10/16 Cool Tip?

Training Bodybuilding
101

I wasnt trying to call you out bro. There maybe something to say for what you wrote when it comes to people starting out. I still think splits can work just as effectively though.

It goes back to something the Prof wrote in an earlier post that as you become more developed and advanced, you train fewer bodyparts a day. I have experienced that very same thing. I used to train with a split that included multiple big muscle groups, like chest, shoulders and maybe triceps together, there is no way I can do that now and still feel every area has been hit effectively.

A

[quote]ZedLeppelin wrote:
Amsterdam Animal wrote:
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

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.

my stats don’t compare to yours, and almost all my gains are due to split routines. they do work!

the point i’m trying to make is someone knew to training is going to make the most gains from full body training in most cases. when a significant foundation is made then splits have to be incorporated.

[/quote]

102

[quote]ZedLeppelin wrote:
Amsterdam Animal wrote:
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

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.

my stats don’t compare to yours, and almost all my gains are due to split routines. they do work!

the point i’m trying to make is someone knew to training is going to make the most gains from full body training in most cases. when a significant foundation is made then splits have to be incorporated.

[/quote]

Why? Why do you say this? You even claim most of your gains are due to splits. You make no sense.

103

[quote]sasquatch wrote:

Why? Why do you say this? You even claim most of your gains are due to splits. You make no sense.[/quote]

Because Chad said so.

This board is filled with followers. Any leaders are a minority.

104

i’m sure splits can work just as effectively, but i still think they are more unlikely to with a beginner. a beginner doesn’t have the knowledge to design a proper split (and i think everyone needs a different split depending on their body and goals).

full body makes up for lack of intensity with frequency, which is why it doesn’t work at a higher level.

in the past 20 months i have put on 30 pounds of muscle and a few pounds of fat, but i am still nowhere near ready to begin focusing on “lagging” body parts and i have found the quickest way to put on overall mass for my level is full body.

[quote]Amsterdam Animal wrote:
I wasnt trying to call you out bro. There maybe something to say for what you wrote when it comes to people starting out. I still think splits can work just as effectively though.

It goes back to something the Prof wrote in an earlier post that as you become more developed and advanced, you train fewer bodyparts a day. I have experienced that very same thing. I used to train with a split that included multiple big muscle groups, like chest, shoulders and maybe triceps together, there is no way I can do that now and still feel every area has been hit effectively.

A

ZedLeppelin wrote:
Amsterdam Animal wrote:
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

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.

my stats don’t compare to yours, and almost all my gains are due to split routines. they do work!

the point i’m trying to make is someone knew to training is going to make the most gains from full body training in most cases. when a significant foundation is made then splits have to be incorporated.

[/quote]

105

On the “lagging” body part note, if you see a body part is not coming along as quickly as you would like, there is no need to wait to address the concern till you see a distinct difference in a well advanced physique.

I could tell my upper chest wasnt coming along as well as my chest and delts so I started doing extra upper chest stuff almost right away when I realized this to bring up the area. Even though it wasnt as clear to a lot of people, it was clear it would/could present a problem for me in the future.

A

[quote]ZedLeppelin wrote:
i’m sure splits can work just as effectively, but i still think they are more unlikely to with a beginner. a beginner doesn’t have the knowledge to design a proper split (and i think everyone needs a different split depending on their body and goals).

full body makes up for lack of intensity with frequency, which is why it doesn’t work at a higher level.

in the past 20 months i have put on 30 pounds of muscle and a few pounds of fat, but i am still nowhere near ready to begin focusing on “lagging” body parts and i have found the quickest way to put on overall mass for my level is full body.

Amsterdam Animal wrote:
I wasnt trying to call you out bro. There maybe something to say for what you wrote when it comes to people starting out. I still think splits can work just as effectively though.

It goes back to something the Prof wrote in an earlier post that as you become more developed and advanced, you train fewer bodyparts a day. I have experienced that very same thing. I used to train with a split that included multiple big muscle groups, like chest, shoulders and maybe triceps together, there is no way I can do that now and still feel every area has been hit effectively.

A

ZedLeppelin wrote:
Amsterdam Animal wrote:
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

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.

my stats don’t compare to yours, and almost all my gains are due to split routines. they do work!

the point i’m trying to make is someone knew to training is going to make the most gains from full body training in most cases. when a significant foundation is made then splits have to be incorporated.

[/quote]

106

Am a little confused now though, 30 pounds in 20 months is solid and you stated most of your gains are from using a split so then where do you get the idea that your body responds best to full body?

[quote]ZedLeppelin wrote:
i’m sure splits can work just as effectively, but i still think they are more unlikely to with a beginner. a beginner doesn’t have the knowledge to design a proper split (and i think everyone needs a different split depending on their body and goals).

full body makes up for lack of intensity with frequency, which is why it doesn’t work at a higher level.

in the past 20 months i have put on 30 pounds of muscle and a few pounds of fat, but i am still nowhere near ready to begin focusing on “lagging” body parts and i have found the quickest way to put on overall mass for my level is full body.

Amsterdam Animal wrote:
I wasnt trying to call you out bro. There maybe something to say for what you wrote when it comes to people starting out. I still think splits can work just as effectively though.

It goes back to something the Prof wrote in an earlier post that as you become more developed and advanced, you train fewer bodyparts a day. I have experienced that very same thing. I used to train with a split that included multiple big muscle groups, like chest, shoulders and maybe triceps together, there is no way I can do that now and still feel every area has been hit effectively.

A

ZedLeppelin wrote:
Amsterdam Animal wrote:
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

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.

my stats don’t compare to yours, and almost all my gains are due to split routines. they do work!

the point i’m trying to make is someone knew to training is going to make the most gains from full body training in most cases. when a significant foundation is made then splits have to be incorporated.

[/quote]

107

[quote]ZedLeppelin wrote:
i’m sure splits can work just as effectively, but i still think they are more unlikely to with a beginner. a beginner doesn’t have the knowledge to design a proper split (and i think everyone needs a different split depending on their body and goals).

full body makes up for lack of intensity with frequency, which is why it doesn’t work at a higher level.

in the past 20 months i have put on 30 pounds of muscle and a few pounds of fat, but i am still nowhere near ready to begin focusing on “lagging” body parts and i have found the quickest way to put on overall mass for my level is full body.

[/quote]

First, how many years have you been training?

Second, any point you are trying to make has already been made when we stated that most of who do train with splits trained MORE BODY PARTS originally than we do now.

It is like some of you think a body part split means you ignore exercises that most consider the main mass builders. Who is saying that? Is someone telling people to not do squats in place of leg extensions? I don’t get what the issue is that has any of you believing that training with a body part split means less strength is gained. It didn’t work that way for me.

108

[quote]sasquatch wrote:
ZedLeppelin wrote:
Amsterdam Animal wrote:
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

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.

my stats don’t compare to yours, and almost all my gains are due to split routines. they do work!

the point i’m trying to make is someone knew to training is going to make the most gains from full body training in most cases. when a significant foundation is made then splits have to be incorporated.

Why? Why do you say this? You even claim most of your gains are due to splits. You make no sense.[/quote]

They never do sasquatch… make sense that is. They just toot, just to toot. I am a little different. I start threads or jump in them to tell the truth. I give advice and tell the truth about what I think. If you’ve noticed my opinions arn’t always popular… but I refuse to kiss anyones ass who spits a bunch of bullshit, just because it sells or sounds good or is popular around here means nothing. Results are what count.

If I was a newby starting out, I would want some goddam straight answers. Especially on some shit that will help me in the future. I wouldn’t want to waste my fuckin’ time on some self proclaimed guru bullshit. I might be the most blunt guy on T-Naion, probably am. But some shit nobody else will say.

I personally don’t care who I offend or piss off. Let the truth be known. There ain’t no fuckin’ secrets in bodybuilding… but people sure do seem to try to sell alot of that bullshit.

If anyone else wants to hear some truth, or you have just been confused the fuck out of… because all the ideas that get thrown around here are twisted into pretzels… instead of just making sense and coming clear to you, then just PM me… I’ll give you lowdown.

I’ve been doing this shit for over 20 fuckin’ years, and bodybuilding for 7… this ain’t rocket fuckin’ science. It’s blood, sweat, and a little thing called pain. Ain’t nobody gonna tell me shit I havn’t already done or havn’t known about. If there is, it will be a rare thing and I’ll be the first to acknowledge it.

109

fine, i’m changing my official standpoint to “i like full body”.

i have my reasons, you have your reasons, we both get results, we don’t have too much of an issue…

110

I doubt you could write a Cool tip of the day that included extensive discussion of the pro’s and cons of any one method.

Its very simple, it was a generalised tip to the general population of this board. His statement basicly says that for the average trainer full body is the way to go. He chose a stance. A stance he can back up. If the extent of your disagreement is that “body builders do it” or “CT wrote otherwise” then your not really in a position to argue with it. Are those points how you are going to back up your stance?

Heres my thoughts on why full body is better.

  1. You need to have experience with a lift before you can get the most out of it. Most of us arnt lifting to the potential of our bodies.

  2. The best way to get this experience is with repeated practice of the excercise.

  3. Through things like fatigue management (spreading the work over the week) we can ensure a greater quality of work. Per session.

  4. The neural system adapts faster to stimus repeated often then less frequent stim. ( i havnt seen anyone argue with this )

But this only applies to most people. Id imagine the top of the feilds do things differently. At the very least i think they have enough experience to write their own damn programs and methods. Not go trawling the net looking for the next one.

His tip is suitable for this audience. Get over it.

111

[quote]Beatnik wrote:

His tip is suitable for this audience. Get over it.[/quote]

In your opinion. Others disagree with you. YOU get over it.

112

Actually, it does not matter whether a workout is “full body” or “split.” The full body enthisiast typically does the same weekly volume as the typical once-per-week split fan. The real difference is frequency.

In the last 5 years countless studies have purported that doing 1 set of bench presses 3 times per week provides more hypertrophic response than 3 sets once per week. However, these same studies also show that 3 sets of bench presses 3 times per week is superior to 1 set 3 times per week.

As stated before, my “full body” routines are split quite often. That makes them a bit superior because I am fresher if I work out 6 times per week for 1/2 hour each session than I am doing 1 hour 3 times per week. My workouts for each muscle group can be more intense.

If that is the argument that makes splits better, I agree. If the argument is that hitting a muscle hard is best done only once per week, I, and most recent studies, disagree.

Most recent studies have shown that working a muscle 2 to 4 times per week is superior to one time per week. The majority seem to conclude that 2 times per week is superior to 4 times. These studies are easily found under PubMed and the summary findings are available to everyone.

So, in summary, the argument isn’t about full body versus splits. Rather it is about frequency. Interestingly, most of the people arguing for splits also state they are hitting each bodypart more than once per week. That means that most of us agree that frequency is not the enemy here, it is our friend. In my life, my schedule for the day will determine if I do a split or a full body.

In reality, we could have a much more productive debate if we banned the words “full body” and “splits” and discussed frequency instead. That, in my opinion, is where the meat of the future of body building will concentrate.

113

[quote]Avoids Roids wrote:
Actually, it does not matter whether a workout is “full body” or “split.” The full body enthisiast typically does the same weekly volume as the typical once-per-week split fan. The real difference is frequency.

In the last 5 years countless studies have purported that doing 1 set of bench presses 3 times per week provides more hypertrophic response than 3 sets once per week. However, these same studies also show that 3 sets of bench presses 3 times per week is superior to 1 set 3 times per week.

As stated before, my “full body” routines are split quite often. That makes them a bit superior because I am fresher if I work out 6 times per week for 1/2 hour each session than I am doing 1 hour 3 times per week. My workouts for each muscle group can be more intense.

If that is the argument that makes splits better, I agree. If the argument is that hitting a muscle hard is best done only once per week, I, and most recent studies, disagree.

Most recent studies have shown that working a muscle 2 to 4 times per week is superior to one time per week. The majority seem to conclude that 2 times per week is superior to 4 times. These studies are easily found under PubMed and the summary findings are available to everyone.

So, in summary, the argument isn’t about full body versus splits. Rather it is about frequency. Interestingly, most of the people arguing for splits also state they are hitting each bodypart more than once per week. That means that most of us agree that frequency is not the enemy here, it is our friend. In my life, my schedule for the day will determine if I do a split or a full body.

In reality, we could have a much more productive debate if we banned the words “full body” and “splits” and discussed frequency instead. That, in my opinion, is where the meat of the future of body building will concentrate.

[/quote]

Good point. I think the only reason this is an issue is because some are noting how hard it is to get newbies to stop taking the word of an article as absolute truth. These are the guys complaining that one author contradicts another…because they expect someone to do all of their thinking for them. It is a little irritating that people like that have overrun this forum.

114

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Beatnik wrote:

His tip is suitable for this audience. Get over it.

In your opinion. Others disagree with you. YOU get over it.[/quote]

Both opinions are suitable.

We must agree there is no single optimal way to train. Adaptation being what it is, variety may be a very powerful tool.

115

[quote]Professor X wrote:
…It is like some of you think a body part split means you ignore exercises that most consider the main mass builders. Who is saying that? Is someone telling people to not do squats in place of leg extensions?..[/quote]

[quote]Avoids Roids wrote:
…In reality, we could have a much more productive debate if we banned the words “full body” and “splits” and discussed frequency instead. That, in my opinion, is where the meat of the future of body building will concentrate…[/quote]

I’ve been thinking both of these as I’ve been watching this thread develop.

[quote]Go heavy fool wrote:
…There ain’t no fuckin’ secrets in bodybuilding…[/quote]

This much can’t be debated by any thinking person here. I always hated the use of that term. There ain’t no such thing, especially in this game. As soon as anybody believes anything works, the most dangerous place in the world is between them and a bullhorn so they can tell anyone who’ll listen. I realize it’s just schtick, but it irritates me.

116

[quote]ckg21 wrote:
Chris Arp wrote:
It all works! Training comes down to personal preference and how well you respond (genetics).
We all respond to exercise diffently and have our preferences.
We just have to make sure we are following the absolutes: Systematic progressive overload, recovery, and nutrition. If these three elements are present then you will improve within the limits of your genetics.

This thread should have pretty much ended right here, though I also agree with rainjack.

Go heavy fool wrote:
You’re so full of hot air ZedLeppelin, no wonder all it took was a spark to set you off.

haha oh, the humanity…though if you used that phrase in an attempt to play off the name, you should know that that zeppelin was filled with hydrogen, not air.[/quote]

Oh, the humanity!!!

forgot the picture!

117

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
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…

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. [/quote]

This is what I liked about it when playing rugby.

Splits were too intense and I could not recover fast enough. My practice and games were negatively impacted.

Three short FBT workouts a week were very good in season.

118

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
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…

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.

This is what I liked about it when playing rugby.

Splits were too intense and I could not recover fast enough. My practice and games were negatively impacted.

Three short FBT workouts a week were very good in season.

[/quote]

But see that’s what’s been coming up over and over. That was for performance not bodybuilding. Most guys agree that for general athletic performance FBT is better in many cases. The debate here though is over what builds a more complete physique.

119

Split routine is old school, thats why many of the pros use it, they have been in the game for a long time.

Of course it works.

But, it also requires 4-5 workouts per week typically, where fullbody is only about 45mins x 3x per week.

Both are going to be just fine for 99% of people. Its going to matter a hell of a lot more how much intensity you are putting into each workout and your diet.

Ive done both, im doing a split right now, I cant say that the results are better/worse. But in both cases, there are results.

120

CT was right in his latest article. Splits are better for BBers because they cause more muscle damage(better for aesthetic improvements), while TBT is good for athletes because it involves more CNS(over conditioning and strength improvements).

Do you, don’t worry about what other people are doing.