I just found and took a look at this video:
You may recognize the character onscreen
Anyway, lately I've been doing a lot of thinking, training, and asking questions. From T-Nation and all the elite guys in the iron game, the consensus seems to be that, if you do not progressively use heavier and heavier weights, you will not achieve greater size. I've seen the results in others and I believe this (and thus training based on this concept).
However, at my gym, there are quite a few natural bodybuilders, who all take after the oldest one, Joe Patton. Joe is in his 30's, about 5'5" at around 205lbs. (He is lean year round with defined abs and nice quad cuts.) He is by no means small. His physique screams 'bodybuilder' with his exaggerated ant-like proportions. He is a natural pro, competing in the IFPA (the pro division of OCB). This is a poor picture of him at last year's Yorton Cup.
He looks way bigger in person. I wish the shot could be more true to life since it's so deceptive.
Anyway, I had a brief chat with him, asking about his numbers since he's obviously achieved a great level of hypertrophy. Upon receiving the question, he seemed a bit confused. After some clarification, his message was that strength is not his primary goal and that he believes in drop-setting EVERYTHING just about. His approach seems to be very high in volume and time under tension.
What can you say about this?
I don't mean to be rude, but I also would like more than a cop-out answer along the lines of "Well he has achieved much hypertrophy in spite of how the body works."
I just want to understand more about how muscle is built and the stimulus required to build it. I see bodybuilders gaining great amounts of muscle, strongmen who are larger than life, but I also see really strong guys who aren't that big... (Neural efficiency obviously being a factor).
Thank you for your thoughts, and I can't wait to see what you had achieved at 234lb in the video previously mentioned!