Click Here for Free Bodybuilding and Fitness Magazine Subscription
Arthur Jones Method
In Plain English
by Arthur Jones
From IRONMAN, May 1972 Volume 31 Number 4, visit www.ironmanmagazine.com
During 1971 alone, we have received more than 20,000 letters as a
direct result of my articles and ads in Iron Man -- and within
that same period of time, more than a thousand people have visited
our training facilities in DeLand, Florida. Bulletin number 1 --
our first publication -- has been a "best seller" right from the
start, a first printing of 5,000 copies is almost gone and a second
printing will be required within another month. Bulletin number 2 --
our second publication -- sold more than a thousand copies
during the first month.
Thus it might appear that we are "getting our message across" and
in many cases we are. But, in many other cases, we are not
which fact becomes more obvious to me day by day; primarily brought
home during the many thousands that's right THOUSANDS of phone
conversations that I have held during the last year with weight
trainees all over the world.
While I hope these conversations have been of value to the people
who called me, there is no slightest doubt that I have
learned a lot from them -- among other things, I have certainly
learned just how poor the written word is as a means of clear
communication. But I have also learned that it is easily possible
to go "too far, too fast" -- so perhaps the fault is primarily
mine. In my previous articles I have tried to take interested
readers on a step-by-step guided tour through the jungle of modern
weight-training -- pointing out the animals along the way
explaining the dangers lurking in wait for the unwary, and trying
to outline common-sense precautions.
But perhaps I have forgotten that it took me thirty years to fully
understand even some actually very simple points -- maybe I
have been expecting too much from my readers. So this article is
intended to be the start of a basic primer of weight-training --
an attempt in the direction of understanding.
To begin with, I want it clearly understood that I don't even
pretend to know all the "answers" -- but it should also be
understood that at least ninety per cent of everything that has
ever been published on the subject of weight training is simply
untrue. Which is not unusual in itself -- because a very high
percentage of everything that has ever been printed on any subject
was also untrue. But in the field of weight-training, a great deal
of the false "information" that has been published was written
by people who were aware that it was false -- and a lot more of it
was written by people who simply didn't know what they were
talking about. In Bulletin number 2 I remarked that "... you can
NOT learn how to train a race horse by asking a race horse." Which
should be an obvious point to anybody but which, in fact, seems to
be a point that has been overlooked by almost everybody.
Contrary to widespread opinion, the field of weight-training has
NOT moved forward during the last twenty years -- it has
simply grown larger. Long before the use of drugs, there were many
men on the scene who could easily hold their own with the
best of today prior to the use of food supplements, there were many
men who came very close to reaching the limits dictated by
their individual potential. Paul Anderson is probably the
strongest man who ever lived -- Doug Hepburn set records fifteen or
twenty years ago that have never been equalled by anybody even
close to the same bodyweight -- John McWilliams had the
largest muscular arms in history -- Bob Peoples (at a bodyweight of
less than 180 pounds, thirty years ago) deadlifted poundages that
most superheavyweight lifters cannot duplicate today at even twice
his bodyweight. None of these people used drugs -- most of them
never heard of food supplements during their best years.
Exceptional individuals? Certainly they were exceptional men but
just how many Sergio Olivas are there, how many Arnold
Schwarzeneggers or Casey Viators? Outstanding men are always rare --
they always have been and they always will be. The average
woman doesn't have much in common with a "Playmate," either -- and,
in fact, you might not recognize some of the "playmates" if you met
them on the beach the day after their latest photo session; without
the benefit of "air brush" touching up which is routinely done with
such pictures, without the apparently gravity defying proportions
resulting from photographing these girls in upside-down sets, and
without the careful selection of only one or two "acceptable"
photographs from literally hundreds of pictures, YOU just might get
a true impression of these girls -- which might be fatal to the
dream-world impression that such magazines are trying to put
across.
But such outright deception is not limited to the girlie magazines--
the same sort of hogwash is presented as fact in almost every
issue of almost every magazine devoted to the field of
weight training. I have personally -- and accurately -- measured
the upper arms of most of the leading bodybuilders on the scene
today, and up to the present moment (January 3, 1972) I have
measured only one 20 inch arm. At the NABBA show in London, Sergio
Oliva's arms literally dwarfed the arms of any other contestant
there -- yet Sergio's arms actually measured ONLY 20 1/2 inches.
I am personally prepared to bet a thousand dollars that nobody in
that contest can get his arms to a muscular size that will equal
Sergio's even when they are pumped and flexed, as compared to
Sergio's cold and relaxed. Let me be very clear about this
statement -- I plainly mean that Sergio's "cold" arm, hanging
straight and relaxed at his side, is larger than the arm of any
other man in that contest, even when such arms are "pumped"
and flexed.
Yet several other contestants "claimed" measurements larger than
Sergio's. Secondly, Sergio was obviously the heaviest man in that
contest -- by at least twenty pounds -- and yet he weighed only 233
pounds at that moment. While other contestants claimed that they
weighed 240 pounds or more. If weightlifters were permitted to put
themselves into classes on the basis of claimed bodyweights, then
we would probably see examples of 300 pounders lifting in the 148
pound class -- so why not put bodybuilders to the test as well?
But my real point is this -- most of the so-called "progress"
during the last twenty years is phony. Most of the leading
bodybuilders of today are seldom if ever as big as they claim,
almost never as heavy as they claim, nowhere near as strong as they
claim -- and, as a natural result, thousands of young bodybuilders
are literally beating their brains out trying to duplicate
impossible measurements.
Just who has the "best" physique is unfortunately a matter of
opinion -- opinion subject to bias, friendship, propaganda, and
outright bribery; but measurements and strength performances are
not a matter of opinion -- such things are subject to measurement.
The average trainee will never be able to duplicate the muscular
size of Oliva or the strength of Paul Anderson -- but the average
trainee can make gains that are probably far beyond the actual
expectations of most trainees, and such gains require absolutely
nothing even bordering on the outright fanaticism that is so common
in weight-training circles today.
Unfortunately, many of the commercially involved interests in this
field think it is necessary to actually encourage fanatic beliefs--
so they print anything that might even throw doubt on the
subject, doubt hopefully intended to cause you to buy their
products. Which sort of activity certainly isn't limited to the
field of weight training -- but dishonesty is dishonesty, whether
itis encountered in this field or in any other field.
While it is certainly true that any legitimate business has a right
to make a reasonable profit -- indeed, must make at least some
profit in order to stay in business fraudulent businesses have no
slightest justification for even a bare existence; and, contrary to
popular opinion, there are really no effective laws -- or at least,
there is no effective policing of the laws that do exist -- for the
purpose of stopping fraudulent advertising.
At an earlier point in our history -- before national advertising
became common -- a product lived or died on the basis of its
quality; bad "word of mouth" would put a company out of business
before it ever had a chance to grow big -- in those days, "quality"
meant something, and people were prepared to stand behind their
products, only in that way could a product find widespread
acceptance.
Until about twenty years ago, about the only thing you could even
hope to sell a weight-trainee was a barbell -- and, in those days,
barbells were built to last almost forever. So, once having been
persuaded to buy a barbell, a customer was effectively removed from
the market; as a result, the companies in this field were quite
small -- profits were lean, sales were strictly limited.
Then somebody discovered a totally new, much larger, fantastically
profitable market -- health foods; a whole new world of potential
profit was opened up and, at the moment, no end appears to be in
sight. Now -- and let there be no slightest doubt on this subject
I am certainly not "against" a good diet, I am just as certainly--
not in favor of the poor diet of the average person, and I
certainly am aware of the value of an actually "good" diet.
For more than twenty years I was closely and directly involved in
the importation of a very wide variety of delicate wild animals
keeping such animals alive and healthy in captivity is primarily a
matter of diet, one missing ingredient can be the difference
between a death rate of 90 per cent or one of less than 1 per cent
so I learned long ago that a proper diet is of utmost--
importance. I also learned that there are three distinct
requirements in the way of a proper diet - these are, (1) a proper
variety of foods, (2) a proper amount of food, (3) and the
"quality" of the foods.
Without a proper diet, good gains from even the best type of
training are impossible -- but it should also be clearly understood
that no diet will build muscular size or strength without proper
training. The problem then obviously becomes, "... just what is a
proper diet?"
In the direction of answering that question in an undeniable
fashion, I am going to conduct the following experiment. Within
the next few months I will visit a major university for the purpose
of being LOCKED INTO A ROOM for a period of exactly twenty-eight
days, four weeks to the minute, no more and no less. During which
time I will be constantly observed by the physiology department of
the university in question.
Prior to entering the locked room , I will be carefully and
accurately measured, weighed, and tested by the doctors in charge
of the physiology department of the university -- I will be
photographed, X-rayed, tested and checked in every way possible.
Not only for my starting size and strength but for my "condition"
stroke -- volume of my heart, resting pulse rate, etc. In short,
prior to this experiment the doctors in charge will know everything
about me in a physical sense that it is presently possible to
measure.
During the four weeks that I will be locked up, these same doctors
will observe, monitor, and carefully record literally EVERYTHING
that I do -- exactly what I eat, how much I eat, when I eat, how
often I eat. how much I sleep, and literally EVERYTHING else that
I do. My urine will be collected and tested for protein
utilization and liver function, my blood will be frequently tested
for cell count and blood sugar levels, my breathing will be checked
for oxygen-uptake studies, etc.
During that four weeks, I will train a total of exactly fourteen
times -- each day for five days of the first week, and then three
times each week during the last three weeks. The first five
"break-in" workouts will be extremely brief, averaging well under
thirty minutes each - none of these first five workouts will be a
"full" workout, being intended merely to get me over any initial
soreness.
Then, during the final three weeks, I will train three times
weekly, each workout being a "full body" workout - requiring less
than fifty minutes each, a total weekly training time of
approximately two and a half hours; two and a half hours PER WEEK,
not per workout.
These listed training times being TOTAL times -- including all
required rest periods between exercises or between sets; in effect,
I will go into the gym, and less than fifty minutes later I will
leave the gym.
Then, after exactly twenty-eight days, I will again be tested by
the same group of doctors that tested me originally -- and FULL
results of both the "before" and "after" tests will be published in
Iron Man, together with photographs and measurements. Which facts
will be certified by the physiology department of the university
involved.
There will be no "growth drugs" -- there will be no hanky panky
there will be no overstated gains there will be no touched-up
photographs if I make a fool of myself, then everybody will know it--
because the results will be printed regardless of what happens,
win, lose, or draw. While it remains a matter of opinion whether
you can or cannot "fix" a physique contest -- you certainly can NOT
fix the entire physiology department of a major university.
Twenty years ago, under such conditions, I could have made gains
that would literally have defied belief -- but, quite frankly, at
my age, I no longer know just what to expect; but the results
should be interesting -- regardless of what the outcome proves to
be.
Some people will naturally wonder why I selected myself as the
subject for such an experiment; and the answer is quite simple --
because I "know" how I will train, and I could never be quite sure
just how somebody else might train. I will train properly -- very
briefly, infrequently, but very hard.
Secondly, I will use no conventional training equipment -- all of
my training will be strictly limited to a few major pieces of
Nautilus equipment. I will do no squats, will perform no barbell
exercises of any kind, won't use a chinning bar or parallel dip
bars.
I "could" conduct the same experiment at home -- but if so, the
results would always be open to doubt; some people would accept my
word for what I did and some would not -- so, only in order to
remove even the possibility of any deception or misrepresentation,
I will conduct the experiment under close supervision by
responsible people who will not be a party to anything except the
exact truth.
I will have a telephone, a few books, and a typewriter in my room--
so I can continue to conduct required business by phone and can
devote most of my time to writing; so the time won't be wasted.
After the experiment, and the following testing, is completed, I
will return home and continue to train as and when I have the
available time. Then, at approximately 90 day intervals, I will
return to the same university for additional testing for the
purpose of recording my continuing progress. This follow-up
training, unfortunately, can NOT be done under certified
conditions. so it will then be necessary for people to take my
word for what my training and diet consists of during this later
period. But my continuing progress, at least, will be an
indisputable matter -- if I fail to make continuing progress, then
the tests at 90 day intervals will clearly indicate such a poor
result, and if I do make progress then that result will also be a
matter of undeniable fact.
While I certainly do not expect to end up looking much like Sergio
Oliva after four weeks of training -- or forty years, for that
matter I do think I will surprise a few people. But perhaps I will
be the one that gets surprised -- but, in either case, we will all
soon see.
And we will see in DETAIL because, afterwards, we will print an
exact "blow by blow" account of EVERYTHING that went on during
that carefully supervised four weeks of training; my exact diet
insofar as type of foods, source of foods, variety of foods, amount
of food, etc. -- as well as an exact repetition by repetition
description of my precise workouts, detailing the "form" used,
number of reps performed, amount of resistance used, etc.
In short, the follow-up information that will be published will be
complete down to and including the last tiny detail -- and it will
be true information, undeniably true.
If I can get good results from such brief but proper training --
after the way I have almost brutally abused myself for what now
seems like at least a thousand years -- then it should be obvious
that most people can produce somewhat similar degrees of results
from similar training programs. Some will do much better, some
will not do as well, and only about one in a million will end up
looking like Sergio as a result -- the difference in final results
being primarily determined by individual potential but almost
anybody can and will make very worthwhile gains from an actually
very small amount of proper training, and without the use of drugs
of any kind.
And, I would like to add just for the record, I am personally NOT
the ideal subject for such an experiment -- while my exact age is
nobody's business but my own, I will mention that I have one
daughter past the age of twenty-five and one grandchild; also, it
has not so far been my fate to have an exactly "easy" life -- I
have been bitten by poisonous snakes more than twenty times, and
have a permanently stiff thumb as a result of one such bite -- I
was badly mauled by a lion many years ago and got a broken neck
during the process, an injury that has caused me trouble ever
since, involving (as it did) the nerves that lead to my arms -- I
have been snot through both legs and will never again have full use
of either leg -- my right arm was busted UP SO badly that I haven't
been able to straighten it fully in more than thirty years, and my
left arm had the triceps ripped out by the roots, so now I can't
fully straighten either arm.
Excuses in advance? Some people will think so -- but in fact, I
merely want to set the record straight, fully. I have had malaria
repeatedly, tick-bite fever, and "who knows, what" other tropical
diseases -- I have worked an average of at least fourteen
hours a day for more than thirty years and have probably averaged
less than five hours of sleep a night during that period; most of
my teeth are gone -- or ruined -- from too many years in places
where you didn't dare brush your teeth with the water, my ears were
damaged many years ago by too many big engines and big guns, and my
eyes certainly are not what they once were. The less said about my
hair the better -- and some people say my face looks like a map of
Europe, a map made just after the last war.
So I don't expect to win any physique contests -- or any beauty
contests, either -- but we will all see what I can do with my body
in an actually very brief period of time.
Some people have recently seen fit to state in writing that you can
NOT make good gains unless you train at least five days a week, and
that you must train several hours during each workout -- so I want
it clearly understood that such training will literally make good
gains IMPOSSIBLE. A man who makes progress on such a program is
literally gaining "in spite of his efforts;" -- rather than as a
result of proper training -- and anybody who can make any degree of
progress on such a program would make actually spectacular progress
on a correct program involving less than twenty per cent as much
weekly training time.
One author also stated in a recent article that "... a three times
per week training schedule is not ENOUGH for a man who wants to
make good gains." And he is right -- in most cases, it is TOO MUCH;
quite contrary to common belief, an advanced man should train LESS
than a beginner -- most of our advanced men are now training only
twice each week, for less than an hour during each "full body"
workout.
A beginner isn't strong enough to overtrain easily -- so a beginner
can actually stand more training than an advanced man can; but if
an advanced trainee is training properly (and that primarily means
"hard enough"), then he literally can't stand much if any more than
two weekly workouts, and certainly not more than three weekly
workouts under any circumstances.
Once I am back home from the university, experiment, I will switch
to a twice-weekly training routine -- and, as time goes by, I will
gradually REDUCE my workouts. Rather than training MORE as I
become stronger, I will train LESS -- as I will have to do in order
to prevent overtraining, as ANYBODY must do to prevent
overtraining.
The only thing that Nautilus Machines do that barbells don't do is
provide HARDEST POSSIBLE work -- with a barbell you are working
only "part" of a muscle, actually a rather small part, no matter
how hard you think you are training, no matter how much you train;
with Nautilus Machines you are working almost literally "all" of
the same muscles -- or, at least, you should be, you can be if you
train properly. But the same principles are involved regardless of
what you are using in the way of training equipment -- you must
work as hard as possible, but you must NOT work too long, nor too
often, and as you get stronger you must work even less insofar as
the "amount" of training is concerned.
So let there be no slightest doubt on this point, either -- we are
now building the best exercise tools in existence, by far the best;
there is simply no reasonable grounds for a comparison between
Nautilus machines and any other type of training equipment -- and,
along with these machines we are advocating by far the best system
of training in existence, the only really sane system of training,
the most productive system.
Strong words? Perhaps -- but true; and anybody who disagrees with
the above points is either badly misinformed or is attempting to
tout some other method or system of training or their own
commercial advantage.
And what about my own commercial advantage? Well, I am certainly
commercially involved -- now; but I just as certainly had no desire
nor intention of being so involved even as recently as two years
ago -- such involvement was almost literally forced upon me. But,
once having decided to take the plunge, I decided to go all the way
never having been one to do things in a half-hearted manner, I--
have gone as far as I could as fast as I could. And, as I said
earlier in this article, perhaps I have gone "too far, too fast" --
maybe my articles have simply contained too much information that
is new to most weight-trainees, it could be that I have exceeded
the attention span of some trainees.
If I was twenty years old again (Lord forbid), or even forty years
old, and if I was content to waste a large part of my time --
then I might also be content to proceed at a leisurely pace. But
since I don't have as many years left as most of the readers of
Iron Man, and since I don't really want to spend the rest of my
life trying to explain a few actually very simple points to a lot
of people who have been systematically brainwashed into believing
almost everything but the truth -- I am naturally anxious to "get
on with it," to proceed as rapidly as possible, so I can later move
on to a few other things that also interest me.
But while I am involved, I am "going all the way" -- and thus I
have been willing to spend a good part of almost every day
supervising the training of the hundreds of trainees that have
visited DeLand during the last year; and I have been willing to
spend many, many long hours (when I really had a lot of other
things that required my attention) talking to the thousands of
people who have called me within the last twelve months. And,
while talking to such a great number of active trainees either in
person or on the phone, I have been forced to a number of obvious
conclusions.
Almost all of these trainees share common misconceptions they
simply do not understand even the basic principles involved in
weight-training; they know little or nothing about "form" -- they
are not even aware that you must train "progressively" -- and they
have no slightest idea what actually "hard" training consists of.
Yet, in the very face of such a huge lack of almost any worthwhile
information on the subject, they tend to consider themselves well
informed.
And it almost always comes as a shock to such people when we are
given the opportunity to introduce them to actually hard
training; having been doing as many as sixty sets for their arms in
each of several weekly workouts -- and having produced little
or nothing in the way of results from their efforts -- such people
are quite surprised to find that only ONE, or at the most TWO, sets
is all they can stand, if they are actually hard sets. And then
they are even more surprised to find themselves growing again at a
very rapid pace.
One self-confessed "expert" recently remarked in one of his
articles that it was a joke to even consider a brief workout as
hard but I hereby tell him very clearly that he can
NOT follow one of our trainees for even as much as ten minutes and
stay on his feet; three or four minutes of actually hard training
will make him vomit ten minutes or less will put him on the floor,
"out like a light" -- and a full workout of forty minutes or so
would kill him stone dead.
And if he thinks differently, let him come down here and try it --
and if I am wrong, then I will pay for his trip.
"But," many readers are probably now thinking, "I don't want to get
sick." Neither do I -- and I have met very few (if any) people who
do like to become sick as a result of their training. But it isn't
NECESSARY to become sick -- if a careful "break-in" program is
followed for a week or so, then almost anybody can train in an
actually hard manner, in an actually correct manner, and WITHOUT
GETTING SICK.
In fact, after a few weeks of proper training, the average trainee
will start feeling so good, so full of energy, so "alive," that
there is then a rather great danger that they will fall into a trap
many such trainees then decide that they need to train even more;
they are so pleased with their gains that they are prone to make
the mistake of assuming that even more training would produce even
better results -- but it won't, quite the contrary, if they train
MORE, then they will gain LESS. And if they train much more, then
they won't gain at all.
I used to think that an advanced man could gain well from as much
as twelve weekly hours of hard training -- but I now realize that
most advanced men make best progress on as little as two hours of
weekly training, or even less than two hours. Nor is this a matter
of merely saving time -- we would be willing to train SIXTY hours
a week, if that was what was required for best-possible results;
but we have found that very brief workouts are an actual
REQUIREMENT -- more training will NEVER produce better results, and
much more than two or three hours of weekly training will literally
make gains impossible, or will produce results so slowly that you
would have to measure them with a microscope over a span of years.
If you are constantly eating like a pig, then you might have to
train almost constantly simply in order to keep from becoming as
fat as a pig -- but you still won't make good gains; gains in
weight, perhaps in the form of pure fat, outright lard, which any
weight-trainee can do well without.
But what a waste such a schedule of eating and training really is--
a waste of food that your body can NOT use for any worthwhile
purpose, and will probably end up storing as unwanted fat -- a
waste of training time and energy that literally can NOT produce
good results, because it drains your recovery ability so much that
good progress becomes impossible.
Your body can USE only so much food, in any form -- any surplus
will be wasted at best, and stored as fat at worst, and will put an
unrequited strain on your overall system in either case; your
system can STAND only so much training, even light training, and
can stand even less proper training, actually HARD training, the
only type of training that will stimulate growth.
Certainly you must eat "right" -- but you just as certainly must
NOT eat too much, you must not eat too much of anything; not unless
you are training to be a circus fat-man -- which you soon will be
if you consume as much as many self-confessed nutritional "experts"
tell you that you should, limiting your intake of food strictly to
their brand of products, of course.
Thousands of poor kids -- and an equal number of people who are
neither kids nor poor -- are so confused by the maze of conflicting
propaganda that they literally don't know which way to turn, what
to believe, what to do, how to train, what to eat. Thus,
understandably, many of them try a bit of "everything" --
apparently assuming that they are playing it on the safe side; and
the wolves that are growing rich off of such misguided souls laugh
all of the way to the bank every morning.
Many of these people have strongly -- and I mean STRONGLY --
advised me not to "rock the boat", not to "mess up a good thing,"
but all I can say is, ". . . a good thing for whom? Certainly not
a good thing for the poor misguided trainees who all too frequently
are actually lead to believe such garbage, such outright hogwash,
such lies, such fraudulent claims."
If and when we have anything in the way of worthwhile advice on the
subject of diet, we will be quick to print it -- and we are doing
a lot of serious work on such factors at this very moment; but when
we do have something definite to say, we will be able to support it
in an undeniable way, with proof, not with phony "claims,"and we
will be able to produce authentic, valid, large-scale, unbiased,
noncommercially-tainted research reports to back it up.
In the meantime I would advise all trainees to buy their products
from people that they respect -- and I would also advise them to
extend their respect very, very carefully; the size of a man's arm
has no relationship with the size of his brain, and even less
relationship to his honesty and integrity all three of which items,
brains, honesty, and integrity, seem to be in very short supply in
this field at the moment, I have said this before -- now I
will say it again; you do not need Nautilus equipment to make good
gains from weight-training, you can make enormous gains from proper
utilization of a barbell and it should be noted that I do not sell,
have never sold, and will never sell, barbells. You can make even
better gains from Nautilus equipment -- but you can make very good
gains without it; IF you train properly -- and the proper training
principles are the same regardless of the tools that you have
available.
Up to this point in time, our business has grown so fast that it
almost frightens me -- and the pace of growth is constantly
increasing; at first we built machines one at a time, then
by the dozen, now by the hundred, and it will very soon be by the
thousand. Which is fine -- except that it leaves me
very little time for anything else, no time to do the things that
I really want to do.
And still I see hundreds of examples of simple misunderstanding --
so, starting in the next issue of Iron Man, I am going back to
"basics," I will start at the first and carefully, plainly, outline
the actually simple principles that are required for good training
progress, with a barbell, with a Nautilus machine, or with any type
of equipment.
In the meantime, if you are too impatient to wait -- and if you are
prepared to think and can think logically -- our Bulletins number
one and number two may serve as a spark to start you thinking in a
logical direction.
Arthur Jones Method