| Resurrecting the Oak, Part I - Arnold's Favorite Training Principles |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TMUSCLE
Moderator
Join date: May 1998
Location:
Posts: 8942
|
|
Arnold's Favorite Training Principles - Part 1
by Chris Shugart
07/02/99
Arnold Schwarzenegger did a lot of things wrong. He performed endless sets of leg extensions thinking that he was "cutting up" his thighs. He believed that pullovers would spread the rib cage and pull-ups would widen the shoulder girdle by spreading the scapulae.
|
|
| Report Post |
|
|
 |
|
|
chefbrian
Level 0
Join date: Mar 2007
Location:
Posts: 2
|
|
So, if Arnold was starting out today with his "Herculean genetics", and had access to all the "modern" training principles, and all the current supplements and drugs, one wonders just how big the guy would have gotten? |
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
Jack Bauer
Level 1
Join date: Nov 2006
Location: New York, USA
Posts: 60
|
|
chefbrian wrote:
So, if Arnold was starting out today with his "Herculean genetics", and had access to all the "modern" training principles, and all the current supplements and drugs, one wonders just how big the guy would have gotten?
Interesting point. I think it should also be noted that Arnold didn't compete for glamour like a lot of guys today. He just loved training and trying to beat himself. With that added, he would have been unstoppable in today's world of bodybuilding (as ridiculous as it may be). Good article! |
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scotacus
Level 1
Join date: May 2006
Location: Ontario, CAN
Posts: 481
|
|
Arnold's the king.
And I dont think it's an issue of how big he would have gotten. The size fetish pollutes current pro bodybuilding, for the most part. But Arnold was primarly about building a perfectly balanced, symetric, proporational physique. Of course he had size too.
But he stated that he got to the point where he stopped training for size, fairly early, from what I understand. After that he trained for perfect symetry. And, he admits, that he reached the point where everything was perfect, where he could not add size to one area without it distorting the rest. |
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
bigpapapump
Level 0
Join date: Sep 2007
Location:
Posts: 85
|
|
Scotacus wrote:
Arnold's the king.
And I dont think it's an issue of how big he would have gotten. The size fetish pollutes current pro bodybuilding, for the most part. But Arnold was primarly about building a perfectly balanced, symetric, proporational physique. Of course he had size too.
But he stated that he got to the point where he stopped training for size, fairly early, from what I understand. After that he trained for perfect symetry. And, he admits, that he reached the point where everything was perfect, where he could not add size to one area without it distorting the rest.
well said. |
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
Scotacus
Level 1
Join date: May 2006
Location: Ontario, CAN
Posts: 481
|
|
Its interesting. It is said of Arnold that his "weak point" were his legs, compared to bbers of the late 80s and certainly today. Yet, as Chris pointed out, there are pics of Arnold doing some crazy ass squats poundage-wise. So it wasnt that his legs were weak compared to the rest of him. I think they were his "weak point" because he willed it so. He didnt train them to grow in size, and they didnt, for the reason I pointed out above.
In todays culture, such a thought is heresy!! Intentionally not grow size??? Arnold, you dont know what youre doing!!!
|
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
Scotacus
Level 1
Join date: May 2006
Location: Ontario, CAN
Posts: 481
|
|
This article has really hit a chord with me. Big thanks to Chris.
Its great reading accounts about how these guys worked out. For example, about intensity: its true they lifted high reps - 12-15, sometimes 20 reps in a set. Many probably think, oh, they started with a light enough weight to do that many. No! They started with heavy weights and worked the muscle until they squeezed out every last fucking rep! |
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
Scotacus
Level 1
Join date: May 2006
Location: Ontario, CAN
Posts: 481
|
|
Jack Bauer wrote:
Is the one you were thinking of Chris???
You know, this is what Im talking about. The current culture are a bunch of number geeks: look at the numbers on the plates and add em up! Thats all there is to it! Wrong.
Do you know what he was lifting for? Do you think this was his stupid "one rep max"? What a stupid fucking concept, "one rep max". The guy was an artist. |
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
VojtaK
Level 0
Join date: Nov 2006
Location: Czech
Posts: 8
|
|
Hi, I just cannot see much difference between chicken and beer and post-workout drinks like Surge. I just see balanced protein and easily digestible sugars. Where is the differnce and why should it be wrong? |
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
Jack Bauer
Level 1
Join date: Nov 2006
Location: New York, USA
Posts: 60
|
|
Scotacus wrote:
Jack Bauer wrote:
Is the one you were thinking of Chris???
You know, this is what Im talking about. The current culture are a bunch of number geeks: look at the numbers on the plates and add em up! Thats all there is to it! Wrong.
Do you know what he was lifting for? Do you think this was his stupid "one rep max"? What a stupid fucking concept, "one rep max". The guy was an artist.
I'm not sure what you're getting at. I never said it was his one rep max. I was asking Chris Shugart a question about the picture he mentioned. Did you even read the article? |
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
Jack Bauer
Level 1
Join date: Nov 2006
Location: New York, USA
Posts: 60
|
|
VojtaK wrote:
Hi, I just cannot see much difference between chicken and beer and post-workout drinks like Surge. I just see balanced protein and easily digestible sugars. Where is the differnce and why should it be wrong?
That's an interesting point. But it only proves how lightly people take alcohol today. The stuff is a poison!
I'm not putting Arnold down for doing it, but alcohol is simply bad for you. I don't know why anyone involved in weight training would drink. |
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
Jack Bauer
Level 1
Join date: Nov 2006
Location: New York, USA
Posts: 60
|
|
Scotacus wrote:
Jack Bauer wrote:
Is the one you were thinking of Chris???
You know, this is what Im talking about. The current culture are a bunch of number geeks: look at the numbers on the plates and add em up! Thats all there is to it! Wrong.
Do you know what he was lifting for? Do you think this was his stupid "one rep max"? What a stupid fucking concept, "one rep max". The guy was an artist.
By the way, what the hell are you talking about? Why is the one rep max a stupid concept? So you're saying the entire sport of powerlifting is a stupid concept as well?
And what do you mean he was an artist? He was a great bodybuilder and a pioneer of the sport, but he wasn't a demagod, so why don't you just relax a little bit. |
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
Tiribulus
Level 1
Join date: Aug 2006
Location: Michigan, USA
Posts: 8081
|
|
I do think Arnold was an artist. He had a predetermined design for what he wanted his physique to look like (at least once he was a few years in) and pretty much hit it dead on.
These kinds of articles of just plain cool. |
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
HERQ
Level 0
Join date: Dec 2007
Location:
Posts: 9
|
|
He was all about size until beaten by Frank Zane for the IFBB Mr Universe.Changed his approach after this loss.
Yeah he trained really intensly and developed that iconic body but what about all the guys who idolised him and trained exactly like him?How the majority of them go?
The biggest advantage,beside his frame/shape of his muscles,was his recovery ability.All that repair and then growth on top! |
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This thread is no longer open to replies. Click HERE to start a new topic.
|
Article Discussions
