How about a hand for the medicine man interview?!! Total gold captured on tape. Bravo sir. Mr Jones wisdom shall endure for eternity like his disciples Mike Mentzer thanks to these amazing interviews that were light years beyond their time.
Mr. Jones was just an incredible man. Some people might think he's "too much" or "degrading," but it's just that he's simply had enough with stupidity. I really am so honored to have found him, he Mentzer brothers, Boyer Coe, and the others. 🙏💯 Heavy Duty/H.I.T. all the way!
Arthur Jones was brilliant, especially in reference to the idea of single set high intensity training. He was both a rebel and scientist - refusing to accept common dogma blindly, always in search of a more logical, rational approach to training.
@@dtm4071 I wish he kept the company and brought his MedX ideas to Nautilus. I would have loved to see what evolved and how the plate-loaded line (MedX Avenger) would have been under the Nautilus banner and research. What a shame that Nautilus ended the way it did, or at least of what I know of how it ended. I understand Arthur sold to something of a con man?
He's right about the Nautilus Duo Squat. Best leg exercise ever if you used it right. My legs got bigger when I used that than with any other exercise, including barbell squats. I also rolled off the machine and had to puke a couple times after using it. Legs sore for a week. Good times.
The body does not understand why it is under so much stress. Puking is just the body saying it isn't going to waste energy right now on digestion since something more serious must be happening.
@@jackarmstrong5645I fully believe this. When I go just undeniably hard on legs I can’t help but vomit. Right after I always feel much better, like a stress is relieved, and I think vomiting is the body way to rid of the excess stress being put on it in a short time.
@@redblack8414 "if you've never puked from a set of bicep curls, you dont know true intensity"...i think thats how the book starts off. Haha. The author is a PhD and its half a workout guide half a history lesson. Its good.
@@redblack8414 let me know how you like it! I enjoyed the history accounts of Arthur Jones / Nautilus / and the body building era that occurred while the HIT method was utilized.
When common sense in the fitness industry existed, and now we have nonsense. Thanks for posting! It’s time to bring logic and common sense back to fitness. For the well being and the health of people and let’s get rid of confusion
If mentzer was Moses- Arthur Jones was Yahweh. I can see the similarity between mentzers and jones speeches and I absolutely adore their wit and brilliant explanations. Pioneers and geniuses in their own rights
@@billy77511 that is demonstrably false... how do you explain natural bodybuilding competitors making small improvements from year to year 5+ years into their careers? Lemme guess..."they're all on gear," right? I swear most people don't have functioning fucking brains. Zero logic, zero evidence, just retarded claims....
Quite interesting how he says the study won't be published until the complete 1000 subjects tested in the study. I wish more studies would use sample sizes this large. Obviously it depends on how hard it is to get subjects and what the task is at hand but most studies now seem to be small relative to what id like to see
Hopefully they create machines that are Max contraction training friendly that also allows a single negative after failure. Mike Mentzer was in the midst of training clients only in the maximum contracted position but not quite ready to do so full time especially since the available equipment isn't friendly nor are the weight stacks heavy enough. John Little has released a few books that are of great value. The 5 minute workout, static contraction training and Max contraction training (the same as static but it's more properly named).
@@franzhulk2947 There's only one position in which the optimum amount of muscle fibers are recruited and therefore stimulated...that's the maximum contracted position. Stretch is the complete opposite of contraction.
@luciano-km7mq I think you're both misunderstanding one another or you're both not being precisely clear in why you're emphasizing, the maximum stretch or contraction. Maximum recruitment of fibers through a full range of motion is ideal, however intensity can only be maximized under peak contraction. I don't think either of you is necessarily advocating ONLY focusing on the peak contraction or maximum stretch on the muscle. I think you're both simply emphasizing the importance of separate vital aspects of the movement.
The original isokinetic machines required the user to move quickly to register resistance. Otherwise the lever was slack. The machine did not move on its own. They provided NO negative resistance, under any circumstances. HOWEVER, because 'isokinetic' merely means 'same speed', modern isokinetic machines are COMPLETELY different: They're motorized, & pre-set to a desired speed. The user resists with full effort, attempting , FUTILEY, to speed-up the positive & stop the negative. Effort is measured on a computer monitor.
The terminology ISO is not from latin, it is from the greek word ISOS meaning "equal to, the same" Used in English however, it does not all correlate like it should.....ISOLATE means...."to set or place apart, to detach so as to make alone," This lit a spark in my brain when I heard him say it, because of "whey protein isolate"..... we all know what that is if we were ever duped into purchasing enormous amounts of protein powder to build muscle..... An English word.... isogenous (adj.) most certainly does correlate..... "having the same or similar origin," I dont enjoy correcting him, as he is the grandfather of bodybuilding, and i agree with 99% of what he says, but hey, i had to look into it and throw that in there......
You'd think by now that there would be machines with electro magnets that read your efforts, analyse, and adjust accordingly for a three set (two warm up, one set to failure) workout that you can program in assisted reps and negatives?
@DJCJ999 There are now the Sweedish XForce machines that increases the resistance by 40% during the negative (eccentric) phase. Unfortunately they are very rare in North America.
Sounds like you'd appreciate ARX's 'accommodating resistance". Adjust ARX for your desired protocol's range, set length, & (unalterable) rep-speed, then futilely attempt to speed the positive & stop the negative. Every point of effort, positive & negative, of every rep, is monitor-graphed & recorded. (The strength you exhibit when close to extension of the leg press's early reps will astound you, especially in the negative.) If you want a warmup, just don't push as hard for the first couple reps. There's no failure; you're always using whatever strength you have left; the machine would finish the set even if you left the room:^). It's light-years beyond failure, so keep sets short to avoid over-training.
@@redblack8414 If using a well-designed, low-friction machine, or free weights, you can accentuate the negative by going slower than in the positive. This won't work with cheap equipment, as weights going slow will stick on the guide-rods, having the exact opposite of the desired effect.
@@redblack8414 When you can't finish a rep, hold it isometrically at the failure point, until it comes down on it's own, being slowed by your available strength. This as close to negative failure as is safe. Then there's no need for a heavier negative.
@@lazur1 It is not the same. What you describe will happen only on the last repetition of a set. With an XForce machine a 40% resistance increase will happen on EVERY repetition. Also, the greater resistance will be applied to the entire range of movement during the eccentric phase not only a partial range of movement. The technique that you suggest can also be applied to the very last rep (the one that you can't complete) on an XForce machine like any other machine or a simple barbell.
I am fortunate that my local YMCA has them. Most of them were bought up by private buyers to put in their home gyms. MedX also came out after Arthur’s time and those are what replaced Nautilus machines. Dorian Yates just recently acquired MedX so that company may start building fitness centers again.
Arthur sold Nautilus & started MedX as a line of medical machines, which soon expanded into exercise machines. They're commonly found where Nautilus used to be. Some of the most serious trainers have maintained Nautilus machines.They are fantastic.
@@christopherjames9843 It's somewhat of mystery where the machines that were already in gyms are now. They're sturdy, & expense is no longer an issue. I know of a handful of private gyms have them, but these machines made Jones millions. They're out there somewhere.
Not positive, but I think the very first person in frame, walking across the stage to set papers in the table, is Ken Hutchins. Can anyone confirm this?
No matter how far back I look at Ken's photos/videos, i can't find him with such dark hair, but obviously, his hair wasn't always grey/white, so .... hmmm.
Mike did say it but he credited Mr Jones before quoting him. Mike said this (paraphrasing): 'Arthur Jones said something that struck me as remarkably intelligent and that was... (Quotes Arthur Jones).'
One thing that makes me question this guys intelligence about the subject is at 32:00 when he states that if you can do 1 rep with 400 pounds, then you can probably do 100 reps with 380 pounds. Any thoughts on this statement?
Like most geniuses, when your brain capacity is so far above the average man he struggles to comprehend what you are saying, you have a very large hat size.
Jones'/Nautilus' asymmetrical pulley-wheel, "cam", changes leverage throughout a rep. Ideally, providing equally-challenging resistance in each angle of a user's limbs: accommodating/variable resistance. A perfect cam'd cause failure at arbitrary points of the failed rep. Problem: *There's never been a perfect cam, not even close.* More importantly: Does the ability to fail at arbitrary points in the ROM matter?: Is it better? More recent research concludes: *NO* . Failing in the weak/stretch range, as occurs with non-cammed pulleys, & free weights, provides all the stimulus a muscle needs.
The purpose of having a resistance curve that more closely matches the strength curve of the activity being performed is for *efficiency* and/or *safety* not *effectiveness* . It avoids being underloaded during portions of the range of motion. Underloading requires either more time (less efficient) or more weight (less safe) to achieve the same amount of inroad. Achieving failure at various portions of a range of motion isn't a *goal* , it's a *measurement* .
@@DorkusDidactus I'm not sure I understand your point. 1/Achieving failure at arbitrary points in the ROM is a goal when designing a cam. The goal, & measurement to determine if it's been reached, (it hasn't), aren't contradictory. 2/Re efficiency vs effectiveness. Yes, as long as one trains non-explosively, full-range, & to failure, a matched resistance curve won't yield better results or greater safety, but to not consider greater efficiency to be more effective is nit-picking to the extreme. Semantics be damned: Many subjects, won't/can't dedicate themselves to a less efficient workout, & athletes need the great majority of their training to be skill rehearsal. Efficiency & effectiveness are "joined at the hip" in practice.
@@lazur1 I shall address your points. 1. The inclusion of a cam in a piece of strength training equipment does not dictate the *protocol* of execution. Training to momentary muscular failure is part of a *protocol* of execution, not equipment design. Furthermore, strength training equipment need not have a cam in order to have a variable resistance curve. 2a. I already explained why safety increases as the resistance curve of equipment more closely matches the strength curve of the individual executing the activity. This is even *more* relevant for protocols that include proper repetition prescriptions, since the strength curve of the individual will be trivially modulated due to the protocol. 2b. Effectiveness and efficiency are *completely* different metrics. Effectiveness is an evaluation of the stimulation/adaptation achieved. Efficiency is the amount of time spent. The prioritization of these metrics in consideration with the aspects of general fitness is a context-specific driver of program and protocol design/choice.
@@DorkusDidactus 1.a:The original Nautilus cams were designed w/non-explosive reps & single sets to failure in mind. Whether a subject or trainer chooses to act otherwise is fine, it doesn't make other protocols impossible to follow. 1.b: Yes, there are other ways to affect variable resistance; (mostly in an undesireable direction), so? 2.a: Sounds like we agree: Safety's no consideration when highly explosive reps are executed on a "closely matched" machine, but largely assured on virtually any machine if no jerking, lurching, or explosive movements are attempted.2.b: OK, you win one: Effectiveness & efficiency aren't synonyms, but the original intent of a cam is for them to come together, as failure, at the same time.
Arthur is my favorite.. That being said bodybuilding was bro science then and it is bro science today. Nobody can say for certain what to eat, how often to train, how heavy or light to train, how much volume or frequency. Every expert says they know. From Gironda to Jones to todays "experts".
My point is bro science isn't science at all. Everybody and their brother claims to know the keys to optimal growth, diet, frequency volume etc... Obviously what I said you had difficulty comprehending. @@UncleMike81
@@UncleMike81 Translate bro science to anecdotal: It's the lowest* , and the highest** form of evidence. * It works for you, doesn't mean it works for everyone. ** It works for you.
It's interesting that AJ seemed unfamiliar with the tendency for humans to have a higher proportion of slow twitch fibers in muscles of the lower body...
If one trains to failure, slow- & fast-twitch proportions are a non-issue. Limbs w/more slow-twitch will rep longer before failure. Eventually, the last reps will reach the fast-switch.
As they say, "The proof is in the pudding." Arthur was one heck of a promoter. But, what never came of all of it, his hyperbole, were athletes setting weightlifting or any other kind of records, or bodybuilders using his machines to win shows. Casey Viator was his poster boy but had gained much of his physique pre-Nautilus. Arnold S. and Sergio O. visited Deland, Florida and neither man adopted the machines nor the workout theory. Arthur's greatest contribution was delivering a better understanding of recovery time from short and intense workouts. It was the antithesis of the Weider mag idealized workout nonsense. Nautilus machines, I think, are great for general training purposes for non-athletes, good for injury recovery I think, too. His whole theory of negatives has been largely disproved. Everyone has access to chinning bars. Go give it a try. Negatives are a nice workout, a diversion. I think his overzealous position on negatives was counteracting other machine mfgrs. selling positive contraction only devices. They didn't gain much acceptance, either.
Regardless, the knowledge and equipment made and distributed was and still is light years ahead and more honest in terms of applicability and results than 99% of bullshit today
When it comes to bodybuilding, it’s the genetics that win the competitions. Doesn’t matter which way you train, you can only get so big. I do believe you can reach your genetic potential faster with the nautilus machines as they are better then some (not all) free-weight exercises. An example of this could be at 17:27 Adding to this, you can still gain same amount of muscle doing just the positives of an exercise, but doing slow negatives along with positives will get you there much faster.
Law of Specificity: 1/To excel at swinging a bat, throwing a punch, or lifting a barbell, one must practice the exact movement with the exact equipment used in competition. 2/Gym-rats enjoy spending time working out.The last thing they'd want would be to be too fatigued to continue after 20minutes. 3/Arnold Schwarzeneggar has a basement full of machines inspired by Arthur's principles.Maybe they work better after a bodybuilder's no longer on steroids.
@@lazur1 Right. It was determined some time ago by Olympic lifters that they must work with that day's 1 rep max. If you can snatch 350 lbs., training with 300 lbs. would cause a lifter to alter his pull, else overpull its height. Correct. Most gym rats do low quality work and still manage to train too much. Finally, I'd guess that Arnold does use machines at his age (mid 70s) to eliminate spotters, reduce injury prospects, just get some work in.
@@bradreid6057 Having a healthy strong population doesn't require them to look impressive naked, or to lift heavy weights, just safely get them a bit stronger, generically, over time. "Eliminating Spotters, Reducing Injury Prospects, and Just Get(ting) Some Work In", is what matters for the great majority of us; non-athletic, non-competitive trainees, who aren't gonna eat more to get bigger, & don't wanna buy a new wardrobe to fit bigger muscles. Resistance training should be done by everyone, every week, for life. Sedentary 70+yr-olds will get exponentially more functional improvement from training than will a young athlete. Let's not scare them off with unnecessarily-heroic requirements.
Indeed.sustainability is the #1 issue. 6wks of training followed by years of sloth is pointless. Psychology matters. I find that I can put myself through a torturous high intensity workout, as long as I can look forward to a week off. It's worked for 27 yrs. Each of us needs to find something they can stick with.
Casey denied accusations of drug use, (& of sneaking off do high-volume work), to the day he died. From my experience with similar protocols, the insane workload Arthur put Casey through would make a 'cheat' workout impossible. There were so many other ways this was rigged, that drugs might not've been needed. There are strong opinions on both sides, proof on neither.
@@MrRepearco many incidents, Colorado experiment for one. Even in this video he makes moronic claims...says if a man can squat once with 400 he would be capable of squatting 380 for 100 reps. Do you know how stupid that sounds, and how much bullshit it is!
@@MrRepearco It's also curious that Jones used bodybuilders to promote his method. Why choose men who built their body with the very methods that he said were inferior? Why not take some men with no training, who wished to develop size and strength and do a 1 year experiment to show the world the results that could be achieved? Instead he used bodybuilders, who all used steroids, and used them to promote his methods. Sure 1 set of exercises works, but 2 sets works better and 3 sets works even better. The research all shows this. With 1 set you get 50% of the exercise benefits, 2 sets about 70% and 3 sets about 80%. As you add more sets you can see you get diminishing returns, so 3 seems to be that goldilocks zone. But a person pressed for time and not motivated to do more sets can do fine with just 1 set. But 1 set is not superior.
@@MrRepearco Did you believe that story at the end of this video? A 285lb. football player than could not chin himself one time, could not even lower himself with a negative chin. And in 12 days they developed him to the point he could do 4 1/2 chins. That is a completely bullshit story and it would be impossible to make such progress in 12 days. Even more so because of the man's bodyweight. A 120lb. could probably chin himself because 120lbs. is not very heavy. But strength is not proportionate to size, so the task before the 285lb. man is herculean, even for 1 rep!
@idx1941 Using bodybuilders was doomed to backfire, especially when done off steroids. It would only prove to reinforce the idea that typical bodybuilding routines are superior when the bodybuilder inevitably went back to volume training and started juicing again. No one style of training can meet or exceed any style done on juice. One set to failure is good for the non-bodybuider, but by definition that person is not so interested in max hypertrophy. Virtually all the discussions about HITs effectiveness seems to revolve around bodybuilder-level hypertrophy, unfortunately.
@@STGStrengthandPower I read 'And God Laughs', The Nautilus Bulletins, and 'My First Half-Century in the Iron Game.' - I also read Edgar Jones' book: Nautilus: The Lost Empire of Arthur Jones I even sent an email to Edgar asking what Arthur thought of Mike Mentzer. I just got a sort of grumbly reply ... ha... - I have not read the book by John S., I'll have to look it up.
For as much as I admire him I still think after my experience that his whole point on training to failure was complete bs. There's some kind of truth in limiting volume and training hard, yet for me training to failure didn't work well, but to be fair nothing else did. The fact is that it is not necessary to train to failure to achieve whatever you can given your genetics, if it's not necessary then why do it?
I’ve been lifting for about 9 years. And most of the 9 years I’ve done the typical 8-10 rep for 3-4 sets and hardly gained any muscle mass at all the whole time. The last 2 years I switched to super slow HIT and really emphasizing negatives after positive muscle failure and I’ve gained more mass in these last 2 years than all the years prior and I can lift significantly more weight with no injury too. It seems like super slow does work somehow.
Recall the old-school '8 to 12 reps' double-progressive system: You added weight when you got to 12. Good, but if the previous 8,9,10,& 11 reps weren't to failure, you can't be sure you needed those lower reps; maybe you could've done 12 when you did 8. THAT'S the virtue of failure, if you can do 1 more rep than the last time, you KNOW you've gained strength, you didn't merely try harder the second session.
Jones was a pioneer in resistance training. We have become a society of who's right instead of what's right!
You are a genius 👏
Well said my man well said 👏 👍 👌 🙌
@@Horsecockbadger😊😅😅😊+😊+
And you are gayan 👏
A owl with a pure heart speaks wisdom🎉
I was thinking of searching for Arthur Jones seminar and this showed up
Thank you for posting this. I have always wanted to hear the man in a full seminar
His honesty and simplicity is refreshing. Compared to all the BS you see and hear now a days where everyone is an expert in everything
Amen brutha
Wish we could bring this era back
I am.
@Jay Vincent is there a video of Elliott Hulses results from doing HIT for an extended period of time?
What year was this ?
@@lazur1 i think 1986
HIT is dead.
Artur jhones mike menzter they were truly ahead, rip
Truth. Drew Baye has carried the torch well tho
we need more Arthur Jones
It will never happen again and that is sad.
I could listen to this dude talk all day !
Thank you for putting this up!
Thank you so much for posting this
How about a hand for the medicine man interview?!! Total gold captured on tape. Bravo sir. Mr Jones wisdom shall endure for eternity like his disciples Mike Mentzer thanks to these amazing interviews that were light years beyond their time.
Thank you for posting this! Very much appreciated 🦾🦾
Thanks for sharing this is gold 🙌
Thanks! I have been waiting for this one for so long
I'm dropping the next one tomorrow.
thank you soo much
Great stuff!
Very interesting and brilliant man.
Thanks a lot bro 💪🏽
GREAT CONTENT/ Thanks so much for uploading
The vision for health and fitness. Then CrossFit came along.
Good one
Lol joe weider did a lotta damage too
& HIIT , which is volume based and not actually intensity
And Arthur's vision is still superior
@@whatever_it_takes6691 completely
I subscribed because of the Arthur Jones seminars. Thank you so much for posting them
Glad you enjoyed it. I'm slowly over time trying to upload my old archive of stuff I've accumulated over the years so everyone can view it.
Mr. Jones was just an incredible man. Some people might think he's "too much" or "degrading," but it's just that he's simply had enough with stupidity.
I really am so honored to have found him, he Mentzer brothers, Boyer Coe, and the others. 🙏💯
Heavy Duty/H.I.T. all the way!
Genius
Jones was best described as an angry genious
Arthur Jones was brilliant, especially in reference to the idea of single set high intensity training. He was both a rebel and scientist - refusing to accept common dogma blindly, always in search of a more logical, rational approach to training.
Admitted he was wrong when he sold Nautilus.
@@dtm4071 I wish he kept the company and brought his MedX ideas to Nautilus. I would have loved to see what evolved and how the plate-loaded line (MedX Avenger) would have been under the Nautilus banner and research. What a shame that Nautilus ended the way it did, or at least of what I know of how it ended. I understand Arthur sold to something of a con man?
@@dtm4071 wrong about what?
@@JUAN242R That training to failure is needed for muscle growth, It is not. He was a con man.
@@dtm4071 please give me the link where he says that
Gracias
So Mike mentzer was emulating arthur jones all along interesting 🤔
So awesome
He's right about the Nautilus Duo Squat. Best leg exercise ever if you used it right. My legs got bigger when I used that than with any other exercise, including barbell squats. I also rolled off the machine and had to puke a couple times after using it. Legs sore for a week. Good times.
The body does not understand why it is under so much stress. Puking is just the body saying it isn't going to waste energy right now on digestion since something more serious must be happening.
It also cause most of the lawsuits against Nautilus. I think that was most likely why it was discontinued.
@@jackarmstrong5645I fully believe this. When I go just undeniably hard on legs I can’t help but vomit. Right after I always feel much better, like a stress is relieved, and I think vomiting is the body way to rid of the excess stress being put on it in a short time.
Duo Leg Press replaced it, was more commercially successful.
50:06 - "the new book by Ell Darden coming out"..the first mention of one of the greatest strength books of all time.
@@redblack8414 "The New High Intensity Training' Ellington Darden
@@redblack8414 "if you've never puked from a set of bicep curls, you dont know true intensity"...i think thats how the book starts off. Haha.
The author is a PhD and its half a workout guide half a history lesson. Its good.
@@redblack8414 let me know how you like it! I enjoyed the history accounts of Arthur Jones / Nautilus / and the body building era that occurred while the HIT method was utilized.
where do i find the book?@@FlippedSociety
When common sense in the fitness industry existed, and now we have nonsense. Thanks for posting! It’s time to bring logic and common sense back to fitness. For the well being and the health of people and let’s get rid of confusion
His eyebrows are performing HIT
The Real Nr 1, the Undisputed Master, the genius, 1980's excellence, everything was narly in 80's, best decade!!!
Jones was a tough and shrewd dude. He actually threw Arnold up against a car in Florida in 1974 for talking too much...
Source? awesome if true
"If you can do 400 lbs for one rep, you can do 380 lbs for one hundred reps" -Arthur Jones
WHAT?????
Yeah that dont sound right
He's being deliberately hyperbolic, its a manner of talking that Arthur Jones used frequently.
If mentzer was Moses- Arthur Jones was Yahweh. I can see the similarity between mentzers and jones speeches and I absolutely adore their wit and brilliant explanations. Pioneers and geniuses in their own rights
Then I guess Ken Hutchins must be Jesus. I never would've guessed from talking with him:^)
The infinite weight machine would destroy not only itself but the person in it. Had me cracking up.
Hit 1 workout a week of the 3 basics to failure per session was best growth ever. Only 2 or 3 yrs to reach your size strength potential.
Definitely takes longer than 2-3 years.
@@billy77511 that is demonstrably false... how do you explain natural bodybuilding competitors making small improvements from year to year 5+ years into their careers? Lemme guess..."they're all on gear," right? I swear most people don't have functioning fucking brains. Zero logic, zero evidence, just retarded claims....
Proper training, rest, & nutrition for 3yrs will enable the most progress one will make, but more progress is possible for many more years.
Thanks for sharing
How did you retrieve this?
This is better than therapy
Awsome
I don’t remember any of this in the muscle magazines back then. It was a lot of weight training and protein powder.
Good
Anyone know the results of the 10 year study?
Quite interesting how he says the study won't be published until the complete 1000 subjects tested in the study. I wish more studies would use sample sizes this large. Obviously it depends on how hard it is to get subjects and what the task is at hand but most studies now seem to be small relative to what id like to see
Subscribed 🐺🙏
Thank you for the support. Anything else you would like to see on here?
Hopefully they create machines that are Max contraction training friendly that also allows a single negative after failure. Mike Mentzer was in the midst of training clients only in the maximum contracted position but not quite ready to do so full time especially since the available equipment isn't friendly nor are the weight stacks heavy enough. John Little has released a few books that are of great value. The 5 minute workout, static contraction training and Max contraction training (the same as static but it's more properly named).
you should not search for max contraction. go for stretched contraction much more worth it.
Have you heard of Osteostrong? A company that made machines that are static using Wolf's Law as a method to increase bone density.
@@franzhulk2947
There's only one position in which the optimum amount of muscle fibers are recruited and therefore stimulated...that's the maximum contracted position. Stretch is the complete opposite of contraction.
@luciano-km7mq I think you're both misunderstanding one another or you're both not being precisely clear in why you're emphasizing, the maximum stretch or contraction. Maximum recruitment of fibers through a full range of motion is ideal, however intensity can only be maximized under peak contraction. I don't think either of you is necessarily advocating ONLY focusing on the peak contraction or maximum stretch on the muscle. I think you're both simply emphasizing the importance of separate vital aspects of the movement.
@@luciano-km7mqwell, it actually looks like he's undervalued the maximum contraction of the muscle.
What year is this,seminar and the show?
56:00 🔥, the of this video is the gem yet how did these dudes know so much since way back then yet folks in the 21st century still are uninformed
Anybody know what year this was?
The original isokinetic machines required the user to move quickly to register resistance. Otherwise the lever was slack. The machine did not move on its own. They provided NO negative resistance, under any circumstances. HOWEVER, because 'isokinetic' merely means 'same speed', modern isokinetic machines are COMPLETELY different: They're motorized, & pre-set to a desired speed. The user resists with full effort, attempting , FUTILEY, to speed-up the positive & stop the negative. Effort is measured on a computer monitor.
hey do you have a video for Arthur jones explaining how to do a squat?
Not sure. I'll have to look.
Arthur was sooo intelligent!
When was this done?
G.O.A.T
The terminology ISO is not from latin, it is from the greek word ISOS meaning "equal to, the same"
Used in English however, it does not all correlate like it should.....ISOLATE means...."to set or place apart, to detach so as to make alone,"
This lit a spark in my brain when I heard him say it, because of "whey protein isolate".....
we all know what that is if we were ever duped into purchasing enormous amounts of protein powder to build muscle.....
An English word....
isogenous (adj.)
most certainly does correlate.....
"having the same or similar origin,"
I dont enjoy correcting him, as he is the grandfather of bodybuilding, and i agree with 99% of what he says, but hey, i had to look into it and throw that in there......
What year was this speech made?
What year is it?
What happened to the new machine he was talking about?...It sounded Amazing!
You'd think by now that there would be machines with electro magnets that read your efforts, analyse, and adjust accordingly for a three set (two warm up, one set to failure) workout that you can program in assisted reps and negatives?
@DJCJ999 There are now the Sweedish XForce machines that increases the resistance by 40% during the negative (eccentric) phase. Unfortunately they are very rare in North America.
Sounds like you'd appreciate ARX's 'accommodating resistance". Adjust ARX for your desired protocol's range, set length, & (unalterable) rep-speed, then futilely attempt to speed the positive & stop the negative. Every point of effort, positive & negative, of every rep, is monitor-graphed & recorded. (The strength you exhibit when close to extension of the leg press's early reps will astound you, especially in the negative.) If you want a warmup, just don't push as hard for the first couple reps. There's no failure; you're always using whatever strength you have left; the machine would finish the set even if you left the room:^). It's light-years beyond failure, so keep sets short to avoid over-training.
@@redblack8414 If using a well-designed, low-friction machine, or free weights, you can accentuate the negative by going slower than in the positive. This won't work with cheap equipment, as weights going slow will stick on the guide-rods, having the exact opposite of the desired effect.
@@redblack8414 When you can't finish a rep, hold it isometrically at the failure point, until it comes down on it's own, being slowed by your available strength. This as close to negative failure as is safe. Then there's no need for a heavier negative.
@@lazur1 It is not the same. What you describe will happen only on the last repetition of a set. With an XForce machine a 40% resistance increase will happen on EVERY repetition. Also, the greater resistance will be applied to the entire range of movement during the eccentric phase not only a partial range of movement.
The technique that you suggest can also be applied to the very last rep (the one that you can't complete) on an XForce machine like any other machine or a simple barbell.
Asking rhetorically, what happened to the old Nautilus machines? You can't find them in any gym anymore.
I am fortunate that my local YMCA has them. Most of them were bought up by private buyers to put in their home gyms. MedX also came out after Arthur’s time and those are what replaced Nautilus machines. Dorian Yates just recently acquired MedX so that company may start building fitness centers again.
Way too over engineered and expensive.
Arthur sold Nautilus & started MedX as a line of medical machines, which soon expanded into exercise machines. They're commonly found where Nautilus used to be. Some of the most serious trainers have maintained Nautilus machines.They are fantastic.
@@christopherjames9843 It's somewhat of mystery where the machines that were already in gyms are now. They're sturdy, & expense is no longer an issue. I know of a handful of private gyms have them, but these machines made Jones millions. They're out there somewhere.
Not positive, but I think the very first person in frame, walking across the stage to set papers in the table, is Ken Hutchins.
Can anyone confirm this?
No matter how far back I look at Ken's photos/videos, i can't find him with such dark hair, but obviously, his hair wasn't always grey/white, so .... hmmm.
💎
Mike sounds just like him
Mike Menzter worked for and idolized Arthur Jones.
❤
The muscle is already developed.
You have to activate or reactivate the developed muscle.
See
Tada
enlarge it
Is the quote at 30:00 not a Mike Mentzer original thought?
I believe so.
Mike did say it but he credited Mr Jones before quoting him. Mike said this (paraphrasing): 'Arthur Jones said something that struck me as remarkably intelligent and that was... (Quotes Arthur Jones).'
@@MadladPaulthanks for jogging my memory! I’ve heard Mike say it so often but I forgot that he did credit Arthur for the thought at least once!
The machine he's talking about sounds a lot like the modern day ARX machine
ARX's strength & resistance curves are identical: The user provides both of them. ARX's as safe as it gets.
What type of machine is behind Arthur?? Don’t really look like the 10 or 40 chest
Hard to tell but could be the 70 degree.
A no nonsense man. When men had balls.
This man taught Mike mentzer who taught Dorian Yates
I only trust this dude due to his convincing lifting of his eyebrows. If dude formed a cult, I'd join, based on that alone
Weird what he says about doing 100 reps with 95% of your 1RM. In my case, I can do maybe 10 reps with 80% of my 1RM for the legs.
One thing that makes me question this guys intelligence about the subject is at 32:00 when he states that if you can do 1 rep with 400 pounds, then you can probably do 100 reps with 380 pounds. Any thoughts on this statement?
He was wrong about a lot of exercise science but was definitely an innovator.
I wonder what his hat size was?
Like most geniuses, when your brain capacity is so far above the average man he struggles to comprehend what you are saying, you have a very large hat size.
Does anyone know, how old this is?
Don't know the exact year but most then likely early 80s
Hi
Hello
Jones'/Nautilus' asymmetrical pulley-wheel, "cam", changes leverage throughout a rep. Ideally, providing equally-challenging resistance in each angle of a user's limbs: accommodating/variable resistance. A perfect cam'd cause failure at arbitrary points of the failed rep. Problem: *There's never been a perfect cam, not even close.* More importantly: Does the ability to fail at arbitrary points in the ROM matter?: Is it better? More recent research concludes: *NO* . Failing in the weak/stretch range, as occurs with non-cammed pulleys, & free weights, provides all the stimulus a muscle needs.
The purpose of having a resistance curve that more closely matches the strength curve of the activity being performed is for *efficiency* and/or *safety* not *effectiveness* . It avoids being underloaded during portions of the range of motion. Underloading requires either more time (less efficient) or more weight (less safe) to achieve the same amount of inroad.
Achieving failure at various portions of a range of motion isn't a *goal* , it's a *measurement* .
@@DorkusDidactus I'm not sure I understand your point. 1/Achieving failure at arbitrary points in the ROM is a goal when designing a cam. The goal, & measurement to determine if it's been reached, (it hasn't), aren't contradictory. 2/Re efficiency vs effectiveness. Yes, as long as one trains non-explosively, full-range, & to failure, a matched resistance curve won't yield better results or greater safety, but to not consider greater efficiency to be more effective is nit-picking to the extreme. Semantics be damned: Many subjects, won't/can't dedicate themselves to a less efficient workout, & athletes need the great majority of their training to be skill rehearsal. Efficiency & effectiveness are "joined at the hip" in practice.
@@lazur1 I shall address your points.
1. The inclusion of a cam in a piece of strength training equipment does not dictate the *protocol* of execution. Training to momentary muscular failure is part of a *protocol* of execution, not equipment design. Furthermore, strength training equipment need not have a cam in order to have a variable resistance curve.
2a. I already explained why safety increases as the resistance curve of equipment more closely matches the strength curve of the individual executing the activity. This is even *more* relevant for protocols that include proper repetition prescriptions, since the strength curve of the individual will be trivially modulated due to the protocol.
2b. Effectiveness and efficiency are *completely* different metrics. Effectiveness is an evaluation of the stimulation/adaptation achieved. Efficiency is the amount of time spent. The prioritization of these metrics in consideration with the aspects of general fitness is a context-specific driver of program and protocol design/choice.
@@DorkusDidactus 1.a:The original Nautilus cams were designed w/non-explosive reps & single sets to failure in mind. Whether a subject or trainer chooses to act otherwise is fine, it doesn't make other protocols impossible to follow. 1.b: Yes, there are other ways to affect variable resistance; (mostly in an undesireable direction), so? 2.a: Sounds like we agree: Safety's no consideration when highly explosive reps are executed on a "closely matched" machine, but largely assured on virtually any machine if no jerking, lurching, or explosive movements are attempted.2.b: OK, you win one: Effectiveness & efficiency aren't synonyms, but the original intent of a cam is for them to come together, as failure, at the same time.
Arthur is my favorite.. That being said bodybuilding was bro science then and it is bro science today. Nobody can say for certain what to eat, how often to train, how heavy or light to train, how much volume or frequency. Every expert says they know. From Gironda to Jones to todays "experts".
What's your point? Curious... Bro science hasn't been wrong.
My point is bro science isn't science at all. Everybody and their brother claims to know the keys to optimal growth, diet, frequency volume etc... Obviously what I said you had difficulty comprehending. @@UncleMike81
@@UncleMike81 Translate bro science to anecdotal: It's the lowest* , and the highest** form of evidence. * It works for you, doesn't mean it works for everyone. ** It works for you.
"Marathon' workouts: Mostly non-exercise. The actual work could've been finished in 30-60 minutes.
The USB inventors should have listened to him 38:00
'If you can do one repetition with 400 lbs, you can probably do 100 repetitions with 380' 🤔
Good stuff! What year did this seminar take place?
🤔...
Damn!
Well, my CPU is a NEURO NET PROCESSOR A LEARNING COMPUTER.
💪😎
😜🤑👹🇺🇸
well... "iso" isn't latin, it's ancient greek, but what the heck...
It's interesting that AJ seemed unfamiliar with the tendency for humans to have a higher proportion of slow twitch fibers in muscles of the lower body...
He wrote about it in 1971.
@@STGStrengthandPower But this seminar took place much later, right?
If one trains to failure, slow- & fast-twitch proportions are a non-issue. Limbs w/more slow-twitch will rep longer before failure. Eventually, the last reps will reach the fast-switch.
As they say, "The proof is in the pudding." Arthur was one heck of a promoter. But, what never came of all of it, his hyperbole, were athletes setting weightlifting or any other kind of records, or bodybuilders using his machines to win shows. Casey Viator was his poster boy but had gained much of his physique pre-Nautilus. Arnold S. and Sergio O. visited Deland, Florida and neither man adopted the machines nor the workout theory. Arthur's greatest contribution was delivering a better understanding of recovery time from short and intense workouts. It was the antithesis of the Weider mag idealized workout nonsense. Nautilus machines, I think, are great for general training purposes for non-athletes, good for injury recovery I think, too. His whole theory of negatives has been largely disproved. Everyone has access to chinning bars. Go give it a try. Negatives are a nice workout, a diversion. I think his overzealous position on negatives was counteracting other machine mfgrs. selling positive contraction only devices. They didn't gain much acceptance, either.
Regardless, the knowledge and equipment made and distributed was and still is light years ahead and more honest in terms of applicability and results than 99% of bullshit today
When it comes to bodybuilding, it’s the genetics that win the competitions. Doesn’t matter which way you train, you can only get so big. I do believe you can reach your genetic potential faster with the nautilus machines as they are better then some (not all) free-weight exercises. An example of this could be at 17:27 Adding to this, you can still gain same amount of muscle doing just the positives of an exercise, but doing slow negatives along with positives will get you there much faster.
Law of Specificity: 1/To excel at swinging a bat, throwing a punch, or lifting a barbell, one must practice the exact movement with the exact equipment used in competition. 2/Gym-rats enjoy spending time working out.The last thing they'd want would be to be too fatigued to continue after 20minutes. 3/Arnold Schwarzeneggar has a basement full of machines inspired by Arthur's principles.Maybe they work better after a bodybuilder's no longer on steroids.
@@lazur1 Right. It was determined some time ago by Olympic lifters that they must work with that day's 1 rep max. If you can snatch 350 lbs., training with 300 lbs. would cause a lifter to alter his pull, else overpull its height. Correct. Most gym rats do low quality work and still manage to train too much. Finally, I'd guess that Arnold does use machines at his age (mid 70s) to eliminate spotters, reduce injury prospects, just get some work in.
@@bradreid6057 Having a healthy strong population doesn't require them to look impressive naked, or to lift heavy weights, just safely get them a bit stronger, generically, over time. "Eliminating Spotters, Reducing Injury Prospects, and Just Get(ting) Some Work In", is what matters for the great majority of us; non-athletic, non-competitive trainees, who aren't gonna eat more to get bigger, & don't wanna buy a new wardrobe to fit bigger muscles. Resistance training should be done by everyone, every week, for life. Sedentary 70+yr-olds will get exponentially more functional improvement from training than will a young athlete. Let's not scare them off with unnecessarily-heroic requirements.
People are in love with the concept of real gains! Until they actually get in bed with it!
Indeed.sustainability is the #1 issue. 6wks of training followed by years of sloth is pointless. Psychology matters. I find that I can put myself through a torturous high intensity workout, as long as I can look forward to a week off. It's worked for 27 yrs. Each of us needs to find something they can stick with.
The original Elon Musk
Haha, interesting comparison. Vastly different presentations styles tho
A vast difference. Musk is a moral moron. Arthur Jones was a true scientist and actually cared about free will
elon has nothing on this man
He used Casey Viator results when he was tanked on gear.
Casey denied accusations of drug use, (& of sneaking off do high-volume work), to the day he died. From my experience with similar protocols, the insane workload Arthur put Casey through would make a 'cheat' workout impossible. There were so many other ways this was rigged, that drugs might not've been needed. There are strong opinions on both sides, proof on neither.
Who is he talking about at first? The guy who alleedgedly made up studies etc.
Andrew Tate's grandad here
His opening remarks also apply to him. He faked lots of his 'research'.
and you know this based on what ?
@@MrRepearco many incidents, Colorado experiment for one.
Even in this video he makes moronic claims...says if a man can squat once with 400 he would be capable of squatting 380 for 100 reps. Do you know how stupid that sounds, and how much bullshit it is!
@@MrRepearco It's also curious that Jones used bodybuilders to promote his method. Why choose men who built their body with the very methods that he said were inferior? Why not take some men with no training, who wished to develop size and strength and do a 1 year experiment to show the world the results that could be achieved?
Instead he used bodybuilders, who all used steroids, and used them to promote his methods.
Sure 1 set of exercises works, but 2 sets works better and 3 sets works even better. The research all shows this. With 1 set you get 50% of the exercise benefits, 2 sets about 70% and 3 sets about 80%. As you add more sets you can see you get diminishing returns, so 3 seems to be that goldilocks zone.
But a person pressed for time and not motivated to do more sets can do fine with just 1 set. But 1 set is not superior.
@@MrRepearco Did you believe that story at the end of this video? A 285lb. football player than could not chin himself one time, could not even lower himself with a negative chin. And in 12 days they developed him to the point he could do 4 1/2 chins.
That is a completely bullshit story and it would be impossible to make such progress in 12 days. Even more so because of the man's bodyweight. A 120lb. could probably chin himself because 120lbs. is not very heavy. But strength is not proportionate to size, so the task before the 285lb. man is herculean, even for 1 rep!
@idx1941 Using bodybuilders was doomed to backfire, especially when done off steroids. It would only prove to reinforce the idea that typical bodybuilding routines are superior when the bodybuilder inevitably went back to volume training and started juicing again. No one style of training can meet or exceed any style done on juice. One set to failure is good for the non-bodybuider, but by definition that person is not so interested in max hypertrophy. Virtually all the discussions about HITs effectiveness seems to revolve around bodybuilder-level hypertrophy, unfortunately.
Morgan Freeman voice-a-like!
Is Arthur my daddy?
"The negative part of work Steve, is by far the most productive and the most important part of exercise..."
Hope not. I think he disowned several of his kids. Lol
@@STGStrengthandPower
I read his autobiography ...
You're not far off .. ha..
@@nathanherling9836 did you read the one he wrote or the one John S wrote about him?
@@STGStrengthandPower
I read 'And God Laughs', The Nautilus Bulletins, and 'My First Half-Century in the Iron Game.'
-
I also read Edgar Jones' book:
Nautilus: The Lost Empire of Arthur Jones
I even sent an email to Edgar asking what Arthur thought of Mike Mentzer. I just got a sort of grumbly reply ... ha...
-
I have not read the book by John S., I'll have to look it up.
Zzz
Yet even now his ideas still produce very dismal results.
This statement is simply false.
@@STGStrengthandPower Facts don't care about your feelings.
@@Rob-qn6od couldn't have said it better myself.
For as much as I admire him I still think after my experience that his whole point on training to failure was complete bs. There's some kind of truth in limiting volume and training hard, yet for me training to failure didn't work well, but to be fair nothing else did. The fact is that it is not necessary to train to failure to achieve whatever you can given your genetics, if it's not necessary then why do it?
I’ve been lifting for about 9 years. And most of the 9 years I’ve done the typical 8-10 rep for 3-4 sets and hardly gained any muscle mass at all the whole time. The last 2 years I switched to super slow HIT and really emphasizing negatives after positive muscle failure and I’ve gained more mass in these last 2 years than all the years prior and I can lift significantly more weight with no injury too. It seems like super slow does work somehow.
Recall the old-school '8 to 12 reps' double-progressive system: You added weight when you got to 12. Good, but if the previous 8,9,10,& 11 reps weren't to failure, you can't be sure you needed those lower reps; maybe you could've done 12 when you did 8. THAT'S the virtue of failure, if you can do 1 more rep than the last time, you KNOW you've gained strength, you didn't merely try harder the second session.
What year was this
It’s 2023
1965 ish ???