|
Here are EIGHT
thought-provoking questions that have come
across my desk recently, via email...
-------------------
1.
On your website you speak of your battle with
overcoming the plague of the ectomorph-or
the hardgainer. Can you once again briefly
recount your initiation into the iron world?
Why is it that you particularly admired Charles
Atlas at the time? I mean, in your opinion,
what was it that made him the stand out figure
of the time? Who were some of the others who
you feel are worthy of high reverence?
My initiation
into the iron game actually began when I was
around 14 years of age. I read the Charles
Atlas ads (bully kicking sand in the face
of a weak as a flea fart skinny dude) that
appeared in the comic books and I of course
sent away for his free booklet which revealed
his amazing story. I was in awe as I read
the accounts of him bending steel bars, ripping
huge telephone books in half, pulling cars
and most sensational of all pulling a 72 ½-ton
railroad car 112 feet down the track.
The Charles
Atlas story really appealed to my emotional
and physical needs because I was a really
weak skinny tall guy, with pimples and wore
huge thick Coke bottle bottom glasses, so
I sent away for his Dynamic Tension course
and followed the 12 lesson course to its completion.
Other iron game personalities that I felt
were worth of high reverence was, George F.
Jowett, and then the stable of champions presented
in the Joe Weider bodybuilding magazines each
month. The late Chuck Sipes was one of (my
mentor) was, and still is, my favorite bodybuilding
hero of all time.
2.
This is of course a loaded question, but what
do you feel are the major differences that
exist between the current world of bodybuilding
and the one in which you began? Has the sport
changed drastically in any specific areas,
or has the song remained pretty much the same
throughout the course of the last few decades?
The question
you pose is only loaded if the person you
are asking to answer it doesn't want to broach
the issue. The major differences that exist
between the current world of bodybuilding
and the one in which I began back in the early
1960s is most evident in nutritional supplements
and informational materials. Back in the '60s
there was basically Joe Weider, Bob Hoffman
and Rheo H. Blair who were the heavy hitters
in supplying supplements to the bodybuilders.
With regard to the number of bodybuilding
magazines and books (available in bookstores)
that provided helpful information, I could
count those on one hand. Back in '60s Charles
Atlas, George F. Jowett and Universal Bodybuilding
provided some very unique and interesting
multi lesson bodybuilding courses. Bodybuilding
courses are something that is really lacking
today (21st century bodybuilding) and I may
make it a mission to publish one in the future.
Enter into 21st
century bodybuilding and there are dozens
and dozens of supplement providers and quite
a few more bodybuilding magazines (which have
survived through the decades of the sometimes
brutal and competitive publishing industry)
and books than there were back in the '60s.
I find that the magazines and books are researched
in much more detail. And of course the quality
of the supplements has improved dramatically.
Of course the
problem with having too much of a good thing
such as more bodybuilding supplements, magazines
and books is the sometimes conflicting messages
each venue brings. Back in the '60s is was
really simple to make selections because there
weren't that many. As a result we continued
to seek out informational knowledge on supplements
and training information. Today the bodybuilding
arena is flooded with information and the
end result has been that now a lot of people
think they are self proclaimed experts on
the topics of nutrition and training.
I would surmise
that when you said your question was loaded
in reference to the differences that exist
between the current world of bodybuilding
and the one in which I began back in the '60s
has to do with the anabolic drug issue. Suffice
it to say that anabolic drugs were introduced
back in the early 1900s and in the 1950s some
of the top bodybuilders of the day experimented
with them. I know this for a fact because
I have talked to them.
In the 1960s
and 70s many of the contest entering and winning
bodybuilders were taking in Dianabol etc.,
but not in the amounts consumed by today's
top bodybuilding champions. I know this to
be a fact as well because I was friends with
one of the managers at Gold's Gym in Venice
back in the '70s and he was privy to the drugs
(and amounts) the top bodybuilders were taking.
The amounts that the champs of the '60s and
'70s took in a month are what is consumed
on a daily basis (and more) by the bodybuilders
of today.
I have personally
never used anabolic drugs of any kind so I
don't get caught up wasting my thought process
talking about them. Rather than discuss the
drug issues all day long (and conclusions
are never forthcoming) it would in my opinion
be much better to invest the time in the investigation
of the natural alternatives to training and
nutrition (such as those revealed in the book:
HUGE & FREAKY MUSCLE MASS AND STRENGTH
SECRETS by Robert Kennedy & Dennis B.
Weis).. If anabolic drugs had never been introduced
into competitive bodybuilding the list of
winners over the decades would still be the
same simple due to the superior genetic factor.
3.
Your routines over the years have pretty much
always stressed the use of compound, multi-joint
exercises and free weights. Why is it that
a need arose for Nautilus equipment and other
"isolation" machines when free weights
are so much more versatile? What are the pro
and cons of the pervasive strength-training
machines that occupy the floors of today's
fitness facilities?
When I was sixteen
years old, I began lifting free weights as
a means of enhancing my overall size and strength
potentials. I learned early on from my mentors
in the iron game, Donne Hale, Chuck Sipes
and Peary Rader that free weights involve
the little nuances of timing, balance and
coordination, something that machines don't
offer. I personally have been acquainted with
bodybuilders who have used Nautilus equipment
exclusively for 3 months, doing heavy negatives
and the associated training principles strictly.
Some mighty impressive poundages were hoisted
using these machines but upon a return to
using free weights only strength losses were
between ten and twenty percent. It generally
took another 3 months of free weight adaptation
to regain the ten and twenty percent strength
losses.
Machines such
as Nautilus are primarily mono-planar devices,
meaning that there is only one plane in which
a given movement takes place. I wish I had
a dollar for every time a person would brag
to me that they could bench press 315 pounds
or more on a machine but yet it took a Herculean
effort for them to do a free weight bench
press with 225 pounds and displayed a lack
of balance and coordination when doing so.
I will say that
machines are excellent for select rehab situations,
getting members in and out of a fitness facility
very quickly and in doing exercises such as
leg curls, leg presses and leg extensions.
Imagine trying to do these three exercises
with free weights as many of the old time
bodybuilders did in decades gone past. It
has been my observation that "isolation"
machines cannot be the core of a person's
weight training in a multi-dimensional world.
I generally suggest that a person use free
weights 90% of the time and machines 10%.
4.
Many of today's top strength coaches advocate
the employment of "functional" weight
training. They stress the advantages of using
Swiss Balls, bands, cables, sledgehammers,
medicine balls, tornado balls, kettlebells,
and other devices for stabilizing and strengthening
the core muscles necessary for maintaining
the integrity of the entire body during various
movements.
What
is your position on the relatively sudden
advent of these techniques and devices in
the bodybuilding world? Are they advantageous
in anyway to the bodybuilder who bases his
workout on compound exercises? Can they be
counterproductive?
It would take
a number of in-depth article discussions regarding
the training tools and devices you have just
mentioned. I personally believe that each
of them have merit, especially the bands,
expander cables and kettlebells but realize
that the strength gained in one plane from
one of these devices, such as kettlebells
etc., is not strength in all planes. So having
said it is a good idea to incorporate the
use of all of them (not all at once) at one
time or another in one's training protocol.
Back in the
'70s I trained for bodybuilding, powerlifting
and arm wrestling competitions. I used a huge
variety of exercises associated for the training
in these events. People would sometimes come
up to me and say "Well Dennis you may
be stronger than me in say powerlifting and
arm wrestling but I'll bet I could beat you
at doing pull-ups, pushups or sprinting."
I'd accept their challenge at the drop of
a hat, and I'd drop the hat. Ha, ha.
It was my training
philosophy to have all around strength in
say 50 different lifts and bodyweight only
strength as well, as opposed to being brutally
strong in just 5 lifts and having the other
45 lifts SUCK. As a result I would practice
doing pull-ups (10 sets of 10 with a hundred
pounds strapped on), pushups (150) and explosive
100 yard sprints all at a bodyweight of around
212 pounds. One sprint I did lose was when
I told a challenger that I thought I could;
beat him in a 100 yard dash while carrying
an 85 pound dumbbell in each hand. I was ahead
at the 50 yard mark but pulled a groin muscle
at 75 yards and had to terminate the sprint.
I am happy to say that I won most all of the
challenges put before me because of my bigger,
faster, stronger training philosophy.
5.
In an interview you state that there are things
about Mike Mentzer's HIT program with which
you strongly disagree. Can you say more about
these areas of controversy?
I do not disagree
with the Mike Mentzer Heavy Duty program per
say. I have a library of all of Mike Mentzers
books, video and audio tapes and the one thing
that I noticed in his teachings of the Heavy
Duty, 1-2 hard wok sets only, program was
how dogmatic he was. I always thought it would
have been a much better approach if he had
tried to ease the high volume training bodybuilders
down a few sets at a time rather than suggest
that they go cold turkey from their existing
training protocol right down to one or two
hard work sets of the heavy duty concept.
I think he would
have gotten a lot more converts to Heavy Duty
if he had taken a more subtle approach. I
attended Bill Phillips "No Hold Barred
Seminar" in Las Vegas on November 18th
& 19th 1995 and Mike was one of the speakers.
He managed to get into some heated discussions
with some select people in the audience about
his Heavy Duty concepts and this sort of humorous
analogy came to my mind. Suppose there is
a nice carrot cake (i.e. Heavy Duty concept)
in the refrigerator and I take it out and
eat the whole thing at one sitting (i.e Dogmatic
approach). The next thing I know a few other
people (i.e High volume practitioners) come
by and upon opening the frig notice the carrot
cake is gone and exclaim "Who the hell
ate all the carrot cake?" Of course everyone
figures out it was me and are then ticked
off at me beyond belief. Now if I had just
taken a small slice or two nobody would have
noticed and I could most likely have eaten
the whole cake, a slice or two, over a period
of a few days without making anyone angry.
Mike was a published
iron game magazine writer and if he had slowly
over the course of time had eased the high
volume training folks down a set or two at
a time over the span of a few articles I'd
be willing to bet they would have evolved
into the concept of Heavy Duty training without
even realizing it.
Many strength-trainers
and athletes are virtual warriors in the gym.
They train hard or don't train at all. I'm
of course referring to the "no pain,
no gain" adherents who take every set
to failure every workout. There are others
who completely abstain from these types of
workouts and herald the research that shows
them to be detrimental to progress. Their
mantra tends to be more along the lines of
"train, don't strain", or "stimulate,
don't annihilate." What is your position
on the practice of "training to failure"?
What exactly does "training to failure"
mean? If one does NOT train to failure, how
can it be determined that sufficient stimulation
has been achieved during a workout to promote
an adaptive response?
6.
You pride yourself on the fact that you are
an all-natural athlete. From what I can tell,
you also tend to avoid a large majority of
the nutritional supplements that are marketed.
Can you provide a list of five or ten supplements
that you personally feel are worth the expense
and whose benefits outweigh the costs?
have observed
many, many vanity bodybuilders load up on
every new supplement that comes out. I am
amazed when some of these guys tell me that
they are taking 10-15 different supplements
each day. Of course the question that comes
to my mind is "Which supplement or combination
of supplements is providing you with the benefits
you are seeking?" Most generally they
can't give me a determined answer.
You are correct
in that I am not a big advocate of large quantities
of supplements. Back in the '70s when I competed
in powerlifting, bodybuilding and armwrestling
competitions (usually all on the same day)
my nutritional protocol consisted of desicatted
liver tablets, a good combination of vitamins
and minerals (there weren't vitamin packs
of any worth back then), Rheo H. Blairs protein,
Brewers Yeast powder (mixed in Tang) and some
Wheat Germ capsules. I would gradually start
out with one or two tablets and work up to
what I determined was benefiting me maximally
nutrition wise and from the standpoint of
assisted recovery. I learned early on from
my bodybuilding mentor Donne Hale to use the
Flashpoint concept in my training and nutrition.
And that is to find what the least amount
of training and nutrition will provide the
absolute in maximum results.
If I were going
to do a bodybuilding or powerlifting competition
in 2011 I would use the following supplements
on a daily basis: One or two Multi Vitamin/Mineral
Super Paks, Creatine Monohydrate (5-10 grams
a day), a good Milk & Egg protein powder
or perhaps 2-3 meal replacement packets (Dorian
Yates, Muscle Tech or MET-Rx) and yes some
desiccated liver tablets. The company I absolutely
recommend for the best bang for the buck as
far a nutritional supplements go is Beverly
International (www.bodybuildingworld.com).
7.
Being a great fan of "finesse" and
high-endurance sports myself (boxing, martial
arts, soccer, football, etc.), I had to chuckle
(or perhaps "wince" is a better
term) at a comment that you made about how
you used to be very fast in your early days
because you had to run from the guys who were
so much bigger than you. I realize that this
may sound like a rhetorical question, but
looking back, do you feel that the acquisition
of muscle mass slowed you down any in terms
of speed or quickness? Endurance?
The acquisition
of muscle mass did not happen to me overnight
so it kind of grew, over the months and years
along with my continued practice of running
and sprinting and as a result I never noticed
any decrease in terms of speed or quickness
or endurance. Now of course if a person gains
a pound a day over the next say 30 days of
course speed and quickness will be slowed
down due to changes in existing body leverages
and fat to muscle ratio's.
My son Billy
got interested in the martial arts full contact
fighting venue when he was around 17 years
of age and at a height of 5' 10" and
144 pounds he was lighting fast. He is now
40 years old and weights 210 pounds, benches
405 for a triple without a bench shirt and
is much, much faster, stronger, and can punch
and kick dramatically harder than at age 17
years.
8.
In light of your reply to this question, what
are your views on the popular theories of
slow and fast twitch muscle fibers?
I would have
to say from my training experiences and many
other hardcore lifters I have talked to that
to achieve maximum muscle strength, size and
endurance, a power bodybuilder should train
both the slow and fast twitch muscle fibers.
Fred C. Hatfield "Dr. Squat" confirmed
the training of fast and slow twitch muscle
fibers back in 1980 when I was interviewing
him for a feature length article in Iron Man
magazine. He stated "Bodybuilders in
order to achieve the tremendous musculature
that they possess have to do slow movements
(reps), fast movements (speed reps), light
and heavy poundage and everything in-between,
thereby increasing the mechanisms of the muscle
structure."
There is a test
of sorts that can be of some help for determining
whether a select muscle is of the fast or
slow twitch variety. A power bodybuilder takes
80 percent of their unfatigued one rep maximum
and do one set of as many reps as possible.
The rep cadence is 2 seconds in the positive
phase and 4 seconds in the negative phase.
If a person does 7 reps that would constitute
a 50/50 average makeup of both fast and slow
twitch muscle fibers. Achieving less than
7 reps indicates that the muscle is of the
fast twitch variety and more than 7 suggests
that the muscle is comprised mostly of slow
twitch fiberss.
Back in the
'70s and '80s it wasn't uncommon for me to
do 405 pounds in the Barbell back squat for
20+ reps and without any type of specific
warm-up prior. I am not talking curtsey squats
(barely a 1/8th movement) but I would take
each and every rep down to where my glutes
were 12 inches from the floor. As well I could
do 450 pounds for 15 reps too. The strange
thing was that I could never do more than
about 530 pounds for a single effort in the
squat (void of knee wraps, super suits etc.).
Obviously I had a lot more slow twitch involvement
going on than fast twitch.
One solution
I found to work very well for me as far as
recruiting both the fast and slow twitch fibers
was a combination of the following sets and
reps.
Slow-twitch
Sets: Set 1. Lightest weight - 15 reps
2. Add weight - 12 reps
3. Add weight - 10 reps
4. Add weight - 8 reps
Fast-twitch
Sets: Set 5. Add weight - 7 reps
6. Add weight - 6 reps
7. Add weight - 5 reps
8. Add weight - 4 reps plus 1 or 2 forced
reps.
I and many others
have used the above sets and reps scheme with
very good results on one compound exercise
(Barbell back squats, Flat bench presses and
Barbell curls etc) only for a select muscle
group. I at times switch the order of sets
around and began with the Fast-twitch Sets
first and finished up with the Slow-twitch
sets.
|
Dennis
B. Weis is a Ketchikan, Alaska based
power-bodybuilder. He is the co-author
of 4 critically acclaimed books; Mass!
Raw Muscle, Anabolic Muscle Mass, HUGE
& FREAKY MUSCLE MASS AND STRENGTH
SECRETS and the exclusive author of
9 Master Data E-Reports (read about
there here on this site!).
He
is also a frequent hard-hitting uncompromising
freelance consultant to many of the
mainstream bodybuilding magazines published
worldwide.
Want
a Free Sample of What Dennis Has to
Offer?
Enter
your information below to receive a
free 6-day course containing excerpts
from the Dennis Weis reports you are
reading about, including Cinderblock
Abs, Chuck Sipes Super Seminar, Massive
Muscle Pumping, the Special Big Arms
Report and more!
|
|
