Size or Strength
by Arthur Jones
From IronMan, January 1972 Volume 31 Number 2
More than twenty years ago, it was clearly stated in print in Iron Man Magazine "...the strength of a muscle is
in direct proportion to its size."
Unfortunately, the choice of words used at the time was such that most readers -- and from all appearances I
am tempted to say "all readers" -- missed the implication; or worse -- simply failed to understand what was
So let me put it in very simple terms...
- To increase the strength of a muscle, you MUST increase its size.
- Increasing the size of a muscle WILL increase its strength.
- If all of the other factors are known and allowed for, then an accurate measurement of the size of a muscle
will clearly and accurately indicate the strength of the muscle -- and vice versa.
- There IS a DEFINITE relationship between muscular strength and muscular size.
Once the above points are clearly understood, the implications are obvious; (a) bodybuilders, who are
primarily interested in muscular size (with or without actual muscular strength) MUST train for maximumpossible
muscular strength in order to build maximum-possible muscular size -- and (b) weightlifters, who are
interested only in strength, MUST train for maximum-possible muscular size in order to build maximumpossible
Most readers will probably fail to understand the above points -- at first; some readers will refuse to accept
them even in the end -- but they are NOT opinions, they are simple facts, even if (as happens to be the case)
facts that have been overlooked or misunderstood by the very people who need to understand them the most.
The reader is, of course, free to "believe" anything he cares to but I will again point out that you cannot
change physics, and I just as certainly did not discover them -- and in many cases I do not even understand
them; but I am, at least, aware of them. In this article, I am primarily interested in making other people aware
of the physical principles involved in the above outlined points -- and secondarily interested in explaining the
implications insofar as weight training is concerned.
Also, right from the start, it should be clearly understood that you can NOT compare any individual to any
other individual on a meaningful basis; except in cases involving identical twins, it is impossible to make any
sort of rational comparison between two men -- and even in cases involving identical twins there is still
enough difference to make such comparisons less than totally accurate.
But this does not mean that you cannot make comparisons; you certainly can make meaningful comparisons --
but only by comparing a man to himself at another point in time.
Arnold Schwarzenegger probably has at least three times the muscular bulk of his friend Franco Colombo --
yet Franco can "lift more weight" than Arnold can; which means absolutely nothing, since the amount of
weight lifted is only one of many factors that must be considered in order to determine strength. Franco
certainly has more "usable strength" -- but this is neither to his credit nor to Arnold's discredit; instead, it is a
simple accident -- an accident of birth, an accident determined by heredity.
Secondly, the actual difference" in usable strength may not be as great as the "apparent difference" -- as
the following simple example will clearly prove. Arnold's forearms are much longer than Franco's --
thus, when Arnold curls a barbell, he must move the weight a much greater distance than Franco does
when curling the same weight; if Arnold's forearms are three inches longer than Franco?s, then he must
lift the weight six inches more than Franco does -- and thus he is performing more work than Franco is,
even though both men are "lifting the same amount of weight."
Thirdly, Franco's "attachment points" may be more favorable than Arnold's are; if Franco's tendons are
attached a greater distance away from the joint of the elbow than Arnold' s are, then he is blessed with an
advantage in leverage -- given this advantage, he could lift more weight even if his forearms were the
same length as Arnold's, assuming that all of the other related factors were at least equal.
Fourthly, Franco's "muscular efficiency' may be higher than Arnold's is; a cubic inch of Franco's biceps
muscle may be capable of producing more power than an equal amount of muscle in Arnold's arms.
Fifthly, the very size of Arnold's muscles puts him at a disadvantage; while it is perfectly true that
doubling the size of Arnold's muscles will also double their power potential, it does not follow that such
an increase in muscular size will produce a proportionate increase in "measurable strength" -- because, as
the size of a muscle is increased, its "angle of pull" is unavoidably changed. Which changes will, in
some cases, be to your advantage -- but which, in most cases, will be to your disadvantage; in effect,
while the power potential (or "strength input") will rise in proportion to an increase in muscular size, the
measurable strength (or "strength output") will not increase in proportion.
But because of a general failure to understand the above points, most weight trainees are firmly
convinced that muscular size has little or nothing to do with muscular strength; and as a result of this
widespread misunderstanding, bodybuilders and weightlifters have gradually drifted apart -- until finally
we have reached a point of separation where the styles of training practiced by bodybuilders have little in
common with the training routines used by weightlifters.
Some day this will be understood -- and the information will be put into practical application by a large
number of trainees; and when that day comes, then you will see some weightlifting records that appear
literally impossible at the moment. 1,000 pound bench presses? 1,500 pound full squats? Who can say?
But one thing is certain; when a man that is blessed with a combination of high muscular efficiency, good
attachment points, and all of the other favorable factors mentioned above, does train in such a way that
he produces maximum possible muscular size, then he will also be so strong that his strength feats will
literally dwarf the best performances of today.
The best lifters of today are strong primarily because of favorable accidents of birth; in many cases, these
advantages are so great that a man can lift literally enormous poundages with actually very little muscle
mass but what could the same man do if his muscular size had been developed to its maximum possible
point? Which seldom if ever happens -- because, an individual that is blessed with such advantages is
seldom even aware that more muscular mass would make him even stronger than he is; and such a man is
seldom "pushed" by enough competition to bring out his real potential.
It may well be that the Russian lifters have already realized the obvious implications of these simple facts --
note, for example, the almost unbelievable muscular development of the lower backs of some of the
Russian lifters. And while I am resonably certain that the Russian lifters are using every type of drug you
ever heard of -- and probably some drugs that none of us ever heard of -- it still remains true that it takes
muscles to lift weights; and, believe it or not, understand it or not, agree with it or not, the more muscle
you have the more weight you can lift. Adding muscular size will ALWAYS make you stronger and
increasing your strength will ALWAYS increase your muscular size.
Franco might outlift Arnold even if he (Franco) had only a 14 inch arm -- but Franco with a 15 inch arm
will outtift Franco with a 14 inch arm, and Franco with a 16 inch arm will be stronger than Franco with a
15 inch arm; so long, at least, as the increase in size is an actual muscular increase. Adding size by
increasing fatty tissue will NOT increase strength; a recent visitor to DeLand had an arm that measured
18 1/8 hanging relaxed at his side -- but only 18 and one quarter inches when bent and flexed. When he
asked me "why" he had only an eignth of an inch difference, I told him, "...because you can't flex FAT."
Standing relaxed on the stage, Casey Viator does NOT stand out over many of his competitors some of
whom are actually more impressive than Casey is, when standing relaxed; but when Casey flexes his
muscles he seems to grow right before your eyes -- because almost all of his size is muscular size. Dr.
Elliott Plese, of Colorado State University's Department of Physiology, remarked that he was not
particularly impressed by Casey's arms, ?"...until he flexed them." But then he said, "...I simply couldn't
believe what happened."
Chuck Amato shows the same sort of change between his relaxed appearance and his flexed appearance;
and for the same reason -- because his size is muscular size.
For years, most bodybuilders have made the mistake of "bulking up"?-- gaining size by adding fatty tissue,
intending to reduce just prior to a contest; but no amount fatty tissue will increase muscular size -- and it won't
win a contest, either. If training is properly conducted, then almost all additions in size will be in the form of
muscular tissue, and there will be little if any need to ?cut down? just before a contest.
Apart from physique competition, there is little if any advantage to trying to maintain an extreme degree of
muscular definition -- but it is just as certain that more than an actually very small amount of unrequired fat will
always be a disadvantage; Paul Anderson is certainly strong, but he is just as certainly too fat -- he would perform
better with less fat, whether he is aware of it or not. Your car may run well with the trunk full of sand -- but it
will run better without the sand.
For as long as I can remember many people have claimed as much as 20 inches of difference between their
relaxed waist measurements and their normal chest measurements; but I have seen only one individual who
actually had such a difference, Sergio Oliva. And, as Sergio himself freely admits, while this is certainly an
advantage in a physique contest -- it is just as certainly a disadvantage when it comes to lifting weights.
Before he ever thought of entering a physique contest, Sergio was an olympic lifter -- and a good one; but he
would have been a much better lifter if his waist had been considerably larger. Now -- let it be clearly
understood that I am NOT suggesting that it would be to his advantage for Sergio to add fat to his waist; I simply
mean that the accident of heredity that gave Sergio his proportionately tiny waist (and his waist size is NOT a
result of his training) also prevented him from making full use of the strength of his legs and shoulders in
Thus it should be clear that an advantage for physique competition will frequently be a disadvantage for
weightlifting -- and vice versa; but it does not follow that bodybuilders should train differently -- weightlifters
and bodybuilders should train in almost exactly the same way, and someday they will. And the sooner the
Many leading bodybuilders will never be extremely strong?-- no matter how they train. And may leading
weightlifters will never show much in the way of a physique by present bodybuilding standards -- regardless of
the way they train. But, the same laws of basic physics apply with equal validity to both bodybuilders and
weight lifters -- as well as to football players, swimmers, and the participants in any sport where strength and
endurance is an advantageous factor.
In the lighter weight classes (in weightlifting), and in some other active sports, it is NOT an advantage to build a
maximum possible muscular size -- or, at least, not in all of the muscular structures of the body; 18inch arms, for
example, would NOT be an advantage to a sprinter -- since they would contribute little or nothing to his usable
strength as applied to running, and they would add to the weight that he had to move.
But increasing the size -- and thus the strength -- of the muscles that are involved in an active sport will
ALWAYS improve the performance of the individual concerned.
And since that, too, is the subject to gross misunderstanding, -- I will clarify that last statement a bit; the human
body is a unit?-- it must be treated as such, and it will ALWAYS react as such. There is a definite limit to the
size that you can build in the legs to without increasing the size of the upper body markedly; thus, in practice, a
runner could not build maximum possible muscular size into his legs without increasing the unusable weight of
the upper body to a point where the weight would be a greater disadvantage than the increased strength of the
legs could compensate for. In effect, greater muscular size will always produce greater strength -- and,
everything else being equal, greater strength will always produce better performances in any physical activity; but
in practice, other things don?t ?remain equal? -- and thus adding strength sometimes demands a price that is not
Secondly, since building muscular size (and thus strength) in any muscle demands training time and training
energy, and since the overall recovery ability of the individual will always be limited, it should also be obvious
that building such size may not be justified even in some cases where the increase in strength would not produce
an unacceptable increase in weight.
In practice, almost everything is a compromise -- and since the numbers of such possible compromises are almost
literally infinite, I will make no serious attempt to list them; participants in active sports must attempt to work out
such compromises on an individual basis -- but an awareness of the previously outlined factors should make such
determinations a bit easier.
By and large, most weightlifters come much closer to training properly than most bodybuilders do; but on the
whole, very few trainees -- bodybuilders, olympic lifters, or power lifter, train properly. Primarily, I think,
because they simply don't understand the actual factors involved -- basing their opinions on hearsay or common
belief rather than upon facts; and the very fact that apparently good results are produced in at least "some" cases
is merely proof of the productivity of systematic weight training rather than proof that the training was "right."
Let it also be clearly understood that I don't even claim to know just what constitutes "correct training" -- but I
am, at least, aware of a number of commonly practiced training styles that are NOT correct, or even logical. The
primary advantages of current training practices of weightlifters (as compared to the training styles of most
bodybuilders) are twofold; by and large, weightlifters train harder than bodybuilders do and, secondly, they train
less than bodybuilders do.
Almost all bodybuilders train far too much -- too often, too many exercises, too many sets -- and few
bodybuilders train anywhere near as hard as they should; most weightlifters train much harder than bodybuilders
do, but not hard enough -- and most weightlifters avoid the common bodybuilding mistake of training too much.
Muscularity (muscular definition) is primarily determined by dietary considerations -- and to a degree by
hereditary factors, and even by age; if -weightlifters watched their diet as closely as most top bodybuilders do,
and if they trained all of their major muscular structures in such the same manner that they train for their lifting
specialties -- then they would produce physiques much like those of bodybuilders, and as a result of far less work
than most bodybuilders devote to the same final result.
None of which is meant to imply that the current style of training used by weightlifters is exactly right -- it isn't;
but it is a lot closer to being right than the training style of most bodybuilders -- or, at the very least, it is "less
wrong" than the training of most current bodybuilders.
Unfortunately, however, weight trainees share more misconceptions and poor training habits than knowledge;
which is a bit surprising, since many weight trainees are medical doctors or members of other professional groups
who should have the educational background to at least understand basic physiology -- but who, in practice, still
seem to unhesitatingly accept the outright stupidities recommended by muscle-heads who aren't even literate.
The physiques of two of these men are certainly outstanding but they are just as certainly results of heredity to a
far greater degree than they are results of proper training. I do not mean to imply that the individuals mentioned
are not products of their training -- they are; nobody ever "just grew" to such muscular size. But the same
individuals could have obtained the same results from a lot less training, in a much shorter period of time; and
who can say what they might have produced if they had trained properly? Proper training would probably have
given them even better final results -- but since that is obviously in the realm of conjecture, it cannot be stated as
a fact. However, it is a fact that most of their actual training was wasted -- and that most of it was wrong and that
much of it actually held back their progress.
An actually very small amount of training is all that is required to maintain existing levels of muscular sizestrength
and it should be self-evident truth to anybody that any exercise in excess of the amount required for
maintaining the status quo would produce the result of stimulating additional growth; and it will, if the exercise is
"hard enough? to meet the intensity-of-effort requirement for such growth stimulation -- but if not, then it is
simply wasted effort.
Secondly, if the "amount" of such exercise (the amount in excess of that required for maintaining existing levels
of size-strength) is too great, then growth will be impossible even if the intensity-of-effort requirement is great
enough to stimulate growth. For all practical purposes, it appears that exercise cannot be "too hard" -- but you
certainly can (rather easily can) perform "too much" exercise. Insofar as the exercise itself is concerned, there
are actually only two factors of importance -- intensity-of-exercise and amount-of exercise; which two factors
must be rather delicately balanced in relation to each other. Almost anything which will increase the intensity-ofexercise
is a step in the right direction -- so long as this can be accomplished while keeping the amount-ofexercise
within the limits imposed by the recovery ability.
Growth is the result of over-compensation. Or, at least, this is true in regard to growth that excess normal
development. A clear understanding of this process can be gained by a logical examination of the following
simple example; an example concerning the formation of a callous -- an example chosen only because such
growths occur in plain sight, where they can be easily observed, where the cause-effect relationship is
The skin on the palms of your hands is naturally thicker than it is on the backs of you hands -- for a very good
reason; and this extra thickness will occur on the palms even if you never perform anything in the way of work
that actually requires it -- it is ?natural growth. However, if you perform hard work involving the use of your
ands, work that brings your hands into contact with abrasive objects (or even ?hard? objects), then the natural
thickness of skin on your palms may not be enough to protect your hands; in which case you will develop a
callous in any area that is exposed to such work.
Or at least you will IF THE CONDITIONS ARE RIGHT.
But the conditions must be right; first, the work must be hard enough to stimulate the growth of a callous --
second, the work must not reach an amount that will prevent the growth of a callous.
If you work hard, the growth of a callous will be stimulated -- but if you work too much, the growth cannot take
No amount of rubbing the palm of your hand gently?will stimulate the growth of a callous -- so it is not the
amount of contact that causes a callous to grow. But if, instead, you rub your palm only once -- BUT RUB IT
HARD -- then the growth of a callous will be stimulated.
However, if you rub it too often -- or too many times -- then no callous will result; because, even though the body
many be trying to form a callous, it is easily possible to remove the extra tissue faster than the body can provide
At the risk of over-repetition or over simplification, let us go over this situation one more time -- in the most
- Your palm has no callous
- You rub the palm gently with your finger -- but repeatedly, and often.
- No callous will ever result -- because no extra thickness of skin is required to protect the hand form such
contact. The normal thickness of the skin is adequate under the circumstances -- extra protection is not needed.
- Then you rub the palm once with a file -- hard. And you repeat this action once each forty-eight hours.
- A callous will start to form almost immediately -- and will quickly grow to a great thickness.
- Because the normal thickness of the skin cannot provide adequate protection under the circumstances -- extra
protection is required, and the body will provide this protection in the form of a callous.
- This is over-compenstation -- the body replaces the normal thickness of the skin that was reduced by the
pressure of the file, and then over-compensates by adding extra tissue in the form of the callous.
- If the conditions are exactly right then the growth of a callous will be very rapid -- and this growth will
continue to a point almost beyond belief; to a point wher ethe palms of the hands will be protected by a layer of
tissue as thick and hard as the soles of your shoes.
- But if you rub the file on your palm too often or too much then no callous will ever result -- because you
will remove the extra issue as fast as the body provides it.
The growth of human muscular structures takes place in a very similar fashion -- for similar reasons; part of such
growth is natural -- but beyond a certain point, growth must be both simulated and permitted. Such extra
growth will not occur unless it is stimulated by heavy demands upon the existing levels of muscular size-strength
resulting from natural growth -- and it cannot occur unless the recovery ability of the system is able to both
compensate and over compensate at the same time.
If all of the recovery ability of the system is used up in efforts to compensate, then nothing will be left for the
over-compensation which produces growth in excess of normal growth.
In practice, most bodybuilders quickly fall into a pattern of training where the amount of their training uses up
all of their recovery ability -- and growth thus becomes impossible. Secondly, the seldom train hard enough to
stimulate over-compensation -- so little or no growth would occur even if their system was capable of over
The situation is mad much worse by the fact that very few trainees (even world-famous bodybuilders) seem to
have any real idea of just what is actually required in a way of exercise to cause over-compensation; most
bodybuilders are interested in the appearance of great strength (with or without actual strength in proportion),
and they are firmly (if falsely) convinced that muscular size has no relationship to muscular strength.
Almost all bodybuilders are firmly convinced that they are training very hard -- but, in fact, I have never seen a
single bodybuilder who trained as hard as he should; almost all bodybuilders confuse amount of training?with
intensity of effort -- and, too, most bodybuilders are simply not willing to train in an actually hard?manner.
They believe -- they WANT TO BELIEVE -- that they can an produce the same results training "more" by
performing more sets. or more exercises, or training more often, which is at least understandable, since it is
certainly more pleasant to do an extra set than it is to do the extra two or three repetitions that should have
been performed at the end of the first set -- but such wishful thinking won't change facts, and no amount of
extra sets will make up for a lack of the final, actually productive, repetitions that most bodybuilders skip.
In a set of ten repetitions leading to a point of failure during the tenth repetition. the first seven or eight
repetitions are simply "preparation" -- they do little or nothing to stimulate growth; but they do use up part of
the recovery ability that makes growth possible. Thus -- if the last two or three repetitions are not performed --
then the set was wasted; worse than that, it actually did some harm to your progress -- because, while it did
nothing to stimulate growth, it did exhaust part of your recovery ability.
All of which is so simple, so self-evidently true, that it seems ridiculous to even have to say it; but most of
which seems to remain a mystery to most weight trainees.
Many bodybuilders are perfectly willing to take dangerous drugs that they know little or nothing about --
simply in an effort to improve their "recovery ability," which is the purpose of such drugs; and it never seems
to occur to such people that their normal recovery ability would be more than adequate for any amount of
possible growth if they didn't waste it performing unnecessary sets and exercises. But it should, at least, be of
interest to intelligent readers that the so-called "growth drugs" do little or nothing for a normal, healthy
individuals nothing worthwhile; at least -- nothing but expose him to the dangers of becoming impotent.
Which, of course, is their own affair -- but which they should at least be made aware of.
The use of such hormones has produced some rather spectacular cures in individuals suffering from asthma --
and it has also produced a very high percentage of directly drug-related deaths; which last point has been
overlooked or even suppressed -- certainly not given the publicity it deserves.
And now. because of an avalanche of requests for such information, I will briefly turn to a more personal
note; a recent telephone call came from a man who said he wanted to ask me some personal questions, and
since I was out at the time he asked my secretary how old I am. He said that he had heard that I am seventytwo
My secretary told him, "...oh, no, Mr. Jones is a very young man." Which reply probably gave the caller the
impression that I am in my early twenties.
But then, "old" or "young" is a matter of viewpoint; perhaps the caller would have done well to ask my
secretary how old she is.
Actually. how old I am -- or even "who" or "what" I am, is of no slightest importance to anybody but myself,
or shouldn't be; and in the matter of my age, I will only say that I am neither seventy-two nor in my twenties --
and that I should be old enough to realize that it is impossible to redirect the thinking of fools, but am
apparently still young enough to be foolish enough to keep trying.
And for the information people who may have jumped to the incorrect assumption that I am biased against
both drugs and dietary considerations, I will mention that I have had quite a lot of experience with both drugs
and diet; having, for example, had extensive experience developing the techniques for ?drug captures? of
large African animals -- I instigated, planned, paid for, directed, and carried out the first (and so far, the only)
large-scale capture of African elephants, using the recently developed ?capture drugs.?
In the way of experience with diet, it should be noted that I was in the business of importing a wide variety of
extremely delicate wild animals for many years; many of which animals were thought to be impossible to keep
alive in captivity -- before I did so.
During the fairly recent elephant-capture operation, for example, we met extreme opposition from
professional conservationists who insisted that it was literally impossible to keep small African elephants
alive in captivity -- and they believed that it was impossible, because they had never been able to do so; but,
after the fact, after we clearly demonstrated that we could keep even the smallest elephants alive and healthy, --
and doing so was primarily a matter of diet -- then the same "experts" were very quick to claim credit for our
Which -- people being people, all over the world -- was not surprising, but which should at least make it clear
that I am aware of the importance of diet factors, and do have experience along that line, experience with diet,
experience with drugs, and experience with people.
Nor is my experience so limited I am holder of United States Airline Transport Pilot's License No. 1042912,
and also have a South African Airline Pilot's license -- together with more than 17,000 hours of pilot-incommand
experience, in everything from intercontinental transport category aircraft to helicopters, experience
extending over a span of more than thirty-two years of flying, on every continent except Antarctica, and in
practically every country in the world, transporting people, animals, cargo, and bombs. Operating out of
international airports and jungle landing-strips.
I am married, have four children -- the oldest twenty-five, the youngest fifteen -- and I have one grand-child:
my youngest daughter is a sophomore in college (pre-med school) at the age of seventeen, and on the honor
roll, she plans to be a medical doctor -- which will not be out of character in my family since there have been
eight other doctors in my family during my lifetime, my father, my mother, my brother, my sister, my paternal
grand-father, my uncle, my cousin. and my brother-in-law .
Fifteen years ago, I became involved in motion picture production -- and since then I have produced more than
three-hundred films for television and-or theatrical distribution.
For many years I have been very interested in the treatment of poisonous snake bites and have, I think, done
rather well in that direction -- having treated more than four hundred serious snake bites without, so far, even
as much as the loss of the use of a digit of a finger.
None of the above will be of any slightest interest to most people -- and it shouldn't be but even a full personal
history would not be enough for some other people, who will, I am afraid, just have to remain unsatisfied in
their curiosity, but I will point out for the benefit of everybody that "who" I am or "what" I am is of no
concern - my ideas are either valid or they are not valid, and the validity of ideas is not dependent upon
personalities. While it may be perfectly natural to believe something that is stated by a person whom you
respect -- it is frequently true that you will later regret having done so -- and, of course, it is lots easier to
respect people who put forth ideas that agree with your own preconceptions -- another common mistake.
Back on the subject of diet briefly; even now, we are working on that factor -- and, eventually, when were are
ready, and when were are very sure of our ground, we will have more to say on the subject. And don?t forget
what I said in an earlier article, ?".... we haven't dropped our heavy ammunition yet."?
And, regarding my comments in an earlier article about the stupidity of using an ?easy curl? bar, and or a
Scott curling bench;?do you really thin that you can run faster without using your legs? Well, that is not too
far out of line with what you are trying to do when you use an ?easy curl? bar -- since you are trying to
increase your curling strength while forcing the arms into a position where it is literally IMPOSSSIBLE for all
of the biceps muscle to function.
Think back -- can you reverse curl as much as you can regular curl? Certainly not. But, why not? Because,
in the palms down, pronated, position used in a reverse curl the biceps are forced into a position where they
cannot function fully. An ?easy curl? bar does not quote go that far in that direction -- but it goes at least part
of the way, much too far to permit the biceps to function best.
The Scott curling bench? Well, in that case you are removing resistance near the contracted position of
normal curling movement and replacing it with resistance near the starting (extended) position; a very poor
swap, one that can only reduce the production of result rather than increase it. In a curl, you need the
resistance as close as possible to the position of full contraction of the biceps; and while the use of a Scott
Curling bench certainly ?moves the resistance,?it just as certainly moves it in the wrong direction.
And for the benefit of any readers who fell that they are training ?hard? -- or who feel that our trainees are not
training a lot harder -- I will make the following observation; I have been known to make wagers, for money --
so come down to DeLand and run through a workout with some of our football players, and bring your money
and your ?sick bag? with you. If you are foolish enough to bet, you'll need the money to pay off with -- and if
you try to follow our trainees through a workout, you'll need the sick bag, whether you bet or not.
Would you like to get a FREE eBook?
Arthur Jones The Father of High Intensity Bodybuilding
Arthur Jones is the inventor of the Nautilus exercise machines, and was well noted for changing the concepts of exercise away from the old school of training, which involved hours in the gym, to High Intensity Training.
This amazing eBook you will show you how to pack on mass, strength and power, faster then you would believe possible! Here's just some of what you'll learn:
- What are the true limits of muscle size?
- How to create a natural anabolic state.
- How to build the maximum muscle in the minimum amount of time.
- How to warm-up properly.
- How to overcome sticking points in training.
- What is the true significance of such factors as "pump" and "soreness"?
- Freeweights versus machines.
- Advanced HIT principles.
- How to build the ulitimate physique.
- . . . and much, much more!
You can get the Arthur Jones eBook FREE whn you order Mike Mentzer's Heavy Duty Book
Heavy Duty - A "must have" book for those who want to collect all of Mike Mentzer's works and follow the evolution of his teaching throughout the years. Mike reveals how you too can reach your greatest bodybuilding potential in the shortest amount of time, while training less that one hour a week! Mike reveals the role of genetics in bodybuilding, psychological and motivational factors, unique dietary considerations, high-intensity training principles, training to failure, and places bodybuilding into a completely unique perspective.
Only $24.95 plus $7.00 S&H
© 2006 Muscle-Building.com