PDA

View Full Version : A Greek God or a Dumpy Garbage Collector?


Greg Newton
01-13-2009, 07:44 PM
Back in the seventies Bradley J. Steiner published a booklet about building the “shapely” physique. In it he made the statement that a bodybuilder could look like a Greek God at 180 pounds, but at 200 pounds, look like a dumpy garbage collector. The point being, you could develop your musculature past what looked good on the natural lines of your body.

I didn’t really get it at the time, because I wanted to be muscular and big. Eventually I became big and bulky. But, no matter how hard and heavy I trained, I did not look like one of the pre-steroid bodybuilders. It did not occur to me that if I knocked a few inches off my waist, my upper body and arms would look bigger. Or, if I streamlined my hips and thighs, not only would I change my dumpy look, but I could actually do athletic things with my body.

The Greek and Roman sculptors developed a standard of art based on the concept of the male athlete: strong neck, wide shoulders, pectorals shaped like a bronze cuirass, narrow waist, prominent abdominals, and muscular thighs built for running and jumping. Arms were muscular, but not big. This was the kind of body they idealized for the battlefield and the Olympic field; a body that could fight, run, climb, or throw.
While none of us have the exact same genetics, in general we fit into two types; either the Apollon or lighter boned aesthetic type or the Herculean or heavier boned massive build. In the pre-steroid bodybuilding era you had the taller, wide shouldered Steve Reeves, and the shorter, barrel-chested John Grimek.

Steve Reeves was around six foot in height and 210 in weight, with a freakishly small waist and long muscles. Grimek on the other hand was 5-8 and 190 with large bones and a compact waist. The wrist of an average male is seven inches in circumference. Grimek’s was eight inches around.

Both these men had exceptional genetics and the like of either has never been seen since. That is something people tend to miss in trying to emulate their training. Steve Reeves trained with tension and cramping with an emphasis on working angles that would cripple the joints of an average person. Grimek on the other hand did 1001 exercises, doing everything from Olympic weightlifting, to the power lifts, and to bodybuilding. Throw gymnastics in as well, and you have an exceptionally gifted athlete.

Charles Atlas had a different look from Steve Reeves or John Grimek; a lithe and yet strong look. Atlas, who at 5-10 and 180 pounds was once described by a sculptor as a perfect blend of Apollo and Hercules. The look Charles Atlas personified, that of the Greek athlete and warrior, is obtainable for most people. It is obtainable because of the training he practiced; calisthenics, self-resistance, and running. These are exercises which don’t overbuild the musculature within the natural lines of the body and actually beautify the human form. They also energize the body and pose much less wear and tear to the joints.

The problem with weights for many people is that because of the up and down pull of gravity the muscles are worked through only one dimension. Depending on a person’s leverage the muscle bellies are not developed uniformly and acquire a knotty or overdeveloped look. Weight trainers get droopy pectorals from bench pressing. They get butt and gut from deep squatting. The legs get too big at the top causing “turnip thighs.” From excessive curling, the biceps muscles cramp and tear when extending them.

The older I get, the less appealing the bodybuilder build has become to me. I much prefer the lithe, athletic build as exemplified by Greek and Roman art, and of course by Charles Atlas. I recently attended a pro wrestling show. A couple of the wrestlers were so obviously on growth drugs they looked like cartoon characters rather than human beings. They were carrying so much muscle mass their mobility was limited. The show was the body; not what they could do with the body.

What I am trying to get across is that to achieve a physique that is above the ordinary you have to pay attention to how you respond to specific exercises and to how you build your musculature with those exercises. If you weigh 200 pounds, there is no guarantee you will look the same as some bodybuilding idol. At an average height and medium bone structure, it is better to weigh a more reasonable 160-180 pounds. An extra twenty pounds of muscle could add weight in places that would destroy your aesthetics. A heavier boned person would have the capacity to carry more muscle mass, but not that much more; perhaps an extra ten to twenty pounds at most. It is also important to point out that extra weight, even if it is muscle, still creates an extra burden on the cardiovascular system and joints.

So, if I still haven’t convinced you that the lithe, athletic look is more impressive, let me give a personal example. I’ve been a heavy 210-217. I was strong in the weight room. People looked at me and saw a big bulky guy who looked shorter than he actually was. Now I weigh 188, but the shoulders are wider and the waist is smaller. The neck is more developed, and the hips and thighs have slimmed down from the round look I had. People turn to look.

I look bigger, because my development is more proportionate. I mentioned this before on the forum, and I apologize for bringing it up again, but at my bodyweight of 188, which is light by pro-wrestling standards I still had people at the aforementioned pro wrestling show asking if I was one of the performers. That is not the kind of attention I got when I was bigger.

Size is not where it is at. Are you striving to be like a Greek statue or are you gaining bulk to hoist cans?

gs300tx
01-13-2009, 07:55 PM
Excellent post!! I think everybody here wants to achieve the body of a Greek statue. The reason why this type of training appeals to me is because it is attainable and it is very simple. No change to your diet nothing. I am 5'9 and weigh around 147-150 lbs. Most people think that I am skinny until I flex my biceps and its all because of Transformetrics. The more I practice this art, and it is an art. The more I understand how the human body works, how the tensing of the muscles work.

Aaron Hoot
01-13-2009, 07:56 PM
Great post Greg you make a good point.
Aaron

John Peterson
01-13-2009, 08:11 PM
Hey Greg,


Great post. Charles Atlas has always been the ideal for me that I wanted to achieve since I was just a kid. I wanted to be able to run miles, swim miles, handbalance, and do anything I wanted to do just as the Atlas ads stated that I would be able to do, and sure enough, Atlas training literally gave me the ability to do just that. I really like being able to do things in what is now my 57th year (2009) that the vast majority of twenty year olds would have a very hard time duplicating.

Bottom line: I'm tracking with you Greg. Our methods are the ultimate for all around lifelong strength and fitness.

---John Peterson

MikeNY
01-13-2009, 09:01 PM
Greg great post! Charles Atlas was the warrior build, a fighting man and a protector for wife and children. Your so right the Greek and Roman ideal can be anyone's; with Charles Atlas's and Transformetrics. It is a system as old as time and modern as tomarrow.

TimK
01-13-2009, 09:14 PM
Totally agree with you Greg and frankly my workouts and my bulking up mirror your experience. Generally when I think about this subject, I move into being pissed off at Weider's bodybuilding mags that made it seem that even without steroids, with the right workouts all of us could have been built like Arnold. Your outlook is far more healthy than mine.
That Greek god-like build is far more attainable to most of us, just by paying more attention to one's diet, and less emphasis on getting bigger.

Tim

GB
01-13-2009, 09:48 PM
Great post Greg thanks.

GB

Andy62
01-13-2009, 10:06 PM
The truth is relentless. As I have stated on this site many times I first came across the Atlas Course in the early 1950s as a pre-adolescent. I was motivated by it and it changed my life as it did with many other youths. There are many factors that influenced it's success. It gave me an interest in the history of the bodybuilding movement and started my search for something; I wasn't quite sure what. In the process I came across the sandow site and ultimately John Peterson and Bronze Bow. John's father, grandfather, and uncles were dedicated Atlas Students and had introduced John to the Atlas course early in his life. It is interesting how things come together and situations evolve. John had been promoting DVR exercises. I had heard of Alois P.Swoboda through various writngs of Bob Hoffman, the founder of the York Barbell Company and former Olympic Weight Lifting Coach. I had never seen a copy of the Swoboda Course even though I was looking for one for my course collection. Hoffman had written in his "Strength and Health" Magazine that his father was one of the best built men that he has ever seen and all he did was flex his muscles from exercises that the got out of the Swoboda Course. Obviously Bob Hoffman had seen as many well built men as anyone due to his background in the strength sports as he is known as "the father of world weightlifting." Bob Hoffman also stated that the exercises in the Swoboda course were the first exercises that he had practiced. To make a long story short a copy of the Swoboda course was eventually found and low and behold the exercises that Swoboda had been promoting and the ones that had developed the Charles Atlas' Physique were the same DVR exercises that John Peterson had been promoting. I don't want to take this too far,but it almost seems to me like it was destiny, or synchronicity if you will, that all of these facors would unite as they have. Maybe-just maybe- the mental training principles that Alois P. Swoboda put in his course have influenced more lives than the physical training principles as they inspired a whole generation of positive thinking instructors and life coaches[ Napoleon Hill, Norman Vincent Peale, W. Clement Stone, Maxwell Maltz and others] "The strongest force in the world is an idea whose time has come."

Max McKinley
01-13-2009, 10:20 PM
Hey Greg,

Outstanding post once again. You have a remarkable ability to communicate.

CharlesMartel
01-13-2009, 11:08 PM
Nate Green said a couple things I think apply really well. First, everybody is going to be built different, so going after the physique of another individual just isn't going to work out, so the "Grecian ideal" is perhaps superior because it is more general as opposed to the specific look.

Second, women dig traits that show dominance. A great shoulder to waist ratio (aka broad shoulders) is one of the few universally attractive traits for this reason, it's a powerful look, and it's the ratio, not the specific size.

Andy62
01-13-2009, 11:25 PM
It is interesting to realize that the Greek statues were composites as the Greek sculptors took features from various individual physiques to achieve their ideal. The Roman sculptors on the other hand were accurate down to the last detail including warts.

Flash11740
01-14-2009, 07:07 AM
Up until recent decades when "advances were made in training and nutrition", the people that most exemplified this look were boxers. There's not an ounce of surplus anything on a boxer who has to dance for 15 rounds.

I particularly admire the physiques of people like Ali and ken Norton. Before that Max Baer and Jack Dempsey.

These days heavyweight boxers have gotten too heavy, in the old days they'd be classed as super heavyweights. Super heavyweight fights were boring because those guys lumbered around the ring. Heavyweight fights have become boring because the boxers have gradually become bigger.

Marciano granted was a small heavyweight at 180lbs and 5'11, but Ezzard Charles was even smaller. Jersey Joe Walcott (another great physique) was a little over 200lbs, as was Sonny Listen (who was considered to be huge). Norton weighed in at 205, and Ali who was tall but lean averaged 215.

These days it's not unusual to see boxers of 6'5 and 265 lbs.

EDIT: interestingly, the big guys don't necessarily get more weight behind their punches, and usually punch slower. In physics momentum = mass x velocity. Strength does not come into the equation. All that matters in punching power is how fast and how much weight behind it. Some people believe that shorter arms increase punching power because they make it easier to get the body behind the punch. Marciano is considered by many to have been the hardest puncher of all time and he only had a 68" reach. On average it takes 7lbs of pressure to KO someone by hitting their jaw. This is regardless of their size. Marciano had the best KO ration of any fighter.

JoeJustice
01-14-2009, 09:01 AM
Greg, awesome post! You, sir, exemplify everything John teaches and advocates.

I know we're not the same age, but it seems you and I had very similar influenced when it comes to the media and what it is the be manly. Over the course of the past year or so, my appreciation has changed from the perfect monsters of the 80's and 90s, like Arnold Schwarzenegger and Hulk Hogan to the more realistic physical specimens of the pre-pharmacological enhanced physical culturalist. And like you, I think the Greek God physique is the body to strive for.

-Joe

gruntbrain
01-14-2009, 10:40 AM
From a health perspective, I'd like to be lean while having the strength to hoist heavy cans "endlessly"

Greg Newton
01-14-2009, 01:09 PM
Well Grunt,

There is a point to lifting cans after alll!:act-up:

But seriously, I don't follow boxing anymore, but I understand what Flash is talking about. In general, because of their training, I think you see more of the Grecian ideal in the mixed martial arts players.

vegetus25
01-14-2009, 05:02 PM
Greg,

Great topic. Thought the following is in line w/ what you wrote:

http://www.ageless-athletes.com/genetic_limits.php

God bless,

Veg

Greg Newton
01-14-2009, 08:41 PM
Hey Veg,

Was that article by Richard Winnet? I think I got the name right. He used to be a contributor to Stuart McRobert's Hardgainer. Richard looks good in his pictures. There is no reason to compare ourselves to competitive bodybuilders. The genetics, and if you're natural, the drugs aren't there. I'd rather have something attainable like the sculpted look from ancient art.

Times change, and so does what bodybuilding contests are judged by, but in one of Mentzer's last outings for the Mr. Olympia, Reg Park told him he was carrying too much mass. In other words he lacked an aesthetic look.

vegetus25
01-15-2009, 07:31 AM
Greg,

I think Richard is the author.

I spent years w/ a bulked look (well as much of a bulked look as a skinny guy can have LOL). It was not a pretty sight. I have now trimmed down and look much better. Although, I think I could use a good 10-15 pounds of muscle if I ever wanted to look like a greek or roman statue. But when I try to gain weight I develop a skiiny-fat look. Oh well, even if I do not get any bigger I can always just stand really still and get a statue look.

I also wanted to tell you great job on the way you have transformed yourself. You are looking great.

God bless,

Veg

gruntbrain
01-15-2009, 08:17 AM
With health as the dominant goal, aesthetics are a mere side effect. I give permission to younger folks to disagree

Andy62
01-15-2009, 10:18 AM
Aesthetics are relative. A person in their senior years is not going to have the same aesthetic potential or desires as someone in earlier stages of life. At the same time if you do transformetrics and lead a reasonably moderate life it is not unusual to have aesthetics superior to people 15 or 20 years younger who have not followed such a program. Also the person who trains this way will find that their NERVE FORCE can increase thoughout life no matter what the age and that is what becomes increasingly important and beneficial by adding life to the years.

Greg Newton
01-15-2009, 01:39 PM
Hey Veg,

That comment about standing still was pretty funny. What really got me going last year was an insult someone made about my personal appearance, and then I took some not so flattering pictures in Decemeber. I wish I'd kept them. They disgusted me so bad I didn't save them. From overdoing the Tiger squats I was getting the Great Gama look I'd had from my barbell squatting days. Balanced routines are important, even with the methods promoted here.

That is when I adopted Woody Strode and Kirk Douglas as my focus models, ala the Gladiator look, and began emphasizing my training around the Perfect Pushups and Atlas situps. I dropped any form of squatting for over a year and cut back on the Tiger Stretch pushups. Recently I've added back the TP's and flatfooted half squats. Also, after three years, I am finally starting to be able to do the level 3 bridge.

I think anyone who has read John's books and followed this forum realizes that he rotates his exercises around from time to time. I have never asked him, but I assume it is for injury prevention, to keep one from getting stale, and to achieve an overall aesthetic look.

My personal opinion is that a variety of exercises throughout the year help you keep a fresh look on your training and also help build your body and strength from multiple angles. My particular approach is to build a routine around a couple of exercises for several months and then change to something else. I've a couple of pushup goals to finish out the winter with, and then it will be some running goals for the Spring. Of course I round things out with other exercises, but the main focus is on the one's I've set goals for.

The plight of the skinny/fat man intrigues me. I've trained people like that in years gone by and the trick is to get their metabolism jump started. Short but intense workouts seemed to be the best. But, that doesn't just mean pushups and squats. The neck, shoulders, abdominals and forearms need to be worked as well. Developed, those muscles will cause a physique to standout, even at a lighter bodyweight. Also, the diet is important, but there again, it is the diet that is suited to your individual metabolism.

vegetus25
01-15-2009, 03:56 PM
Greg,

Are you talking about H.I.T training? Could you give an example of the workouts you are recommending (exercises, number of sets/reps, frequency, etc)?

Thanks in advance and God bless,

Veg

gruntbrain
01-16-2009, 08:25 AM
I suspect I'm not the only one whose physique is not easily transformed by exercise; I'm lean but include many "dumpy garage collector" exercises; for me, it's DIET & high volume activity

Greg Newton
01-16-2009, 10:02 AM
Veg,

You brought up an interesting point about HIT. If you define high intensity training as brief, infrequent and intense, it could cover a broad range of training styles. When I was a personal trainer helping people reshape their bodies, many looking deformed from indiscriminant weight training, I used a variation of a simple Vince Gironda routine. The workouts lasted about 30 minutes and were intense. I utilized 3X10 with 8-10 exercises, with a maximum of 30 seconds of rest between the sets. The weights were light to moderate for that person and were the same for each set. I chose exercises that complimented that person’s individual structure. There was also an emphasis on strict form. The workouts were done three days a week. I trained like this myself and had a nice, athletic physique from it, until I got into a bulk and strength kick for many years.

Now, having said that, I believe that template could easily work well within the framework of a Transformetric style workout. For example:

3 way DSR neck 3X10

Isometric shoulder flex - 3 sets different hand positions

Atlas pushups 3x25

Isometric lat flex – 3 flexes using the book against the legs

VRT curl 3X10

VRT reverse curl

DVR Triceps wrist twist 3X10

Abdominal roll 3X10

Isometric back extension – 3 continuous contractions of 10 seconds

Atlas balance Squat 3X25


This entire workout would take about 20 minutes. Depending on your energy levels, it could be done 3-5 days a week. Combined with a diet low in white flour, sugar, and processed foods, as well as a couple of days of brisk power walking, one could achieve an attractive and shapely physique with this routine. However, since there are no weights to be lifted, other than bodyweight, the contraction of the muscles must be intense, and that starts in the mind.

vegetus25
01-17-2009, 01:58 PM
Hey Greg,

Thanks for the routine. It looks great. How close to failure do you suggest on the reps?

I have been thinking of trying something like that for a while, but have had a hard time dropping high volume push-ups. I think I will try lower volume for a while. It would be a good break and may turn out to be a better workout for me.

God bless,

Veg

Greg Newton
01-18-2009, 11:01 AM
In general, I don't recommend training to failure. For some, it is too easy to zone out and train past what your body can handle and get injured. That is why I always recommend to stay in tune with your body. Pain is there for a reason, but there is a difference between discomfort and pain. With the Isometric Powerflexes and to a certain extent with the DVR's I believe you can generate a high level of intensity and muscular contraction without injury. On the pushups and squats, the first set should be doable, the second set hard, and the last very hard. If the numbers are already reachable, more tension can added in the performance of the exercise. Good luck.