Are Bodypart Splits Useless?

Training Bodybuilding
381

[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]

Steeve Reeves at most weighed less than 220lbs in “non-ripped” condition at 6’1". He would not have been able to compete today without dropping around another 20lbs at least. That would make him a light heavy at most…at 6 foot 1. He had a good build when compared to most of the non-training population and still does compared to the waifish crowd populating gyms today.

However, you are right, he would not stand out as one of the greats today at all.

382

[quote]derek wrote:

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

…and that is where the problem lies. We have a bunch of new guys who don’t even want to stand out thinking what they are doing is “bodybuilding” because Chad Waterbury won’t quit throwing in little remarks that confuse the weak minded.

383

[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]

But (most) lots of strongmen come from s powerlifting and/or bodybuilding background which are both split-using sports.

They later adopt TBT to train for thier “new” sport. Most of not all of thier mass was built with splits.

384

[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
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.
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.

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.
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.[/quote]

So why would you bust your ass with TBT if you’re able to when split would prove more efficient? That makes little sense.

And regardless if you want to turn pro or not (I used the term ‘pro’ to mean bigger than most but lets roll with that anyway), why wouldnt you use the most effective and proven method of gaining muscle?

I’ll take a CBR over any car when it comes to getting to work in the morning. Sure I can get there in a car, but I’d like to be on time - and sleep in. Its called an ‘efficient use of time’.

385

[quote]Professor X wrote:
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.

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?[/quote]

Because I can go back through and quote probably a dozen times (you most of the time) in this thread where everyone more than implies it. Things like, “Why is it TBT guys tend to be so small and week.”

And yes, if you don’t train hard at anything you aren’t going to get results. If you half ass split training it’s the same thing.

The point of this thread has become comparing and contrasting the effectiveness of the programs. And if you bust ass in either you can have great results. Some may respond better than others as with anything.

You ask for a list of people and I try to start naming some. Not body builders, but guys who’ve put on a ton more muscle and size than you doing the very thing you claim is stupid.

386

[quote]Professor X wrote:
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…

Steeve Reeves at most weighed less than 220lbs in “non-ripped” condition at 6’1". He would not have been able to compete today without dropping around another 20lbs at least. That would make him a light heavy at most…at 6 foot 1. He had a good build when compared to most of the non-training population and still does compared to the waifish crowd populating gyms today.

However, you are right, he would not stand out as one of the greats today at all.[/quote]

He would easly compete today if he has the same Chemicals to put into his body as current ones do…

387

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Because I can go back through and quote probably a dozen times (you most of the time) in this thread where everyone more than implies it. Things like, “Why is it TBT guys tend to be so small and week.”[/quote]

THEY ARE. Let’s poll them right now.

Everyone who uses TBT post your stats.

Then, everyone who trained with splits post their’s.

We can clear this up real quick.

How do you know how much size I’ve put on?

388

Pudz. was never a powerlifter or a bodybuilder. He was origianlly a boxer.

389

I�??m guessing by the size of your ego.

390

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Pudz. was never a powerlift or a bodybuilder. He was origianlly a boxer.[/quote]

Again, ONE GUY.

Anyone can find an example or two to make thier point. However, when the VAST MAJORITY disprove your point, that fact get’s ignored?

BTW, I watched a video of Pudz training… He did shoulders on day one. That’s it. Must’ve been a fake.

391

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Professor X wrote:
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.

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?

Because I can go back through and quote probably a dozen times (you most of the time) in this thread where everyone more than implies it. Things like, “Why is it TBT guys tend to be so small and week.”

And yes, if you don’t train hard at anything you aren’t going to get results. If you half ass split training it’s the same thing.

The point of this thread has become comparing and contrasting the effectiveness of the programs. And if you bust ass in either you can have great results. Some may respond better than others as with anything.

You ask for a list of people and I try to start naming some. Not body builders, but guys who’ve put on a ton more muscle and size than you doing the very thing you claim is stupid.
[/quote]

But that still makes little sense. Ok so people are different and respond to different things. Likely, splits will work for most people. And since splits are considered most efficient, you would think that everyone should start with those and ONLY change to TBT or something else once they’re sure that its the split that isnt working and not nutrition or poor training.

Why go to TBT first or say “well TBT works and splits might not so lets do TBT” when the opposite argument is as valid.

392

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I�??m guessing by the size of your ego.[/quote]

What?

Then you need to stop guessing because you aren’t good at it.

Go ahead and tell me how much I’ve gained since you know so many who have gained more than me.

393

The real question in total body vs split is what movements are you doing. The majority of total body training programs include the big compound movements which lead to strength and size gains. They are also often left out of the typical gym members split training, The big movements take work and produce results. If you want to get stronger or bigger you have to squat deadlift, press, bent over rows, pull ups and challenge your self each time you lift. Split training will work if you have a pressing day, pulling day and squating day and keep the little stuff to a minimum but when the big stuff is left out results are decreased. Westside training was brought up as an example of split training when it is really total body training- they drag sleds and do dumbbell pressing 3-4 times a week. Bench press specialists do some rowing 3-4 times a week.

394

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Everyone who uses TBT post your stats.

Then, everyone who trained with splits post their’s.

We can clear this up real quick.
[/quote]

Was 6’-2" and 270 (actually 271!). Am now a hair over 250 after dropping weight training for HG and other stuff, on my way UP again!

(again, big fan of TBT but it didn’t make me big, I just have fun doing it every now and then.)

395

[quote]rwhaan wrote:
The real question in total body vs split is what movements are you doing. The majority of total body training programs include the big compound movements which lead to strength and size gains. They are also often left out of the typical gym members split training, [/quote]

This is bullshit. Who here is leaving out “big compound movements”? Why are you using what some fat chick does at Gold’s as a representation of split training when not one bodybuilder who competes avoids “big compound movements” in majority?

396

[quote]derek wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Pudz. was never a powerlift or a bodybuilder. He was origianlly a boxer.

Again, ONE GUY.

Anyone can find an example or two to make thier point. However, when the VAST MAJORITY disprove your point, that fact get’s ignored?

BTW, I watched a video of Pudz training… He did shoulders on day one. That’s it. Must’ve been a fake.[/quote]

So, photo shoot vs. written training program?

Would you like me to start naming more strong men? There are several more I can think of that started out as oly lifter. More of them in football, est.

Speaking scientifically and logically however, it only takes 1 to disprove the “law” that splits are the only realy way to train.

397

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Speaking scientifically and logically however, it only takes 1 to disprove the “law” that splits are the only realy way to train.[/quote]

You are clearly the last person that needs to be speaking on “science”.

Oh, and get back to how much progress you know I’ve made. I want to know.

398

[quote]rwhaan wrote:
The real question in total body vs split is what movements are you doing. The majority of total body training programs include the big compound movements which lead to strength and size gains. They are also often left out of the typical gym members split training, [/quote]

Time to try a new gym?

What bodybuilder doesn’t bench, squat, deadlift, press, row etc.?

Oh, let me guess, just cables, leg extensions and Pec-Deck?

399

[quote]Professor X wrote:
rwhaan wrote:
The real question in total body vs split is what movements are you doing. The majority of total body training programs include the big compound movements which lead to strength and size gains. They are also often left out of the typical gym members split training,

This is bullshit. Who here is leaving out “big compound movements”? Why are you using what some fat chick does at Gold’s as a representation of split training when not one bodybuilder who competes avoids “big compound movements” in majority?[/quote]

I agree, I don’t know any serious lifter that doesn’t at least squat and bench.

However, if you are doing things like C&J or snatches, or power cleans, then at that point I would consider that total body work.

400

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
So, photo shoot vs. written training program?

Would you like me to start naming more strong men? There are several more I can think of that started out as oly lifter. More of them in football, est.

Speaking scientifically and logically however, it only takes 1 to disprove the “law” that splits are the only realy way to train.[/quote]

So, fake it is!

Are you really trying to tell me that most of the 280-350lb strongmen got to that weight using TBT?

So who started strongman from football? (I know some answers already) And tell me how they got huge in the first place. Olympic Lifting? So whoever you’re talking about was huge just from OL? Please.