Click Here for Free Bodybuilding and Fitness Magazine Subscription
Arthur Jones Muscle Workouts
How Muscles Perform Work
by Arthur Jones
From IronMan, February 1971 Volume 30 Number 3, visit www.ironmanmagazine.com
The well established "all or nothing" theory of muscular
contraction is a long first step in the direction of
understanding the workings of human muscles, and more recent
research on the biochemical process which takes place within
muscular tissue during the contractions of individual fibers has
added theoretical -- if not perhaps yet practical -- information to
the store of existing knowledge. But concerning the effect of
exercise on muscular tissue -- the practical consideration which
concerns us here -- there is nothing even approaching scientific
agreement in sight at the moment.
A recent scientific publication stated (or words to this effect) "
. . . . almost nothing is known regarding the effect of exercise
upon muscles; but since it has been observed that muscles will lose
both size and strength if they remain inactive for prolonged
periods of time, it has been suggested that perhaps the reverse is
true as well." That is to say (my words) -- MAYBE exercise will
cause muscles to gain in size and/or strength, but there is NO
PROOF to that effect.
This same supposedly "scientific" attitude prevented any of the
then leading scientists from wasting their time investigating the
obviously outrageous claims of two obscure mechanics from Ohio --
since "everybody knows you can't fly."
An isolated example? Far from it; similar, if perhaps not so
important, examples can be quoted by the dozen -- I am personally
convinced that they exist by the hundred, perhaps by the thousand.
But rather than being surprised by such an attitude on the part of
many members of the scientific community, I find it perfectly
normal -- if perhaps not quite honest; scientists, after all, are
people first and scientists second -- and thus if they really
practiced the scientific "attitude" which they talk about so much,
I really would be surprised.
Looked at quite realistically, it seems to be self-evident truth
that the world as a whole was in far better shape before we started
getting so much "help" from science; and quite frankly, I would not
be at all surprised if some scientists exploded the entire North
American continent merely in order to measure the noise that such
an explosion would make.
So, apart from rare individuals in the scientific community -- and
you can take it from me that such individuals are as rare a
sabretoothed tigers in the Bronx -- there are very few scientists
that know anything at all about exercise. But this does not mean
that scientific knowledge -- to the degree that it relates to this
field cannot be put to good use by people who do know something
about exercise, even such people as bicycle mechanics from Ohio or
(as in my case) a retired airline pilot and motion picture
producer.
Nor is it necessary to "understand" something before making use of
it; nobody in their right mind claims to understand gravity but
most people have enough common sense to avoid stepping off of tall
buildings -- or, at least they are not surprised by what happens if
they do.
And just in order to set the record perfectly straight right from
the start, I want it clearly understood that I don't even claim to
understand "anything" about either exercise or muscular function;
which puts me in a very advantageous position, since it makes me
very aware of my own ignorance -- and thus open to new ideas,
unafraid of slaughtering any sacred cows.
But it does not follow that I'm so stupid that I cannot recognize
a self-evident truth when it hits me across the face -- even if I
can't explain its most intricate workings. Some years ago I
stated that "... I don't know how to build anything properly -- but
I know a lot of ways not to build things." And while this may be
in the realm of "negative knowledge" -- it at least prevents me
from putting my hand n the same hot fire several times in a row.
Most doctors, and almost all scientists that I have known, are of
the sincere, if totally mistaken, impression that a man like Bill
Pearl was born that way; and while they may admit that exercise may
have had "something" to do with his development, they really
believe that he would have been much the same with or without such
exercise. And the mere fact that literally hundreds of thousands
of experienced weight trainees are clearly aware that such
development is utterly impossible without very hard training makes
no impression of science. And while science may label such an
attitude as scientific objectivity, I call it utter stupidity.
For that very reason, after baying spent a goodly part of my time
for the better part of thirty years in a detailed study of
exercise, I was intending to publish the results of my work without
taking credit for it under my own name; because, quite frankly, I
did not want to connect my name, in the public mind, with as
controversial a subject as weight training. Bill Pearl is at least
partially -- and perhaps primarily -- responsible for causing me to
change my mind in that regard; he convinced me that failing to take
credit for my work would be a mistake, since somebody else would
then falsely claim any worthwhile results produced.
Now -- before too many people rise up in arms -- let me be quick to
point out that I am fully aware of the fact that there are many
very sincere and perfectly honest people in this field; but I do
think that they are just as aware of the kooky element in our midst
as I am -- and I don't think that attempting to deny such a
self evident truth will help matters much.
Thus having stated my position in regard to both science and the
science-fakers in this field, I will get down to cases.
You know, and I know, that exercise does cause muscular tissue to
respond -- and that this response takes the form of increases in
size and/or strength. Why this happens is really of no importance
-- so long as we are able to cause it to happen in a desirable
manner.
Thus -- for all practical purposes -- the only rational approach to
the matter is to attempt to determine the most productive method
of causing such a favorable (or at least desirable) response, with
the least possible expenditure of time and effort and in the
shortest elapsed time period.
Apart from health considerations -- and this is almost always the
case in bodybuilding circles -- the desirability of producing great
strength and size is not the question: very little of what people
do in any field could stand the test of being looked at from a
purely practical standpoint -- but building an outstanding physique
is certainly as acceptable an activity as the far more common habit
of permitting the body to become a grossly distorted fat caricature
of a man.
Thus we find ourselves in the position of trying to choose from
among the literally hundreds of methods and systems being touted by
various people -- usually for their own commercial interest.
Until quite recently there was only one intelligent choice for a
man desiring to build great muscular size and/or strength; training
with barbells and conventional pulley devices. By comparison to
any other method of physical training which preceded their
introduction, barbells were literally a great leap forward, a major
breakthrough, simply heads and shoulders above any other possible
means of training, almost a miracle machine by comparison to any
other method of training, capable of producing more results in a
few months than any other method could produce in a lifetime.
And almost the same sort of comparison could have been made between
automobiles and ox-carts; the automobile was "the" method of
transportation until airplanes came along.
And now airplanes have come along in the field of weight training
-- in the form of the literally revolutionary new Nautilus
training equipment.
And what does all of this have to do with the way muscles work?
Just everything; because the Nautilus machines are designed with
the known functions of muscles clearly in mind-rather than trying
to fit muscles to a method of exercise, we have approached the
situation from the exactly opposite direction and have tried to fit
the exercise method to muscles. We could not redesign human
muscular structures -- but we could, and did, totally redesign
exercise methods.
How? By first asking ourselves exactly what muscles actually do --
as opposed to what most people think they do and then by building
machines that were engineered to provide the characteristics needed
for inducing muscular response.
Again I hasten to point out that we don't even pretend to
understand "why" muscles respond in this fashion; but we do know
what is required to produce such a response. For at least several
thousand years nobody had any real idea "why" they had to eat --
but that didn't prevent them from eating.
Thousands of experiments have clearly shown that exercise produces
little or nothing in the way of results if the intensity of effort
is low -- that is to say, if the work load imposed is so light that
the existing level of strength is never taxed; and many thousands
of other experiments have just as clearly proven that great
intensity of effort produces large scale increases in strength and
muscular size.
Thus it seemed logical that increasing the possible intensity of
effort might increase the production of the desired results; but
since it was literally impossible to even begin to closely approach
the maximum intensity of effort of which muscular structures are
capable, while using conventional training equipment, it was
necessary to tailor the required equipment to the exact problem at
hand.
The "all or nothing" theory of muscular contraction teaches us that
individual muscle fibers work all out or not at all; but common
sense -- or self-evident truth, if you prefer -- teaches us a great
deal more along those same lines. Since individual muscle fibers
work by decreasing their length, by growing shorter, then it is
obviously impossible for all of the individual fibers in even one
of the thousands of such strands of fibers to be contracted
(working) unless the body part upon which that particular muscle is
exerting its pulling force is moved into a position of full
contraction.
And since the "all or nothing" theory also teaches us that only
the number of individual muscle fibers that are actually required
for a particular load are called into play, then it just as
obviously follows that at least two conditions are prerequisites
for involving all of the fibers in a particular exercise; first,
the muscle must be under an imposed load in its position of full
contraction -- and, second, the load must be heavy enough to
involve the working of all of the fibers in the muscular structure
being exercised -- but not too heavy, because if it is too heavy
then it will be impossible to move such a load into the required
position.
An apparently rather dim awareness of some of the above obvious
points led, some years ago, to the brief popularity of static forms
of exercise; it then being suggested that all that was required was
an all-out attempt against an immovable object. And up to a
certain point, such thinking was apparently reasonably valid -- but
unfortunately, several points were totally ignored, or overlooked;
a "cold" muscle is incapable of an all-out effort, and again it is
not required that we understand why this is true so long as we are
aware that it is true -- and, secondly, since the trainee is always
aware, in any form of static exercise, that actual movement of this
type of resistance is literally impossible regardless of the
intensity of his efforts, it is unlikely that he will make any
sincere effort to work as hard as is required -- and third, in the
unlikely event that he does exert himself as much as possible, and
if it happens that his muscular strength is greater than the
strength of his tendon attachments (a not uncommon situation), it
is certainly possible for him to literally tear these attachments
loose.
To say nothing of the fact that muscles are designed to work by
moving -- which movement that type of so-called exercise prevents.
However, if some of the characteristics of such static forms of
exercise are combined with normal training methods with barbells,
then a very significant improvement in results can be produced --
and without the danger inherent in static exercise. An amount of
resistance should be selected which will permit the performance of
at least several repetitions, but then the exercise should be
continued to the of utter failure -- to the point that absolutely
no movement is possible regardless of the amount of effort
expended; in this way, the advantages of both forms of training are
derived -- and since the maximum, failing effort occurs only after
a point of exhaustion has been induced by the earlier, lighter
repetitions, then there is no danger of hurting yourself -- at that
point you are not strong enough to hurt yourself.
In the above paragraph, I used the term "lighter repetitions," and
this was not intended to convey the impression that the resistance
was lower during those repetitions; merely the fact that such
earlier repetitions within a given set of several repetitions would
feel light by comparison to the last repetition, since they would
be performed at a time when the muscles were fresh and stronger
than they would be at the end of the set.
However great an improvement over most forms of training with
barbells such a style of training may be -- and it really will
improve your training progress enormously if you have not been
training that way earlier -- such training still leaves a great
deal to be desired; primarily because, as noted earlier, muscles
must be in a position of full contraction before it is even
possible for all of the individual fibers to be involved in the
exercise -- and with almost every single exercise involving the use
of conventional pieces of training equipment, there is literally no
resistance in that position. And no matter how hard you work a
muscle in some other position, you are not involving more than a
small percentage of the total number of muscle fibers unless you
work a muscle to the point of failure in its position of full
contraction.
Exactly what percentage? Here I must again admit my ignorance; I
just don't know -- but on the basis of tests conducted using two
distinctly different methods for attempting to determine this
percentage, it appears that conventional forms of exercise involve
only between 14 and 15 percent of the total number of individual
muscle fibers, even when the muscle is worked to the point of
momentary failure.
What methods were used for attempting to determine this percentage?
Well, like the Wright Brothers, who in their ignorance were forced
to design and build the first wind tunnel for the purpose of trying
to determine the best possible shape for a wing -- to say nothing
of the fact that two such obvious morons (to quote the scientists
of their day) had to think of the idea of the wind tunnel in the
first place -- I was forced in my ignorance to try to think of a
method for myself; and not being limited in my thinking by any
knowledge of what was or was not possible or practical, I came up
with two rather self-evidently true systems for determining the
information I was seeking -- methods with an apparently fair degree
of accuracy.
Since muscles require oxygen for performing work, it occurred to me
that measuring the increase in the amount of oxygen demanded by the
body might be interesting; second, since the performance of work
creates heat, it also appeared that measuring this heat might tell
us something. But, for any sort of comparison, two or more items
(or facts) most be available for testing; thus, in this situation,
we had to have some other method of exercise to compare to
conventional exercise methods.
And eventually we did have such other methods for comparison to
previously existing forms of exercise; and when such
comparisons were made -- and assuming that these new methods were
involving 100% of the muscle fibers contained in the muscles being
exercised, and it appeared that this was so --then it was obvious
that only from 14 to 18 per cent of the total muscle fibers were
involved in conventional exercises for the same muscular
structures, even when such conventional forms of exercise were
carried to the point of utter, if momentary, failure, and that a
far lower percentage of the total number of fibers was involved
when such conventional exercises were not carried to the
point of failure.
And we measured the amount of horsepower being produced --
calculations involving resistance, distance of vertical movement,
and the speed of that movement; and we compared the production of
results -- in the form of measurable strength increases; and
we compared the increases of muscular mass -- as determined by
specific gravity tests; and we . . .
But why bother to go on; in our ignorance we obviously didn't know
what we were doing -- it certainly must be purely coincidental that
we were producing as much as 46% a week strength increases for as
much as four weeks in a row, since most published scientific
opinion on the subject clearly states that the maximum possible
human strength gain is 2% per week.
But in the meantime, some of the people in this part of Florida
were getting mighty big, mighty strong, too; more coincidence, I'm
sure.
So we fooled around with this and that, and we tried a lot of
things -- most of which failed utterly, and a lot of which things
produced little or nothing in the way of significant improvement
over other forms of training -- and, what with one thing and
another, we wasted a good part of our time for nearly thirty years,
gaining nothing much apart from lots of "negative knowledge," a
list of things that didn't work, or were impractical, or that
didn't justify the effort.
But gradually, we also stumbled on a few things that apparently
did work -- even if we didn't know why they worked; and, eventually
a few points seemed to stand out -- things that seemed to be
required for producing good results. Without making any attempt
to justify -- or "prove" -- them, I will list these points: they
are -- one, exercise should be brief -- two, infrequent -- three,
fast, -- four, carried to the point of momentary failure -- five,
full range -- six, against continuous resistance -- seven, against
variable resistance -- eight, direct, without involving or
depending upon other, weaker, muscular structures -- nine, balanced
to the strength of the muscles in various positions, so that the
muscle is worked to its maximum degree in all positions -- ten,
performed in proper order, this being an involved point which I
will not go into here -- eleven, performed in sets of at least six
and not usually more than about twenty repetitions (but with all
sets being carried to the point of failure, regardless of the
number of repetitions this requires at the moment).
Most of the above points are literally impossible when training
with conventional equipment -- but if as many of them as can be
used are incorporated into training programs using conventional
equipment, then very high degrees of improvement will result.
But I want it clearly understood that such improvements in training
progress seem to be a direct result of the increases of intensity
of effort produced by such training; while such training may be --
and is -- very productive, it is certainly not easy. And primarily
for that very reason I think, most trainees simply do not have the
willingness to work that hard; while almost all bodybuilders that
they are training very hard -- my observations lead me to the
exactly opposite conclusion, I think that a bodybuilder that is
actually training anywhere near as hard as he could (and as he
should for best results) is a rare bird indeed.
But if such training is conducted with the required intensity of
effort, then very little training is actually required -- and far
better results are produced by fewer and shorter workouts in much
less elapsed time.
Finally, having discovered the things that were apparently required
for producing good results, we still had to develop exercise
methods that were capable of providing all of the needed factors in
a practical manner.
And what led us into the belief that the previously quoted list of
factors actually were required, or that they were all that was
needed? Well, unscientific as this approach may be, we had noted
repeatedly that leaving out any of those listed factors reduced the
production of results to a marked degree, and that adding other
factors either reduced results or produced no apparent increases;
and since, at that point in the proceedings, I had no slightest
idea of using any of this information in a commercial way -- and
everybody else who knew anything, about the matter simply thought
that I was wasting both my time and money -- I was not forced by
commercial considerations to favor any one approach to the matter,
nor was it necessary to jump to any hasty conclusions. In short --
I was doing something simply because I was interested in doing so;
simply trying to satisfy my own curiosity -- which to me is the
real scientific approach. And since I didn't have any committee of
"experts" to satisfy -- or to "advise" me -- I did not, in the end,
produce any camels in my attempts to design a race horse. A few
monsters, I must admit, but these were such obvious monstrosities
that even a poor fool with no scientific background could recognize
them for what they were -- once having built them; although I must
also admit that I usually didn't recognize them for what they were
until after I had built them.
And sometimes I built things that weren't monsters -- and then
failed to recognize them for what they really were. In that line,
I would like to point out the fact, and it is a fact, and I can
prove it -- that I built a machine well over ten years ago that had
every single one of the required characteristics, and no faults;
but, at the time, I not only failed to recognize the machine for
what it really was, I then didn't even bother to test its result
producing ability.
Quite recently, upon seeing one of the late model machines for the
first time, a former employee of mine remarked, "...but you had a
machine like that over ten years ago, I saw it."
To which I was forced to reply, "Yes, but building something right
is not enough; then you must recognize it for what it really is."
But if this is simply proof of my stupidity, then I am at least not
alone in having made such mistakes -- nor am I ashamed to admit
them; and I did not, at least, rush into production with something
that was untested, "hoping for the best," as a major corporation in
this country did a few years ago -- which slight error ruined them,
bringing a billion dollar corporation to its knees, when their jet
transport that was supposed to compete with the 707 and the DC8
failed to live up to expectations, and when they were in such a
hurry that they went into production without bothering to build and
carefully test a prototype first. Perhaps they had too many
scientists on the job -- scientists who are probably now looking
for jobs, "Shine your shoes, mister?"
So just what did we finally -- in spite of all the blundering
discover in regard to "how do muscles perform work." Well, we
finally noted the simple fact that human muscles don't perform work
directly; instead, they move related body parts, and while the
muscles may work in a relatively straight-line fashion, the body
parts rotate. This led to the then obvious conclusion that a
rotary form of resistance was required. But since were forced to
work with resistance provided by gravity -- uni-directional (one
direction) resistance -- this presented quite a problem. Just how
do you convert unidirectional resistance into omni-directional (all
directional) resistance in a practical manner?
In effect, we needed a form of resistance that would always
directly oppose the movement of the involved body parts --
regardless of what direction the body part attempted to move in,
the resistance must always be provided in an exactly opposite
direction. If the hand moves up, the resistance must be straight
down -- if the hand moves east, the resistance must be provided
towards the west -- if the ...but that should get the idea across.
So you design and build such a machine -- even if only two or three
hundred failing attempts later; whereupon you immediately discover
that it isn't enough -- even though it works perfectly, as far as
it goes. Because, having such a machine to test, you immediately
discover something which was only suspected earlier -- muscles are
much stronger in some positions than they are in other positions;
in practice, human muscles are weakest in their extended positions
and strongest (far stronger) in their contracted positions. Which
should have been obvious in advance -- since the very shape of a
muscle makes this apparent; but which, in fact, became apparent
only after the fact almost literally hit us across the face.
To make this point clear, I must again rely upon pure supposition --
or could it be self-evident truth; apparently the fibers
of a muscle that are located near the ends of a muscular structure
contract first, then this contraction is a progressive thing,
roving towards the center of the muscle from both ends.
Why do I think so? Because apparently no other explanation for
clearly observed fact is possible; since muscles are far stronger
in their fully contracted positions -- and we can prove this beyond
any slightest shadow of a doubt -- and since this obviously
implies that more strands of muscle fibers are being involved in
the contraction, then it is unavoidably plain that the center of
the muscular structure, the thickest part of the structures the
area where more strands of fibers are located, is involved in the
work only in a position of full contraction. If the work of these
centrally located fibers could be called upon in an extended
position, then the muscle would not be weaker in such an extended
position -- but it is weaker when extended, far weaker, so it
logically follows that involving all of the fibers in the
contraction is impossible in any position except a position
of full contraction.
So at that point in our work, it became obvious that providing
rotary forms of omni-directional resistance was not enough by
itself -- although it was a long first step in the right direction;
additionally, it was then apparent, we had to provide variation of
resistance -- a form of resistance that would actually change
during the performance of the exercise movements. To a slight
degree, spring-type exercise devices are better than other
conventional forms of exercise for the very reason that they do
provide variable resistance, resistance that increases as the
movement progresses; but unfortunately, springs do not increase
their tension at the same rate that human muscles increase their
strength as they move from an extended position to a contracted
position.
Second, although it was obvious that muscles do increase their
strength as they contract -- it was far from obvious just "how
much" this increase amounted to, or at exactly which point in the
movement that the increase in strength occurred, or at what
rate it was produced.
Third, since nobody -- but NOBODY -- had ever trained on a type of
exercise device that provided the exactly right sort of resistance,
it was also apparent that we could not determine the required
information by measuring the strength curves of people who had been
training by conventional methods; rather than giving us the needed
e had been foolish enough to rely upon it. But that was such an
obvious trap that even a stupid fellow like I am did not fall into
it.
Because a man that had been training with conventional methods
would certainly be a product of such training methods; that
is to say, he would be overdeveloped in some areas in proportion to
other areas -- since some areas would be worked very hard by
conventional training methods, and some areas would not be
worked at all. In fact, when we did test the strength curves of
such individuals -- men who had been training heavily with
conventional methods -- we found exactly what we expected to find;
in the positions where they should have been strongest, they
were actually weakest. We expected such a result because we had
long noted that conventional training methods provide very little
if any resistance in the fully flexed positions -- most exercises
actually provide literally no resistance in that position; at the
very point where the most resistance is required, none is provided.
But if you can't obtain the information required regarding proper
strength curves by testing individuals that have been training by
conventional methods, or even by testing people that have never
trained at all, then just where do you get such information -- with
the obvious assurance that it is correct information?
Well, I will leave that up to the individual reader to figure out
for himself; if, at this point, that isn't perfectly obvious --
then you probably don't understand any of the rest of this either,
but I will give you a hint; you find such people in hospitals, or
old-folks homes. Remember; while exercise produces increases in
the size and strength of muscles -- it is also true that a lack of
exercise produces the opposite result. And while incorrect
exercise may -- and will -- produce unbalanced development, a lack
of any exercise will eventually result in a very low level of
strength, but a perfectly balanced strength curve. Or so it
appeared -- and in fact, so it turned out; since I was not content
to base my conclusions on a single bit of evidence, I searched for
other proof for cross-checking purposes. And in this regard, I was
fortunate in having several doctors in the family -- since people
were beginning to get suspicious about me hanging around cemeteries
in the middle of the night.
What sort of proof? Oh, things like the cross-sectional areas of
muscular structures -- and the relationship between the area of a
muscle in its middle and toward its ends.
Then, too, finding the rate at which a particular muscular
structure increased its strength as it changed its position
from one of full extension to one of full contraction wasn't enough
by itself, because most bodily movements are compound movements --
caused by more than one muscular structure. Thus the strength of
one particular muscle might be increasing rapidly at the very time
that total strength in a given movement was actually decreasing;
and in fact, this happens to some degree in almost all exercise
movements. It happens because the movement progresses to a point
where assistance provided by one or more muscular structures is no
longer available.
So, obviously, providing the proper rate of increase in resistance
was not quite as simple as it might have appeared at first --
knowing the rate at which various muscles increase their strength
levels as they contract was not enough.
We also had to determine the exact contributions of each of several
closely interrelated muscular structures; at exactly what point in
the movements did these assisting muscles come into play, how at
was their contribution, at what point did they cease to render
assistance, and so on, and on, and on . . .
And do I now claim to be in possession of all of the final answers
to all of these extremely complex questions? Don't be ridiculous;
I am only too aware of my ignorance, but at least I'm aware that
such questions are important, and I do have at least a few hundred
times as much information on these subjects as everybody else put
together, including all of the scientists on planet Earth, none of
whom that I have ever heard of seem to be even aware that
such questions exist. Or, if they do have such an awareness, they
have certainly been mighty quiet about it -- and by and large,
scientists may be a lot of things, but they are seldom very quiet
about their claimed knowledge.
But in the meantime, with or without the "final" answers, we have
been able to come up with things that do, at least, result in
simply enormous increases in the production of results. How
enormous? Well consider the following points ....
And two or three years from now, when we have had a bit more time
to work with a few individuals with better than average potential,
and when we have produced a few muscular measurements that are
really as big as some bodybuilders claim today, then I want to hear
some scientific type try to tell a poor fool such as myself that "
... he was born that way." Maybe so, but if so, his daddy was a
gorilla.
Arthur Jones Muscle Workouts