Casey Viator
An outstanding video by Alexander Bromley on the second West Side.
Beautifully put together, with plenty of photos and vids.
Oliver Sacks mention noted here for later.
"Although, I must admit, I didn't try anything like letting a rattlesnake bite me on the biceps - which probably would have resulted in at least some temporary size."
- Arthur Jones
My personal interest in weight-training dates back more than 30 years - during which time, things have changed a bit; but contrary to widespread opinion, most of the changes have not been improvements - on the contrary, the general trend in weight-training circles has been in a backwards direction.
Certainly there are more outstanding men on the scene today than there were thirty years ago - and a few of the present crop of well-known bodybuilders certainly are better developed than the top men of any earlier period - and weightlifting records have gone up steadily during the last three decades; but these examples are really proof of nothing - instead, they are simply expectable results from the enormous increase in the number of active weight-trainees.
Proof of improvements in method must come from an increase in the average production of results - and the fact of the matter is that average results from weight training have actually declined during the last thirty years. Until quite recently, I couldn't understand just how this situation could have come about; I knew that men like Grimek, Ross, Reeves, and many of the other top men of a quarter of a century ago trained in a fashion almost totally unlike the training styles of today - and I knew that they produced good results without the use of drugs, and with little or no consideration to dietary factors - and I simply couldn't understand how such men could have "forgotten" how they trained. I failed to understand how the oldtimers could be misled into supporting the so-called "modern" training methods.
But apparently I was giving credit where none was due; while it is certainly true that the oldtimers trained in a manner that was very close to being the "right" manner, it now appears that they did so almost entirely by accident - they were doing the right things, but they didn't know why they were doing them, or really understand the involved factors. Thus, later - when people came along with the "super-duper, twenty hours a week, spend your whole life in the gym" type of training programs so common today - the oldtimers, the very people who should have known better (but apparently didn't), were carried along with the rest of the crowd.
Part of the resulting backwards-moves can probably be attributed to the fact that there really wasn't much to write about on the subject of weight-training - and everything worthwhile had already been stated in print at least a thousand times; so it was only natural to give attention to almost anything that even gave the promise of being different. Unfortunately, the mere fact that something is new is no proof that it is an improvement. And a new lie (if you can find one) is still a lie.
While interest in weight-training has extended over a span of many years, my direct contact with weight-training circles has been very spotty - which may well have been a blessing; because, if my contact had been close and constant, then my thinking might have also been influenced in the wrong direction that so many people have followed. My direct contact with weight-training circles was so limited (until very recently) that I never even subscribed to a muscle magazine in this field until approximately a year ago; I seldom visited commercial gyms; and while I had a number of friends who were closely associated with weight-training, I seldom even mentioned the subject to them.
But do NOT - from the above - jump to the incorrect conclusion that I was not interested, or involved, during all those years; I was interested, and I was involved - but I was not influenced.
Too-close involvement (or even contact), and commercial interest; two factors that almost assure a highly biased outlook - and frequently prevent any real progress, since actual progress could involve change, which might not be to your advantage. Fortunately, I was spared that involvement - and I was also spared any commercial interest; until very recently, at least - and even now, my primary commercial involvements and interests are totally apart from this field.
As a result of this "lack of contact," I was free to go my own way, free to make my own mistakes, free to form my own opinions, free to conduct my own experiments - and I did so, for many years, without the pressures of commercial involvement, without any deadlines to meet, without the spur of "hoped for reward."
As recently as two years ago, when it finally became obvious that I had developed something of very real significance and probably of great commercial value, I freely offered ALL OF IT to a friend - with no strings attached; I told him . . . take it, publish the results under your own name, take full credit for it, and do with it as you choose."
At the time, he did what he probably considered the wisest thing - nothing; while pretending interest, he was actually not interested at all, he probably thought he was "humoring me." Then, later, he . . . no, I'm getting ahead of myself; I'll come back to this later.
Thirty-odd years ago, when I first started weight-training, I knew absolutely nothing about it; at the time, I weighed 132 pounds at a height of 5 feet 7-3/8 inches and had a 12-1/2 inch arm. After three or four months of hit-or-miss weight-training spread out over a period of several years (there was a war going on at that time), I weighed 148 pounds and my arms were 14-3/8 inches; most - perhaps all - of which size I probably would have had with no training.
When I finally did get around to regular training I made rapid progress - up to a point; my bodyweight rose to 172 pounds and my arms increased to 15-3/8 inches - but there I was stuck, I could not get any heavier and I could not increase my measurements. I was strong for my weight and size and my definition was very good - but I could make no progress beyond the point mentioned above.
During a period of several years I was involved in the field of animal importation and the field of international airline transportation, and I was traveling almost constantly; as a result, my training was "on again, off again" - on for a few weeks, off for a few months, or years.
After being "off" (out of training, and usually working 18 hours a day, seven days a week) for a few months, my weight would decline to 160 and my arm size would drop down to an even 14 inches; and I would remain at that size, and remain in hard muscular condition, until I started training again - even if a period of years went by with no training at all. But as soon as I would start to training again, I would gain very rapidly; back up to my previous "high point," back up to 172 pounds with 15-3/8 inch arms - and as soon as I reached that point, I would stop growing.
This "up again, down again" cycle was repeated several times; by which point I was firmly convinced that it was literally impossible for me, as an individual, to get any larger without getting fat.
Having been somewhat (and some people would say "more than somewhat") of an extremist all my life, I was never satisfied to beat my head against stone walls of failure (At Sisyphus & Sons Construction we handle the headaches. Call your friends at Sisyphus for those jobs that never end!) - but do not misunderstand that to mean that I don't stick to my efforts; I simply mean that I am fully capable of recognizing a treadmill when I see one - and I am not content to run forever without any sign of progress. So it didn't take me years to realize that my continued training would never produce additional progress; so I would quit when I found myself back on the treadmill again (Sisyphus & Sons, for all your treadmill needs. Not affiliated with Prometheus Liver Cleanse Inc.).
More semicolons, it needs more semicolons! Upon realizing Bob Hoffman had no knowledge of the semicolon, readers breathed a sigh of relief. Writers using large numbers of semicolons may be mirroring their uninterruptable conversational style.
But then it came to pass that I had reached my old "sticking point" (for perhaps the eighth time) but decided not to quit training entirely - as I had always done previously upon reaching that same sticking point; instead, I decided to merely reduce the amount of my training - instead of quitting entirely, I decided to cut my previous training schedule in half, thinking that doing so would at least "keep what I had."
Up to that point, I had been training three times weekly - using four sets of each of 12 basic barbell exercises: curls, presses, squats, dips, regular-grip chins, etc. Nothing at all in the way of exotic of fancy exercises. Three "total body" workouts consisting of a total of 48 sets - with every set of every exercise carried to a point of absolute failure in every workout.
When I reduced my training, I simply cut the schedule in half - doing only 2 sets of each of the same 12 basic exercises; other than the reduction in the "amount" of exercise, there were no changes - I still did the same exercises, in the same order, and in the same way. Just "less" of each exercise.
Within a week, I gained a solid 10 pounds of bodyweight - and put exactly half-an-inch on the "cold" measurement of my arms - and my strength increased in proportion.
Then - as had happened frequently in the past - I was forced to quit training entirely; but this time around, I had learned something - previously - (the combination of the semicolon and dash for longer phrases! I'm breathless, but admit to being somewhat unconditioned currently) I had been training too much, my training was using up all of my recovery ability and there was nothing left for additional growth.
So - when I was able to start training again, approximately a year later - I reduced my training schedule even more; when I started training again, I used only 2 sets of 8 basic exercises - a total of only 16 sets in each of three weekly workouts, exactly 1/3 as much training as I had previously used.
That time around, I gained 20 pounds in seven weeks, added exactly 2-1/2 inches to the measurement of my arms ("cold"), and increased my strength enormously; that time my arms went to 16-1/2 inches "cold" - 1-1/8 inches beyond my old sticking point, and 5/8" beyond the temporary "best" that I had reached very briefly a year earlier just after reducing the amount of my training. Then I had to stop training again.
Another year went by with no training at all, and then I had the opportunity to start again; that time, I exactly duplicated my fast gains of the previous year and then continued to gain far beyond my previous "best" - less than 10 weeks after I started training, my arms were a "cold" 17-1/8 inches at a rock-stonewall-solid bodyweight of 205 pounds, and I could perform eight "strict" barbell curls with 165 pounds with not the slightest amount of cheating. If I had a bit of fat on me anywhere it must have been between my ears - because there was none visible on my body; and, to be perfectly truthful, I certainly felt like I had some fat between my ears - since that was the only rational explanation I could find for my own stupidity, for having worked myself into the ground for nothing, for having worked so much that I literally made gains impossible beyond a certain size.
Nor did it reduce my feeling of stupidity to realize - as I was forced to - that I had made the same mistake several times; but, stupid or not, I had finally discovered the "secret" - if only, as happened to be the case, literally by accident. And for the benefit of people who have been raised on a diet of lies about 20" arms, I will mention that the above measurements were accurate - my 17-1/8" arm would come out to at least 19 by today's measurements; but in those days we didn't cut the first two inches off the end of the tape, or pre-shrink it, or include our neck in the measurement - and I, at least, didn't lie about my measurements, not to other people and not to myself.
And I would also like to point out that I could NOT pump my arms more than a tiny 1/8 of an inch - a difference that was so small that it was hard to measure; when my arms were smaller, I could pump them a full 1/2 inch - and sometimes as much as 3/4 of an inch - but when they reached their maximum size, they simply would not pump more than 1/8 of an inch. After a hard workout they would "look pumped" and they would "feel pumped," but they were little if any larger than when they were cold.
Nor was it a matter of "keeping them pumped" all the time - which is a physiological impossibility, even though many current bodybuilders think they can do so; my arms were, I think, as big as they were capable of becoming - they just couldn't get any larger, pumped or otherwise. Although, I must admit, I didn't try anything like letting a rattlesnake bite me on the biceps - which probably would have resulted in at least some temporary size.
And I do know that my arms were so big that they literally shocked some people - so big that many people - including some bodybuilders, thought that they were "too large.' One bodybuilder remarked, ". . . I always thought it was impossible to get your arms too big, until I saw your arms." And I do know that I had to spend an entire afternoon in Mexico City looking for a coat with sleeves that were large enough for me to get my arms into them - and when I did find a coat that I could at least get in, it fit my arms like a glove and the rest of me like a tent.
I have since measured many actually muscular arms that were larger than mine ever were - but all of them were on men who were both taller and heavier than I was; at a bodyweight of 222 (his best bodyweight in his opinion), Bill Pearl's largest arm measurement was 18-5/8 - at a bodyweight of 218; Casey Viator's largest arm was 19-5/16 - at a bodyweight of 218 (immediately after the last Mr. Olympia contest), Arnold Schwarzenegger's largest arm, "somewhat pumped," was 19-7/8, and I would estimate it at a solid 19-1/2 cold - at a bodyweight of 234, only last week, Sergio Oliva's arms (both of them) were exactly 20-1/8 inches, cold, Franco Columbu's largest arm was 16-3/4, cold.
Two-part article originally published in Muscle Training Illustrated.
All of the above-mentioned arms (except Franco's, and he is shorter than I was - and in most ways, stronger than I ever was), are literally "outstanding" arms, far above average; most people could never obtain such size in muscular condition - regardless of how they train, no matter how long they train. The potential for such muscular size is rare; but almost anybody can build their arms to a muscular size that will be shocking to most observers outside the bodybuilding scene - and they can do so very quickly, if they train properly.
"Ah," you are probably thinking, "now comes the commercial."
But if so, you are wrong; I built my greatest size and strength with nothing more than a barbell, a squat rack, a chinning bar, and a pair of dipping bars - all of which equipment is available to almost anybody for a few dollars, and none of which pieces of equipment are manufactured by my company.
Unfortunately for my own training progress, the new Nautilus machines - which I invented, and which I do manufacture and sell - came into the picture far too late for my use; by the time these machines were available (even to me), I was past the point of any desire to train seriously - additionally, frequently recurring trouble from an old injury (a broken neck suffered nearly 30 years ago) has made it all but impossible for me to train hard enough to produce worthwhile results. For many years, training actually seemed to help this trouble - but lately, hard training has been impossible.
But it might be of value to many "older" trainees to point out that I made my own best progress when I was well past the age of thirty - and made very good progress past the age of forty.
During all of the years that I was making my own mistakes, and sometimes learning from them, I devoted quite a large amount of private research into totally new methods of exercise - such efforts were primarily directed towards attempts to improve exercise equipment; my first serious attempt in the direction of building a new type of exercise machine occurred in 1948, in Tulsa, Oklahoma - and it actually was a slight improvement over conventional exercises, but not enough of an improvement to be practical. Remember - I was trying to build something that WORKED, something that was justified on practical grounds, something that would produce far better results than conventional equipment.
Quite frankly, if I had invented Nautilus machines twenty-five years ago I would probably have worked myself to death on them, and soon; because, at that point, I would have used them far too much, just as I was using a barbell too much - not "too hard," but "too much."
In 1958, I actually did invent an exercise machine that incorporated every single one of the desirable features of the latest models of Nautilus equipment - but then failed to recognize it for what it was; built it and then didn't even bother to test it, never so much as performed a single set on it - because, by the time it was finished, I had thought of another approach to the problem that I mistakenly assumed was a better approach, but which turned out to be an utter failure.
I was just that close to the answer - and failed to recognize it; and then almost never went back to it - because, later, my natural inclination was to feel that I had tried that approach and it had failed. While, actually, I never had tried it. Thus, when the evidence repeatedly pointed back in that direction - as it did - I always felt that I was simply repeating a previous mistake; but, finally, I was forced back to the same point I had reached several years earlier - and when I realized that I had been there before, and had failed to recognize where I really was, then I again felt like I had a bit of fat between my ears.
Article originally published in Muscle Training Illustrated.
With it!
The first real awakening . . .
Yes, Robin Williams' (Oliver Sacks) character popping 500 out of the squat hole while high as a kite and liking them amphetamines! If you've never read his memoir of cycle-riding all night high and hitting the sunup at juuuuuust the right moment . . . well, you owe that to yourself.
Sacks spotting what looks to be Bill West.
Ollie had something of a Konstantins Konstantinovs build back then.
The first real awakening came with an understanding of the basic principles that are involved - the principles that are involved in solving certain problems that many weight-trainees have been at least aware of for many years; I knew what the problems were, I was aware of the problems for at least twenty years before I had any practical idea about how to solve them - I was looking for solutions, for a practical method to solve the known problems.
And, once the basic principles involved in a practical solution were understood, then it became a rather simple mechanical problem - or rather, a number of mechanical problems, the problems connected with determining practical applications of known physical principles.
But even at that point I still had no idea of just what had happened; I knew that the proper application of these principles would at the very least "improve the results of exercise" - but I didn't even suspect how much this improvement would amount to.
And even now, we - and a number of other people - are conducting large-scale research programs (oh-oh, it's a research clinic) designed to aid us in the best application of these principles; now that we know "what to do" we are trying to find the best way to do it - we know a number of ways that work unbelievably well, but we are certainly not foolish enough to think that additional improvements in applications will not be forthcoming in the future.
But - for the average reader - the most important point of all of this is the simple fact that we have clearly, undeniably proven that the most important factor in weight-training is "intensity of effort" - and, if you train hard enough (and briefly enough), then you can produce good results with ANY type of equipment.
The primary advantage of Nautilus equipment is that it "makes HARDER exercise possible" - and in the process, makes even briefer training necessary; when you are using Nautilus equipment (if you are using it correctly), it is not simply POSSIBLE to train less - it is absolutely necessary to train less, so much less that many people simply cannot bring themselves to believe just how little training is actually required for producing the best possible results.
Since almost all trainees - and especially advanced bodybuilders - train at least four or five times as much as they should even with a barbell, many of them just can't bring themselves to believe that a very short period of hard training is all that is required, all that they can stand if done correctly. But some advanced bodybuilders and many hundreds of other trainees are learning . . .
Continued in Part Two.
49 semicolons so far.
Enjoy Your Lifting!
No comments:
Post a Comment