Are Bodypart Splits Useless?

Training Bodybuilding
261

[quote]trextacy wrote:
hypnotoad wrote:
Professor X wrote:
pumped340 wrote:

how do you know without trying it?

Because I have trained for nearly 15 years and know my body. I know the weights I use and there is no way I could do all of that after doing what I use for bench press movements or shoulder exercises. I am not a newbie. That is WHY I usually do one body part a day or two at the most. I can bench over 405lbs for reps (not just a one rep max). When you can, come back and tell me how many other muscle groups you will be training that day. Inform me when you plan to follow that up with something like HS rows using 5 plates a side or some other movement that requires full focus and intensity to get in the air.

Some of you seem to only be viewing this through the eyes of newbies.

that last line seems to be the issue here. im one of the newbies, but all you have to do is read a little bit about training to understand why pro’s, more or less en masse, moved away from tbt to splits.

at a point, the muscles need more and a greater variety of stimulation. arnold built a lot of chest mass from benching, but he said himself it didnt reach its fullest development until he added inlcine work, dumbell work, various fly movements, etc. how can you do 4-5 exercises per bodypart in one workout, and have them all be effective? those aold time tbt guys, really didnt have the development of the guys in the next generation, who relied on split routines. even more so today when the body is split up even more in training (generally).

also, here is a sergio olivia routine www.ironage.us/fineprint/fineprint2.html

doesnt seem like total body to me, but who knows whether its real or just made up by the magazine.

i guess my point is that the more advanced the musculature becomes, and the more taxing each exercise becomes, the further people drift from total body workouts.

As to that last part-- I agree…the fact is that only a small percentage of people here are to the point where they lift so much weight on the compounds that they HAVE to split up their body to stimulate growth.

[/quote]

actually, my point was more a historical point, not an individual point. it was worded a bit poorly. for a variety of reasons, both natural and ‘enhanced’ bodybuilders have a greater overall level of musculature than they pros of yesteryear. and the body has been split up, more and more it seems, the more the envelope of total musculature is pushed. greater musclature demands this, it would seem.

262

Prof X, what are your stats? (just curious)

263

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
trextacy wrote:
<<< As to that last part-- I agree…the fact is that only a small percentage of people here are to the point where they lift so much weight on the compounds that they HAVE to split up their body to stimulate growth. >>>

I don’t know you, but I can’t imagine anybody who knows what ball busting eye popping work is making this statement. [/quote]

You are right. You don’t. And your imagination needs to go on a bulk :wink:

I have done splits and find them to be easier than a balls out full body session. The local muscle damage to that specific muscle group may be less, but you recruit and use more HTMUs and create MUCH more CNS load doing full body. Doing 1 major compound + accessory work for 10-15 sets, I’ve found, is “easier” (relative term) than a squat, clean, press, row, chins (all 5x5) session.

At a point, when your lifts and development are what could be considered advanced, breaking things up further makes sense. So, full body-> upper lower-> push/pull/legs could be a natural progression. Dorian Yates illustrated this principle by splitting things up the longer he trained and the stronger he got (I’m not saying he started fb, but he did start upper/lower I believe and broke it up further once he became a beast and it was necessary).

Very few people on this site fall into that category (myself included, although I will run a split from time to time and find that it is useful).

I’m not telling anyone here how to train. What I’m saying is that for most people, who train naturally, there is no need to split up the body and train a muscle group once per week and wait 5-6 days while it recovers. Training the body all at once or doing an upper/lower split is an effective way to train esp for new and intermediate trainees. You should train as often as you can recover, so 3x per week is ideal (if natural) so stimulating the muscles that often with less volume per session (but sufficient volume for the week) can lead to more growth.

So, to scoff and act as if I (or anyone else) is telling Professor X how to tain, your reading comprehension is for shit. X is an advanced lifter and, by all accounts, has pretty dang good genetics.

264

Why is it so hard to grasp that combining the big compound movements with some smaller ones in an intelligent split has built virtually every first rate physique in the last 50 years?

That’s just a fact. Somehow people have it in their minds that split training means avoiding the big money exercises. That has never been advocated by anybody. It’s about stimulating all the muscles with enough work to produce optimal growth. Most people cannot do that without some smaller movements and most people cannot also do that all in the same day.

Good luck to all who think they can.

265

So basically only elite level powerlifters or pro-bodybuilders are qualified to “Split” their routine up because they are using enough weight or effort that warrants a split routine?

Plus, I like how all the TBT fanboys in this thread happen to know just ONE guy that supposedly is big/developed and strong got that way using TBT exclusively but you yourself are not. Besides, who gives a fuck if ONE guy got big and strong doing TBT? How many hundreds id not thousands of lifters/bb’ers/athletes for the last 50 years have used split routines successfully?

This is really getting lame.

266

[quote]Player wrote:
Prof X, what are your stats? (just curious)[/quote]

Big enough. I’ll pm you my pic in my profile from last year. I won’t be putting another one up until at least January.

267

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Why is it so hard to grasp that combining the big compound movements with some smaller ones in an intelligent split has built virtually every first rate physique in the last 50 years?

That’s just a fact. Somehow people have it in their minds that split training means avoiding the big money exercises. That has never been advocated by anybody. It’s about stimulating all the muscles with enough work to produce optimal growth. Most people cannot do that without some smaller movements and most people cannot also do that all in the same day.

Good luck to all who think they can.

[/quote]

Good luck? You only say that if they were leaving. They stick around here and will no doubt still be the smaller lifters here on average a year or two from now. I mean, shit, we’ve been having these discussions long enough for them to be HUGE by now.

What happened?

268

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Why is it so hard to grasp that combining the big compound movements with some smaller ones in an intelligent split has built virtually every first rate physique in the last 50 years?

That’s just a fact. Somehow people have it in their minds that split training means avoiding the big money exercises. That has never been advocated by anybody. It’s about stimulating all the muscles with enough work to produce optimal growth. Most people cannot do that without some smaller movements and most people cannot also do that all in the same day.

Good luck to all who think they can.

[/quote]

Agreed.

I can’t imagine EFFECTIVELY hitting hams, quads, chest, and back in one session. The volume would have to be so low it really wouldn’t accomplish anything. It woould be like trying to do too many things at once.

After one session of my split routine, my hams are done, my back is done, quads you can barely walk. I’m saying the muscle shuts DOWN, literally. I can’t imagine turning around and hitting another large bodypart.

The guy that posted his TBT last page in the thread, I used to train like that in college, that is also similar to wrkouts that footplayers would do IN SEASON as maintenace. That looks ridiculously easy. You’re doing like 3-4 total set per bodypart? That is like a warm-up! By the time you get going, you are doing another bodypart.

269

[quote]trextacy wrote:
…
I have done splits and find them to be easier than a balls out full body session. The local muscle damage to that specific muscle group may be less, but you recruit and use more HTMUs and create MUCH more CNS load doing full body. …

[/quote]

Maybe these are not the key to hypertrophy.

270

[quote]trextacy wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
trextacy wrote:
<<< As to that last part-- I agree…the fact is that only a small percentage of people here are to the point where they lift so much weight on the compounds that they HAVE to split up their body to stimulate growth. >>>

I don’t know you, but I can’t imagine anybody who knows what ball busting eye popping work is making this statement.

You are right. You don’t. And your imagination needs to go on a bulk :wink: <<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>[/quote]

A couple things.

Maybe I misunderstood, but it sure sounded like you were saying you couldn’t work a split hard enough for that split to be necessary until you were already advanced. If not, my mistake.

Also, actual frequency may appear a bit skewed on a well planned split. For instance, I do a push/pull/legs split, but back and shoulders get worked on leg day as well. In fact there is plenty of overlap all around because I use lots of compound movements on all three days so although each group gets direct work only once a week, they do get additional work on the other days as well.

I didn’t take you as telling Professor X how to train.

271

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
trextacy wrote:
…
I have done splits and find them to be easier than a balls out full body session. The local muscle damage to that specific muscle group may be less, but you recruit and use more HTMUs and create MUCH more CNS load doing full body. …

Maybe these are not the key to hypertrophy.[/quote]

But…they MUST be!!

LOL

272

[quote]trextacy wrote:
<<<
I have done splits and find them to be easier than a balls out full body session. The local muscle damage to that specific muscle group may be less, but you recruit and use more HTMUs and create MUCH more CNS load doing full body. … >>>[/quote]

I don’t know what people see under their damn microscopes man, but I do know what I see with my eyes which is an army of really large guys using various splits to get there.

273

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
trextacy wrote:
…
I have done splits and find them to be easier than a balls out full body session. The local muscle damage to that specific muscle group may be less, but you recruit and use more HTMUs and create MUCH more CNS load doing full body. …

Maybe these are not the key to hypertrophy.

But…they MUST be!!

LOL[/quote]

context is key. the discussion was about what is “harder” or “takes more out of you”. the idea i was addressing was that a split workout is per se harder than a fb workout, and that the idea of performing an intense fb workout was beyond comprehension. lol indeed.

regarding hypertrophy. that is, of course, a complicated issue. it CANNOT be argued that people have induced hypertrophy with both methods. as i’ve stated, splits may work particularly well when anabolics are used.

I haven’t noticed Brian Haycock mentioned yet on this thread. Yet another of the “nonexistent examples” of the use of full body sessions 3x per week in a purely bodybuilding context. His system, “Hypertrophy Specific Training”, has produced results in recently successful BBers.

274

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
trextacy wrote:
<<<
I have done splits and find them to be easier than a balls out full body session. The local muscle damage to that specific muscle group may be less, but you recruit and use more HTMUs and create MUCH more CNS load doing full body. … >>>

I don’t know what people see under their damn microscopes man, but I do know what I see with my eyes which is an army of really large guys using various splits to get there.[/quote]

If I shut my eyes…they don’t exist.

Yes, this has gotten stupid. Every one of these guys supposedly knows someone the size of Coleman who used TBT the majority of the way to get there. Meanwhile, you simply can’t ignore the THOUSANDS of bodybuilders who got big by NOT training that way.

One thing I know for sure is that if you can do all of that shit in only one training session jumping from legs to shoulders to chest while also using the maximum weight for each exercise that rivals what ADVANCED lifters use, you are a genetic freak steps above those like Sergio Oliva.

275

[quote]trextacy wrote:
as i’ve stated, splits may work particularly well when anabolics are used.

[/quote]

The fact that you believe anabolics are needed to make splits work is what discredits everything else you type.

276

[quote]Professor X wrote:
trextacy wrote:
as i’ve stated, splits may work particularly well when anabolics are used.

The fact that you believe anabolics are needed to make splits work is what discredits everything else you type.[/quote]

For once I agree.

277

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
trextacy wrote:
…
I have done splits and find them to be easier than a balls out full body session. The local muscle damage to that specific muscle group may be less, but you recruit and use more HTMUs and create MUCH more CNS load doing full body. …

Maybe these are not the key to hypertrophy.

But…they MUST be!!

LOL[/quote]

Running marathons stresses the CNS greatly.

When people start using pseudoscience to explain why up is actually down I just start to tune out.

Why do people give so much credit to these theories?

I have no doubt CW can get people fit and even add some muscle and develop a decent program however this bullshit is out of control.

278

[quote]Professor X wrote:
trextacy wrote:
as i’ve stated, splits may work particularly well when anabolics are used.

The fact that you believe anabolics are needed to make splits work is what discredits everything else you type.[/quote]

that is not what I wrote. as indignant and self righteous as you are, you’d think you would read, think and type more carefully. i’m not trying to get into a pissing match, but the barage of bullshit is stifling any semblance of a decent discussion. i’m trying to discuss training methods and support the position that full body workouts 3x per week are good at building muscle mass and are particularly appropriate for newbs and intermediate lifters, while splits are best utilized by people who have “outgrown” other methods or are using assistance (since the damage to the muscle is so severe).

what pro bodybuilders do is take a fair amount of illegal drugs and hormones and train using split routines. if you can get mad arm growth training them once per week rather than 3, then that’s what people will do because it’s easier. that full body workouts are harder to do with intensity is a no brainer.

if you are going to use the argument that “pros do splits, therefore splits are king” then you have to acknowledge the drug use in the equation.

if you review the last few pages, you and your minions have behaved disrespectfully and not supported your position with anything other than your own example and ronnie fuckin’ coleman. coleman is a roid monkey, plain and simple, so nothing he has done or will ever do will be relevant to this particular discussion, so put down the tissues and lube over him. you have trained and eaten your ass off for what, 10 years, and still aren’t where you want to be and by all accounts are carrying more bodyfat than you would “ideally” like.

seriously, if the argument is “professor x is big, professor x has always done a traditional split, therefore everything else sucks” then please tell me what weight you were when started lifting seriously (after age 17-18; pubescent “gains” don’t count for shit because men grow up and gain weight naturally) and what you weigh now. how old are you? i’m just curious (honestly).

279

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Professor X wrote:
trextacy wrote:
as i’ve stated, splits may work particularly well when anabolics are used.

The fact that you believe anabolics are needed to make splits work is what discredits everything else you type.

For once I agree.[/quote]

wtf. what about “may work particularly well” = “anabolics are needed”? strong reading skills for all involved.

280

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
trextacy wrote:
…
I have done splits and find them to be easier than a balls out full body session. The local muscle damage to that specific muscle group may be less, but you recruit and use more HTMUs and create MUCH more CNS load doing full body. …

Maybe these are not the key to hypertrophy.

But…they MUST be!!

LOL

Running marathons stresses the CNS greatly.

When people start using pseudoscience to explain why up is actually down I just start to tune out.

Why do people give so much credit to these theories?

I have no doubt CW can get people fit and even add some muscle and develop a decent program however this bullshit is out of control.

[/quote]

This isn’t about CW. In the least. Straw men are so much easier to debate than real ones.

Go read something:
bodybuilding.ericsgym.com/trainingarticles/basicexercises/index.htm