Click Here for Free Bodybuilding and Fitness Magazine Subscription
Arthur Jones Strength Training
And Then The Bomb
by Arthur Jones
From IronMan May 1971, Volume 30 Number 4, visit www.ironmanmagazine.com
After several pages devoted to a description of his struggles to
establish himself in the gym business, the
writer of a recent letter said, "...I think I was on the right
road, publicity, equipment, etc. And suddenly the
Arthur Jones bomb drops."
In my reply, I said, ". . . regarding your near-final comment about
the Arthur Jones bomb I would advise
you to be well prepared for ANYTHING; we haven't dropped our heavy
ammunition yet -- but I promise
you, it will shake the weight-training field to it's roots. If
this has caused you -- or does cause you --
personal difficulty, then you have my sincere apology; it is not my
desire to hurt anyone but progress had to
come in this field as in any other. It was just a matter of time,
and it was certainly about time. If I had not
been the source of that change then somebody else eventually would
have been. And in any situation of
change, somebody always gets hurt."
Many other letters -- literally hundreds of other letters -- have
come from all over the world, from almost
every state in the union, from Africa, from Europe, from Australia,
and even from Asia; and while it is
simply impossible for me to write long, detailed personal replies
to all of them immediately, I will get
around to answering each individual letter eventually -- and in the
meantime, I am trying to answer the most
commonly-asked questions in my articles.
Yet I find myself in a rather paradoxical situation; while I am now
clearly aware of a trend that will lead the
entire field of weight training in an almost entirely new
direction, I cannot -- for various reasons --
immediately publish all of the information available to me.
To begin with, if the conclusions that have forced themselves on my
awareness only after thirty years of
interest were suddenly presented intact, but without clearly
supporting, undeniable evidence, then many
people would simply refuse to accept these conclusions.
But, on the other hand, these conclusions cannot be supported in a
brief, simple-to-understand manner; most
of the people in greatest need of the information made available to
them for the first time as a result of our
work are unfortunately not able to understand a technical
explanation -- and it is thus unavoidably necessary
to present our conclusions, and the reasoning behind those
conclusions, in a manner calculated to induce
wide-spread acceptance, rather than actual understanding.
But then, after all, how many people really understand how their
cars work, either? Very few; but that
doesn't prevent millions of people from making at least practical,
if perhaps not full, utilization of their
automobiles.
Within the last week, a man from a nearby state visited DeLand for
the purpose of picking up two machines
that he purchased from us, and while was here he remarked that he
had previously photographed and then
tried to duplicate one of our machines -- unsuccessfully, as it
turned out; which wasn't a very surprising
result, since what he was trying to do was almost literally
impossible.
Which fact he clearly understood -- after it was explained to him.
And while there was nothing dishonest
about this attempt to build one of our machines for private use,
another such attempt involved outright theft;
somebody -- and I think I know which somebody -- stole one of our
spiral pulleys, probably planning to
duplicate it and build his own machines. But I am afraid he is in
for a bit of a surprise; because, the pulley
is of absolutely no value by itself -- nor can it be used unless
certain other vitally important points are
known.
For example; with nothing to point it out to him. just how does he
propose to determine the "departure
point" of the spiral pulley -- and how far away is the axis of the
first redirectional pulley and in what
direction -- and what is the radius of the first redirectional
pulley? Lacking any one of those required bits of
information, the spiral pulley -- even with the other required
information -- is totally useless, it becomes a
bit of worthless twisted metal.
And that, of course, is only the start; the overall geometry of the
machines is not a random arrangement of
parts -- and changing any one factor, even slightly. changes the
entire geometry, and thus the function. And
if you think not, then just stick your head into the required
reading matter long enough to become at least
basically familiar with the characteristics of spiral pulleys. And
any similarity to round pulleys is purely
coincidental; the size of a round pulley, its location, its angle
of departure, its relative positioning in regard
to redirectional pulleys, etc., is of no slightest importance -- a
round pulley is a round pulley is a round
pulley, its moment arm is always the same no matter what you do to
it just short of bending it with a sledge
hammer.
But when you start dealing in such matters as "effective angles of
departure," as opposed to actual angles of
departure - and "effective moment arms" as opposed to actual moment
arms - and when you find yourself in
the position of trying to design a pulley with a shape that will
permit the cable to effectively pass
inside the pulley's perimeter, then you will have at least a
slightly better idea of what I am talking about.
One of the problems that we encountered is so seemingly difficult
that I have now devoted more than two
years of thought to the matter and still do not even know if the
problem can be solved; this problem
involves -- for its solution, if a solution proves to be possible
--
an understanding of both physiology and
math. And so far, the mathematicians that have been made aware of
the problem, and that might be able to
solve it, we unable to understand the problem -- and the
physiologists that we have contacted, people who
usually do understand the problem after it has been explained to
them, don't have the required ability in
math. It may literally be an impossible problem -- but at this
point I would welcome even that information,
since it would be a solution of sorts; as things stand now, it is
a highly intriguing, but very frustrating
question.
But before your overconfidence leads you into trouble. I will
point out that some of the leading
physiologists and mathematicians in this country have already
looked at the problem -- and up to this point,
without single exception, they have declined to even offer an
opinion. And I am fairly certain that several
of them remained glassy-eyed for several days after first hearing
the problem.
The problem? Well, you asked for it.
Given the balanced strength curve for isolated contractile function
of the biceps -- as well as the balanced
strength curve for isolated supinational function of the biceps --
how do you double balance the perimeters
of two separate spiral pulleys, each of which provides the required
variation in moment arm for separate
sources of resistance, when the supinational resistance source is
driven by a flexible shaft which is affected
by the contractile movement, which movement imparts 158.4 degrees
of rotational movement to the round
pulley which drives the supinational-resistance source spiral
pulley on a common axis?
Since the act of contracting the arm increases the contractional
strength, and since the act of supination
increases the act of supination also increases the contractile
strength, it is -- for the purposes of building an
almost 100% effective compound curling machine -- necessary to
double-balance the two separate sources
of resistance provided each arm.
In effect, if the two sources of resistance (actually three sources
of resistance, since there is only one,
common source of contractile resistance for both arms, and two,
separate sources of supinational resistance
--
one clockwise, one counterclockwise) are double balanced
(balanced in relation to each other), then it is
literally impossible to make significant movement in either
direction without almost exactly corresponding
movement in the other direction. You would find it impossible to
"bend" the arms without also "twisting"
the forearms -- or vice versa; because, unless you supinated in
similar degree, and simultaneously, you
would not have the strength to contract and vice versa. But since
the only apparently practical manner to
construct such a machine involves the use of supinational sources
of resistance driven by flexible shafts, and
since the contractile movement of a machine designed in this manner
will be reflected in a direct one-to-one
ratio in movement of the round pulley which must be first driven by
the input of applied force, and since
there is at least a practical if perhaps not a the theoretical
limit to the number of coils that can be
incorporated into even the perimeter of a compound spiral, it
obviously follows that the contractile
movement is directly effecting (at least to some degree) the
supinational resistance source, thus adding
"something" to the contractile resistance and subtracting something
from the supinational resistance source,
and doing "who knows what" to the carefully established
double-balance situation.
And even though we have the availability of a computer that can
give us the exact pulley shapes required --
if we know what to feed it -- we find ourselves at a dead stopping
point.
So, Dear Somebody Out There, if you understand the problem as
stated (and if not, and if you have the
required background, we can make it clear to you), and if you think
you have even a possible solution --
then we will be more then happy to hear from you.
And while the above problem outline was included in this article as
an example of the type of problem we
have encountered, it was also meant to be a cry for help -- and we
really need help on this one.
And from all present appearances, by the end of this year we will
be getting additional help from at least
twenty-five major research programs being undertaken by
universities, medical schools and research
foundations -- all of which programs will be based on the functions
and applications of the new machines.
The results off which work will eventually be published in one form
or another -- here and/or elsewhere.
Some related problems will probably never be solved -- others will
be solved only long in the future; but in
the meantime, quite a bit is already very clear to us -- at least
for practical utilization purposes -- and much
of this information can be put to very good use.
In previous articles, I have repeatedly stressed the requirement
for maximum-possible intensity of effort, I
have stated that each set of every exercise must be carried to a
point of utter failure. Yet, the truth of the
matter may well be -- probably is that something less than such
maximum-possible effort would
produce equally good results. That is to say; MAYBE you can
produce best results WITHOUT doing your
exercises to a point of failure. However -- and let there be no
slightest doubt on this if that should be the
case, then it is a point that will never be proven; and even if
proven, it will still be of no slightest value --
because, even in possession of such information, just how do you
make practical use of it? How do you
measure it? How do you know when a particular set has reached the
required percentile of maximumpossible
effort?
Secondly, once a trainee is aware that anything less than a maximum
effort is all that is required, the
natural tendency in almost all cases will be to reduce efforts far
too much. After all, if told in advance that
an upcoming test will be limited to the information contained in
the first chapter of a particular book, just
what percentile of students will study anything more than that one
chapter?
So, even if maximum-possible effort isn't a requirement (and I
personally feel very strongly that it is, or that
any difference is insignificant), such knowledge, if it comes,
obviously must remain unusable information
in light of the fact that there is no practical means of measuring
such percentages.
And please be kind enough not to call my attention to the machines
which "record" performances; for
reasons which I will not go into here, that type of machine does
not answer the requirement mentioned
above -- although, from what I have heard of such machines, from
sources which I consider reliable, it
does appear such machines are a significant improvement over
conventional forms of training.
And too, if you think that solving all (or most) of the related
problems introduced by changing and random
moment-arm factors unavoidable in all forms of barbell and/or other
conventional forms of exercise was
somewhat difficult, then give thought for a moment to the fact that
ALL moment-arm factors involved in
exercise are not a result of the equipment being used; what about
the changing moment-arm factors
produced by "angles of insertion" of various muscles and their
attachments? And just what do you propose
to do in the way of altering that situation?
Unclear? Well. it won't be in a moment. In previous articles, I
have attempted to clearly -- and hopefully
quite simply -- point out the fact that muscles are stronger in
some positions than they are in other
positions.. And now I will tell you "why" this is true.
In an extended position, the "angle of insertion" of the involved
muscles is such that the production of much
in the way of usable strength is all but impossible -- because a
very high percentage of any force expended
does not contribute to the rotational movement that must be
produced for body-part motion; instead, a large
part of such effort is literally wasted -- since it is pulling in
a direction near 90 degrees out of phase with the
direction of desired movement, the only possible direction of
movement.
Later in the movement, the angle-of-insertion is far more favorable
--
and then a very large part of the total
amount of force being expended is going directly into the work of
rotating the involved body part. But as
movement of the body part passes this point of most-favorable
angle-of-insertion, it then returns to a
situation where the angle-of-insertion is unfavorable -- although
it will never return to a degree of
ineffectiveness equal to that experienced at the start of the
movement.
At the end of the movement, the moment-arm resulting from the
angle-of-insertion will be such that a fairly
high percentage of the force being produced by the muscles is again
being wasted is not exerting its pull in
the proper direction, Thus -- in the fully contracted position --
MORE input of power is required to produce
an EQUAL amount of usable strength. By comparison to input/output
ratios produced in the most favorable
position.
Thus, in order to avoid a marked decrease in strength in the fully
contracted position, the muscle literally
must be capable of exerting more strength in that position -- and
it can.
The area of the muscle that contains the highest number of strands
of muscular fibers is thus involved in the
contraction only in a position at full contraction -- for the
reason outlined above.
And while a similar problem exists in the fully-extended position
as well, there is literally nothing the body
can do without solving that problem -- since solving that problem
would involve physical impossibilities.
Thus it should be obvious that a muscle is even stronger (or, at
least even potentially stronger) than it might
appear to be in the fully contracted position; but while it can be
strongest in that position, a great deal of
such strength is not usable -- or, at least, would not be obvious
in any normal sort of strength tests.
And as I have done in previous articles, again I hasten to point
out the fact we don't even pretend to know
the answers to related problems -- but we are, at least, aware
of a lot of them.
One medical school that contacted me recently was interested in
conducting exercise experiments directed
towards attempting to determine the degree of effect produced in a
"left" arm when exercise was limited to
a "right" arm; a research foundation that I am working in
association with is starting work on a project
hopefully intended to throw some light on the subject of just what
effect physiological improvement has on
trainees in a psychological way; a major western university may
undertake comparisons of the results
produced by our new equipment and conventional training devices; a
doctor in California is undertaking
similar research and so on. And in the meantime, our research and
development work goes on here.
Our interests are many and varied, and we will sincerely welcome
help -- or even critical examination -- by
anybody that even might be qualified to do so; we do not care what
the final truth turns out to be -- and the
source of any useful information is of no slightest concern.
If you, can literally tear our theories to threads, fine -- we will
welcome such a result; because, if we are on
the wrong track, then we certainly want to become aware of any such
error. And perhaps we can each learn from each other.
While I have certainly not been slow to be critical of a large part
of the scientific community in the past (and while some of my
comments might have been a lot more critical than they actually
were by the time they appeared in print -- having had the hatchet
applied at a point between my typewriter and the printed page), I
think that I have been clear on the point that I do not consider
ALL scientists hypocrites. And if you really want to hear some
critical comments, attend the next meeting of scientists -- in any
field -- and lend an attentive ear to their comments about other
people working in areas related to their own fields of
specialization. And don't be surprised at a good part of the
language you will hear -- scientists can be specific in more ways
than one.
Quite frankly -- and this is perhaps an admission that I would
be well advised to keep to myself -- I have purposely been critical
of some scientists; in an effort to attract their attention to a
field of study which I consider important -- and if
this can only be done by arousing their indignation, sobeit. As
the kindness-expert said after he hit the mule across the head with
a club, ". . . first you must get their attention."
And if nothing else, we have apparently attracted their attention --
which is well and good, since that was what we were trying to
do.
And just what does all of this mean to the average bodybuilder?
Well, to begin with, it means that people -- a lot of people -- who
are qualified to conduct meaningful research are now working in
the direction of trying to improve both the methods and the
applications of these methods available for increasing strength
and/or muscular mass. It means that the bodybuilder is no longer
limited to advice put forward by people who simply don't know what
they are talking about -- people who may have perfectly good
intentions, but little if anything in the way of meaningful
information. Sincerity is no proof of knowledge -- or even good
intentions; I have known some very sincere burglars -- and if a man
runs at you with an axe, you better believe he is sincere.
And since the results of this work even at this rather early
point are already such that very significant improvements can be
provided by practical applications of recent discoveries to
presently-practiced training schedules, any bodybuilder desiring to
reach the top should at least attempt to follow developments as
closely as possible; because, in the near future, like it or not,
understanding the significance of these developments or not -- he
will be forced to compete with people who do at least understand
the practical significance of these discoveries.
And if your interest is limited to almost-simple-minded articles
devoted to sets and reps -- with no mention of how to perform
the exercises, and why they should be performed that way (or, if
any attempt is made in the direction of an explanation, with
statements being restricted to parroting of obvious nonsense) then,
my friend, you are about to be in trouble.
And while it would EASILY be possible to immediately point out at
least five-hundred so-called "facts" that are held to be self
evident truths by almost every bodybuilder on planet Earth but
which, in fact, are the exact opposite of the truth -- to do so
would probably have anything but a desirable effect in most cases.
After all, a man can only absorb so much at any one time -- and if
you tear down his entire world of beliefs, you may well destroy him
entirely. Secondly, while such things could be stated very
briefly, they could not be explained to the satisfaction of
very many people without going into such length of explanation that
the attention span of most people would be far exceeded.
Even if they had the required background such explanations would
entail. You think not? Well, mull over these few points: (1) the
easier a particular repetition within a given set seems, the harder
it actually is, (2) the first, seemingly easiest, apparently
safest, repetition in a set of ten repetitions leading to a
failure during an attempt to perform the tenth repetition and
involving an all out effort is 144 times (on the average) as
dangerous as the final, tenth repetition, (3) the amount of force
involved in such a set of curls using a 100 pound barbell would be
approximately 1,000 pounds in the first repetition and about 80
pounds in the tenth repetition -- a ratio of about 12 to 1 -- and
the "danger factor" would be calculated by squaring the force
ratio, or twelve times twelve, 144.
Or -- do you really believe that "wide-grip" chins stretch your
lats more than narrower-grip chins? If so -- wrong again; such a
wide hand spacing literally makes much in the way of stretching
impossible.
And why do you turn your palms forward (pronate the forearms) while
performing behind neck pulldowns? Since such a hand positioning
reduces the strength of the upper arms to the lowest possible level
--
and thus reduces the degree of producible results from this
exercise by at least 70%. Since the arms are already too weak to
provide much work for the much stronger torso muscles involved in
this movement -- and since you are limited insofar as torso muscle
development is concerned by the strength of the arms (or the
lack-of-strength of the arms). And yet you make a bad situation
far worse by putting the arms in an even-weaker position than
necessary.
And do you really think that the calves and forearms are some of
the "hardest" areas of the body to develop? While, in fact, they
may well be the easiest areas to develop to their maximum potential
sizes.
Shall I go on? No, I think not; if the above is not enough food
for thought at the moment, then I have nothing to teach you in any
case -- and if it is, then I must not make the mistake of
destroying too much of your world of beliefs at any one time. But
stick around for another year or two, and eventually we'll get
around to everything you ever heard on the subject of physical
training -- and quite a number of things that I absolutely
guarantee will be totally new, and very significant.
And who knows -- it might even turn out that you are right about
"something." And wouldn't that be a satisfaction of a sort?
But even if -- as it probably will -- it turns out that you are
right about quite a number of things, it certainly won't hurt your
thinking to correct any errors that do exist, and it won't hurt
your training progress, either.
And besides, do you really like training twenty hours a week while
raking ten years to get the same degree of results that you should
have produced in two years, or less, while training only about four
hours a week?
And do you really think that you can adjust the laws of physics to
suit yourself -- or ignore them without peril?
And as I said at the start of this article, if you intend to stay
in the bodybuilding field -- then be prepared for literally
ANYTHING; we really haven't dropped our heavy ammunition yet but
the bombers are on the way.
Arthur Jones Strength Training