Letters I Get -- Robert Kennedy

 

I get so many letters . . . virtually all ask questions about how they can improve physically at a faster rate than they are currently experiencing.

Typical is the letter from people who say they have been training "on and off" for so many years and can I recommend a schedule to make good gains. I often suspect that these people have more "off" days than "on" and that is why they have failed to make good progress. After all, consistency is a major factor to the successful bodybuilder, especially if he is not a "natural." 

Another letter that is fairly common is the one that asks which methods are best. MuscleMag International is an independent magazine (we are not tied to any particular federation, guild or association and therefore readers presume that we are unbiased, which come to think of it, we are), we are invariably asked whose bodybuilding principles are best . . . York or Weider. This leaves us at quite a loss for words. What's the difference? I understood in the "old days" that York stood for a large variety of exercises, training but three times a week, while Weider recommended basic exercises, more sets and more frequent training, up to twice a day. It is easy to see that many "Weider champs" actually train more according to how York used to recommend and accordingly it is not unusual today to see York advocates using Weider principles. 

There is a huge amount of criss-crossing of techniques and the brand naming of bodybuilding principles is still difficult for me to accept. Chiquita bananas, after all, are just bananas, are they not? 

One thing for sure, both Weider and Hoffman have claimed methods as 'theirs" which in many cases were written about and practiced regularly by bodybuilders well before either Weider or Hoffman had even touched a barbell. 

There are also other trainers who are known for helping individual bodybuilders. Ed Yarick (he helped Reeves and many others), Leo Stern (worked with Bill Pearl and many others), Vince Giroffa, er, Gironda (Larry Scott and many others), Bill Pearl (Dickerson and many others) etc., etc. 

It is my opinion that most successful bodybuilders train themselves, and the more advanced fellows learn from talking to, and observing . . . each other. 

New techniques are advanced from time to time, and one, Mentzer's Heavy Duty, completely contravened the Weider principles, yet Mike Mentzer is still joyously referred to as a Weider "pupil." 

Surely the fact that most pro bodybuilders are selling courses offering their own exclusive "secrets" is proof enough that a lot of their "know-how" is self-created? After all, if Weider was 100% behind their muscle-gaining success, we would only have to buy the Weider system and no one else's! 

Who's system should you follow? 

Try 'em all. 

Each can teach you something extra that you may not have known. And that certainly goes for the Weider system too, which is a concise and intelligent treatise on bodybuilding training . . . but not the only one. 

You wouldn't believe the amount of mail that begins by saying, "I don't want to be Mr. Universe or anything. I just want to harden up a little and lose about 10 inches off my gut . . . Could you recommend," the letter goes . . . "an exercise that would take it off around the waistline?" 

The answer, of course, is that there is no single exercise that will take off weight around the waist, unless you want to take up marathon running ba dump bum. Certainly a couple of sets of situps each night will not do the job. Abdominal work will firm up the muscles underneath the fat, but it will not reduce the fat. 

The answer? 

CUT YOUR CALORIC INTAKE. 

Preferably by greatly reducing the high calorie foods such as sugar, butter, pastries, pizzas, pastas, cookies, candies, and to a lesser degree, rice, bread, and potatoes. 

Virtually every week I receive a letter asking why bodybuilders do not have hair on their chest and legs. "Does," the writers ask in all sincerity, "bodybuilding make body hair fall out?" 

The answer is simple [providing we ignore steroid side effects]. Bodybuilders are as hairy as anyone else. They are concerned, however, with having their muscles show up and accordingly before a contest or an important photo session they will shave. Most dry shave with a standard hand razor. You need plenty of spare blades because the job can be a [bloody] long one. 

Okay, Note here: Roided, drugged guys will lose the hair on their head and grow back and shoulder hair like an ape. It's great for covering the pus-filled acne oozing out all over the place! Who cleans these yahoos' bedding anyhow? I mean, huge-calorie input in the off-season coupled with the natural intestinal response must lead to self-shitting frequently. Aw geez, the little bits they miss out in these mags! Be the first kid on your block to make a pose and shit yourself simultaneously! I'm surprised there weren't ads for adult XXX-large diapers in them mags. But then, there's some slightly more drastic changes that take place, and the "modern" versions are pretty much the same as the old school drug ones. . . . but . . . on steroids, as they say. Youtube channel money-scraper buttheads take note! Self-shitting while on cycles (they never end) is currently a topic not dealt with right now . . . it should be an open market and it could attract subscribers so you don't have to actually do anything other than record and jump-edit your pathetic crap and rake in the dirty money! Glory! Welcome to America . . . the business formerly known as a "country" or something. We produce nothing of worth, aside from data, amusements, bread and circuses and're damn proud of it. Hello Brave New World. 

Continuing . . . 

Then, there's the letter asking about women's bodybuilding . . . What do we think of it? Incredibly to me, most suggest that it is revolting [no more revolting than the males to me, a facade at best, a plague at worst. At the high levels of modernity, idealizing abomination?]. 

I must admit to being very much in favor of women in the bodybuilding field. [Field? That has a much better ring to it than "sewer!"] As Vince Gironda says, "Women have a higher pain threshold and they're already teaching the men a thing or two about training." [I am sure they are. I mean, it takes a whole lotta drugs in proper combinations to turn a woman's endocrine system into one that produces muscle like that. And that 'higher pain threshold' comes in handy when pinning yer butt endlessy and pumping oil into yer sack-a-salty-boob-enhanced flesh for glory.]

Whether women should be limited to the type of presentation they give, well, I for one would rather they did the lat spread and double-bis than the burlesque bump. I suspect, however, that as the relatively new sport matures women's poses will settle down to something in between which will have its own brand of athleticism and non-sexist femininity.

Note: turns out the bottom line was whether or not cash could be made with these cows. The modern 'fitness' version of women's comps is quite a thing to see, and I for one have not seen contortions and twisting the body into bizarre positions to get the "angles" right since viewing freakshow footage from long-passed circus sideshows. "Step right up and see the two-headed baby, the cow with 80 udders and the female bodybuilder!" Odd also is the way "respect" is supposedly "owed" to anyone doing any absurd thing so long as they "dedicate" their being to the doing of it. Here we have, for example, a guy who devotes the near-entirety of his life and energy to growing out his toenails, complete with training, diet and drugs . . . and this may be the closest we'll ever get to posting a "foot special" here .  . 

                                                                            Respect My Absurdity! 

Yikes, plenty of tiresome cheap shots in this one. Carrying on . . . 

The question of how many sets and reps an experienced bodybuilder should perform is asked with great frequency. [Wait a minute, this is odd. If an "experienced" bodybuilder still has no clue how much of what works best for him and when, would he still be classed as "experienced?" I think not.] My answer is based not on theory but practical observation [the practical observation Mr. Experienced could have used to get his answer?]. Within a certain limit it does not matter. After all . . . how could it matter? If a muscle is used vigorously on a regular and progressive basis, it will grow. [Is my dick a muscle? I sure hope so 'cause all this training is wearisome in many strange ways. I keep stepping on it, Bob, and would like to extend its size to the point of being able to wrap it around my ankle and quit tripping on it. What would Arnold do? I did see a VHS of Ron Jeremy trying to bite the tip off his. At least I think that's what he was up to.]. 

Many top bodybuilders [who I should take advice from? obvious genetic superiors? that makes sense. i've been watching a lot of 'shredded sports science' videos and that's the excuse for this I'm stickin' to, damnit] 

Many top bodybuilders have gone through phases when they kept to a certain amount of repetitions. Reg Park in the 1950's grew on 6 reps [do you really believe he would not have grown on pretty much any rep numbers between 4 and a dozen? musta bin his intense concentration and dedication, yeah, musta been that coupled with a positive attitude and plenty of sunshine]. In the late 60's Arnold did 6 reps and grew [surprise, surprise!]. In the '70's he did sets of 12 reps and still grew [we are seeing a pattern here, Bob]. If you have the potential to grow you will do it with virtually any system of reps as long as the will to win is present. [I enjoy negative reps. You know, the ones you don't do] 

How many sets? That is totally dependent on the amount of intensity you are able to inject (no pun intended) into your training. All out intensity requires but one set [you mean like in a lifetime? if so, I AM IN!]. For those who can't hack that (manly manly men take note], up to 8 sets per exercise. Mentzer grew on 10 sets, just as he now continues to grow on but one [that pattern we're seeing again, Robert]. 

I don't know why the biceps are so endlessly popular [because chicks dig 'em and a guy can wind up havin' the sexes sometimes? it's that simple, usually], but a large amount of males, er, large amount of mail is concerned over which are the best biceps exercises. I believe the incline DB curl is the best, followed by the regular standing barbell curl [I prefer those curls where you apply progressive resistance of some type to the biceps and stress them occasionally, but am not very bright really]. The Scott-Gironda-Preacher-GiveItAGoddamnName-Curl whereby the bench is "set" at a very steep angle is far more beneficial than the shallower angle, which offers very little resistance [in certain sections of the range of motion and very much in others]. Done in this way -- steep -- the exercise would be my third choice.  

  

                                    "Right, I get third stinkin' place, thanks a lot. A lousy bronze?" 

And ain't it surprising, looking at that ratty, rotted-out-now piece of crap . . . the way it was used to sucker people into buying memberships? It's not much, really. Something a 15 year old could easily build in shop class. Strange how our human minds work, ain't it just. With Scott's arms promoting it I could have sold a stuffed sheep for total biceps development instead of this thing. "The back must be padded properly and at the perfect angle . . . it must be fattened on Blair's Protein leading up to slaughter . .  the stuffing can only be keto-based and include plenty of kelp."

Finally, there's the letter that is NOT common! [sounds like he got mine back then on what's left of Greg Kovacs' dick&balls after all that juice.] The unique type which floors you with the concern over what seems to be the world's most trivial problem. But I have learned from experience [and then, gosh and durn it, I died] . . . these rare questions may be laughable to me but to the questioner they have considerable importance. In fact, they are so important that the writer has taken the time and trouble to write away for an answer [and is likely 14 years old, possesses an 80 I.Q. and will quit lifting by age 16]. Okay, to the good stuff . . . 

The latest unique correspondence I received asked in all sincerity how Frank Zane developed his feet! [was it signed, "Greg Zulak"]. The writer noted that Zane had particularly well-formed and shapely feet [I ain't making this part up] and wanted to know how he too could find such foot perfection [signed by Jerry Brudos?]. 

Sadly for Brudos-Zulak, the section on developing the feet of a champ was cut from the publication owing to lack of interest in general. 

The questioner, I am guessing, had already developed a perfect body and he was now putting the finishing touches to the self-made masterpiece. Giving the question an answer because that is what he demands, and holding back the urge to smirk [I know it well, my Friend] . . . The feet attain their size from heredity. Good foot care and the resulting foot handsomeness comes from never wearing too tight footwear [so, no occlusion training for feet?], which could cramp and ultimately deform feet, especially in childhood. 

Incidentally, Zane spends a great deal of time, Jerry and Greg, barefooted, which not only allows the feet to breathe [this foot-breathing being the basis of PHA training], but also ensures that they get a large amount of daily exercise via the additional movement which cannot be obtained when heavy shoes are worn. 

Finally, you cannot expect to have good looking feet if you are overweight [I beg to differ], because they will be fat too. And that would never do, would it? 

It's just schtick is all. I still LOVE lifting regardless. 

Enjoy Your Lifting!