Click Here for Free Bodybuilding and Fitness Magazine Subscription
Arthur Jones One Set To Failure
The Next Step
by Arthur Jones
From IronMan July 1971, Volume 30 Number 5, visit www.ironmanmagazine.com
Exercise is capable of producing two distinct results -- one
favorable, one undesirable; the favorable result is produced only
"some of the time" -- the undesirable result is ALWAYS produced.
Under certain conditions, exercise is capable of producing growth
stimulation -- and this is positive; but under ANY conditions, a
negative result is always produced -- at least a certain percentile
of the momentarily-existing recovery ability is exhausted.
For the production of best-possible results, it is necessary to
induce the maximum degree of growth stimulation -- without
exhausting all of the recovery ability. Muscles WILL NOT grow if
the intensity-of-effort required by an imposed workload certain
workload falls below a certain level -- and muscles CANNOT grow if
the recovery ability is entirely exhausted by too much exercise.
In spite of widespread belief to the contrary, it is my firm
personal conviction that the "percentile of success" in
bodybuilding is far lower today than it was twenty years ago; and
I think I know why this ts true -- I think far too many current
bodybuilders are trying to "buy success" are trying to eat their
way to great muscular size, or find strength in a bottle, or a
needle. Twenty years ago, there was only one route to success in
the bodybuilding field -- plain hard work; and while it may
or may not be true that there are more outstanding men on the scene
today than there were twenty years ago, this proves absolutely
nothing -- after all, there are far more bodybuilders now than
there were then, and out of this much larger number it is only
to be expected that a greater number of individuals would reach the
top.
"But leading bodybuilders of today are far larger than they were
twenty years ago."
Are they? In one or two individual cases, perhaps; and that, too,
is only to be expected from a much larger number of trainees.
During the last year, literally hundreds of bodybuilders have
visited our training facilities in DeLand, Florida -- and one very
distinct overall impression has been forced upon me; almost without
exception, the bodybuilders of today simply don't know what hard
work is -- most of them are convinced that "more" work equals
"harder" work, and that belief, of course, is ridiculous.
Secondly, a very high percentage of them are downright fat; and
thirdly, very few are anywhere near as strong they should be.
Human nature being what it is -- and, in my opinion, not being
subject to much (if anything) in the way of large-scale improvement
most people are not really interested in the truth, especially when
it leads to unavoidably "hard" solutions to their problems; most
bodybuilders may or may not be lazier than the momentary average --
but they certainly show few if any signs of being more industrious
than the average.
During the leg portion of a very fast but extremely hard workout
for the entire body, three days ago in the DeLand Public
High School gym, one of our trainees performed 25 rapid, non-stop
repetitions on a leg-press machine with 460 pounds then INSTANTLY
followed that with a set of 22 thigh-extensions with 200 pounds,
and then instantly followed that with the 17 repetitions of the
full squat with 400 pounds.
Training with him, and following immediately this trainee, Sergio
Oliva reached the squat rack after 17 reps with 460 in the
leg-press and 16 reps in the thigh extensions with 200 pounds, and
when he "broke the lock" in his knees for his first rep in the
squat with 400 pounds he went to the floor like he had been knocked
in the head. After being helped to his feet, he tried it
again -- with the same result; whereupon we removed 100 pounds from
the bar -- during which delay Sergio was afforded some rest and
then he performed 7 reps with 300 pounds.
During a second "break-in" training session, Sergio performed four
reps with 400 pounds in the full squat at that same point
in the workout -- and during his third workout here, he was
successful with six reps with 400 pounds; after his left thigh
"seized-up" during the thigh-extensions and locked into a straight
position, and after he spent about five minutes hopping
around the gym in pain with me beating on his thigh with my fist.
Sergio is accustomed to training his latissimus muscles for at
least two hours, almost non-stop -- but during his first workout
here, one cycle of four exercises performed within a period of
about four minutes was all he wanted; after which four minutes he
spent a considerably longer period of time stretched out on the
sidewalk in front of the gym. And less than eight minutes of
training for his arms was more than enough.
Because this really is "hard" training.
And make no slightest mistake about one thing, Sergio Oliva is a
MAN; he is one of the strongest men I have ever seen -- and
he is the only man I have ever seen with a legitimate "cold" 20
inch muscular arm -- measured by myself, in front of witnesses. on
the first flex, at right angles to the bone, with a literally paper-thin
and perfectly accurate tape that was checked there and then against a steel
rule.
And while it is widely believed that a trainee "cannot make best
possible gains unless he devotes himself entirely to his
training, avoiding work in the form of gainful employment like the
plague and becoming an outright fanatic." I would like to
mention that Sergio, until very recently, was employed full time in
a foundry -- perhaps the hottest, hardest work you can find and
he told me very plainly that he made BETTER GAINS while he was
working full-time in the foundry -- since leaving that work,
he said, he found himself getting lazy, he no longer has the same
drive for his workouts.
Twenty years ago -- if they had been offered even a hint that
success might lie in some "easier direction" the bodybuilders of
that period might have been just as lazy as some of them are today;
but no such route to the top had been suggested -- and there
was only one way "up," outright hard work. And exactly the same
thing is true today -- but with a difference; many people now
sincerely believe that they can get there some easier way. And
they continue in their false beliefs in the face of literally
overpowering proof to the contrary; some few, actually a pitifully
small percentile, do finally reach the top -- but in most cases,
they do so almost literally "in spite of their efforts" and the
usually give the credit to some factor that had little or nothing
to do with their success. In many cases, credit is actually given
to a factor that retarded progress.
You think otherwise? Then just try convincing a bodybuilder who
has been training for twenty hours a week -- for ten years -- that
much better degree of results could have been produced by about 15%
of that amount of training, EVEN WITH CONVENTIONAL EQUIPMENT (with
Nautilus equipment we can produce even better results about 3% of
the usual amount of training.) During the last six months, John
Grimek, Milo Steinborn, Dick Fudge, Ed Sash, Arnold Schwarzenegger,
Franco Colombo, Ell Darden, Chuck Amato, Boyer Coe, Red Lerille,
Sergio Oliva, Casey Viator, Dan Howard, John Meyers, Pete Caputo,
Julian Levine, Alvin Roy, Jan Paul, Chris Dickerson and literally
hundreds of others have visited our training facilities in DeLand,
Florida, for the purpose of personally investigating the new types
of machines; it would be nice if I could tell you that all these
people instantly understood the principles incorporated into these
machines and fully realized the significance of these new
developments -- it would be nice, but it would not be true. Many
of these people did understand, some others didn't really
understand but realized that "something" significant was happening
when they saw the results from very brief workouts and/or short
periods of training -- and some few simply could not understand, or
WOULD NOT; which is not surprising -- since many people can never
quite bring themselves to admit the value of anything new, millions
of people were still screaming "get a horse" every time they saw a
car long after Henry Ford made his first hundred million dollars.
And even today, nearly seventy years after the fact, and in the
clear face of simply overpowering evidence that the airplane has
literally changed history, most people are still "not quite sure"
about flying.
But it is a bit amusing, since the very people who sincerely feel
that they have been searching for a "better" answer are frequently
the ones who are slowest to accept it when such is clearly pointed
out to them; primarily, I think, because doing so would obviously
involve an admission that a large part of their own previous
efforts were wasted -- or, at the very least, misdirected. But I
also think that many such people -- while "claiming" that they are
training very hard -- are simply not prepared to engage in actually
heavy training. The training programs followed by many football
players would literally kill most currently active bodybuilders if
they attempted to jump into such training without a careful break-in.
A few years ago, the so-called PHA system of training was in vogue
for a rather brief period with some bodybuilders; and while the
benefits of such cycle training are of actually very great value
insofar as cardiovascular efficiency is concerned, they seem to be
of little or no value in the opinions of most bodybuilders -- who
are primarily interested in building maximum-possible muscular
size, with or without actual muscular efficiency or overall
"condition." The appearance of great strength seems to be of far
greater importance than actual strength.
The training programs that we are now using in DeLand have very
much in common with the PHA and system of training -- and maximum
possible degrees of cardiovascular efficiency are produced very
rapidly; but this result is actually a "side benefit," it was not
the benefit we were seeking when our programs were designed --
instead, we were trying to outline programs that would produce the
fastest-possible gains in both muscular size and strength. But
maximum-possible increases in muscular size and strength literally,
CANNOT be produced without such cycle training thus we would be
forced into a position of trading cardiovascular efficiency even
if such was unwelcome -- which, of course. it is not. Thus, it
just may come to pass that most bodybuilders will some day actually
be as strong as they look -- and won't fall on their faces in a
dead faint if forced to run a few hundred yards. Both of which
results would certainly be welcome changes.
Why is "cycle training" required for building maximum-possible
degrees of muscular size and strength? Because it is apparently
the only possible way to work muscle structures as hard as they
must be worked for the production of best-possible results.
Performing almost endless sets is NOT the answer; because you are
simply working the same few muscular fibers over and over, and if
carried to extremes, which is usually what happens, such training
will literally make much in the way of progress impossible, because
the recovery ability will be exhausted beyond its ability to
recuperate between workouts.
But with a carefully outlined program of cycle training, it is
possible to involve a far higher percentage of the total number of
available muscular fibers -- and much more in the way of growth
stimulation is induced, with minimum depletion of the recovery
ability; one or two cycles of three exercises -- a total of only
three, or six, sets -- will induce more growth stimulation than any
number of sets performed in the usual manner, and will do
so without exhausting the overall system to the point that growth
becomes impossible.
Using Nautilus equipment, our trainees devote a total of less than
twenty-four minutes a week to training their arms -- three weekly
workouts of less than eight minutes each; and if you just can't
believe that is enough, then I will ask you this, ". . . have
you ever vomited as a result of doing one set of curls?" "Or passed
out cold after three or four exercises for your arms?" If not, then
you simply don't know what hard training is.
But even without any of the new types of equipment, it is still
possible to produce very good results from a training program for
the arms that requires less than an hour and a half of weekly
training.
How many exercises? How many sets?
For fine upper arms, two sets of each of four exercises -- a total
of only eight sets; for the forearms, two sets of two exercises.
First do one set of standing barbell curls, IN THE PROPER
MANNER -- which means doing them until the bar literally drops
out of your exhausted hands, a point that should be reached within
eight to ten reps -- and then INSTANTLY perform an equally hard set
of pulldowns to the chest with a lat machine bar, using a palms-up,
close grip. Both sets should be performed to the point that any
degree of additional movement is utterly impossible.
Rest a minute, and then perform an equally hard set of triceps
curls -- instantly followed by a set of parallel dips carried to
the point of utter failure.
Rest another minute, and then do a set at about fifteen reps of
palms up wrist curls -- to the point of failure. Follow that
immediately with a set of reverse-grip (palms down) wrist curls --
again to the point of failure.
That is one cycle. Rest about two or three minutes and then
perform one more cycle in exactly the same way -- and THAT IS IT.
This portion of your workout should be performed last -- because,
if you do it right, you literally won't be able to do anything else
afterwards; and if you can do anything else afterwards, then you
didn't do it right. But this routine should not be used alone, it
should be part of an overall training program for the entire body
including the legs a program to be practiced three times weekly.
And I am fully aware as I write these words that many bodybuilders
will consider the above outlined arm routine almost ridiculously
simple; many bodybuilders, having devoted years of training to
long, complex supposedly "modern" workouts, have completely lost
sight of the fact that SIMPLE workouts are of any value for anyone
except rank beginners -- but the truth of the matter is that simple
solutions are frequently the only possible answer to seemingly
complex problems. People with such beliefs might be
well-advised to give consideration to the fact that beginners
usually show far better rates of progress than long-experienced
trainees using far longer workouts; while it is certainly true that
SOME of the fast gains produced by most beginners are due to
factors which no longer exist in the cases of more experienced
trainees, it is at least equally true that the actually very slow
production of results experienced by most experienced bodybuilders
is directly due to the fact that a factor of great importance has
been dropped from their workouts -- a factor that could have been
retained, and must be retained if good results are desired. In
most cases, there is absolutely nothing PROGRESSIVE about the
workouts of experienced bodybuilders -- little or no attempt is
made to increase the resistance employed or the repetitions
performed.
For the production of best-possible results, every possible effort
must be made in the direction of progress -- and if this is done
properly, then at least some sign of progress will be seen in
almost every workout; you will be able to perform one or two
extra repetitions or use a bit more weight for the same number of
repetitions, or bodily measurements will increase, or muscular
definition will be improved -- but some sort of progress will be
obvious in almost every workout, if you are really pushing. And if
you are really pushing, then it doesn't take much in the way of
such exercise to produce good results.
Secondly, sometimes very "simple" changes are capable of providing
almost unbelievable improvements -- look what knocking the corners
off of square wheels did for transportation.
Then look at the bar that Pete Caputo is holding in picture No. 1 -
a property designed "pulldown" bar. Instead of the normally
employed long bar, a correctly made bar should be quite short;
because a wide grip is NOT desirable. Secondly, instead of the
normal "palms facing forwards" grip, a parallel grip should be used.
This bar is designed to provide both proper hand-spacing and grip.
You can make such a bar for a few dollars if you are not concerned
with appearance or chrome or fine workmanship -- and it will
improve present lat exercises by about 300%.
And since most people are slow to accept something which they don't
understand, I will now explain the advantages of such a bar so
clearly that anybody will be able to understand. In picture No. 2
Pete is holding his arms over his head in the position that would
be employed at the start of a wide-grip pulldown behind the neck;
in picture No. 3 he has his arms in the position they would be in
at the finish of the exercise movement. Keep it clearly in mind
that the lats connect the torso and the upper arms -- and that the
relative position of the forearms has nothing to do with the
matter, so long as the forearm position does not place limitations
on the movement of the upper arms; but in this exercise -- as it is
usually practiced -- the position of the forearms does have a very
important bearing on the matter, because the forearm position makes
much in the way or movement of the upper arms impossible.
By comparing the relative positions of the upper arms as shown in
pictures 2 and 3, it should be obvious that the upper arms have
moved very little from the start of the movement to the end of the
movement; and it should be equally clear that the lats were NOT
"stretched" at the start of the movement -- and were not fully
contracted at the end of the movement. Actual movement was limited
to the mid-range of possible movement.
Now look at picture No. 4 where Pete has both arms as high as
possible, with the hands actually crossed above and behind his
head; that would be the ideal starting position for this exercise
insofar as the position of the upper arms is concerned -- if it
was a possible starting position, which it is not. It is an
impossible starting position because the hands, being crossed, will
limit movement to a range-of-movement of only a few degrees -- it
would be impossible to come anywhere close to a position of full
contraction.
Thus, in practice, it will be found that the best "possible"
starting position is the one shown in picture 3; the hands are as
close together as they can be -- while still permitting a
range-of-movement that extends to a position of full contraction.
Picture No. 6 shows the finishing position of the exercise - a
position of full contraction for the lats. By comparing the
possible range-of-movement clearly shown in pictures 5 and 6 to the
very limited range-of-movement shown in pictures 2 and 3, it should
be instantly clear to anybody that this change in hand spacing
provides a simply enormous improvement in this exercise.
But why the parallel grip?
Because, with such a grip the upper arms are in their
strongest possible position -- whereas, using the normal
palms-facing-forwards grip, the arms are in their weakest position.
Even under the best of possible circumstances, you fail in this
exercise when your arms fail -- not when your lats are unable to
continue so why make a bad situation worse than it already is by
working the arms in their weakest position -- by simply twisting
the hands into a position of full supination, you can greatly
increase the usable strength of the arms, and enormously improve
this exercise.
A very "simple" change -- once it has been clearly pointed out; but
one that will at least quadruple the benefits that can be produced
by this exercise.
Finally, in picture No. 7, Pete is shown holding the same bar in front of his neck -- with a palms-up, close
grip; this shows the finishing position of another exercise using the game bar -- but in this instance, almost
any type of bar could be used with equally good results. Pulldowns to the front (regular-grip chins) should
immediately follow the behind-neck pulldowns; first a set of behind-neck pulldowns carried to the point of
utter failure -- INSTANTLY followed by a set or pulldowns to the front using the grip Pete is
demonstrating, again going to the point of utter failure. Two or three such cycles done in a period of about
six, or nine, minutes will do more for the lats than any amount of sets of similar exercises performed in the
usual manner and you do NOT require any new equipment -- apart from the bar shown in the pictures, and
you can make that for yourself.
Literally hundreds of such examples could be given; examples of actually very simple changes that will
enormously improve currently practiced exercises -- without the requirement for any new equipment apart
from simple items of equipment that can be made by almost anybody.
In general attempts should be made to "make exercise harder" anything that makes an exercise more
difficult will usually improve it; but it should be understood that this means "harder for the muscles we
trying to work" -- simply making an exercise uncomfortable will not necessarily improve it.
However, it must also be understood that it is simply impossible to involve ALL of the available muscular
fibers in any form of conventional exercise; and now I will clearly explain why it is impossible.
The bulk or mass (the actual "size") of a muscle is directly related to its strength; given all of the required
information, a very accurate estimate of the strength of a muscle can be determined from measurements of
its mass. However. it should be clearly understood that such strength may not be measurable in relation to
its existing level if attempts are made to compare the strength of one individual to that of another; that is to
say, no logical grounds exist for comparisons of actual strength -- if anything approaching accuracy of
measurement is desired, then a man's strength can only be compared to the same individual's strength at
another point in time.
There is a distinct difference between the "input" of strength and the "output" of strength; the input of
strength is primarily determined by, and in all cases dependent upon, the relative mass of the muscular
structure involved -- but the output of strength is limited by other factors, by difference, in "angles of
insertion" of muscular attachments, by differences in the "moment arms" involved, differences primarily
determined by actual points of insertion and relative bone lengths.
Thus a well conditioned 16 inch upper arm will always be capable of producing more power than an equally
well-conditioned 14 inch arm - but, in practice, the smaller arm could easily be capable of actually lifting
more weight; in effect, the larger "motor" will always produce more power -- but it frequently happens that
a higher percentage of such power is lost because of a "slipping clutch," and thus a smaller motor with a
better clutch might actually deliver more power to the
wheels.
Franco Colombo is decidedly "stronger" than his much larger friend Arnold Schwarzenegger -- in spite of
the fact that Arnold probably has at least twice the overall muscular bulk of Franco; but this proves nothing
beyond the fact that Franco can "lift more weight" than Arnold can -- and it is directly due to the fact that
Arnold has very poor bodily leverage factors to overcome. In order to lift the same amount of weight that
Franco does, Arnold may easily have to exert three times as much actual power; in effect, he has a bad
clutch.
Such poor leverage factors could easily be directly responsible for at least a large part of Arnold's literally
huge muscular development; because even a fairly light weight forces his muscles to work much harder than
they would be required to do if his leverage was better and it is "intensity of effort" rather than "amount of
work," that builds large muscles.
To determine the torque (actual resistance) involved in an exercise such as the standing barbell curl, it is
necessary to multiply the moment arm by the resistance employed. Doing so is quite simple; first draw a
vertical line that passes through the point of rotation -- in this case the elbow joint -- and then draw another
vertical line that passes through the center of the resistance, in this case the bar of the barbell. A
measurement of the horizontal distance between these two vertical lines will determine the moment arm;
which should be multiplied by the resistance in order to determine the torque.
A glance at figure No. 1 will make it obvious that there is literally NO RESISTANCE at the start of a curl,
because there is ZERO DISTANCE between the two vertical lines, and thus zero moment arm, and zero
multiplied by any amount of weight still equals zero.
But by looking at figure 2 it should be clear that -- after the first forty-five degrees of movement in a curl --
the moment arm has increased from Zero to 8 inches (in this example), and thus (assuming a 100 pound
barbell) the torque has increased from zero to 800 "inch pounds."
And after another forty-five degrees of movement, at the so-called "sticking point" of a curl -- as shown in
figure 3 -- the moment arm has increased to 12 inches and the torque has reached its highest point, a level of
1,200 inch pounds (or 100 "foot pounds").
From the above three examples it should be clear that more torque would have been involved if the subject's
forearms were longer -- because such greater length of forearms would increase the moment arms involved.
Arnold's forearms are much longer than Franco's -- and thus he must produce far more power to curl a
barbell of equal weight.
But length of the bones is not the only factor involved; the "points of insertion" are of extreme importance
as well -- if, for example, the tendons of the biceps are attached very close to the joint, then a man with such
arms will not be able to curl much weight. Given the same muscle size, and the same length of forearms --
but with attachment points located a greater distance away from the joints -- a man could demonstrate more
strength, even though his muscles would actually be producing exactly the same amount of power.
During the actual practice of a barbell curl, the elbows do not remain fixed in one position -- instead . as
shown in figure 4, the elbows move forward after the first ninety degrees of movement, and this serves to
reduce the moment arm, and thus the torque, at an even faster rate than might be expected. When the
barbell has completed 135 degrees of movement, the torque would have returned to 800 inch pounds of
resistance IF THE ELBOWS DID NOT MOVE; but in fact, since the elbows move forward, the torque is
reduced faster than that - to a point of only about 600 inch pounds.
And -- as shown in figure 5 after 180 degrees of movement of the barbell. the elbows have moved to a point
where there is literally NO resistance.
Figure 6 is a graph drawn for the purpose of comparing the actual resistance in a barbell curt to both the
input of power and the output of force. It should be obvious from this graph that them is no resistance in a
conventional exercise such as the curl at either the start or finish of the exercise -- and that the resistance is
"correct" only at one, literally infinitely-small point during the movement, at the so called sticking point,
where the resistance exactly equals the available output of force.
Prior to that point in the exercise the resistance is too low - and after that point, it is too low again.
And it should be clearly understood that the resistance is "correct" only at a point during the exercise where
it is literally impossible to involve more than a very low percentage of the total number of available fibers.
ALL of the muscle fibers can be involved only in a position of full contraction and all of the muscle fibers
will be involved only if the imposed resistance is high enough to require such involvement; and it should b
obvious that ZERO resistance isn't quite enough.
So how do you get around this limitation while using conventional exercise equipment? Well, you simply
can't get around it entirely but if you are at least aware of and understand this limitation you can do quite a
bit in the direction of improving the situation.
In the first place, you can start by performing each set of every exercise as if it was the last set that you
would ever do -- as if your very life depended upon it; if you stop at any point short of outright failure. then
you are NOT involving as many fibers as you could have, and as you should have for the production of
best-possible results. Doing MORE SETS will NOT give the same results. One properly performed set of
an exercise will give you more results than a hundred improperly performed sets -- literally.
Twenty-five years ago, John Grimek worked his biceps by performing "leaning forward curls" keeping the
elbows back along his sides so that the forearms were parallel with the floor when the arms were bent as far
as possible, thus providing maximum resistance in the position of full contraction.
Also, you can perform your biceps (or other) exercises "in cycle" -- for example, do a set of extremely hard
dumbbell curls. and then INSTANTLY do a set of regular grip chins, or pulldowns on a lat machine using a
palms-up, narrow grip. Such cycle training will permit you to work your muscles much harder than would
otherwise be possible; in the above example, the curls will work the biceps as hard as you can with a
barbell, and then immediately following chins or pulldowns will work them even harder, since your
assisting torso muscles that come into play in those exercises will force the biceps to become involved far
beyond a point of normal failure.
You still won't be involving ALL of the available fibers - but you will at least, be involving many as it is
possible to do with conventional equipment, and a far higher percentage than most trainees ever involve, no
matter how many exercises or sets they perform.
Nautilus exercise machines provide resistance that is matched to the "output of force curve" shown in figure
6 -- the resistance is exactly right at each point throughout the exercise.
When using a Nautilus machine, there IS resistance at the start of a movement -- and there IS resistance at
the end of the movement, in the position of full contraction.
Do such machines involve literally 100% of the available fibers? By and large, NO -- but they do involve
several times as many fibers as it is even possible to involve with any type of conventional exercise device;
and we are now coming out with a new line of machines, the previously unannounced UD (Ultimate
Development) Series of machines that do involve 100% of the available fibers. The "next step" is already
here.
The UD Series of machines are "compound function" machines, providing perfectly balanced resistance for
two or more interrelated muscular functions.
While most of the manufacturers of exercise machines have devoted the greatest part of their efforts in the
direction of trying to add as many "stations" as possible to one machine, we have taken the opposite
approach; rather than wasting time on a large number of relatively worthless exercises, we have long felt
that far better results could be produced in much less time by concentrating on a much smaller number of
extremely effective exercises -- and we can produce the results to prove that our approach has been the
correct one, or at the very least it has been by far the best approach up to now.
But do not assume from the above that I think that literally everybody will soon be using Nautilus
equipment; far from it -- after all, just how many people are even aware of the value of the barbell, nearly
100 years after the fact?
And do not assume that the barbell has been replaced; barbells will be in even more common use in the
future than they are now - and they should be, properly used, barbells are almost literally a miracle
machine.
And do not assume that our new series of machines will replace the previously available Nautilus machines;
they won't -- and they were not meant to. Actually, we are working in two distinctly opposite directions; we
are developing the most effective machines that can be produced, regardless of cost and in spite of the
complexity of construction that may be involved -- but at the same time, we are also devoting effort in the
direction of trying to make other types of Nautilus machines that are as simple and as low priced as
possible, while sacrificing the lowest possible degree of function.
Some people may fail to understand the
real value of exercise machines of such complexity, but if so, then they probably don't understand the points
made at the start of this article either. For the production of best possible results, maximum growth
stimulation must be induced while exhausting the minimum amount of the overall recovery ability; and this
can only be done if the exercises being used are as efficient as possible -- and while we certainly make no
claims that our machines are literally perfect, they are a lot closer to perfection than anything else in the
field, physiologically, and mechanically. In future articles, these advantageous features will be clearly
explained.
Arthur Jones One Set To Failure