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 Arnold at the time, I was determined to build as magnificent a
physique as he. Of course, I had little knowledge of the role genetics play in the
development of the top physiques, and was completely ignorant of the use of drugs as an
aid to muscle building. After all, the biggest and glossiest magazines of the day
proclaimed that all that was needed to achieve a championship physique was dedication,
a wholesome diet, and of course, subscriptions to the aforementioned periodicals so as to
keep up on the newest techniques and secrets of the champions that were, and still are,
published each month.
Fortunately, I had other outside interests when I began training, so I did not have time to
pursue routines like the champs recommended. I cut back on the volume considerably,
yet I still performed much too much work. At the outset I did three whole-body
workouts a week (as recommended in the instructional booklet that accompanied my
first weight set) of about ten exercises for 3 sets of 10 each, and made some marginal
progress. It wasnt long before the mags really got my attention and I had converted over
to a program of four-day-a-week workouts and three to four exercises per body part,
each for 2 or 3 sets. Amazingly, I still was able to progress, so doubt blessed with the
resiliency of youth.
ARNOLDS INFLUENCE
My main source of training info at this time, in addition to the number one magazine,
was the book Education of a Bodybuilder by Arnold. I followed, or attempted to follow,
the recommended programs for intermediates in the second half of the book. I did spend
some very limited time on six-day-a-week routines, but after some experimentation, they
did not last. Four-day-a-week routines were the maximum I could handle, and I trusted
Arnold. After all, who could possibly know more about weight training than the King of
all bodybuilders?
It is important to note that when I started training at the age of 17 I was an untrained 180
pounds, at 5 11, and involved in normal teen athletics. Though I am by no means a
genetic superior, I obviously had a good degree of genetic predisposition for strength
and size gains. I cant say I have ever identified with the 120-pound beanpole neophyte,
though I certainly had, and still have, sympathy for this individual.
MIKE MENTZERS INFLUENCE
I continued on my Arnold program for a year or more, developing some muscularity but
not much size, when suddenly a new star burst on the horizon. Not only did this man
possess a ruggedly massive physique, but claimed to reach this state by training three
days a week (unheard of for a champion) and doing no more than 5 sets a body part. His
name was Mike Mentzer.
This was about 1978 and Mentzer was all over the mags of the day. Of course his
Heavy-Duty courses were marketed monthly, and I sent for each one of them.

They proposed the almost exclusive use of the pre-fatigue system and explained it so
logically that it just had to be the best way to progress.
After all, Big Mike used the system, and he was a sterling example of the healthy
bodybuilding lifestyle, wasnt he?
I began the Heavy-Duty routines as soon as the little booklets came in the mail. While
still working out four days a week, my routines now consisted of 5 sets per body part,
three body parts a workout. I gritted my teeth, and, come hell of high water, I rarely
missed a workout. The initial results were an almost immediate increase in size and
strength, I think up to about 200 pounds bodyweight by age 20, in 1979. The fact that I
could barely drag myself out of bed in the morning was attributed to going to college
full-time days and working part-time nights, and I never associated the exhaustion with
my pre-exhaust workouts.
I continued using the pre-exhaust method for quite 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 1983 or 84. How I didnt wind up in hospital with systemic
fatigue is a miracle, and I guess a tribute to my inherited structure. Looking back 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. Still, I plodded on, sure that the pre-fatigue method was the only way
to train.
Since 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
Mentzer, proposing limited routines, his was the only voice I heard. Until about 1984.
ELLINGTON DARDENS INFLUENCE
At this time I purchased an Ellington Darden book on advanced Nautilus training. In it,
Ray Mentzer was heralded as performing routines of only 7-8 exercises, for one set
each, per workout. This was deemed as truly incredible, as compared to the routines of
other champs. These routines were performed only twice a week. Naturally, 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.
Now, while today in 1993 I have a lot of problems with the books and principles of El
Darden, I must give him due credit, along of course with Arthur Jones, for initiating me
into the world of truly limited training. I made excellent progress on the two-day-a-week
training routine, performing eight or nine exercises a routine, yet still heavily
concentrating on pre-exhaustion.
Today, it is easy for me to see that I was regularly overtraining on the pre-exhaustion
technique, 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). Even
though I increased the weights used in an exercise by maybe 10 pounds every few
months, I was always sore from my workouts the next day, so I must have been getting

stronger, right? (In all fairness, I was fairly strong, performing dumbbell flyes with 75
pounds for 6 reps followed immediately by bench presses of 180 pounds for 6 reps. The
problem was, I would remain at these weights for very long periods of time).
THE PRIORITY
To a large degree, I had neglected the foremost rule of effective weight training - this
that of progression. It remained this way until about 1986 (27 years old). I did manage to
increase my weight and muscular size to about 220 pounds or so, so apparently it is
possible to increase size without the same increase in strength gains.
At about this time, I fortunately became aware of articles by people like Ken Leistner,
Bradley Steiner and Stuart McRobert. These authors were not concerning themselves
with catchy technique names, or the system of the week, but were pushing forth the
concept of short, abbreviated training with the main focus on progression, progression,
progression. All 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 exercises, and had incorporated
them into my routines. The problem was, I was killing myself on the isolation movement
of the pre-exhaust cycle, and was therefore limiting my progress on the big basic
exercises like benches, rows and squats. One of the hardest things I ever did was remove
myself from the pre-exhaust principles and begin concentrating on just performing the
big exercises. My routine at this time consisted of 2 sets each of the bench, row, hack
squat, curl and press behind neck, performed two times a week, and I made the best
strength gains of my life. I increased each lift considerably, and worked my bodyweight
up to about 235 pounds by the end of 1986.
Of course - through age, experience 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 naivet when it
comes to drug use, yet I grew to appreciate that 99% 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 acquiring
true size and strength, not just showy yet non-functional muscles. I also gained enough
confidence to trust in my own judgement, and perform experiments in training upon
myself. I intended to become an expert on my own body.
LESS IS MORE
One concept always remained in my mind, and filtered through all the hokum I read
early on. That was the concept, created by Arthur Jones, of the bigger and stronger you
get, the less you must train.
I remember reading in a Nautilus book the recommendation that beginners perform 12
sets, three times a week, intermediates should perform 10 sets, two times a week, and
advanced trainees should perform 8 sets two times a week. While this set-up is of course

too simplistic an approach, the basic philosophy is sound. Bigger and stronger trainees
exert more intensity with every rep of every set performed, and make greater inroads
into their recovery system. Therefore, advanced trainees must perform harder work less
often.
So, beginning in about 1987 (28 years old) I began to experiment with a wide range of
days-of-the-week training, number of sets, and number of reps per set.
Between 80 and 90% of the time I spent on single set training. Since I now believed
set-enhancing techniques to be more harmful than good. I only went to positive
failure. I performed 8 sets a workout, twice a week, and made good progress. I cut the
sets back to 7, 6 and 5 and made even better progress.
Periodically, I would vary my set and rep ranges, performing 3x3 or 5x5 per exercise.
Instead of performing single sets of six or seven exercises a workout, I would perform
only one or two exercises, 3 to 6 sets each, and each exercise only once a week instead
of the required twice. I discovered that the total number of sets in a workout was more
restrictive on my recovery system than the total number of sets per body part. I
experimented constantly and all results led to one conclusion - the less I trained, the
bigger and stronger I got. From 1987-1991 I progressed to 250 pounds, with a
corresponding increase in functional strength. While I periodically performed 3, 5 or 10
sets per exercise, and one-exercise workouts, I invariably returned to single-set routines
of three to six movements.
I have spent time performing one exercise only, three days a week; one exercise every
two weeks; and several weeks at a time of only training one target area, say back for
example. And all these methods have delivered results. The bottom line, regardless of
which approach I have taken, is to undertrain, rather than overtrain, and keep total
volume to a bare minimum.
LESS IS BEST
The greater parts of 1991 and 1992 were spent further attempting to cut back in the
training volume and frequency. Each successive decrease has led to a corresponding
increase in size and strength. For a long time, two

workouts a week were the

norm, each consisted of doing one set: 5x1 = 5 mini-sets of 1 rep. with
only three different movements, for about 5 reps each. This is as close to a
perfect system as I had found, up to that point. The next year, 1993, involved further
reductions in training, and has led to a present bodyweight of 270 (38 waist, 54 chest),
and new maximums in single attempts lifted on a variety of exercises.
I believe my present routine to be near the ultimate in abbreviated, effective training.
Yet, is it suitable for all trainees of all inherited potentials? Should we cut to the quick
right from the beginners level, and perform the ultimate limited schedules available?
Or, do beginners need more work due to their limited strength in the beginning and then
begin to decrease their volume and frequency as their ability to generate intensity

increases? I dont know. A study would have to be conducted of a statistically significant

population at the beginners level in a controlled environment. And this is not very
practical.
All I can say is, every decrease in volume has, for me, yielded the next level of strength
increase. And it is very important that we are talking size and strength increases here,
not muscularity and bodybuilding type gains.
While I am large and muscular, I do not possess the bodybuilders type of physique of
outrageous vascularity and cuts. And no one who doesnt use steroids will ever have that
type of development. I much prefer looking like a power lifter or football player than I
do a bodybuilder.
Nowadays, I would consider it an insult to be lumped into that group of categorical liars
and drug abusers (pre-steroid era bodybuilders excepted).
Abbreviated training is the only way to train, though there are various forms and
concepts of keeping routines brief. Individual interpretation is always needed and
accepted. I can only speak from my own experience 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. And I am currently considering experimenting with even less exercises as
I get nearer and nearer to my inherited potential.