Methods

[oldtimer1]

In my way of thinking I divide training methodologies into three categories.

 First is the variations of HIT characterized by low sets, heavy weights and training to failure. It's basically strength training.

 Second is volume. So many variations too but a very common practice is to train with the same amount of light to moderate weight, high sets, don't train to failure until it hits you on the last set; and use a weight that allows you to train quickly. It's a form of muscular endurance training.

Third is a hybrid method where a mix is used. Heavy weight but not maximum. Training moderately fast. Maybe a pyramid is used for weight progression through the sets.

Contrary to the often used debate points volume works and no they wouldn't have gotten there quicker using HIT.

HIT has been used by Mentzer, Yates, Labrada and others.  Volume has been used by Dickerson, Pearl, Padilla, Robinson and too many to list. In between has been used by Columbu, Eddie Robinson, Coleman and others.  Then you have Viator who trained with HIT and looked his best when he was doing volume for the London Olympia.

What's my point in this?  There is no optimal way to train. Bodybuilders contrary to what many think are not scientists. Bodybuilders who use actual science often aren't very good bodybuilders. Genetics? Valid point but my point in the words of Jeff Everson," Until pigs fly you don't have to be a scientist to be a bodybuilder."
Training to failure with low sets with heavy weights is brutal. Training with volume can be brutal too if you're pushing the muscular endurance envelope. It's like comparing a 400 meter sprinter training to 5k training. Both training is brutally hard but it's apples to oranges.  

[Yev33]

In my way of thinking I divide training methodologies into three categories.

 First is the variations of HIT characterized by low sets, heavy weights and training to failure. It's basically strength training.

 Second is volume. So many variations too but a very common practice is to train with the same amount of light to moderate weight, high sets, don't train to failure until it hits you on the last set; and use a weight that allows you to train quickly. It's a form of muscular endurance training.

Third is a hybrid method where a mix is used. Heavy weight but not maximum. Training moderately fast. Maybe a pyramid is used for weight progression through the sets.

Contrary to the often used debate points volume works and no they wouldn't have gotten there quicker using HIT.

HIT has been used by Mentzer, Yates, Labrada and others.  Volume has been used by Dickerson, Pearl, Padilla, Robinson and too many to list. In between has been used by Columbu, Eddie Robinson, Coleman and others.  Then you have Viator who trained with HIT and looked his best when he was doing volume for the London Olympia.

What's my point in this?  There is no optimal way to train. Bodybuilders contrary to what many think are not scientists. Bodybuilders who use actual science often aren't very good bodybuilders. Genetics? Valid point but my point in the words of Jeff Everson," Until pigs fly you don't have to be a scientist to be a bodybuilder."
Training to failure with low sets with heavy weights is brutal. Training with volume can be brutal too if you're pushing the muscular endurance envelope. It's like comparing a 400 meter sprinter training to 5k training. Both training is brutally hard but it's apples to oranges.  

This is a very good and thought provoking post. In regards to just plain BB, I think both HIT and volume can work as proven by great development in both camps. Though volume is easily the more commonly used method among BB.

IMO the key to HIT is variety, due to the tendency to burn out from going to failure and beyond on every exercise. Stagnation can set in pretty quickly unless you are changing up exercises. Volume needs variety as well but not nearly as much as HIT. This is where machines become essential to HIT training.

Obviously you don't need to be a scientist to be a bodybuilder. But you also don't need to be a scientist to be an Olympic level weightlifter or sprinter. However, the latter two have coaches who can get the most out of the genetic gifts the athletes posses. The athlete would most likely never get there on their own (at least not these days ).

Is there the most efficient way of training? I don't know. But I do know that there are some very inefficient ways to train (see it at my gym a lot). So that leads me to believe that there is at least a range between less efficient and more efficient.

I do know this, knowledge in training with the purpose of building muscle stagnated heavily due to anabolic steroids. And there is still a lot out there we do not know.

[Donny]

In my way of thinking I divide training methodologies into three categories.

 First is the variations of HIT characterized by low sets, heavy weights and training to failure. It's basically strength training.

 Second is volume. So many variations too but a very common practice is to train with the same amount of light to moderate weight, high sets, don't train to failure until it hits you on the last set; and use a weight that allows you to train quickly. It's a form of muscular endurance training.

Third is a hybrid method where a mix is used. Heavy weight but not maximum. Training moderately fast. Maybe a pyramid is used for weight progression through the sets.

Contrary to the often used debate points volume works and no they wouldn't have gotten there quicker using HIT.

HIT has been used by Mentzer, Yates, Labrada and others.  Volume has been used by Dickerson, Pearl, Padilla, Robinson and too many to list. In between has been used by Columbu, Eddie Robinson, Coleman and others.  Then you have Viator who trained with HIT and looked his best when he was doing volume for the London Olympia.

What's my point in this?  There is no optimal way to train. Bodybuilders contrary to what many think are not scientists. Bodybuilders who use actual science often aren't very good bodybuilders. Genetics? Valid point but my point in the words of Jeff Everson," Until pigs fly you don't have to be a scientist to be a bodybuilder."
Training to failure with low sets with heavy weights is brutal. Training with volume can be brutal too if you're pushing the muscular endurance envelope. It's like comparing a 400 meter sprinter training to 5k training. Both training is brutally hard but it's apples to oranges.  

great post Rich...

[oldtimer1]

I also think one of the most important things you can have besides genetics is a work ethic. Many don't have it in any quantity.

Regarding volume I remember a guy told me, he was doing 6 sets of 10 in an exercise. He said he thought of it as trying to get 60 reps. He said the first set was easy, the next one too. He quickly went from set to set using very moderate weights. The time he got to set 5 he was having a tough time. On set 6 he couldn't get 10 reps so essentially he did go to failure.

He did something like this for chest.

Bench press 6 x 10
Incline press 6 x 10
Flat flies 6 x 10


Now a hypothetical HIT guy's approach might be like this all to failure.

Bench 1 x 8
Incline press 1 x 8
Flat flies 1 x 10

Now both approaches are hard work but again comparing apples to oranges in their approach.  If you're a HIT guy you believe the magic bullet is going to failure going for that last rep. If you're a volume guy you will point to the total poundage used and the endurance needed to race through those  6 sets and also counter that you went to failure too.  Is intensity the magic trigger to growth or is pursuing increased muscular endurance? Is it a combination?

 No true double blind results have been made in a truly controlled clinical study where all parameters are tightly controlled. How do you measure determination and work ethic in the math?  Can you get determined identical twins and put them on different programs to test? Sounds insane but I mention it to point out scientifically no one can say without sounding like a fool that they have all answers.

What we have are theories. If a theory is proven it's a fact. We don't have facts. We have observations that are empirical knowledge.

Some general observations are most successful guys started lifting heavy in their early years. Then they moved to the moderate weight volume model.

[Donny]

I am middle of the road. I mean if i say bench 3 sets and feel fatigue. Then job done. Doing say 5 sets you must rest longer or use lower weights. Rest is another important factor.

[Yev33]

I also think one of the most important things you can have besides genetics is a work ethic. Many don't have it in any quantity.

Regarding volume I remember a guy told me, he was doing 6 sets of 10 in an exercise. He said he thought of it as trying to get 60 reps. He said the first set was easy, the next one too. He quickly went from set to set using very moderate weights. The time he got to set 5 he was having a tough time. On set 6 he couldn't get 10 reps so essentially he did go to failure.

He did something like this for chest.

Bench press 6 x 10
Incline press 6 x 10
Flat flies 6 x 10


Now a hypothetical HIT guy's approach might be like this all to failure.

Bench 1 x 8
Incline press 1 x 8
Flat flies 1 x 10

Now both approaches are hard work but again comparing apples to oranges in their approach.  If you're a HIT guy you believe the magic bullet is going to failure going for that last rep. If you're a volume guy you will point to the total poundage used and the endurance needed to race through those  6 sets and also counter that you went to failure too.  Is intensity the magic trigger to growth or is pursuing increased muscular endurance? Is it a combination?

 No true double blind results have been made in a truly controlled clinical study where all parameters are tightly controlled. How do you measure determination and work ethic in the math?  Can you get determined identical twins and put them on different programs to test? Sounds insane but I mention it to point out scientifically no one can say without sounding like a fool that they have all answers.

What we have are theories. If a theory is proven it's a fact. We don't have facts. We have observations that are empirical knowledge.

Some general observations are most successful guys started lifting heavy in their early years. Then they moved to the moderate weight volume model.

Great post!

I think one of the problems is that in order to get a solid set of data  is monitoring training  for years, not in months or weeks (like most university studies). Five years would be a good sample of consistent hard training. Nothing happens by accident when it comes to building muscle and strength, the challenge is to find accurate patterns.

Even though I don't subscribe to Dorian's training philosophy, I respect his serious, consistent, and detailed approach to training. Monitoring every workout, every set, and every rep. A lot of people say it's unnecessary and neurotic, I disagree. This kind of approach is crucial to finding accurate patterns of what works and what doesn't. 

[Donny]

Great thread.

[wild willie]

it is my experience that moderate weights and moderate sets will produce damn good results without the injuries.


everyone will  experience some type of injury during their lifting career.......but just not the mega injuries that might come from years of banging extremely heavy poundages.


over the long haul moderate weights and feeling the muscles work will produce the results you are looking for......but many people believe that heavy weights and hit training is the only true way to develop a physique.


Arnold......Dickerson... ...ferrigno......dreher and many others made the best gains of their lives after realizing that quality is much more important than quantity.

look at pics of Arnold from the late sixties when he was into heavier training.......then look at pics after coming to America and training with the likes of gironda........Arnold really became great at that stage of his training career.

[Yev33]

I think the injury risk with HIT has less to do with the amount of weight lifted and more with lack of warm up sets (assuming the movements are done with good form). Problem is excessive warm ups go against HIT methods. And lets face it, it is impossible to get your warm ups "just right" all the time. You are either going to do more or less than is really needed.

Also there is there is the whole fight through the pain idea and get those last impossible reps. That really changes your mentality toward training. Potentially causing you to ignore little hints that your body gives you that something is about to go really wrong.

I do think that HIT training creates a favorable environment for injury, but it's not due to heavier weights (assuming proper form).

To me heavy is 4-6 reps per set, moderate is 6-9, and light is 8-12. I don't put numbers to these ranges. Years ago a 325lb squat was heavy, now it's light.

[Yev33]

         There is one thing that I heard Dorian say in regard to HIT training that really stuck in my mind. He was asked if he ever did lunges, and he replied that he does not do them because they do not fit into his Heavy Duty philosophy. He was absolutely right, there is no way you can do one all out set of lunges without running into balance issues. I personally think that lunges, step ups, single leg squats etc., are great movements. But they truly work better with multiple sets. I came to the conclusion that if a training theory is incompatible with exercises that I know are beneficial, then I am incompatible with that training theory. 

While I don't agree with all of HIT ideas, I am a firm believer in their theory of progressive overload for building muscle.

[wild willie]

yates incurred a multitude of injuries.... and he was always one to warm up thoroughly and stretch too.

[Yev33]

yates incurred a multitude of injuries.... and he was always one to warm up thoroughly and stretch too.

I am not sure if I would call what I saw in Blood and Guts a thorough warm up. For incline bench he did 135X10 225X8 315x6 and 405 was his work set. I would say that this is doing the absolute bare minimum in order to save energy for the work set. It's great for seeing how strong you are with a certain weight every once in a while, but doing this for years for every exercise of every workout is begging for a problem.

[oldtimer1]

        There is one thing that I heard Dorian say in regard to HIT training that really stuck in my mind. He was asked if he ever did lunges, and he replied that he does not do them because they do not fit into his Heavy Duty philosophy. He was absolutely right, there is no way you can do one all out set of lunges without running into balance issues. I personally think that lunges, step ups, single leg squats etc., are great movements. But they truly work better with multiple sets. I came to the conclusion that if a training theory is incompatible with exercises that I know are beneficial, then I am incompatible with that training theory.  

While I don't agree with all of HIT ideas, I am a firm believer in their theory of progressive overload for building muscle.

Progressive overload is a fundamental principle of weight training. The problem is how strong can you get?  I trained with versions of HIT for many decades. It sure worked. I would cycle my training and each cycle try to get stronger. Of course there is finite limit to what anyone can do. If I got near my best weight I knew I was doing good.

What you can progress in for a long time is muscular endurance through volume. If you are doing 5 sets of say 12 reps your goal is hitting 12 reps every set. Maybe for weeks you cannot get all 12 reps for the five sets. You can work on your progression to complete the goal of 5 of 12 then you can increase the weight.

I also believe a big mistake is to start a training cycle using maximum weights. It leads to burn out.

[Yev33]

Progressive overload is a fundamental principal of weight training. The problem is how strong can you get?  I trained with versions of HIT for many decades. It sure worked. I would cycle my training and each cycle try to get stronger. Of course there is finite limit to what anyone can do. If I got near my best weight I knew I was doing good.

What you can progress in for a long time is in muscular endurance through volume. If you are doing 5 sets of say 12 reps. Maybe for weeks you cannot get all 12 reps for the five sets. You can work on your progression to complete the goal of 5 of 12 then you can increase the weight.

I also believe a big mistake is to start a training cycle using maximum weights. It leads to burn out.

Great post.

I actually use the volume method you described for the majority of my training. I use 4 sets of 6-8 reps with the same weight or 3 sets of 9-12 with the same weight depending on the exercise. And 3x8 or 2x12 for isolation work.

On the first exercise of every workout I pyramid up to a top set, either 3x8-12, 4x6-9, 6x4-6

For example last night's workout:

Front squats: 155x12, 210X11, 260x8 one to five minute rest between sets
Close grip incline press: 155x6, 185x8,8,8,8 two minute rest between sets (will move up to 195 for next workout)
One arm rows: two minute rest between sets 80x8, 100x10,10,10
Hanging leg raises: one minute rest between sets 8,8,8
Rear delt raises: one minute rest between sets 25's x 12,12

[wild willie]

I am not sure if I would call what I saw in Blood and Guts a thorough warm up. For incline bench he did 135X10 225X8 315x6 and 405 was his work set. I would say that this is doing the absolute bare minimum in order to save energy for the work set. It's great for seeing how strong you are with a certain weight every once in a while, but doing this for years for every exercise of every workout is begging for a problem.

yates was a stickler for warming up and stretching.....and still is to this day.....the weights he used caused injuries.....same with Coleman.

[Yev33]

I have never trained with Yates or Coleman so I can't say how they actually trained. From what I have seen in the videos Yates followed a true HIT methodology. He did the bare minimum amount of warm up sets just to get acclimated to the movement to ensure the best performance in the work set. He did use impeccable form though which can't be said for Coleman.

From my personal experience, every time I have tweaked something it was during warm ups with lighter weights. I have seen other people get injured lifting heavy (max rep attempts). I have watched a kid trying to bench three plates for months. His ass would come off the bench a foot and a half and his training partner would have to peel the bar off of him. He started complaining about shoulder pain, did stop what he was doing? Absolutely not, but he did start taking pain killers. A month later he was checking in for shoulder surgery. When he recovered he did the same thing with deadlifts trying to pull 5 plates. That ended in back surgery. This kid had two major training related surgeries before the age of 23.

IMO it's not the number of pounds on the bar but how you handle it.

[wild willie]

I have never trained with Yates or Coleman so I can't say how they actually trained. From what I have seen in the videos Yates followed a true HIT methodology. He did the bare minimum amount of warm up sets just to get acclimated to the movement to ensure the best performance in the work set. He did use impeccable form though which can't be said for Coleman.

From my personal experience, every time I have tweaked something it was during warm ups with lighter weights. I have seen other people get injured lifting heavy (max rep attempts). I have watched a kid trying to bench three plates for months. His ass would come off the bench a foot and a half and his training partner would have to peel the bar off of him. He started complaining about shoulder pain, did stop what he was doing? Absolutely not, but he did start taking pain killers. A month later he was checking in for shoulder surgery. When he recovered he did the same thing with deadlifts trying to pull 5 plates. That ended in back surgery. This kid had two major training related surgeries before the age of 23.

IMO it's not the number of pounds on the bar but how you handle it.

I agree with you.....it is not about poundage on the bar.......it is about execution of the exercise.

[oldtimer1]

We learned how champs trained from magazines for the most part.  It's always incredible weights used in the articles. What happened to me is through the years I started talking to guys who were actually in the gym with the champs.  Then I would hear of weights that were believable. We all know it could be deceptive.  You can take king kong and have him do full squats with 135lbs for high reps for many quick sets and reduce him to an exhausted mess. If you don't believe that I've seen elite soldiers reduced to exhaustion from body weight squats.

I heard of Dickerson using 115lbs for full range press behind the neck. Platz using 135lbs for the bench press sets after many sets of flat flies. I could go on. If anyone thinks the champs mentioned are weak they have never seen Platz Olympic squatting incredible weight or deadlifting. Dickerson use to have to Olympic lift the day of the bodybuilding contest back in the old AAU Mr. America for athletic points.

[wild willie]

We learned how champs trained from magazines for the most part.  It's always incredible weights used in the articles. What happened to me is through the years I started talking to guys who were actually in the gym with the champs.  Then I would hear of weights that were believable. We all know it could be deceptive.  You can take king kong and have him do full squats with 135lbs for high reps for many quick sets and reduce him to an exhausted mess. If you don't believe that I've seen elite soldiers reduced to exhaustion from body weight squats.

I heard of Dickerson using 115lbs for full range press behind the neck. Platz using 135lbs for the bench press sets after many sets of flat flies. I could go on. If anyone thinks the champs mentioned are weak they have never seen Platz Olympic squatting incredible weight or deadlifting. Dickerson use to have to Olympic lift the day of the bodybuilding contest back in the old AAU Mr. America for athletic points.

x2

[Yev33]

We learned how champs trained from magazines for the most part.  It's always incredible weights used in the articles. What happened to me is through the years I started talking to guys who were actually in the gym with the champs.  Then I would hear of weights that were believable. We all know it could be deceptive.  You can take king kong and have him do full squats with 135lbs for high reps for many quick sets and reduce him to an exhausted mess. If you don't believe that I've seen elite soldiers reduced to exhaustion from body weight squats.

I heard of Dickerson using 115lbs for full range press behind the neck. Platz using 135lbs for the bench press sets after many sets of flat flies. I could go on. If anyone thinks the champs mentioned are weak they have never seen Platz Olympic squatting incredible weight or deadlifting. Dickerson use to have to Olympic lift the day of the bodybuilding contest back in the old AAU Mr. America for athletic points.

Great point. Very few people actually know what the day to day workouts of the top pros looked like. We do know what they were capable of but that doesn't mean that is how they trained all of the time when the cameras weren't around.  That's why I am reluctant to say that this guy or that guy riddled their bodies with injuries due to their training approach. We simply don't know.

[oldtimer1]

Many followers of Arthur Jones, Mike Mentzer and Yates will put forth a good argument that intensity is the magic trigger to muscle growth. I will admit that when I do my version of one set to failure it is psychologically satisfying. Give your all to one exercise for one set and you're finished. It's also very good for analytically lifters who record everything like I do. Got 7 reps at failure last week. Gets some balls and get that 8 rep this week.

  It all leads to burn out though both physically and mentally. Who can know going into the gym that you are going to give you last breath to getting that extra rep. I know I have HIT anxiety prior to a workout many a time.  What athlete in any other sport trains that way? Imagine a runner keeping a notebook and saying every workout I will try to beat the last training times? It's pure madness. Since I came from a track back ground I know what happens. When you have the gas in the tank you burn it. When you don't you still give a good work ethic workout but it's okay to do less. That is blasphemy in the HIT world. 

I change my workouts constantly. This week I'm going a variation of Yates 4 day split. It's warm up as needed then one set to failure.  No forced reps. It does make me feel like I'm giving it my best.  My chest, bicep, forearm and abs workout today took 45 minutes. Tomorrow is legs.  I will see how long I can keep this up before self destructing. My goal is 4 weeks. If it happens I should be in really good shape for me. If I self destruct I will ease off and do more sets less intensely.

[Yev33]

Many followers of Arthur Jones, Mike Mentzer and Yates will put forth a good argument that intensity is the magic trigger to muscle growth. I will admit that when I do my version of one set to failure it is psychologically satisfying. Give your all to one exercise for one set and you're finished. It's also very good for analytically lifters who record everything like I do. Got 7 reps at failure last week. Gets some balls and get that 8 rep this week.

  It all leads to burn out though both physically and mentally. Who can know going into the gym that you are going to give you last breath to getting that extra rep. I know I have HIT anxiety prior to a workout many a time.  What athlete in any other sport trains that way? Imagine a runner keeping a notebook and saying every workout I will try to beat the last training times? It's pure madness. Since I came from a track back ground I know what happens. When you have the gas in the tank you burn it. When you don't you still give a good work ethic workout but it's okay to do less. That is blasphemy in the HIT world. 

I change my workouts constantly. This week I'm going a variation of Yates 4 day split. It's warm up as needed then one set to failure.  No forced reps. It does make me feel like I'm giving it my best.  My chest, bicep, forearm and abs workout today took 45 minutes. Tomorrow is legs.  I will see how long I can keep this up before self destructing. My goal is 4 weeks. If it happens I should be in really good shape for me. If I self destruct I will ease off and do more sets less intensely.

During my expirements with HIT I found that I couldn't progress past three or four workouts (adding reps or weight). Which made me wonder whether or not I actually got stronger or I simply learned to push harder over three or four workouts.  Which made me think about Louie Simmons and the conjugate method he adopted from the Soviet trainers. With the conjugate method you switch up your max effort exercise every 1-3 weeks to avoid CNS burn out. This way you can keep making progress using different movements that have the biggest carryover to the bench, squat, and deadlift.

I know that his system is for maximal strength development and not necessarily building muscle. But I think there may be some correlation in physical response from training.  Aside from the max effort movement which is done for all out efforts, the rest of the system is based heavily off volume training and leaving a few reps in the tank. So you build maximal strength through low volume, you build speed through moderate volume,  and muscle through high volume. This is kind of what I do now (minus the speed work). Pyramid to a max weight in a certain rep range for the first exercise of the workout, and use a classic volume approach for the rest of the workout.  

[oldtimer1]

During my expirements with HIT I found that I couldn't progress past three or four workouts (adding reps or weight). Which made me wonder whether or not I actually got stronger or I simply learned to push harder over three or four workouts.  Which made me think about Louie Simmons and the conjugate method he adopted from the Soviet trainers. With the conjugate method you switch up your max effort exercise every 1-3 weeks to avoid CNS burn out. This way you can keep making progress using different movements that have the biggest carryover to the bench, squat, and deadlift.

I know that his system is for maximal strength development and not necessarily building muscle. But I think there may be some correlation in physical response from training.  Aside from the max effort movement which is done for all out efforts, the rest of the system is based heavily off volume training and leaving a few reps in the tank. So you build maximal strength through low volume, you build speed through moderate volume,  and muscle through high volume. This is kind of what I do now (minus the speed work). Pyramid to a max weight in a certain rep range for the first exercise of the workout, and use a classic volume approach for the rest of the workout.  

An experienced lifter using HIT shouldn't go to his maximum weight off the bat. That's a recipe for real failure. Let's take a hypothetical HIT trainer. Maybe he does 4 exercises for chest for one set to failure each. He knows from experience he fails at 225lbs at 6 reps for the flat bench for his one work set. He should start his cycle at say 200lbs. Maybe he will fail at 12 reps. Next workout 205lbs and so on. Playing by feel he might stick at a weight and next workout add a rep. His ultimate goal is to beat 225lbs for 6 reps at the end of his cycle of say 6 weeks. Maybe he will beat the goal by doing 230lbs for 6 reps or maybe 225lbs for 7 or 8 reps. The point is each workout he is going to failure no matter what the weight is.

A bodybuilder who really disagrees with HIT is Bill Pearl.  He believes training to failure leads to failure. He said it will lead to miss workouts and lay offs. He firmly believes training longevity is an important part of training. He said in effect to train hard but leave some gas in the tank for the next workout.  I like what he said when he reached 55 that getting stronger or caring about the weight on the bar wasn't a concern anymore.

Another bodybuilder who trained with HIT for awhile was Danny Padilla. He said he trained brutally hard with heavy weight but he didn't see the results he had when he was doing volume.

Admittedly most bodybuilders were sold a lot of propaganda with HIT. It seemed the operating procedure was to find a successful bodybuilder using volume then have him train with HIT briefly then declare him another HIT success.  There are still people who think Sergio Oliva was a HIT guy. Nothing could be further from the truth. Just because he trained on Nautilus for a couple of weeks doesn't make him the poster body for the HIT religion.  
 

[Donny]

I agree With Pearl , heavy duty gives initial results but for most leads to injury and Burnout . maybe for a short period but not long term. Jones was a clever business man.

[oldtimer1]

Anyone train old school whole body routines? The type that everyone in the 50's did. Such old school guys like Reeves and Grimek trained everything in one shot.  More recent guys were Mentzer in 1976 for his IFBB Mr. America win and Viator at least the story goes when he was with Nautilus. 

It does make sense but it isn't a beginner routine. It's way more brutal to train everything in one shot than having something like a back and delt day. It also makes sense that the body works as a unit and fatigues as a unit. Fatigue is is systemic to your system and not localized. I think 3 days a week is perfect but two works too. Even if because of work and other obligations if you get one day in of a whole body routine you are moving in the right direction. It drives me insane when I miss a planned day on a  split routine because something came up.

When I have done whole body routines I start with the biggest muscle group and work to the smallest. I do one to two exercises per body part. It would take me about 90 minutes. I would be completely spent.