Peacedog wrote:One of the board members wrote a book on the Attila/Sandow exercises, link below, and in the book it stressed the need to keep pressure off of the joints. The method of performing the exercises is very specific and not really the same as traditional weight training. It is more like a loaded jibengung than anything else. Keep in mind the weights used are very light, 3-5 pounds is typical for a normally sized man.
I've used the program on and off as it seems to do a good job of getting rid of those little injuries we all rack up as we age. It is also very time efficient. About 25-30 minutes per day and it can be broken up into a morning and afternoon session of only 15 minutes each.
I can see how failing to heed this warning could cause problems thought, which is why I am not a big fan of high rep bodyweight squats and the like. Higher repetitions of a bodyweight exercise seem to increase the likelihood of losing focus on maintaining proper form.
https://www.amazon.com/Lost-Secret-Grea ... ody+bolton
From a project I am currently working on:
When you read about the incredible feats of the many old time strongman - and then you study their books - you will certainly notice that they mostly recommend high rep exercises with very light weights, and only in the end occasionally mention lifting the heavy weights.
Did really Sandow achieved his incredible feats of strength by lifting light dumbbells? How about his mentor, prof. Attila? In 1913, Richard K. Fox has published a book called Prof. Attila’s Five Pound Dumb Bell Exercises. Attila’s scrapbook shows many women practicing with big globe dumbbells certainly heavier than five pounds, and altogether different exercises than alternating curls - get-ups and one arm presses.
Henry Higgins says clearly his excellent Strength and Muscle Course (around 1915 - modern reprint available at Bill Hinbern’s website superstrengthtrainig.com):
Often you will hear people say that it is possible to become very strong and to get good development by practicing light exercises… I never knew a man who built himself up except by very heavy work. Light dumbbell drills never made anyone strong or muscular.
Venables (1942) agrees:
The very light dumbells found in many gymnasiums have little value as strength and muscle builders. Any exercise is better than no exercise, but we obtain from exercise what we put into it, and with very light dumbells only slight gains are made. The old timers did not have the adjustable dumbells we have at present, so graded progress was more difficult. Most gymnasiums would have a pair of 50’s, perhaps a pair of 75’s, 100’s and a single dumbell weighing 150-200 lbs. or more. While a pair of 50’s are very easy in most exercises for men who train at the York Bar Bell gym, for instance, or any other advanced weight men, they are very heavy for others. There is such a variation in the strength of the various muscles of the body that only a full range of weights will accommodate complete training.
So why many of the famous names advocated light dumbbell training? Bill Hinbern explains:
Most correspondence courses put out commercially by the muscle barons of the early 20th century promoted high repetition exercises using light weight dumbbells or apparatus if they included equipment at all. Anyone with an ounce of common sense can understand that the awesome strength demonstrated by the performers of that era was not a product of light weight, high repetition exercise.
The reason that such methods were promoted by the muscle merchants of the day was very simple. Marketing. That is, it was by far easier to convince you, the potential customer, to use “quick, easy, inexpensive” methods than to sell you on the idea that building great strength took time, effort and expensive heavy equipment.
Listen to to the wise words of Arthur Saxon (Saxon, 1906): “… use heavy ones with fewer repetitions rather than light bells with numerous repetitions.”