I know everyone poo poos training "for the pump," as if there's some perfect science negating its benefits, but that shit always worked best for me. And it kept me injury-free. Ended up hurting myself with the hardcore bullshit.
Also remember Titus and Levrone saying they did the same.
Titus, yes. Levrone, whatwith his 405 inclines for reps whilst prepping for the 2002 Mr. Olympia?
... not so much
Kevin might've
said he did X or Y, but he continued to do Z, just as he always had. The only obvious difference in his training's that he couldn't get his legs as big as he did up 'til about '99ish. Oddly enough, he had huge wheels at that year's Olympia and on the Grand Prix shows; then, like lightning struck, his legs were waaaaaay smaller at the 2000 Olympia, and smaller still every year thereafter until he finally retired in 2003.
However, that's in no way to take away from your overriding message, Mr. Ugly. Indeed, I think that
if someone[/i] acquires top-pro mass, generally speaking, said fellow would, more often than not, have to have gotten extremely strong, be it on machines (6 plates/side for strict reps on the Hammer Iso-Incline) or via free weights (405x8-12 on flat press). AFTER building up to a strength level that threatens tears, ghosts and goblins, I think it's certainly better to do a kind of pump-training.
At the very least, if champ A was to start his workout with chest press B, he might do something like this:
135x20
185x20
225x18
275x12
315x10
365x8
...
then go on to 405 for max reps, maybe followed by a drop set.
Some of you might mock that, but given small enough rest intervals, just try that, plus another, isolation exercise for one or two 10-25 max reps to failure sets, and see how your pecs grow. Generally speaking, it'll be the guys who can't bench 225 for more than a few reps who raise hell.
