(Photo above: Classic Physique Builder (CPBzine), Fall 2009 Issue, Vol 1. No. 3)Hi Everyone! The Fall 2009 issue of CPBzine is ready for distribution! The pdf file size is almost 10MB, so make sure you have enough room in your inbox! I will start emailing the issue out tomorrow and it may go out to everyone over a couple of days - so just sit tight!
Here is the Table of Contents:
Editorial: Help Build a Renaissance of Classic Physique Building!
Training Advice for Beginners from Floyd Page, Pro Mr. America 1948
CPB Champions (featuring Marvin Eder and Juan Ferraro)
How I Met Steve Reeves
Peary Rader's Abbreviated Program (for CPB Beginners and Intermediates)
The Sissy Squat for Classic Thighs!
Questions and Answers
Nutrition Corner: The Steve Reeves Meal Plan
The Classic Physique vs. the Hulk-Like Physique: Neck Size & Shape
Vince Gironda's Myth Versus Fact about Abdominals
CPB Champions Hall of Fame: Steve Reeves
Classic Female Physiques (and How to Build One)
Science & the Golden Age: Full Body Workouts
What the Golden Age Champs Measured: Monty Wolford
Steve Reeves' Advanced Routine (for CPB Advanced Trainers)
Pictorial: Reg Park
Net Roundup: News from Here, There, and Everywhere
Golden Age Magazine Gallery: Strength and Health magazine
Well...that's it for the Fall 2009 issue! I hope everyone likes it. Distribution should begin within 24 hours.
All the best,
- CPB (Anthony)
P.S. For a free, 1 year subscription to Classic Physique Builder (CPBzine) - a pdf zine (do-it-yourself magazine) patterned after the muscle mags of the pre-roid Golden Age of Bodybuilding - just email your name, the name of your city (not your actual address), state/province, and country to us at cpbzine@gmail.com. That's it! Any info you send us is strictly confidential. We don't share info with anyone. So you won't get on any unwanted lists or receive any automated email (even from us!).
Posts
18 comments:
Hi Everyone,
The Fall 2009 Issue of CPBzine has now been distributed (as of 1am, Wed, Sept 30th)!
If, for some reason, you did not receive your copy, please email me at cpbzine@gmail.com and let me know.
I know that sometimes "spam blockers" can prevent you from receiving a mass email (that is addressed to a lot of recipients).
In any case, I hope you all enjoy this issue! Please feel free to post your comments here!
All the best,
CPB (Anthony)
I agree with your mission, and with the editorials you've written thus far.
I do think that there has been good knowledge gained since the golden age. It's just not currently thought of in a bodybuilding sense. It is looked at more as strength training.
I've been thinking a lot about this over the last several months. I'm glad I found your blog here, and find your zine interesting from several different points.
I do like the physiques of the golden age far better than the current trend. With that said, I find that we can achieve the golden age ideal, while using both old, and new knowledge.
I look forward to future postings and your thoughts.
This is an interesting point about using both 'old and new' knowledge to build a classic physique. It is very difficult to cut through the 'hype' to see what actually works - lots of approaches claim to be scientifically proven - but with no references to back them up.
I read an article by someone who swears by HIT training the other week. He said he was at a HIT conference and someone commented that 'well this just proves that HIT doesn't work because none of you are very big' - the author replied that this was not the way to look at it - that he stuck with HIT because it was the only training method that he made any gains on!
We know that steroid users can get away with all sorts of training and still make gains. I would imagine that people with genetics like Steve Reeves and Reg Park could still get away with a lot of training innefficiency. So following Steve Reeves training program may not be the most efficient way of gaining a Steve Reeves like physique. People with average genetics and busy lifestyles have less room for error in their training.
The trouble is that there is no real 'proof' out there of what is the best way to build such a physique. So if you follow their training program - at least you know that that is how they did it - and you can't be getting it completely wrong. You also know it is a relatively safe approach as most of the stars of the 40's and 50's lived to a decent old age!
Excellent work with the blog and zine!
Steve
Hey Steve,
for me HIT is everything but new.
When you look at the 20 rep squats, its actually HIT. When you look at Steve Reeves Program which is over 60 years old, again this is HIT.
I´ve seen so many old articles where they talk about isometrics, core training etc. But they did not use these names. That´s the case.
A couple of weeks later somebody can be found, who claims that he found a new training technique and so on.
I did not say this earlier but what i think about genetics is this:
Genetics is for me the muscular potential that is different to another person. Bigger and smaller arms etc.
I think that regeneration ability comes with time.
That looked clear to me, when i saw the beginning training plans of the CPB´s or the recommended plan. Steve Reeves had a very interesting technique. He trained at Monday Morning, then at Wednesday afternoon and Friday evening.
When i started in 2004 in a gym they bombarded me with a split training program and so and so much sets. I remember that i was sore for days.
I would recommend for everybody a beginners program and not jumping in a program of even a CPB. Because they are at whole different level. They were a lot of people with very physical jobs in the iron game. Best example would be Bob Peoples. The legend deadlifter had a very muscular body.
The one who says that "this" is the best method to train is the best is someone who just want to sell his stuff.
And look out every couple of days for new articles at the ditillo blog.
The Sandow site is very good, too. You can see for example some books by Harry B. Paschall. His recommended beginner workouts started with 1 set in all exercises, too. Everybody has to start somewhere. But made the mistake of jumping into programs which were at another level, to much.
Best Wishes
One area that I feel we have really made advances in, is nutrition. We know far more about utilizing nutrition to our advantage. We have better basic supplements. I only use whey protein powder, and multi-vitimins.
I'm going to give liver tabs a try though.
For rep ranges, we know that different rep ranges produce different results. The spectrum runs from strength, to hypertrophy, and in the middle you get a little of both. We can use that knowledge to our advantage.
I saw on some earlier comments that Casey Butt has commented here. Read Casey's work, it is very good.
I would be very interested to see what others are doing for routines. I'm running a log for my current workouts at muscle and brawn.
http://muscleandbrawn.com/forums/training-logs/692-glwanabe-log.html
Casey Butt has several articles featured at the site as well. I find his viewpoints, and the CPB to be a breath of fresh air.
Steve Reeves did do alot of sets during a full week - 9 sets per bodypart 3 X per week = 27 sets per week...When you see split routines they may have 9 to 12 sets per body part every 4 to 5 days which doesn't add up to the 27 sets per bodyparts per week as Reeves did...I realize that the Classic Physique is more appealing then of the gross monsters today, but training is more sophisticated which can produce quicker results...Now I do believe there is a lot of merit with overall training, but if a workout does last longer then 60 minutes who has the endurance to complete with good results...By the time I get to my legs I'm exhausted so that is why maybe bodybuilders evolved to the split routines...True Reeves had results, but he was one of the few guys back in that era who didn't have a full time job to go to the next day and could relax and get a full 10 hours of sleep and I would ask any of you who has that luxury...It would be irresponsible to say that todays training produces mass monsters when we damn know it is drugs that produce these freaks - split programs has great merits as Anthony once wrote to me, realizing that most of us don't have again that luxury of spending 3 hours in a gym and resting the entire next day...the ability to recover weighs as much importance to developing a great physique as the training program itself - I know this is another lengthy letter of mine, but the key to this Classic Physique blogg I feel is to achieve a great and appealing physique without resorting to drugs and a huge amount of supplements - Now if it takes any of you to follow the exact foot steps of the former great then so be it, but I too do want these results without the use of artifical means,but I don't want to throw out and dismiss any program just because it might have been developed after the Golden Era, that is like being Amish and divorcing new technology because of some notion that old was good and new is bad ...Everthing has to be on the table except drugs and the over use of supplements..I know that I'm starting to repeat myself so I will end by saying most of you for sure know where I'm coming from - Peace all
Hi Jeff,
Welcome to CPB Blog and CPBzine!
I agree that we have indeed made some advances in knowledge since the pre-roid Golden Age.
Certainly in the area of nutrition, we now have much better quality protein powders and vitamins than those that first appeared in the Golden Age. We are fortunate that we don't have to partake of those early soy-based, poorly blending, and not-so-good tasting early protein powders. Also, these days, we can even purchase organic vitamins (in their food form rather than the chemical analogs that are most often sold as vitamins). We also have a much better knowledge of the biochemical pathways involved in muscle building nutrition, etc.
However, that being said, I don't think new knowledge has improved upon the basic high protein, fruit, vegetable, nuts, dairy, and whole grain diet of the pre-roid Golden Age champs. If anything, "new knowledge" has led many down some dubious paths (e.g., the "low-fat" fad). And "science" is often "spun" in order to sell unnecessary supplements, etc, to the unsuspecting public.
But, as "bad" as the early supplements were in the Golden Age, just look at the physiques they were able to build! And as "good" as the supplements are now, just look at the modern, natural bodybuilders who have yet to equal the physiques of the Golden Age. So that says a lot right there about relative contribution of the new knowledge.
As far as rep ranges go, this knowledge was well-known and frequently discussed in the Golden Age. I think Ibrahim made a good point in noting that much of the "new" knowledge is really "older" knowledge that gets repackaged/renamed and presented as if it were something new - when, in fact, the method has been around for 50+ years!
So we don't look down on new knowledge, but in order to properly evaluate it, we need to know our history - which is a primary mission of CPB (to make that historical knowledge available again to the general public).
All the best (and welcome again!),
CPB (Anthony)
Hi Anthony and All! I really enjoy this site, and the latest issue of the Classic Physique Builder Zine is great!
I really enjoyed Gironda's myth vs fact about abs. I would add however, that while the primal purpose of abs is to bring the upper and lower parts of the body together, in the erect ape, humans, abs are essential to keep us upright (the erector spinae can’t do it by themselves) . So, I would say abs as a stabilizer are the primary purpose, and reason enough to work the abs out. Of course to work the abs to make them stronger we indeed need to go back to their primal purpose.
I'm unsure about sissy squats. I tried them without weight, and they are definitely dangerous for the lower back and knees. Much more so for me than good mornings, which I've been using from the beginning (light weights, 2-3 second reps and bend the knees). I'm also doubtful that squats are the primary reason for "straight" versus "carrot" quads. To me every picture looks like genetic variation. If it is the result of squats, which squats were used to give the carrot look: half squats? full squats?
Indeed, I would say that the way the CP builders of old did squats were not good for the lower back or knees i.e. 2-3" of wood under the heels for all kinds of squats as Steve Reeves recommends in his book. I've been using Mark Rippetoe squats and they work the upper leg great! In this case I would say that modern research has indeed come up with something useful. I have never seen in the older literature descriptions of squats like Rippetoe's. Not that I've read anywhere near everything. If Rippetoe's squats are actual repackaging I would like to hear about.
I also concur with Jeff that Casey Butt's site in invaluable, especially on nutrition. His articles on fat boosted my energy by quite a bit. But also his site is invaluable for performing the exercises. His articles seem to confirm the original CP builders 3 sets and 8-12 reps, but his idea of using fractional plates to always get a bit more resistance is awesome! I may not be able to do another rep or increase weight by 5 lbs, but adding a 1/2 lb is doable.
Anyway, I'm glad to be here, and keep up the great work!
Arnold Schwarzenegger did full squats and did not have turnip thighs -i feel it is the way we are designed
I wear Olympic weightlifting shoes for squatting. It is the best money I ever spent. I do all of my squatting olympic style ATG. Overhead squats are another great movement to perform. While not exactly a BB type move, the carryover benefit to other moves is great.
For ab work, I find deadlifts are excellant. I like front squats for abs as well. Look at lean oly style lifters. They have great abs.
let us set the record straight - Ibrahim said Reeves was doing HIT program - Reeves stuck with straight sets for the most part, true he was into intensity training with slow controlled reps, but HIT is most about pre-exhausting the muscle..If two men can take credit with this approach would be Robert Kennedy of Muscle Mag & Arthur Jones inventory of Nautilus way after Reeves was competing - There might have been some who dabbled in this form of training, but it was these two men who brought to light - Reeves maybe was one of the top champs of his day who did more isolation exercises but most of the time it wasn't pre-exhausting, but used as a finishing exercise - As great as Reeves was I'm not ready to give him credit for HIT or inventing sliced bread - He still was the greatest
one last thing we should talk about and that is Ed Yarick was Steve Reeves' mentor - He is the one who was the molder of Reeves workouts - true Steve Reeves deserves much credit, but if it wasn't for Ed and his gym in Oakland, Ca we might not be having this discussion about Reeves or that matter anyone of these other guys - As true when it comes to Arnold Schwarzenegger and what he did for the bodybuilding scene even if you totally disagree with the scene of the 60's & 70's it takes one person to take it over the top and Reeves & Arnold were those two - but Arnold wouldn't be where he is without the help of Joe Weider - So again we should tip our hats to Big Ed Yarick of Oakland, Ca for giving us Reeves
HI Johnny G,
you´re right about Steve Reeves and Hit. I did not thought about pre exhaustion. What i meant was more about intensive sets. And Steve mentions in his book working to failure or near to failure.
I wish you did not mention Ed Yarick. Because sometimes i think about how fantastic it would be if i had such an authority for coaching me.
But if i will have a gym membership again, i will train alone. No coach, spotter or anything. There is nobody i know who looks at training, diet etc. the way i or we do. There are the ones who want sixpacks before summer. There are the ones who train to have a body so other people get scared. And finally the steroid abusers.
When i tell people who want to build muscle they to eat better take better care of themselves it´s like overwhelming to them.
And they cannot understand how i manage or live that kind of way.
And i say that it´s passion.
Ibrahim, it is tough not having comradely with others in the gym..you still have to do your own thing though...others might follow suit...remember one thing and that is not to over look the benefits of some of the NEW techiques of training out there...Reeves, Grimek, and people like Parks kept striving to find new and better ways to get that Classic Physique and so can we..It would be crazy to divorce any training plan because it was developed after the Golden Age...Parks, Reeves, and Grimek all contnued to coach other bodybuilders..and I agree not so much Reeves, but he did have close friends he trained with after his hey days. Take Georg Eiferman, him and Reeves trained so that Eiferman could win the Mr. Universe in 1962 I think that was the date, and I bet the used some new techniques here and there as well...So the mission is to reach a Classic Physique without resorting to drugs and crazy amount of supplements...Keep it real brother is all I can say..And when it comes to training kick butt and take names and always bring your best friend to the gym (Mr. Intensity). Peace - Johnny G
Hi Anthony and All,
It's great to see Steve Reeves advanced workout in its entirety. I have an older version of his book and the last page is a repeat of 2nd page of the workout.
In his book, Steve mentions the weights he used occasionally, e.g. 130lbs for barbell upright rows, 110lbs for db incline bench press, 80lbs for db one arm rows. You wouldn't happen to know the weights Steve used on the other exercises for his Mr. America and Mr. Universe workout would you, Anthony?
I have not really read anything about his exact poundages - he used moderate amount of weights and very contolled reps - very strict form - Reeves built his body more by having a mental picture on how he wanted to look and used the weights to sculpute his physique - total mind controlled -I bet my bottom dollar that Reeves could give a hoot what or how much he lifted and felt the same way about what other people felt about his lifting style as well - As mention here before, he never had conversations while working out - I need to do the same - So Candon just draw a mental picture for each muscle group on how you want to look and get to it - Easier said then done for sure, but that whats makes the greats great
Hi Candon,
I seem to remember coming across some info regarding the poundages that Reeves used. But I don't remember what the source was. So it will take some research on my part.
Perhaps some of our readers might have come across that info and can share it with us (while I'm trying to research it as well).
In general, Reeves was known to have used lighter weights that some of the other Golden Age champs. But this was due to his using a very strict style (he didn't personally like cheating methods and didn't think they worked for him, although he acknowledged that others seemed to get good results from it). He would "cheat" to complete the last rep (using all the intensity he could muster).
Although he used lighter weights that others (e.g., Marvin Eder and Reg Park), Steve was quite strong and said that he could be as strong as he wanted to be. He was known to do some pretty impressive lifts to demonstrate his strength.
But as Johnny said, he wasn't interested in showing off his strength while working out. He was only interested in stimulating muscle growth and perfecting the symmetry of his classic physique.
In any case, when I find more info on his poundages, I will post it.
All the best,
CPB (Anthony)
Hi Johnny G & Anthony,
Johnny, good advice, and I try to do just that. Fortunately, I'm built similarly to John Grimek and am of the same height. So, I try to visualize that my muscles are looking like Johns. But I also take a cue from Steve Reeves and visualize different parts of other CPBers, e.g. Steve's chest, Clancy Ross's back.
Anthony, I'm just interested in the weights Steve used. In his book he mentions a few weights he used and I'm just curious. I'm curious because I would like to know what weights a non-drug using bodybuilder was using for his advanced workouts. I realize he was using lighter weights, and the anecdote related in his book about how some joker was making fun of the weights he used; so Steve lifted a 400lbs barbell with his fingertips, is awesome! And the picture is there to prove it, too.
I tend to use a medium rep range of 1 sec/2 sec. But I have tried Steve's slow rep range of 2 sec/3 sec, and it is always much harder to do. One has no choice but to use a lighter weight, or do only 4 reps!
Anyway, thank you both, and I'm looking forward, Anthony, to anything you may find. Steve's book has some info buried in it, e.g. when he speaks of going down the rack for squats he says to use 300lbs or whatever is heavy for you. From this, we could assume that he squated 300lbs. Also, the picture of Steve doing barbell press behind the neck outdoors, seems to show a bar with 150lbs on it, if the plates are 25, 20, 15, 10, and 5. But those photos were obviously staged to show how to do those exercises. So, the weight may or may not have been his usual workout weight.
Thanks again to you both!
Post a Comment