Less is more in bodybuilding??

[yungfaceb3]

Everyone where I turn I hear some some supposed "expert" "guru" or "professional" say something along the lines of "Less is more in bodybuilding." I understand thier concept, but when they all recoemend methods for me tro overcome weak areas or sticking points I am left with a feeling of "are you really serious!!??" I mean they recomend 8-9 sets at most...and some of them have even told me 2 sets per bodypart. WTF is the point of coming to they gym if you are going to be done in 15-20 minutes or with 2 sets..in less than five minutes. What satisfaction is there in going to the gym for a good 15 minutes of weight lifting? It goes against science that your body will grow with such limited muscular contractions! I mean beginners and such maybe, but damm! I know overtraining is a growingproblem with people today but my exoeriance as well as my two freinds who are competitive bodybuilders, if your not in 16 sets area you arent doing much. Even biceps deserve at least 12 sets..or 10 if usuing high reps lighter workout. But large muscles like the legs, chest, and back...16-20 sets is good. It seems that people are so fearful of overtraining that they seem to workout like *****s nowadays. Yeah some of these people still see gains but dam ...look at how much people depend on supplements and PH..and steroids nowadays its ridiculous. With just glutamine, creatine, and protein I can keep up in areas of progress with most of the 15-30minute workout steroid guys at the gym. What evr happened to the old school Schwarzegger/ Columbo type work ethic? High set training, good nutrition!

[kaberle_15]

What works for some people may not work for you and while they preach to you about their workouts sometimes it's hard to take it seriously. No one can judge your workouts if they aren't you and a lot of people giving out the advice may not be as knowledegeable as they believe they are.

When someone says "Yo, I'm doing 6 exercises for biceps and doin 20 sets is this too much?" than yes the "less is more" therory plays but only doing 2 or 4 sets per muscle group is incorrect and more work is needed. No one should be done their weightlifting in 15 minutes if you are expecting to gain like a bodybuilder. You will know when you have done too much, too little and the right amount of training because your own body will tell you.

[Ronnie Rowland]

Everyone where I turn I hear some some supposed "expert" "guru" or "professional" say something along the lines of "Less is more in bodybuilding." I understand thier concept, but when they all recoemend methods for me tro overcome weak areas or sticking points I am left with a feeling of "are you really serious!!??" I mean they recomend 8-9 sets at most...and some of them have even told me 2 sets per bodypart. WTF is the point of coming to they gym if you are going to be done in 15-20 minutes or with 2 sets..in less than five minutes. What satisfaction is there in going to the gym for a good 15 minutes of weight lifting? It goes against science that your body will grow with such limited muscular contractions! I mean beginners and such maybe, but damm! I know overtraining is a growingproblem with people today but my exoeriance as well as my two freinds who are competitive bodybuilders, if your not in 16 sets area you arent doing much. Even biceps deserve at least 12 sets..or 10 if usuing high eps lighter workout. But large muscles like the legs, chest, and back...16-20 sets is good. It seems that people are so fearful of overtraining that they seem to workout like *****s nowadays. Yeah some of these people still see gains but dam ...look at how much people depend on supplements and PH..and steroids nowadays its ridiculous. With just glutamine, creatine, and protein I can keep up in areas of progress with most of the 15-30minute workout steroid guys at the gym. What evr happened to the old school Schwarzegger/ Columbo type work ethic? High set training, good nutrition!

You bring up a good point but there's a lot more to the story. The problem with always doing 16 sets per body part is CNS and joint fatigue.

Slingshot Training does indeed have a program for the very advanced bodybuilder. This routine allows weak points to be worked with more frequency. You could not continue with such or you would over-train the joints big time!

The old timers missed the boat by trying to always hit every body part with high volume. Some of the newer generation is hung up on the thought that less is always more and that is also incorrect.

Once you hit a very advanced level you must train instinctively, but you must also use periodization.

[D-Bo Dre]

If your intensity is high enough you can most def. decrease your workout by half.. a high intensity 1/2hr workout can accomplish the same, if not more, as a reg. 1hr+ workout..

[Johny-too-small]

No fing way you would be able to do 16-20 sets/muscle group with the intensity that I have during my workouts.

[Ronnie Rowland]

No fing way you would be able to do 16-20 sets/muscle group with the intensity that I have during my workouts.

This is true!

Anything over 10 sets is pushing the envelope.

[yungfaceb3]

I strongly disagree. For instance..on an average (not heavy not light) day of delt training I will superset behind the neck barbell presses with standing side dumbell lateral raises and then immedietly start my next exercise which is smith machine shoulder presses to the fron supersetted with bent over dumbell lateral raises for rear delts. That is 4 sets for each movement and at four movemnts that is 16 sets donbe in little over a half hour or less than a half hour with extreme intensity. I then usually train biceps and triceps immedietly afterwards with 3 movements of four sets a peice which makes 12 sets for both biceps and triceps..so this can lead to an 1 1/4 hour workout with extrmemely limited rest periods. I have, over time, adapted to this training and everyone on here can shout "overtraining" all day long but at the same time my shoulders and arms are extrmmely developed and continue to rapidly progress in both size, and definition. The greatest evident sign of overtraining is lack of a pump in the overtrained muscle group you are wokring out..and thiough hit my shoudlers and arms every 4-5 days..I ALWAYS get a good pump. Whne doing high reps/ low weight however, only do 3 sets rather than 4 for all movemnts with exception to the starting exercise(s)..so that will bring my shoulders down to 14 sets and arms down to 10, but normally its 2 more sets per muscle group. Over time I have adpated to this high endurance/ high demand style training..and though i may have experianced overtraining in my early attempts to obtain such adaptations..now i have no such problems. It really doesnt make any sense...why do people take extra supplements and diet tweeks to improve recovery time..if there not going to increas eht edemand or train more often???? If your only doing 10 sets per bodypart....each bodypart once a week....unless you are a beginer or extremely out of shape..a week is MORE than enough time for each and every muscle group to recover from a short 10 set trainig session...and why waste the money and time shortening the recovery time if you are just going to use the same amount of days and hours to recover as usual?? Is not the point of decreasing recovery time to aquire the ability to train more often and/or with more demanding sessions? If not..explain the logic behind it.I have a three day spit day split like so.

High rep/ Low weight
Day 1: Chest & Back
Day 2: Legs
Day 3: Shoulders and arms
Day 4: OFF

Medium weight/ rep range
Day 5: chest and back
Day 6:Legs
Day 7: shoulders and arms
Day8: OFF

HEAVY/POWER TRAINING/LOW REP
Day 9: Chest
Day 10: Back
Day 11: Legs
Day 12: Shoulders and arms
Day 13: OFF

Day 14: Start cycle over again.

I use the method of progressive workload..starting with lighter wweights and less sets at the begining..then gradually increasing the weight and intesnity for second phase....then after another day off I hit everything hard and heavy and substitute some movements for pure power movements. I do not use supersets and have longer rest periods during this phase. I also split up large muscle groups chest and back to better isloate each of them and to isolate each better. I then take a day off and start over with low weight less sets again..this phase following arest day and heavy training is good for the CNS and overall body recovery as well as endurance. And to say that the old school guys had it wrong...wtf? My question is simply this then...how did they obtain such physqiues as hye had if they had it all wrong? They were massive, aethestic, dense , and hard. No they aren't as big as the guys nowadys but they looked btter and were damn big themselves. They didn't have even one tenth the supplmentation nor the quality portein supps we have now. You can use the "roids" use if you want too, but they took less than a half of what the guys do nowadays and they didnt have GH. And besdies all that..yuo know as well as I that if your training isnt on point..even roids and supplementatin aint really gonna do squat for ya. So now this poses another question...how did these old school guys do it without the supplements and roids of today??? seems to me the missing link besides proper nutrition (which we have better now too) is the training! They were not lazy..they took the time to adaot thier bodies to the high levels of demand...and once they did...the rest IS bodybuilidng history.

[green22]

Im high volume myself. Ive tried lower volumes and cant stand it. Not that I cant build or maintain with it but I just have fun lifting weights.

[Ronnie Rowland]

I strongly disagree. For instance..on an average (not heavy not light) day of delt training I will superset behind the neck barbell presses with standing side dumbell lateral raises and then immedietly start my next exercise which is smith machine shoulder presses to the fron supersetted with bent over dumbell lateral raises for rear delts. That is 4 sets for each movement and at four movemnts that is 16 sets donbe in little over a half hour or less than a half hour with extreme intensity. I then usually train biceps and triceps immedietly afterwards with 3 movements of four sets a peice which makes 12 sets for both biceps and triceps..so this can lead to an 1 1/4 hour workout with extrmemely limited rest periods. I have, over time, adapted to this training and everyone on here can shout "overtraining" all day long but at the same time my shoulders and arms are extrmmely developed and continue to rapidly progress in both size, and definition. The greatest evident sign of overtraining is lack of a pump in the overtrained muscle group you are wokring out..and thiough hit my shoudlers and arms every 4-5 days..I ALWAYS get a good pump. Whne doing high reps/ low weight however, only do 3 sets rather than 4 for all movemnts with exception to the starting exercise(s)..so that will bring my shoulders down to 14 sets and arms down to 10, but normally its 2 more sets per muscle group. Over time I have adpated to this high endurance/ high demand style training..and though i may have experianced overtraining in my early attempts to obtain such adaptations..now i have no such problems. It really doesnt make any sense...why do people take extra supplements and diet tweeks to improve recovery time..if there not going to increas eht edemand or train more often???? If your only doing 10 sets per bodypart....each bodypart once a week....unless you are a beginer or extremely out of shape..a week is MORE than enough time for each and every muscle group to recover from a short 10 set trainig session...and why waste the money and time shortening the recovery time if you are just going to use the same amount of days and hours to recover as usual?? Is not the point of decreasing recovery time to aquire the ability to train more often and/or with more demanding sessions? If not..explain the logic behind it.I have a three day spit day split like so.

High rep/ Low weight
Day 1: Chest & Back
Day 2: Legs
Day 3: Shoulders and arms
Day 4: OFF

Medium weight/ rep range
Day 5: chest and back
Day 6:Legs
Day 7: shoulders and arms
Day8: OFF

HEAVY/POWER TRAINING/LOW REP
Day 9: Chest
Day 10: Back
Day 11: Legs
Day 12: Shoulders and arms
Day 13: OFF

Day 14: Start cycle over again.

I use the method of progressive workload..starting with lighter wweights and less sets at the begining..then gradually increasing the weight and intesnity for second phase....then after another day off I hit everything hard and heavy and substitute some movements for pure power movements. I do not use supersets and have longer rest periods during this phase. I also split up large muscle groups chest and back to better isloate each of them and to isolate each better. I then take a day off and start over with low weight less sets again..this phase following arest day and heavy training is good for the CNS and overall body recovery as well as endurance. And to say that the old school guys had it wrong...wtf? My question is simply this then...how did they obtain such physqiues as hye had if they had it all wrong? They were massive, aethestic, dense , and hard. No they aren't as big as the guys nowadys but they looked btter and were damn big themselves. They didn't have even one tenth the supplmentation nor the quality portein supps we have now. You can use the "roids" use if you want too, but they took less than a half of what the guys do nowadays and they didnt have GH. And besdies all that..yuo know as well as I that if your training isnt on point..even roids and supplementatin aint really gonna do squat for ya. So now this poses another question...how did these old school guys do it without the supplements and roids of today??? seems to me the missing link besides proper nutrition (which we have better now too) is the training! They were not lazy..they took the time to adaot thier bodies to the high levels of demand...and once they did...the rest IS bodybuilidng history.

Not all of them got massive. Only the ones with good genetics!

Arnold himself came out in Muscle Fitness and said they knew nothing about over-training back then. He also stated he now thinks he could have obtained the same results with 10-15 sets once a week. When I say 10 sets I am making reference to 10 sets per body part not 10 total sets for each training session.

You can train long or you can train hard, but you cannot train hard for long periods of time and expect to feel good. I agree with you on being able to do more volume if the intensity is lowered but why not train to the point of not being able to get another good rep? I used to do 25 sets per body part until both of my training partner dropped back to 12 sets and started passing me.

I think you are still looking for answers because you have made multiple threads asking about chest training in the past month or so. We all go through this and I think it's great that you are asking these questions. It shows you are a thinker!

[yungfaceb3]

your right I have made several posts on chest training because I have a lagging chest. My other body parts are solid. AS for doing more volume with lowered intensity...I don't recall ever mentioning myself taking part in that. By increasing intensity i meant increasing the weight and # of sets. I always push each set to the final rep and get the most out of every set, but with higher rps I do 3 sets where I normally do 4. As for the gentics issue of ld school bodybuilders..i figured that would come up. I happen to disagree with this however, based on younger pictures of arnold in which he was muscular yes...but more like an average gym member than a mr. olympia, and then he tunre dinto the greatest bodybuilder possibly of all time. His nutrition was on point..yes...but his training was the key. And about doing 25 sets for bodypart..i don't do that. For chest and back it remains between 16-20 (usually the lower portion) and for legs usually about 14 for quads and 12 for hams...arms is uusally 12 for both biceps and triceps. 20 is usally the maximum and is for larg muscle groups ONLY

And about arnold talking of his own overtraining.I have heard references to this several times in regards of refuting old school techniques,but I canot seem to ever find anyhting regarding this article on the internet. I am not saying anyone is lying or anything..I would just like to see what arnold said in print!

[Ronnie Rowland]

your right I have made several posts on chest training because I have a lagging chest. My other body parts are solid. AS for doing more volume with lowered intensity...I don't recall ever mentioning myself taking part in that. By increasing intensity i meant increasing the weight and # of sets. I always push each set to the final rep and get the most out of every set, but with higher rps I do 3 sets where I normally do 4. As for the gentics issue of ld school bodybuilders..i figured that would come up. I happen to disagree with this however, based on younger pictures of arnold in which he was muscular yes...but more like an average gym member than a mr. olympia, and then he tunre dinto the greatest bodybuilder possibly of all time. His nutrition was on point..yes...but his training was the key. And about doing 25 sets for bodypart..i don't do that. For chest and back it remains between 16-20 (usually the lower portion) and for legs usually about 14 for quads and 12 for hams...arms is uusally 12 for both biceps and triceps. 20 is usally the maximum and is for larg muscle groups ONLY

And about arnold talking of his own overtraining.I have heard references to this several times in regards of refuting old school techniques,but I canot seem to ever find anyhting regarding this article on the internet. I am not saying anyone is lying or anything..I would just like to see what arnold said in print!

If Arnold's Training was the secret then why don't you follow in his foot steps and do 16-20 sets per bodypart twice a week as opposed to once a week? It made his chest get huge! See my point?

I think Arnold took a ton of drugs and responded very well to the drugs. Sure he trained very very hard but his response to drugs was not normal IMO.

Jay Cutler does around 9-12 sets once a week off-season.

[yungfaceb3]

yeah I understand where you are coming from. Arnold was known for doing supersets of chest to back for 5 sets apecie for like 4-5 movements apeice. Thats like what 40-50 sets apeice. He would do thiout break as well. I think this alot and bordering on overtraining you train specifically to obtain such an endurance. Arnold's sessions sually lasted about 2 hours according his encyclopedia and both my instincts and common knowledge tell me this is past too long in the gym i this happens to me. I will continue to do 16-20 sets per LARGE bodypart twice a week..or well every 8 days..lol...as my split works. My greatest bodypart is my arms and I RARELY go beyond 12 sets for them. My legs are also very good and I train these on there own day and typicaly pretty quickly. So I can see the benefits of shorter..faster..and more intense workouts of lower sets. But like 9-12 sets..regardless the intensity really doesnt seem to polish off either my chest or back usually. Buty trust me,I understand where you are coming from and realize you are not ignorant. It is easy to overtrain, and it is also easy for people to undertrain for fear of overtraining. For this reason I constantly tweak my workout split to offer both more recovery time and faster more intense training sessions. It is for this reason I did not follow the typical arnold arnold split, but rather took his split and made it with different rep and weight ranges and added off days following the completion of each split. I just in the past few weeks dropped my high rep days to 3 set days and split chest and back into seperate heavy training sessions. I also lately train back immedietly following chest rather than superseting the first two chest exercises with wide and close grip chins. I have made these alterations to combat the threat of overtraining and provide ample recovery time. I understand training science has expanded and is superior to that of the 70s...I just think that people use this as an excuse to be lazy and lack work ethic of classic bodybuilders. I find training is justas much a mental thing as a physical...I abslutely love bodybuilding...on my off days I feel like a child anticpating christmas morning the day before as I constantly find myself thinking about my next workout. If it is good...i have a good day..if it is bad or frustrating..i am down. A good hour in the gym gets me mentaly and physically right...

[turk1968]

The most important thing in the end is that you are gaining,the type of workout in the end whether its 2 hrs or half hour doesnt matter if you are getting bigger and stronger. I myself am 45 years old 6ft3 and 278 and have gained well this year training exactly the same as i did when i was in my twenties which was put more and more effort in to less sets. We were taught to keep a diary nothing stupidly detailed just bodyweight, max bench for 6 reps,max squat for six reps, size of quads arms and chest on say jan 1st then give a certain workout schedule a good 6 months then compare results. As i reduced the no of sets and no of workouts per week i continued to gain. Even when on gear i dont do any more i just do it harder. 9-12 sets for chest/back/shoulders/legs and 6-8 sets arms. I train 3 times per week and on the off days you can rearly concerntrate on diet and resting . Every time i train as i have had a complete days rest i am fired up which leads to great workouts.As with all things you must decide what and how then stick to it for a while and see what happens ,this is the same for supplements,diet etc etc

[MuscleScience]

LOL, if you guys only knew. I agree with turk a little bit. If you guys wants some helpful information PM me and I have something you all can read.

[Ronnie Rowland]

LOL, if you guys only knew. I agree with turk a little bit. If you guys wants some helpful information PM me and I have something you all can read.

I'll be glad to take a look at the information. My quess is that it's some study suggesting to use the same volume that's required for growth as a beginner (low volume).

Everything out there has been rehashed from the 80's! Many people are full of valuable knowledge. Obtaining a college degree in exercise and nutrition is awesome, but degrees are no comparison to the ability to reason, decipher, and put together information to make things work in real life..

[naturalsux]

your right I have made several posts on chest training because I have a lagging chest. My other body parts are solid. AS for doing more volume with lowered intensity...I don't recall ever mentioning myself taking part in that. By increasing intensity i meant increasing the weight and # of sets. I always push each set to the final rep and get the most out of every set, but with higher rps I do 3 sets where I normally do 4. As for the gentics issue of ld school bodybuilders..i figured that would come up. I happen to disagree with this however, based on younger pictures of arnold in which he was muscular yes...but more like an average gym member than a mr. olympia, and then he tunre dinto the greatest bodybuilder possibly of all time. His nutrition was on point..yes...but his training was the key. And about doing 25 sets for bodypart..i don't do that. For chest and back it remains between 16-20 (usually the lower portion) and for legs usually about 14 for quads and 12 for hams...arms is uusally 12 for both biceps and triceps. 20 is usally the maximum and is for larg muscle groups ONLY


And about arnold talking of his own overtraining.I have heard references to this several times in regards of refuting old school techniques,but I canot seem to ever find anyhting regarding this article on the internet. I am not saying anyone is lying or anything..I would just like to see what arnold said in print!

i bet if you dropped your sets for chest, but kept the intensity high you would see results. i use to train 16-20 sets for chest, dropped to 10-12 saw a little bit better results, but not enough IMO.

i have switched to Ronnie's slingshot training program and in the de conditioning stage 3 warm ups and 2 working sets, i get a KILLER PUMP and im seeing growth from it! my arms dont like it as much but my chest loves it!

so for the record i think i could continue to make gains in the 16-20 set(with lower intensity) in every body part EXCEPT chest. i think STS is a great training regime and i will continue with it. just my .2

good luck

[MuscleScience]

I'll be glad to take a look at the information. My quess is that it's some study suggesting to use the same volume that's required for growth as a beginner (low volume).

Everything out there has been rehashed from the 80's! Many people are full of valuable knowledge. Obtaining a college degree in exercise and nutrition is awesome, but degrees are no comparison to the ability to reason, decipher, and put together information to make things work in real life..

No its a paper that I think you would agree with. It dispells a lot of the BS that has been floating out there in regards to resistance training and some of long held theories and such. You will enjoy reading it I think. LOL

[Ronnie Rowland]

No its a paper that I think you would agree with. It dispells a lot of the BS that has been floating out there in regards to resistance training and some of long held theories and such. You will enjoy reading it I think. LOL

You have a pm along with my e-mail. Look forward in reading the paper!

[Ronnie Rowland]

yeah I understand where you are coming from. Arnold was known for doing supersets of chest to back for 5 sets apecie for like 4-5 movements apeice. Thats like what 40-50 sets apeice. He would do thiout break as well. I think this alot and bordering on overtraining you train specifically to obtain such an endurance. Arnold's sessions sually lasted about 2 hours according his encyclopedia and both my instincts and common knowledge tell me this is past too long in the gym i this happens to me. I will continue to do 16-20 sets per LARGE bodypart twice a week..or well every 8 days..lol...as my split works. My greatest bodypart is my arms and I RARELY go beyond 12 sets for them. My legs are also very good and I train these on there own day and typicaly pretty quickly. So I can see the benefits of shorter..faster..and more intense workouts of lower sets. But like 9-12 sets..regardless the intensity really doesnt seem to polish off either my chest or back usually. Buty trust me,I understand where you are coming from and realize you are not ignorant. It is easy to overtrain, and it is also easy for people to undertrain for fear of overtraining. For this reason I constantly tweak my workout split to offer both more recovery time and faster more intense training sessions. It is for this reason I did not follow the typical arnold arnold split, but rather took his split and made it with different rep and weight ranges and added off days following the completion of each split. I just in the past few weeks dropped my high rep days to 3 set days and split chest and back into seperate heavy training sessions. I also lately train back immedietly following chest rather than superseting the first two chest exercises with wide and close grip chins. I have made these alterations to combat the threat of overtraining and provide ample recovery time. I understand training science has expanded and is superior to that of the 70s...I just think that people use this as an excuse to be lazy and lack work ethic of classic bodybuilders. I find training is justas much a mental thing as a physical...I abslutely love bodybuilding...on my off days I feel like a child anticpating christmas morning the day before as I constantly find myself thinking about my next workout. If it is good...i have a good day..if it is bad or frustrating..i am down. A good hour in the gym gets me mentaly and physically right...

Your right about lazy people looking for an easy way out...LOL.

My biggest concern for you is joint health. Arnold had to have rotator cuff surgery and heart surgery. He never bounced back! Most who do 16 intense sets for several years non-stop end up a cripple. You've got to think about the future.

[MuscleScience]

You have a pm along with my e-mail. Look forward in reading the paper!

Email sent buddy!!!

[yungfaceb3]

your right. I have transitioned from 20+ sets to about 16....and I am noticing that I am transitioning to around 12-13 ntarurally without knowing it but by going by feel. Today I hit 16 sets of chest very quickly..took some BCAAs and glutamine...then jumped back in for 15 sets of back...then took anther 5 grams of glutamine..waited a few minutes and put down a serving of musclejuice. I felt good.

[RoaringMad Mac]

I think this may actually be my first post here but something I picked up that really has not been mentioned and it is in the form of nutrition.

I keep hearing that Arnold's nutrition was spot on. Not Really, But with that said if you look back at nutrition when in the infant stages of Bodybuilding there were no overly produced processed foods. They ate whole foods. Also foods with little or no preservatives, unprocessed as mentioned, no steroids in the food itself to mass produce. I would think all of these factors plays a big role in the growth of a training bodybuilder back then.

If you read any of Arnolds accounts to what they ate they did eat Red meat, Chicken, and Fish and a Lot of it. Not even going to mention the steroid use since that is not even an issue with this discussion.

[yungfaceb3]

well as far as the nutrition goes back...It is absurd to suggest that theirs was not spot on. It was not as developed as modern day no,but for them to do what thye did and look how they did regardless of steroids and training they wouldn't have achieved shiit without adequate nutrition. Your right about the whole foods stuff, and they did eat ALOT of meat back then, but I mean damm...alot of red meat, chciken, and fish is packed with protein and meats will put size on you in the form of muscle. As far as steroids go, it has been proven that the bodybuilders of that era consumed FAR LESS than the bodybuilders of today. And they didn'ty consume them but in short cycles and more for muscle preservation during dieting than to build overall mass. And besides that..a good deal of people on this forum take steroids and many of them take steroids on par with the dosages and potencies of back then and they look...welll....nothing to be even mentioned in the same sentence as the champions of the 70s. So now that both the nutriton and steroid myths have been abolished elts go on to training. Back then they may have trained way to much by our standards today, but at the same time their bodies had adjusted to it. The immense long training sessions of the old school not only built muscle but due to thier strenous nature and length they demolished fat and burnt alot of calories as well as built endurance. If you break down arnolds most intesne workouts it can be concluded that he was an athlete of almost inhuman nature. His most strenuous chest and back workout that left many bb's to lose concsiousness or their stomach when they attemoted to duplicate proves arnolds extreme conditioning. His techniques were perfect and even his breathing added to his training. He did two-adays like this as well.....two workouts daily ..each of which a pro bber could not duplicate even one of in a day. Such conditioning can be cmapred to that of lance armstrong during the tour de france and is extrmemely overlooked. This may be proven to be counterproductive to gainign muscle, but it worked for him. Not to mention they had virtually none of the suplements we have today..lol. And to hit steroids again..ahevnt every single "guru", "expert," and "professional," stated that even on steroids people couldnt duplicate arnies trainign because it was too much?.....yes tey have..hmm...sounds like the steroids excuse is out. The body can achieve almost whatever ypou force it to adapt too...some people can adapt faster than others and others cannot physically adapt past a certain point. But do not conitnue to bash the greatest bodybuilder of all time..he wasnt he given that title for nothing i mean damn....I don't see why so mnay attempt to mimic the styles of people without the title but mock the style of the one who has it...have you ever thought that maybe what seperates him form other bodybuilders of other generations is his extreme difference in training style? That is bigest single difference between him and modern day bbers...training. And he is the best......hmm...I wonder why...

[reconforce4]

it always takes me two sets of low weights before i start doing the heavy, for me mentally its easier that way