Are Bodypart Splits Useless?

Training Bodybuilding
361

[quote]trextacy wrote:
Professor X wrote:
COME ON!!! We need a list of HUGE bodybuilders who used TBT to build the majority of their size. Can we start with just ONE name?

IF YOU REALLY, REALLY THINK THAT THE MASS MONSTERS AND HEAVYWEIGHTS SIZE WAS BUILT “PRIMARILY” BECAUSE THE TRAINED INTENSLY WITH SPLITS, THEN YOU ARE NAIVE.

Professor- listen to me. I’m being dead serious. I get the impression that you think you are going to blast the shit out of your muscles, eat until your stomach is distended.

Finish up your 12 year “bulk” and that someday, somehow, you will have the physique like one of the “HUGE” (as you say) professional IFBB heavyweight bodybuilders WITHOUT GETTING ON GEAR OF SOME SORT. Unless you have Vic Richards’ genetics (he had help too) it will not happen.

If it hasn’t happened already, it won’t happen.

How old are you now?

I feel like I’m taking crazy pills here. People are actually, citing every roided up mass monster in support of their position without acknowledging that roids play a part in about 40-50 lbs (minimum) of these guys lbm.

When you take that away, they compare favorably to the so-called golden age guys who trained full body and found that frequency hedged recovery and allowed more growth. It’s a wash! But, because splits are “particularly effective” when recovery isn’t an issue, the presence of roids pushes these guys in the direction of splits for max gains.

This isn’t hard people.[/quote]

X- I’m still waiting on a response to this. You continue to repeat yourself over and over and not engaging on the substance.

362

[quote]ab_power wrote:
<<<>>>
Are Bodypart Splits Useless? No

This is the dumbest question ever.

<<<<>>>>

[/quote]

Especially asked this way.

This has been done to death too, but Waterbury is not a moron and he does have some serious experience and knowledge. However he does himself in with his presentation and emphasis. If you dig through the hyperbole and overstatement he doesn’t actually believe exactly what a lot of his faithful think he does. The problem is you shouldn’t have to dig that much to find that out.

He does his best work in the areas of athletics and strength which his methods lend themselves well to. He would do himself a favor if he would either refine his literary approach, which I see signs of, or leave bodybuilding alone.

A lot of this is like asking whether gasoline is better than water. It depends on what you’re trying to do with them. You can’t drink gasoline and you can’t put water in your tank, but they both have their uses.

TBT is not stupid, like anything else, until people try to put it to uses that it is not best for. It astonishes me that this can even be debated still. Without this and the “do I have to gain fat to get big” thing Biotest could probably decommission a couple of servers by now.

363

[quote]Alquemist wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Alquemist wrote:
Splits are the best.

I for one choose not to do splits, because I’m not very flexible and I don’t want a groin strain.

I was referring to banana splits, sorry if I wasn’t clear.

I just remember someone earlier here saying that banana splits are bad, and I just couldn’t understand that. [/quote]

Bananas have fructose and fructose is evil. Don’t you read the articles?

364

[quote]trextacy wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Professor X wrote:
trextacy wrote:

Please remove all of the above who (a) used steriods

Why? Steroids don’t make a program that isn’t very effective somehow most effective. We already covered that steroids should lead to TBT being the best if this is as simple training a muscle more often leads to more growth.

So again, why leave out every bodybuilder who ever used steroids? That’s retarded.

or (b) did not build a base of muscle with either full body or upper lower or (c) did not build strength/muscle using a Starr (or similiar) 5x5 program (which is FB, 3 days per week).

I’m sorry, but which if these guys built most of their muscle using a “full body routine”?
AND WHY THE HELL DISCOUNT UPPER/LOWER ? THIS IS A FORM OF SPLIT ROUTINE.

You keep arguing a point that NO ONE is making. It has been conceded that for advanced lifters (particularly those with assistance), splits are king.

…and it has been told to you many times over that you do not need to be advanced to see optimal progress using splits.

As has been repeated before, this discussion is comparing traditional BB-style splits and full body. The argument to “train like IFBB heavyweight BBers” only makes any sense if that’s what is being discussed. You can’t have it both ways.

As I’ve said before, a natural progression would be Full body → upper/lower-> push, pull legs. Professor X’s position is that it is plainly obvious that anyone and everyone (natural or not) should jump into a 3-6 day split right off the bat, and that it’s the patently optimum approach because advanced pro bbers currently train that way.
[/quote]

You are the only one who wants this discussion to be about “traditional BB-style splits”(which have been as varied as could be).

A split is a split no matter how many days it takes to train the body completely. Not all big guys use the same split, yet they all do use a split and have usually done so since the beginning.

You can turn people’s words this way and that, it still does not help you in this argument.

And you sure argue a lot for someone who doesn’t even provide his stats in his profile…

Both professor X and I have used splits from the beginning, and we both did not start off with a 2-way, but a 4-way (if I’m not mistaken, X?).

We both gained quite a lot of mass in the first few months, more than most on this site have gained in years of doing tbt.

You sound like someone who’s read quite a few articles, but that’s about it…

365

[quote]Professor X wrote:
The list of people who got HUGE doing TBT specifically:
…
Insert here. [/quote]

Not “HUGE” by today’s standards, but certainly big for their day, which warrants their mention:

Steve Reeves
Reg Park
John Grimek
Jack LaLanne
Armand Tanny
Arthur Saxon
Eugene Sandow
Herman Goerner
Bobby Pandour
George Hackenschmidt

I don’t think anyone could legitimately say these guys have physiques that are undesirable or unimpressive.

And just to toss my two cents on the general total body vs. bodypart training idea, I don’t know if time efficiency has been brought up yet, but if someone comes to me and can only do strength training twice each week (a common situation for average folks trying to become above-average), total body sessions will be more productive until, or unless, more time becomes available at which point, some type of non-full-body split would yield better results.

366

This thread is comedy gold. : )

367

[quote]trextacy wrote:
trextacy wrote:
Professor X wrote:
COME ON!!! We need a list of HUGE bodybuilders who used TBT to build the majority of their size. Can we start with just ONE name?

IF YOU REALLY, REALLY THINK THAT THE MASS MONSTERS AND HEAVYWEIGHTS SIZE WAS BUILT “PRIMARILY” BECAUSE THE TRAINED INTENSLY WITH SPLITS, THEN YOU ARE NAIVE.

Professor- listen to me. I’m being dead serious. I get the impression that you think you are going to blast the shit out of your muscles, eat until your stomach is distended.

Finish up your 12 year “bulk” and that someday, somehow, you will have the physique like one of the “HUGE” (as you say) professional IFBB heavyweight bodybuilders WITHOUT GETTING ON GEAR OF SOME SORT. Unless you have Vic Richards’ genetics (he had help too) it will not happen.

If it hasn’t happened already, it won’t happen.

How old are you now?

I feel like I’m taking crazy pills here. People are actually, citing every roided up mass monster in support of their position without acknowledging that roids play a part in about 40-50 lbs (minimum) of these guys lbm.

When you take that away, they compare favorably to the so-called golden age guys who trained full body and found that frequency hedged recovery and allowed more growth. It’s a wash! But, because splits are “particularly effective” when recovery isn’t an issue, the presence of roids pushes these guys in the direction of splits for max gains.

This isn’t hard people.

X- I’m still waiting on a response to this. You continue to repeat yourself over and over and not engaging on the substance.[/quote]

What is there to respond to? Pointing out one or two names does not erase the THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE who got big using splits in their training. Not only that, but why the fuck do you believe that golden age bodybuilders were all natural?

I am 31 years old. I am also not new to this and most would probably call me “advanced” by looking at me. Meanwhile, I am betting you, on the other hand, are not that developed yet are trying to tell me that I don’t have a solid take on the way things work? What is wrong with you?

368

[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
Professor X wrote:
The list of people who got HUGE doing TBT specifically:
…
Insert here.

Not “HUGE” by today’s standards, but certainly big for their day, which warrants their mention:

Steve Reeves
Reg Park
John Grimek
Jack LaLanne
Armand Tanny
Arthur Saxon
Eugene Sandow
Herman Goerner
Bobby Pandour
George Hackenschmidt

I don’t think anyone could legitimately say these guys have physiques that are undesirable or unimpressive.

And just to toss my two cents on the general total body vs. bodypart training idea, I don’t know if time efficiency has been brought up yet, but if someone comes to me and can only do strength training twice each week (a common situation for average folks trying to become above-average), total body sessions will be more productive until, or unless, more time becomes available at which point, some type of non-full-body split would yield better results.[/quote]

I’m sorry, as I’m not about to waste my time picking apart each one, but the fact that you used Sandow when the man was more involved with activities like one hand stands and other feats that were part of an act as a representation of TBT is ridiculous. There was no formal way of training back then. They were essentially making shit up as they went (setting the stage for what would later be formed into a specific style of training by bodybuilders in the 50’s)…and further, the man would NOT qualify as a heavy weight today in a contest which was what I specifically wrote.

369

[quote]Professor X wrote:
trextacy wrote:
trextacy wrote:
Professor X wrote:
COME ON!!! We need a list of HUGE bodybuilders who used TBT to build the majority of their size. Can we start with just ONE name?

IF YOU REALLY, REALLY THINK THAT THE MASS MONSTERS AND HEAVYWEIGHTS SIZE WAS BUILT “PRIMARILY” BECAUSE THE TRAINED INTENSLY WITH SPLITS, THEN YOU ARE NAIVE.

Professor- listen to me. I’m being dead serious. I get the impression that you think you are going to blast the shit out of your muscles, eat until your stomach is distended.

Finish up your 12 year “bulk” and that someday, somehow, you will have the physique like one of the “HUGE” (as you say) professional IFBB heavyweight bodybuilders WITHOUT GETTING ON GEAR OF SOME SORT. Unless you have Vic Richards’ genetics (he had help too) it will not happen.

If it hasn’t happened already, it won’t happen.

How old are you now?

I feel like I’m taking crazy pills here. People are actually, citing every roided up mass monster in support of their position without acknowledging that roids play a part in about 40-50 lbs (minimum) of these guys lbm.

When you take that away, they compare favorably to the so-called golden age guys who trained full body and found that frequency hedged recovery and allowed more growth. It’s a wash! But, because splits are “particularly effective” when recovery isn’t an issue, the presence of roids pushes these guys in the direction of splits for max gains.

This isn’t hard people.

X- I’m still waiting on a response to this. You continue to repeat yourself over and over and not engaging on the substance.

What is there to respond to? Pointing out one or two names does not erase the THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE who got big using splits in their training. Not only that, but why the fuck do you believe that golden age bodybuilders were all natural?

I am 31 years old. I am also not new to this and most would probably call me “advanced” by looking at me. Meanwhile, I am betting you, on the other hand, are not that developed yet are trying to tell me that I don’t have a solid take on the way things work? What is wrong with you?[/quote]

That last bit is what I’m constantly wondering about here…
If he were now 280 pounds at 5’10 or so and used tbt to get to 240, I’d say cool, you’re entitled to an opinion…

370

“but if someone comes to me and can only do strength training twice each week (a common situation for average folks trying to become above-average),”

…then the likelihood is that they’ll stay average. You dont turn ‘pro’ doing the bare minimum. You gotta bust your ass. If you cant put in the time then you’ll stay average. Nothing wrong with that. Just dont talk crap about TBT is fine for average when we’re not dicussing average. We’re talking about most efficient way to grow. And that means split.

371

[quote]Professor X wrote:

I’m sorry, as I’m not about to waste my time picking apart each one, but the fact that you used Sandow when the man was more involved with activities like one hand stands and other feats that were part of an act as a representation of TBT is ridiculous. There was no formal way of training back then. They were essentially making shit up as they went (setting the stage for what would later be formed into a specific style of training by bodybuilders in the 50’s)…and further, the man would NOT qualify as a heavy weight today in a contest which was what I specifically wrote.[/quote]

I was responding off the top of my head listing the people who used a full body training. I actually missed the part in your original post about [quote]“This isn’t about what works and what doesn’t because obviously lifting something will give you results, however, this is about what works best.”[/quote]

With that in mind, I’d agree that the ideal plan for building muscle would be some type of split (upper/lower, push/pull/legs, other bodypart groupings, etc.).

However, Sandow, Saxon, and the lifters of that era (while being primarily strength-focused) still trained the whole body each workout, so I believe they’d still fall under that category. But, moot point, I suppose.

372

HAH! He actually does overhead press after squats. Looks pretty close to TBT to me.

373

[quote]With that in mind, I’d agree that the ideal plan for building muscle would be some type of split (upper/lower, push/pull/legs, other bodypart groupings, etc.).
[/quote]

I’ve been reading this site for awhile and have never gotten that impression from the articles. They promote TBT.

374

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
With that in mind, I’d agree that the ideal plan for building muscle would be some type of split (upper/lower, push/pull/legs, other bodypart groupings, etc.).

I’ve been reading this site for awhile and have never gotten that impression from the articles. They promote TBT. [/quote]

They also seem to have a lot of writers here who hate bodybuilding for some reason.

375

Where the heck did the idea come from you can’t get big and strong from TBT? Virtually all strongmen do it. Not the best for body building but TBT does not equal small or weak.

376

[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
Professor X wrote:

I’m sorry, as I’m not about to waste my time picking apart each one, but the fact that you used Sandow when the man was more involved with activities like one hand stands and other feats that were part of an act as a representation of TBT is ridiculous. There was no formal way of training back then. They were essentially making shit up as they went (setting the stage for what would later be formed into a specific style of training by bodybuilders in the 50’s)…and further, the man would NOT qualify as a heavy weight today in a contest which was what I specifically wrote.

I was responding off the top of my head listing the people who used a full body training. I actually missed the part in your original post about “This isn’t about what works and what doesn’t because obviously lifting something will give you results, however, this is about what works best.”

With that in mind, I’d agree that the ideal plan for building muscle would be some type of split (upper/lower, push/pull/legs, other bodypart groupings, etc.).

However, Sandow, Saxon, and the lifters of that era (while being primarily strength-focused) still trained the whole body each workout, so I believe they’d still fall under that category. But, moot point, I suppose.[/quote]

Hmm, while we’re discussing the past guys… Anybody got a good pic of steve reeves ? The ones I’ve seen so far… Well, he just looked like someone maybe at the end of the beginner stage with somewhat wider clavicles than usual.

I honestly don’t get what people find so great and aesthetic about him ? Not knocking him at all, just wondering…

Oliva accused him of drug use, in the same interview that he admitted his own…

377

[quote]Neebone wrote:
“but if someone comes to me and can only do strength training twice each week (a common situation for average folks trying to become above-average),”

…then the likelihood is that they’ll stay average. You dont turn ‘pro’ doing the bare minimum. You gotta bust your ass. If you cant put in the time then you’ll stay average. Nothing wrong with that. [/quote]
If somebody has decided they want to be a professional bodybuilder, I’d expect them to free up more than two days each week, which goes along with what I was saying. And I actually disagree with the underlined section. A 30-year old guy with a wife, two kids, working two jobs can still bust his ass with full body workouts and see great results.

I’m not just “talking crap about TBT is fine for average”, I’m talking about actual situations I’ve dealt with. There’s ideal… there’s realistic… and then there’s a compromise of the two. But if someone is balls-out dedicated to turning pro, come hell or high water they’re shooting to be the next Mr. O, then (as I’ve said) some type of split is what they’ll want to be doing.

378

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Where the heck did the idea come from you can’t get big and strong from TBT? Virtually all strongmen do it. Not the best for body building but TBT does not equal small or weak.[/quote]

No one said it did. We said that it attracts tons of people who don;t want to work very hard and who try to spend the least time possible in the gym. We have seen that in this very thread. We are also saying it is NOT the best routine for bodybuilding WHICH IS WHY THIS THREAD WAS CREATED.

Why are some of you having a hard time keeping up with this?

379

[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Chris Colucci wrote:
Professor X wrote:

I’m sorry, as I’m not about to waste my time picking apart each one, but the fact that you used Sandow when the man was more involved with activities like one hand stands and other feats that were part of an act as a representation of TBT is ridiculous. There was no formal way of training back then. They were essentially making shit up as they went (setting the stage for what would later be formed into a specific style of training by bodybuilders in the 50’s)…and further, the man would NOT qualify as a heavy weight today in a contest which was what I specifically wrote.

I was responding off the top of my head listing the people who used a full body training. I actually missed the part in your original post about “This isn’t about what works and what doesn’t because obviously lifting something will give you results, however, this is about what works best.”

With that in mind, I’d agree that the ideal plan for building muscle would be some type of split (upper/lower, push/pull/legs, other bodypart groupings, etc.).

However, Sandow, Saxon, and the lifters of that era (while being primarily strength-focused) still trained the whole body each workout, so I believe they’d still fall under that category. But, moot point, I suppose.

Hmm, while we’re discussing the past guys… Anybody got a good pic of steve reeves ? The ones I’ve seen so far… Well, he just looked like someone maybe at the end of the beginner stage with somewhat wider clavicles than usual.

I honestly don’t get what people find so great and aesthetic about him ? Not knocking him at all, just wondering…

Oliva accused him of drug use, in the same interview that he admitted his own…
[/quote]

He’s certainly above average, and I believe he was clean.

380

Screw the pro’s, they’ve been used by both sides and it keeps going around in circles.

Who here thinks that more than a few of the guys that compete in natural tested contests use TBT?

Not me. Maybe one in one thousand?

Does anyone really think that you can find any really big natural guys that train this way?

Let’s poll every guy that’s added 50+ lbs of mass over the years and check out thier training history. How much of it can you reasonable expect to have been TBT?

VERY little. Does that not count for anything?

To be somewhat above average, either style will work. To be truly attention-getting, splits rule.