10/16 Cool Tip?

Amsterdam_Animal · October 18, 2006, 2:04am

Yeah I am with the Prof on this one. I think I have enough development to bring up lagging body parts as well and have added almost a 100 lbs over the last 5 years using a split routine and till someone shows me a natural BB’er that is bigger and leaner than me using full body training, I think I will stick to what I know works for a fact.

[quote]ZedLeppelin wrote:
Professor X wrote:
ZedLeppelin wrote:

splits certainly have there place and they do work but promoting them to newbies is a little unrealistic.

No it isn’t. I am glad I started training the way I did. I never avoided major movements and would never to this day make a pec deck flye a core component of my chest training. It may be the last thing I do just to get more blood in the area, but heavy pressing movements are why chest is big. Many of you are forgetting GENETICS and how fast individuals may adapt to training. I DO have enough development to focus on “lagging body parts” and I have never done any form of “total body training”…ever. My body functions just fine from the way I train.

If it works for you, great. Keep doing it. However, if you have been lifting for years and you still don’t look like an extremely muscular person even to most gym goers, don’t blame the routine.

i don’t think anyone here would suggest that you should do full body workouts at your development. unfortunately the majority of this site isn’t at your level (me included) and need to stop worrying about there chest or biceps and just put on some overall mass.

why are you glad you started training with splits? how was that road any better then training full body until switching to a split routine? [/quote]

Go_heavy_fool · October 18, 2006, 2:05am

[quote]ZedLeppelin wrote:
full body routines are more effective for the majority of lifters due to there increased frequency and simplicity.

[/quote]

Split routine trainers–> every Mr. Olympia winner in history.

The majority of my sample used split routines(in fact all of them did)

Lets see your sample…

rainjack · October 18, 2006, 2:07am

[quote]sasquatch wrote:
boo-hoo. I don’t think anyone has mentioned him in the last 20 posts. The discussion has in fact turned to just what you said.

We get it. You like Chad. Sales pitch or not, it is the philosophy he bases his training on. That then can be argued, no?

Everyone responding is doing so under his own screen name which T has a record of our real names and adresses. I don’t think we are being chicken shit about anything. [/quote]

Whatever. I used a quote that was just up the page.

You did read my post, right? Where in what I said left you confused about how I felt about debating the various training theories?

If you will actually read what I wrote - you will see that I was replying to the guy that said a sales pitch required evidence.

But it seems that a lack of reading is becoming epidemic around here. Or at least there is an epidemic of reading INcomprehension.

alownage · October 18, 2006, 2:17am

GHF-you must have known when you made this thread that it was going to get really heated-hahaha

Anyways, I don’t see how (from a bodybuilding perspective) anything could be better than a split due to (as other people have said) the intensity that you can focus on individual muscle groups. You’re just not fresh anymore after going very hard on some upper body compounds-there’s no way in hell you can tell me that you can train shoulders just as hard after benching than when you’re fresh.

I could definitely, however, see total body training as very effective when training athletes (i.e. emphasizing explosive athletic movements with weights attached): deadlifts, squats, sled drags, lunges-all with varying rep ranges suited to fit the most important movements for the sport…much like a boxer might punch with light weights in his hands (a lot of people rag on this but I don’t see the problem as long as it’s not constant.)

Anyways, that’s my 2 cents.

sasquatch · October 18, 2006, 2:21am

[quote]rainjack wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
boo-hoo. I don’t think anyone has mentioned him in the last 20 posts. The discussion has in fact turned to just what you said.

We get it. You like Chad. Sales pitch or not, it is the philosophy he bases his training on. That then can be argued, no?

Everyone responding is doing so under his own screen name which T has a record of our real names and adresses. I don’t think we are being chicken shit about anything.

Whatever. I used a quote that was just up the page.

You did read my post, right? Where in what I said left you confused about how I felt about debating the various training theories?

If you will actually read what I wrote - you will see that I was replying to the guy that said a sales pitch required evidence.

But it seems that a lack of reading is becoming epidemic around here. Or at least there is an epidemoc of reading comprehension.
[/quote]

Bash me all you think is necessary, but I answered your sales pitch argument with a comprehensive and thought out response. IT REPRESENTS HIS TRAINING PHILOSOPHY.

Your standard posting bullshit of everyone else being either stupid or classless that disagrees with you is old.

Thing is, I like Chad and have used his programs with positive results. But, I grew up and grew big using the splits and so did everyone else back then.

I still do have my right to an opinion correct. As do you. Why jump in to call people chicken shit for voicing theirs? Comprehend

Go_heavy_fool · October 18, 2006, 2:30am

More proof!

By Lee Haney

EIGHT-TIME MR. OLYMPIA

LEE HANEY’S ONCE-A-DAY SPLIT

DAY ONE Biceps, chest, triceps, calves, abs
DAY TWO Quads, hamstrings, calves, abs
DAY THREE Back, shoulders, calves, abs
DAY FOUR Rest

LEE HANEY’S TRAINING SPLIT

      DAY ONE

Morning Biceps, chest
Evening Triceps, calves, abs

      DAY TWO

Morning Quads
Evening Hamstrings, calves, abs

      DAY THREE

Morning Back, calves
Evening Shoulders, abs

      DAY FOUR
      Rest

Go_heavy_fool · October 18, 2006, 2:33am

[quote]alownage wrote:
GHF-you must have known when you made this thread that it was going to get really heated-hahaha

[/quote]

Sure lets bust this bitch open and settle it once and for all. No problem with that. The only problem with the debate is one side is all in theory, while the other is all reality.

Here’s some more reality… (here’s someone who used split training and those pussy concentration curls… what the fuck was he thinkin’… moron!)

ZedLeppelin · October 18, 2006, 2:36am

yes, intermediate bodybuilders should train like the drugged up full time pros…

and how many of you who have ever tried a full body workout properly?

forgive me if i’m going to take chad’s word over yours. something about him training countless people with different methods… i guess that’s just a little better then you guys who have trained yourself with one method.

Professor_X · October 18, 2006, 2:38am

[quote]alownage wrote:
GHF-you must have known when you made this thread that it was going to get really heated-hahaha

Anyways, I don’t see how (from a bodybuilding perspective) anything could be better than a split due to (as other people have said) the intensity that you can focus on individual muscle groups. You’re just not fresh anymore after going very hard on some upper body compounds-there’s no way in hell you can tell me that you can train shoulders just as hard after benching than when you’re fresh.

I could definitely, however, see total body training as very effective when training athletes (i.e. emphasizing explosive athletic movements with weights attached): deadlifts, squats, sled drags, lunges-all with varying rep ranges suited to fit the most important movements for the sport…much like a boxer might punch with light weights in his hands (a lot of people rag on this but I don’t see the problem as long as it’s not constant.)

Anyways, that’s my 2 cents.[/quote]

The thing is, most of these people aren’t competing athletes. They are being sold the idea based on that whole “functional” bullshit as if by training “total body” their body now somehow works better than someone’s who has trained using a split. It is a little ridiculous. I know how I feel after training back alone. There is no way I would attempt to train back and several other large muscle groups all in the same day unless I wanted to DECREASE the intensity used on individual body parts. It isn’t much different than the 3 body parts I used to train on the same day as a beginner. The bigger and stronger I became, the less body parts I began training on only one day…because they needed more and more weight (leading to more intensity) to be worked well. I may train shoulders twice a week…and they have improved very well by doing so.

All in all, I just have a hard time understanding how anyone can look at those who train using split training and claim it is somehow LESS productive. That simply makes no sense at all and is what the argument is really about.

If it didn’t work, why have so many freaking bodybuilders gotten so damn huge from it?

Is this where guys with average or below average genetics try to get back at anyone bigger than them by somehow implying that their training doesn’t work because they alone aren’t very big?

Doesn’t that place the blame everywhere but where it should be?

rainjack · October 18, 2006, 2:42am

[quote]sasquatch wrote:
Bash me all you think is necessary, but I answered your sales pitch argument with a comprehensive and thought out response. IT REPRESENTS HIS TRAINING PHILOSOPHY.[/quote]

We disagree on what constitutes thoughtful and comprehensive, then. And I didn’t bash you. I questioned whether you read what I wrote - as it seems you responded without doing so.

You don’t read all of my posts then, and are generalizing what I say from a few heated threads. This coming from someone that prides himself in being though out and comprehensive. I believe what I believe - and will defend it with impunity. If you don’t like it - don’t respond to me. I could really care less.

I don’t disagree. In fact if you will read more than just one or two posts - you will see that I don’t think CW is correct in what he says.

I just have a problem with people only reading part of what he wrote, as I think the last sentence, which was left out of the training tip, qualifies what he said as a shameless plug. No more shameless than the plugs Biotest makes about their products.

That has been my argument in this thread - the only argument.

I addressed this above. Like I said - if folks want to turn this into a debate over training methods, I am all for it.

What is chicken shit is not taking the entirity of what Chad said into consideration before passing jugdement, and calling him the names he was called.

Maybe chicken shit is a bad term.

You tell me what it should be called when people fly off the handle after reading a partial quote.

Professor_X · October 18, 2006, 2:46am

[quote]ZedLeppelin wrote:
yes, intermediate bodybuilders should train like the drugged up full time pros…

and how many of you who have ever tried a full body workout properly?

forgive me if i’m going to take chad’s word over yours. something about him training countless people with different methods… i guess that’s just a little better then you guys who have trained yourself with one method.[/quote]

Well, I haven’t just trained myself and I am not blind to what has worked for many people around me. I am sure Chad is well educated and I am sure he has a decently sized client list. That doesn’t mean I ignore everything I have seen in the gym for the past decade plus simply because he claims to train more people or more athletes.

Some observations that can be easily made over that time:

-Most people don’t see any progress at all and the problem damn sure isn’t their routine.

-The people who do actually have bodybuilding and strength training as a priority are largely athletes and people who were drawn into the activity secondary to sports.

-Most of those people will be closer to average in terms of genetics meaning they won’t achieve the results seen at either end of the curve in terms of muscle mass gained.

-Of those with better than ‘average’ genetics, most who are huge have built their size using a body split style of routine, many often with a powerlifting background.

-One can conclude from this that strength is very important to be above average and that split training produces the types of physiques that most people look up to.

-None of this leads me to believe I should do what the more ‘average’ claim “works” when they are smaller and weaker than the population who isn’t ‘average’.

Go_heavy_fool · October 18, 2006, 2:49am

[quote]ZedLeppelin wrote:

forgive me if i’m going to take chad’s word over yours. something about him training countless people with different methods… i guess that’s just a little better then you guys who have trained yourself with one method.[/quote]

I have used all the methods. Forgive me if I’m going to take Arnold’s and Lee’s word over Chad’s. They only won what… 15 Mr. Olympia titles. Who do these guys think they are and their split training idealology?

Fullbody’s… Fuck yeah, come to save the mother fuckin day yeah.

Go_heavy_fool · October 18, 2006, 2:53am

This idiot used the inferior method of split training to build his physique. Flex Wheeler is a moron, had he used fullbodys he could have had a bigger and better physique, he could have been somebody.

alownage · October 18, 2006, 2:53am

[quote]Professor X wrote:
alownage wrote:

The thing is, most of these people aren’t competing athletes. They are being sold the idea based on that whole “functional” bullshit as if by training “total body” their body now somehow works better than someone’s who has trained using a split. It is a little ridiculous. I know how I feel after training back alone. There is no way I would attempt to train back and several other large muscle groups all in the same day unless I wanted to DECREASE the intensity used on individual body parts. It isn’t much different than the 3 body parts I used to train on the same day as a beginner. The bigger and stronger I became, the less body parts I began training on only one day…because they needed more and more weight (leading to more intensity) to be worked well. I may train shoulders twice a week…and they have improved very well by doing so.

All in all, I just have a hard time understanding how anyone can look at those who train using split training and claim it is somehow LESS productive. That simply makes no sense at all and is what the argument is really about.

If it didn’t work, why have so many freaking bodybuilders gotten so damn huge from it?

Is this where guys with average or below average genetics try to get back at anyone bigger than them by somehow implying that their training doesn’t work because they alone aren’t very big?

Doesn’t that place the blame everywhere but where it should be?[/quote]

Definitely agree. I think one reason people sometimes rag on split training is that they act like the muscle built from split training isn’t “functional” or that the movements they’re training aren’t “functional.” Whatever that means. Sometimes it’s appropriate, but I think that techniques and strength training are better trained separately (most of the time.) I really don’t think they have to be combined to complement each other. I mean, is it really going to make a difference whether the 17-inch arm with an armbar on you is built from rows and chins or curls? I mean, don’t get me wrong, but there’s definitely some good sports-specific movements and then there’s just “functional” bullshit.

I like split training, although I prefer and “upper/lower” split and tend to work my pushes and pulls for upper and lower on separate days, respectively. I like being able to put ALL of my intensity into a few exercises for specific zones of my body.

Overall size is still the goal for me, so the meat comes from the compounds, and then I can focus on problem areas with the appropriate isolation exercises.

DPH · October 18, 2006, 2:58am

[quote]ZedLeppelin wrote:
yes, intermediate bodybuilders should train like the drugged up full time pros…
[/quote]

various split routines have been proven to work great for beginners, intermediates, and advanced lifters alike…

I have…I thought it worked great, in fact, every program I’ve ever done has worked great (whether is be a variety of split or full body)…

which has led me to believe that the training program someone uses in not as important as busting your ass while working out, eating enough food to facilitate growth, and getting enough rest in between workouts so that I don’t become over-trained…

why do you feel the need to take anyone’s word for it? you don’t like to think for yourself?

figure out what works for you and do it, fuck what ANY self proclaimed guru thinks…

countless? doesn’t Chad know how to count to a couple of hundred?

hey, Tony Little has trained millions of people, does that make his advice “better”?

Go_heavy_fool · October 18, 2006, 2:59am

Look at this puny fuck! Someone should have told him not to do splits. Ronnie Coleman could have had bigger and better muscles had he only done fullbodys… 8 time Mr. Olympia, what a fool.

Tiribulus · October 18, 2006, 3:00am

[quote]Professor X wrote:
…I know how I feel after training back alone. There is no way I would attempt to train back and several other large muscle groups all in the same day unless I wanted to DECREASE the intensity used on individual body parts…[/quote]

I’ve never tried FBT, but this is my biggest theoretical hangup with it. I don’t think I could hit anything hard enough if I hit everything in the same day.

Amsterdam_Animal · October 18, 2006, 3:06am

You can do whatever you want brother. What are your stats by the way? And how much muscle have you gained with the full body? I am seriosuly asking.

And I have trained many different clients using many different training methods, including total body and split routines. The method used was based on what the goals were.

A

[quote]ZedLeppelin wrote:
yes, intermediate bodybuilders should train like the drugged up full time pros…

and how many of you who have ever tried a full body workout properly?

forgive me if i’m going to take Chad’s word over yours. something about him training countless people with different methods… i guess that’s just a little better then you guys who have trained yourself with one method.[/quote]

sasquatch · October 18, 2006, 3:16am

[quote]rainjack wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
Bash me all you think is necessary, but I answered your sales pitch argument with a comprehensive and thought out response. IT REPRESENTS HIS TRAINING PHILOSOPHY.