• Keep up to date with Ausbb via Twitter and Facebook. Please add us!
  • Join the Ausbb - Australian BodyBuilding forum

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

    The Ausbb - Australian BodyBuilding forum is dedicated to no nonsense muscle and strength building. If you need advice that works, you have come to the right place. This forum focuses on building strength and muscle using the basics. You will also find that the Ausbb- Australian Bodybuilding Forum stresses encouragement and respect. Trolls and name calling are not allowed here. No matter what your personal goals are, you will be given effective advice that produces results.

    Please consider registering. It takes 30 seconds, and will allow you to get the most out of the forum.

Anyone do the Arnold Blueprint?

azamyza6.jpg
 
Didn't think so.
Back to Arnie and Yates.

I doubt Arnie actually trained for 4 hrs. More like 2-3.
 
Ones workouts where hard brief and brutal
The other, was much longer and less brutal.

Arnold, did not like hard work and was very gifted, and if you look at his physique over time, it did not improve greatly.
 
In all honesty, combined we have 100s of years of lifting experience, for hypertrophy, given the life of a mere working mortal, is it better to focus on frequency of volume?
Serious question, could never swing one way or another in my experience.
 
In all honesty, combined we have 100s of years of lifting experience, for hypertrophy, given the life of a mere working mortal, is it better to focus on frequency of volume?
Serious question, could never swing one way or another in my experience.


If you're time poor, you're better off reducing the workout time, but to do that you need to increase the intensity of *work*, that is taxing not only on the body but also the mind.

What most numb-skulls don't want to understand is, Either method produces results!
One's a tad more uncomfortable to do, hurts like a bitch.
 
If you're time poor, you're better off reducing the workout time, but to do that you need to increase the intensity of *work*, that is taxing not only on the body but also the mind.

What most numb-skulls don't want to understand is, Either method produces results!
One's a tad more uncomfortable to do, hurts like a bitch.

If you had time x to do all body parts once per week at vol y or twice per week at 1/2 of vol y.
Which method for the same bloke would you bet would grow more muscle in the same period?
I understand the difference would be microscopic, but if you had to put money on one or the other, black or red only.
Which way would you bet.
 
If you had time x to do all body parts once per week at vol y or twice per week at 1/2 of vol y.
Which method for the same bloke would you bet would grow more muscle in the same period?
I understand the difference would be microscopic, but if you had to put money on one or the other, black or red only.
Which way would you bet.

I don't understand question.

"all body parts" you mean full body?

"volume"
what does volume mean?

vol y?


do you mean one workout a week as opposed to two?



"Which method for the same bloke would you bet would grow more muscle in the same period?"

what period?
1 month?
3?

1 year?
10 years?

too many variables, to answer.
 
I don't understand question.

"all body parts" you mean full body?

"volume"
what does volume mean?

vol y?


do you mean one workout a week as opposed to two?



"Which method for the same bloke would you bet would grow more muscle in the same period?"

what period?
1 month?
3?

1 year?
10 years?

too many variables, to answer.

Ok Put it this way:

Same bloke trains for 1 year.
Method 1
ONCE per week he does:
8 sets for each of these body parts: bic, tric, chest, back, shoulders, traps, legs and calves.

or

Method 2
TWICE per week he does:
4 sets for each of these body parts: bic, tric, chest, back, shoulders, traps, legs and calves.

At the end of the week, he would do the same volume for both methods.

Which method would you put your money on?
 
Top