Monday, May 9, 2011

Secrets of Strength - (Circa 1925) - Chapter 9 - The Importance of Big Lungs and a Strong Heart - By Earle E. Liederman


Nowadays there is a great deal of talk about blood-pressure. One would almost think that it was the sole index of health and condition. I can remember when it was the correct thing to say, "Oh a man is no older, or younger, than his arteries." Meaning that if an elderly man had elastic walls to his arteries he had a good chance of continued life and activity; and that if a middle-aged man had arteries with weak and brittle walls, he was practically an old man, much older than his years would indicate.

Now, I give you a maxim, which is, "No man is stronger than his heart." And this fact is so well known to professional athletes of all kinds, that they sedulously avoid the over-exertion that might cause heart strain. If you are among an audience watching the performance of a "Strong Man" you are almost sure to hear some wiseacre remark, "That fellow won't last many years doing that sort of stuff; some day he will burst his heart." You see, it is just like it was about digestion. The average man simply cannot realize that the performer's heart is just as much stronger than the average heart, as his biceps is stronger than the average.

The heart is an involuntary muscle, and for that reason many believe that while it is possible to train and strengthen the voluntary muscles, it is utterly impossible to train and strengthen the heat. It is true the growth and condition of the heart cannot be directed as simply and easily as is the case with voluntary muscles.

Everyone knows that it is possible to train the lungs, yet their action is controlled by partly voluntary muscles which go on acting automatically whether you are walking or sleeping.

Did you ever stop and think just what is meant by the expression "getting into training ?" Do you realize that the primary object of an athlete's training is to strengthen his heart and lungs? After a season of loafing you report for football practice. The trainer looks you over, sees your condition and gives orders that every day for a couple of weeks you jog several times around the circumference of the playing-field. He knows that will take off the soft fat and harden your muscles; and, more important still, will improve and strengthen your heart and lungs. If you are "out of condition" you will not last long in a hard football game; no matter how much you know about it, or how strong you are. For who can exert his strength, or show speed if he is winded, or if his heart is pumping away above its normal speed ? Try it for yourself. Run as fast as you can for a quarter-mile and then try to wrestle with a man weaker than yourself. Because he is fresh and you are winded, he will throw you all around. To resume, the first day you start at your jogging, you will be lucky to go the full distance without stopping. You may have to pause a couple of times for rest, and when you finally finish your heart is thumping against your side and you are puffing heavily. Each day the work gets easier, and at the end of the short space of two weeks you will be running with steady, even strides, and when you finish you are breathing heavily, but not in the least distressed for breath; and your heart is functioning powerfully and rhythmically. What you have accomplished is to strengthen the heart and lungs by daily vigorous use. What gratifies your trainer is that instead of being "dead on your feet" at the end of the first period, you can now run swiftly, charge vigorously, and tackle fiercely all the way through the game.

This sounds as though I were talking of endurance instead of strength. Well, what is endurance except continued strength ? With a weak heart is possible to continue mild work for a long time without ill effects, but impossible to do "strength" for even a short time.

Take a man with a weak heart, and you can walk him 15 miles in 5 hours on a level road, and it will neither exhaust him nor affect his heart action. But walk him up the side of a steep mountain, and before he has gone a mile, his heart will be beating so violently that it would be dangerous for him to continue. Up-hill walking is "strength stuff" because you are lifting you weight as well as propelling it. Make a weak-hearted man sprint a quarter-mile at top speed and you may kill him. The exertion of great strength for short periods calls for a stronger heart, than mild exertion over long periods. To run 100 yards in ten seconds is harder on the heart than running a mile in six minutes. Now we will get back to the "Strong Man." When one of these Samsons walks around while supporting half a ton on his shoulders; when he pushes up a huge and heavy dumb-bell; or when he pulls around a pair of horses, he is getting exercise in its most concentrated form.

Any exertion reacts on the heart and the heavier the exertion the stronger the heart must be, if it is to react properly. And yet a trained "Strong Man" will carry his half-ton of weight, put it down and wipe the sweat off his brow; and while his chest may heave with strong lung action, his heart will be going only a few beats per moment faster. Consider what he has been doing. While supporting the weight all his biggest muscles were strongly tensed. The muscles in his back and sides stood out in big lumps and bands, and his thigh muscles literally bulged under the severe strain. When a muscle is highly tensed, the blood-vessels which serve it are squeezed together, and it takes a very strong heart to keep the blood flowing through these compressed arteries and veins. The fact that the performer can do such a feat, without any evidence of distress is the best possible proof that his heart is very strong.

Sometimes in a gymnasium some casual visitor will attempt to equal some feat which has just been performed. Perhaps a trained athlete has pulled so strongly on the handle of a lifting machine that the indicator registers 800 pounds. The visitor thinks that must be easy, because the athlete did not even breathe hard; so he will try, and tug as he will, the indicator will not go above the 400-pound mark. Hating to be shown up in that way, he again grasps the handle of the machine, sets his feet firmly, takes a long breath, and pulls with all his might and man. As he struggles, he first gets red in the face, then his eyes pop out, and the veins in his neck and forehead protrude. Luckily at that point any of the experienced men present, will force him to quit; asking him if wants to break a blood-vessel. That chap may go away fully convinced that great exertion is bound to wreck one's heart; or he may come back and practice on the machine, always keeping well within his growing strength. If he does that, he will find that his lifting muscles (legs, back and shoulders) will grow steadily bigger and that in some odd way his heart has become immune to the usual effects of heavy exertion.

I, who have watched hundreds of "Strong Men" perform and practice, have never seen any one of them force himself so hard that he got red in the face; or had to hold up the performance while he rested his heart and lungs. What would you thing if a famous "Strong Man" puffed heavily, or got purple in the face as he "did his stuff." You would think that was a poor kind of strength.

As it happens these "Strong Men" fascinate you because they can do such incredible things without distress. Even a feat which makes their muscles bulge like masses of metal does not seem to affect their regular breathing. And it is by his breathing that you can usually gauge the condition of a man's heart. The heart and lungs have a related action. Do anything that requires vigorous exertion, and as your lungs work more rapidly your heart will do likewise. Examine the chart of a fever patient and you will see that any marked increase in the rapidity of the pulse is accompanied with a proportionate increase in the rapidity of the respiration. I claim that if I watch a man moving about-exercising and working-I can always tell whether his heart is weak. If his heart is weak, he will puff even at such mild exertion as climbing two flights of stairs. If you can make him talk jut as he reaches the top, he cannot speak without gasping. For with a weak heart one cannot control the lung action, while with a strong heart one can regulate the breathing. An acquaintance of mine has an odd habit which demonstrates my point. He is a bear on keeping himself in condition. Every morning he will wait on the street, near one of the elevated-railroad stations until he hears his train come to a full stop. Then he will tear up the stairs, rush through the gate and board the train. He has to hustle or else lose his train - and he has never lost it so far. If I happened to be on that train he sit down beside me, and commence to talk in a perfectly even voice, without the slightest sign of exertion he has just performed. The explanation is that he has a very strong and solid heart. If your pressed him he would admit that his heart was beating rapidly, but there was no trace of labored breathing. If the heart is strong the lungs will work steadily, even if the exertion is so great as to make the heart beat strongly and rapidly. But if the heart is weak, even a short period of real exertion will put the lungs out of control. And as most "Strong Men" breathe quietly after finishing their terrific feats, I know their hearts are strong.

There are all kinds of weak hearts. A heart may be damaged; its walls strained; or its valves "out of gear" so to speak; and a heart of that character can be made stronger by judicious exercise, but it possessor is debarred from getting very strong, and is debarred from exercises or games where great strength is required. No man with a heart like that should try and row a 4-mile race or take part in a long bout of wrestling. Many weak hearts are weak because their owners are weak. Often a fat man with flaccid muscles will have a heart which is muscularly weak; so if he overtaxes his weak and untrained muscles he will overtax his weak and untrained heart. But since there is no organic trouble, such a man can by progressive exercise, strengthen his heart; just as much as he strengthens his back, leg or arm muscles; and there is nothing to prevent him from becoming very strong and highly athletic.

There are still others who have neither any organic or muscular weakness of the heart, but are still afflicted with what is known as a "nervous heart," in which the heart will jump or flutter at any sudden alarm, and will also fail to react properly after exertion. As an example of that condition, I can repeat for you a story told me by a professional athlete. This man, with his two partners, performed and acrobatic and tumbling act. The biggest man of the other two was a powerful and enduring man; in fact, he had to be so as he was the "understander" - the bottom man-who supported, caught, and generally threw around, his two lighter partners. So strong was he that he could do the heavier part of the act half-a-dozen times a day if need be, and still be fresh at bedtime. But unfortunately he was a heavy drinker- a periodic = never drank while on the job, but if there were two or three weeks between engagements, would slip off by himself and get drunk and sty drunk. A few days before the next engagement was due, my friend would hunt up the deserter and work him to put him back in shape. When the "understander" returned he would be in pitiful condition. All the usual outward signs; and in addition his hands and limbs would tremble if he tried to use them, and he would jump almost out of his skin if a door banged, or an autoist blew his horn. Of course, the other two saw to it that he got no more liquor; and when they started in to practice they could work him only on easy stuff and for a few seconds at a time. In a day or two his shakiness would disappear; his strength and endurance would come back to him and by the time the show began he would be his old self again; and no one would have suspected that his heart would ever trouble him. But just the same at the end of one of his "bats" he had every symptom of the so-called "nervous heart." It is interesting to know that of late years some of the great European specialists have cured cases of apparent heart weakness by gradually accustoming the sufferers to the strenuous sport of mountain-climbing and weight-lifting. Evidently the treatment is for the purpose of strengthening the muscular fibres of the heart, since it would hardly be safe in case of dilation or leakage.

As to the lungs, the same public that suspects the heart-condition of the "Strong Man," willingly concedes the size and power of his lungs. Indeed the evidence of lung-power is so plainly visible as to be undeniable. One of a "Strong Man's" most striking attributes is his ability to expand his lungs. It is true that some performers have over-emphasized their true, or lung, expansion by adding to it the muscular expansion of the upper back muscles as described in my book, "Muscle Building."

But without resorting to such dodges, the really "Strong Man" can show three or four times as much lung-expansion as can the average man; and twice as much as most athletes can show. Make the average "non-athletic" stand erect, with his arms hanging by his sides; have him expand his chest just by filling his lungs with air, and he is lucky if he can expand his chest as much as one inch. Athletes put under the same test will show two or three inches expansion, while many of these "Strong Men" can show a genuine lung-expansion of four to six inches; and sometimes even more than that. (The above method is the only sure method of showing the genuine expansion. Most people when asked to expand the lungs will hunch the shoulders and spread them apart. This does not give one a bit more lung-room, but it does spread and contract the upper body muscles and give a false expansion.) If a spirometer is used to measure the lung capacity, it will prove that while the average man will inhale only about 200 cubic inches of air, the "Strong Man" will inhale 350 to 400 inches. You must remember that the "Strong Man" with his broad shoulders and big rib-box, has more lung-room to start with. To those assets you have to add his unusual power of expansion, and you get the secret of the forced capacity of the lungs. The extra lung-capacity is a valuable asset in more ways than one. The "Strong Man" with his big rib-box breathes more deeply than others do. While they sit at rest and are breathing quietly they may take in only 80 to 100 cubic inches of fresh air at each respiration; whereas the big fellow takes in twice as much revivifying air at each breath. In other words his normal breathing-capacity is twice the average; just as he can take in twice as much air when under forced draft, so to speak. It is almost impossible to make a small-lunged man understand the muscular energy that comes from the possession of big lungs. You have doubtless noted the great difference which your surroundings make in your energy. In a stuffy. unventilated room you feel "loggy," and the slightest movement is an exertion. When you in the fresh air you feel buoyant and energetic. A big-lunged man has at all times - only in greater degree - the energy that you feel when out in the open. There is still another advantage which the big-lunged man possesses which comes from the size of the rib-box itself. It is just such a mechanical advantage as comes from the possession of broad shoulders, wide hips or big bones. On a good-sized rib-box the muscles attached thereto will be longer than is usual and will have more room to develop and thicken. Hackenschmidt's "globe-like" chest was accounted for, both by the size of his exterior muscles, and by the high-arched and capacious rib-box which underlay those muscles.

Happily, anyone, be he large-boned or small-boned, can get a big, roomy chest if he practices deep breathing. Most people think that the only reason for cultivating the lungs is to promote endurance; whereas big powerful lungs actually add to a man's strength because they add vastly to his energy.

I have know track-athletes, football players, baseball players and oarsmen to die of lung trouble and of heart trouble. But I have never heard of but one real "Strong Man" who succumbed to either of these maladies; and that was Louis Cyr, who died from angina pectoris induced by his excessive corpulence.

Iron Nation
Read More »

For Athletes with Food Cravings and “Sugar Addictions” - By Nancy Clark, MS RD CSSD

The Athlete’s Kitchen Copyright: Nancy Clark MS RD CSSD May 2011 For Athletes with Food Cravings and “Sugar Addictions”

“If I crave a candy bar, should I eat a candy bar?”

That’s the title of one of my most popular blog posts! Clearly, food cravings and sugar addictions are a source of concern and frustration for many athletes who believe that eating one chocolate bar (or whatever food they crave) will lead to eating ten of them, expand their waistlines, and ruin their health. They avoid chocolate like the plague. Instead, they righteously snack on only "healthy foods" like apples and oranges.

While the natural goodness of fruit is indeed the more nutritious and health-promoting choice, some nice chocolate, enjoyed in response to a hankering, can also fit into your sports diet. By regularly enjoying chocolates, you can avoid the strong cravings that lead to eating a sickening amount—not because you are “addicted to sugar” but because you are doing “last chance eating” before you go back into your self-defined food jail (1).

Keep in mind, your brain has a memory for the food you crave. If you try to ignore your craving for, let’s say, chocolate, you'll end up eating it sooner or later. This may happen after you've tried to curb your craving with an apple, crackers, pretzels, sugar-free fudgsicle—anything but the chocolate—and then, 500 calories later, you succumb to what you truly wanted. You could have more wisely enjoyed the chocolate in the first place; you would have saved yourself a bunch of calories!

Food cravings are a popular topic not only on my blog but also among LinkedIn's Intuitive Eating Professionals group. A discussion “If you crave a food, should you eat it?” spurred a lot of responses, with the answer being YES! History says that denial and deprivation of a desired food does not work permanently but rather results in binge eating. After all, if restrictive eating “worked,” then everyone who has ever been on a diet would be thin. The majority of dieters are overweight and obese, suggesting that “dieting fall-out” maybe be contributing to obesity. (2)

To our detriment, we live in a world where enjoying bagels, ice cream, candy, and chips gets “questioned.” Athletes talk about needing “will power” to curb their intake of the foods they crave. But most of us really want to be able to enjoy these foods. We just want to be able to eat them sanely, not in what feels like an out of control pig-out. We need nutrition skill power (not will power) to learn how to manage today’s food supply. That's where a sports dietitian can help you control hunger-based binges and find peace with food. (For a referral to a local sports dietitian, see www.SCANdpg.org.)

The question arises: What’s so bad about cravings in the first place? Is there really something wrong with eating what you truly want to eat? Cravings are not addictions. That is, if you crave a bagel because it tastes good, why should you not enjoy the bagel? When you eat a food you crave, your brain experiences a biochemical change that signals happiness. Can eating an appropriate portion (as opposed to overeating “the whole thing”) be a bad thing to do?

The answer commonly depends on if you are eating the food for fuel vs. mindlessly devouring it for its drug-like effect. If you find yourself on the verge of polishing off the whole bag of bagels, stop and ask yourself, “Does my body need this fuel?” If the answer is yes, you need to learn how to prevent the extreme hunger or derprivation that triggered the overeating. If the answer is no, then ask yourself, “What am I doing with my feelings?” Over-eating a craved food can distract you from sadness, smother your emotions, and protect your from feeling alone and lonely. But you are using food for the wrong reason. No amount of bagels, chocolate, or chips will resolve the real problem: you are likely hungry for a hug.

Do certain foods over-excite the pleasure centers in the brain? If so, do those foods become “addictive”? The recent science (3) says there is no such thing as a “sugar (or food) addiction.” Yes, it may have addictive-like qualities, particularly following a restriction/binge pattern of eating (1). In my practice, most people who binge have an unbalanced relationship with food; it has become too enticing, a primary focus for pleasure. The more they try to stay away from palatable foods, the more they want them.

While there is much we do not know about food and this controversial topic of food addictions, I encourage my clients to first rule-out hunger as the cause for cravings for sugar and carbohydrates. The physiology of hunger explains why we crave sugar; it’s a survival signal for quick energy. When your blood sugar is low, your brain signals an urgent need for sugar. When your muscles are glycogen depleted, you experience a niggling carb cravings until the muscles are adequately replenished.

What can you do to overcome cravings and perceived “addictions”? First and foremost, experiment with eating heftier breakfasts and lunches to abate hunger. (No, you will not “get fat” by eating more during the day. If you listen to your body, you will observe you are less hungry at night and will simply be able to consume fewer calories.) Also try changing your attitude. The mind is very influential. If you believe you are addicted to a food, you will have a hard time convincing yourself otherwise despite research that refutes the concept of food addiction and puts the focus on deprivation as a trigger to (over)eat.

The next time you have a craving for a specific food, relax, enjoy eating it slowly, taste it, savor the flavor, and linger over the treat. Do this several times throughout the week. Learn to enjoy the treat slowly, in moderation, without feeling guilty. Enjoy the foods you crave at every meal. For example, have a few Hershey's Kisses day after day, at breakfast, lunch, afternoon snack, and dinner. Eat them so often that you get sick of them. This may sound unhealthy in the short term but a week or two of excess chocolate will not ruin your health (nor your waistline) forever.

By learning your body's responses to different foods, you can at least become educated: food is not addictive and cravings are not bad. What’s bad is trying to live hungry as well as denied and deprived of foods you enjoy. There is a possibilty you can find peace with food. Nancy Clark, MS, RD, CSSD (Board Certified Specialist in Sports Dietetics) helps both casual and competitive athletes find peace with food. Her practice is at Healthworks, the premier fitness center in Chestnut Hill MA (617-383-6100). Her Sports Nutrition Guidebook and food guides for new runners, marathoners, and soccer players offer additional information. They are available at www.nancyclarkrd.com. See also www.sportsnutritionworkshop.com. Reference: 1. Pelchat M. Food addiction in humans. J Nutr. 2009; 139(3)620-622 2. Corwin RL, and P Grigson. Symposium Overview—Food Addiction: fact or fiction? J Nutr. 2009; 139(3):617-619. 3. Benton, D. The plausibility of sugar addiction and its role in obesity and eating disorders. Clinical Nutrition 29(3):288-303, 2010. -- Nancy

Nancy Clark MS RD CSSD Sports Nutrition Services

www.sportsnutritionworkshop.com (home study; online workshop) www.nancyclarkrd.com (books, handouts, CEUs)

Nancy Clark's Sports Nutrition Guidebook, 4th Edition Food guides for soccer, new runners, marathoners, cyclists

Healthworks, 1300 Boylston St., Chestnut Hill MA 02467 Phone: 617.795.1875 Fax: 617.795.1876 Twitter.com/nclarkrd

"Helping active people win with good nutrition."
Read More »

Sunday, May 8, 2011

Dedication - By Vic Boff

Photo above: AOBS Founder Vic Boff as a teenager


To the many Iron Game Athletes living and dead, who have Hall of Fame credentials but never were bestowed with Honor or Plaque in a worthy Hall of Fame. The list of deserving such Honors is long and for the many - the wait will be in vain.

We owe a great deal to those men who have contributed greatly to the Lore and Legacy of the Iron Game.

Let us banish the thought of forgotten Men, but keep their Shining Stars forever glowing.

They have inspired each and every one of us. Barbells, Weight Training and Weight Lifting have contributed greatly to the health, strength, and happiness of mankind.

We thank everyone past and present who have supported our fellowship to preserve the history and the future of our Great Iron Game.

The Association of Oldetime Barbell and Strongmen (AOBS)


Editor's Note: As my late good friend Vic would say, "Carry On!"
Read More »

Personal Training more than a Century Ago

Read More »

Secrets of Strength - (Circa 1925) - Chapter 8 - Strength from Perfect Digestion - By Earle E. Liederman


There is no question I am asked more frequently than "Mr. Liederman, what shall I eat to make me strong?"

Perhaps you remember the fairy-tales you read in your childhood days. The hero of the tale at some magic food, or drank some magic potion, and would immediately become so strong and brave that he would go out and clean up an army single-handed. I assure you, there are people today who almost believe that kind of thing. I once met an undersized young fellow who was quite convinced that if he could only hit on the right kind of food preparation, in a couple of months' time he would become a sort of combination of Sandow and Jack Dempsey. And when I told him that I knew of no such food or drink I could tell he thought that I was "holding out on him." I have never yet met a "Strong Man" whose digestion was poor. Their powers of digestion and assimilation are on a par with the power of their muscles. Now, whether their muscular strength comes from the perfect working of their organs, or whether their perfect digestion comes from their muscular strength, it would be hard to say; but undoubtedly there is a connection. I have observed that the very strong amateurs and professionals with whom I am acquainted have two noticeable characteristics. They eat in a deliberate manner and masticate the food thoroughly; and they have a marked preference for concentrated nourishment. Also it must be admitted that some of them are what you would call "large eaters."

It stands to reason that a large man with powerful muscles, and who uses those muscles, will require more nourishment than will a small man who uses his muscles but little. It is further noticeable that when an active and powerful man changes his occupation to some inactive employment his appetite will gradually become less. A "Strong Man" does not deliberately eat a lot of highly nourishing food with the fixed intention of keeping up his strength. He does so instinctively, for the exercise or work at which he spends his strength gives him a grand appetite, and he instinctively satisfies that appetite. Under certain conditions you, the ordinary man, do exactly the same thing. You have been working all week, and on some crisp Saturday afternoon you go off on a hike, climb a big hill, play 18 holes of golf, or perhaps take part in a game of football. In two or three hours you are continually using your muscles; which means you are spending physical energy in large quantities. When after a bath and rub-down you sit down to your Saturday evening meal, you discover that you have a "whale of an appetite," and you amaze and dismay your family by the amount of food you eat. If you ate a meal like that after a day in the office you would probably have unpleasant consequences in the way of a headache and indigestion. But after vigorous exercise the organs will take care of a lot of nourishment.

If you take vigorous exercise regularly you develop a regular appetite; and along with the appetite comes a definite increase in the ability of the digestive organs to turn food into energy and muscular tissue. And these "Strong Men" by virtue of their employment and physique require a lot of food to keep them going. And so does a stevedore, or a ditch-digger or any other man who uses all his muscles continuously. When a man eats unusual quantities his friends will say "he has an appetite like a farm-hand."

If you go to college and are on the football or rowing squad, you are made to eat at the training table; where you are provided with food that is easily digested and which provides nourishment. You are given no choice, as the dishes are selected by an experienced trainer. It seems to me these very "Strong Men" develop an instinctive taste for that kind of food. Go to lunch with one of them, and while you are hunting over the bill-of-fare for some dainty dish that will tempt your appetite, your companion will fix the waiter with a stern eye, and say, "Bring me a big steak, a lot of potatoes and a pitcher of milk" or perhaps, "Bring me a big order of pork and beans, and when I am through, bring me another." When it comes time for dessert he will wave away the French pastries and either have ice cream, pudding or some kind of fruit-pie.

I sometimes wonder if anyone besides myself ever noticed the similarity of the diets of an invalid and a "Strong Man." A man recovering from an illness will be given broths, beef tea, milk-and-eggs, ice-cream, milk-toast; and as he gets stronger, meat. That is just the kind of dishes the "Strong Man" naturally prefers. I know professionals who at the end of an exhausting act will consume large quantities of beef tea, or some meat extract. They claim that it immediately restores their strength; the explanation being that the juices of the meat are assimilated very rapidly.

An invalid can "keep down" ice cream, when his stomach will reject everything else. Some of these "Strong Men" positively inhale ice-cream. I asked one of my Herculean friends, who thinks nothing of finishing every meal with a "quart of vanilla," why he ate so much ice-cream. All he had to say was that it somehow "reached the spot."

Another professional of my acquaintance always breakfasts exclusively on milk-toast; his ration being about a loaf of bread toasted and put in a quart of hot milk. A tubercular case, a consumptive, when sent to a sanitorium, is made to consume an "egg-and-milk" at regular intervals during the day, and this simple diet seems to check the disease and restore the wasted tissues. A " Strong Man" who happens to like eggs will think nothing of eating half a dozen at a meal. As to the regularity of their meals--well, there is no such thing. They will eat at any time, before or after a performance, and sometimes both. They eat whenever they are hungry--and some of them are hungry all the time.

Now I suppose all that is very unscientific, and that it seems to contradict all the theories of those authorities who insist that the human body thrives best on a "balanced ration," that every day one must absorb a certain variety and quantity of different food elements; who insist that only one kind of bread is nutritious, or that one must eat exclusively of fruits and vegetables. All I am doing is to tell things as I have seen them; and I do not mean that there is nothing in what those food experts teach us.

A busy banker might be much healthier, if instead of eating rich and expensive dishes, he confined himself to a diet which was scientifically planned in quantity and food-values. But that is no reason for believing that a "Strong Man" should eat exactly the same quantity and kinds of food. No one would expect the average banker, or lawyer, to carry a thousand pounds of iron on one shoulder, or to match his strength against that of a team of horses; and neither should anyone expect a big husky to maintain his strength or create new power, on the diet of an indoor worker of average physique.

There are some people who simply cannot understand that the man who has power and muscles of phenomenal size and strength is almost bound to have digestive organs of equally exceptional power. I believe that the almost perfect digestion of those who are very strong is mostly due to the development of the muscles in the neighborhood of the digestive tract. Like other teachers of physical culture, pupils are sent to my by physicians, with the requirement that I prescribe an exercise program to cure chronic constipation, or chronic looseness of the bowels. I know that one kind of exercise will relieve constipation by promoting the activity of the liver and intestines; and that another kind of exercise will cure the other condition through toning up the organs and regulating their secretions; and that still other exercise will improve the quality of the blood.

In such cases in notice that an exercise which benefits the liver will develop the muscles at the sides of the waist; and that by the time those muscles have grown large and shapely the liver will be working properly. Also that the development of other muscles near the waist-line will "tone up" other organs.

As the real "Strong Man," the symmetrically developed, well-knit chap, is equipped with a wonderful set of muscles encasing his digestive organs, he is immune from any digestive troubles. He is even better off than that. With him it is not just a matter of being free from organs the work properly or improperly, for he has organs that function with immense vigor. I hope you see what I mean. There is an immense difference between being merely free from disease, and being immensely vigorous. Undoubtedly there are business men of advanced age who have never taken any more exercise than they could help; who have "never been sick in their lives"; who have never become either emaciated or grossly fat. Why? Because they are blessed with almost perfect digestion and assimilative processes. So there is a connection between good digestion and continued health. And there is just as close a connection between an extraordinarily vigorous digestion and extraordinary bodily strength.

In concluding this chapter I wish to emphasize the fact that any exercise program which is designed to increase the size and strength of your muscles should add to the permanent vigor of your digestive organs. Therefore, when you exercise you should keep a careful watch on your appetite. If you have a good appetite and crave nourishing foods, you are on the up-grade and can expect rapid increases, if you satisfy that appetite. If on the other hand, you lose your appetite, it means that you are over-exercised or under-exercised; and that your muscles will not grow, nor your strength increase until the appetite returns.


Iron Nation
Read More »

Saturday, May 7, 2011

Secrets of Strength - (Circa 1925) - Chapter 7 - Strength through Symmetry - By Earle E. Liederman


The longer you study the question of physical strength the more you become impressed with the great necessity of symmetry--or all-round development.

The word "symmetry" implies a balance of parts. Most people think all that is necessary to symmetry is that the left half of the body be exactly equal in size to the right half. But there is more than that to physical symmetry; for as applied to the body symmetry it involves proportion. No man with big arms and shoulders and slender legs can be called symmetrical. And neither can a man who has massive legs, surmounted by narrow shoulders and puny arms. A man who is absolutely symmetrical will have shoulders of a certain width in proportion to his height; his legs and arms will have a certain length in proportion to his body; and moreover the girth of his arms will bear a definite relation to the girth of the chest, and the girth of the thighs to that of the hips.

Absolute symmetry has probably never been attained by any human being and is only approached by some few noted "Strong Men."

There are men who go around the vaudeville circuits exhibiting their strength, who come close to being perfectly symmetrical. In fact they bill themselves as "perfect men" and they actually get more applause when they pose and exhibit their flawless forms, then they get when doing their feats of strength. The public, which after all, is composed of average human beings, loves bodily beauty and likes to feast its eyes on physical perfection; whether it is a "Strong Man' doing "classical poses" in the lighted cabinet, a beautiful woman behind the footlights, or either one of the two on the beach in a bathing suit.

To resume the discussion. Has it ever occurred to you that his symmetry may account for a large part of a "Strong Man's" power? I can assure you that it is a fact. Further than that, I know that if a shapeless, undeveloped man takes up "exercise," and practices with the aim to make himself as symmetrical as possible, that as he attains symmetry he will also attain strength. When he becomes unusually symmetrical he will become unusually strong. This is because of the interdependence of the different parts of the body. You can perform an act which requires but little exertion by using the muscles of only one part of the body, but when you do something which necessitates putting forth a lot of strength, then the work is performed by, and shared by, a group of muscles. Thus you can take a tiny hammer in your hand and drive a thumb-tack just by moving the hand at the wrist-joint. If you had to drive a railroad spike through the three-inch top of a wooden bench, you would use a heavy hammer, grasp it firmly, raise your right arm high above the head and bring it down with great force. As you swing the heavy hammer upwards, the muscles of the forearm, the biceps, and the shoulder muscles would be at work, and as you smashed the hammer down, you wed be using the muscles of the back as well as of the arm. Watch a man driving a drill with a long, two-handed hammer. As he whirls it up he will bend backwards at the waist, and as the hammer comes down he will bend forward from the waist; and just as the hammer hits the drill he will bend his knees slightly. By delivering the blow in this way he will get all the advantage of his weight plus the momentum of his swinging body and arms. In other words he reinforces his arm muscles with the muscles of his body.

A "Strong Man" when performing a feat which requires a great expenditure of strength, will instinctively bring into action just as many muscles as possible. Since all of his muscles are strong he can exert extraordinary power by making his muscles act in concert. That helps to establish the connection between symmetry and strength; or perhaps it would be better if I said, between all-round development and strength.

In another book of mine I recommended exercises which employ groups of muscles, instead of one muscle at a time. When exercised in groups the muscles acquire the power of working in concert; which is known as co-ordination. That, however, is but one of the beneficial results. A greater benefit comes from the increased strength and control of the joints. For almost every muscular contraction results in the movement of a joint. When an Irishman says, "More power to your elbow" he is actually wishing you more strength in all the muscles of your arm. When you say that man has a strong shoulder, you mean that he has strong muscles in the neighborhood of the shoulder.

In the case of any joint, power is located on either side of the joint. The biceps is only one of the muscles which bend the arm. There are muscles in the forearm which help. Just as the lower tendon of the biceps is attached to the bone of the forearm, several muscles of the forearm are fastened at their lower ends to the bones of the hand and at their upper ends to the bone of the upper arm. So when you bend your arm part of the power is supplied by the biceps pulling against the bone of the forearm, and another part by the forearm muscles pulling against the bone of the upper arm. When you "chin the bar" you can easily see both sets of muscles at work. As you bend the arms to lift the body, your biceps muscles will rise up in a hump on the front of your arm above the elbow; and at the same time your forearms will bulge out just below the elbows. For "chinning" develops all the flexors of the arm; and furthermore teaches your arm muscles to contract strongly in any kind of stunt or work in which it is necessary to bend the arm forcibly. That sort of strength is entirely lacking when the arm muscles have been built up by the 'extreme contraction" method. I saw that clearly demonstrated when I put a couple of young fellows at curling a 50-pound weight. Each had arms which measured about 14 inches around the biceps. "A" had gotten his arm development by "chinning," rope-climbing and such work, and he "curled" the weight a couple of times without much effort. (In "curling" a dumb-bell, you allow the arm to hang by the side, and then without moving the elbow you raise the hand holding the dumb-bell, from hip to shoulder by bending your arm.) "B" was not able to curl the bell once; in fact he could not even start to bend the arm. "A"'s superiority was not due to practice, for it was, he admitted, the first time he had ever had a 50-pound bell in his hand. But his arm, all of it, from wrist to shoulder was used to vigorous work. Whereas "B"'s muscles had seldom worked against resistance. When working on his biceps, he would, as already descrivbed, bend his arm and force his biceps into a lump by an effort of the will, and meanwhile his forearm muscles were not even tense. And when he tensed his forearm muscles to develop them, his biceps were not even in action.

So much for the difference in strength. The difference in appearance was even more marked. "A" had a capable-looking, well-knit arm, which looked as though it could do something. But "B"'s arm, notwithstanding the size of its biceps, was not impressive. It seems to lack size right above the elbow, and right below the shoulder. His forearms did not merge properly into the upper arm.

Indeed, to an expert, it was very plain that his arm-muscles had been developed individually, and that they had very little power of working together with their neighbors.

That is just one illustration. I could give others, such as the peculiarly shaped and weak-looking thighs on men who have practiced but one kind of leg exercise; who have all the muscle in bunches right above the knees, and whose legs and hips seem to be hardly related to each other instead of being closely connected.

If you made a close study of the muscular make-up of a great "Strong Man" you would find a peculiarly well-knit condition in all his joints. Where the arm joins the shoulder you would find that his deltoid muscle would form a big cap over the joint itself, and that you could trace the lines of the deltoid almost to where its tendon fastens near the middle of the upper-arm bone. The big pectoral muscles would not show just near the breastbone, but would extend right across the breast to the arm-pit. When he lifted his arm the breast-muscle would seem to flow into, or merge with the shoulder-muscle. His upper back, when in action, would appear to be possessed of more individual muscles than you would think possible, and as he moved his arms about, these back muscles would shift about in ever-changing contours, seeming to slip under, or play over each other.

And as for his legs, well: it would be difficult for you to say just where the thighs stopped and the hips began. Instead of the thigh muscles appearing to stop at the top of the leg itself (as they do in ordinary human specimens), the muscles on the outside of the thing would rise in one sweeping curve, from the knee all the way to the top of the hip-bone. And there they would disappear under the great muscle at the side of the waist. On his back there would be a great chain of muscles all the way from the base of the skull to the back of the ankles. At the top the trapezius muscles, of such shape and size that they made the neck merge into the shoulders; then the two great ridges of muscles along either side of the spine; next the firm buttocks; then the great outward swell of the biceps in the back of the thighs; and last of all the powerful muscles of the calf. When you thus see that every part of his body is adequately covered with muscle, and as you watch hi move any part of his body with seemingly irresistible power, you comprehend how being symmetrical and well-knit will add to a man's strength; and it makes you realize that, with muscles, as with everything else, "In union there is strength."

While we are on the subject, let me see if I can make clear the way the muscles help each other out. You have just, in imagination, been studying the back of a "Strong Man." Let us suppose you admit its development and that you ask him to display its strength. Thereupon he places two chairs about four feet from each other; lies down with his head and the back of his neck on one chair, and his heels on the other; and allows you and two of your friends to stand, one on his thighs, the second on his stomach, and the third on his chest.

This feat is possible only because he is so well developed along the full length of his back and legs. If there were one wink link in the chain of muscles his body would give under the weight. (Understand, in the first place, that this stunt is a feat of muscular strength and is not like some other supporting feats, where the burden is carried on vertical bones. For when a man lies with his head on one chair and his feet on another, all his bones are horizontal.)

In order the support the weight, the body must be kept in one rigid straight line; and that is done in this case by an almost violent contraction of the muscles of the back itself and the muscles which run along the back of the legs. Naturally the only place at which the body could give way is at the hip-joints. You may argue that the legs have little to do because even the greatest imposed weight would not make the knees bend backwards. But the legs have a lot to do, because in order to keep his body from sagging the athlete has to dig his heels violently against the seat of the chair, and the force with which he can press with his heels is governed entirely by the strength of the buttocks and the muscles on the back of the legs. Of course almost all the muscles of the back are busy, for the spine must be maintained in a straight line; but what I emphasize is that the muscles below the hip-joint, that is of the legs, have just as much to do with keeping the body straight, and the hips from sagging, as do the back muscles which are above the hip-joint.

Now a man who can do that stunt must necessarily have well-knit hips, and no joint can be well-knit unless it has strong muscles on either side of it, and strong tendons crossing it. Now I can safely say that the average physical culturist cannot do that stunt because he has not the necessary muscle. No amount of club-swinging, or free-hand calisthenics will develop heroic strength in the lower back, or in the rear part of the legs. But almost any big professional wrestler will do it, and so will many tumblers, oarsmen, football players, and men who do heavy labor.

I long ago found out that it was the constant use of the back, which gave such great strength to some of those laborers; and my criticism of most "exercise systems" is that they pay insufficient attention to creating back-strength. A young fellow who exercises in his own room will spend half an hour doing exercises that afford vigorous work to his arms, shoulders, chest and upper-back muscles; and when it comes to his loins and the back of his legs, he thinks he has given them enough work if he leans over, swings his pair of 5-pound dumb-bells between his legs, and then straightens up, swings the bell overhead and leans backward. A workman will think nothing of picking up, and piling a stack of cases weighing 50 or 75 pounds apiece. Or he will lift packages weighing as much and with a heave of his body, and a swing of his arms, toss them to another man standing on a platform above him. And the exertion is nothing to him because his back has become tremendously strong from doing that sort of work day after day and year after year.

Occasionally at a bathing-beach, one man will stand with legs firmly planted, a second man will sit on his shoulders, a third man climb up and sit on the second man's shoulders, and then some powerfully made young fellow will lean over, slip the back of his neck between the first man's crotch, and slowly stand up, lifting all three men with him. Naturally a strong neck is necessary, but there must be strong back muscles, and very strong muscles along the back of the legs. The strongly muscled legs form the anchorage against which the back muscles exert themselves. Now once more, a man who can thus lift three men on the back of his neck is the very fellow who can do the stunt of lying on the two chairs. And if you test him you will find that he can do another feat which employs the same leg muscles. Let him stand erect and take a firm hold of some firmly placed object, to give him a brace. Then ask him to raise his right foot backwards (without moving his knee) so that the right calf will extend out horizontal and at right angles to the thigh. If you stand on his right calf with one of your feet on the back of his ankle, and your other foot on the fleshy part of his calf you will find that your weight is not sufficient to force his leg downwards. Why? Because he has tremendous strength in the back of his leg, the biceps of the thigh, which has been developed through his constant handling of heavy objects.

All the foregoing was written just to give you an idea of what is meant by being "well-knit." If I had the space I could go on and give you similar illustrations showing that the same principle applies to all other joints; how for example, when a man has great strength in his sides--can keep his body straight against a great pressure that would bend the body sideways at the waist--you will always find that in addition to having great muscles on the sides themselves, he will also have great muscles on the outside of his thighs. That when a man has great muscles on the front of his abdomen, he will have great muscles on the front of his thighs, and so on. If you keep in touch with the sporting papers, you will notice many pictures of those Herculean heavy-weight wrestlers; most of them big men, developed from head to heel, and obviously possessed of great strength. Wrestling develops most, but not all of the muscles. When a wrestler takes the trouble to supplement his exercise with stunts that develop the upper extremities and which still further cultivate his body and leg-muscles, then you get a sample of super-power and super-shape like George Hackenschmidt.

Iron Nation
Read More »

Friday, May 6, 2011

Secrets of Strength - (Circa 1925) - Chapter 6 - Quality of Muscle the Basis of Strength - By Earle E. Liederman


Knowing that I am really interested in the subject of strength many of those whom I meet--even chance acquaintances--will bring the conversation around to physical matters. One young man, a finely-developed chap, asked me to explain why he was not as strong as other men whose muscles were no bigger than his. Of course the answer was complicated, for there are so many different elements in strength. A man may have strong muscles but utterly lack any knowledge of applying his strength, so that he makes a poor showing against experts. He may have a one-sided, or unsymmetrical, development that makes him good at some tests and poor at others. But generally the explanation lies in the quality of the muscles.

A muscle can be of high or low quality, just as may a steel spring. You can buy a steel spring which will have a certain degree of springiness, but which will ordinarily lose that quality under the strain of use. And you can buy another spring of exactly the same weight and thickness which will have twice as much resiliency, and which will last indefinitely. The difference lies in the quality of the material and the superior process of manufacture.

You can take a piece of iron and by treating it in a certain manner, and by forging and reforging it, can convert it into steel, and make it several times as strong as it was before, without adding a particle to its bulk.

There is a way of developing muscle, which gives added size but surprisingly little added strength. There is another way which adds to the muscle's strength and leaves the size to take care of itself. And there is a third, and it seems to me an ideal way, which not only brings a muscle to its maximum size and greatest beauty of outline but also gives it enormous contractible power.

The size of a muscle is of course dependent on the number and thickness of the individual fibres which compose it; and size can be produced more easily than can strength. Just as the mind can be developed by giving it progressively harder problems to solve, so can the muscles be built up by teaching them to contract against progressively greater resistance. Take any man or boy who has drifted into the habit of using his muscles as little as possible. Start him with mild exercise and then gradually give him more, or longer or harder exercise, and his muscles will steadily grow in size and strength until the natural maximum is reached.

The last few years have witnessed the growth of a great interest in muscular development for its own sake. There is a way of producing muscular tissue in large quantities, of making various individual muscles big and shapely, but without adding very much to the strength of the muscle. This method, which is called by several different names, is really a system of development from "extreme contractions."

It is fascinating, because of the ease with which muscle is created, and disappointing by reason of the little strength that it brings. Undoubtedly it has its origin in light dumb-bell exercise. It soon became apparent that if a man used in his exercise a pair of 2-pound dumb-bells, the resistance offered by such light weight was not sufficient to make the muscles really work.

So the work was made harder in the following way: at the end of any movement the muscle was vigorously tensed by an effort of the will. This made the muscle contract to its full extent and it soon appeared that the more intense the mental concentration on the act of tensing the muscle, the more rapidly the muscle would grow.

The importance of the voluntary tensing overshadowed the value of the weights used; and so the small dumb-bells were discarded as they added nothing to the effectiveness of the method. To explain. If you clinch your fist, bend your arm, and bring your hand close to your shoulder the muscles called into play are the flexors of the arm of which the principal one is the biceps muscle. Now, after the arm is bent, try and harden the biceps so as to make it stick up in rounded lump. Repeat several times, and your biceps will turn and get slightly sore. Do this every day for a month, and by the end of that time you will notice a considerable difference in the size of the muscle, especially when it is under tension. From day to day you will be able to put more force into the final contraction; and as that is a form of work each day the biceps will grow slightly larger. If you keep it up long enough you will get so that you can make the biceps protrude in a very imposing lump indeed.

Exactly the same thing can be done with most of the voluntary muscles. All you have to do is to learn the position most advantageous to extreme contraction; and then tense the different muscles strongly by an effort of the will. When a muscle is tensed, or used, blood is drawn to it, which accounts for the increase in size.

There are men who have obtained fairly big muscles in that way, but they never look really well-developed except when the muscles are tensed. When at rest these muscles, while fairly bulky, have a placid appearance; and entirely lack the clear-cut and shapely outlines that come from doing real muscular work.

A muscle so built up, when flexed to its fullest extent, will show a pronounced ridge, or hump, at its center portion--that is, midway between the tendons, or attachments. The biceps, for example, will stick up almost in a point, instead of in a high curve. When relaxed the muscles are large only in the center and taper sharply to the points where they join the tendons; and the tendons themselves are not affected or strengthened by this method of development.

A man who has developed himself by real work has muscles of an entirely different shape, and of vastly greater strength. I have seen men with 15-inch arms developed through the extreme-contraction method, who had far less biceps strength than other men with 14-inch, developed through exercises like "chinning the bar," "curling" heavy dumb-bells, or other movements in which real work was done.

In order to develop the greatest strength, a muscle must work against resistance through the whole range of contraction. When chinning a bar, the biceps muscles are continually at work, from the start when you commence to bend the arms, until the finish when your arms are doubled up. All through the movement the arm muscles are lifting the weight of the body; i.e., overcoming resistance.

There are "strength athletes" whose whole interest is in the creation of high-quality muscles, and who care little about the appearance of their muscles. Their desire is to perform feats which require the maximum of muscular strength, and they deliberately train to increase the strength of the muscle, and allow the shape to take care of itself. What they care for is not how the muscle looks but what it will do. One of the best-known exponents of this theory was the late Arthur Saxon. In some styles Saxon could lift more than any other man in athletic history. There is a lift known as a "one-arm-bent-press," which is the method used by experts when they wish to "put up" a very heavy weight. The art of the lift consists in using the body muscles to reinforce the arm. In fact, most of the elevating of the weight is accomplished by bending the body. I took a physician friend to watch Saxon perform, and when the "bent-press" was made, and Saxon's body was bent almost double to the side as he forced up a 314-pound weight, my friend exclaimed "that man must have phenomenally strong fascia."

The "fascia" are the thin fibrous sheaths which enclose the muscles. In your arm there is a fascia almost like a tight sleeve, which lies right under the skin and holds all the muscles together.

In the region of the hips and waist there are important fascia and I suppose it was to them that my friend had reference. You see he was not so much interested in the contractile strength of Saxon's muscles, as in the firmness of the fascia which prevented a displacement of the muscles of the waist region.

Saxon himself spent a lot of time in strengthening his tendons. He knew that his public performances required a lot of energy, and his theory was that light exercises only tired him, without making him any stronger. So when he practiced, he would do the sort of stunts which threw heavy work on the full length of the muscles, and on the tendons; such as the lifting, supporting and throwing around of enormous weights. And he would do each stunt only a very few times, and alternate his stunts with brief periods of rest, so as to prevent himself from tiring, and to conserve his energy. As a consequence Saxon was never what you would call a beautifully developed man, although he was well-shaped and had a very rugged appearance. His muscles were sinewy rather than of the beefy type.

Particularly noticeable was the length of his muscles. The biceps of his arm, for instance, was big from its lower point in the bend of the elbow all the way up to where it disappeared under the deltoid at the arm-pit. The character of his work seemed to prevent any accumulation of fat, and his muscles were always plainly evident. No man ever made less effort to display his muscles, and yet few men have had stronger muscles. His upper arm measured about 17 inches when flexed, and his thigh about 24 inches; neither of which is extraordinary for a man who had a frame like his. His bones were about the average in size, but his tendons were much thicker than is usual; and I believe that the kind of work he did thickened and strengthened the tendons. Certainly I think that if he had cared for muscular development, he could have made his arms one inch, and his thighs two inches larger. With his bones and tendons he could have "bulked up" his muscles and, I feel quite sure, could have made them even stronger than they were.

The Boston athlete, John Y. Smith, was a smaller man than Saxon but was of the same rugged, sinewy type and had muscles of the same shape and character. So far as I can find out, Smith's training method was the same as Saxon's; and in his youth Smith was America's leading amateur "Strong Man."

While I am an earnest advocate of muscle-culture, I am willing to admit that there are very strong individuals who possess great strength, but who show no pronounced muscular development. Assemble one hundred men accustomed to heavy labor and you are sure to find, in that hundred, at least three or four who are far beyond the others in respect to bodily strength. They may be big, or just average in height; but always they are thick-set and well-knit. Their muscles are big, but not of the well-defined kind that we associate with "Strong Men." And yet when it comes to moving a 2,000-pound log, loading a huge crate on a wagon, or carrying a piano up stairs, these men are "there with the goods." Their strength must be due to their educated tendons which have been gradually developed through years of the kind of work which calls for great and continual bodily exertion.

The other day a friend told me of seeing a workman carry up one flight of stairs a bathtub weighing 1,500 pounds. Several men had to assist in getting the tub placed on his back, but once it was there he was able to walk away with it. When I asked what the man looked like, I was told that he was not very big, but extremely well-made, standing about 5 feet 8 inches in height and weighing about 180 pounds. I would like to be able to study that man's muscles so as to determine where his strength comes from. Anyone would be foolish who attempted to prove that only those are strong who go to gymnasiums, or who practice physical-culture. I know, for a fact, that many of the new-comers to the ranks of professional "Strong Men" are recruited from among those who have developed their unusual strength by doing labor. And even a few months of intensive muscle-culture will not necessarily make one as strong as another bigger man who has spent years developing his muscles in the course of his daily work.

For my part, I am interested in the building of better bodies, I am more or less of an enthusiast on the question of muscular-development; and strength fascinates me. So quite naturally, I prefer a training method which promises results in all three directions--that at one and the same time improves a man's general build and his muscular development and increases his strength. In the line of ex, I prefer the kind that increases the muscular tissue, and strengthens the tendons. I like the kind of strength that can be converted into athletic ability, and I favor the variety of muscle that by its very shape proves that it has done work, and is capable of work.

Happily we can find many cases where the maximum of strength is accompanied by superlative beauty of figure; as in Sandow, Rollon, Arco, Redam and other famous "muscle-men."

My interest in the kind of muscle produced by different varieties of exercises explains why I encourage, and sometimes incite my pupils to competitions to determine which of them can do the most "pull-ups" on a horizontal-bar; the most "dips," stretch the most rubber strands, or lift a 50-pound dumb-bell overhead the greatest number of times. When the competitors submit their records along with pictures showing their development, it is interesting to observe the effect of a vigorous exercise in developing and shaping the set of muscles chiefly employed.

You can build up any muscle, or group of muscles, if at regular intervals you give it exercise that is vigorous but not violent. "Vigorous" is somewhat indefinite, because an exercise which would be vigorous at the start, when you were undeveloped, might prove to be mild after you had gained in strength and development; and an exercise which would be dangerously violent for untrained muscles would later on, after those muscles had gotten big and strong, be perfectly safe and easy of accomplishment. So any well-thought-out training system involves the introduction of the "progressive" element, the increasing resistance offered, or the increased vigor of the movement, without which no great gains in strength or development can be made.

The act of jumping affords us a very good example of the effects of violent versus vigorous exercise. For jumping can be used as an exercise, made violent or merely vigorous, and the resulting development bears a direct relation to the kind of jumping you have practiced. Jumping for extreme height is an exercise of the most violent character. When a man six feet tall clears a bar higher than his head, he performs a feat of strength which requires a powerful and spasmodic contraction of the leg and back muscles.

And yet you will see in some illustrated sporting paper the picture of a group of star high-jumpers, and most of them will be tall and slender. Their legs are not heavily muscled, which makes you wonder where their strength comes from; and makes you doubt whether there is any basis for the theory that a muscle must be large in order to be very strong. The truth is, extreme high-jumping is one of those exercises which make the muscles strong without increasing them in size. The average college high-jumper really does but little practice. He jumps only during a few months in a year; practices perhaps only six weeks in all; and never makes more than two dozen jumps or "tries" in any one day. If he were to jump vigorously every day in the year, his thigh muscles would develop rapidly. I know this from my observation of professional jumpers, who invariably have magnificent legs. A professional rarely makes any terrific jumps; never practices with the idea of seeing how far he can project his body in the air; but displays his nimbleness through the means of "trick jumping." He will place a dozen barrels in a row and leap in and out of them in turn. Or he will place a dozen chairs in a circle around the edge of the stage, and, keeping his feet close together, will make a succession of standing-high-jumps, bounding over the backs of chairs like a bouncing rubber ball. All that requires much practice, which entails vigorous, but not violent, muscular contractions; and many of them. And because they practice many varieties of trick jumping, they bring into action every muscle in the thighs, with the result that their legs become models of symmetry and size. I know one of these chaps who has positively the best-shaped thighs I have ever seen; so well-rounded that they look big from any angle. (You know there are men whose legs are thick from front to back and thin from side to side, and in other men the exact opposite is the case.)

All those trick-jumpers have wonderful thighs. And it does not seem to make a bit of difference whether their hips are wide or narrow, or if their bones are big or small. The man referred to above has a rather slender frame, which makes his thigh-development seem more wonderful by comparison. Also he is very strong, seemingly from possession of those legs, for he can lift heavy weights from the floor, and can carry heavy weights on his shoulder while he walks with a firm, even tread. The only other athletes who can equal the jumpers for thigh-development are some of the great fancy-dancers; and, after all what is fancy dancing but continual jumping and springing? Ground-tumblers, who practice hours daily at hand-springs, somersaults and like feats also get fine legs, because they use their leg muscles to propel their body weight.

I am one of those who hold that the strength a man can exert is largely controlled by the strength of the thighs; which is why I am devoting so much space to them. Ask an experienced friend how to develop your thighs, and he will probably tell you that all that is necessary is to practice squatting (the so-called "deep-knee-bend"), in which you first bend the legs and sit on the heels, and then rise up by straightening the legs. You try it and it seems very vigorous at first, for after a couple of dozen squats your thigh muscles cry out for a rest or even refuse to work. But you persist and after a week's practice you can squat 50 times without much trouble, and your thighs seem to have grown bigger and improved in shape. At the end of two weeks you can make a hundred repetitions; and at the end of a couple of months, your limit is gauged only by your endurance. This is the common experience as there are men who can squat 1000, 1500 or even 2000 times without stopping. The disappointing thing is that at first your legs grew bigger and stronger rapidly, but when they reached a certain size the growth stopped; and they are not yet big enough to suit you. You may not have realized it, but the growth stopped just when the exercise ceased being one of strength and became one of endurance.

According to our theory, the way to promote further growth is to make the resistance heavier and the repetitions less. This could be done either by resting a weight across your shoulders, or by squatting on one leg at a time. A still better way is to adopt the scheme of a young friend of mine. He had but a limited time in which to exercise and so had to concentrate. He made his squatting more vigorous by the simple expedient of jumping directly upward. As he stood up he would spring lightly upward; and as he landed lightly on the balls of his feet, would allow his knees to bend so that he would sink into the full squat, and from that position would again spring upward. So instead of the thigh muscles just raising the weight of the body to a standing position, they had to contract strongly enough to shoot his body up in the air. He claimed that 30 such jumps gave one as much work as ten times as many ordinary squats, and produced much bigger muscles. Certainly he has developed splendid thighs in that way.

A couple of generations ago the first great American "Strong Man" adopted exactly the same principle to increase the size and development of his arms and upper body. This was the celebrated Doctor Winship, who was the Sandow of your grandfather's time. Winship lived at a time when there was no such thing as "home exercise," and so did all his training in one of those old-fashioned gymnasiums equipped with ladders, bars, rings, etc.

A favorite exercise of his was to mount the under side of an inclined ladder by successive "chins." Instead of going up hand-over-hand he would grasp a rung with both hands, give a strong pull, let go of the rung, flash his hands up and catch the next bar above. This is much harder than pulling your weight up slowly, as you have to "jump" your weight up by a strong contraction of the arm muscles. Consequently it produces bigger and stronger muscles, just as jumping in the air as you arise from a squat gives bigger thigh muscles than mere squatting.

To mount a ladder as Winship did teaches one the knack of strong muscular contractions, because, as you come near the top of the ladder, if you miss you will take a 15 or 20-foot fall. Winship's muscles grew rapidly in strength; so to give them harder work he would skip a rung at each jump. This produced strength so rapidly that ordinary chinning became child's play to him and to chin the bar with one arm was no trouble at ala. Then he went to going up the inclined ladder using only one arm; and eventually reached the point where he could give such a terrific pull that he could mount three rungs at a time. Think of the prodigious power he must have had. It takes a "Strong Man" to "chin" even once with one hand, but this Winship could actually pull so strongly with one arm that his whole body would be projected vertically upward. Probably he used similar schemes to develop the rest of his body. That his strength was not confined to his arms is shown by the fact that in his exhibitions he would lift from the floor with hands alone, a platform bearing a dozen 100-pound nail kegs. And to do that he must have had immense strength in the back and legs.

To achieve the maximum of strength and beauty, it is necessary to practice exercises which teach your muscles to contract strongly, so as to develop the muscle throughout its full length from tendon to tendon; which can be done either through the use of strong springs or strands, weights, or just the resistance furnished by your own body weight. In addition it is wise to practice a little at "extreme contraction" exercises.

It is a great mistake to make your exercise too severe, or to make too much of it. If you wish to get the biggest and strongest muscles possible you will do better to make a few vigorous efforts than one violent one. Lifting a 300-pound weight from the ground six or eight times will develop the back more rapidly than lifting 500 pounds once. Stretching a 5-strand "exerciser" a dozen times will make the arm muscles bigger than doing the same thing only once or twice with a 7-strand; and much quicker than taking a 2-strander and stretching out 50 times.

Iron Nation
Read More »

Thursday, May 5, 2011

Atomic Athletic Great Black Swamp Olde Time Strongman Picnic 2011



THE PICNIC IS BACK!

Saturday, May 14th, 2011

The Fun Starts At 1 PM!

Spectators Get to Witness Death Defying
Feats of Strength & Power!

CLICK HERE TO SIGN-UP!
Read More »

Is Bodybuilding a Dirty Word? - By Randy Roach


In most social circles, say the word “bodybuilding” and you will draw reactions rivaling that of a racially-charged verbal epithet. Really, is there any other physical endeavour that possesses such a vast schism or contradiction between the essence of the craft and the way it is played out at the top competitive levels today? The look of the modern day bodybuilder has little support from the public or from its own industry, yet many of their tools are still used by millions worldwide to improve physical appearance, fitness, and as a training adjunct for enhanced sports-performance.

Believe it or not, there was actually a time in a by-gone era when the look of the bodybuilder was more highly sought since its participants were believed to be practicing Physical Culture. They were a breed of strongmen who demonstrated their strength, displayed their physiques, and wrote books and pamphlets on how to live a healthy lifestyle. The most prominent of these pioneering bodybuilders was late 19th century vaudeville performer, Eugen Sandow.

Even Alan Calvert, founder of Milo Barbell, said almost 100 years ago that for every 1 man who wanted to be strong like Eugen Sandow, he would show you 100 who wanted to look like him. Antithetical to this philosophy was the most powerful man in American weightlifting through the 20th century, Bob Hoffman. Bob didn’t like the notion of building muscle simply for display purposes: he wanted them to perform. Although he wanted those muscles to execute primarily the 3 Olympic lifts (clean and jerk, press, and snatch), he was an early advocate of using weightlifting for improvement in other fields of athletics back in the 1930s. For example, he credited weightlifting for his own success in aquatic sports.

As mentioned, since a good number of early 20th century strongmen performers and weightlifters possessed impressive physiques, weightlifting and bodybuilding do in fact share some common historical roots. The entwinement continued when the AAU (Amateur Athletic Union), the most powerful amateur sports governing body in America up until 1978, began officially sanctioning bodybuilding contests, specifically the Mr. America event in 1939. The contests were tagged to the National Weightlifting Championships and thus pinned under the thumb of Bob Hoffman who was a very powerful figure within the AAU. Although the Mr. America entrants were not required to participate in the AAU weightlifting contest, they were still under the watchful eye of Hoffman who favoured any contestant who possessed a weightlifting background.

The argument between “muscles for show” versus “muscles for go” inevitably led to the decades-long debate over whether bodybuilding was pageant or sport. Bob Hoffman wasn’t alone in his concern over bodybuilding becoming a totally autonomous adventure. Iron Man magazine publisher, Peary Rader, shared Hoffman’s fear over the physique stars mutating into what he called “strutting egotists.” With the influence of both men within the AAU, the Mr. America contest was judged for many years not simply on muscularity and proportion, but equally on general appearance and athletic ability. Although the general appearance points were to carry only 25 percent of the scoring, many felt it was used far too much as the deciding factor as to who would wear the coveted Mr. America crown.

The pageant/sport debate wasn’t the only issue forging the dichotomous craft of bodybuilding. Many a sport traversed their share of evolutionary hurdles to survive and grow through the years when sport did not receive the recognition it does today. That began to change from the 1960s onward. The dynamics between corporate America and the world of athletics changed dramatically as technology altered the landscape of social economics.

Both the athlete and the sport became supercharged commercially and would receive a level of recognition never experienced before. Even competitive bodybuilding enjoyed its years of glitter during the 1970s and 1980s, but the awkward sport just seemed to encounter bigger hurdles, serving only to heighten its self-contradiction.

Technology didn’t stop with facilitating an explosion in sports media through television; It offered advancements in many of the hardware tenets of the various games. From the playing fields, ice surfaces, and combat rings, to the bats, pucks, balls, and protective gear, industrial engineering was carving new markets in the arena of athletics.

Bodybuilding and the fitness industry certainly benefited from these advancements considering the myriad of more complex machinery that entered both fields, from Harold Zinkin’s Universal machine to Arthur Jones’s Nautilus invasion and all its derivatives that followed over the years.

Along with the resistance equipment, the evolution of bodybuilding through the 20th century did in fact contribute much to the birth and growth of the enormous fitness industry. Through its more natural years, the bodybuilders themselves offered a look desired both openly and secretly by many. However, this ended when they chemically morphed themselves beyond any cultural context.

It was this more dubious use of pharmaceutical technology that further disassociated bodybuilding from the general public. Yes, baseball, football, wrestling, and track and field have all come under scrutiny regarding the use of anabolic steroids by their athletes, but it is the top competitive bodybuilders who became the walking billboards for chemical abuse. In their blind pursuit of sheer, lean muscle size, the drug arsenal these men have engaged has become mind-boggling! Some of their antics have made a mockery of the sport and fall in line with what could more suitably be referred to as, “bodystuffing.”

Compounding and further exacerbating the dilemma has been the decades-long association of a questionable sexuality with the bodybuilders. Avoiding the controversy surrounding that topic, it is unfortunate that these antics, accusations and the resulting outlandish appearance of the top physique competitors have become tightly identified with bodybuilding. Some in the industry have begun to refer to this aberrant faction of the sport in other terms, thus allowing the craft of bodybuilding to return more towards its original Physical Culture roots. So then, just who are the real bodybuilders? It has always been deceptively simple. Any individual, athlete or laymen, who partakes in resistance training with the intent to change the appearance of their body and to improve their well-being is, in essence, a true Body Builder. Not such a dirty word, is it?



Randy Roach is the author of the 3-volume book series, “Muscle, Smoke & Mirrors.” The project entails a comprehensive history of bodybuilding and all its relative issues such as diet, weightlifting, fitness, drugs, and even global politics which took five years to complete through extensive interviews, research and analysis. There is a heavy emphasis on nutrition as it relates historically to the fitness industry and the general public. Volume I was released in June of 2008 at 562 pages. Volume II is expected in late 2011. Reaction to Volume I has been extremely favourable with endorsements coming from both the general reader and professionals in the field. David Epstein of Sports Illustrated has commented on the “unbelievably extensive research.” Many facets of this intriguing history are reveled for the first time, not to mention an amazing cast of characters whose diets, philosophies and even idiosyncrasies alone make good reading.

Randy is a retired computer programmer who spent over 15 years developing systems in both the museum and environmental engineering professions. He has written and been published in 3 different fields. Randy now makes his living as an author and private health and training consultant in his home in Ontario, Canada. He can be reached through his website www.randyroach.ca where you may also view the amazing feedback for Volume I of the “Muscle, Smoke & Mirrors” project. This website will allow the purchase of Volume I through Author House.

Read More »

Secrets of Strength - (Circa 1925) - Chapter 5 - Strength Through Natural Advantages - By Earle E. Liederman


Having dealt with the subject of big bones versus small bones, this seems a good time to discuss other physical characteristics which are in themselves natural advantages to the strong man.

Broad shoulders, for example, are a distinct advantage, simply because they are but another indication of a large and strong bony framework, which would be a good foundation on which to build muscle. There is, or should be, a relation between the size of your chest and the breadth of your shoulders. If you have a very small chest, it would be unnatural for you to have very broad shoulders, and vice versa. When speaking of a man who is very strong, it is customary to say "he is a broad-shouldered, big-chested fellow." If you have broad shoulders you have at least three distinct advantages: (1) the vigor which you derive from the extra-size lungs in your big chest; (2) the extra room for muscle on and about the shoulders themselves; (3) the greater muscular leverage which comes from the wide spread of the shoulders.

Therefore any man with broad shoulders I potentially strong; that is, he has the possibilities of strength, which he may realize if he develops all the muscles of the shoulders. In another book, "Muscle Building," I have given instructions for obtaining that development; and so here I will merely explain that the width of the shoulders is governed not only by the size of your frame, but by the size and development of the deltoid muscles on the points of your shoulders.

In a true "Strong Man" -- be he professional lifter or otherwise -- these deltoid muscles are of extraordinary size. Whereas in the non-athletic type the deltoids are only a fraction of an inch in thickness, and so little developed that it is impossible to trace their outlines. In a "Strong Man" they may be anywhere from an inch to two inches thick. Just figure for yourself how properly developed deltoids will affect the appearance of your shoulders. The deltoid gets its rounded form because it covers the head of the upper-arm bone. If your deltoids re thin and weak, then the points of your shoulders will be bony, that is, you will be the kind of man of whom people say "Oh, he has shoulders like a hat rack"; but if you develop the deltoids so as to make them as strong as they can be, you will at the same time make them each an inch thicker, and that will add a clean two inches to your shoulder breadth. Without powerful deltoids no man can be really strong, for they are in important link in the chain of muscles which move the arm.

A man can have a bib rib-box without very much deltoid development. He can have big upper arms, with but moderate deltoids; but if a man has highly developed deltoids, he is almost sure to have a broad back and big arms. For it is impossible to make your deltoids big and strong without making the arms and back bigger at the same time. The deltoids "connect up" the strength of the arm and the strength of the body.

Casual observers do not comprehend the importance of the deltoids. On seeing a lifter or a weight thrower, or a great gymnast they will exclaim at the size of his arms and the width of his shoulders, not realizing that it is the big deltoids which make the arms look so thick and which make the shoulders so unusually wide.

Since the deltoids lift the arms from the side, there must be other muscles which pull the arms downwards; and these muscles are located on the back and the breast. Now, if the deltoids are big the muscles on the upper back are bound to be as big in proportion. When you see an athlete who has deltoids so big that each one looks almost as big as a baby's head, get behind him and take a look at his back; you will then find that across his back from shoulder point to shoulder point there are hills of muscle with valleys between; and if you let your gaze stray downwards you will note that from arm-pit to arm-pit the back is very broad and that the size of the body tapers inwards at sharp angles to the waist.

That is something that you see, not occasionally but invariably, in the true "Strong Man."

Knowing all this will perhaps make you realize the importance of broad shoulders. Sometimes you will be sitting in a train and some big chap will saunter in and sit down two or three seats ahead of you. And you will think it lucky that he got a seat to himself for his shoulders are so broad that they take up three-quarters of the room allotted to two people. You wonder if he is a football star, a piano mover, or perhaps a heavy-weight fighter. Whatever he is, you instinctively credit him with being tremendously strong. If you will recall what I have just told you, perhaps you will be able to figure out the different things which help make these mighty shoulders so impressive. If the shoulders are wide, take a look at his sleeves, and you will note that they are so cut as to make room for upper arms which are as big as some men's thighs. If he leans forward take a glance at his back, and see if it is not true that just below the arm-pits there are two bulging masses of muscle. Without doubt you have more than once seen such a man, and all you grasped was that he was broad-shouldered. The next time check up, and you will see for yourself that he has all the characteristics I have just listed, and that if one is missing he will somehow fail to give you the impression of being very strong.

The average man's shoulders are only 16 to 19 inches broad, whereas with some "Strong Men," athletes and heavy laborers you can take a 24-inch rule, lay it across their upper backs, and a man standing in front would not be able to see either end of the rule.

While everyone knows the strength-value of broad shoulders, there are but few who ever consider the importance of broad hips to the strong man. In fact it is just the other way around. When a novelist wishes to endow his hero with all the desirable physical gifts, to make him speedy and shapely as well as strong, he will write: "He was tall, broad-shouldered and deep-chested, but with the trim hips that added grace and elegance to his figure." Others describing such a man will say that he was "thin flanked."

Such is the structure of the hips that they are heavily muscled at only one place, and that is the buttocks. A man may have highly developed gluteus muscles, which is to say that the buttocks may project considerably, and yet his hips may be narrow.

The hip-bones themselves -- the pelvis -- form a basin which acts as a sort of floor to the abdominal cavity. The bones of the thighs fit in sockets at the outer side of the hip bones. Which means that if the pelvis is wide the thigh bones are spaced wide apart, and if the pelvis is narrow the thigh bones are closer together. All of which affects a man's strength because it has a very direct influence on the firmness with which he stands. If the hips are broad, the legs are wider spaced and their owner will naturally stand with feet further apart than will a narrow-hipped individual. Also the wider-spaced bones will give more room for muscle.

Just as it's easier to upset a small, high table than to upset a low, broad table, just so is it easier to upset a narrow-hipped man than a broad-hipped one.

In a man the thigh-bones are not perpendicular but incline slightly outward from knees to hips. In a woman the thigh-bones incline outwards at a much greater angle. A woman's hips are broader in proportion to her height than are a man's, which explains why the upper part of a woman's thigh is bulkier than a an's thigh. And it also explains why some women are so strong in certain ways. A woman's strength lies almost entirely in her hips and thighs. As compared to a man's her arms and shoulders are weak, but in feats which require hip and thigh strength she can sometimes equal the efforts of a man of equal weight. I have seen girl fancy-dancers who could easily back a man across the room in a pushing contest.

According to those tables of ideal proportions, the hips of a man should measure only two or three inches less than the normal chest measurement at the level of the arm-pits; the difference being greater in a tall man, and less in a short man. Judging by what I have seen, this rule has no universal application. Arthur Saxon's hips were big and square and he probably came near the required proportions.

George Hackenschmidt had even bigger hips than had Saxon, but the difference in the size of their chests was even greater. I have not the figures before me, but I would guess that Hackenschmidt, whose bones were unusually large, had 42-inch hips and a 52-inch chest, which is 10-inch difference. Sandow, with whose physique no one but himself could find fault, showed a 5-inch difference; for his normal chest was about 44 inches around and his hips 39 inches.

Even in the case of Oscar Matthes, who is about the shortest "Strong Man" on record, the difference was 5 inches, i.e., chest 40 inches, hips 35 inches. You may recall that Matthes' thigh measured 21 inches and that it seemed hardly big enough to fit in with his other measurements. The explanation is that with hips measuring only 35 inches it is hard to build up a thigh larger than 21 inches around. There simply is not room for more muscle. Owing to the outward inclination of the thigh-bones there is more muscle in the inside than o the outside of the upper part of the thighs. If the hips are narrow and the thigh-bones close together, the space for muscles is automatically limited. When you see it stated that a man has thighs measuring more than 24 inches around, you can be sure that his hips are more than average width.

The great majority of men who do harness-lifting, back-lifting, and platform-lifting, or who carry great weights on the back, or on one shoulder, have great thighs and wide hips. Such men have uncommon power in their loins.

If you are interested in outdoor games and athletics, you probably know that a man with natural advantages will excel at a particular event. It is well known that a long-armed man, if he gets the proper pitching motion, can deliver a much faster ball than can a short-armed pitcher. And a tall, rangy man with long legs finds it easy to step over the high-hurdles in fast time, while a short- legged man has almost to make a high jump over each hurdle.

It has long been supposed, or believed, that there is some magic strength in extra long arms.

I have read books in which the author would introduce a man character whose purpose was to furnish the strength element. The description would be like this: "So and So was a man short of stature but famed for his prodigious strength. His shoulders were as broad as a platform, his chest round as a barrel and his muscle-knotted arms were so long that when he stood erect his gnarled hands hung almost to his knees." I think that the author must have had a gorilla in mind when he thought up this "Strong Man" character; for I have never seen a man of that description. I know lots of "Strong Men" but the ones who are long-armed are also long-legged. Once in a while I have seen a man whose body and arms seemed out of all proportion to his legs and hips, and the impression I got was that something had happened to arrest the growth of the upper limbs.

Big hands, particularly if they are long-fingered, are a distinct advantage in the performance of some feats of strength. This applies particularly in the case of a dumb-bell-lifter. John Marx had enormous hands with fingers so long that they would lap around a 3-inch bar. So in his act he used moderately heavy dumb-bells, but equipped them with very thick handles. A small-handed man who could have easily picked up with one hand a thin-handled 200-pound dumb-bell, could not possibly pick, up Marx's bell of that weight, because his fingers would not circle the handle. So Marx got what was perhaps an undeserved reputation for strength.

I know men with small hands who have a prodigious gripping power. There are small-handed gymnasts who can "chin" themselves several times in succession with any finger of either hand; which proves that their hands are strong. Given a proper-sized grip a small-handed man, who is strong in all other respects, will lift just as much weight off the ground with one hand, as will his big-handed rival.

Exactly the same principle applies to long arms. In some forms of wrestling, short arms, however thick and strong they were, would be a distinct handicap, because, if your opponent was extremely bulky, your arms would not be long enough to lock around him. On the other hand, I can conceive of a condition where long arms would be a disadvantage, particularly if your opponent got a wrist-lock and used against you the extra leverage of your own long arms.

As I said before, I do not know any "Strong Men" who have disproportionately long arms. Even when of normal length the strong man's arms look shorter than those of most men because of the thickness of the forearm, and the overlapping of the deltoids.

Strong wrists are indispensable to strength. In most ordinary feats of strength the object to be moved or lifted, swung or broken, is gripped by the hands; and those hands must be strongly coupled to the arms, so that there will be no break in the delivery of the power. A famous veteran, advising a new-comer in the professional ranks, said, "Young man, you will never be any stronger than your hands and wrists," and then proceeded to describe a few exercises to strengthen the wrists. And those exercises did not make the wrist any bigger but increased the strength of the hand-muscles, and particularly added to the size and power of the big bunches of muscle that lie in the upper half of the forearm near the elbow. Wrist strength is something that can be cultivated.

Iron Nation
Read More »
Does modern bodybuilding make you sick? You should write for Natural Strength! I always need good articles about drug-free weight training. It only has to be at least a page and nothing fancy. Just write it strong and truthful with passion! Send your articles directly to me: bobwhelan@naturalstrength.com
BODY • MIND • SPIRIT

Vintage Bodybuilding Literature

Vintage Bodybuilding Literature
Oldtime Strongman Books

This site does not provide medical advice. We assume no liability for the information provided in NaturalStrength articles. Please consult your physician before beginning any exercise or nutrition program. Copyright © 1999-2026 NaturalStrength.com | All Rights Reserved.