningful accuracy of measurement, two high-speed, synchronous motion picture cameras are required – and it is extremely advantageous if both cameras can be mounted a rather great distance from the subject being tested.

The greater the distance, the greater the degree of accuracy of measurement – and an infinite distance would be required for absolute accuracy. However, for all practical purposes, a distance of 48 feet has proven to be sufficient for a high degree of accuracy.

Both cameras should be immovably mounted on sturdy tripods, and should be locked into perfectly horizontal angles of tilt – the lower camera should be placed in line with the estimated low point of the lift, and the higher camera should be at the estimated high point of the lift; both of which points can be estimated in advance with very little error.

For clarity of detail, lenses of the longest possible focal length that will cover the required area should be employed – it being essential to cover only two small areas, not the entire area involved in the lift.

It must be understood that the focal length of the lenses will have no slightest effect upon the accuracy of the results produced; perspective – and apparent distortion – are both determined by camera position.

All lenses will give exactly the same perspective from a given camera position; contrary to very popular belief, wide-angle lenses do not depict distorted perspective –they merely make it possible to film from a very close position, and the close position is totally responsible for the apparent distortion.

Long focal length lenses – telephoto lenses – merely show a larger image than would normally be possible, and the apparent "compression of space" is more noticeable because of the larger image; such apparent distortion exists in an exactly equal degree in pictures made with a lens of any focal length.

Both cameras should be running and "up to speed" well before the lift is attempted – and a "clap-board" must be employed for slating the scenes being filmed, and this should be done even when filming without sound; the individual frames of the two scenes being filmed must be perfectly synchronized in order to accurately measure the time factor – and this cannot be done if some method of synchronization is not employed.

In order to accurately measure both the time and distance factors, two accurately placed "position indicators" will be required; one of these should be exactly the same distance above the floor as the center line of the lowest camera's filming axis – and the other should be in line with the higher camera.

Brightly colored, horizontally mounted steel rods are the tools of obvious choice; they are inexpensive and show up well in the filmed scenes. Four such rods should be used; two low-mounted rods and two higher rods –two rods being required for each of the two "position indicators".

As an additional part of the position indicators, a clearly contrasting tape measure or ruler should be vertically mounted between the two horizontal rods most distant from the camera position.

This distance measuring device – tape or ruler – should be perfectly accurate, and should be mounted to one side of the centerline of the filmed scenes; otherwise, it will be hidden by the body of the test subject and no measurement of distance will be possible.

It must be remembered that most commercially manufactured tape measures are not perfectly accurate – most of them are "short" by at least one-eighth of an inch per foot of length; readings produced by use of such a tape will overstate actual measurements.

Looking through the lenses of the cameras – assuming that you are using true reflex cameras, as you should – only one of the steel rods will be visible from each of the two camera positions; from the high position, you should see only the nearest of the two highest mounted rods, the more distant rod should be completely hidden from view by the closer rod.

If it is not, then the rods are not mounted properly in relation to each other –or in relation to the camera. From the lower camera, only the closest of the low mounted rods should be visible.

But one end of the measuring device should be clearly visible in the high-camera scene, and the other in the low-camera scene. While the above description sounds rather involved, it has proven to be a very simple matter to set up such a measuring procedure in a matter of less than ten minutes – once all of the required tools are available.

In practice, the most difficult problem proved to be locating synchronous motors for high-speed cameras; almost all synchronous motors for motion picture cameras operate at exactly 24 frames per second in this country –and at 25 frames per second in Europe – and while motors that are capable of filming at speeds of at least 186,000 frames per second are available, if certainly not inexpensive, most such motors do not operate at synchronous speeds.

Thus, if measurement of the time factor with a degree of accuracy surpassing that which is possible with time segments shorter than one forty-eighth of a second is required, it will be necessary to include a clock with a very large dial and a sweep second hand – a hand that completes a full sweep of the dial during each second – and it will be necessary to film with lenses of shorter focal length, in order to include the clock in both scenes.

But finding such clocks is not very easy, either.

When filming at 24 frames per second, each second is actually being divided into forty-eight parts – or at least it is if a camera with a rotary, 180 degree shutter is employed; the shutter is closed half of the time – while the film is being transported between frames – and open half of the time, while the exposures are being made.

Thus, although you will actually have only 24 frames to work with for each full second of time covered, it is easily and accurately possible to interpolate both time and distance factors during the times when the shutter was closed.

For example: if the subject was moving in a particular frame – and still moving in the next frame – then it is reasonable to assume that he was at the midpoint of both time and distance during the time that the shutter was closed; if the bar of the barbell was forty inches off the floor in one frame, and forty-two inches above the floor in the next frame – then it is probable that it was at a height of forty-one inches during the time that the shutter was closed.

If a greater degree of accuracy is desired, then the only tool that I am aware of that is capable of doing the job is a high-speed camera with a synchronous motor – but such accuracy will never be purchased inexpensively; apart from the initial cost of such cameras and camera motors, such filming consumes file at an enormous rate – some high-speed cameras require 300 feet of film, out of a roll of 400 feet, just to "come up to speed", and this first 300 feet of film will never be of any value, since the camera will not yet be operating at synchronous speed, and since the resulting scene will be overexposed because of both improper and constantly varying exposure factors.

Secondly; if your test subject hesitates even momentarily about executing the lift, the filming will be wasted – because, once up to speed, the last feet of film remaining in the magazine may be used in a matter of two or three seconds, or less.

The two higher rods of the position indicators should be located exactly six feet apart – and the two lower rods should be separated by the same distance; the lift should be performed between the rods, with the subject facing either towards or away from the cameras. For squatting, the subject should have his back to the cameras – for fast lifts involving the arms the subject should be facing the cameras.

These positions are best since they permit an unobstructed view of the barbell from the camera positions.

The subject should be situated so that the bar of the barbell being lifted is as close as possible to the midpoint of a horizontal line drawn from the near position indicator rod to the most distant rod; in effect, the barbell should be three feet beyond the nearest position indicator rod and three feet closer than the most distant rod – as measured from the camera position.

This placement of the barbell is important for accurately measuring distance factors; the bar of the barbell will actually be somewhat lower than it appears to be from the low camera position – when it is above the lower position indicator rod – and higher than it appears to be when viewed from the high camera position, when it is lower than the high position indicator rod.

But if the barbell is properly placed, then it will be easily possible to accurately interpolate the height of the barbell at all times during the lift.

To facilitate such interpolation, it has been found that a camera to nearest position indicator rod distance of exactly forty-eight feet should be used; but when using long focal length lenses, it must be remembered that such measurement should be from the nodal point of the lens being used – and that such measurement must be made after the lens has been focused properly.

Otherwise – since most such measurements are made from the film plane of the cameras – an error of as much as a foot may be inadvertently introduced into the formula required for correct interpolation of results.

 

[Goosey]

The Arthur Jones Collection

Nautilus Bulletin #1

18 "Warming-Up" Properly

Muscles are literally incapable of performing at a level even closely approaching their momentary ability unless they are properly "warmed-up" in advance by the performance of lighter, exactly similar movements; in effect, you cannot warm-up properly for the performance of heavy bench presses by performing standing presses – you must perform several sets of bench presses with a resistance well below the weight you intend to employ for a maximum attempt.

That much, at least, is clear to practically everybody engaged in weight training; but it does not follow that warming-up procedures are properly understood by the majority of trainees. On the contrary, training progress is usually held well below an optimum rate by the practice of incorrect warm-up procedures.

Warming-up for competitive lifting is one thing – but warming-up for training purposes is an entirely different matter; and the correct procedures have very little in common when one is compared to the other.

In a weightlifting contest, you are not concerned with trying to build size or strength as a result of the lifts performed that day; your only concern is an attempt to lift the maximum possible amount of weight for one repetition in good form – thus your warm-up must prepare your muscles for a maximum-possible single effort, while leaving them as fresh as possible.

But in training – where you are concerned with building as much size and/or strength as possible, as a direct result of the lifts performed that day –the correct warm-up procedure will be almost exactly opposite to that which you should employ on the day of a weightlifting competition; in this instance, each set of every exercise should be a maximum possible set – and should leave your muscles totally, if momentarily exhausted.

Quite obviously, if such training is done – as it certainly should be –then it will be literally impossible for you to lift as much for a single attempt as you could have done if you had warmed up with lighter, less than maximum-attempt sets.

Thus many trainees avoid such a system of training –because it prevents them from attaining a maximum level of performance for one repetition during each workout; they feel that greater growth stimulation has been provided by one maximum repetition – and that the higher the resistance employed, the greater the growth stimulation.

However, in fact, quite the opposite is true; with such a system of training, only one set of each exercise will provide any growth stimulation at all – and that will usually be far less than maximum growth stimulation.

And the other sets have been completely wasted; worse than that, they have exhausted part of the recovery ability while providing nothing in the way of growth stimulation.

If, instead, two or three sets of each exercise are employed, and if these sets employ a reasonable number of repetitions, and if each set of each exercise is carried to the point of absolute failure – then maximum growth stimulation will be provided, with minimum depletion of the recovery ability.

You certainly will not be able to lift as much for a single attempt during your training workouts if this system of training is used – but you certainly will build the maximum possible degree of both muscular mass and strength; then, later, in a contest, your strength for a single attempt will be greater than it would have been as a result of any other type of training.

I am not saying – and I do not mean to imply – that maximum attempts for a single repetition should never be attempted in training; on the contrary, they should be – but only on a very infrequent basis, and certainly never more often than once a week.

For best results, such attempts should not be performed more frequently than once every two or three weeks – or even once a month.

In practice, best results are usually produced by the 10/8/6 system of repetitions and sets; in this system, a weight is selected that will permit not more than ten repetitions during the first set, and then the resistance is increased for the second set, to a point that will permit not more than eight repetitions, and in the third set the resistance is increased to an amount that will permit six repetitions.

But in all cases, all possible repetitions are performed in each set – and the weight is increased at the time of the next workout if it was possible to perform the designated number of repetitions with the weight selected.

Thus, in practice, a subject usually will actually perform only about 8/6/4 repetitions –or possibly 7/5/3 repetitions; when he actually performs 10/8/6 repetitions, then the resistance is increased again.

For single attempts, however, a careful warm-up is extremely essential for several reasons – the most important ones concerning safety; if a maximum attempt is made with a "cold" muscle, greater danger of injury exists. Secondly, if the resistance being employed is at or very near the actual level of strength for one attempt, then such an attempt will always fail –because a cold muscle cannot perform much if any above and about 85% of its actual strength level.

 

[Rambodian]

This has to be one of the best threads ever Andy

Thanks again mate
G

 

[Goosey]

I love the way he writes.
I also have some DVD of seminars, you can see bits of them on YouTube.

 

[Goosey]

The Arthur Jones Collection

Nautilus Bulletin #1

19 Superstitions and Myths

Perhaps the heading of this chapter is misleading – since it is not my intention to discuss superstitions and myths "about" weight-training; but, rather, the false beliefs that are so common among weight trainees themselves.

Insofar as mention of the literally hundreds of false beliefs about weight training, I will limit my remarks to the few brief mentions made in preceding chapters and the even briefer attention that will be given to such ideas in following chapters; without single exception, such beliefs are totally false and highly prejudicial, and none of them deserve more than passing attention – in any case, thirty years of experience has taught me that attempts to combat prejudice usually have the opposite effect from that desired, so I do not intend to give even more widespread circulation to such ideas or waste my time jousting with windmills. But while such common beliefs deserve little or no attention, the same is certainly not true in the case of many of the equally false beliefs being circulated among the ranks of present-day weight trainees – people who should know better, but for the most part do not.

Many of these beliefs are nothing short of outright fanaticism, and some of them are actually dangerous – yet they are commonly practiced by tens-of-thousands of weight trainees and are supported by no small number of self-appointed "experts", these latter almost always being people with direct commercial interests in the field.

As a result of some of these beliefs – and the fanaticism that they inspire – literally millions of people have been denied the very worthwhile results that weight training could have afforded them; many people – probably most people – treat the whole matter of weight training as a joke, looking upon it in the same light in which rational people view astrology or some way-out religious cult. While, in fact, there is nothing at all "mysterious" about weight training; on the contrary, it is a perfectly simple, well proven method for inducing physical improvement – by far the most effective method of exercise ever devised.

And perhaps that is the reason for its undoing in the eyes of the average man – it is simply too effective; by comparison to the possible results producable by any other method of physical training, weight training produces such large degrees of results that they sometimes appear literally unreal.

But in no small part, the widespread skepticism of weight training is due to the actions and statements of many weight trainees; the very people who should be most interested in promoting something of great value – but who, on the contrary, seem to be determined to cast it in the worst possible light.

But of even more direct importance to themselves – since most weight trainees have no commercial interests in the field – such people give widespread acceptance to training ideas that greatly retard their own progress. Many such trainees pride themselves on their knowledge of anatomy – while having no slightest idea of the actual functions of even the largest of the muscular structures in the body.

For bodybuilders, such lack of knowledge – and such willingness to practice worthless training methods, or methods of far less value than might be desired – is of no real importance to anyone besides themselves; but to others – to athletic coaches interested in employing weight training as supplemental training for sports – the same lack of knowledge can be of very real significance.

Training time and training energy is always at a premium in any sport, and it should be employed only in the best possible ways – athletes have neither time nor energy to waste on anything less than the best possible methods of training; weight training is the best possible method of supplementary training for any sport, by far the best – but the best systems of employing this method are certainly not common knowledge among bodybuilders.

I have asked literally hundreds of bodybuilders, "... why do you use wide-grip bench presses?" And the answer has invariably been the same, "...because they stretch my pectorals more than narrow-grip bench presses.

" But in fact, they do not; on the contrary, wide-grip bench presses actually prevent any stretching of the pectorals – the pectorals attach the upper arms to the front of the chest, and in order to stretch the pectorals it is necessary to move the upper arms as far back as possible, and with a wide grip on a barbell it is literally impossible to move the upper arms far enough back to stretch the pectorals at all.

Exactly the same thing applies to wide-grip "chinning" movements; theses are practiced because they supposedly stretch the latissimus muscles – while in fact, they actually prevent any such stretching.

The list is almost endless, I could give hundreds of other examples of similar false beliefs; but my point is this – out of the literally hundreds of commonly practiced barbell exercises, only a few give the results that most weight trainees think they do. And most of these few really productive exercises are avoided by most body-builders upon one pretext or another, probably because they are simply too "hard".

A bodybuilder reading this bulletin will probably find no mention of many of his favorite exercises; for the good and simple reason that there are other, far better exercises for the same body part – exercises that will actually produce the results that he thinks he is getting in another way.

Variations in training are of value if for not other reason than the fact that they prevent boredom – but such diversity of training should be contained within the actually very narrow limits of a few very productive exercises; if not, then results will be far less than they should have been.

In later chapters devoted to exact training programs, the selected exercises have been included only because they are by far the most productive exercises for the particular purposes stated – without single exception, no other exercise will produce as much in the way of results from an equal amount of training time.

The very fact that some poorly chosen exercises and systems of training are capable of producing fairly high degrees of results is no excuse for their employment – much better results can be produced in far less time if training is restricted to better exercises and better systems.

And while no system can possibly produce the best results in all cases, a logical approach to the matter will clearly indicate any slight changes that might be required in some individual cases – and the information required for making such judgments is clearly spelled out in the chapters on the proper performances of exercises and the chapter on planning workouts.

Close attention should also be given to the priority of exercises.

 

[Goosey]

When I re-read his stuff it just amazes me that how still relevant a lot of this is today.

He wasn't well like, at a time when bodybuilding was training their way and the growing power building was training their way jones bulldozed in and said they where both wrong if someone wanted to biuld size and strength safely and efficiently.

 

[Goosey]

The Arthur Jones Collection

Nautilus Bulletin #1

20 The "Instinctive Training" Theory

According to a recent theory of training – the "instinctive training" theory – your instincts will invariably guide you into the proper path and pace of training; and while it is certainly true that an experienced trainee will eventually develop a "feeling" in regard to his workouts, this has absolutely nothing to do with instinct.

On the contrary; for anything even approaching the best possible results from training, it is absolutely essential to work in direct opposition to your instincts. If you followed your instincts, you would do quite a number of things – eat as much as possible, sleep whenever possible, defecate, fornicate, lie, brag, steal, run away from danger or fight if simply forced to or if faced with an obviously inferior foe in possession of something that you desired, and avoid any form of physical labor – but you wouldn't lift weights.

The process of education is nothing more or less than an attempt to overcome the instincts – and it is seldom if ever totally successful; while heavy physical training may – and frequently will – result in a feeling of great personal satisfaction, such a feeling is entirely due to conditioned reflexes, not to instinct.

During the actual performance of any form of exercise – with the possible exceptions of fighting or running away from danger – the instincts are almost literally screaming at you to stop; and if you follow those instinctive urges, then exercise will always be terminated far short of the point that would have produced any worthwhile results.

The body will do almost anything in a effort to maintain the status quo –and it is fully capable of anticipating needs with a great degree of accuracy; instinctive hunger pangs proceed the actual need for additional food by as much as several hours – and when any form of exercise is undertaken, the body quickly recognizes the trend and attempts to stop the exercise long before a point of exhaustion is reached.

A very commonly observed symptom following the large scale loss of blood is a total aversion to any activity that might possibly result in additional blood loss; the body cannot then stand much more blood loss, and does everything possible to prevent it.

And it is not necessary for a blood loss to be on an actually dangerous scale for this symptom to manifest itself; the body attempts to maintain a definite, but unknown percentile of reserve – and when this reserve is threatened, the system will try to prevent additional utilization or loss.

An exactly similar situation exists in regard to reserves of strength; when a particular workload closely approaches these reserves, the system will rebel against the imposition of any additional workload. But unless a workload does fall well inside the momentarily existing levels of reserve strength, then no demand for additional muscular growth or strength increases is imposed upon the system.

So attempting to follow your instincts will get you literally nowhere in physical training. Obviously there is a limit beyond which you should not go, but this limitation applies only to the actual "amount" of exercise – not the intensity of effort; maximum intensity of effort is an absolute requirement for the greatest possible degree of growth stimulation – but it must be achieved without totally exhausting the body's recovery ability.

 

[Goosey]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dDn7f2gt30&feature=youtube_gdata_player]Arthur Jones Nautilus Seminar 1986 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Darkoz]

Arthur Jones Nautilus Seminar 1986 - YouTube

Haha I watched that Saturday night, Arthur Jones at his abrasive best
Also watched him when he appeared on Letterman, not often you see Letterman lost for words.
Didn't realize how bloody wealthy Jones was either.

 

[Goosey]

Haha I watched that Saturday night, Arthur Jones at his abrasive best
Also watched him when he appeared on Letterman, not often you see Letterman lost for words.
Didn't realize how bloody wealthy Jones was either.

His father, brother and sisters where all doctors, he had read every medical journal in his dads library at the age of 14, he led a tough strange life.

His biography is a tough read.

It's also been said he'd done work for the FBI, he usually carried a colt 45 everywhere he went.

 

[Goosey]

The Arthur Jones Collection

Nautilus Bulletin #1

21 Growth Drugs

As of the moment – the fall of 1970 – the use of drugs is an unexploded bomb lurking just beneath the surface of all forms of physical training; according to currently wide-spread attitudes, it is a crime to drug a race horse in order to increase its ability – but it seems to be perfectly all right to drug athletes in order to improve their performances.

At a recent physique contest in London, one of the leading entrants was asked which of several brands of high-protein diet supplements he used, whereupon he replied, "... protein? With Dianabol, who needs protein?"
Dianabol is the trade name of one of the anabolic steroids, the so-called "growth drugs."

While there seems to be no doubt that the use of such drugs is justified in certain types of cases, there is no possible excuse for their use by a healthy person – and great weight of evidence that strongly counter-indicates such use.

Basically, most of the so-called growth drugs are synthetic forms of male hormones – and massive doses of such drugs may temporarily increase the recovery ability of the body in certain areas; but the body responds to such treatment by immediately reducing its own natural production of such hormones – in an attempt to reestablish the formerly existing chemical balance.

Thus any resulting increase in recovery ability is extremely short in duration – and additional doses of the drug must be given at ever increasing levels at very frequent intervals. Eventually, if such treatment is continued for a long enough period – and in many cases this period is quite short – the body may actually lose its ability to produce such hormones naturally, and a man could literally be turned into a eunuch.

But totally apart from the obvious dangers involved, a great diversity of opinion exists within the medical profession as to the actual growth effects – if any – that are caused by such drugs; many doctors are of the firm opinion that any observed effects are directly due to placebo effect.

Yet such drugs are being used by literally thousands of athletes in this country – and probably by hundreds of thousands; within the last year, a high school football coach strongly recommended the use of such drugs to the author – and bitterly defended their utilization when questioned regarding the justification or propriety of such use.

Nor does there seem to be any shortage of doctors that are willing to issue prescriptions for such drugs to healthy high school athletes on the recommendations of coaches.

Eventually, such drug usage will emerge in a major scandal – and the sooner, the better; but in the meantime, an unknown amount of potentially very serious damage is being done to large numbers of young athletes.

Viewed as simply another attempt to "win at any cost", such drug utilization moves directly in the face of good sportsmanship; but in the light of the very real dangers involved, it borders on outright madness.

Worse than that, there is no slightest evidence to indicate that the results – if any – produced by the use of such drugs cannot be duplicated without such use; although they have been widely considered as such, the ever mounting records in weightlifting are certainly no proof of the effectiveness of such drugs.

In the Olympic lifts, the greatest degree of recent improvement has been in the performance of the standing press – but most of this has been directly due to great relaxation in the rules governing the performance of this lift; as of the moment, most of the leading heavyweight lifters are capable of "jerking" very little if any more than they can "press".

In fact, the performance of the press has degenerated to such a degree that serious consideration was given to the idea of dropping it as one of the three Olympic lifts.

In power lifting, great strides have been apparent primarily because of the fact that this is a very recently introduced sport; but some individuals were fully capable of executing such lifts in good form with very near present world-record poundage's as long as fifteen years ago – long before the use of growth drugs.

The present record in the bench press is 617 1/2 pounds – but Douglas Hepburn lifted almost 600 pounds in good form well over fifteen years ago; and he did so at a bodyweight far below that of most of the presently-active heavyweight power-lifters.

Insofar as muscular size is concerned, very few men have ever even approached the muscular size attained by John Grimek nearly thirty years ago.

When I mentioned the possibility of serious damages resulting from the use of growth drugs, the coach that was defending their use stated that such cases of damage were extremely rare and that, in any case, all such cases were due to "overdoses."

But in fact, such cases of serious damage are far from rare – although they have not been greatly publicized, for obvious reasons – and the entire effect, if any, from such drugs is entirely dependent upon "overdoses".

In a healthy individual, the system is fully capable of maintaining a very delicate chemical balance – and the use of growth drugs is intended to momentarily disturb this balance, as it must, if results are to be produced.

 

[Goosey]

The Arthur Jones Collection

Nautilus Bulletin #1

22 Range of Movement – Flexibility

With two minor exceptions – both of which are totally unimportant for any sort of normal activity – an obvious increase in the ranges of movement possible for an athlete should follow as a direct result of weight training, regardless of the actual muscular bulk that is developed; in fact, it can be clearly shown that increases in muscular bulk almost presuppose increases in flexibility – because the type of heavy exercises that are required for building great muscular bulk also produce increased ranges of movement.

Partial, limited-range movements simply will not build anything even approaching the maximum possible degree of muscular mass; thus, for producing great muscular bulk, full-range, extremely-heavy movements are required – and such exercises literally force the body parts into positions far outside the normal range of movement possible for an untrained individual.

Extremely heavy power-lifters are not an exception – instead, they are another matter altogether; a very great part of the actual bulk of many of these men is not muscular bulk, it is fatty tissue – which can and will restrict freedom of movement.

Such men have – indeed, must have – great muscular bulk, but most of them also have an equal bulk of fatty tissue, both subcutaneous and intramuscular.

Near the end of the last century, in the infancy of modern weightlifting, most lifters were extremely heavy men – many of them weighing over 400 pounds – and almost all of them had enormous waist and upper-thigh measurements; a man of that weight will display obviously restricted movement – unless he is nearly eight feet tall – and he would do so regardless of just what that bulk consisted of, but it is totally impossible to create such bulk in the same areas so long as a reasonable degree of muscularity is maintained.

At or about that same time – around 1890 – the term "muscle bound" was probably originated; but it should have been called "fat bound", since such a condition of restricted movement has absolutely nothing to do with muscle.

About thirty years ago, John Grimek – one of the bulkiest muscular men in history – remarked on the subject, "...you can lift weights and be called 'muscle bound', or not lift weights and actually be muscle bound." Grimek was – and probably still is, past the age of sixty – capable of touching both elbows to the floor from a standing position without bending his knees, performing full splits, and many other movements far outside the ranges of possible movement displayed by the average man.

Yet his muscular bulkiness was so great that it almost defies description, and literally had to be seen to be believed.

An exceptional case? On the contrary, almost all really bulky, muscular men show far more than the average degree of flexibility; a man that has practiced heavy pullovers will usually be able to put both elbows behind his head at the same time, regardless of how big his arms may be – and a man that has practiced heavy stiff-legged deadlifts will be able to reach far below his feet without bending his knees – and those are the type of exercises that are required for building great muscular bulk.

Such great flexibility is not displayed "in spite of the great muscular bulk", on the contrary, such flexibility is possible "because of the muscular bulk" – or, at the very least, it is a direct result of the same type of training that is required for building a large degree of muscular mass.

The average individual will find it impossible to do a full squat while keeping his heels on the floor – because his Achilles tendons have lost much of their flexibility from prolonged inactivity; but many weightlifters can touch their buttocks to the floor behind them while keeping both feet perfectly flat on the floor – and some weightlifters can touch their buttocks to the floor behind them while almost touching their knees to the floor in front of them, while keeping both feet flat on the floor – and a few weightlifters can touch both buttocks and knees to the floor simultaneously, while keeping their feet flat on the floor.

The two exceptions mentioned at the start of this chapter? In some cases –but not in all cases – it is possible to build the size of the legs and/or arms to such a muscular size that the range of bending movement will be slightly reduced; such a man might not be able to squat quite as deeply as he could at a lighter weight – or might not be able to bend his arms as far as he could when it was far smaller – but the actual reduction would never be more than a few degrees, and would never prevent such a man from engaging in any sort of normal activity.

With most individuals, such a reduction in the ranges of movement is not even possible – and in most of the cases where it is encountered, such a reduction in flexibility is caused by obviously abnormal proportions, a result of heredity, and in no case is it of any slightest importance.

A given individual will almost always increase his flexibility in proportion to his increases in muscular bulk – although obviously not in direct, one-to-one proportion, since it is possible to increase muscular bulk on the order of four-hundred percent (400%) and such an increase in range of movement is literally impossible.

 

[Goosey]

The Arthur Jones Collection

Nautilus Bulletin #1

23 Average Expectations from Training

"How much can I gain – how fast?" An impossible question, obviously – far too many factors are involved for even the possibility of an accurate answer; yet averages do exist, and if careful consideration is given to all of the factors, at least some sort of reasonable goal can be established for most new trainees.

Taking one group of thirty-six test subjects, their average starting measurements were as follows – as contrasted to the average sizes that I expected them to reach if they stayed in training for a period of eighteen months:

If you want it I can email it to you[/COLOR]


But in order to reach any significant conclusions on the basis of the above figures, it must be remembered that they are "averages."

In order to reach the average expected size after eighteen months of training, the lightest subject – with a starting bodyweight of 136 pounds – would have to gain 49 pounds; and the heaviest subject – with a starting bodyweight of 267 1/2 pounds – would have to lose 72 1/2 pounds.

At the end of the first eight weeks of training, the lightest subject had gained 13 pounds of bodyweight – and the heaviest subject had lost 10 pounds.

It must also be remembered that the above group of trainees were high school athletes for the most part – almost the entire football squad of a large high school was included; thus the average bodyweight was well above that which would be encountered in a group of subjects selected at random – and the ratio of rib-box size to normal chest size was different from that to be expected in a similar sized group of non-athletes.

Having engaged in sports requiring endurance for running, most of these subjects reflected a result of that training in the size of their lungs.

Although more than fifty percent of the subjects had taken part in a very limited weight program the previous year, only one of them had much in the way of training experience with weights; this one subject – with approximately eight months of training experience – was stronger than any other subject in the group, and far stronger than the average for the group as a whole.

During initial strength tests, he was able to perform 21 repetitions with 260 pounds in the full squat – and the second strongest subject in the group was able to do only one repetition with 255 pounds, with the average performance being far below that.

Yet this one experienced subject's bodyweight – 174 pounds – was only 6.81 pounds above the average weight of the group, and was far below the weight of the larger subjects in the group.

In the immediately preceding eight months of training, this subject had gained 41.5 pounds of bodyweight and had increased his upper arm size by almost exactly three inches – an increase in the actual bulk of muscular tissue in the upper arms of well over one hundred and forty percent (140%).

At the end of that period of training, his strength performances were as follows: EXERCISE REPETITIONS AND RESISTANCE
Full squats: 21 with 260 pounds; 9 with 290; 5 with 330
Full squats on one leg only: 5 with 135; 50 with 65
Bench presses: 7 with 215
Standing presses: 5 with 155
Parallel dips: 7 with 95; 18 with 50
Regular grip chins on bar: 3 with 75; 18 with 50
Strict barbell curls: 8 with 130
Barbell wrist curls: 17 with 120

The above performances were recorded when the subject weighed 174 pounds at a height of 5 feet, 8 inches – he was then 17 years and 5 months of age.

Insofar as flexibility was concerned, a comparison between this subject and any other subject in the group was almost ridiculous; his ranges of movement were far greater in every respect – in some cases by as much as 90 degrees of movement.

Without bending his knees, he was capable of touching a point more than ten inches below his feet – and his range of elbow movement exceeded 240 degrees, as contrasted to an average range of movement of approximately 150 degrees.

In spite of his far larger than average leg size, he was easily and comfortably able to sit with his buttocks, the entire surface of the backs of his thighs, the entire surface of the sides of his calves and the inside surfaces of his feet all in solid contact with the floor – and this position was in no sense a forced position.

No other subject in the group could come anywhere close to assuming this same position – not even as a forced position.

In spite of having done no running at all for a period of over two years –and very little at any time in his life – this subject was among the fastest in the group in the 100 yard dash, and among the leading five percent of subjects in the 660 yard run.

While the above described gains and performances are certainly worthwhile results from only eight months of training, this particular subject fell far below expectations; being almost totally lacking in incentive, he simply refused to push himself in training – and avoided training entirely if at all possible.

Many subjects are capable of doing much better, some simply cannot do as well – and incentive is not the only factor involved, although it is an extremely important one, perhaps the most important one.

If a healthy – but underweight – subject trains properly and is provided with the nutritional requirements, he must gain weight; but the rate at which he gains will depend upon many other factors as well.

During the first eight weeks of the above mentioned test program, another subject gained 18 pounds – from 138 pounds to 156 pounds – while increasing his muscular bulk and strength enormously; during that period, he added two full inches to his upper arm size – a 100% increase in muscular bulk – while increasing his strength in the standing press from one repetition with 80 pounds to one repetition with 155 pounds, and ten repetitions with 130 pounds.

In the same period, his squatting strength increased from eight repetitions with 130 pounds to twenty repetitions with 230 pounds – and he added more than four inches to the size of his normal chest. In all of the cases mentioned above, these results were obtained from a maximum of four hours of weekly training – and in most cases, from less than three hours of weekly training.

 

[nazzysmith]

Niiccceeee.....

 

[Rambodian]

Arthur Jones Nautilus Seminar 1986 - YouTube

Allot of people are easily offended by his harsh nature. I actually find comfort in his no bullshit approach.