Nautilus training bulletin #1

[Goosey]

The Arthur Jones Collection

Nautilus Bulletin #1

4 Indirect Effect

Throw a stone into a pool of water, and it will make a splash – and a wave will run to the far end of the pool; the larger the stone, the larger the splash – and the larger the wave.
A very similar effect results from any form of exercise – I have named this "indirect effect".
When one muscle grows in response to exercise, the entire muscular structure of the body grows to a lesser degree – even muscles that are not being exercised at all; and the larger the muscle that is growing – or the greater the degree of growth – the greater this indirect effect will be.
Until quite recently, this effect was most pronounced as a result of the practice of full squats. It has been repeatedly demonstrated that the practice of squats – as a single exercise – will induce large-scale muscular growth throughout the body; and while nobody yet understands why this happens, there is no slightest doubt that it does happen.
The results are extremely obvious; for example – if a six foot man weighing 150 pounds is put on a regular schedule of heavy squats, he may gain 50 pounds of muscular bulk within a year, as a direct result of this one type of exercise.

But all of this growth will not occur in the legs and the lower back – the areas of the body being worked – in fact, a very marked degree of growth will also occur in the muscles of the shoulders, the chest, the neck, and the arms.

While such an individual might have 13 inch upper arms at the start of such a training program, it is almost impossible for his arms to stay that small; by the end of the program, his arms would probably be at least 15 inches.

And in almost all cases, the bulk of this arm-size increase will be in the form of muscular fiber – rather than fatty tissue; the strength of the arms will increase in proportion (but not in direct proportion) to the size increase – in spite of the fact that no exercise is employed for the arms at all.

All other muscular masses of the body will show the same effect – to a greater or lesser degree.

While it is certainly possible to build an obvious degree of disproportionate muscular size through the employment of an unbalanced program of exercises – and a training program limited to squats would be just that – there seems to be a definite limit to the degree of such disproportionate development that the body will permit; for example, it is difficult to build the size of the arms beyond a certain point, unless the large muscles of the legs are also being exercised.

It is very common for young men on a weight-training program to ignore the development of their legs entirely – while concentrating on their arms and the muscles of the torso; on such a program, the arms will grow up to a point, but then additional growth will not be forthcoming – or at least not until heavy exercises for the legs are added to the training program, and then the arms will almost always start growing again immediately.

Apparently having reached a maximum permissible degree of disproportionate development, the body will not permit additional arm growth until the legs are also increased in size.

Or perhaps some other cause/effect relationship is responsible – but the results are obvious, regardless of what the actual causative factors may be.

It is not necessary to understand the effect to be aware of its results. While the actual percentile of effect from this factor is not known, it is obvious that it varies within a certain range –apparently depending primarily upon two conditions; (1) the larger the mass of the muscle that is being exercised, the larger the degree of results from indirect effect will be, and (2) the greater the distance between the muscle that is being exercised and the muscle that is not being exercised, the smaller the degree of results will be.

Thus it is obvious that heavily working the arms would have the largest indirect effect on nearby muscular masses, the pectorals, the latissimus, and the trapezoids – and the least effect on the muscles of the lower legs; and it is equally clear that the degree of indirect effect produced by building the arms would not be as great as that resulting from exercise for the much larger muscles of the thighs or the upper back – all other factors being equal.

From these observations, a number of conclusions are rather obvious; (1) for good results from exercise, it is essential that the training program be well rounded – that some form of exercise be included for each of the major muscle masses of the body, (2) greatest concentration should be directed towards working the largest muscles in the body, and (3) the training sequence should be arranged in such a way that the muscles are worked in order of their relative sizes.

In practice, this last point requires that the thighs be worked first, the latissimus muscles second, the trapezoids third, the pectorals fourth, the upper arms fifth, and the forearms last. Smaller muscles – such as the deltoids – should be worked in conjunction with the larger muscles whose functions they assist; or immediately afterwards, where such simultaneous exercise is not possible through the utilization of some form of compound exercise.

The first two conclusions indicated above are quite obvious, and require no additional explanation – but the third conclusion, the order of performance of exercises, may not be so obvious. It is generally agreed – and long experience has well proven – that the greatest degree of growth stimulation is provided by exercise that works a muscle well inside its momentary reserve of ability; but it is sometimes literally impossible to reach the required condition of induced momentary exhaustion while working a large muscular mass if the system has been previously exhausted by exercises intended for other, smaller muscles.

Thus it is important to work the largest muscles first – while the system is still capable of working to the desired degree; secondly, since the largest muscles will also cause the greatest degree of overall indirect effect, this is another important consideration in this sequence of exercise.

 

[Goosey]

The Arthur Jones Collection

Nautilus Bulletin #1

5 Frequency and Extent of Exercise

The subjects of this chapter are perhaps the most controversial issues in the field of physical training today; while there is some agreement on the types of exercise that are most effective, there is nothing approaching agreement on the subject of just how much exercise is required for best results or how frequently it should be repeated.

The old expression, "A thousand different experts, a thousand different theories," is almost literally true in this instance.

At least in part, this situation arises from the fact that almost any amount of the right type of exercise can produce striking results in a very high percentile of test subjects; thus, almost any individual will show marked improvements in both muscular mass and strength within a short time after being placed on a weight training program – and this result will be produced in most cases regardless of the actual amount of exercise employed, at least for a while.

But while this is clear evidence of the effectiveness of such methods of exercise, in at least one important respect it is an unfortunate situation – because it has led to a commonly practiced habit of overworking, as opposed to proper training; "if some exercise is good, more is better", seems to be a common – though badly mistaken – theory.

During the Second World War, a number of very large-scale experiments were conducted in this field, and insofar as I have been able to determine, the results of these experiments were unanimous in at least one major conclusion; "there is a definite limit to the 'amount' of exercise that will produce beneficial results – carried beyond that point, exercise will reverse its own previous results, leading to losses in weight, condition, and stamina.

" Yet, since then, it has been clearly shown that it is almost literally impossible to overwork insofar as "intensity of effort" is concerned; and to many people, these seem to be paradoxical conclusions – where, in fact, no paradox exists.

The problem apparently is one of nomenclature, a simple –if widespread – misunderstanding of terms; "amount of exercise" has been confused with "intensity of effort." And confused it has been, on an enormous scale – and thus we see thousands of examples of individuals training as much as twenty or more hours weekly, sometimes for periods of several years, in attempts to better their progress; where, in fact, far better results would have been produced in the vast majority of cases if such training had been limited to a maximum of not more than five hours of weekly exercise.

And in the author's opinion, best results will be produced in at least ninety percent of all cases if training is limited to less than four hours weekly. But – because such marathon training programs will produce a marked degree of results if continued long enough – it is almost impossible to convince people who have fallen into such training habits that even better results would have been produced by a much briefer workout routine.

A recent article described the training routine that one young man has followed for a period of seven years, four hours a day, seven days a week –twenty-eight hours of weekly training; and his results, in the end, have been fairly good – if not spectacular.

But it is the author's contention that far better results would have resulted in far less time from the practice of a training routine that required only about fifteen percent (15%) of the weekly time that this individual spent training – and if even the same degree of results could have been produced in one third of the elapsed time, then it is obvious that only five percent (5%) of this subject's training was actually required.

The actual requirements for exercise vary on an individual basis, of course – but do they vary on such a scale, on the order of two-thousand percent (2,000%), as was indicated in the above example? I think not.

On the contrary, I think that this individual has merely developed a tolerance to this amount of exercise – and I cannot believe that it is an actual requirement. Within the author's own personal experience, there have been literally hundreds of examples of individuals that have shown far better results than those produced by the above mentioned subject – while practicing a total of less than three percent (3%) of the number of exercise movements that have been employed by that subject within a period of seven years.

This being true – as it is – then what is the possible excuse for such extensive training programs? "Misdirected effort," seems – to the author –to be the only possible answer.

Yet such misdirected effort is being employed on a vast scale – in tens-of-thousands of cases. But what do the results of research indicate? Twenty years ago, in the course of experiments conducted by the author upon his own person, the greatest degree of results came from a program limited to four hours of weekly training – three weekly workouts of exactly; one hour and twenty minutes each.

And while I am fully aware that the results produced by one such case are of no real significance, this experience was at least enough to convince me that the then most common practiced training programs would be improved if reduced insofar as weekly training time was concerned.

This conviction was primarily based upon the fact that I had previously been training more than twice as much, and that my progress had been at a standstill for several weeks – but then, almost immediately after reducing my training by approximately sixty percent (60%), I started to gain in both size and strength.

On a much reduced training program, my progress was far faster than it had ever been previously – and I very quickly reached new levels in both muscular size and strength, levels which I had previously considered impossible for me as an individual.

That experience occurred at a time when I had been training for almost ten years – during that time I had tried almost literally "everything" in my attempts to better my progress.

Nothing was involved except a reduction in the amount of exercise that I was doing previously; otherwise, the training program remained unchanged – I performed exactly the same exercises in exactly the same way, reducing only the number of "sets" of each exercise and the frequency of workouts.

But while one such example proves almost nothing by itself, this personal experience was enough to trigger my thinking into a new direction; since then, almost all of my interest has been directed towards attempts to determine the exact length of training time that is required for the production of best possible results in most case.

Twenty years later, the weight of evidence is simply indisputable; "in almost all cases, best results from heavy exercise will be produced by the practice of a very limited number of compound exercises that involve the major muscular masses of the body, and such training should be limited to not more than five hours of weekly training in any case and to about four hours in most cases." In practice, best results are usually produced by three weekly workouts of less than one and one-half hours each.

 

[nazzysmith]

This thread will end up as a sticky!!!!!

 

[Goosey]

NAUTILUS BULLETIN #1
By Arthur Jones
CHAPTER 6
INTENSITY OF EFFORT
Thirty years ago, it was noted that, "...the foreman of a crew of manual laborers will almost always be the strongest man in the crew -- and he is the strongest because he is the foreman, rather than being the foreman because he is the strongest."

Yet, in almost all cases, the foreman performs far less work than any of the other men in the crew. A paradox? No -- on the contrary, simple proof of the effectiveness of heavy exercise for the production of muscular size and strength.

The foreman works only when the combined efforts of the other men in the crew cannot produce the desired result -- he helps to lift the heavier than normal load; thus his exercise is brief and infrequent, but intense and irregular -- and those are the exact requirements for producing the best results in the way of muscular size and strength.

Twenty years ago, the author noted an even more striking example of clear proof of the same theory; the relative sizes of the two arms of an individual that has been training with weights for a period of time long enough to produce marked results.

In almost all cases, the left arm of a right-handed weight trainee will be larger than his right arm -- usually to a marked degree.

Why? Simply because the left arm of a right-handed man must work harder to perform its share of an equally divided workload; it does not work more, nor differently -- it works harder, with a greater intensity of effort. And it responds by growing larger than the right arm. 24

A right-handed man lacks some degree of "feel" in his left arm -- his balance and muscular control are both less efficient in his left arm, and this remains true to at least some degree regardless of the length of time that he has been training both of his arms in an apparently identical manner.

The left arm works harder, so it responds to this increased intensity of effort by growing larger -- and in tests of strength that do not involve balance or muscular coordination, the left arm will almost always be stronger as well as larger.

But when I have pointed this out to individual weight trainees -- as I have done on repeated occasions -- the response had almost always been along exactly the same line; "...well, in that case, I’ll do an extra set of curls for my right arm -- then it grow larger too."

Having missed the entire point, they assumed that "more" exercise was required -- when in fact, this situation is clear proof that all that is required is "harder" exercise.

Intensity of effort is almost the entire answer in itself; lacking the proper intensity of effort, little or nothing in the way of results will be produced by any amount of exercise --At least not in the way of muscular size or strength increases. But given the proper intensity of effort, then very little in the way of exercise is required for the production of best possible results.

And although this has been pointed out repeatedly; to almost literally all of the several million weight trainees in this country, it still remains a largely misunderstood point; the usual practice is to do more individual exercises and more "sets" of each exercise, in the mistaken belief that such an increase in the amount of exercise will also produce an increase in the intensity of effort -- which it obviously will not.

In fact, in almost all cases, the exactly opposite effect results; because it is difficult to perform seemingly endless sets of exercise while continuing to exert the maximum momentary level of intensity in each set -- and as a result, the workout quickly degenerates into a form of rather hard manual labor. 25

But such workouts do product results -- if continued long enough; another apparent paradox? Perhaps, to some people -- but no actual paradox exists in this case either; the results that are produced are a direct result of only one or two sets out of each workout -- regardless of the actual number of sets that are being performed. The other sets are literally wasted effort; worse than that, the additional sets beyond the minimum number required actually retard the progress that would have been produced if the workout had been greatly shortened.

"Best results will always be produced by the minimum amount of exercise that imposes the maximum amount of growth stimulation." And any other exercise that is added to the training routine will actually retard progress -- in many cases reducing it by as much as ninety percent (90%), and if carried to extremes, additional exercise will result in losses in both strength and muscular size.

But just what is the minimum amount of exercise that will impose the maximum amount of growth stimulation? And that, of course, is the problem. A problem that will probably never be solved to the complete satisfaction of everybody concerned, and the problem that has led to the presently existing great confusion on the subject of just how much exercise is best.

But while it is perfectly true that the exact answer to that question remains unavailable, it is not true that no information on the subject exists; on the contrary, a great deal of very well proven information has been available for many years -- and the last few years of research have given us at least a "practical" answer, if perhaps not a perfect one.

Fairly recently, new and rather surprising discoveries were made in connection with the actual mode of functioning involved in muscular contraction; and these true but largely misunderstood disclosures quickly led to the proliferation of theories which produced several forms of so-called "static exercise."

One of these - isometric contraction -- made the proposition that no actual exercise was required for the production of the maximum possible degree of muscular size and strength; all that was required -- 26
according to this theory -- was the application of a high percentile of the existing strength level against an unmoving resistance, in a number of various positions.

In theory, the results should have been nothing short of spectacular -- but in fact, the results were anything but spectacular; a spectacular failure, perhaps.

Yet the theory behind such exercise is basically sound -- as far as it goes; unfortunately; the conclusions that were drawn from the facts that provided the basis of that theory ignored several other well established facts.

A "cold" muscle is literally incapable of working within its existing level of reserve strength -- and unless an imposed workload is heavy enough to force the involved muscles to work well inside their momentarily existing reserve levels of strength, then very little in the way of results will be produced.

Before it is even capable of anything approaching a maximum effort, a muscle must be properly "warmed-up" by the performance of several repetitions of a movement that is much lighter than its existing level of strength is capable of handling.

If not, the muscle will "fail" at a point far below its actual strength level -- but such effort, even if carried to the point of muscular failure, will not provide much in the way of growth stimulation; because it is not heavy enough to force the muscles to work inside their existing levels of strength reserve.

Thus, with static exercise, a man can repeatedly work to the point of muscular failure -- while producing little or nothing in the way of worthwhile results.

But this does not mean that the theory behind such static exercise is totally worthless; on the contrary, some aspects of this type of exercise are worthy of great consideration, and should be included in any sort of training program.

Maximum efforts should be made against an unmoving resistance -- in every set of almost every exercise; but only after the maximum possible number of full movements have been performed, when the muscles are so exhausted from the immediately preceding repetitions that they are momentarily incapable of moving the resistance -- in spite of a one-hundred percent (100%) effort. 27

Then -- and only then -- should such maximum efforts be made; and they should be made because -- without them -- it is literally impossible to induce maximum growth stimulation.

It is simply impossible to build muscular size or strength by performing that which you are already capable of easily doing; you must constantly attempt the momentarily impossible, and such attempts should involve maximum possible efforts -- but only after the muscles have been properly "warmed-up", and only after they have been worked to the point of momentary exhaustion immediately before the maximum possible effort leading to a failure is attempted.

 

[Goosey]

NAUTILUS BULLETIN #1
By Arthur Jones
CHAPTER 7
CAM ACTION
The strength of a muscle depends upon its position -- muscles are weakest in their extended positions, and strongest in their fully contracted position; a muscle works by shortening, exerting a pulling force as it contracts -- and its strength level increases as it changes position from an extended to a contracted position.

Yet almost all forms of exercise totally ignore this basic characteristic of muscles -- and one result is that muscles are overworked in some positions while not being worked enough in other positions; in most cases, the muscle is prevented from working anywhere close to its true strength level -- because the resistance employed, if light enough to start a movement with, is far too light to properly work the muscle in its strongest, fully contracted position.

Obvious results are produced by exercise in spite of this shortcoming, but this is merely another proof of the potentially enormous benefits that such exercise 28
is capable of producing; and if this limitation is removed, then even better results can be produced -- far better results.

If a man is capable of starting up from the bottom position in a full squat with 300 pounds of resistance added to his own bodyweight, then he can probably do a very "limited range" partial squat with at least 1,000 pounds -- yet a thousand pounds would literally crush him helplessly to the floor if he made the mistake of bending his legs more than a few degrees under such a load.

The correct answer to that problem is quite simple -- after the fact; but it required many years of research to produce any sort of an answer.

An answer that is only now being placed into common practice. The resistance must vary throughout the movement, changing in proportion to the strength of the involved muscles in various positions.

Quite simple -- after you have heard it; but so is a wheel -- after you have seen one, and yet it took several thousand years of need before something as simple as a wheel was even thought of.

The varying strength of a muscle, however, is not entirely determined by its position --although that is an important consideration; an even more important factor is one I have named "cam action".

Muscles work by moving in approximately straight lines, and almost all forms of resistance also impose their forces in approximately straight lines, but muscles cause movement by acting upon body parts that move in a semi-circular fashion.

Thus, in order to raise a weight in a straight line, the involved body parts must be rotated -- the only other possible method of raising a weight, and in this case it won’t rise in a straight line, is by rotating the weight itself.


In all cases, "something" must rotate -- either the weight or the involved body parts; and in practice, this rotation is usually shared -- the body parts rotate to some degree, and the weight rotates to some degree.

Thus, in practice, we encounter so-called "sticking points" in most exercises -- a point in the movement where the resistance seems much heavier than it 29
does at other points; and we also encounter points of little or no resistance -- where the weight seems to weigh almost nothing.

Parts of these areas of seemingly varying resistance can be attributed to the variations in a muscle’s strength in different positions, but cam action is responsible for a large share of these effects.

Fortunately, this problem has been solved -- completely. Exercises now exist that are capable of working all of the major muscles of the body in an exactly rotary fashion.
But solving this problem led to another problem; once it became possible to eliminate cam action, then the effects produced by the variations in muscular strength in different positions still remained -- removing cam action greatly improved the situation, but a perfect form of exercise had still not been achieved.

Doing away with cam action produced exercise movements that were actually perfectly smooth -- the resistance was exactly the same in all possible positions; but it still didn’t "feel" even -- it felt too heavy at the start of a movement, and too light at the end of a movement.

But now this problem has been solved as well -- completely solved; the actual resistance must vary throughout the movement -- in exact proportion to the changing strength of the involved muscles. When this is done properly, the movement "feels" perfectly smooth -- there are no sticking points, and no areas of light resistance.

 

[Goosey]

FULL SQUATS -- PRO AND CON next!

 

[Darkoz]

Oooh this'll be interesting

 

[Goosey]

The Arthur Jones Collection

Nautilus Bulletin #1

8 Full Squats – Pro and Con

Recently, there has been a tremendous amount of controversy on the subject of full squats.

According to some people, the practice of full squats is an almost certain road to destruction of the knee tendons – and according to others, full squats are the best single exercise in existence.

So, just what is the truth of the matter? Well, to begin with, just what is a full squat? In power-lifting circles, squatting is limited to a point where the tops of the thighs are parallel with the floor – but to a man with heavy legs, that is a full squat; in fact, many of the heavier power-lifters have difficulty going that low – the backs of their thighs are solidly compressed against the backs of their calves long before they reach a parallel position.

And that is exactly why parallel squats are included as one of the three basic power-lifts – instead of full squats. Otherwise, there would have been endless controversy between the lighter men and the heavier men about how low a squat was supposed to be.

Competitive lifting is a dangerous sport – and this is true of both Olympic-style lifting and power lifting, but for different reasons; in practicing the fast lifts, in Olympic lifting, the suddenness of movement is probably the most dangerous factor – such sudden movements, under heavy loads, impose tremendous G forces on both the muscles and tendons.

In performing a clean and jerk with 400 pounds, a man may momentarily expose his muscles and tendons to a force that is actually ten times as heavy as the weight being employed; and such forces sometimes tear out tendons or seriously injure muscles.

In performing power lifts, the danger comes from another source – from prolonged exposure to a force that may be more than the skeleton is capable of supporting, regardless of the strength of the muscles involved. At the moment of this writing, at least a few individuals are squatting with over 800 pounds – and since most of these men weigh at least 300 pounds, this means that they are actually supporting over 1,100 pounds on their feet, and most of that amount on their spines.

In the author's opinion, the human skeleton simply was not designed to support such loads for prolonged periods of time; for any purpose except power lifting competition, all of the benefits that can be provided by squats can be derived without using more than 400 pounds, and in most cases without using more than 300 pounds.

There is no slightest question about the effectiveness of squats; they are certainly one of the most result producing exercises in existence – and, until quite recently, they were the most result producing single exercise in existence.

But it is not necessary to do heavy, single attempt squats in order to derive benefit from them; on the contrary, the most result producing version of squats is the practice of sets of from fifteen to twenty repetitions – with the occasional practice of slightly heavier squats on the 10/8/6 system.

In that system, you perform three sets of squats in each workout – selecting a weight that will barely permit ten repetitions in the first set, and then increasing the weight approximately ten percent and trying for eight repetitions in the second set, and then increasing it another ten percent and trying for six repetitions in the final set.

If two sets – or a maximum of three sets – of squats are practiced two times weekly, and if a weight is used that will barely permit the performance of between fifteen and twenty repetitions, then this work will stimulate enormous overall growth, while increasing endurance, improving condition, and building great strength in both the legs and lower back as well as building a lesser degree of strength throughout the body from the previously mentioned "indirect effort."

Then, during the third weekly workout, if the 10/8/6 system of squatting is used, this will build almost the ultimate degree of overall bodily strength that can come from squatting – and without the danger of extremely heavy squatting.

Insofar as the "depth of squatting" is concerned, squats should be carried to the point where the backs of the thighs first start to contact the backs of the calves, and at that point the squat should be stopped by muscular action – instead of by bouncing the thighs off of the calves. Performed in that manner – the correct manner indicated here – there is no slightest danger from the performance of squats; not to the knees, at least – and very little danger of any kind if common sense precautions are observed. On the contrary, squats will do more to prevent knee injuries than any other exercise – or any other combination of exercises.

The greatest single disadvantage that squats have is the fact that they are brutally hard if they are practiced in a manner intended to give much in the way of results; and many weight trainees are simply not willing to work as hard as squats force them to.

Such people – who exist in their thousands –have been quick to spread the rumors about the supposed danger to the knees from squats; because, then, they have an excuse for not performing them.

Joints are not damaged by normal movements – on the contrary, such movements are required to maintain the normal functioning of joints; held in one position for a period of several days, a joint becomes literally incapable of movement – held in one position a few months, a joint may well become permanently incapable of movement.

And while squatting – as a form of sitting – is much out of style in most parts of this country at the moment, it still remains, world-wide, by far the most common means of sitting; such figures are literally impossible to come by with any degree of accuracy, but if accurate figures were available, I would be more than willing to bet that knee injuries are far more common in this country – where squatting is almost never practiced – than they are in areas where squatting is still done as a routine matter of course.

So – by all means – include squats in your training program, and carry them to the lowest safe position, whatever that may be in any particular case; do them smoothly, under full control at all times, and stop at the bottom by muscular action – that is all that is required, and exactly the same rules apply to every other exercise you can think of.

If you still remain unconvinced, then ask yourself just why I am so anxious to convince you of the value of squats; after all, it makes no slightest difference to me whether you do squats or not – or "how" you do them, if you do them.

Squats are not something that I can sell you, nor did I invent them – they are simply a very good form of exercise that cannot be duplicated insofar as benefits are concerned by any other single exercise. Do them, or don't do them – but if you don't, then you probably will suffer from knee injuries, especially if you play football.

 

[Goosey]

He typed all these chapters in one night, straight from his head, Kim Wood did the proof reading, Kim said, " he was typing fasting than I could proof read and i never dared to correct him, I've never seen anything like it"

If anyone has used an old typewriter you'd know how hard that could of been.

 

[CaT_SPeW]

good squat article

 

[Goosey]

good squat article

Hoff, that is the original squat article

 

[nazzysmith]

Andy,

Interesting read... How does his writing compare with more current thinking?

One question that has crossed my mind is whether or not there are any negative long term effects of really heavy squatting???

 

[Goosey]

Andy,

Interesting read... How does his writing compare with more current thinking?

One question that has crossed my mind is whether or not there are any negative long term effects of really heavy squatting???

I think that is just too hard to answer as there are now just so many.

Jones was quoted saying," everything of any value related to exercise can be stated in less than a thousand words, can in fact be fairly well covered in a very few words as follows;

Train hard, train briefly, train infrequently and always remember that your final results will primarily be a consequence of your genetics.

It seems millions of people in the exercise game read everything they can get their hands on that relates to exercise, hoping to find a magic secret to instant effortless success."

I think squatting anything heavy under 6 reps using single or multiple sets and long breaks over two minutes is risky for most over the long term.

 

[CaT_SPeW]

just squatted 10, 8, 6 reps with 60,70,80kg loved it and am gonna stick with it for awhile. andy how often would you up the weight using this method? especially since the aim is not to go super heavy but obviously you still need to progress

 

[Goosey]

just squatted 10, 8, 6 reps with 60,70,80kg loved it and am gonna stick with it for awhile. andy how often would you up the weight using this method? especially since the aim is not to go super heavy but obviously you still need to progress

I love it also.
I personally stick and who i train, with a weight until they/I own it, that for me is around three to four workouts before I feel I can increase the weight by 5%

My last three workouts have been; 10x98, 8x110, 6x123 followed by 20x63
I'm around 88kg at the moment I think.

Once I feel comfortable I will increase the weight and most probably drop the 20 repper for the first workout.

I always per-fatigue the legs with a set of extensions then a warmup set of squats using 10x60kg
But I'm 50, I can't squat twice a week anymore.

 

[Goosey]

The Arthur Jones Collection

Nautilus Bulletin #1

9 Compound Exercises vs. Specialization

A compound exercise is one that involves more than one muscle – the standing press is a good example, involving the major muscles of the shoulder girdle and the upper arms, the trapezoids, the deltoids, the upper (minor) pectorals, and the triceps; the bench press is a bad example –although it too involves several muscles, the deltoids, the triceps, and the pectorals.

The standing press is a good example because it provides good – if not quite direct – workloads for several major muscles; the bench press is a bad example because it provides reasonably direct work only for the anterior portion of the deltoids, and a lower order of even less direct work for the triceps and pectorals – the primary problem with the bench press apparently being that of direction of movement, the resistance is being moved in a direction that is almost never encountered in any sort of normal activity –and thus the body has never developed great strength for movements in that direction.

But if that is true, then why is it possible for a man to press more on a bench than he can in a standing position? The average, untrained man can't – on the contrary, the average man can press considerably more in a standing position than he can on a bench.

In fact, there is actually very little difference between the strength levels of trained individuals if they have been following a well rounded program; an Olympic lifter can usually press about as much one way as he can the other, and it is not uncommon for a man to be able to press more in the standing position than he can on the bench.

In the case of power lifters, it is not surprising that the bench press shows a higher level of strength – since such men specialize on bench presses for years, while doing little or nothing in the way of standing presses.

At the moment, the existing records are approximately 450 pounds in the standing press and 600 pounds in the bench press – a ratio of four to three in favor of the bench press; but such a comparison is actually meaningless, because the range of movement is so much greater, and the speed of movement is so much faster in the standing press.

In order to measure power, three factors must be considered – resistance, distance, and speed; and in a comparison between standing presses and bench presses, two of these factors – distance and speed – are totally ignored. But even a rough estimate that takes all of the necessary factors into consideration will quickly show that far more power is being generated in a standing press of 450 pounds than in a bench press of 600 pounds; which is not surprising, since the body is then working in a far more efficient direction.

The bench press is primarily popular simply because it is far easier than the standing press – and because a man can handle more weight in this movement, especially if he employs "cheating" methods, which are more difficult to do and impossible to conceal in a standing press; but insofar as its ability to develop useful strength, the bench press is an exercise of very limited value – the returns are not in proportion to the effort required.

An equal amount of time and energy devoted to the practice of standing presses will result in at least three times as much benefit – useful strength will be built in a direction of movement that can be employed in almost any sport, especially putting the shot and boxing.

While it might be thought that bench presses would provide the proper direction of movement for boxing, a moment's consideration will make it obvious that this is simply not true – in the last few inches of movement just before landing a heavy blow, a boxer is leaning far forward an his upper arm is in approximately the same position that it is in during the last part of a heavy press.

Almost exactly the same position is used in putting the shot.

Many coaches recommend the practice of presses on an incline board for building power for the shot put – but this is a mistake, the direction of movement, the angle involved, is almost exactly the same in a standing press as it is in an incline press – at the point where the greatest power is being produced.

Thus standing presses and incline presses both develop power in almost the same direction; but standing presses do so in the performance of a natural movement, much in the same way that the strength will later be utilized in putting the shot – and this is not the case with incline presses.

Secondly, standing presses involve all of the muscles of the body – causing the development of balance and muscular coordination, this is not the case with the incline presses. Quite frankly, the author considers incline pressing a dangerous practice –especially if this exercise is practiced in conjunction with leg presses; to the exclusion of standing presses and squats.

It is easily possible to build great strength into the shoulder girdle and upper arms by doing incline presses – and leg presses will also build great power in the thighs and buttocks; but if such power is built in this fashion, a literally dangerous situation has been created – because a man with such development will have created a chain with a dangerously weak link, his lower back.

If he attempts to use either or both forms of strength in the performance of a normal activity, he is almost certain to injure his lower back – and it is not impossible to literally break the back if such effort approaches a maximum effort.

Bench presses, incline presses and leg presses are all useful exercises, but they should never be practiced to the exclusion of standing presses and squats – and stiff-legged deadlifts, for the lower back, should always be included in any sort of training program.

Up to this point in this chapter, all of the exercises that I have mentioned are compound exercises – some good ones, some fair ones, and some poor ones; but in most cases, even a poor compound exercise is better than a good isolation movement – because a compound exercise, in addition to developing strength, also leads to great improvements in muscular coordination and balance – a result that does not come from the practice of isolation.

An isolation movement is an exercise that involves only one muscle – or one isolated part of the body; examples are – concentration curls with a dumbbell, thigh extensions, triceps curls and wrist curls. Such movements have their places – especially in the field of restorative surgery and in bodybuilding; but they are of almost no use in a training program designed for athletes – especially football players.

Brief treatment of minor injuries by the use of isolation movements is acceptable practice but only if such treatment is very brief, and only if it quickly leads to the practice of compound movements; otherwise, in almost all cases, such movements will create a situation where additional injury or re-injury is almost certain.

This happens because the prolonged employment of isolation movements will lead to the development of isolated areas of strength that are badly out of proportion to the strength of the surrounding tissue. As supplemental exercise to the employment of compound exercises, isolation exercises are frequently justified – but only in that capacity in the vast majority of cases.

There are exceptions, of course; one such exception is the wrist curl – an exercise that will build size in the forearms and strength in the wrists, and without any slightest danger from too much strength in an isolated area.

But such exceptions are just that –exceptions; and most isolation movements should be avoided like the plague by athletes during their normal training program.

As a general rule, exercises should be selected that involve several major muscular masses of the body in a compound movement – and where a choice exists, such exercises should involve the greatest possible range of movement. That is one of the main faults in the bench press, the range of movement is too restricted.

If a proper selection of exercises is made, then only a few movements are required to develop almost the ultimate degree of strength and muscular size.

The best barbell exercises? In no particular order, they are – squats, stiff legged deadlifts, standing presses, heavy barbell curls and some form of pullover, either stiff-armed or bent-armed. If other equipment is provided – as it should be – then these can be supplemented with various forms of chinning movements and parallel dips.

In the vast majority of cases, the best results will be produced by the employment of from four to six of the above exercises – but if all of the above exercises are being used in the same workout, then not more than two sets of each exercise should be employed, three times weekly.

All of these exercises are heavy movements – if performed properly – and too many sets of such exercises will lead to a condition of overworking; results will still be produced if such overwork is not carried to extremes, but far better results will occur much more quickly if a properly designed training program is provided.

 

[Goosey]

The Arthur Jones Collection

Nautilus Bulletin #1

10 Irregularity of Exercise

For the purpose of physical training, if weeks didn't exist, then it might have been necessary to invent them – because the vast weight of evidence clearly shows that a seven-day cycle of training is almost perfect for the production of best results from physical training.

This is primarily true, it seems, because it provides needed irregularity of training.

The human system very quickly grows accustomed to almost any sort of activity – and once having adapted to such activity, then no amount of practice of the same activity will provide growth stimulation, although it will help to maintain levels of strength that were built previously.

Thus it is extremely important to provide as many forms of variation in training as are reasonably possible; but in practice this does not mean that the training program needs to be – or should be – changed frequently.

On the contrary, the same basic training routine will serve a man well for his entire active life.

Another apparent paradox? Only an apparent one; in the first place, the "double progressive" system of training provides a great deal of variation in training – secondly, the three-times-weekly training schedule provides even more variety – and finally, if the training program is varied somewhat one day weekly, then all of the variety that is needed is well provided.

In the "double progressive" system of training – and this is the basic principal behind all forms of worthwhile exercise – no two workouts should ever be exactly the same.

Basically, the system works as follows; a weight is selected that will permit the performance of a certain number of repetitions – but then all possible repetitions are performed with that same resistance, with a constant attempt to increase the number of repetitions being performed.

Then, when a certain number of movements become possible, the resistance is increased by a certain percentile – and this will have the effect of reducing the number of possible repetitions.

Some sort of progress should be observed in almost every workout, either the number of repetitions or the amount of resistance should be increased – or both.

Even though the movements remain almost exactly the same, the workload is constantly increasing – exactly in proportion to the increases in strength that are being produced; such increases literally must be in proportion – nothing else is even possible.

Thus great variety is provided by this system of training; but caution must be observed to avoid falling into a pattern of performing your workouts in a routine fashion – without really making each set of every exercise a truly maximum effort.

Even more variety of training is provided by the three-times-weekly schedule; a first workout is performed on Monday, then two days later a second workout is performed on Wednesday, then two days later a third workout is performed on Friday – thus, on Sunday, the system is expecting and is prepared for a fourth workout, but it doesn't come.

Instead, it comes a day later, on Monday of the next week – when the body is neither expecting it nor prepared for it.

This schedule of training prevents the body from falling into a "rut" – since the system is never quite able to adjust to this irregularity of training, and great growth stimulation will be produced as a direct result.

Then, if the actual training program itself is varied insofar as the number of sets and/or the number of repetitions are concerned during one of the three weekly workouts, all of the variety and irregularity of training that are required will be produced.

Yet many thousands of weight trainees – especially bodybuilders – practice six or seven weekly workouts; and in almost all cases, such workouts quickly degenerate into a form of rather hard manual labor – and although some results will be produced, they will not be anything on the order of the results that would have resulted from a properly designed and executed training program.

It thus takes such trainees four or five years to produce exactly the same degree of results that could have been produced – and should have been produced – by less than a full year of proper training.

A properly planned and executed training program is nothing short of brutally hard work – results will be produced almost in direct proportion to the actual intensity of effort above a certain point, and no results will be produced by any amount of work below a certain intensity of effort – and I think that most trainees are simply not willing to work as hard as is required for best results.

Where at all possible, it is usually desirable to inspire a sense of competition; but in practice this frequently leads to very poor training habits – emphasis should be placed on form, and no credit should be permitted for the employment of "cheating" methods.

While cheating methods should be used – and are of great value if used properly – they should only be employed at the end of a set of exercise movements that have been performed in near perfect form; at that point in the exercise, cheating makes it possible to induce even more growth stimulation than would otherwise have been possible – but if cheating methods are employed to the exclusion of movements performed in good form, then very little in the way of growth stimulation will be induced, and, secondly, it will then become literally impossible to measure the progress of individual trainees with anything approaching accuracy.

And it is essential to carefully observe the progress of all types of physical training – because the requirements for exercise vary to a rather great degree among any group of individuals, although nowhere close to the degree that a lot of people believe.

Increasing the workload may produce literally striking results in some individuals, either increasing the rate of growth enormously or stopping it cold in its tracks – and such results can be produced by a variation of less than fifty percent in the workload; thus it is obvious that constant and careful attention must be paid to the true rate of progress of all trainees – and this is only possible when performances are measured on a realistic basis, which is simply impossible if cheating methods are permitted during strength tests, or it they are practiced and recorded during regular workouts and used as the basis for computing rates of progress.

So practice cheating methods – but only after all possible movements have been performed in good form – and then record only the properly performed movements for record keeping purposes.

 

[Goosey]

The Arthur Jones Collection

Nautilus Bulletin #1

11 Inducing Growth Stimulation

Maximum degrees of growth stimulation can be – and should be – induced by "the minimum-possible amount of exercise"; the minimum amount required to produce certain effects – and once these effects have been produced, then additional amounts of exercise will actually reduce the production of increases in strength and/or muscular size.

At the start of a barbell curl, for example, the arms are in a straight position and the bending muscles of the arms are in extended positions – in that position, the strength of the muscles involved in performing a curl is extremely low; the individual muscle fibers are extended and the muscles as a whole are also extended. Secondly, in that position, it is IMPOSSIBLE to involve more than a very low percentile of the total number of available muscle fibers in the work of starting the curl.

Muscle fibers perform work by contracting, by reducing their length – and in order to contract, they must move; and while it is perfectly true that a certain amount of "slack" exists in muscular structures, and in their attachments, it is nevertheless also true that no significant amount of power can be produced by a muscle without movement.

Thus, in effect, as a muscle fiber performs work it contracts (reduces its length), and in so doing it exerts a pulling force – and movement of the related body-part is produced; without such movement of the related body-part, then no significant amount of power can be produced.

If all of the fibers in a particular muscle were contracted at the same time, then obviously the muscle as a whole would be reduced to its shortest possible length; but this cannot happen unless the related body-part is moved into its position of full contraction as well. If a muscle did contract fully, and if the related body part did not move into its position of full contraction, then the muscle would be torn loose from its attachments; NOTHING ELSE IS EVEN POSSIBLE.

Thus, as should also be obvious, it is impossible to involve all of the fibers of the bending muscles of the arms in the performance of curls in any position except a position of full body-part contraction – which, in the case of the curl, means that the arms must be fully bent, fully supinated, and slightly raised.

With a barbell, it is impossible to perform a curl in such a manner that all of the muscular fibers of the bending muscles will be involved in the exercise; but if all of the related factors are clearly understood, and if exercises are performed in a proper manner (which they seldom are, even by very experienced trainees), then you can at least involve a far higher percentage of the total number of available fibers than you otherwise would.

At the start of the first repetition of a set of ten repetitions of the barbell curl, your muscles are fresh and strong – but in that starting position, you can involve only a very few of the actual number of fibers, simply because most of the fibers cannot perform work in that position; and, secondly, "only the actual number of fibers that are required will be involved in any case" – because, individual muscle fibers perform on an all-or-nothing basis.

You COULD increase the percentile of fibers that are involved, by performing the movement as fast as possible; but this is neither necessary nor desirable – because fast movements performed at a time when the muscles are fresh are extremely dangerous, there is great danger of tearing the muscle attachments loose.

And secondly, with fast movement, there is always a tendency to "swing" the weight by overall bodily motion rather than moving it by purely muscular action on the part of the muscles that you are attempting

So the first repetition should be performed as rapidly as possible in perfect form; and if any doubt regarding form exists, then the first repetition should be done at a pace somewhat slower than that which would be possible under the circumstances.

But in any case, regardless of how you perform the first repetition, you will involve only a very small percentage of the total number of muscle fibers available; this is true for several reasons – at the start of the first repetition, it is impossible to involve more than a relatively very few of the total number of fibers, because most of the fibers cannot work in that position – secondly, since all of the fibers are fresh and strong, only a few will be required to move the weight, the number actually needed will be involved, and not one more – and thirdly, at the point in the exercise where it is possible to involve a high percentage of the total number of available fibers, there is no resistance available, and without resistance no exercise is possible.

If you are using a weight with which you can perform ten repetitions of the barbell curl, then a properly performed first repetition may involve only four or five percent of the total number of available fibers – the other ninety-odd percent of available fibers are in no way involved in the exercise.

During an immediately following second repetition, the situation is a bit better; by that point, the previously worked fibers are no longer as fresh and strong as they were during the first repetition, their momentarily-existing strength level has been reduced, and they will not again be capable of raising the weight without the assistance of other fibers – and such assistance will be provided, but only to the degree that is actually required.

Thus, repetition by repetition the percentage of involved fibers becomes greater; until, finally, by the tenth repetition, you may be using as many as fifteen percent of the total number of available fibers – at which point, the exercise will seem quite hard, and at which point most trainees will call a halt to their efforts.

But at that point in the exercise, very little – or actually nothing – in the way of muscle growth stimulation has been induced; the muscles are already capable of performing at the level being demanded – as was clearly demonstrated by the fact that you could perform ten repetitions, and did –and thus the muscles are not being forced to work inside their momentarily-existing levels of reserve strength.

In effect, the muscles can perform the work being demanded of them –and they can do so without exhausting their reserve; therefore there is no need for them to grow – and under such circumstances, they won't grow, or will do so only very slowly at best. But if – instead of stopping at the tenth repetition – if you had continued with the exercise, forcing the muscles to work much harder than normal, requiring them to work well inside their reserves of strength, then muscle-growth stimulation would have resulted.

How many more repetitions should be done? As many as possible, regardless of the actual number this may prove to be; the set should be terminated only when it is impossible to move the weight in any position, when the bar literally drops out of your exhausted hands.

Even then – with a barbell – you still won't be involving ALL of the available fibers; but you will, at least, be involving as high a percentage as it is possible to do with conventional forms of exercise – and you will be inducing as much in the way of muscle-growth stimulation as it is possible to do with a barbell, or any other type of conventional training equipment.

And if you are training in that manner, then only two such sets are required – three times weekly – in most cases, and never more than three such sets in any case; doing a larger number of lighter sets WILL NOT produce the same degree of results – and doing a larger number of properly-performed sets would exhaust your recovery ability so much that losses would be produced instead of gains.

Watching a man working out properly is almost frightening – and it is frightening to some people; the intensity of effort is so great that the subject's entire body is shaking, his face will turn dark red – or even purple – and both breathing and heart action will be increased at least one-hundred percent, and frequently far more than that.

Most people are simply not aware that such effort is even possible, and many that are aware of the possibility are totally unwilling to exert such effort; but, for maximum growth stimulation, that is exactly what is required.

Left to their own devices, most trainees will make very little progress – because they probably won't work hard enough to induce much in the way of growth stimulation; so, for best results, workouts must be carefully supervised – and it is highly desirable to give a demonstration of the proper intensity of work, in order that new trainees can be made aware of the very possibility of such levels of effort.

Psychological considerations are extremely important as well; if at all possible, the trainee should be able to see the weight that is being moved – and if this movement produces a reasonable level of sound, so much the better. Likewise, the trainee should be fully aware of the actual amount of resistance being moved – and it is important that the poundage figures be as high as reasonably possible.

In designing some of the new exercise machines, it would have been easily possible to vary the leverage to such a degree that ten pounds of actual weight would have taxed the strength of a very strong man; but instead we have employed an almost exact one-to-one leverage ratio, in order that the weight being moved will almost be exactly the same weight that would have been used in similar barbell exercise –thus the trainee feels that he is doing something worthwhile, and his progress will be in meaningful jumps.

Such considerations far outweigh the small advantage that would have resulted by employing different leverage – such as the lowered requirement for barbell plates or other form of resistance.

Under different leverage conditions, ten pounds may "feel" as heavy as two-hundred pounds – and it will – but the trainee will show much more willingness to work at the necessary level of intensity if he is forced to move two-hundred pounds instead of ten pounds.

 

[nazzysmith]

Nice one goosey!!!!

Yougotrortedagain/10

 

[perceive]

Really interesting articles, thanks for posting!