NAUTILUS BULLETIN #1

By Arthur Jones

While the author may be widely known in the field of physical training only as a result of the recently announced developments which are the subject of this Bulletin, quite a number of readers will probably recognize the name in connection with another field - since, for the past fourteen years, motion-pictures produced by the author have been in constant distribution throughout the world. Included in these credits were the following series of films produced for television, "Professional Hunter," "Wild Cargo," "Capture," "Call of the Wild," and major portions of four other series, as well as several theatrical and special films for television. The most recent film produced by the author was seen on CBS network on Friday, August 28, 1970 at 7:30 in the evening - - titled "Free to Live: Operation Elephant," a one-hour, color special on a major conservation project, the capture and relocation of African elephants.

Before becoming involved in film production, the author was an airline pilot and conducted a large-scale import-export business in wild animals, birds, reptiles and tropical fish - - an occupation which eventually led to the production of films based on conservation themes.

Eight members of the author's family - - father, mother, brother, sister, paternal grand-father, uncle, cousin and brother-in-law - - are medical doctors; or were, when still living. And the author has devoted a great deal of time to research programs in closely related areas - - work dealing with both wild animals and human subjects.

Such work in the field of weight-training dates back approximately thirty years - - and while such research has certainly not been constant for that period of time, several years were spent in such studies; with, until very recently, no thought regarding the commercial possibilities that might result.

As recently as a year ago, it was the author's intention to publish the results of his experimental work in this field without taking credit under his own name; Bill Pearl was primarily responsible for causing a change of plans in that regard. He said, ". . . if you don't take credit under your own name, somebody will try to steal the credit for anything worthwhile that you have produced."

Since no commercial considerations were involved in the development of the new Nautilus training equipment, absolutely no publicity was given to this research program until long after everybody involved was satisfied with the results that were being consistently produced by a high percentage of the trainees using this equipment in experimental training programs; an as a natural result, many people are probably left feeling that the recently announced results are based upon hasty conclusions - - whereas, in fact, the background of research data upon which these conclusions are based is literally enormous.

Secondly, since there is really no practical ground upon which a reasonable comparison between the new equipment and previously-existing types of conventional training equip-ment can be based, it is extremely difficult to even attempt to draw such comparisons.

How, for example could you fairly compare the barbell to any type of training equipment that existed previously? By comparison to any earlier equipment intended for the same purpose, the barbell was literally; a great leap forward, a major breakthrough, capable of producing more in the way of muscular mass and/or strength increases in a few months than any other method of training could produce in a lifetime.

And not the same sort of breakthrough has occurred again; and just as the barbell was an almost complete departure from earlier types of equipment, the Nautilus equipment is also something entirely new. Nautilus machines are not an improvement in equipment'; instead, they represent a new approach to the whole idea of progressive weight-training.

Rather than attempting to design exercises based on the use of conventional training equipment, the problem was approached from an entirely different direction; totally new equipment was designed to meet the needs of human muscular structures.

And in many respects, that was one of the most difficult parts of the problem; since it was first essential to establish just what was required for stimulating increases in muscular size and strength. And since very little in the way of serious work has been done in this field by the scientific community, there was almost nothing to refer to for guidance.

High degrees of results were obviously being produced by training with barbells and conventional pulley devices, but there was certainly nothing even approaching agreement insofar as the best method of training was concerned.

The production of any given result - - regardless of how spectacular it may appear - proves nothing beyond the ability of a particular method to produce a certain result, eventually; and it certainly does not follow that the same degree of results could not have been produced by some other method.

So, rather obviously, in the almost complete lack of anything dependable in the way of guidelines, it was necessary to study the physics of both conventional forms of exercise and the functions of muscular structures.

In the following chapters, a brief - non-technical - outline of the basic physics involved will be attempted; but since this is actually a rather complicated subject, it must be remembered that a full explanation is impossible within the limits of length that must be observed in this bulletin.

For those who might be interested in greater details, a much longer account, a book titled "The Ultimate Development," by the same author, will be available, in a few months. In a total of 99 chapters, the subject of physical training is covered in detail.

Almost all conventional exercises are based upon resistance provided by gravity; but even when springs are used as a form of resistance, the result is much the same - such resistance is uni-directional. And while it is possible, with the use of pulleys, to control the direction of resistance -it still remains almost impossible to provide resistance in more than one direction while using conventional training equipment.

There are a few exercises involving conventional equipment that can be performed in such a manner that this limitation regarding the direction of resistance can be overcome - at least for all practical purposes; but since these exercises form the subject of a later chapter, I will ignore them for the moment.

This limitation in direction of resistance is probably the greatest limiting factor effecting most exercises; since it thus becomes impossible to involve more than a small percentage of the total number of fibers contained in a particular muscular structure in any conventional exercise.

Because, while the resistance is provided in only one direction, the involved body parts are rotating; in effect, you are trying to oppose a rotational form of movement with a reciprocal form of resistance - an obvious impossibility. Impossible, at least, with conventional training equipment.

While performing a curl, for example, the movement is rotational throughout a range-of-movement of approximately 160 degrees; at the start of the curl, the movement is almost perfectly horizontal, straight forward - at about the midpoint, the movement is vertical, straight up - at the end, the movement is approximately horizontal again, but in the opposite direction.

Yet, during the entire movement, the resistance was always vertical, straight down. Thus, in practice, although the resistance remains constant, it seems to become heavier as the movement progresses from the starting position to the midpoint - and after the midpoint, seems to become lighter. In the normal finishing position of the curl., there is literally no resistance - having reached that point, it is then possible to hold that position almost indefinitely, with absolutely no work being demanded on the part of the bending muscles of the upper arms.

This occurs because during a curl the moment-arm of the weight is constantly changing as the movement progresses; DIRECT resistance is provided only at the infinitely-small point where resistance is being moved vertically.

A careful scrutiny of conventional exercises will clearly show that this is almost always the case; direct resistance is provided only within an extremely limited range-of-movement, literally an infinitely small range of movement - and in many conventionally exercises, there is no direct resistance at any point.

If the normal strength curve of human muscles exactly matched the apparently changing resistance provided by an exercise like the curl, then the movement would feel perfectly even; that is to say, no point in the movement would seem to be any heavier than any other point. But since, in fact, the strength curve does not match the change in resistance, some points do feel heavier than other points; so-called "sticking points" are encountered, where the weight feels very heavy, as well as points where there is little or no resistance.

Just as jumping is not the best means of moving forward, since it involves the expenditure of effort in a vertical as well as a horizontal direction, trying to provide a rotary movement with constant resistance by using a uni-directional form of resistance is impractical at the very least. In such a case, resistance will only be - can only be - provided during part of the movement.

And even a casual thought should make it obvious that the maximum range-of-movement during which an increasing rate of resistance is even possible is a rotary movement of 90 degrees; after 90 degrees of rotary movement, the resistance must start decreasing. During the first 90 degrees of movement in a curl, for example, the direction of movement is constantly changing from horizontal to vertical, and the weight will thus seem to get heavier - but after 90 degrees of movement, the direction of movement starts changing from vertical to horizontal, and the weight will seem to grow lighter.

Direct resistance will be provided only at the point where the involved body parts (the hands, in a curl) are moving directly upwards, meeting resistance coming from an exactly opposite direction.

If, at that point of direct resistance, the weight is too heavy, then you cannot progress to that point in the movement; but if the weight is light enough to permit a full-range movement - even though heavy enough to require an all-out effort at the point of direct resistance - then you have provided balanced resistance only at one point in the curl. Thus you will be working the muscles properly during a range-of-movement of something less than 1 degree, out of a possible range-of-movement of about 160 degrees.

However, for all practical purposes, the situation is not quite that bad; in fact, you will be providing useful resistance during a range-of-movement of approximately 20 degrees. But still, what about the other 140 degrees of movement?

Now, regardless of the position you assume for the exercise, it remains impossible to produce more than 90 degrees of worthwhile movement; but it is possible to select "which" 90 degrees of movement you choose to exercise. But that subject also comes up in more detail in a later chapter, so I will skip it at this point; except to point out that some positions are far more advantageous than others, since they involve working the muscles in their strongest positions rather than in their weakest positions.

Now - it should not be assumed that the apparent change of resistance that is encountered in conventional exercises such as the curl is always a disadvantage; on the contrary, in many cases it is a distinct advantage.

Returning to the example of the curl, it should be noted that the bending muscles of the upper arms are in their weakest position at the start of the movement, when the arms are straight; and as the arms start to bend, the level of strength increases rapidly. Thus, in this instance the apparently increasing resistance is a very decided advantage; because the resistance is increasing at the same time that the strength of the working muscle is increasing - even if, as happens to be the case, not in proportion.

But still, any increase is better than none; since the muscles need more resistance as the arms are bent - and an incorrect rate of increase is better than no increase.

"But," you might ask, "why do the muscles need more resistance as they contract?"

Because of the shape of the muscles - and because of the manner in which they function.

The well-known "all or nothing" principle of muscular-fiber function states that individual muscle-fibers perform work by contracting, by reducing their length - and that they are incapable of performing various degrees of work; that is to say, they are either working as hard as possible, or not at all. When a light movement is performed, it does not involve a slight effort on the part of a large number of muscular fibers; instead, only the exact number of fibers that are required to perform that particular movement will be involved at all - and they will be working to the limit of their momentary ability. The other, unworking fibers may get pushed, pulled, or moved about by the movement - but they will contribute absolutely nothing to the work being performed.

Thus, as should be obvious, in order to involve all of the muscle fibers in the work, the resistance must be so heavy that all of the fibers are required to move it.

However, in practice, this is extremely difficult to do; because all of the individual muscle fibers cannot be involved in the work unless the muscle is in a position of full contraction.

It should be plain that the muscle could be in no position except its shortest, fully-contracted position if all of the muscle fibers were contracted at the same time; the individual fibers must grow shorter in order to perform work, and if all of the fibers were shortened at the same time, then the muscle as a whole would have to be in a position of full contraction - no other position is even possible with full muscular contraction. Not, at least, unless the muscle is torn loose from its attachments.

But it does not follow that even a position of full contraction will involve the working of all of the individual fibers; because only the actual number of fibers that are required to meet a momentarily imposed load will be called into play.

Thus, in order to involve 100% of the fibers in a particular movement, two conditions are prerequisites; the muscle (and its related body part) must be in a position of full contraction - and a load must be imposed in that position that is heavy enough to require the work of all of the individual fibers.

And in almost all conventional exercises, there is literally no resistance in the fully contracted position - at the very point in the exercise where the greatest amount of resistance is required, literally none is provided.

In the top position of the squat, when the leg muscles are fully contracted, there is no resistance on these muscles - in the top position of the curl, when the bending muscles of the arm are in a position of full contraction, there is no resistance - in the top position of the bench press, when the triceps are in a position of full contraction and the pectorals and deltoids are as close to a position of full contraction as they get in that movement, there is no resistance. Dozens of other examples could be given, but those three should be enough.

But what does the shape of a muscle have to do with this?

While I have never been able to find anything in scientific journals regarding the order-of-involvement of individual muscular fibers in the performance of work (although my being unaware of such studies does not indicate that they have not been done), the very shape of a muscle seems to make this point clear; or, at least, when the shape is considered in connection with other, easily proven, factors.

If a muscle is exposed to rotary, perfectly direct resistance, then it is immediately obvious that the strength of the muscle markedly increases as the position of the muscle changes from one of full extension to one of full contraction; which observation indicates that more fibers are involved in the work when the muscle is in a position of full contraction - or, at least, they are if resistance that will require their assistance is imposed.

And since a muscular structure is thickest in its middle, this extra thickness indicating the presence of a greater number of strands of muscle fibers in that area, it logically follows that this thick midsection of the muscle is the last part called into play in a maximum-possible effort - and that it cannot be called into play unless the muscle as a whole is in a position of full contraction; thus it seems that muscular contraction starts at the ends of a muscle and gradually moves inward towards the middle of the muscle.

In spite of an almost complete lack of scientific studies of the effects of exercise, it is self-evidently true that exercise does produce increases in both muscular mass and strength; and if this is true in spite of the fact that only a small percentage of the actual total number of individual muscle fibers are performing any work at all in conventional exercises, then it logically follows that a form of exercise which involved working all of the fibers would produce an even greater degree of results. Or, at least, that has been the apparently logical assumption that most of our research work has been based upon.

And now we come to the physics of compound exercises...

Most human movements are compound movements, involving the use of several different muscular structures; and in conventional forms of exercises, this becomes another limiting factor.

If, for example, you are trying to exercise your torso muscles, it is necessary in conventional exercises to also involve the work of your arm muscles; and since the torso muscles are far larger and stronger than the arm muscles, the arms fail at a point in the movement where the torso muscles are not being called upon to work as hard as they are capable of doing.

Various forms of chinning exercises, for example, provide a much higher order of work for the bending muscles of the upper arms than they do for the muscles of the torso; you can prove this very easily to your own satisfaction with a simple test involving a few previously-untrained test-subjects. Have each of these subjects perform four sets of regular chins, with a four-minute rest between set, and with each set being carried to the point of failure.

Forty-eight hours later, if they have worked as hard as possible, most such subjects will be so sore that they cannot fully straighten their arms; but this soreness will be almost entirely restricted to the arms - and to the ends of the arm muscles at that. There will be little or no soreness in the torso muscles - and certainly nothing to compare to the soreness in the arms.

Pullovers? Well, in this instance, while it may appear that you are working the torso muscles without involving the arms, a moment of consideration will make it obvious that the arms are still the limiting factor; in bent-arm pullovers, you are limited to an amount of weight that your triceps muscles are strong enough to keep away from your head - and in straight-arm pullovers, the strength of the elbow tendons is the limiting factor.

And in both forms of pullovers, the previously mentioned limitation in regard to worthwhile range-of-movement is very much in evidence; not more than 90 degrees of worthwhile rotary movement is possible - and yet, the latissimus muscles have a total range-of-movement in excess of 240 degrees.

Upon close examination, it will be immediately apparent that all conventional exercises for the torso muscles are limited in somewhat similar ways; using conventional methods, it is simply impossible to provide full-range resistance, or actually-heavy resistance, for the torso muscles. Yet in spite of these obvious limiting factors, great degrees of improvement in the size and strength of these muscular structures can be produced by conventional forms of exercise - eventually.

Years ago, I asked myself, "...what would the results be if such restrictions could be removed, if all of the muscles of the body could be provided with full-range, rotary form, omni-directional, direct, balanced, automatically varying resistance?" And now we are well on the way to getting an answer to those questions.

But make no mistake about one point; barbells and conventional pulley devices are extremely productive if used properly - by comparison to any earlier method of training, the barbell is almost literally a miracle machine. But it is so productive in spite of the limitations listed above, not because of any inherent advantages; and this is simply another indication that some other method of training, without these limitations, and with the inherent advantages of having been designed to provide the known requirements for stimulating muscle growth, would be even more effective.

The use of a barbell is limited by simple, unchangeable laws of physics; barbells cannot provide the required rotary form of resistance - full-range movements are impossible with a barbell in all but a few exercises -barbells do not provide the necessity for automatically varying resistance, resistance that changes during the actual performance of each repetition -barbells provide almost no direct resistance in most exercises, and literally none in many other exercises - barbell resistance cannot be balanced to the strength of a muscle in various position.

While most experienced bodybuilders are convinced that they have little if anything to learn regarding the functions of their most important muscular structures, I have yet to meet a bodybuilder who was aware of the prime function of even the most commonly mentioned muscle in the body, the biceps of the upper arm. But in all fairness, I must also point out the fact that only one medical doctor that I have questioned on the subject - out of a total of over one-hundred doctors - knew the correct answer, and this one well informed individual was a specialist in reconstructive surgery.

The prime function of the biceps is supination of the hand, twisting the hand - in the case of the right hand, in a clockwise manner; and the bending function is strictly secondary. One simple test will quickly prove this in an undeniable manner; bend your forearm back against the upper arm as far as possible, while keeping the hand twisted into a pronated ("goose-necked") position - then place your other hand on the biceps of the bent arm. You will note that the biceps is not flexed, even though the bending function of the biceps has been completed; that is to say, although the arm is bent as far as possible, the biceps has only performed part of its function - and the least important part at that. Now twist the hand of the bent arm into a supinated position - and as you do, you will feel the biceps flex. Full contraction of the biceps results in twisting the hand and forearm - and the biceps cannot fully flex unless this twisting takes place.

For that reason, you can curl more in a normal, palms-up position than you can in a reverse curl, palms-down position; simply because, in the reverse curl position, the biceps is prevented from twisting into a position of full contraction - it is thus impossible to involve all of the available muscle fibers in the work being performed, and the muscle is incapable of performing as much work.

The difference in apparent strength that is so obvious when the normal curl is compared to the reverse curl demonstrates the fact that twisting the forearm increases the bending strength of the arm - or, at least, the momentarily usable strength. This can be demonstrated by comparing usable strength available for twisting a leverage bell in various position; it will be immediately apparent that you can exert a greater twisting force with a bent arm than you can with a straight arm.

In the last chapter we noted that muscles increase their usable strength as they change their position from one of full extension to one of full contraction; and now it should be clear that this apparent variation in strength (or this actual variation in usable strength) is not quite as simple a matter as it might seem at first glance. In the case of the biceps muscle, for example, bending the arm increases bending strength - but it also increases twisting strength - and twisting the arm increases twisting strength - and also increases bending strength.

The above has been intended as only one example of the actual functions of muscular structures; my point being that actual functions and "supposed" functions (or commonly accepted functions) are worlds apart.

And just how do you propose to exercise a muscle in the best-possible manner if you are not even aware of the function of the muscle?

Another example? Well, consider the function of the pectoral muscles - an apparent paradox. If you will perform a one-arm chin (or attempt one), it will be obvious that the pectoral muscles are involved in pulling the arm down and backwards, towards the torso from the front; but if you then perform a parallel dip, it will be equally obvious that the pectoral muscles are then pulling the arms down and forwards. But since a muscle cannot "push" a body part, and can only perform work by pulling, how is it possible for a muscle (the pectoral in this case) to perform work in two apparently opposite directions - first moving the upper arm backwards, and then moving it forwards?

The answer, of course, is that it cannot work in opposite directions; but it can appear to do so in some instances. The contracted position of the pectoral occurs when the upper arm is close to and slightly in front of the body - and when the arm is moved into any other position, then the pectoral will assist in returning it to that fully contracted position, from any direction.

Yet another example. The latissimus muscle; most bodybuilders perform exercises for the latissimus muscles with a wide grip - under the sincere, but badly mistaken, impression that such a wide hand spacing provides more "stretch" than would be afforded by a narrower grip.

Secondly, all conventional forms of chinning and "pull-down" exercises for the latissimus muscles involve working the upper arm muscles; and as noted previously, the weakness of these arm muscles prevents the trainee from working the torso muscles as hard as he should for best results. This being true, then why do most bodybuilders work their latissimus muscles with the arms in their weakest possible position?

We have already seen that the arms are strongest (for bending) when the hands are twisted into a supinated position; this being so, then why make the arms any weaker than necessary - when they are already too weak for the production of best results even in their strongest position? Yet most bodybuilders do exactly that; they work their latissimus muscles while keeping the arms twisted into their weakest possible position.

By simply giving the hands the maximum possible twist in the direction of full supination, the bending strength of the arms will be markedly increased; and it will then be possible to work the latissimus muscles much harder than it would have been with the hands in a pronated position. When the elbows are forced back in line with the shoulders - as is done in behind-neck chinning and pull-down exercises - then the fully supinated position of the hands requires a parallel (palms facing one another) grip. You can have such a bar made in a welding shop for a few dollars - and its use will markedly increase the degree of results you can produce in behind-neck type chinning or pull-down exercises; the hand grips should be perfectly parallel, and should be spaced not more than 25 inches apart.

Another example? The major muscular structures of the thighs and buttocks; these muscles are commonly exercised by attempting to apply resistance that is almost exactly 90 degrees out of phase with the direction of the movement of the body parts being moved by these muscles. In the squat, the weight is pressing down in line with the spinal column; yet neither the thigh nor buttocks muscles are capable of exerting force in an exactly opposite direction - instead, the frontal thigh muscles move the lower legs forwards, and the buttocks muscles move the torso into line with the thighs (or vice versa, the thighs into line with the torso).

In effect, the frontal thigh muscles require a thigh extension for direct exercise - and the buttocks muscles require what I will term a "torso extension" for direct exercise.

A careful review of the above examples will clearly; indicate that most of the major muscular structures do not perform the functions that most bodybuilders think they do - and literally dozens of other examples could be given to prove the same point. So, to be logical about the matter, you must determine the actual function of a muscle before attempting to select an exercise that is intended to develop that muscle.

The biceps muscles bend and twist the arms, so exercises must be provided for both functions - or, if at all possible, one exercise that provides proper resistance for both functions simultaneously.

The pectoral and latissimus muscles move the upper arms - what happens to the hands and forearms is of no concern to the torso muscles, or would be of no concern in a properly designed exercise; but if you must involve the arm muscles in torso exercises - as you must in conventional exercises - then at least do so only with the arms in the strongest possible position.

My real point in this chapter is this; move the involved body part that is of momentary concern into a position where the muscle that moves that member is in a position of full extension - then note the position of the body part. Next, move the body part into a position that results in full contraction of the involved muscle - and again note the required body-part position.

Then try to design an exercise, or an exercise position, which provides resistance over as much as possible of the entire range of movement - but if full-range resistance is impossible, as it will prove to be in most exercises using conventional equipment, then concentrate on providing the resistance in the contracted position.

A moment's consideration of the above paragraph will thus make it obvious that the so-called Scott curling bench is a step in the wrong direction; rather than being an improvement over the regular barbell curl, it actual reduces the overall production of results.

But if the slant had been in the opposite direction, so that the upper arms were held in a position almost parallel with the floor, but with the biceps side of the arm down instead of up, then the exercise would be provided where it would do the greatest amount of good - the resistance would be available in the strongest position of the arms, instead of being limited to the weakest position of the arms.

An almost impossible position to get into? It certainly is, but it can be done - and it can best be done while using a dumbbell, working first one arm and then the other. And after having worked both arms in that fashion, then immediately perform one set of about ten reps of the regular two-hand barbell curl - carried to the point of utter failure.

Perhaps the above points will start your thinking in a logical direction. But don't fall into the all too common trap of doing a particular exercise because you like it - or of avoiding exercises that are difficult. In general, the harder an exercise is, the better its results will be; don't look for ways to make exercises easier - look for ways to make them harder.

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 in-direct 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.

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 which span of years 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.

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.

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.

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 - 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.

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.

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 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 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.

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. Other-wise, 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 weight 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.

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.

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 need 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 for, 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 basic, 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.

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 to exercise.

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 be involving 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 an 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 per-form 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 the 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 exer-cise, 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 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.

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 for meeting 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 balances protein - at a very low price. For a trainee that 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 things 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 weighing over 200 pounds at a normal height to show no traces of fatty tissue.

The arms, the shoulders, the chest, and the legs can - and should - show a rather high degree of muscularity, but some slight amount of fatty tissue should remain in the area of the waist and the buttocks.

If such a condition does not exist to at least a reasonable degree - if an extreme degree of muscularity is evident over the entire body - then it is probable that such an individual is being overworked, and the extent of his workouts should be reduced until such time as he is obviously gaining weight.

Psychological factors required for best training progress have already been briefly touched upon, and this is far too complicated a subject for me to attempt to explore it in depth here.

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 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.

Why do some trainees produce good results from weight-training, while others - using apparently identical program and exactly the same equipment -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 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 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.

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 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 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 y