Are Bodypart Splits Useless?

Training Bodybuilding
681

[quote]trextacy wrote:
Let me repeat for what seems like the thousandth time— prior to the introduction of drugs into the world of bodybuilding, bodybuilders regularly built their muscle mass with full body programs. The advent of heavy drug use made split training “particularly” effective in permitting shit loads of volume and taking the recovery limitations out of the picture.
[/quote]

Fine, but now please explain the enormous number of natural bodybuilders that are bigger and more aestheticly built than the “old guys” that got that way with splits.

Take drug use completely out of the picture. Buy a copy of Natural Bodybuilding magazine, go to a natural (tested) contest and ask around. How many will you find that have used TBT for more than a few months? And why is that. exactly?

682

[quote]trextacy wrote:

Except this isn’t true.

Let me repeat for what seems like the thousandth time— prior to the introduction of drugs into the world of bodybuilding, bodybuilders regularly built their muscle mass with full body programs.

[/quote]

There is a reason no one is pulling out Sandow’s training routine and spreading it as the Truth of bodybuilding. They were all learning themselves and most bodybuilders back then were doing it for SHOW. They did acrobatics and stunts because there was no official “bodybuilding” style of training back then.

You are clueless enough to think drugs are the reason splits work for newbies. You really just keep showing how little experience you have.

You show it in every post as well as your perspective (since you only think of things through the eyes of a newbie and not someone with large amounts of muscle).

This is my last post in this thread. You are wasting time and space and I doubt anyone has been impressed by it yet.

683

[quote]trextacy wrote:
It’s called a joke.

BTW, aren’t you a big HIT guy?

Also, where are your pics? I would hope that you have something other than the grainy side view of you lifting the front end of a car 15 years ago that’s in your profile.[/quote]

A big HIT guy? Yeah, I am and that’s a huge point I’ve made several times. I, like you, am a big fan of TBT. The difference is that I know TBT is severely limited, I simply enjoy TBT more than splits.

I’m just not delusional about HIT’s (or TBT’s) efficacy.

15 years ago? Where did you pull THAT number from? It was about three years ago and I am again (after cutting) 6’-2" and 250lbs. And that’s me throwing the Light Hammer as well but I’m not the one desperately clinging to my beliefs yet too deeply invested to post a picture and kill my arguement.

684

trextacy,

first I commend you for the way you have handled this thread. You’ve shown a great deal of class in the face of an onslaught of insults. And personally, while I disagree with TBT being optimal, I think you’ve made some valid points and supported them well.

However, your argument is simply that TBT is best for beginners and intermediates, correct? If so, then I don’t understand the logic for this line of thinking. For a rank beginner, the ONLY thing(s) that really matter are JUST BEING in the gym, WORKING HARD, and EATING RIGHT. If they do those three things, it does not matter what type of program they are on - they are going to progress. That is the nature of the beast. Personally, I don’t believe that a newbie doing those things can progress any differently doing either TBT or splits. The body is only going to adapt so fast and beginner gains come like gang-busters as is.

As for intermediates (this is what I consider myself) I still believe splits are optimal. It might not necessarily mean a one bodypart a day, but a push/pull or upper/lower (which is what I use ala WS4SB) are still bodypart splits. I believe these types of routines allow a true intermediate to meld the best of both world’s by allowing for increased frequency, ample volume, AND ample recovery time.

For advanced trainees, as you’ve admitted, there is no debate.

685

I’m confused as to why so many TBT articles are posted on T-Nation, aside from those of CT? I mean, Joel Marion built his physique using body part splits, and most of the articles he’s written here push TBT. Until reading this thread, I was one of those people that thought TBT was the way to go and that the body part guys were all on steroids. This recent article (thankfully) says the opposite:

[quote]Myth #4: “Full body routines are great for building muscle mass.”

I started my amateur bodybuilding career at an athletic 158 pounds, and in 10 years built a physique that was very lean at 207. I used split routines, like everyone else I knew back then. In fact, when I started in the early '90s, I didn’t know people did full-body routines. Today, I don’t know of any contemporary bodybuilders or powerlifters who use full-body programs. Westside Barbell protocols are popular for a reason: they work.

But where’s the evidence that full-body routines work? I understand that full-body routines were popular during the golden era of Muscle Beach, but most of those guys were nowhere near the size of the current crop of drug-free bodybuilders. Bodybuilders started getting bigger in the '50s and '60s by using split routines, like those advocated by Vince Gironda.

I use full-body routines for clients who aren’t trying to gain significant amounts of muscle, including business professionals who travel frequently, in-season athletes, and some of the women I train. In my experience, the average male will make gains for about six to eight weeks before his body adapts to the routine and progress halts.
row

Impressive gains in muscle hypertrophy require at least four days a week of resistance training. Your muscles need more tension and volume to make further adaptations. You can’t accomplish that if you’re training three hours a week and trying to hit all your major muscles in every workout. You simply don’t have the time to do it.

[/quote]

confused

Anyways, what are some good books on how to program for hypertrophy based on a body-part split routine?

686

[quote]derek wrote:
trextacy wrote:
Let me repeat for what seems like the thousandth time— prior to the introduction of drugs into the world of bodybuilding, bodybuilders regularly built their muscle mass with full body programs. The advent of heavy drug use made split training “particularly” effective in permitting shit loads of volume and taking the recovery limitations out of the picture.

Fine, but now please explain the enormous number of natural bodybuilders that are bigger and more aestheticly built than the “old guys” that got that way with splits.

I’m not sure I understand the question. It may be the wording. If you are saying that current natties are bigger and look better than old time golden age body builders, then I would disagree with that as a general proposition. I just don’t think that’s the case. I think for the natties that are noticeably bigger than the older guys, it’s more likely the case that supplementation and nutritional science can be credited. We’ve come a long way from liver tabs.

Take drug use completely out of the picture. Buy a copy of Natural Bodybuilding magazine, go to a natural (tested) contest and ask around. How many will you find that have used TBT for more than a few months? And why is that. exactly?[/quote]

I think some of it is monkey-see, monkey-do. I’m being honest. Plus, people get into lifting and want to do a chest day or have an arm day. Plus, people instinctively have a “more is better” mentality and therefore go nuts with the volume. A pro is of the mind to WANT to lift every day…so a 3-day per week program may not be appealing. They also get started reading muscle mags. Again, there are lots of reasons.

Bottom line- I think someone who is a novice through intermediate stage can get bigger and stronger faster by avoiding high volume bodypart splits and focusing on the big lifts and adding weight to the bar. Then, switch to splits when the weights are heavy and the volumen can really spur new growth. I also think that fewer people qualify as exceeding “intermediate” leven than they think (I would estimate about 10% of T-Nation is “advanced”).

687

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Anyways, what are some good books on how to program for hypertrophy based on a body-part split routine?

[/quote]

Go read some stuff about Skip LaCour and MAX OT.

There’s so much stuff on-line that buying books about split training isn’t needed.

688

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
I’m confused as to why so many TBT articles are posted on T-Nation, aside from those of CT? I mean, Joel Marion built his physique using body part splits, and most of the articles he’s written here push TBT. Until reading this thread, I was one of those people that thought TBT was the way to go and that the body part guys were all on steroids. This recent article (thankfully) says the opposite:

Myth #4: “Full body routines are great for building muscle mass.”

I started my amateur bodybuilding career at an athletic 158 pounds, and in 10 years built a physique that was very lean at 207. I used split routines, like everyone else I knew back then. In fact, when I started in the early '90s, I didn’t know people did full-body routines. Today, I don’t know of any contemporary bodybuilders or powerlifters who use full-body programs. Westside Barbell protocols are popular for a reason: they work.

But where’s the evidence that full-body routines work? I understand that full-body routines were popular during the golden era of Muscle Beach, but most of those guys were nowhere near the size of the current crop of drug-free bodybuilders. Bodybuilders started getting bigger in the '50s and '60s by using split routines, like those advocated by Vince Gironda.

I use full-body routines for clients who aren’t trying to gain significant amounts of muscle, including business professionals who travel frequently, in-season athletes, and some of the women I train. In my experience, the average male will make gains for about six to eight weeks before his body adapts to the routine and progress halts.
row

Impressive gains in muscle hypertrophy require at least four days a week of resistance training. Your muscles need more tension and volume to make further adaptations. You can’t accomplish that if you’re training three hours a week and trying to hit all your major muscles in every workout. You simply don’t have the time to do it.

confused

Anyways, what are some good books on how to program for hypertrophy based on a body-part split routine?

[/quote]

Well, I did say that was my last post…but oh well.

I am just glad to see that on this forum. The best built bodies for the last 5 decades were NOT built using TBT. Even if you all find one or two of these guys who actually uses it now as a pro or novice competitor, how can you ignore the hundreds, if not thousands, more who did NOT train that way?

How can they ignore the bigger lifters on this site even?

This sounds like the cry of hardgainers the world over. They don’t really expect to get very big so they latch onto any jackass that tells them the only way others see more progress is from drug use.

That’s pretty damn pathetic.

689

[quote]trextacy wrote:

I’m not sure I understand the question. It may be the wording. If you are saying that current natties are bigger and look better than old time golden age body builders, then I would disagree with that as a general proposition. I just don’t think that’s the case. I think for the natties that are noticeably bigger than the older guys, it’s more likely the case that supplementation and nutritional science can be credited. We’ve come a long way from liver tabs.

[/quote]

Yes, you understood perfectly. I AM saying that current natural bodybuilders (WTF is a Nattie?) are better built, bigger and more refined than the golden era guys.

Shit, half the guys at the last show I was at would embarass Arnold in his heyday for the combination of size, symmetry and leanness. Are you telling my the guys from the 60’s could even hold a candle to any of the better natural guys today?

It must be all the creatine and whey isolate. Either that or the simple fact that like supplementation and dieting techniques, the training has evolved as well.

690

[quote]mr popular wrote:
trextacy wrote:
And you will note that i’ve distinguished advanced bb-ers throughout this thread. the issue came up because someone said that a traditional bb-ing routine does not focus on compounds. Professor X had a coronary over that statement (lots of caps lock was used to great effect) and stated otherwise.

Please read carefully: My point is (and has always been) that bodybuilding splits are optimum for advanced trainers, but that for beginners and intermediates it’s probably best to focus on the compounds (money) exercises, with greater frequency and training the whole body until the weight is such that things should be split up more. A corollary to that would be that when the person is so strong/advanced that using the “money” exercises is not feasible anymore in light of the risks, machines can be used more frequently. Whether that’s optimal is another story but I certainly see the logic.

Again- I don’t see what’s so controversial.

It isn’t controversial, it’s just a lame and ineffective way of going about things. And more than, the fact that you see things that way shows how inexperienced you are because you don’t understand what it would be like to actually attempt to do this past the sheer novice stages.

Fullbody workouts are attempting to get good results by increasing frequency, but what you don’t realize is that you are sacrificing a great degree of training effect and intensity, not to mention training certain aspects of general conditioning that just don’t NEED to be trained necessarily.

The “theory” behind fullbody workouts is just as sound as the theory behind HIT training. That doesn’t mean they aren’t both just a lousy way to make yourself more muscular compared to a traditional split routine that has turned people from skinny to huge for decades.[/quote]

Bro, that is an excellent comparison: FBT and HIT. Both have data to support their effectiveness and both fail to produce results over the long haul. Both are best used occasionally to break plateaus and get new growth, but will not work for sustained increases.

691

[quote]trextacy wrote:

…and be a Level 4 on T-Nation if I didn’t bust my ass in the kitchen and gym and have something to show for it.[/quote]

hahahahahaha…so tell me the T-Nation squad personally stops by your gym and watches your workouts and makes sure you are eating right?

This just proves how clueless you really are. Your “level” at T-Nation is determined by how many supplements you have bought over time and nothing else.

For you to some how equate that with experience, knowledge or, wisdom just further proves yout really don’t have a clue…about much of anything.

692

I’d like to add that in my last Highland Games comp. there was a guy who looked as though he was maybe 5-6 weeks from competing in a BB show. Really well-built and very symetrical.

Turns out he trained “like a bodybuilder” with a split and everything!

He also blew me away in every event that day.

So yeah, splits suck for sports too!

693

[quote]GuerillaZen wrote:
trextacy,

first I commend you for the way you have handled this thread. You’ve shown a great deal of class in the face of an onslaught of insults. And personally, while I disagree with TBT being optimal, I think you’ve made some valid points and supported them well.

However, your argument is simply that TBT is best for beginners and intermediates, correct? If so, then I don’t understand the logic for this line of thinking. For a rank beginner, the ONLY thing(s) that really matter are JUST BEING in the gym, WORKING HARD, and EATING RIGHT. If they do those three things, it does not matter what type of program they are on - they are going to progress. That is the nature of the beast. Personally, I don’t believe that a newbie doing those things can progress any differently doing either TBT or splits. The body is only going to adapt so fast and beginner gains come like gang-busters as is.

As for intermediates (this is what I consider myself) I still believe splits are optimal. It might not necessarily mean a one bodypart a day, but a push/pull or upper/lower (which is what I use ala WS4SB) are still bodypart splits. I believe these types of routines allow a true intermediate to meld the best of both world’s by allowing for increased frequency, ample volume, AND ample recovery time.

For advanced trainees, as you’ve admitted, there is no debate.[/quote]

Thanks. And yes, that is my argument. True, there will be progress using either method, but I believe progress will be optimal if a basic set of compound exercises is used on the whole body 3 times per week instead of a volume-based program that splits things up. Maybe it’s 6 of one, half dozen of another, but I buy the DC rationale that “I’d rather have 140 growth cycles per year than 52” or words to that effect.

Most of the time, the guy doing 4 compounds per session hitting the whole body 3 times per week is going to put on muscle faster (and get stronger quicker) than the guy who starts out on a split.

For an intermediate and above, I absolutely agree with what you are saying. I even said ealier that full body → upper/lower → push/pull/legs would be a natural progression.

I just don’t see push/pull or upper/lower as being what we would typically call a “bodypart split”. The focus of my argument has been on “traditional” bodybuilding style bodypart splits where you split things up 3 or more ways (a chest day, an arm day, etc.). Just because the word “split” is used doesn’t mean that it has any more in common with the way bodybuilders typically train than what I am recommending.

At that point, it’s semantics over the use of the word “split”, but I don’t think you will find me saying anywhere that DC, upper/lower, push/pull are not awesome…I think splitting it up further than that is not optimum unless you are trying to bring up lagging parts, are strategically using heavy volume for a few weeks, etc.

Thanks for your post.

694

[quote]greekdawg wrote:
trextacy wrote:

…and be a Level 4 on T-Nation if I didn’t bust my ass in the kitchen and gym and have something to show for it.

hahahahahaha…so tell me the T-Nation squad personally stops by your gym and watches your workouts and makes sure you are eating right?

This just proves how clueless you really are. Your “level” at T-Nation is determined by how many supplements you have bought over time and nothing else.

For you to some how equate that with experience, knowledge or, wisdom just further proves yout really don’t have a clue…about much of anything.[/quote]

Yeah, I know that chief. I’m saying that it’s one (small) factor to indicate a person’s dedication to their training. I think most people got that. Obviously, it doesn’t really mean shit in and of itself, but I suspect most people who make an investment in their supplementation train seriously. It was simply one point.

695

[quote]derek wrote:
trextacy wrote:
It’s called a joke.

BTW, aren’t you a big HIT guy?

Also, where are your pics? I would hope that you have something other than the grainy side view of you lifting the front end of a car 15 years ago that’s in your profile.

A big HIT guy? Yeah, I am and that’s a huge point I’ve made several times. I, like you, am a big fan of TBT. The difference is that I know TBT is severely limited, I simply enjoy TBT more than splits.

I’m just not delusional about HIT’s (or TBT’s) efficacy.

15 years ago? Where did you pull THAT number from? It was about three years ago and I am again (after cutting) 6’-2" and 250lbs. And that’s me throwing the Light Hammer as well but I’m not the one desperately clinging to my beliefs yet too deeply invested to post a picture and kill my arguement. [/quote]

Because it said 1993 in the file name. I’m not clinging to anything other than what I’ve posted numerous times…unfortunately you prefer to jump to conclusions and put words in my mouth rather than read my posts.

There is nothing “limited” about doing 4 big movements, adding weight to the bar, eating a ton and busting your ass. You will add tons of strength and muscle, have plenty of recovery time, grow like a weed and not neglect any major muscle groups. Once strength and size have been acheived, split things up. Adjust set/rep schemes depending on goal and to give the muscles a different stimulus. Use assistance/isolation exercises as needed.

People want this shit to be so complicated…

696

[quote]trextacy wrote:

Most of the time, the guy doing 4 compounds per session hitting the whole body 3 times per week is going to put on muscle faster (and get stronger quicker) than the guy who starts out on a split.

[/quote]

BULLSHIT.

697

[quote]How can they ignore the bigger lifters on this site even?

This sounds like the cry of hardgainers the world over. They don’t really expect to get very big so they latch onto any jackass that tells them the only way others see more progress is from drug use.[/quote]

I dunno, but the author was pretty damn big - bigger than the TBT authors I’ve seen. I’m beginning to notice a trend…

698

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
How can they ignore the bigger lifters on this site even?

This sounds like the cry of hardgainers the world over. They don’t really expect to get very big so they latch onto any jackass that tells them the only way others see more progress is from drug use.

I dunno, but the author was pretty damn big - bigger than the TBT authors I’ve seen. I’m beginning to notice a trend…[/quote]

See, the thing is, we’ve been saying that for YEARS on this site. What took so long for the rest of you to wake up?

If they can convince newbies to avoid EVER looking to bodybuilders for advice or experience by telling you that they ONLY look like that because of drug use and not because of how hard they work or how heavy they lift, you will think minimal progress is actually the goal.

I know one thing, I wouldn’t be following the advice of someone who seems to hate bodybuilding if my goal was to gain muscle.

It’s been eight years. These guys should be fucking huge by now. Where are all of them hiding?

699

[quote]trextacy wrote:
There is nothing “limited” about doing 4 big movements, adding weight to the bar, eating a ton and busting your ass. [/quote]

I’m very interested in the fact that in the same breath (or sentence) you type that TBT isn’t “limited” yet go on to tell us that it makes sense to switch to splits.

If TBT wasn’t limited in it’s ability to put on muscle mass, how is it that every serious bodybuilder that uses it stagnantes and plateaus and needs to split up thier training?

And don’t tell me the same thing you’ve been saying forever here–that everyone should start with TBT as newbies–because I’d have to ask for proof of the voracity of that statement and you’d have no good answer.

700

[quote]trextacy wrote:

There is nothing “limited” about doing 4 big movements, adding weight to the bar, eating a ton and busting your ass. You will add tons of strength and muscle, have plenty of recovery time, grow like a weed and not neglect any major muscle groups. Once strength and size have been acheived, split things up. Adjust set/rep schemes depending on goal and to give the muscles a different stimulus. Use assistance/isolation exercises as needed.

People want this shit to be so complicated…[/quote]

Dude, this sounds like you are quoting from some book or infomercial. It sounds good to people who don’t know better. But on this site, people know better!

The real problem you are having is your Jedi-like devotion to TBT, which is why most know you have little experience in training.

Most of us who have been training for a long time know there is no one program or methodology that is best for everyone all the time. So those with experience use what works until it stops working and then do something different. The fact that you feel TBT is the only way to go shows your inexperience.