The Key to Might and Muscle (Circa 1926) - Chapter 3 - Defining the Mystery of Strength - By George F. Jowett

There seems to be some mystery that surrounds the meaning of strength,

insomuch as the average individual finds it very difficult to explain. The

general way of figuring strength runs something like this: A baseball fan

knows Babe Ruth must be strong to be able to swat a ball for so many home

runs, and that Johnson, Washington's star pitcher, must have a strong arm to

send the pill hurtling over the plate with such terrific force. Charlie

Hoff and Charlie Paddock are strong by reason of the great leg driving force

possessed by each. However, these cases are purely demonstrations of

strength, and not definitions. When you ask for the explanation of the

strength of a man who is capable of raising a big load on his back, or

tossing a dumb-bell to arms' length overhead, the answer is partly

explained, in the absence of a broader knowledge, by the fact that the

person must have been naturally born strong.

These few answers prove how very little is known about the most desirable

quality of a man's body, and bring us face to face with the question of

whether all strong people are always naturally strong, or if it is possible

to be made strong - the difference between natural strength and made

strength, if there is any, and the relation of health to strength.

I have a friend who has a very analytical mind, and he just loves to produce

a difficult problem to be solved. He is not one of the kind who do it to

show how much they know, or think they know, as much as he is naturally

curious to know the answer for his own benefit. If it is beyond him, it

bothers him considerably. The question of strength was one of his problems,

and I well recall the time when he asked me if it was true that we could

make strength. Now if any other person but he had asked me, I would have

answered yes; but all his questions place me on my guard, and after a pause I replied

that I had my doubts. This, no doubt, will cause my readers to scratch

their heads in consternation, as I am well aware that some theorists have brought

forward the statement that strength can be made, and that there are two

kinds of strength, natural strength and made strength; but the distinction never

grew to be believed because no proper separation of the two kinds of

strength is possible. We have a habit of saying that a certain person was made

strong by practicing exercise or some particular sport, but that does not mean to

say his strength was made. Strength is the outcome of certain causes, and

like gravity, or the bloom of a flower, it cannot be disassociated from its

natural condition. If it was possible to control strength and disassociate

it from muscular growth of a certain nature from strength, we might consider

the fact that possibly strength could be made. It is the existence of the

type of muscle that lacks strength which causes the difference between size

and strength to be too often misunderstood.

You have often seen young men who possessed a fine muscular appearance, that

apparently had every indication of strength. Yet, on a test, you have been

amazed to see that these particular parties were seldom any stronger than

the average man. Then there is the other type of man who, while possessing no

larger proportions than the first, was capable of moving objects that were

immovable to both the first named type and the average person.

It is a mystery that has led theorists to state that muscle was all

artificial, and that there was some "n----- in the wood pile" where strength

was concerned.

Now there is a great deal of difference in the construction of muscle

tissue, and the student of body culture should be made familiar with the structure

of muscle in order to better understand its true existence, and the

interpretation of strength. Therefore, before we go any further, we will

supply ourselves with the knowledge which tells us what it is all about.

Then we will realize why strength is an inseparable part of one type of

muscle, and why it can never be associated with the other type.

First, bear in mind that there are about five hundred and twenty muscles in

our physical makeup that have to do with the transporting of our body. Each

of these muscles are made up of thousands of little fibres that lie side by

side, much like the fibres in a rope. These fibres are capable of

contracting on the same order as a stretched rubber cable contracts when the

tension is released. Each of these fibres has a cell or a brain, which

answers the call of the true brain through the transmission of nerves, that

causes them to contract or relax just as the order demands. The condition

of the muscles lies in the construction of these fibres. Some methods of

exercise bring about a coarse tissue, while other methods bring about a

steel-like construction where the fibres become more numerous and compact.

Now, whenever any one part of the body is under a greater stress of physical

stimulation than the rest, it is a natural condition that the blood is drawn

away from the other parts of the body where the blood is temporarily less

required, and drawn in greater quantities to the area under active

stimulation. The blood contains nourishment that re-fuels the muscles in

their state of activity, besides carrying away all the broken down tissue

that is thrown off by the exertion, as well as cleaning out the muscle cells

of any carbon dioxide that may have secreted within these cells. It also

acts as a fertilizer in the process of muscular reconstruction, by reason of

the fact that the blood continues to circulate around the center of

activity, after the actual action has ceased.

Now get the following explanation perfectly correct in your mind. It is not

in all motions of muscular activity that muscle tissue is broken down. The

movements have to be intense, and the muscles must be supplied with the

resistance that is necessary in order to break down the old structure.

Movements, or exercises, that do not give the muscles the required

resistance, but are the kind that involve a great number of repetitions,

never break down any amount of tissue, to speak of. These movements involve

a forcing process, that causes the blood to swell up the muscles, and simply

pumps them up. Thus a coarse tissue is created, that quickly loses its

proportions unless the muscles are supplied with a resistance, through

weights, that causes full contraction and extension of the muscles, as well

as a great flexion of the joints, which altogether rapidly breaks down the

old structure and commences its process of reconstruction. Not many

movements are involved because the motions are almost wholly physical. By

this I mean the muscles do not call for a fraction of the nervous energies

which is the case in the other instance.

Followers of bar bell exercise find that, before they notice any signs of

increase in their proportions, they have become quite a bit stronger. The

reason for this is that the musculature possessed in the first place has

passed through a stage of conversion, in which this tissue has become

converted into one hundred per cent material. The outcome of the other

condition is what I term inflated tissue of the balloon type. They register

no change in strength simply because the methods they use are not productive

of strength. The fact that strength has become manifest in the latter state

is positive proof that the condition created is the most natural and must,

therefore, contain the properties that are productive of great strength, in

both appearance and demonstration.

We have no control over strength alone. It is the natural outcome of

substantial muscular growth. It can only be stimulated, and this stimulus

must come from growth by development supplied from intensive exercise.

In speaking of strength, I really believe that we are apt to consider its

meaning in super terms. Anyhow, it is as such I want my readers to consider

it. It is in its super state that we are able to appreciate it better, and

if it did not have this exalted state, we would feel all our labors were in

vain, with no recompense for them. Again, if that state could not be

reached, it would not provide the lesson in which we are interested.

One strange peculiarity in muscle growth is the manner in which it

multiplies in its process of reconstruction, which goes to prove how nature is prepared

to take care of her children and is a factor to prove my story. To

continue, let me say that it is pretty hard for the average person to understand why

these tissues are broken down, and when they rebuild, why they grow in

excess of what they formerly were. Muscular tissues of the body fulfill their

duties, wear out, and are cast off like the dead leaves of a plant, and just

as the plant grows stronger, as a greater abundance of foliage appears,

equally so does muscle reconstruction act. Growth is life, and life is

growth; when growth ceases the body begins to age and finally dies. As

tissue is broken down, it multiplies and we become stronger with growth. In

other words, nature creates size, and strength is the natural sequence.

Size and strength are accumulated to meet possible future necessities in excess

of any work previously performed.

Let us prove this condition in another way, and be satisfied that I am

right. You, no doubt, can call to mind some fellow acquaintance who went into the

lumber camp, or on some railroad construction job, and how on his return his

changed appearance struck you as remarkable! - how he had filled out, and

how much stronger he was than before. Well, isn't that an illustration of how

natural growth takes place to fulfill the requirements of a more laborious

occupation?

The year after the close of the war I took a notion to take another trip

overseas. I went into the Canadian Pacific Steamship offices in Montreal to

purchase my ticket. It was taken care of by a clerk who had his sleeves

rolled up to the shoulders. He displayed a fine pair of arms, and right

away I recognized those little traits that inform a trained eye that this

magnificent pair of arms was not always in his possession. He was too

consciously proud of them. By his "return button" I saw he had served

overseas, and to satisfy my personal curiosity, I began to question him. I

had to smile at his boyish enthusiasm as he replied, "I just had to have

'em. I was with one of the batteries, and had the job of trundling heavy shells

in a wheelbarrow. By gosh, at first I thought my back would break. My

knees wobbled, and I felt as though each of my arms was being pulled from its

socket. But, it had to be done, and I got better at it and began to like

it. Pushing that wheelbarrow full of shells just made me over." "And believe

me," he added with pride, "my legs and back are every bit as well formed as

my arms." No doubt you will recognize this incident as a common occurrence,

but it serves to prove that strength is always the result of a certain

condition, and not made in the sense that we are using this word.

If it was possible for you to cut into the living muscular structure of

inflated tissue and natural tissue, you would find the difference in

construction much similar in appearance to the difference that is seen in

the grain of cedar wood, as against the grain of oak. One is coarse grained,

and the other is tight. Try to break off an oak sapling and you will find it

very difficult, but a cedar sapling, twice the size, will snap off much more

easily. The condition of structure and resistance is the same here as the

quality of musculature under discussion.

Inflated tissue is artificial, which is borne out by the fact that this

tissue lacks lasting quality and has never been productive of strength.

Strength is never artificial. It is too natural, therefore its existence

must arise from the creation of a natural source.

Now you are apt to get all balled up if you have not read all this material

studiously, and I want it to be perfectly clear in your mind. So to

condense the whole discussion to a few words, as to what it all means, we find that

strength as a distinct and separate product cannot be made; it is the result

of developing musculature in its natural form. We know inflated tissue does

not contain this essential, but we do know that there is a form of tissue

that can be developed, that does create strength. In other words, the

muscular structure can be made.

As I have previously stated, intensive resistance of the muscles is the

method of muscular contraction, by reason of its natural function, that can

bring about the change. Therefore, it is just a case of following the right

method of exercise that can produce this type of muscle.

In order to receive confirmation in any belief, let us see how the first

examples of strength got their supply. I think I can safely say that I have

come in contact with as many strong men as any other man, by reason of my

travels and studies that have extended over twenty years, as a practical

athlete. I have known thousands, and without one single exception every man

instinctively practiced bar bell exercises on the progressive principle.

Thousands of times I have asked if they thought that that kind of training

was responsible for their fine development and great strength. Not one of

them ever repudiated the weights. They were tremendously emphatic in their

statements that no other form of exercise could possibly give the degree of

strength that they owned. Well, you will agree with me that they ought to

know. They had tried everything, and spoke from experience. No man is fool

enough to practice what he knows is wrong after he has found the answer to

his problem. With all this mass of testimonials behind my assertion I must

be right. More so, since it completely balances with my deductions and the

way we all know that nature works.

I do not ask any man to accept any of my beliefs, if I cannot prove them.

Likewise any one is foolish enough to believe any statement at all that

cannot provide the satisfactory proof, and the teacher himself is a fitting

example of what he teaches.

In all my life I have never seen a strong man who was not healthy, but I

have met many healthy men who were not strong. The stronger a man, the more

vigorous his health, and his body retains its youth and preservation in life

longer by far than the man who is healthy and yet not strong. A great

number of people would have us believe that strong people become terribly muscle

bound. Now nature never does anything wrong, and strength never created

such a condition as muscle binding. The term is just another that is wrongly

used. There are a number of muscle fans who have a mania to possess a pair

of large biceps, or huge pectoral muscles. All their efforts are thrown

into the exercises that will develop either of these conditions, and the trouble

is that their development becomes unbalanced and exists at the expense of

the rest of their bodies. Thus do other muscles become robbed of their rights

and remain in a weaker condition. Not until the muscle fan has acquired

this state does he realize how wrong it is, but he has no one else to thank for

it except himself. No teacher of body culture ever advised it. Fortunately it

is a condition that can easily be overcome by a little specialization that

will recover the balance between the various muscles.

Allow me to put before you one of my latest proofs of this. Not long ago a

young man, who is well known in muscle building circles, and who possesses

apparently a very imposing physique, came to me and said, "How is it, Mr.

Jowett, that I am no good at lifting weights? I have the development, but

lots of lighter men can easily beat me, and I can't understand it." Frankly

he admitted that the circumstances had become very acute and embarrassing,

due to the fact that he was not able to maintain his prestige. He was

troubled because too many were telling him he would never be strong and that

his muscular structure was inflated. I had seen him stripped various times

and I informed him that his condition was merely one of unbalanced

proportions, which I could quickly remedy; more so in his case than in most

others because he had the foundation. I pointed out his weak points and

showed him the best exercises to overcome his defects, and in one week he

had put over one inch on his thighs (his least developed part), and lifted a

weight overhead he never thought was possible. Only weighing one hundred

and forty-five pounds, he performed the lift known as the Two Hands Clean and

Jerk, using two hundred and twenty-five pounds. He was also capable of

raising the front of an automobile, to his great delight. Some improvement,

you will agree, when you remember he was miles away from these two feats a

week before.

Some men are naturally born much stronger than others, for physical reasons

or inheritance, but no man ever possessed the amount of natural strength

that placed him in the class of such giants of strength as Cyr, Saxon or Apollon.

These men were, all three, naturally strong, but it was exercise with

weights on the progressive principle that increased their natural powers,

stimulating their strength to a degree that enabled them to lift overhead four hundred

and forty-eight pounds. On the other hand, we have men like Sandow,

Tofolas, Maxick and Pullum, four men who were deprived of the natural blessing at

birth which clothed Cyr, Saxon and Apollon, but by intensive training they

created from themselves supermen. My own case is another example that goes

to prove, along with the other four named celebrities, that the creation of

substantial muscular tissue is the substance from which great strength is

derived.

Spencer, in his "Growth and Development," proves the natural condition of

what I have stated, and he had no knowledge of muscle building; but he knew

nature. He knew strength came from vigorous growth. You can see it in

animal and plant life, just the same as in human life.

All the men to whom I have referred were capable of providing their strength

in any way you wished to test them. Why people fool themselves into

believing that the strength of such men only works in one direction, is

positively ridiculous. As I have proven, there is only one kind of

strength, and that is natural strength. Whether it is born in a man or stimulated by

training under intensive exercise, it is just the same and cannot be

changed; whether it is capable of applying its qualities in tossing bar bells, moving

pianos, or lifting the end of an automobile out of a rut.

A man who resorts to tricks and the use of mechanical devices as an aid to

perform his feats, is never strong, no matter what he says he is or how he

impresses the mind. The few men whom I have named would scorn the mention

of such false methods. It is the work of such tricksters that has given rise

to the belief, so prevalent in many quarters, that trickery is connected with

great feats of strength. There is no connection at all between the two. A

strong man is always strong, no matter on what he is tested. His

musculature is substantial and possesses strength which he has created within himself. Earlier in this chapter, I state that this type of structure can be made.

However, there is another very important part connected with this growth

which I have purposely reserved until the last, simply because I did not

want to crowd you. By now, you will have thoroughly absorbed all I have written,

and be properly prepared for what I have to say. This explanation will

clear up the question which no doubt still lingers in your mind, that causes you

to wonder if the one man has secured the right material, surely the other must

be able to obtain some increase of power worth while. Your mind questions

that there must be some strength in all that muscular size. However, there

never can be unless they turn to intensive training. Although the

substantial material is formed, it is not exactly in that structure where

the power lies. It has a co-ordinating factor that really makes powerful

efforts possible, and this factor is the ligaments. The muscles are the engines of

the body and the ligaments the pulleys. It is these ropes of connection

that make it possible to apply the muscles in their greatest contraction. The

more muscular fibres in a muscle, the more steel-like their quality, and

they are capable of greater contraction. But if these ropes of connection are

not strong enough to withstand the resistance required, then their weakness is

evident. Because these two cannot be separated is the sole reason why

strength is never disassociated from substantial structure. Ligaments

always exhibit their quality by their thickness. As the right kind of muscle is

formed, they become thicker. Just look at the joints of a real strong man,

and note the depth of tissue that exists. Feel for the ligaments and you

will notice how thick and cordy they are, but you never note their

appearance on one who is not strong, or on the athlete who has not practiced bar bell

exercise. When I started heavy exercise my wrist measured seven inches, but

today it measures eight and a half inches. The ligaments are very thick and

prominent, and have an appearance that immediately tells the eye they must

be part of a sturdy combination.

Strength is better understood as resistance: - The power to resist the

resistance of some other object. The muscles are continually pulling, never

pushing. One group relaxes and another contracts.

There is no mystery to strength, it is just simply understanding its

definition. It has a natural source, and the only thing left is for the

muscle builder to cultivate that source by the right method of training -

the kind that has produced the most powerful men in the world in all classes,

irrespective of whether they were born strong or not. Material resistance

methods, which can only be supplied by progressive bar bell training, are

the only methods which can secure the desired outcome - great natural strength.

Read More »

100 pound intek weight plates for sale

I would like to sell my 100 pound intek weight plates. They are virgin rubber and they have five different handles which makes moving them a pleasure. I have over two thousand pounds of plates to sell for a super low price. Please email me at drewisrael@verizon.net                                      

Read More »

The Key to Might and Muscle (Circa 1926) - Chapter 2 - The Truth About Exercise - By George F. Jowett

It takes all kinds of people to make a world, but some we often feel should be given an island, to make a world of their own. There are people who apparently are born with the pessimistic germ in their systems. They just cannot help taking a contrary view of the situation. You find them everywhere, and antagonistic to the popular beliefs of life, law and religion. I agree that the major part of their criticism is destructive rather than constructive, but why worry about them if you know you are right. You may say, "Look at the harm they do." But I do not believe that. Like attracts like is my belief. Some people prefer to believe that black is white, so let them believe it. We have the same spirit to contend with in teaching the valuable precepts of physical training. I happened to know a man who had an argumentative belief that exercise was harmful; he accosted a heart specialist on the question, with whom I am familiar. The specialist informed him that the causes of cardiac conditions were reduced to four, none of which were caused by exercise. The only time sports or exercise are liable to injure the heart are when the heart is out of condition. Then anything would injure it. More often bad eating, but rarely right exercise, which is constructive. The other man replied that just the same he believed exercise hurts the heart. Now a wall would have to fall on such a man before he would believe it had fallen. And, as an angel could not convert such a person, why worry about it? If you believe in statistics only, then we find the Harvard University reports are convincing proof that exercise and athletics are greatly beneficial in improving the body and preserving longevity. The report reads that if there is any effect upon the health, the effect is beneficial. How can it be otherwise. A machine will rust from non-use more quickly than it will wear out, and the same explanation stands good for the body. The muscles deteriorate with non-use. If they stopped with their own deterioration it would be bad enough, but unfortunately the internal organs become bereft of their protection, which places them in the same class as the soldier without his steel helmet. The truth of exercise lies in the value it accumulates, and like a steadily growing bank account, it develops and earning power. No logical minded person disapproves of putting a little bit away for a rainy day. If a horticulturist has an attractive bloom he does not forget to water it, and till the soil that surrounds the plant to fertilize the roots. The key thought is cultivation. If you have any good talent you cultivate it to preserve and make it more effective. If it is not as good as it should be, you study how to make it so by careful cultivation. Exercise is just another term for cultivation. By cultivating the body you prolong its usefulness. Some say that once exercise is commenced, it has to be kept up. Well, now, you never see the thrifty individual draw upon his financial resources, or the horticulturist forget his bloom, or the owner of an apiary forget his bees. Then what reason should there be for a person to neglect what he has. The battle is always to the strong, and the "survival of the fittest" is based upon how long the individual can retain his superiority over the rest. The same law is in existence, but in a more cultured sense, and as it claims a natural origin, it must have a natural existence. The mere theory of a man cannot change the fundamentals of the natural law, which demand preservation or consignment to the junk pile. There is a religion attached to body culture which is every bit the equal of soul culture. Longfellow wrote that "the voice was the organ of the soul." Equally so is the body the expression of your life and living. You must remember that there is all the difference in the world between being born right and living right. Nature may have been very bountiful at birth, but if neglect to preserve what was inherited comes with the succeeding years, then that individual is doomed to fall by the wayside. Some of our finest examples of physical cultivation were unfortunate in not being born right, but they lived right. These men recognized the fact that exercise held a truth, so they followed it. Clean living, right living, or truthful living, whatever you want to call it, will not stand for any dictation from man. You are the one who must obey. One of the great Christian prophets admonished man to "Keep sacred the body, even as the soul," and another instructs us "The body is the holy temple of the soul." It is not my intention to discuss religion, beyond that of the body. It is merely my desire to prove to any who may be skeptical that the merits of body culture have always been considered on a par with soul culture. The Platonic age of Greece was only created by the study and universal acceptance of body culture, and that state disappeared when they began to neglect those principles. The biggest obstacle to the mind of the average layman is to determine the best method of exercise. Of course we hear a lot of different beliefs and they all hold a certain amount of truth. The greatest benefit of exercise, as I see it, is not in merely doing just this and that to keep normally fit for the day, as much as it is in the creative value of storing up energies within ourselves to meet the approaching years with all the vitality of youth, so far as this is possible. This being the object, what we should look for is the method that is naturally going to give us the best results with the least expenditure of time. I cannot see the value of training two or three hours every night, or making every bodily movement a physical exercise, when intensive training for about thirty minutes every other night will do better. It is proven that it does better. A method that involves numerous repetitions is not apt to be intensive, and the "every movement physical" idea involves a nervous depletion if carried too far. In either case, no natural gains are registered in the store room of physical energy. We know that muscles must have strength, and strength is another name for ability to overcome resistance. The muscles must have resistance to stimulate their motive powers. There is an old saying that "Strength begets Strength." Such being the case, it is only logical that strength methods should be used. You cannot use strength without resistance, and this resistance must be intensive, simply because the muscle are built to more than take care of the body, so it is only logical to substitute weights to give the additional resistance. The progressive weight policy is to coax the muscles, and give the weight increase with the proportionate increase of strength, and not to exert all the power in one or two struggling efforts. It is lack of facts that gives some people that illogical idea. The strange part to me is the lack of balance we see in some people. They may be very sincere, but when you see them struggling to the point of fatigue, trying to chin themselves a number of times and then hear them say that progressive bar bell methods are too strenuous, it cannot help but raise a smile. For at no time will a bar bell user misapply his power in one whole session like the chinning fiend, who never thinks of building his body up proportionately in order to make him more efficient for that test. Others argue that weight lifters strain themselves when lifting. If one does, he is better fitted to do so than any other athlete, because he develops all his powers. He always has a respite between each lift and the lifts are few and quickly done. None are the protracted exertions displayed by the runner and sculler. You never saw a weight-lifter collapse during a contest, or at the close of one, as is frequently the case with runners and scullers, and it is a proven fact that weight-lifters recuperate faster than any other athletes. This subject is not by the way, it merely goes to prove that if weight-lifting as a sport does not entail greater exertions than other sports, it proves how safe bar bell training is for body building purposes. It is vastly superior to the routine of a chinning or dipping fiend. The bar bell athlete has the study of muscular economy brought down to a science, and the value of distribution is evident to a greater degree because one group of muscles are not developed at the expense of another, as in other sports. Intensive exercise develops all the muscles. I have heard field coaches disapprove of the body builder who shows an outstanding development of all his muscles, but just get him talking about some of his track stars, and he will point with pride to the legs of his sprinters, the shoulders of the hammer throwers, and the arms of the shot putter. I do not believe in specializing on one group of muscles to make a man efficient at one sport only. Such a body is like a one track mind. Muscular team work is what delights one, and it is because the bar bell exerciser has the finest team muscles of all athletes that he is the best all round man. He certainly is the strongest and the most supple, which makes him a capable weight-lifter, wrestler, hand balancer and tumbler. He has every bit as much stamina and endurance as the marathon runner, and is not as liable to fatigue. As a jumper, he can meet them all despite the heavier bodyweight handicap. There are Willoughby, Kingsbury, Betty, Bevan, Levan, Berry, Coulter, Gauss, Hoffman, Steinborn, Marineau, Fournier, Gorner, Cadine, Miller, Londos and a host of other crack bar bell men I can mention, who are superb swimmers, jumpers, shot putters, hammer throwers, scullers, boxers, wrestlers and many of them are ten second men in the hundred yard dash. Show me a boxer or a man who concentrates on track events or who relied upon methods of training, other than the intensive system as supplied by bar bells, as accomplished as the bar bell athlete. Some wise critic said that it took two blows of a boxer to put out a wrestler, and one for a weight-lifter. That makes me laugh. What would the boxer say if we were to put it this way. The lifter will lift fifty percent more than a strong wrestler, and three times more with one hand than a boxer will do with two hands. Right away, he would say that was the lifter's game. Well, it is a poor man who can't beat another at his own game, but make it a rough and tumble fight, a free for all, and the best boxer is hopelessly beaten. I have seen on more than one occasion, a world's champion thrashed by third rate rough and tumble men. The sport of lifting weights is so closely allied to bar bell exercise because we are enabled by it to test the value of the progress made, in much the same manner as a sprinter who finds the improvement in his start, stride and finish, cuts down his time over the hundred yards. I have often seen reference made to the great strength of porters and baggage men in handling big trunks, etc., but that is mostly a question of counterpoise rather than strength, although there is undoubtedly a certain amount of strength involved. I know that a husky weight lifter or a bar bell exercise fan, with a little practice, will easily exceed the professional porter. There is less comparison between a lumberjack and a porter than we have been taught. There is less chance of employing counterpoise in handling logs than there is in handling trunks. If it was dangerous to exercise at all, and particularly on the intensive system, it would be dangerous to make any kind of lift. Go back into history and you will read where barbaric races terrified the Romans by the huge rocks they hurled upon them. It was a pastime of the ancient Gauls to compete in raising the largest stone overhead with both hands and throw it the greatest distance. Actually the progressive principle dates further back than the story of Milo of Croton. A friend of mine who is a great student of Egyptology and has been a member of various research and excavation parties, in Egypt, told me that in one tomb they came across a miniature plate loading bar bell made in wood. On the other hand, we find the Chinese, whose dynasties date further into antiquity than those of Assyria or Chaldee, retain a peculiar ancient custom that probably dates from Confucius. Piled up in a part of the town or village are a series of stone bar bells, each one weighing more than the other until a certain weight is reached. It is the Chinese custom for the young man to graduate in this lifting school before he can claim to have reached manhood. The human race is naturally progressive, and when nature outlines the method of progress it must be right, and as we have full evidence of the natural method of progression in developing the physical state, the progressive method of intensive training, as practiced today on a more scientific basis, must be right. Perhaps it is this natural method of physical progression that has improved our physical state that has brought forward the statement from scientists that the modern man is healthier than the ancients. Further investigation proves to us the great possibilities to which a human being can develop his strength by following the same natural law, providing you are willing to recognize the abilities of some races who apply themselves to manual work more than we do. Let us consider the main method of transportation in and around Constantinople, and over the Balkans as carried out by the Armenians. A certain body of these men form what we would call a Guild, and among this Balkan race it is a very ancient order. It is composed of none other but carriers, who do all the transporting of supplies. The amount of weight some of these men carry day in and day out on their back is almost incredible, I have seen them walk along the streets of Constantinople ofttimes with a crier going in advance of them for the privilege of the road to which they are entitled. Their legs almost seem to bow under the load upon their back, which is anywhere from six hundred pounds to one thousand pounds. I saw the report of an American resident of the suburb of Constantinople, who reported an amazing incident in his diary. He had ordered five tons of coal to be delivered to his suburban home, and to his surprise the delivery was made by five men who each made two trips, which would run them about one thousand pounds a trip for each load. On the Isle of Cyprus is an order of monks, who among other things have dedicated their lives to perform everything by manual labor. They hitch themselves to the plow to cultivate the soil and have been known to carry loads varying from five hundred and sixty pounds to nine hundred and fifty pounds upon their backs at one time. They are endowed with remarkable physiques and are long lived. Why some should be so insistent in promoting the belief that people who exercise die young, is ridiculous to me, when statistics show otherwise. They pick out a few athletes who have died rather prematurely, but they never advance the statistics that show the terrible percentage of men who die in their twenties and thirties from preventable diseases. What are a few solitary exceptions among a multitude of facts? We have no way of knowing how long those few athletes who die young would have lived if they had never taken up the study of body culture. Most of them that I know of died of neglect. It is a fact that is recognized by insurance companies that athletes do not take sufficient care of themselves. They think because they are so strong they can overcome everything and never give in until it is too late. Such was the case of Arthur Saxon. After the war was over, from which he had already suffered, he joined a carnival giving numerous shows daily. It was here he contracted pneumonia by exposure and negligence during inclement weather, and in this state he tried to go on day by day with his act, refusing to throw a robe over his shoulders between the other acts despite his weakness and profuse perspiration. A strong man who was with him at that time told me that Saxon actually died on his feet. Breitbart died of septic poisoning. He tore his leg on a nail and went on daily with his act, scorning treatment. After he contracted this dreadful sickness, he actually lived three weeks, which is an unheard of circumstance, as septic poisoning is supposed to kill in about twenty-four hours. When his life could have been saved by amputating his leg, he refused. Sandow had no kick coming. The best medical specialists in Europe only gave him eighteen years to live, and he survived until he was sixty. When he died, it was the result of an automobile accident. The government of the United States spends huge sums of money annually to promote the teaching of physical training throughout the schools, army and the navy. Universities and colleges consider the subject of physical education a very important part of a student's learning, and everything is done to encourage a student to devote time to cultivate his body as well as his mind. Since this system has been fostered the statistics from the universities and colleges have been able to show a higher rating for every student both mentally and physically. These facts must prove to the most skeptical that if these great institutions find physical training such a vital part of a person's education, to such an extent that they spend millions of dollars annually, there must be some greater value attached to exercise than is generally conceded. If exercise was merely a whim with no apparent value, it is a certainty that the government and these other institutions would not consider it. If it was dangerous to the individual they would quickly crush the movement altogether. Commander Byrd, who led the MacMillan Arctic expedition and who recently flew over the North Pole, realized the necessity of keeping his crew and himself physically fit. On each of these Arctic expeditions, Commander Byrd wrote to me asking me to supply them with the necessary equipment and instructions. Intensive training on the progressive bar bell plan was practiced by these hardy adventurers as a necessary part of their plans to keep them fit in order to help clinch success in their hazardous undertaking. Exercise can be better understood as man building. The benefits accumulated are not just physical, they are manifold. The mental and organic system are developed along with the nervous and physical system, and the senses are all intensified. I mean the co-ordinating senses that control confidence and reliance, which all must be considered as part of the quota that goes to make a man one hundred percent physically efficient. There is no "open Sesame" to body culture. Everybody has to work for what they get and by their efforts will their results be measured. The young man who thinks he can burn the candle at both ends is going to regret it. Youth has an abundance of buoyant vitality, but this should be conserved and not expended. Because fools rush in where angels fear to tread, is no reason why another should think it safe to emulate them because of youth being in their side. The days when "wild oats" were supposed to have been a necessary part of a young man's education has long since passed away. We live in the age of doing things, where the great lesson is conservation and the ability to meet emergencies and still carry on. Reserve is needed and this must be the ammunition supply of the body like the bandolier for the rifle. The truth of all these things lies in the proper understanding of exercise. In the following chapters I am giving you the truthful fruits of my knowledge and investigation of exercise, so that you can put them to good account and be another successful exponent of man building.

Read More »