>>76507127
>In the silver era the biggest bodybuilders trained muscles up to every single day
*bronze era
>>76507443
>And we are talking about once a week frequency, not necessarily "the" brosplit.
How many trained muscles only 1x every 7 days at the elite level and made progress?
>The biggest names you are thinking off all did steroids
They were all on back then.
> and its those steroids that allowed them to lift with more frequency
Steroids make you able to get away with training too much or too little.
>Arnold is a great example of this. In Austria he did powerlifting.
He trained full body 3x a week when he was building most of his mass and eventually started splitting his workouts in half when he was building the last few kilograms of mass he has ever built right around the time he moved the california.
Pic related is what he looked like while training muscles directly 3x a week back in austria as a 20 year old.
>If you do not "induce damage" you do not induce growth.
We have studies clearly showing that muscle damage is a completely seperate phenomenon from hypertrophy and directly catabolic.
> In fact most people induce to much damage trough training a bodypart multiple times per week
Depends on how hard they train.
>Most professional bodybuilders do this.
Most of them have a poor memory of what they do, they say they train muscles "once a week" but then do 5 day rotations or add days where they work on their weakpoints, and this gets lost in transmission.
Also, how many of them are on tons of gear?
No one knows, safer to stick with what worked in the natty past.
>Pretty close to the once a week frequency which is the superior way to train.
It can never be superior and there is a difference in atrophy.
>>76508247
Making progress like that at the elite level?
>>76508332
N=1 genetic phenom on steroids and peptides.
>>76508675
It's just inefficient.
>>76508816
LowER volume fixes that.
>>76508824
Dorian made his pre-GH/slin gains on more than 1x/week frequency.