I’m pretty sure i seen that video earlier today on Dave Drapers site
Dr. Ken squat 2nd vid down
Classic Doctor Ken (Squats)
www.gridironincny.com/videos/#
Amazing video on what hard training really is, Watch to the very end to see Kevin Tolbert training
Theres no way i’m reading all that. Please summarise.
Just watch the video then. Theirs no explosions or special effects in their so you’ll probably bot watch all of it either:)
meh
deh
[quote]pf wrote:
Theres no way i’m reading all that. Please summarise.[/quote]
Summary: Another person relying fully, entirely, and on nothing but Arthur Jones and making a career out of it.
At least, however, relying on his best stuff, circa the Training Bulletin #1 era.
That may sound cynical but I don’t see how it isn’t exactly so.
And I am not saying it just because of the numerous Jones references above. They are typical however.
Now, one can do worse than remaining an apostle of the Arthur Jones of that era, even nearly 40 years later, but as a quick summary, there you have it.
Summary = All those big guys may be big but they are pathetic because they can’t go into the gym one day and start training in a way that is not only opposite to their usual method, but forces them to use less exercises and less weight for their bodyparts… therefor they are fools for training “improperly” even though they are big and winning titles and training the way that has worked for a century.
lots of sophistry, blah blah blah don’t train your arms, the compound movements will take care of them blah blah blah straw man argument against traditional bodybuilding training because some dumbass hasn’t made any progress in 10 years and anyone thinks his program is the problem? blah blah blah blah
Then a car explodes as Fergie shoots over it off a ramp while riding a flaming unicorn, and she decapitates Osama Bin Laden, grows a penis and fucks his neckhole till he convulses to death like a headless chicken, and as she lands on the black sanded beach she lights up a cigar (topless), but in doing so blows up the entire world’s oceans due to the elevated levels of methane gas throughout the seawater caused by an entire backstory that you missed because you didn’t read this incredibly riveting article.
[quote]mr popular wrote:
Summary = All those big guys may be big but they are pathetic because they can’t go into the gym one day and start training in a way that is not only opposite to their usual method, but forces them to use less exercises and less weight for their bodyparts… therefor they are fools for training “improperly” even though they are big and winning titles and training the way that has worked for a century.
lots of sophistry, blah blah blah don’t train your arms, the compound movements will take care of them blah blah blah straw man argument against traditional bodybuilding training because some dumbass hasn’t made any progress in 10 years and anyone thinks his program is the problem? blah blah blah blah
Then a car explodes as Fergie shoots over it off a ramp while riding a flaming unicorn, and she decapitates Osama Bin Laden, grows a penis and fucks his neckhole till he convulses to death like a headless chicken, and as she lands on the black sanded beach she lights up a cigar (topless), but in doing so blows up the entire world’s oceans due to the elevated levels of methane gas throughout the seawater caused by an entire backstory that you missed because you didn’t read this incredibly riveting article.[/quote]
Whoa.
[quote]mr popular wrote:
Summary = All those big guys may be big but they are pathetic because they can’t go into the gym one day and start training in a way that is not only opposite to their usual method, but forces them to use less exercises and less weight for their bodyparts… therefor they are fools for training “improperly” even though they are big and winning titles and training the way that has worked for a century.
lots of sophistry, blah blah blah don’t train your arms, the compound movements will take care of them blah blah blah straw man argument against traditional bodybuilding training because some dumbass hasn’t made any progress in 10 years and anyone thinks his program is the problem? blah blah blah blah
Then a car explodes as Fergie shoots over it off a ramp while riding a flaming unicorn, and she decapitates Osama Bin Laden, grows a penis and fucks his neckhole till he convulses to death like a headless chicken, and as she lands on the black sanded beach she lights up a cigar (topless), but in doing so blows up the entire world’s oceans due to the elevated levels of methane gas throughout the seawater caused by an entire backstory that you missed because you didn’t read this incredibly riveting article.[/quote]
Hmm very informative.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
pf wrote:
Theres no way i’m reading all that. Please summarise.
Summary: Another person relying fully, entirely, and on nothing but Arthur Jones and making a career out of it.
At least, however, relying on his best stuff, circa the Training Bulletin #1 era.
That may sound cynical but I don’t see how it isn’t exactly so.
And I am not saying it just because of the numerous Jones references above. They are typical however.
Now, one can do worse than remaining an apostle of the Arthur Jones of that era, even nearly 40 years later, but as a quick summary, there you have it.[/quote]
You don’t know much about Dr. Ken if you believe that.
[quote]pf wrote:
meh[/quote]
That’s my reaction, too, when I see someone crank out that many deep reps with 405 at a body weight of 165.
He did, at one time, weigh well over 230 pounds at 5’6".
[quote]sandiego wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
pf wrote:
Theres no way i’m reading all that. Please summarise.
Summary: Another person relying fully, entirely, and on nothing but Arthur Jones and making a career out of it.
At least, however, relying on his best stuff, circa the Training Bulletin #1 era.
That may sound cynical but I don’t see how it isn’t exactly so.
And I am not saying it just because of the numerous Jones references above. They are typical however.
Now, one can do worse than remaining an apostle of the Arthur Jones of that era, even nearly 40 years later, but as a quick summary, there you have it.
You don’t know much about Dr. Ken if you believe that.[/quote]’
Well then, point me to articles of his that do not derive from Jones. Everything of his that I’ve seen has been. Right down to the full body training. Still stuck in the time warp.
There’s no denying that he’s old school. He is however, not a Jones disciple in the way that most define HIT. He’s not devoted to machines, doesn’t adhere to the 8-12 reps for a circuit of 10-16 exercises 3x times per week, his routines don’t have to start with the large muscles of the legs, he doesn’t keep meticulous track of TUL, etc, etc, etc. If you’ve seen his squat video, HIT proponents scream that it’s “too fast”, that the reps aren’t done with “continuous tension” or that the “turn arounds aren’t smooth enough”.
What he is a proponent of is brutally hard training, taken to the limit, on basic exercises. He uses as much weight as possible. You’d never read about Jones, for example, advocating push-presses. He also advocates running, which was frowned upon by Jones et al. He uses a variety of equipment, including barbells, and whichever machines (whether they are Nautilus or not) that he finds effective.
As far as articles go, he’s written over 1,000 (and over 200 for Powerlifting USA alone). His “Common Sense Approach to Training” was written during or shortly after his working relationship with Jones, I believe. And I agree, he references Jones a lot. That was written decades ago; and no doubt, Jones’ influence loomed especially large at that point.
And while his training philosophy may seem to be derived from Jones, he was exercising within his own paradigm before having ever been influenced by Jones. An influence that is obviously debatable, but one that in my view did/does not pigeonhole him as one of Jones’ stooges.
He just trains people really f***ing hard.
Last time I checked, Jones did not invent the full-body workout.
lol
obviously have not checked the board in some time but re: this specific article, let’s put it into context and a time frame. It was written in 1974 and published in Iron Man in the January 1976 issue of Iron Man. For the time, it was very radical as the standard for powerlifters, O-lifters and especially bodybuilders was a 4-6 or 7 day per week program of 30-60 or more sets per session.
Other than Arthur, who by then had stopped writing articles for the bodybuilding publications and Ellington, the “series” of four articles I did for Mr. Rader which were published in 1974 and then this one in '76 really were the extent of anything related to low volume, moderate frequency high intensity training.
So when one contributor stated “get into the 21st Century” or something like that, remember when this first appeared. That said, this basic program, that prompted perhaps 100 phone calls to the Nautilus office in Lake Helen (I was still doing work for Arthur at that time) and to the Nautilus Northeast franchise and showroom office in NY City where I worked for Nick Orlando at the time, was a cause for much controversy.
Meanwhile, it served as a great stimulator for most from that era because as Arthur and Ell had recommended, it immediately reduced the volume and frequency of training of 95% of the guys who read it and thus improved their results. It was also written from the perspective of having the equipment that most had at the time, or had access to which meant a barbell, squat rack, perhaps dumbbells. There was a paucity of training facilities and certainly even major cities might have had but one hardcore type of training site and one spa type of facility.
The basement weightrooms in the YMCAs usually had little more than this up into the mid-1970’s. Learning as we went along, both at Nautilus and among our group of trainees, I would not recommend working stifflegged DL’s or any low back work more than once a week for most and at most twice. Same for squatting, once for some, twice a week for others, once hard and heavy/all out for some and the other day moderate, sub-failure work that if nothing else, maintains the physiological and psychological skill of squatting (yes, its both).
Also, if one had the means, as our guys (and ladies) have done for so long, variety in use of modality goes a long way to, both physiologically and psychologically, thus, DB press one day, barbell press another, and if training a third day (two is best for most) in a week, a machine press. Re: pulls, one can pulldown one day, row the next and use a variety of modalities to do so.
Yes its basic but basic remains best from our perspective . I’ve also had the pleasure of taking a few of the local high school kids and watching them spend six, eight, or twelve years or more in our garage or basement or at Iron Island Gym when we founded it and become well developed and well skilled enough to play college or pro football with some All Pros and All Americans in that group. Three Olympic runners with one a gold medal winner in the 110 high hurdles in Atlanta in 1996, and quite a few “already formed” excellent NFL guys that I had absolutely nothing to do with their success up to the point we got them, who we all agreed, improved while under our roof.
For most, the basics should form the foundation of any program for any purpose, with the addition of good nutrition and sufficient recovery. Its the same stuff Arthur, Ell, Kim, and I have stated for years and it doesn’t change, no matter what century one is training in.
Dr. Ken
The “rules” are simple for results: train hard and productively while training, avoid injury while training and while not training, be consistent in training, be focused in the gym or weight room, train as hard as possible while actually training, eat enough nutritious food to allow for repair and growth, train as hard as possible, get enough rest to allow whatever growth stimulation the training provided, to do just that, train really hard.
If there is a label for that, fine but it leaves room to experiment, learn, and enjoy one’s training and the path is an exciting and interesting one, more so if one isn’t just handed the “final answer” to their training problems because the solutions most often past general guidelines, need specific, individualized answers. Labeling limits and as this and other forums indicate, causes an awful lot of wasted energy and animosity.
Dr. Ken
Sandiego, the problem is you don’t know much about Arthur Jones, clearly.
You are unaware that Jones described the barbell as a “miracle tool”?
You are unaware that his methods back in the Training Bulletin #1 days were heavily barbell based?
Leistner’s own quote, provided in the above post by StephenD, backs up what I said: “Its the same stuff Arthur, Ell, Kim, and I have stated for years and it doesn’t change, no matter what century one is training in.”
That’s completely correct. He teaches the same stuff Arthur did. Oh, okay, he adds in running. And various specific exercises. Whoop de doo.
On the full body training point: Nowhere did I say that Arthur invented it. My point was that just as Arthur did not go past it, Leistner has not either, as he is a Jones apostle, has been for decades, and that remains his foundation and core.
Sorry for anyone taking offense: a quick summary was asked for, was provided, and was on the money. If you understand where Jones was coming from then, then – except for things like running – you know where Leistner is coming from nearly 40 years later. That’s a lot simpler than a lot of long posts filled with Jonesism, which the questioner said were too long to read and wanted a quick summary, which I provided.
No, you’re missing the point: Dr. Ken was training in his manner before he met/worked for Jones. By definition, his training is not “derived” from Jones. The implication that he learned from Jones and then ran with it to make a career as an “apostle” is incorrect and misleading.
On the subject of Arthur Jones, I have read more of his material than I care to remember. I’d be more surprised to come across an article of his that I haven’t read at this point. His use of hyperbole throughout all of his writings (including calling the barbell “a miracle tool”, which he did repeatedly) is one of many reasons why I no longer re-read much of his stuff. It smacks of showmanship and ends up reading like I am listening to a ring leader announcing a circus act (why? look into Jones’ background).
If you want to lump all trainers who approach training from an old-school perspective based on incredibly hard work as “Jones Apostles”, fine, that is your prerogative. But it inherently implies Jones as an origin/source, something that blankets more ground than his influence actually covered. People trained that way before and after him.
But since I “clearly” “don’t know much about Arthur Jones” and the summary you provided is “on the money”, there isn’t much to add, huh?