EXPERIMENTAL TRAINING - Christian Temple My initiation into the often frustrating, yet undeniably addictive world of weight training

began in 1976, at the age of 17. I was just beginning my senior year of high school and, due to the popularity of rnold at the time, I was determined to build as magnificent a physi!ue as he. "f course, I had little #nowledge of the role genetics play in the development of the top physi!ues, and was completely ignorant of the use of drugs as an aid to muscle building. fter all, the biggest and glossiest maga$ines of the day proclaimed that all that was needed to achieve a championship physi!ue was dedication, a wholesome diet, and of course, subscriptions to the aforementioned periodicals so as to #eep up on the newest techni!ues and %secrets& of the champions that were, and still are, published each month. 'ortunately, I had other outside interests when I began training, so I did not have time to pursue routines li#e the champs recommended. I cut bac# on the volume considerably, yet I still performed much too much wor#. t the outset I did three whole(body wor#outs a wee# )as recommended in the instructional boo#let that accompanied my first weight set* of about ten e+ercises for , sets of 1- each, and made some marginal progress. It wasn.t long before the mags really got my attention and I had converted over to a program of four(day(a(wee# wor#outs and three to four e+ercises per body part, each for / or , sets. ma$ingly, I still was able to progress, so doubt blessed with the resiliency of youth. 01"23.4 I1'256176 My main source of training info at this time, in addition to the number one maga$ine, was the boo# 6ducation of a 8odybuilder by rnold. I followed, or attempted to follow, the recommended programs for intermediates in the second half of the boo#. I did spend some very limited time on si+(day(a(wee# routines, but after some e+perimentation, they did not last. 'our(day(a(wee# routines were the ma+imum I could handle, and I trusted rnold. fter all, who could possibly #now more about weight training than the 9ing of all bodybuilders: It is important to note that when I started training at the age of 17 I was an untrained 1;- pounds, at <. 11&, and involved in normal teen athletics. =hough I am by no means a genetic superior, I obviously had a good degree of genetic predisposition for strength and si$e gains. I can>t say I have ever identified with the 1/-(pound beanpole neophyte, though I certainly had, and still have, sympathy for this individual. MI96 M61=?60.4 I1'256176 I continued on my rnold program for a year or more, developing some muscularity but not much si$e, when suddenly a new star burst on the hori$on. 1ot only did this man possess a ruggedly massive physi!ue, but claimed to reach this state by training three days a wee# )unheard of for a champion* and doing no more than < sets a body part. @is name was Mi#e Ment$er. =his was about 197; and Ment$er was all over the mags of the day. "f course his %@eavy(3uty& courses were mar#eted monthly, and I sent for each one of them. =hey proposed the almost e+clusive use of the %pre(fatigue& system and e+plained it so logically that it just had to be the best way to progress. fter all, 8ig Mi#e used the system, and he was a sterling e+ample of the healthy bodybuilding lifestyle, wasn.t

he: I began the %@eavy(3uty& routines as soon as the little boo#lets came in the mail. Ahile still wor#ing out four days a wee#, my routines now consisted of < sets per body part, three body parts a wor#out. I gritted my teeth, and, come hell of high water, I rarely missed a wor#out. =he initial results were an almost immediate increase in si$e and strength, I thin# up to about /-- pounds bodyweight by age /-, in 1979. =he fact that I could barely drag myself out of bed in the morning was attributed to going to college full(time days and wor#ing part(time nights, and I never associated the e+haustion with my pre(e+haust wor#outs. I continued using the pre(e+haust method for !uite a long time. I never cycled poundages, trained to complete positive failure and beyond, and made progress. I guess I trained this way until about 19;, or >;B. @ow I didn.t wind up in hospital with systemic fatigue is a miracle, and I guess a tribute to my inherited structure. 2oo#ing bac# now, years later, many symptoms of overtraining and fatigue were present, though largely ignored. I suffered from insomnia, rapid heart rate, increased viral infections and colds, and chronic headaches. 4till, I plodded on, sure that the pre(fatigue method was the only way to train. 4ince the mags contained mostly articles by the %champions&, praising the value of twenty(sets(per(body(part routines, and since the only %sane& voice at the time was Ment$er, proposing %limited& routines, his was the only voice I heard. 5ntil about 19;B. 622I1C="1 3 0361.4 I1'256176 t this time I purchased an 6llington 3arden boo# on advanced 1autilus training. In it, 0ay Ment$er was heralded as performing routines of only 7(; e+ercises, for one set each, per wor#out. =his was deemed as truly incredible, as compared to the routines of other champs. =hese routines were performed only twice a wee#. 1aturally, I began such a program myself, and almost immediately began to see gains anew. It was about this time that I began to consider the benefits of doing less. 1ow, while today in 199, I have a lot of problems with the boo#s and principles of 6l 3arden, I must give him due credit, along of course with rthur Dones, for initiating me into the world of truly limited training. I made e+cellent progress on the two(day( a(wee# training routine, performing eight or nine e+ercises a routine, yet still heavily concentrating on pre(e+haustion. =oday, it is easy for me to see that I was regularly overtraining on the pre(e+haustion techni!ue, but at the time, the high intensity was producing %good& results )measured at the time in muscularity and muscle soreness rather than actual strength increases*. 6ven though I increased the weights used in an e+ercise by maybe 1- pounds every few months, I was always sore from my wor#outs the ne+t day, so I must have been getting stronger, right: )In all fairness, I was fairly strong, performing dumbbell flyes with 7< pounds for 6 reps followed immediately by bench presses of 1;- pounds for 6 reps. =he problem was, I would remain at these weights for very long periods of time*. =@6 E0I"0I=F

=o a large degree, I had neglected the foremost rule of effective weight training ( this that of progression. It remained this way until about 19;6 )/7 years old*. I did manage to increase my weight and muscular si$e to about //- pounds or so, so apparently it is possible to increase si$e without the same increase in strength gains. t about this time, I fortunately became aware of articles by people li#e 9en 2eistner, 8radley 4teiner and 4tuart Mc0obert. =hese authors were not concerning themselves with catchy techni!ue names, or the system of the wee#, but were pushing forth the concept of short, abbreviated training with the main focus on progression, progression, progression. ll else in a routine was secondary as long as weight progression and true strength gains were the main focus of the routine. I had always understood the importance of the big basic e+ercises, and had incorporated them into my routines. =he problem was, I was #illing myself on the isolation movement of the pre(e+haust cycle, and was therefore limiting my progress on the big basic e+ercises li#e benches, rows and s!uats. "ne of the hardest things I ever did was remove myself from the pre(e+haust principles and begin concentrating on just performing the big e+ercises. My routine at this time consisted of / sets each of the bench, row, hac# s!uat, curl and press behind nec#, performed two times a wee#, and I made the best strength gains of my life. I increased each lift considerably, and wor#ed my bodyweight up to about /,< pounds by the end of 19;6. "f course ( through age, e+perience and maturation ( I began to get a better grasp on the concepts of anabolic steroids and hype. I must admit to a good deal of naivetG when it comes to drug use, yet I grew to appreciate that 99H of what was written at the time, even so(called abbreviated training, was geared for the drug(enhanced, genetically gifted trainee. My distaste for bodybuilding grew and I became more interested in ac!uiring true si$e and strength, not just showy yet non(functional muscles. I also gained enough confidence to trust in my own judgement, and perform e+periments in training upon myself. I intended to become an %e+pert& on my own body. 2644 I4 M"06 "ne concept always remained in my mind, and filtered through all the ho#um I read early on. =hat was the concept, created by rthur Dones, of the bigger and stronger you get, the less you must train. I remember reading in a 1autilus boo# the recommendation that beginners perform 1/ sets, three times a wee#, intermediates should perform 1- sets, two times a wee#, and advanced trainees should perform ; sets two times a wee#. Ahile this set(up is of course too simplistic an approach, the basic philosophy is sound. 8igger and stronger trainees e+ert more intensity with every rep of every set performed, and ma#e greater inroads into their recovery system. =herefore, advanced trainees must perform harder wor# less often. 4o, beginning in about 19;7 )/; years old* I began to e+periment with a wide range of days(of(the(wee# training, number of sets, and number of reps per set. 8etween ;- and 9-H of the time I spent on single set training. 4ince I now believed %set(enhancing& techni!ues to be more harmful than good. I only went to positive

failure. I performed ; sets a wor#out, twice a wee#, and made good progress. I cut the sets bac# to 7, 6 and < and made even better progress. Eeriodically, I would vary my set and rep ranges, performing ,+, or <+< per e+ercise. Instead of performing single sets of si+ or seven e+ercises a wor#out, I would perform only one or two e+ercises, , to 6 sets each, and each e+ercise only once a wee# instead of the %re!uired& twice. I discovered that the total number of sets in a wor#out was more restrictive on my recovery system than the total number of sets per body part. I e+perimented constantly and all results led to one conclusion ( the less I trained, the bigger and stronger I got. 'rom 19;7(1991 I progressed to /<- pounds, with a corresponding increase in functional strength. Ahile I periodically performed ,, < or 1- sets per e+ercise, and one(e+ercise wor#outs, I invariably returned to single(set routines of three to si+ movements. I have spent time performing one e+ercise only, three days a wee#I one e+ercise every two wee#sI and several wee#s at a time of only training one target area, say bac# for e+ample. nd all these methods have delivered results. =he bottom line, regardless of which approach I have ta#en, is to undertrain, rather than overtrain, and #eep total volume to a bare minimum. 2644 I4 864= =he greater parts of 1991 and 199/ were spent further attempting to cut bac# in the training volume and fre!uency. 6ach successive decrease has led to a corresponding increase in si$e and strength. 'or a long time, two

workouts a week were the norm, each consisted of doing one set: 5 mini-sets of 1 rep. with only three different movements, for about < reps each. =his is as close to a
%perfect& system as I had found, up to that point. =he ne+t year, 199,, involved further reductions in training, and has led to a present bodyweight of /7- ),;& waist, <B& chest*, and new ma+imums in single attempts lifted on a variety of e+ercises. I believe my present routine to be near the ultimate in abbreviated, effective training. Fet, is it suitable for all trainees of all inherited potentials: 4hould we cut to the !uic# right from the beginner.s level, and perform the ultimate limited schedules available: "r, do beginners need more wor# due to their limited strength in the beginning and then begin to decrease their volume and fre!uency as their ability to generate intensity increases: I don.t #now. study would have to be conducted of a statistically significant population at the beginner.s level in a controlled environment. nd this is not very practical. ll I can say is, every decrease in volume has, for me, yielded the ne+t level of strength increase. nd it is very important that we are tal#ing si$e and strength increases here, not muscularity and bodybuilding type gains. Ahile I am large and muscular, I do not possess the bodybuilder.s type of physi!ue of outrageous vascularity and cuts. nd no one who doesn.t use steroids will ever have that type of development. I much prefer loo#ing li#e a power lifter or football player than I do a bodybuilder. 1owadays, I would consider it an insult to be lumped into that group of categorical

liars and drug abusers )pre(steroid era bodybuilders e+cepted*. bbreviated training is the only way to train, though there are various forms and concepts of #eeping routines brief. Individual interpretation is always needed and accepted. I can only spea# from my own e+perience and, as far as I am concerned, less is always best. I am currently down to training with only single-rep sets, and the results are marvelous. nd I am currently considering e+perimenting with even less e+ercises as I get nearer and nearer to my inherited potential.