The Most Shocking Bodybuilding Interview Ever

[SPORT SCIENTIST]

Yeah, I agree. I'm always in and out in an hour. Everyone tells me "oh I don't have the time to get big like you...you know I don't have time to spend 3 hours a day in the gym". Then I tell them that I only train for an hour and they get this blank look on their face. I take away their excuse, so then they come up with another stupid one, and then I shoot that down. This continues until they eventually say "well, I gotta go...". Arnold really made some myths in his time that still are around today. This is the biggest one. Everyone knew he trained 3 hours a day, sometimes twice a day.

I found this within an article on hypertrophe, seems to agree with your theory - will still follow the Arnold workout on the other post for cutting though:

Higher volume training (Sale et al., 1990; MacDougall et al., 1979) does not seem to be the best way to trigger efficient muscle growth in comparison to lower volume modes. Greater fiber hypertrophy occurs when training protocols use 30 - 40 repetitions per muscle group performed at an intensity of 75%-85% of maximal strength (Kuno, Katsuto, Akisada, Anno, & Matsumoto, 1990; Staron et al., 1989). Lower intensities (below 60%) and lower volumes do not result in as much, if any, significant muscle hypertrophy (Dons et al., 1979; Lüthi et al., 1986). Exercise performed at higher intensities with similar volumes also do not cause much muscle growth (Ratzin Jackson, Dickinson, & Ringel, 1990). In fact, experienced bodybuilders did not show significant muscle hypertrophy when they were following a typical high volume training routine (Alway et al., 1992). In comparison, those who begin resistance training do show significant hypertrophy following such a regime. This would suggest that a potential muscular adaptation to the stress of high volume weight training may occur.

 

[AAP]

If it was written by Paul Dillett, you can throw it out as he is nothing but all lies and garbage.