NAUTILUS BULLETIN #2

By Arthur Jones

The human body is a unit - and must be treated as such; you do not feed your body in sections, and you sleep the entire body at the same time - yet most current weight-trainees are firmly convinced that a so-called "split routine" is an absolute requirement for producing the best rate of progress. While the weight of all available evidence clearly supports the contention that more than three weekly workouts will result in a condition of overtraining - in all cases.

On May 16, 1971, Casey Viator won the Junior Mister America contest, and four weeks later, on June 12, 1971, he won the Mister America contest in the most spectacular fashion in the history of such contests - in addition to the Mister America title, he won the Most muscular Man in America title and the subdivisions for Best Arms, Best Back, Best Chest and Best Legs. And -at 19 years old - he is the youngest Mister America winner up to this point in time. More than thirty of the leading bodybuilders in the country competed against Casey in that contest - and I would be willing to bet that almost all of them trained at least twenty-four times during the four weeks immediately prior to the contest; during the same four weeks, Casey trained a total of SIX TIMES - he didn't train at all for two weeks after the Junior Mister America contest, and then he trained only three times weekly during the last two weeks before the Mister America contest. Three weekly "total body" workouts - for the legs, the back, the chest, the shoulders, the upper arms, and the forearms. Workouts requiring less than one hour and twenty minutes each - a total of less than four hours of weekly training.

Dr. Elliott Plese of Colorado State University was in DeLand, Florida during the last week of Casey's training for the Mister America contest and can certify to the frequency, duration and intensity of the workouts. Ellington Darden of the Florida State University was present during Casey's final workout on Thursday, June 10, and can also certify to the facts; during that last workout, Casey's primary leg routine consisted of only three exercises performed within a period of approximately three minutes -one set of leg presses (20 repetitions with 750 pounds), one set of thigh extensions (20 repetitions with 225 pounds), and one set of full squats (13 repetitions with 502 pounds). Each set of every exercise was carried to the point of absolute failure - and there was no rest at all between sets.

In addition to the above-outlined routine, Casey performed two sets of thigh-curls and three sets of calf-raises - thus the entire leg portion of his workout required approximately nine minutes.

And for the benefit of those people who might be led to believe that Casey is an unusually responsive subject (which, of course, he is), I will mention that all of our trainees are following an almost exactly similar program; the bodybuilders are using the leg program outlined above, the power-lifters, Olympic lifters, and football players are using the same routine during two of their three weekly workouts an then performing three sets of heavy squats during the third weekly workout (using the 10-8-6 system).

Very similar - that is, VERY BRIEF, BUT VERY HARD - routines are being used by all of our trainees for all body parts; the entire arm routine (for both upper-arms and forearms) requires exactly seven minutes and twenty seconds - three times weekly, a total of twenty-two minutes of weekly training for the arms. Additional training is not only not required but would actually reduce the production of results; and in may cases, best results are being produced with only two weekly workouts - or with even shorter routines involving fewer exercises and-or a lower number of sets.

Most of our trainees never perform more than two sets of any one exercise -and none of our trainees ever perform more that three sets of an exercise -and some of our trainees use only one set of each exercise.

Such brief and infrequent training is an absolute requirement for the production of best-possible results from exercise - yet almost all currently active trainees devote at least five times as much weekly training time to their workouts, while producing little or nothing in the way of results in return for their efforts.

If every individual weight-trainee in the country suddenly cut his training in half - merely reduced his weekly workouts by 50 per cent, while making no other change in his training - it is my belief that overall results would be at least doubled.

Overtraining - overtraining insofar as "amount of training" is concerned -is so common that such a 50 per cent reduction in training on the part of ALL trainees would result in an immediate improvement in the rates of progress being produced by MOST trainees; an improvement that would probably double average overall results. And since such doubled results would be produced by only half as much training, the rate-of-progress would be quadrupled - a four to one improvement.

Obviously - if everybody cut their training by half - some trainees would suffer a reduction in their rates of progress; since a few people are now training properly, these few would suffer from a reduction in their training time. But for every individual that is presently training right, there are probably a hundred that are training wrong - usually overtraining; thus, for each trainee that lost from such a reduction in training time, a hundred would gain - and on the average, the overall results would be strongly positive.

If - in addition to the overall average reduction in training time suggested in the above example - everybody simultaneously started training properly insofar as "intensity of effort" is concerned, then at least another doubling of average results would be produced; so that the average rate of progress would be increased from its present level by a ration of approximately eight to one.

If nothing else of any value is gleaned from this bulletin - but if the above point is clearly understood and put into practical application - then a long first step will have been taken in the direction of sensible training.

Barbell exercises are more productive than free-hand exercises for only one reason - because barbell exercises are HARDER than non-weighted exercises; but as you increase the "intensity of effort: of an exercise, it is necessary to reduce the "amount" of exercise - Japanese wrestlers do as many as 3000 repetitions of non-weighted squats almost daily, but try doing that many squats with a heavy barbell on your back and see what happens.

I will not even suggest that we have tried literally "everything" - nor that we fully understand all of the factors involved - but we have tried a lot of things, under carefully controlled conditions and with hundreds of trainees; and the evidence always points back to the same basic conclusions - more than three weekly workouts, or more than two sets of any one exercise in the same workout, or more than a total of four hours of weekly training will almost always result in overtraining, and a reduction in the production of results.

But in the face of widespread belief that such a brief training is of little or no value for anybody except a beginner, I have little confidence that most experienced trainees will ever be able to bring themselves to an acceptance of the truth.

The above examples on the subject of improvements that are possible by a reduction of the amount of training and an increase in the intensity of training are based on barbell exercises - such rates of improvement can easily be produced by almost any trainee, without the need for any new types of equipment; if Nautilus equipment is available then even greater degrees of improvement become possible. Most of our trainees have shown increases in their rates of progress of at least 3000 per cent - and a few outstanding trainees have improved their previous rates of progress by as much as 14,000 percent. In a few cases, the improvement has been literally infinite.

After ten years of steady training, and after having produced a physique that placed him very near the top in national competition, one subject spent only nine days training in DeLand, Florida - and during these nine days he produced more results than he did during the immediately preceding three years of training with conventional equipment. For a period of two years of steady training, his results had been exactly zero - but then, in nine days, he gained nearly seven pounds of body weight, improved his existing degree of muscularity, added 13/16 of an inch to his "cold" upper-arm measurement and 3/4 of an inch to his calves, and increased his curling strength by 50 per cent.

Since nine days will go into two years approximately eighty-one times, and since zero will go into seven an infinite number of times, it obviously follows that this trainee improved his rate of progress on a scale beyond calculation. But even that doesn't tell the whole story; during the two years of steady training that produced no results, he was training approximately fifteen hours a week - but later, during the period when he was producing such good results, he was training only about four hours a week.

In spite of his previously-established misconceptions, this man was willing to listen - and to at least try the training methods that we suggested; and his results speak for themselves. Unfortunately, some other long-experienced trainees won't listen; one famous bodybuilder on the west coast complained that he wasn't getting spectacular results from the use of a Nautilus Pullover-type Torso Machine that he had been using for two or three months - so I asked him HOW he was using it.

"Nine sets a day," he said, "every day; just like you told me."

But in fact, I told him, "...not more than NINE SETS A WEEK; and if your results aren't what you expect, then try SIX SETS a week."

I didn't have to ask him how he was doing the sets - that was obvious, he was doing them WRONG; nine PROPERLY PERFORMED sets on a Pullover-type machine would kill an adult gorilla. This man was trying to use one of our new machines as if it was a barbell - or even worse than that, as he thinks a barbell should be used; and since he has failed to learn the proper method of using a barbell during his twenty-odd years of experience, I suppose it was expecting a bit too much to even hope that he was capable of understanding the new machines.

But if any lingering traces of doubt remained regarding his inability to understand the machines, he quickly put them to rest; he altered one of the machines in such a manner that its function was utterly destroyed - and then tried to justify the changes on the grounds of improving the convenience and safety of the machine. Which action would be equivalent to installing square wheels on your automobile - and then complaining about the poor performance.

When such an individual has produced batter-than-average results from his training - as this man has - then it is only natural for many people to consider him an expert; but it should be clearly understood that final results are no proof of good methods - particularly when such final results are viewed without consideration for the amount of effort that was required to produce them.

So - in all fairness - several factors of actually very great importance must be considered before it is even possible to view final results in a rational manner; and while the individual mentioned above who altered one of our machines has certainly produced good final results, it does not follow that his training methods were good - nor that his rate of progress was even satisfactory.

A recent quotation seems to cover the situation fully, "...there are two common mistakes; some people think that intelligence is a substitute for experience - and some people think that experience is a substitute for intelligence."

People are individuals, and possible variations in the individual response to training are literally infinite - so a program that is exactly right for one man will seldom if ever be perfect for another man; but while the total number of possible variations is certainly great, the "range of possible variations" is quite small - and the limits of that range are clearly known. Because of the great number of possible variations in response to training, it is impossible to outline a program that will be "right" for everybody; but if the primary points to be covered in later chapters are clearly understood, then almost any reasonably intelligent trainee will have the knowledge required for outlining a program to suit his particular purposes.

In short, this bulletin is intended to point intelligent trainees in the direction of logical training - nothing more is even possible.

Prejudice such as that encountered among involved people is a strange factor indeed; many years ago I noted that, ". . . animals seem to survive in inverse ration to the amount of professional conservation attention that they are afforded." And it has long been obvious that professional pilots are actually biased in favor of dangerous aircraft. It is not the purpose of this bulletin to delve into the psychological factors responsible for such inverted thinking; but I do think that this factor - as it is encountered in the field of physical training - must be carefully considered.

Far from advancing, the field of body building has been steadily marching backwards for the last twenty years or more; which statement will be considered outright heresy by most currently active bodybuilders. A biased selection and a distorted presentation of statistics has been used to "prove" points that are actually the opposite of truth - and there has been little if anything accidental about the final results produced by the flood of propaganda so apparent inmost publications in this field. In effect, the very people who have been claiming that they are trying to elevate the field have almost destroyed it.

An old saying put it very well, " . . . figures don't lie, but liars figure." Commercial interests in the field of body building constantly point out a few outstanding examples of muscular development as proof of their claims that great advancements have been made within the last few years -and it is certainly true that there some outstanding individuals on the scene at the moment, men like Sergio Oliva, Arnold Schwarzenneger and Casey Viator; but it is equally true that such men are almost literally freaks -the average man could never hope to duplicate their physical development, regardless of how he trained. Thus such individuals represent nothing apart from expectable deviations from the average.

Out of a group of a hundred individuals selected at random, the average body weight might be 160 pounds - and one or two subjects might weigh as much as 190 pounds. But if the sample was increased to a thousand individuals, then you could reasonably expect to find at least one subject with a body weight of 200 pounds - while the average for the group remained as before. And out of a group of a million subjects, you could reasonably expect at least one individual with a body weight of 250 pounds or more -but again, the average would remain 160 pounds.

Thus proof of improvements in method must come from an increase in the average - and in the field of body building, the average production of results has steadily declined during the last twenty years; the average results being produced today are NOT better than they were twenty years ago - instead, they are worse. And exactly the same thing is true in the fields of Olympic lifting and power lifting - in spite of vast propaganda to the contrary; certainly the records have increased - but that is only to be expected when dealing with a far larger number of subjects. But even that is misleading - because the performances really haven't increased as much as most people think; in the case of the Olympic press, a great deal of the so-called "progress" has been produced by relaxation of the rules, to the point that the press has now degenerated into an outright jerk with little or nothing in common with the press as it was practiced twenty years ago -and at least one man, Douglas Hepburn, was capable of bench pressing near-record poundage's over fifteen years ago, and at a body weight far below that of the present record holders. Thirty years ago, Bob Peoples deadlifted well over 700 pounds at a body weight below 180 pounds - today, men weighing twice as much have finally been able to add approximately 100 pounds to his record. Some of Paul Anderson's lifts - performed over fifteen years ago - will probably never be duplicated.

The really outstanding men of today are exceptions - as such men always were, and as they always will be; there are larger numbers of such outstanding individuals in view at the moment simply and only because a much larger number of men are now training with weights. But what about the average trainees?

The simple truth of the matter is that the average trainee of today could not hope to compete on equal terms with the average trainee of twenty years ago; and it is equally true that most of this decline in the average production of results is directly due to commercial bias in the field of weight-training.

I cannot begin to attack such commercial bias in a bulletin of reasonable length - but at the same time, I cannot just ignore it; so I will refer to specific examples of such bias in the following chapters - but I will not even attempt to go into the length of explanations required to disprove all such myths.

Thirty-odd years ago, I was very interested in physical training - but knew almost nothing about it; now I find myself in the position of still not knowing much about the subject - but I do, at least, realize that the surface has only been scratched, and that most of the recent so-called progress has actually been retrogression. And while such an awareness can only be fairly called "negative knowledge," it is knowledge of a sort.

Coming from a family of medical doctors, my personal opinion of doctors was understandably influenced by such a background - and for many years I defended doctors against anything that I took to be unfair or biased accusations; until I finally learned that all doctors were not quite like those I had known - it came as quite a shock to me, for example, to learn that all doctors don't work eighteen to twenty hours a day, seven days a week. Much in the same vein, I used to defend bodybuilders against statements that I considered biased - because, up to a certain point in time at least,, the bodybuilders that I knew were reasonable people, and my opinion of bodybuilders as a group was naturally influenced by such personal experiences; but eventually I was in for another shock - when it finally became perfectly clear that many of the charges aimed at bodybuilders were all too true.

Since then, I have frequently remarked that it is a shame that body building is wasted on bodybuilders; there are exceptions, of course, but it seems that one encounters such exceptions with constantly increasing infrequency - and I have finally reached a point where I look upon all bodybuilders with great suspicion, until and unless they have proven themselves on an individual basis. I no longer expect bodybuilders to be reasonable people - I now expect the opposite, and I am seldom surprised anymore.

Thus I am now obviously biased against bodybuilders - but I am at least aware of this bias; and I have not permitted my opinions of individuals to distort my viewpoints on the subject of body building itself. A simple but full listing of the insanity's being currently practiced by thousands of bodybuilders would run to a length of several hundred pages - and since it is not my purpose to detail such outrages, I will devote very little attention to them; but again, I simply cannot ignore them - so a few of them will be mentioned, although I will not attempt to detail such practices.

While it is perfectly true that my personal opinions are of no interest to others, it is also true that these opinions influence my judgment to at least some degree - and that these opinions, and my reasons for holding them, do become matters of importance to others in a few instances; secondly, some of my firmly held opinions simply cannot be supported - in some cases I "know" the facts, but I cannot explain how I know them. In such cases I will clearly indicate that my statements are merely opinions - but will attempt to explain them in instances where explanations are possible.

If the above mention of insupportable opinions seems too vague, I will point to the following example as clear proof of the fact that all of us commonly make use of such opinions - as we should; how, for example, would you describe a smile to a man born blind? Yet you recognize a smile, and an almost infinite variety of subtle variations in smiles; a friendly smile, a malicious smile, a doubting smile, a sly smile, and many other smiles with distinct meanings - all of these you recognize at once, but do you know how you recognize them? And of more direct importance, should you ignore such knowledge - simply because you can't explain it? I think not; but in an effort to be as objective as possible, my opinions - supportable or otherwise - will be labeled as such.

As recently as two years ago - because of my personal bias against bodybuilders, and because I did not then wish to connect my name with a subject as controversial as body building - I offered the results of my work up to that point to a friend of mine in California, as a free gift without strings. "Publish it," I told him, "under your own name; do with it what you will and take full credit for it."

At that time, he wasn't interested; probably because he considered anything I might have done in this field of no possible value - but, for whatever reason, he declined. Now - two years later - this same individual is apparently doing everything he can in a effort to discredit my work; but not because he still considers it to be without value - quite the contrary, he is now fully aware of at least the commercial value, and together with a number of associates he is momentarily engaged in efforts to pirate something that he was once offered as a free gift.

None of which should have been surprising, I suppose - but all of which merely added to my bias against bodybuilders as a class; nor was my opinion of this same individual improved when he unhesitatingly connected his name with a current fraud - simply because it offered a commercial opportunity.

If my writing is to be honest, at least some of this personal bias must come through - and under the circumstances, I think it should; if some people find it offensive, then sobeit - but if even a few sincerely interested young trainees are prevented from becoming involved in the outrages so common in the field of body building today, then my purpose will have been served.

The benefits that can be produced from logically outlined and practiced weight-training are simply impossible utilizing any other existing method of physical training; this being true - and it is true - the very real value of weight training is firmly established. But it does not follow that such a potentially productive method of physical training is being used in anything even approaching a logical manner - and certainly not on a wide scale. Twenty years ago, most of the then recognized "experts" were mistaken in many of their conclusions - but by and large, they were at least sincere; today, the situation is far worse - little or nothing in the way of actual progress has been made during the last twenty years, and in the meantime involved commercial interests have been successful in their attempts to brainwash most currently-active bodybuilders into an unhesitating acceptance of outright frauds.

As I recently remarked to Mr. Peary Rader, the publisher of Iron Man Magazine, " . . . I think it is about time that somebody stood up to be counted." The following is an attempt in that direction.

"Progressive Weight-training" - or so it's called; but in fact, there is absolutely nothing progressive about the training of most bodybuilders -and without unceasing efforts in the direction of progress, little or nothing in the way of worthwhile results will ever be produced by any amount of training. Once having learned to spell your own name, you cannot then improve your spelling - nor your vocabulary - by writing your name over and over again; your writing, perhaps, in effect, your form or style, but not your spelling.

And much the same thing is true when it comes to attempting to improve your existing physical ability; you cannot increase your strength by mere repetition of things that are already easy - and for much in the way of muscular growth stimulation, you must constantly attempt the momentarily impossible. Below a certain intensity of effort, no amount of exercise will produce growth simulation - and for maximum-possible growth stimulation, an intensity of effort at least approaching your momentary limit is an absolute requirement. Yet most weight trainees - bodybuilders, power lifters, and Olympic lifters alike - seldom continue an exercise to a point anywhere near the required intensity of effort; while usually attempting to justify their easier styles of training on the grounds that they compensate by performing more exercises or more sets of each exercise.

But in fact, more exercise will never produce the results that are possible from harder exercise - regardless of the amount of additional exercise that is involved; and if much in the way of additional exercise is employed, then growth will be impossible even if growth stimulation is being produced. In practice, most trainees quickly fall into a rut of training wherein their workouts almost totally deplete their recovery ability - and then it takes them years to produce the same degree of results that could have been produced in an equal number of months.

Diet - by far the most controversial subject in the field of physical training today; and for a very simple reason - because the fairly recent attention given to this factor has resulted in a literal bonanza of profits for commercially involved interests.

Twenty years ago, the subject of diet was seldom mentioned in weight-training publications - and when it was, no great emphasis was placed upon it; but at approximately that point in time, the supposed benefit to be derived from massive amounts of protein was "discovered" -and the floodgates were opened. Since then, the propaganda devoted to the factor of diet has reached such proportions that it now dominates the entire field of physical training.

Years ago - once having been persuaded to purchase a barbell - most trainees were effectively removed from the category of potential customers; and thus the market was strictly limited - and no great profits were to be made by anybody. But a box of protein food supplement doesn't last almost literally forever - as a barbell does; and secondly, it is far more difficult to judge the quality of a box of powdered food - if a barbell fails to live up to advertised claims, the shortcoming is obvious, but who can really judge the value of a food supplement?

Since many bodybuilders are perfectly willing to endure any sort of product - for money - it hasn't been difficult for most advertisers to produce all sorts of glowing reports of outstanding results produced by people supposedly using their products; but it might be of interest to note that most such advertisements use the same few people over and over again and it should be of interest to note that such "case histories" are always reported after the fact. That is to say, the people supposedly using these products are always outstanding examples of muscular size - and the supposed fact that they are using a certain product is never mentioned until after the individuals involved become well-known figures on the body building scene.

A few weeks prior to the recent Mr. America Contest, a California manufacturer (or "distributor," since I am sure he doesn't make his own products) of food supplements sent Casey Viator a contract offering him $1,000.00 (retail price) worth of these products - in return for which (and this was clearly stated in the contract), he wanted the unrestricted right to use Casey's pictures and endorsements for publicizing his products. If this offer had been accepted - which it WAS NOT - then the bodybuilders of the world would soon have been subjected to a barrage of advertising giving the above mentioned products full credit for Casey's success; while, in fact, Casey has never used any of these products.

While it is certainly not my intention to imply that diet is of no importance, I do want it clearly understood that the "amount" of food is of far more importance than the actual makeup of the diet - so long as any reasonable attempt is made in the direction of providing a balanced diet: which points should be obvious to anybody merely from a careful reading of the advertisements for food supplements - in an advertisement for protein supplements, great stress will be placed on avoiding carbohydrates, but in an advertisement for "fast weight-gaining" supplements, equal stress will be placed on consuming a heavy load of carbohydrates.

The truth of the matter is, of course, that you require both - but the barrage of conflicting advertising has now reached such a level that most bodybuilders are hopelessly confused, and many of them end up trying to restrict their diets to pure protein; under the totally mistaken impression that such a diet is a requirement for producing good results.

The fact of the matter is that the subject of diet is probably the most completely understood factor involved in physical training - but not by bodybuilders, who have been brainwashed into spending hundreds of millions of dollars on products of little or no value.

Many people have strongly urged me to stay clear off of the subject of diet in my writings - since they are fully aware that my simple statement of the facts will surely bring forth a barrage of slings and arrows from outraged commercial interests. In efforts to defend their own positions, it is almost certain that some people who have simply ignored my work up to this point will now feel it necessary to attack me in any way they can.

But in that regard, at least, I am in a unique situation - since I really have no positions to defend; I originally became involved in this field simply from personal interest, and my continuing interest hinges strictly on a desire to improve the methods available for producing certain results from exercise - and I sincerely don't care what the final method turns out to be.

If the methods that we are now advocating do prove to be the "final answer", well and good - but if not, then I will be just as satisfied; and while I am fully aware that many people will not believe that statement, I am just as aware that many other people - the people who really matter to me - do realize that it is a simple statement of the truth.

In my primary business - motion picture production - the amount of time I have devoted to research into physical training would have produced income far in excess of anything that I can even hope to equal in the field of weight-training; but until quite recently, my interest was strictly in the nature of a hobby - if, as it happened to be, a very expensive hobby.

During the last year alone - while turning down several offers of film work - I have devoted a total of at least two-thousand hours to directing the training of hundreds of people from all over the country; most of these trainees being young men who came to DeLand because of articles that I have written on the subject of our special weight-training classes - and few if any of whom are potential customers for my machines. Nor is this merely an attempt to obtain additional research material - at this stage, we already have far more such information than we actually need; we know what the machines will do, and I have not even bothered to record the training progress of any of our trainees during the last six months - instead, most of my attention has been directed towards attempts to help sincerely interested trainees.

But even that statement is subject to misunderstanding - so I will clarify it; at the moment, research involving the use of Nautilus machines is being conducted in several universities and research foundations - but this work is under neither my direction nor my control. And when the results of this research are available, all of it will be published in an unedited form -in Iron Man Magazine and elsewhere.

In short, my position is such that I literally cannot be hurt by attacks from the commercial interests who will undoubtedly be outraged by my clear statement of the facts - but they will try, of that I am sure.

And for the benefit of those people who may wonder why I thus expose myself to such attacks - when I obviously have nothing to gain by speaking out, when perhaps it might appear that I would be well-advised to remain silent on the subject of diet - I will add the following; my clear statements on this subject will also outrage some people who are NOT commercially involved, and will be taken by many bodybuilders as clear proof of my ignorance - and, they will rather naturally assume, if I am so ignorant on the subject of diet then I probably don't know much about anything else either. So speaking out will actually prevent me from reaching the minds of many bodybuilders - but I am aware of that unavoidable price in advance, and willing to pay it.

Because - totally apart from the bodybuilders who have been brainwashed into believing all of the garbage that has been published on the subject of diet - there are at least a few bodybuilders left in this country that are aware of the truth, intelligent bodybuilders, actually-educated bodybuilders; and if I failed to speak out in defense of the truth, they would rightly regard such a failure as a shirking of duty.

So - at least and at last - it has been said; the results should be amusing, if nothing else.

The truth of the matter is that almost every single point of required information on the subject of weight-training is contained in the preceding five brief chapters; now I must make at least some attempt to justify those points - and take a stab in the direction of trying to explain such things as the required "form" (or style of performance) of the most important exercises.

The average trainee would be well advised to keep it clearly in mind that it really doesn't matter "why" certain exercises work - so long as it is understood that they do work, and so long as the proper form is understood; unfortunately for their own interests, most experienced trainees are unwilling to accept simple statements of fact - and if they cannot at least convince themselves that they do understand the reasons that exercises produce certain results (or fail to produce them), the tendency is to reject these exercises in favor of others that they feel they do understand. Which attitude is understandable - perhaps even unavoidably natural - but nevertheless unfortunate.

Unfortunate because such an attitude prevents many people from making good use of things that simply can't be satisfactorily explained. I am reasonably certain that such thinking limits all of us to a greater or lesser degrees, and I certainly do not wish to imply that my own thinking is not so limited - on the contrary, I am quite sure that it is; however, in my own case, I have at least been well aware of this factor for many years, and have tried to be on guard against its possible adverse effects. Twenty years ago, I was handling poisonous snakes in large numbers - literally by the tens-of-thousands - and I eventually developed a style of handling them which appeared (to other people) to border on outright insanity; this method was based on a clear awareness (on my part) that I could literally "read a snake's mind." In effect, I knew what a snake was going to do - well in advance of the action; but while I was absolutely certain of the accuracy of this knowledge, I had no slightest idea of "how" I knew it. I could not even explain this ability to myself, let alone to the satisfaction of somebody else.

Now - twenty years and approximately half a million snakes later - I do understand this ability, and I can clearly; explain it to almost anybody; I say "almost" anybody with good cause - because some people are so afraid of snakes that they are literally incapable of rational thought on the subject of snakes. And it is of no small concern to any would-be weight trainee to be aware of the fact that many bodybuilders have a very similar attitude on the subject of exercise and-or diet; having been brainwashed for years, such people are no longer capable of rational thought in this field.

Getting back to the mention of snakes for a moment -because the example is the only one I can think of to parallel a very similar situation in the field of exercise; for a period of at least several years, I was making good practical use of observations of fact - but these observations were entirely on the subconscious level. Snakes clearly "telegraph their punches" - in a manner that is unavoidably obvious, once it has been called to your attention; a rattlesnake does so with its tongue, a chicken snake with its upper lip, a boa constrictor with its neck - and once you know what to look for, almost anybody can handle any of these types of snakes with literally no danger of being bitten. Handle them with their bare hands, I mean.

I can easily demonstrate the validity of these observations to anybody that isn't simply terrified of snakes - but I made good practical use of this knowledge long before I was even aware that I possessed it; I simply "knew" that a particular snake would not bite me - and if the snake changed its intentions, I was instantly aware of the fact, far enough in advance of any action on the snake's part to avoid being bitten.

In a similar vein, but in the field of weight-training, I have long been aware of certain things without clearly understanding "how" I was aware of them - I knew that most barbell exercises weren't quite "right" when I first started using barbells, but it took me over twenty years to explain these shortcomings even to my own satisfaction; and some of the things that were obvious to me as much as thirty years ago have become clear to me only during the last year or two.

It is my firmly-held personal opinion that most bodybuilders keep changing their training schedules primarily because of similar feelings of doubt -apparently they "sense that something is wrong" but can't quite put their finger on the problem; so they keep altering their schedules in an attempt to find exercises, or an order of exercises, that "feels right to them."

Eventually; I realized that most of these problems arise from the simple fact that the situation has been approached from the wrong direction - from a direction exactly opposite to that which is really required; many people - including myself - devoted years to attempts to accommodate the available tools. Rather than trying to devise exercises that were suitable for the muscles involved, practically all of the attention was devoted to attempts to "satisfy" a barbell.

Now - and make no slightest mistake about this point; a barbell is an extremely productive tool for the purpose of building strength and muscular size - a far more productive tool than even most bodybuilders realize. But its advantages must be clearly understood - and its shortcomings must be allowed for.

The barbell is almost literally "the perfect tool" for many purposes - but it is useless for some other purposes; some barbell exercises are extremely productive - some others are an outright waste of time and effort. Several dozen people have been after me for a period of at least two years in concentrated efforts to get me to design and build a Calf Machine - but I have simply refused to do so; because no such machine is required - a block of wood to stand on, a heavy dumbbell, and something to hold on to and you are in business, so why do you need a complicated calf machine that cannot do the job any better?

My only real concern is attempting to improve the production of results from weight-training - and in that direction, if new tools are required, then I am prepared to design and build anything that may be an actual requirement, or even a tool that will merely improve the degree of possible results or make worthwhile contributions to better rates-of-progress; but I am not prepared to waste my time in efforts to design or build machines that are not required. At the moment, there is a pile of junked research machines stacked up behind my prototype shop that is literally s big as a house, but every single one of those machines was an effort in the direction of providing an actually-required tool; none of our machines duplicate - or even imitate - barbell exercises. Instead they provide exercise movements that are literally impossible with a barbell - they make it possible for you to actually do what you have been trying to do with a barbell.

But in many cases you actually can do what you are trying to do with a barbell - and in such cases, no other tool is required; and many other cases, you can come so close to doing what you are trying to do that no other tool is justified - in effect, any degree of improvement provided by an improved tool would not be justified on the grounds of expense (or other considerations).

For the average trainee, actually-proper use of a barbell is NOT complicated; in fact, if anything, it may actually be far too simple. In later chapters I will at least attempt explanations of the following and many other related points, but if the points listed below are clearly understood and practiced then any trainee will be moving in the direction of producing best-possible results.

1. - Limit your weekly workouts to three training sessions for the entire body - including the legs.

2. - Limit the length of your workouts to a total of not more than two hours each - a weekly total training time of six hours; and in almost all cases, even better results will be produced by a total weekly training time of less than four hours - or even as little as two hours.

3. - Seldom perform more that two sets of any one exercise - and NEVER perform more than three sets of any one exercise.

4. - Make unceasing efforts to progress - always attempt to produce at least some sign of progress in every set of every exercise.

5. - Pay particular attention to the "form" of your exercises - do not permit the style of performance to degenerate into a mere "going through the motions."

6. - In general, select the "hardest" exercises - and perform them in the hardest manner possible; if a particular style of performance makes an exercise easier, then it almost always makes it less productive.

7. - NEVER terminate a particular set simply because you have completed a certain number of repetitions; a set is properly finished only when additional movement is utterly impossible - curl until you can't even begin to bend your arms, squat until you can't start up from the low position, press until you cannot move the bar away from your shoulders or your chest.

8. - If you can perform your "guide number" of repetitions - or MORE -then that is your signal to increase the resistance in that particular exercise at the time of your next workout.

9. - Judge your progress by measurable strength increases; when you can perform the same number of repetitions with twice as much resistance, then your muscles will be at least twice as big as they were at the start - and probably more than twice as big.

10.- An advanced trainee does NOT need "more" exercise than a beginner; he simply needs "harder" exercise, in direct proportion to the differential in strength. An advanced man may be able to "stand" more exercise - but it is not a requirement, and will almost always quickly lead to a situation where additional progress comes to a halt, or slows to a snail's pace.

11.- An intelligently selected, reasonably balanced diet is all that is required - and you MUST have both carbohydrates and fats; the amount of food is of more importance than any other factor of diet - if the diet is well rounded. If you are adding fat, then you are eating too much - too many calories; if you are losing weight, then you are not eating enough. It is really just that simple. Any number of freely available government publications contain all of the required information on the subject of diet. And while you may or may not agree with the government's policy on Vietnam, you should at least realize that the government has no axes to grind on the subject of diet; if and when the government starts selling health foods, then look out - but in the meantime, you can take their word on this subject at least.

12.- Do not make any attempt to compare yourself with any other individual - unless you happen to have an identical twin, and there are some physical differences even then; far too many factors are involved to make it possible to compare individuals on a rational basis.

13.- Building maximum-possible degrees of strength in al of the major muscular structures of the body will also unavoidably produce maximum-possible degrees of muscular size; so work to increase your strength - and control your degree of existing muscularity by regulating the amount of your diet.

14.- "Spot reductions" of fatty tissue is an outright myth - a physical impossibility. Build the muscles of your abdominal area by training them in exactly; the same way your exercise your other muscles, two or three sets of from six to twenty repetitions, repeated three times weekly; get rid of any fat in that area by simply reducing your intake of food - or by increasing the "amount" of overall exercises.

But NOT by increasing the amount of abdominal exercise. In effect - and IN FACT - you can reduce fatty tissue in the area of your waist by working your legs (or your arms, or your shoulders, or any other muscle group in your body), it is NOT necessary to work the midsection in order to reduce fat in the midsection; and ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the way of an artificial aid will do anything in the way of helping the situation - all that matters is overall consumption of calories, energy; output-foot input.

15.- Do NOT make the mistake of trying to add muscular size by "bulking up" - adding fatty tissue; such fatty tissue is not muscle and cannot become muscle - and newly-added fat cells, once added, can be completely removed only by surgery. You can reduce the size of fat cells, but you cannot entirely remove the cell itself - and unlike muscle fibers, fat cells CAN BE INCREASED IN NUMBER.

16.- Avoid so-called "growth drugs" like the plague.

17.- Have confidence in your training; if you are too sick to make muscular gains you should be in the hospital - ANY healthy individual can do so.

The rest is explanation - or justification; or explanation of required form.

Pointing to a short statement in my Bulletin No. 1, Ellington Darden, of the Florida State University asked me, "... what is the source of that quote?"

I looked at him a moment, said nothing, and tapped myself on the chest.

"How can you justify it?" he asked me.

"Self-evident truth - common sense; call it what you like - nothing else is even possible," I told him.

All of us make common use of knowledge gleaned from self-evident truth -as we must in many instances, since a large number of obvious facts are supportable in no other way; but as any good judge clearly understands, circumstantial evidence is frequently the best kind - since it does not depend upon the opinions of witnesses, and can be supported on the basis of pure logic.

But we must, of course, be extremely careful to distinguish actual self-evident truth from apparent self-evident truth; ". . . oh, everybody knows that," is a common expression - but usually an invalid attempt to support an untrue (even if common) belief.

"They say," is another such common remark - and I frequently ask people who THEY are.

So there are two sides to the coin; on the one hand, all of us frequently make good use of knowledge that we can't always support - but on the other hand, most of us fall prey to common belief that is not valid and certainly can't be supported.

The quotation which Ellington Darden asked me about, and which I supported only as self-evident truth, was this; " . . . for the production of best-possible results, maximum possible growth stimulation must be induced - but this must be done without disturbing the existing recovery ability any more than necessary." (or words to that effect)

So let us look at that statement carefully, logically; in the first place, it should be obvious that there will be no growth without growth-stimulation, and that maximum-possible stimulation is required for maximum-possible growth - and secondly, it should be equally obvious that the muscular structures cannot grow if there is no recovery ability available to make such growth possible, and that a greater store of existing recovery ability will at least make a faster rate of growth possible, if perhaps not produce such growth in the lack of the required growth stimulation. Logically, then, both factors are required for growth - and there must be a reasonable balance between these factors; the body WILL NOT grow without growth-stimulation, and CAN NOT grow without recovery ability. No amount of growth-stimulation will produce growth if the body cannot supply the requirements for such growth - and the body cannot supply the requirements for growth if they are unavailable; unavailable, perhaps, because they are constantly being used up as fast as they are being produced in never ceasing attempts to compensate for too much exercise.

There it is logically; now let us look at it from a purely practical standpoint. Let us assume, for example, that you have the ability to run a distance of one mile before becoming totally exhausted. Without proper exercise - in this case, running or something very similar - you will never increase your running ability; year by year your ability will decline.

But if you do make a regular practice of running, then one of three things will undoubtedly happen; if you run only a little, you will maintain your existing ability far longer than you otherwise would have done without such exercise - if you run a bit more, then you will gradually increase your running ability - but if you run too much, your running ability will actually decline.

If you constantly increase the length of your runs, always trying to run as far as possible, you will increase your ability - up to a point; but eventually the amount of running will become so great that you will start exceeding your recovery ability, you will not be able to totally recover between exercise periods - and then losses in ability will occur. Nothing else is even possible - it is obvious self-evident truth.

This same self-evident truth can be applied to any form of exercise; but it should be clearly understood that the factor of importance is the "amount" of exercise involved - the body can withstand any possible "intensity" of exercise, so long as the amount of such exercise does not exceed the limits of the recovery ability. In fact, it is the intensity of exercise - and apparently ONLY the intensity of exercise - that regulates growth stimulation; thus intense exercise is an actual requirement for inducing growth - but it is also true that the amount of exercise must be decreased as the intensity of exercise is increased.

When the actually involved factors are thus viewed logically, the rule becomes obvious - obvious self-evident truth; in this instance, we need to stimulate as much growth as we can, and we need to leave the system in such shape that it can respond to this stimulation.

Previously untrained subjects - particularly men in their mid-twenties to their late thirties who are healthy but underweight - frequently experience rates of growth that are almost fantastic, when they first start progressive weight-training; because, at the start, "any exercise" is "intense exercise" - to them, as individuals - and thus growth is stimulated. And because their systems have not been exhausted by too much exercise - and thus their recovery ability is able to respond properly and provide the requirements for the growth that is being stimulated.

In fact, there is no slightest reason why such a fast rate of growth could not be maintained right up to the point of individual potential - whatever that might be in a particular case; but in practice, most such trainees usually fall into a rut of training too much - while not training hard enough. Exactly contrary to the generally-practiced rule, advanced trainees should actually train less than they did earlier - but much harder.

But just try telling that to a bodybuilder with ten years of experience -a man who has been doing as many as sixty sets of curl in each workout, when he would have been well-advised to do only two sets in each workout.

Or just try to convince a man who spent ten years building his 18-inch arms that he could have done so in less than two years if he had trained much less during each workout, and if he had trained less frequently.

The signs are all there, in plain sight for anybody to see - but most bodybuilders choose not to look; few if any of them, for example, ever wonder why they always experience such fast response after a prolonged layoff from training; but then quickly fall back into a rut where their progress is almost nonexistent. Yet the answer, of course is again self-evident truth; during a layoff from training, their system is able to rebuild the recovery ability to a point where some reserve exists - and thus, when training is started again and growth is stimulated, the system is capable of meeting the requirements for such growth. But when this reserve is exhausted - as it quickly will be in most such cases - the system is no longer able to meet the requirements for growth; so no growth results, regardless of how much growth-stimulation is being provided.

Back on the treadmill - running and running, and never having enough common sense to notice that they are getting nowhere. And as a result of such non-thinking, the whole field of body building has been marching backwards for the last twenty years - at an ever-increasing pace, until now it has almost reached the point of a rout.

In the body building and competitive weight-lifting fields, the ability to perform one maximum-possible repetition is generally considered the only meaningful test of strength; but in fact, a far more accurate measurement of strength can be based on performances of a given number of repetitions, almost any reasonable number of repetitions - except one repetition.

While most weight-trainees consider performances of several consecutive repetitions tests of endurance, there is actually no apparent difference between strength and endurance - accurate measurement of either one of these factors clearly indicates the existing level of the other; at least so long as actual "muscular endurance" itself is being considered - however, if the number of repetitions is too high, then other factors are involved to an extent that meaningful test-results are no longer possible.

The significance of this relationship between strength and endurance should be obvious - but in fact, and in practice, it has been misunderstood, totally overlooked, or ignored.

It is not my intention to become bogged down in attempts to justify this relationship - all of the evidence supports it, and nothing counter indicates it; but it is at least necessary to accept the existence of the relationship - and having done so, then any reasonably intelligent trainee should be immediately aware of the implications. In shore - by properly training for strength increases, improvements in endurance are produced in direct proportion, and vice versa; for competitive lifters, an awareness of that simple fact is enough - but for bodybuilders, the implications are even greater. Because there is also a direct relationship between strength (and-or endurance) and muscular size; in effect, producing maximum-possible degrees of strength will simultaneously and unavoidably produce maximum-possible degrees of muscular mass - and again in proportion. If we consider only the actual "input" of strength - the power being generated by the muscle - then increases in muscular mass will be out of proportion to such measurable strength gains. But the "results" will be the same in either case - in order to build maximum-possible muscular mass, you must build maximum-possible strength.

Great confusion on these points exists for several reasons - but primarily because attempts have been made to compare the performance abilities of different individuals: which cannot be done in a meaningful manner. But if such comparisons are restricted to individuals - if a man is compared to himself at another point in time - then the validity of the above points is clearly supported by any sort of presently-available test procedure based on sound principles. However, such tests must be conducted within a reasonable time period - the normal degeneration of age will produce apparent exceptions if the tests are made several years apart; and when such tests involve immature subjects, then careful attention must be given to the maturity factor - and in such cases, reasonable accuracy of measurement depends upon average figures resulting from a rather large number of exactly-similar tests. While the performances of mature subjects will normally remain remarkably consistent, immature subjects will usually show great variation on a day-to-day basis.

Reduced to practical considerations, this means that a bodybuilder must work for maximum-possible strength - and that a competitive lifter must work for maximum-possible muscular mass, at least in those muscular structures that are involved in lifting; and in either case, the "type" of training is exactly-similar - in both cases, the training should be of maximum-possible intensity, but brief and infrequent.

Being clearly aware of this relationship between strength and "actual muscular size" (as opposed to supposed muscular size, or bulk which may have a high percentage of fatty tissue), we have long directed our efforts to attempts to increase strength; Casey Viator is a good example of a trainee with far-better-than-average potential who has trained in this manner - and as a result, he is almost unique. In the past, it was assumed that great size presupposed at least some visible fatty tissue; people spoke of "bulking up", and then "training down" - and this practice is still widespread today. But it is always a mistake; adding fatty tissue has absolutely nothing to do with increasing actual muscular mass - and once added, much of such fatty tissue can never be entirely removed.

Casey has built his almost unbelievable muscular size by building his strength - and as a result, he remains in hard muscular condition at any size; he is not - as some people suppose - "very defined in spite of his size," rather he is literally "very defined BECAUSE OF HIS SIZE."

Regardless of apparent muscular definition, some degree of fatty tissue will always remain - as it must in a living organism; but there does not appear to be any definite requirement for any certain percentage of such fatty tissue - thus a very large muscular individual might remain perfectly healthy with exactly the same "amount" of fatty tissue found in a much smaller individual. And since the actual percentile of fatty tissue would be lower in the case of the larger individual, he would obviously appear more muscular - literally BECAUSE OF HIS SIZE.

Demonstrations of strength depend on many factors - many of them in no way related to actual strength; for this reason, many bodybuilders - probably most bodybuilders, today - cannot demonstrate strength in proportion to their appearance of strength. And thus they have come to believe that "strength training" is of no importance to a bodybuilder; while in fact it is really the only type of training that is even capable of giving them the results they are seeking.

Secondly, many bodybuilders - and probably all successful bodybuilders -actually practice strength training without being aware that they are doing so. Failing to realize that the actual number of repetitions is of no real importance - so long as the set is carried to a point of proper intensity-of-effort, and so long as the number of repetitions is at least reasonable - many bodybuilders are actually training properly without realizing it; training properly for strength, that is. Which, of course, means properly in every sense of the word in this instance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SUBJECT "A"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SUBJECT "B"

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

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

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

SUBJECT "C"

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

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

SUBJECT "D"

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

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

SUBJECT "E"

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

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

SUBJECTS "F", "G", "H", etc.

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

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

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

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

Primarily because of the psychological traits mentioned in the previous chapter - and as a result of commercial bias - the field of body building has finally reached a point where it is almost impossible to obtain information on the subject of actual practices, as opposed to claimed practices. If the field was without value, then present trends could be permitted to continue with no loss - but in fact, the very real value of intelligently-practiced weight-training is such that it deserves rational consideration, and efforts, directed towards salvaging the situation.

It is my personal opinion that weight-training should be a part of the physical education of every student in the country, starting about the freshman year in high school and continuing throughout the remainder of the educational experience - and I also think that something on that order might have resulted already, if it were not for the fact that the entire field has fallen into generally bad repute. If the situation is to be saved - if it can be saved - then present trends must be reversed.

In efforts directed towards that purpose, we will sponsor the "Mr. Nautilus" physique contest - a physique contest with a difference, with many differences, important differences. Up to this point, the promoters of such contests have seldom - and never, recently - offered more than $1,000.00 in the way of a cash prize to the overall winner; we will offer the first place winner a cash prize of $25,000.00 - with a total of $50,000.00 in cash prizes.

In the past, little or nothing in the way of significant publicity has been given to such contests -while the winners of the annual Miss America contests receive at least some national publicity, the winners of major physique contests generally remain unknown outside the narrow field of weight-training; so widespread publicity will be afforded this contest -among other things, a film will be made for television on the subject of physical training in general, with the contest being the highlight of the film.

The prizes and the publicity should attract both a wide field of entrants and widespread attention - but in this case, we are seeking far more than publicity; while the contest itself will be strictly a physique contest and will be judged accordingly, one of the requirements for entry will be that the entrants must present themselves a week in advance of the contest, and must submit to a wide variety of physical tests, any reasonable tests. We are primarily seeking facts - significant test results. According to present plans, Dr. Elliott Plese of Colorado State University will be in charge of the testing procedures - and the actual tests will be conducted by a group of physiologists from a number of universities and research foundations. The exact nature of the tests will not be made known in advance - but all results will be published within a reasonable time after the contest, and the information obtained will be made available to any interested parties.

Of possible concern to entrants; it should be clearly understood that the test results will not be made known to the judges in advance of the contest - and the judging will not be influenced by the results. But after the contest, all matters of general information will be published; accurate measurements, body weights, actual strength performances, etc. Of particular importance; a number of tests to determine drug usage - and the results of such usage - will be conducted, and the results of these tests will be published.

It should be clearly understood that there is absolutely no intention or desire to "hurt anybody" - on the contrary, it is our sincere desire to help everybody we can; but this can only be accomplished in the full light of the truth. At the moment, millions of young weight-trainees are attempting to build impossible degrees of muscular size, trying to duplicate impossible strength feats - and generally training in a fashion that literally prevents much in the way of worthwhile results; and who knows the actual extent of the damage being done by the use of drugs.

As additional plans for this contest are made, the details will be published in Iron Man Magazine and probably elsewhere; the date of the contest will be approximately November or December, 1972. The probable location will be Los Angeles, California.

While half of the total cash prizes of $50,000.00 will go to the overall winner, the other half will be divided into smaller, but significant, cash awards for a number of "place winners" and the winners of several subdivisions, best arms best back, etc. Additionally, all entrants will be provided with housing during the week of testing immediately prior to the contest.

For the first time in the history of physical training, this contest will provide sincerely interested, qualified, and hopefully unbiased experts the opportunity to study a large group of outstanding muscular specimen in depth; but if bias does exist - as it always does to at least some degree - then it should be balanced out by the large number of people who will be involved in the testing.

One point that still affords some concern is the selection of judges, and we are anxious to receive all possible suggestions in this regard; it is of course of extreme importance to have a panel of judges that are qualified and unbiased.

Additionally, we are interested in communications from the physiology departments of institutions that might like to take part in the testing procedures; but the final selection of such participants will be at the discretion of Dr. Plese.

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

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

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

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

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

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

And it is equally true that any possible degree of strength or muscular size can be produced by less than four hours of weekly training - very quickly produced; and for individuals with more reasonable goals, and hour and a half of weekly training will produce results within a period of a few months that must be personally experienced to be appreciated.

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

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

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

For the average person, however, no such drive or self-discipline is required; good results can be produced from a very small amount of the proper type of training.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let us examine the points one at a time; first, assuming an equal length of the muscular