Arthur Jones' redpill on training equipment and exercise variety

[Grinch]

He was actually in good shape for a old dude... I agree HIT is BS, but I don't think he would have been bigger if he had trained more

Jones  hit his peak when he was fairly young, around 1954 (age 30).  According to Ellington Darden. http://www.drdarden.com/readTopic.do;jse...?id=433961

"Arthur, if you'd known then what you know now, what would you have done differently with your routine?"

"I would've trained less," he replied. "Instead of 12 exercises, I would've reduced the number to eight. Instead of two sets, I would've performed only one set. Instead of training three times per week, I would've trained twice a week. "

http://www.insideoutsidespa.com/the-why-...utside.php

Looking back, Arthur Jones, from his more than 65 years of strength training, learned the following:

• Two sets are better than four sets, and that one set is better than two.
• 8 exercises are better than 12.
• training two days per week is better than three.

I think the picture you show of Jones is from around 1970, age around 44. I am not disagreeing he would have grown more if he trained more, but I conclude he hit his natty limit around age 30, and HIT, which he adopted after age 30, did nothing to change that fact. Probably, he would not have lost as much muscle over time, if he had continued conventional training. Even in this picture, his arms and shoulders look good,  but nothing else.