A muscle is a muscle indeed, but women are different from men. The limits of a natural (drug/PEDs free) muscular potential for men with average height (5’8-5’10) with small-to-medium bone structure, are quite low: 170-180lbs, if the goal is to have less than 10% body fat. Look at bodybuilders of Arnold era (1970s): all of them used drugs, most of them competed with 5% of bodyfat or less, most of them were under 200lbs class. Once past competitive days, most of those men lost 25-40 lbs. So, drugs/PEDs of that era allowed to gain 25-40 lbs extra on top of natural limits.
For women, with their higher body fat percentage and lower testosterone levels, you either should be genetically blessed or use PEDs. Go get as many of Dr. Darden’s books related to training of women as you can and look through them. I don’t doubt Dr. Darden’s ability to choose motivated women, to train them properly, to make them stick to diet, and the results speak for themselves. However, I don’t remember any of them having a bulging biceps, razor-sharp abs, 3D look of a bodybuilder or similar signs which I commonly attribute with some enhancements.
Women training with hypertrophy methods can build muscle - I don’t question that. How much muscle? Localized/spot muscle increase? Clean or not clean?
Fully agree with above quote, but need to add an important caveat: much less than commonly expected/promised, unless you bring something else to the equation. Especially for women. Especially for women who have had a previous experience of training and are past puberty age.
Sure they are. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. A is A.
Yes sir, women are different from men. Absolutely agree. Luckily, the OP doesn’t seem like she’s after “bulging biceps, razor-sharp abs, 3D look of a bodybuilder,” or am I mistaken?
She’s just trying to build her glutes using a cool method from a legendary strength coach. This is not just possible, it’s common. You don’t have to read a book to know this, you can see natural female lifters do it all the time.
Look forward to seeing her before and after pics on this thread in 3-6 months and wishing her all the best.
Me too! 
Ma’am, I learned from my mistakes not to take for granted everything which is said on the subject of physical appearance, nutrition and exercise from a person whose income is directly related to his/her physical appearance. Am I a skeptic? Perhaps…
Agree Boris. Also factor in that men had higher (natural) levels of testosterone back then…
You’ve just made my day. It’s very kind of you to think my income is tied to my physique. I didn’t think I looked that good.
You certainly don’t have to believe anything I say about women’s capability to build muscle, or nutrition, or exercise, or physical appearance, etc. In fact, I recommend having a totally different perspective than me. It has led to a lot of good conversation.
I’m an editor. That’s what I get paid to do. I’m not a sales woman. I fix typos, make articles easier to read and understand, do voiceovers, schedule Twitter, and help out where possible. All these things can be done without working on my own fitness.
But as someone who gets to read and edit the work of great coaches, I’m compelled to work hard and test out the strategies they recommend. And as a consistent lifter, I meet women in the gym every day who’ve transformed their bodies (naturally) and have even used hypertrophy methods to specialize in one body part or another.
This is good news! Women don’t have nearly the capacity to build as much muscle as men, but they can still get awesome results. They can control their appearance (to some extent) without any drug use.
While I’m a little surprised that you don’t think these ladies exist, it doesn’t really affect me either way. Your beliefs are yours, and you’re free to think whatever you like.
What’s cool is that these women accomplished this without analyzing all the studies or worrying about whether an expert’s book would say they could or couldn’t do it. They just tested stuff out, and it worked. This has been my experience too. Not all women who have visible muscularity are on drugs. I don’t think that’s a controversial statement.
Ma’am, my comment was general in nature, I don’t know your particular case and don’t have time to dig into it. But I agree with Gary Bannister who said in his book “If you like exercise, chances are you’re doing it wrong”: “…everyone is capable of increasing strength to a degree they may have thought impossible and that alone will increase functional ability. But not everyone is capable of increasing muscle size to the same degree. The potential for size is genetic and few have the potential depicted in bodybuilding publications. Estimates for males are one in a million; females, one in ten million. Over the years, I have met the majority of female exceptions”. So, with a proliferation of women who now look differently from the way how women looked in the not-so-distant past, especially comparing to ordinary women who come in various sizes, shapes, ancestry, race etc., there should be other factors involved, not just the very fact that more women are training and dieting now, that explain this phenomenon. I understand you may have different views on the subject, it’s your right, of course. And surely you can be one of those in ten million category (congratulations!), but it doesn’t mean others can achieve the same or get even close to it.
Good point. So, men of the past with good genetics, higher testosterone levels, intensive training and good (i would argue cleaner/better) nutrition achieved less in terms of muscle mass than today’s bodybuilders, physique competitors, actors, online gurus and instagram divas & idols. The answer is crystal clear to me.
Oh wait, are you talking about publications like old school magazines with pro competitors? Of course! If that’s what we’re talking about, we’re on the same page. That’s absolutely a different level of musculature. And, like you, I don’t see that very often.
But I thought we were simply talking about a woman using the 30-10-30 method to make her booty pop a little more. There’s been so much confusion here.
Women are constantly building muscle and changing their physiques. From middle aged moms, to the elderly, even teens! So I was pretty shocked because I got the impression that you thought this wasn’t possible without drugs.
But if you’re saying that women don’t look like the shredded and jacked models in the hardcore publications without some assistance, then that makes a lot more sense.
Weight training with the specific goal of hypertrophy has exploded in recent years. So it’s not just that training has become more popular (it has), but intent has changed too. I love this topic. Women with muscle have been considered manly or bulky for so long. So naturally, most women avoided it. And only in recent years has it been applauded and encouraged by a wider population.
It’s amazing how trying to build muscle and seeking out methods that emphasize it, has worked for so many women, not just the one in ten million.
I don’t understand why “Must be implants” is your go-to answer. You said it first on the Mentzer triceps topic about Arnold’s calves and now here. 1) implants weren’t that good back then and we’d have seen them and the scars a mile away. My bet is that Arnold didn’t value calf work, until Vince or Joe or someone like that tore him a new one about his crappy development.
I see butt implants all the time — I can spot them a mile away too! The glutes are, however, one bodypart I believe women can develop quite significantly, BUT ( 
) they gotta have 'em in the first place!! And of course, 30-min glute-centric workouts help!!
According to one of Arnolds books, when he came to America he realized his calf development was subpar…therefore, he started wearing shorts to remind himself that he needed to focus on calf workouts…so, he started training calves very heavy and first in his workouts
Nope, it was steroids. I know what I see when I see it.
Of course he took steroids, but he had to train the calves, 
Speaking of Arnold and his calves, I will give you my rationale:
-
More than for any other muscle, growth potential for calves is determined by genetics (i.e. long or short muscle bellies, because the muscle can’t become wider/larger than its length): you either have good genetics or not. Those who have, don’t train calves at all or train them very little (and not necessarily heavy), and still have decent calves. Some of them (like Chris Dickerson, as we know from Arthur Jones) even reduced their calves by training them too much. Those who are not blessed, have been training them heavy/light, multiple sets/fewer sets, any possible frequency, any type of technique, etc. with really nothing to boast about. Examples are plenty. So, we have a unique Arnold, one person in a billion, I guess, who went from zero calves to decent calves by sheer determination and clever training. Don’t bulshit me.
-
Even if he really managed to do it (and I remain skeptical), we would see his “before” and “after” photos of calves and claims “I did it with this and that” everywhere. I have had many of his books, but don’t remember having seen many “before” photos of his calves and none of the “close-up” photos of “before” calves. Why? Possible explanation is that the shape of his calves has changed, and he is clever enough to understand that it’s impossible to change the shape of the muscle with any type of training.
-
If you look at videos and photos of Arnold in 1981-1985, you will see that he lost a significant amount of muscle mass across the whole body, but not in calves. Proportionally his calves reduced to a lesser degree than the rest of his body. Why? If those calves were so difficult to grow, they would be the first ones to return to their normal/“before” size. If you look at Arnold’s pics at MrO 1980 you will see how his thigh muscles have been reduced compared to his form in 1973-1974. Calves are the same or almost the same. Doesn’t it look strange?
-
I am not the first one who suggested this explanation (implants) to this phenomenon. There’s no smoke without fire.
-
Finally, Arnold is so notorious for being a cheater in many aspects of life, so I don’t trust what he says.
So you don’t know what you see when you see it? Poor young man.
Not at all. I was poking fun at you for seeing steroids in the shadows the way a schizophrenic sees eyeballs staring at them all the time.
I’m not naïve enough to believe most people are natty, particularly not for professionals; but claiming “because steroids” for everything that doesn’t align with my perspective would also be rather naïve.
I’ve nothing against you, but you do have a posting history blaming steroids for a lot… you should visit the Pharma / TRT subforum and take a look at the effects of AAS. They are far less impactful than you likely imagine; the caveat of course is steroids + genetics. Many people who are pushing grams of gear look natty, and many natties (with genetics) look far better than those pushing IFBB levels of gear.
And yes, my eyeballs are calibrated to the third decimal /s/
Via google, I found a few full body photos (front and side shots) of Arnold in the age 16-19 range. There is nothing from those to suggest particularly large calves. But in those same photos, his legs (thighs) don’t look particularly large either. He looks like a kid who trained his upper body a lot, because those were the show off muscles. So I wouldn’t be surprised if it was only after he got to America that he figured out his lower body needed more work. It would also not be surprising for neglected muscle groups to get bigger once they were not being neglected.
Calves may be less responsive to training than some other muscle groups for most people. But then again, his individual genetics might be different than average. Just because most people don’t have a high level of androgen receptors in their calves, that doesn’t mean nobody does. Maybe he was a genetic freak in more than one way?
For example: I know that cannon ball shoulders are supposed to be a good tell for steroid use, because they supposedly have a higher level of androgen receptors, and are particularly responsive to steroids. Yet, in my younger days, I remember seeing one fellow, a tennis pro at a local tennis club, with spectacular cannon ball shoulders I am pretty sure he was natty, given his circumstances. And the rest of his body was not that impressive, even though he did do the nautilus machines regularly. So when it comes to specific body parts, there can also be genetic anomalies.
In any case, rather than jump to the conclusion that he got implants, isn’t it more likely that he just exaggerated the extent to which he improved his calves. Maybe they were never that bad, and he just made them a little better. But that wouldn’t be as good of a story to tell, and since there are not a lot of good pictures of his calves from his younger days, who was going to call him out on that exaggeration?