An article by Robert Kennedy, published five years before he put out the first issue of Musclemag International.
Here's a couple more of his, prior to MMI:
There's plenty of explanatory material on PHA training available
here and elsewhere.
This article by Dennis Weis is a short read:
"A Revisit With the PHA System"
He also put a book(let?) together, but I haven't had the opportunity to read it.
A downloadable compilation of scanned Bob Gajda PHA articles from the mags,
I believe originally put together by Terry Strand:
Robert Kennedy, right from the first issue of his magazine, tried to stress the aesthetic aspects of bodybuilding via his editorials and those of the writers he hired, in the main. It's easy to understand why he got along so well with Vince Gironda.
Why You Should Include PHA in Your Training
by Robert Kennedy
Many people find something vaguely unattractive about a body built entirely from flushing exercises with weights, whereby the exerciser utilizes set after set of the same exercise to congest a particular area before going on to the next bodypart.
Sometimes these pumpers so flush their muscles that they seem to almost blow up out of shape. And when this is done constantly over a period of time the muscle takes on a permanent swollen look which is very different indeed from the bodybuilder's original concept of frisky masculine beauty.
Few can put their finger on what it is they don't like. All they know is that something seems wrong. The body is slightly puffy, a little bloated, perhaps. It lacks individual shape and seems to be blown out to a characterless mass of hypertrophy. Do you know what I mean?
Actually, this method of using many sets of the same exercise is one of the quickest ways of gaining muscular bodyweight; but flushing the muscles this way does not give you body personality that other forms of training do. In fact, the multi-set system DETRACTS from the physique where individual body character is concerned, especially when one really starts packing on the muscle.
It is an indisputable fact that the bigger one gets from using this kind of training, the less unique one appears aesthetically. Your body starts to lose its shape, individualism and character. Men who build up their muscles entirely from pumping (spinnin', flushin') are missing out on on of nature's greatest attributes: PERSONAL INDIVIDUALITY.
Somehow multi-pumping sets continued over a long period of time have a uniforming effect. Sure, you get big. Sure, you have wide shoulders, big pecs and legs, a small waist etc., but if you train solely by using these pumping methods you will emerge, not from an individual mold as nature intended, but from a hypothetical factory conveyor belt where scores of one product are manufactured, almost identical.
As I said earlier, the set system of continuous pump has a great deal to recommend it as a muscle-builder and I believe should be utilized by every bodybuilder from time to time. But to maintain at least a modicum of ruggedness and individual character, I believe the bodybuilder should embark periodically on a system of "different" movements, or at least a different way of performing them.
More variety is needed, more attack from different angles. And what better way of going about this than undertaking to formulate a PHA schedule tailored to your needs?
So many seem to be under the impression that they should follow the PHA system because it is "good" for them. This is all very true, but an identical effect on the respiratory organs can be obtained by a 10-minute run. And for those of you who care to extend this time spent jogging, by an added 15 minutes, the benefits can be tripled, and a basic respiratory and circulatory fitness can be attained that NO amount of PHA could reproduce.
I myself have followed, and will at least periodically continue to follow the PHA system for one reason only:
TO MAINTAIN PHYSIQUE INDIVIDUALITY AND PERSONALITY.
We know that PHA tends to increase metabolism.
Fine!
We know that PHA enables us to train in a nonstop fashion and thereby allows more exercise to be done in a shorter period of time.
Again, fine!
But few seem to recognize one of the greatest benefits of this system. It gives you the kind of body that exudes individuality. With PHA (combined with good health and nutritional habits) one gets bigger while retaining body character, as opposed to the pumping system where on inadvertently blows up the muscles until they lack any individual personality traits. They appear puffy and seldom inspire anyone except the out-and-out size enthusiast (who is usually very young and impressionable).
Now that the top men in bodybuilding are able to build immense size, we are beginning to realize that in our effort to build bulk we are missing out on the real issue: "attractiveness."
In my view, Frank Zane presented his all-time best physique
at the '68 Mr. Universe.
We have lost our perspective.
Our ideals of building our bodies in God's image, our desire to "gild the lily" of an already amazing creation, to enhance and bring out the natural muscular beauty of the male physique has been left for the birds. It seems we have become solely interested in breeding muscular phenomena instead of handsome, muscular male physiques (written in 1969).
It seems sad to me that words like "beautiful," "graceful" and "handsome" have disappeared from bodybuilding terminology. Are we frightened in a frisky way of being labeled "homosexuals" or "effeminates" if we use them? I just don't know!
I am well aware that there must always be change, but I am against change unless it is for the better. The modern tendency toward awesome, almost grotesque massiveness is so wrong that it appalls almost everyone.
As Earle Edmond Liederman says, "I have seen some of these muscle beach phenomenon even cause dogs to bark at them as they strut along the beach with their tensed muscles." Be big by all means fellas, but avoid blowing out your muscles to the point where you appear supernatural.
bear a facial resemblance?
They're both cheeky guys, sure, but there's more there than that.
Recently Achilles Kallos wrote of his experiments in combining PHA with the pump system.
IronMan Vol 27 No. 5 - On Ebay now for around 40 bucks U.S. or best offer, with another 15 or 20 added for shipping. Two days left to bid. The article is titled "PHA Combined With Pump." Cover-man Chris Dickerson.
He wrote an article on including compound movements in your training that I'll be putting on here next.
I believe this to be a very fine way to train. Ash (not the Bruce Campbell Ash) goes on to suggest that in his opinion certain muscle groups do not lend themselves to the PHA system. He cites squats and dead lifts saying that "I discovered that some exercises like squats, deadlifts were not worth doing with the PHA system because by the time I came back to the exercise after doing five other ones in between, my squats were difficult. What I mean is that some exercises like squats need:
1) warming up
2) deep concentration
3) progressive poundages
4) high energy.
Therefore I would rather do them separately.
Note: one approach to interspersing larger compound exercises within a PHA layout is to pyramid up over the first few set-cycles, basically including the warmup sets for the bigger exercises in there. Also, where they're placed in the "giant set" PHA layout can make a huge difference, as well as what exercises they're proceeded and followed by.
I figure the bigger the lift in a PHA workout, the fewer "other" exercises you should include in each combination of movements. If you're using only higher-rep, isolation movements you will be able to get through more exercises in each set-rep exercise concoction.
Being an innovator and a master of this form of training, Bob Gajda came up with advanced ways of placing the big lifts within PHA layouts, going down as low as triples with some of them. i am sure that the right kind of lifter could come up, over time and with more experience, with ways to use singles in PHA training. The number of set-cycles must necessarily increase when using lower rep structures, oh for fucksake, I sound like another science-douche here. Lower reps with a higher weight in the big moves will take more sets to warm up for, and really, pyramiding the one big lift in a set-cycle adds to the total volume of both the big and the smalls, movement wise.
It might work for some to use a 12, 8, 5,4,3,2,1 rep setup on the big lift in a set-cycle of PHA-style stuff, performing as many higher-rep sets as you need on that day to get to the lowers. Of course you don't do this with the smaller exercises.
Anyhow, have a look here, and you'll likely be able to personalize something along these lines . . . tailor it to your goals and current abilities.
Anyone who has difficulty with his arms, for example, and many do, will have to resort to a lot of pumping sets to build size in this area.
However, the point of this article is to bid you continue with your multi-sets. Thrill to the enjoyment of added size, but never pump your muscle over a long period of time to the point where they become unwholesome to the eye; where they detract by their synthetic puffiness (of course this blubbery muscle consistency is even more apparent in the fellows who take anabolics, and is one of the telltale signs of the dreaded drug-taker, along with puffiness above the eyes and heavy jowls.). I looked up "jowls" in the dictionary and there was a photo of some guy named Platz.
I am also advocating that any gains you make from the multi-set system, you consolidate by periodically training with the PHA system of training as rediscovered by Mr. America, Bob Gajda, and publicized most by IronMan magazine (Bob Kennedy knows how to get published in the musclemags, even back then). The variety of exercise and the mode of attacking the muscles from a different angle every set will help give your body the character and personality that is your hereditament. (I'll bet this is the only time that word was or ever will be used in a lifting article or book . . . hereditament. Go Bob Kennedy!).
Some of you, especially the younger readers, will fell that the phrase "body personality" is a lot of phooey! Others will know what I am referring to straightaway. It is a hard thing to define, but like the character personality of the mind, it is very important. Basically, it is your true body shape. It is usually more apparent to the opposite sex and they have been known to respond rapidly in some rather aggressive expressions of the mating ritual.Note: Orators will already realize the fragile and easily misinterpreted nature of the English language. "A lot of phooey!" Lacking the proper eloquence and experience can easily result in this phrase sounding to the listener as "A lot of hooey!" Or "A lotta phooey!" It's a very complex language, that's for damn sure.
Varied sports or exercises will only enhance your physique personality, but unfortunately continuous pumping tends to detract from it.
Was re-reading some of this one the other day.
Some interesting things in it.
Hundred bucks a year for a sub. No,
you won't get streaming access to
EVERY movie Criterion has in their catalog.
It's a good deal, really.
This one came out last week and I'm
looking forward to reading it
come Wednesday.
"The Disappearance of Josef Mengele"
2025, 135 minutes.
"Typically for this filmmaker, the movie has a sprawling, detractors might say structureless, narrative
that juggles timelines and locations."
Sounds wonderful to me.
Films directed by Kirill Serebrennikov:
Book:
Enjoy Your Lifting!
