It’s a perfect crime.
Anyways, since switching to a bodypart split, I’ve found that my squat is going up again after having plateaued. We’ll see how the development goes. Fortunately, I didn’t spend too long in the TBT phase. I’m going to check out Skip LaCour’s stuff and read up on what the other natural guys are doing (even though it’s pretty much the same thing the non-natural guys are doing).
trextacy, I was just wondering…if I told you I was 160lb at 6’ had been training for 2 years, and started at 155’, would you listen to my advice on bodybuilding (even if I had read thousands of articles, scientific papers, and had a good foundation in physiology)?
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
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…
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![/quote]
Thanks.
[quote]
The real problem you are having is your Jedi-like devotion to TBT, which is why most know you have little experience in training. [/quote]
You are incorrect.
[quote]
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. [/quote]
You obviously haven’t read the thread or my posts, but thanks for trying. I don’t have the eneryg to repeat myself again.
[quote]Cloth wrote:
trextacy, I was just wondering…if I told you I was 160lb at 6’ had been training for 2 years, and started at 155’, would you listen to my advice on bodybuilding (even if I had read thousands of articles, scientific papers, and had a good foundation in physiology)?
[/quote]
Nope. Not sure what you are getting at. Since the age of 18 I have gained about 55 lbs. and consistently maintained my bodyfat in the 10-16% range. Between grad school and starting my life as a professional about 4 years ago, I have had some inconstistency (priorities) but have been training for quite a while and done quite well, with much more to come. So, your analogy is completely without a point.
This is getting exhausting.
[quote]derek wrote:
trextacy wrote:
There is nothing “limited” about doing 4 big movements, adding weight to the bar, eating a ton and busting your ass.
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.[/quote]
When advanced. You need to read. Seriously, you can’t seem to follow a simple line of discussion-- it has been laid out time after time.
[quote]
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?[/quote]
I have discussed this several times. PLEASE STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH AND HAVING ARGUMENTS THAT AREN’T THERE.
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.
I have provided it time after time. I didn’t limit it to rank beginners and just those starting out. Please re-read. If you don’t accept the basic premise that starting out lifting full body is the best way for most beginners to add strength and muscle, then I’m not sure what else to tell you.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
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…
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.
[/quote]
That last sentence shows that you haven’t even read the fucking thread. This is getting ridiculous.
[quote]trextacy wrote:
If you don’t accept the basic premise that starting out lifting full body is the best way for most beginners to add strength and muscle, then I’m not sure what else to tell you.
[/quote]
How about nothing? I don’t accept your premise because I have known far too many people who used “split training” to get bigger than most on this site. No one was even discussing TBT much even ten years ago. Now, every skinny newb who calls himself a hard gainer is screaming about how it is better somehow.
What I don’t get is how people who aren’t really trying to get that big…are somehow in the know about “optimal results”.
You yourself somehow think anyone with any real progress in split training needs drugs for that to happen. Isn’t that a contradiction? If you don’t even think you can be one of the guys who can build more muscle than most, why would you be this concerned about what’s “optimal”?
Why does that make sense to you?
I look for what’s optimal because of my goals…to be more developed than most of the population (including those who train regularly). You don’t even seem to have that goal but are trying to tell other what they should be doing.
That’s retarded.
You claim you’ve gained 55lbs since you started. I applaud any progress like that…however, are you in the dark about that NOT being “optimal results” for many of us? I gained more than that in two to three years when I first started using my “inferior” split routine starting at the age of 18.
Also, before you get into, “but I had other priorities”, so did many of us. I did that while going to school as a biology major. Bodybuilding is not my career.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
I’m confused as to why so many TBT articles are posted on T-Nation, aside from those of CT? …
[/quote]
Because TBT may be the best bet for most people that want to add a little muscle, burn a little fat and not spend as much time in the gym. It is hard to believe but there are actually people that are not concerned with adding maximum muscle.
Take Cosgrove for example, TBT seems to be his bread and butter program for most of his clients but if someones main goal is adding muscle he puts them on a body part split.
If their main goal is fat loss, improved mobility/flexibility, increased cardio capacity etc, he uses TBT as the cornerstone of his weight training.
When he writes articles here he writes to what he perceives as the larger audience.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
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.
BULLSHIT.[/quote]
The guy doing 4 compounds 3 times a week is moving less weight than the guy splitting it up and doing it 5 times a week. Less volume too. How can people claim moving less weight less often is actually more? I just don’t understand!
Lets all just face it, Proffessor X wins the internets, and, Trex, all your base are belong to him.
I too know more more people who have gained off splits and not TBT, but I also admit that the TBT people dont eat enough either. Maybe it’s just something we got to accept, that people who do splits generally are more knowledgeable in everything that doesnt include the “optimal training style”. People who do splits read more broadly, or more often than not, have the DRIVE to do more than 3 days a week, and so have more DRIVE to follow out what they are meant to do for diet. Either way, goes to show that people who THINK that splits are better do better.
Personally I do TBT, but that is beside the point. I have chosen not to be a body builder because I want to be an Olympic Lifter. This does not make me bias, it just gives me a goal, which is also beside the point. Infact, just ignore this last paragraph and we will all be happy.
Hey, dont listen to me, I’m small. I cant give advice to someone with different goals to me.
i have to admit that i now see more merit to splits that absolute TBT. the reason (and ONLY reason) why i was harping on TBT was b/c of the frequency of training each muscle group.
however, i think that both CAN co-exist and you can get the benefits of BOTH at the SAME TIME.
though i KNOW many of you hate (ok thats too harsh)…disagree with CW and his methods, i find that his article entitled “Total Body Split Training” was his best article and he showed how you can benefit from both, which is what im currently doing.
if i wake up a bit earlier, i can workout say…my chest and back (since the thought of doing ANY lower body work in the morning seems too arduous). then in the evening, i can do some leg work.
since im not working the whole body in one session,but rather splitting it up into two daily sessions, i can focus more attention to each body part, while still hitting them often.
here’s how it looks (and its the actual split from the article).
week one:
mon
AM: chest/back
PM:legs, abs, calves
wed
AM:shoulders, arms
PM:legs, abs, calves
fri
AM:chest/back
PM:legs, abs, calves
week two:
everything is the same, except there are two delt/arm sessions and only one chest/back.
its funny cuz by actually doing MORE sessions (six a week), i SAVE MORE TIME!
[quote]trextacy wrote:
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.
When advanced. You need to read. Seriously, you can’t seem to follow a simple line of discussion-- it has been laid out time after time.
[/quote]
My reading comprehension is just fine brother. I’ll include the rest of us in that statement as well. We can all read just fine.
The thing is, the stuff you write (and we then read and comprehend) is utter BS.
There is NO PROOF, none, that ANYONE that does TBT will progress any faster than if he had done splits from the beginning.
That is pretty much exactly what I said in my last post. The very point of which you try to deflect with comments about my reading comprehension abilities.
That crap doesn’t fly very far here. We’re not the meatheads you most likely percieve us to be. Which must really suck for guys like you. The type of guy that tries to tell guys with 15-20 years experience how to best achieve our goals when you haven’t even approached your own.
[quote]derek wrote:
trextacy wrote:
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.
When advanced. You need to read. Seriously, you can’t seem to follow a simple line of discussion-- it has been laid out time after time.
My reading comprehension is just fine brother. I’ll include the rest of us in that statement as well. We can all read just fine.
The thing is, the stuff you write (and we then read and comprehend) is utter BS.
There is NO PROOF, none, that ANYONE that does TBT will progress any faster than if he had done splits from the beginning.
That is pretty much exactly what I said in my last post. The very point of which you try to deflect with comments about my reading comprehension abilities.
That crap doesn’t fly very far here. We’re not the meatheads you most likely percieve us to be. Which must really suck for guys like you. The type of guy that tries to tell guys with 15-20 years experience how to best achieve our goals when you haven’t even approached your own.[/quote]
It isn’t crap and what I was suggesting does work for people. I’ve provided examples in this thread. If your reading comp isn’t to blame, then I can only assume that you are intentionally twisting things to make your semi-hardcore points and flame me.
You aren’t some gatekeeper of what gets to “fly” here. If you think that telling someone to focus on 4 big lifts 3 times a week and adding weight isn’t going to produce significant amounts of muscle, then you don’t know shit. If you are saying there is “no proof” that that will work, well then you are too married to your position to acknowledge the obvious.
Frequency works- DC has shown that as have many of the pre-drug use bodybuilders. Using the big lifts works- should go w/o saying.
I am not telling YOU how to achieve your goals because I don’t know what they are. What I can say is that if you’ve been at this for 15-20 years you must have already met all your goals; for that, I congratulate you.
[quote]trextacy wrote:
It isn’t crap and what I was suggesting does work for people. I’ve provided examples in this thread. If your reading comp isn’t to blame, then I can only assume that you are intentionally twisting things to make your semi-hardcore points and flame me.[/quote]
Of course it works. Lot’s of stuff “works”. Aren’t we discussing what works best? If not, then feel free to continue to do something that you could just as well abandon now and never look back if that’s what you want to do.
[quote]
You aren’t some gatekeeper of what gets to “fly” here. If you think that telling someone to focus on 4 big lifts 3 times a week and adding weight isn’t going to produce significant amounts of muscle, then you don’t know shit. If you are saying there is “no proof” that that will work, well then you are too married to your position to acknowledge the obvious.[/quote]
Significant and “holy shit” huge are NOT the same thing. Agian, if significant muscle mass is good enough for you, well great. It’s really not the goal of most of the other posters here.
[quote]
Frequency works- DC has shown that as have many of the pre-drug use bodybuilders. Using the big lifts works- should go w/o saying.
I am not telling YOU how to achieve your goals because I don’t know what they are. What I can say is that if you’ve been at this for 15-20 years you must have already met all your goals; for that, I congratulate you.[/quote]
Yeah, DC works. But in case you haven’t noticed it’s a bodypart split. And you know WHY it’s a split? Because there’s no way anyone could train with medium-rep rest-pause and train the entire body with any real intensity.
But go ahead and tell me that Biceps/Forearms/Calves/Quads and then Chest/Delts/Triceps/Back Thickness & Width is really TBT because you use your entire body when you squat and deadlift.
BTW, you are correct, I am not the Gaterkeeper. I’m the Key Master
[quote]derek wrote:
trextacy wrote:
It isn’t crap and what I was suggesting does work for people. I’ve provided examples in this thread. If your reading comp isn’t to blame, then I can only assume that you are intentionally twisting things to make your semi-hardcore points and flame me.
Of course it works. Lot’s of stuff “works”. Aren’t we discussing what works best? If not, then feel free to continue to do something that you could just as well abandon now and never look back if that’s what you want to do.
You aren’t some gatekeeper of what gets to “fly” here. If you think that telling someone to focus on 4 big lifts 3 times a week and adding weight isn’t going to produce significant amounts of muscle, then you don’t know shit. If you are saying there is “no proof” that that will work, well then you are too married to your position to acknowledge the obvious.
Significant and “holy shit” huge are NOT the same thing. Agian, if significant muscle mass is good enough for you, well great. It’s really not the goal of most of the other posters here.
Frequency works- DC has shown that as have many of the pre-drug use bodybuilders. Using the big lifts works- should go w/o saying.
I am not telling YOU how to achieve your goals because I don’t know what they are. What I can say is that if you’ve been at this for 15-20 years you must have already met all your goals; for that, I congratulate you.
Yeah, DC works. But in case you haven’t noticed it’s a bodypart split. And you know WHY it’s a split? Because there’s no way anyone could train with medium-rep rest-pause and train the entire body with any real intensity.
But go ahead and tell me that Biceps/Forearms/Calves/Quads and then Chest/Delts/Triceps/Back Thickness & Width is really TBT because you use your entire body when you squat and deadlift.
I would never say that because what you wrote would completely be in line with I’ve been saying. Seriously. If done AB off AB, off off it would be fantastic. That setup has more in common with a so-called full body approach than a traditional bodybuilding split. I have explained this many, many times on this thread. Just because the word “split” can be used doesn’t mean that all splits are the same type of program. I have repeated this over and over. I know it makes it easier for you to flame if I were a solely tbt person, but I’m not. Point of fact, I am not a huge fan of the actual Waterbury “TBT” program.
[/quote]
[quote]trextacy wrote:
I would never say that because what you wrote would completely be in line with I’ve been saying. Seriously. If done AB off AB, off off it would be fantastic. That setup has more in common with a so-called full body approach than a traditional bodybuilding split. I have explained this many, many times on this thread. Just because the word “split” can be used doesn’t mean that all splits are the same type of program. I have repeated this over and over. I know it makes it easier for you to flame if I were a solely tbt person, but I’m not. Point of fact, I am not a huge fan of the actual Waterbury “TBT” program.
[/quote]
So there really isn’t any difference in TBT or splits. I guess if you call something a split, it’s a split but if I were to call it TBT, I’d also be correct.
Cool.
Please tell me at what point a TBT becomes a split. Where’s the line?
To me, when you deadlift, dip, press and row, that’s TBT.
And when you Row, Chin, Pullover, curl and reverse curl, that’s a split. Overlap? Absolutely. But can that ever be avoided?
[quote]derek wrote:
There is NO PROOF, none, that ANYONE that does TBT will progress any faster than if he had done splits from the beginning.
[/quote]
There’s NO PROOF, none, that ANYONE that does a split will progress any faster than if he had done TBT either.
[quote]derek wrote:
trextacy wrote:
I would never say that because what you wrote would completely be in line with I’ve been saying. Seriously. If done AB off AB, off off it would be fantastic. That setup has more in common with a so-called full body approach than a traditional bodybuilding split. I have explained this many, many times on this thread. Just because the word “split” can be used doesn’t mean that all splits are the same type of program. I have repeated this over and over. I know it makes it easier for you to flame if I were a solely tbt person, but I’m not. Point of fact, I am not a huge fan of the actual Waterbury “TBT” program.
So there really isn’t any difference in TBT or splits. I guess if you call something a split, it’s a split but if I were to call it TBT, I’d also be correct.
Cool.
Please tell me at what point a TBT becomes a split. Where’s the line?
To me, when you deadlift, dip, press and row, that’s TBT.
And when you Row, Chin, Pullover, curl and reverse curl, that’s a split. Overlap? Absolutely. But can that ever be avoided?[/quote]
As I’ve said literally 4+ times on this thread- the “bodybuilding style split” is the 4-6 way split (maybe even 3-ways but usually 4-6). IMHO, splitting it up the way “bodybuilders” do (i.e. 4-6 ways) is not at all optimal unless you are strong and advanced.
For the record, I’ve done those before and had some nice gains before (in particular, Franco Columbu’s 12-day split with training more than once in a day). But, this isn’t good for beginners and I find that heavy volume gives an initial jolt but it isn’t optimal after about 4 weeks. Just my experience.
Again, it is a tool that can be used effectively from time to time, but as a go-to thing it isn’t optimal for most people most of the time (other than the pros).
So this thread can die, can we boil down the argument to this:
“Split”, as defined (or backtrackingly defined) by Trextacy, means only a 1 body part a day, training each body part once a week.
Anything else, such as DC, or upper/lower, or push/pull/legs, etc. is not a “split” as defined by Trex (don’t ask me why, this is what i’ve gathered from the last 10 or so pages).
Accordingly, the 1 body part a day, once a week, may not be the ideal starting point for every beginner. This actually seems like a reasonable proposition that not every person right out the gates should do this type of “split” (however, many other non-Trex defined splits are in fact, great for beginners as opposed to TBT).
So, if this is correct, we can probably agree that the 1 body part a day, 1 body part per week may not be the ideal training frequency for a beginner.
However, if this is correct, please for the love of god Trextacy learn your goddamn terminology before starting a completely useless thread war in the future.
29 pages.
29 fucking pages.
Are there really a bunch of people out there who think you need to be “advanced” for a split routine to work?
I feel funny even using that term because when I started training, that was just how you trained. It didn’t have a name and no one gave a shit about whether it was called ‘split training’ or ‘full body training’. You did what worked…which was pretty much everything.