Best Split?

[Itchy]

[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Itchy wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Squelchy wrote:
waylanderxx wrote:

And…your second paragraph makes no sense man. If I do 16 sets and it is all my back and you do 16 total sets for your back/biceps/whatever it is NOT the same amount of work. All of my fatigue and micro trauma is accumulated in one muscle group, yours is in three.

Sorry, I should’ve clarified, I meant over the course of a week or however long it takes you to train your whole body in its entirety.

For the sake of simplicity and ease, let’s say your leg workout is 24 sets of squats, your back/bicep workout is 24 sets of chins, and your chest/shoulder/tricep workout is 24 sets of bench (I know it’s a poor example but it saves me time having to think of different groupings).

You could do all 24 sets of the same exercise together on one day (i.e. Monday = back/bicep - 24 sets of chins) or you could do 8 sets squats, 8 sets chins, 8 sets bench, three times per week. Same rep ranges, same exercises, same total volume, simply arranged differently.

Hopefully that clarifies.

You people always manage to focus on all the details that would normally fall into place perfectly if only you’d focus on what’s actually important.

What do you mean, “YOU people” ??

LOL

Most of the T-Nation population, really.
(not waylander of course, I forgot to delete his part in the quote)

Those I wasn’t talking about probably know anyway.

[/quote]

That was a racial joke, kind of.

[Squelchy]

[quote]ajweins wrote:

I can safely assume I speak for 99.9% of the competing bodybuilders in the world (even the I am not one of them) and say they train using body part splits. That goes for natties and assisted.
[/quote]

I can safely assume that only a small percentage of the population that lifts weights is not at the competing bodybuilder stage of training and therefore would not necessarily respond to the same style of training.

Seriously, are you guys honestly saying that you genuinely believe that EVERYBODY responds to exactly the same training principles? It’s funny that you’ll acknowledge that some respond better or worse to higher or lower rep ranges, higher or lower levels of volume, but when it comes to training frequency you’re stuck in this “you must only train a muscle once a week with a body part split!” dogma and just cannot seem to see past it.

Open your eyes.

I have seen quite a few people respond better to total body training than splits. Go over to any site pertinent to lifting where trainees are less advanced and you will see copious examples of the same.

And incidentally, on the subject of what competing bodybuilders do, ever read anything by Dorian, Arnie or Ronnie on what they built the foundation of their mass with before moving on to more advanced splits? Yep, you guessed it, total body training or two way splits.

I just find it hilarious when you actually have people telling you FROM PERSONAL EXPERIENCE they grew better as beginners or intermediates with one style of training, that because you didn’t/don’t respond the same way, THEY MUST BE WRONG OR IMAGINING IT OR ON ACID OR HIGH ON BAKED BEAN FUMES.

Is it really so hard to accept that different people won’t respond in the same way to the same things?

Seriously.

[Cephalic_Carnage]

[quote]Squelchy wrote:
waylanderxx wrote:
Squelchy wrote:

No matter what people say, lots of people WILL grow better with total body training than splits

cough Bullshit! cough

LMAO, so you are saying that everybody is physically identical and never respond differently to different stimulation?

Seriously dude, you are mad if you think you can speak for everybody in the world. I will agree with you that for more or less all advanced trainees splits are the way to go, but if you seriously think all beginners and intermediates will always, always grow better on a split, then I am absolutely speechless. I’ve never seen such a ridiculous blanket statement before.[/quote]

Oh, now we’re back to arguing totally hypothetical nonsense and “always this” “always all the time that” and “Splits vs. TBT”…

Do you really think that whether someone trains on a split or via tbt is somehow the, or even of the the key(s) to muscle growth?

The body doesn’t think “oh, I’m being training with a split, I better flip the magical “Split”-switch on, slow my strength gain down and start only growing useless muscle” or “oh, now it’s total body… And the magical 3 days a week! Hurray, strength and size for everyone, gotta flip the switch to “tbt results” again!”.

[Itchy]

[quote]Squelchy wrote:
ajweins wrote:

I can safely assume I speak for 99.9% of the competing bodybuilders in the world (even the I am not one of them) and say they train using body part splits. That goes for natties and assisted.

I can safely assume that only a small percentage of the population that lifts weights is not at the competing bodybuilder stage of training and therefore would not necessarily respond to the same style of training.

Seriously, are you guys honestly saying that you genuinely believe that EVERYBODY responds to exactly the same training principles? It’s funny that you’ll acknowledge that some respond better or worse to higher or lower rep ranges, higher or lower levels of volume, but when it comes to training frequency you’re stuck in this “you must only train a muscle once a week with a body part split!” dogma and just cannot seem to see past it.

Open your eyes.

I have seen quite a few people respond better to total body training than splits. Go over to any site pertinent to lifting where trainees are less advanced and you will see copious examples of the same.

And incidentally, on the subject of what competing bodybuilders do, ever read anything by Dorian, Arnie or Ronnie on what they built the foundation of their mass with before moving on to more advanced splits? Yep, you guessed it, total body training or two way splits.

I just find it hilarious when you actually have people telling you FROM PERSONAL EXPERIENCE they grew better as beginners or intermediates with one style of training, that because you didn’t/don’t respond the same way, THEY MUST BE WRONG OR IMAGINING IT OR ON ACID OR HIGH ON BAKED BEAN FUMES.

Is it really so hard to accept that different people won’t respond in the same way to the same things?

Seriously.[/quote]

LOL @ “high on baked bean fumes”.

I’m still laughing. Oh, good times.

[Squelchy]

[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:

Oh, now we’re back to arguing totally hypothetical nonsense and “always this” “always all the time that” and “Splits vs. TBT”…

Do you really think that whether someone trains on a split or via tbt is somehow the, or even of the the key(s) to muscle growth?

The body doesn’t think “oh, I’m being training with a split, I better flip the magical “Split”-switch on, slow my strength gain down and start only growing useless muscle” or “oh, now it’s total body… And the magical 3 days a week! Hurray, strength and size for everyone, gotta flip the switch to “tbt results” again!”.

[/quote]

I think it makes a difference, but I’ve already now posted twice what I think are the most important things, and you have ignored it both times. All I can do is copy and paste these paragraphs again and hope that, having now posted them three times in this thread, you read and respond to them:

"Did you miss these two paragraphs I posted?

"I’m sure everyone is in agreement that the most important things are to eat enough, rest enough and lift progressively heavier weights, but within those parameters are a variety of variables that do make a difference.

Let me repeat again before anybody jumps on me for this, the most important things are obviously increasing the weight and resting/eating enough, but if you’re doing that then why wouldn’t you want to get the best possible results by finding out which sort of routine you would grow best from?"

Or are you referring to something else that is “actually important”?"

So once again, perhaps you could clarify for me what you meant by what is “actually important”?

[Catahoula]

how about a push pull split, with quad dominant on the push and hip dom on the pull. Do a few sets of each movement with high intensity.

[waylanderxx]

[quote]Squelchy wrote:
waylanderxx wrote:
Squelchy wrote:

No matter what people say, lots of people WILL grow better with total body training than splits

cough Bullshit! cough

LMAO, so you are saying that everybody is physically identical and never respond differently to different stimulation?

Seriously dude, you are mad if you think you can speak for everybody in the world. I will agree with you that for more or less all advanced trainees splits are the way to go, but if you seriously think all beginners and intermediates will always, always grow better on a split, then I am absolutely speechless. I’ve never seen such a ridiculous blanket statement before.[/quote]

You said “lots of people WILL grow better with total body training than splits”.

Total hypocrisy for you to say that and then get on my case for making “such a ridiculous blanket statement” b/c it is the exact opposite of your view.

[mr_popular]

[quote]Squelchy wrote:

I can safely assume that only a small percentage of the population that lifts weights is not at the competing bodybuilder stage of training and therefore would not necessarily respond to the same style of training.[/quote]

cop-out.

[quote] Seriously, are you guys honestly saying that you genuinely believe that EVERYBODY responds to exactly the same training principles? It’s funny that you’ll acknowledge that some respond better or worse to higher or lower rep ranges, higher or lower levels of volume, but when it comes to training frequency you’re stuck in this “you must only train a muscle once a week with a body part split!” dogma and just cannot seem to see past it.

Open your eyes.[/quote]

First of all, a bodypart split doesn’t mean you only have to train a muscle once a week.

Secondly, what you’ve suggested is like saying “A LOT of people respond best to Mentzer’s HIT style of training”.

I guess if you want to turn the exception into the rule, and if you think phantom anonymous confessions of incredible progress count, then sure. yeah. HIT and TBT are great for a really significant amount of people.

I have seen quite a few people respond better to total body training than splits. Go over to any site pertinent to lifting where trainees are less advanced and you will see copious examples of the same.

These people are “less advanced” for a reason.

And incidentally, on the subject of what competing bodybuilders do, ever read anything by Dorian, Arnie or Ronnie on what they built the foundation of their mass with before moving on to more advanced splits?

Yes.

Yep, you guessed it, total body training or two way splits.

Two-way splits are bodypart splits, sorry to burst your bubble but you TBT guys always try to steal that one. No dice.

Also, Arnold’s original “tbt” involved pullups from a tree branch, and calisthenics, and was done for a very short period of time before he decided he wanted to make BETTER progress and started splitting his training.

[Cephalic_Carnage]

[quote]Squelchy wrote:
ajweins wrote:

I can safely assume I speak for 99.9% of the competing bodybuilders in the world (even the I am not one of them) and say they train using body part splits. That goes for natties and assisted.

I can safely assume that only a small percentage of the population that lifts weights is not at the competing bodybuilder stage of training and therefore would not necessarily respond to the same style of training.

Seriously, are you guys honestly saying that you genuinely believe that EVERYBODY responds to exactly the same training principles? It’s funny that you’ll acknowledge that some respond better or worse to higher or lower rep ranges, higher or lower levels of volume, but when it comes to training frequency you’re stuck in this “you must only train a muscle once a week with a body part split!” dogma and just cannot seem to see past it.

Open your eyes.

I have seen quite a few people respond better to total body training than splits. Go over to any site pertinent to lifting where trainees are less advanced and you will see copious examples of the same.

And incidentally, on the subject of what competing bodybuilders do, ever read anything by Dorian, Arnie or Ronnie on what they built the foundation of their mass with before moving on to more advanced splits? Yep, you guessed it, total body training or two way splits.
[/quote] Huh? Dorian used full body for a single month… And then a 2-way, and his physique sucked and kept on sucking until he dropped his sets and split things up in a way that actually allowed continued strength gain at a good speed. He made significantly better progress later on, not as a beginner.
And Arnold’s idea of a split is ridiculous. I don’t see many trainees succeed on such an approach, but that does not mean that all splits are like that?
Most of the guys training with splits on here and not responding well to high volume… Still use ridiculous volume because somehow they think that all splits must be like that or that all the pro’s do straight sets
(HA!).[quote]
I just find it hilarious when you actually have people telling you FROM PERSONAL EXPERIENCE they grew better as beginners or intermediates with one style of training, that because you didn’t/don’t respond the same way, THEY MUST BE WRONG OR IMAGINING IT OR ON ACID OR HIGH ON BAKED BEAN FUMES.
[/quote]
Is it really so hard to accept that different people won’t respond in the same way to the same things?

Seriously.[/quote]
I have yet to see someone actually respond badly to regular bb training (as most pro’s do it nowadays, i.e. McGrath) as long as they’re under guidance and don’t mess it up by doing a ton of straight sets etc.

There are differences in how people respond to many things, sure… But you know what? I start pretty much everyone that comes to me for advice off with a 4-way or 3-way… And as it happens, they all seem to do pretty damn well on those. Weird. Must be a fluke, I’m sure I’m just missing all these people whose bodies turn the growth switch off whenever they smell a split.

I stand by my opinion that hardly anyone on here has a goddamn clue how to create a good split. You see the evidence all the time “gained little strength on splits, but a lot on tbt”.

Besides, we’ve been through all the overuse-injury, lagging muscle-groups etc bs before, not going to go into it yet again.

If you keep focusing on progression, then all the other parts should fall into place. Food intake, routine, etc… Beginners do better on full-body stuff? Oh really? Make them a good split and tell them what to focus on and they gain just as well.

5*5 programs are popular choice for beginners mostly because they usually come with a full explanation of basic big-3 technique and many other factors. The strength gains are hardly better than what you can gain with a well-designed split…

Split vs. full body has more to do with convenience and how fresh you want to be for what body parts when you train them/energy levels etc, recovery and what have you.

[Cephalic_Carnage]

[quote]mr popular wrote:
These people are “less advanced” for a reason.
[/quote] Ha!

Do people really believe that their gains will stop coming if they use a split rather than tbt? As if by magic?

Squelchy, you apparently know what matters… So why bring up this nonsense?

Or did you simply just repeat statements you’ve read all the time from us on here to make it seem like you truly understand them when you were talking about what matters?

[Squelchy]

[quote]waylanderxx wrote:

You said “lots of people WILL grow better with total body training than splits”.

Total hypocrisy for you to say that and then get on my case for making “such a ridiculous blanket statement” b/c it is the exact opposite of your view.[/quote]

What?! The two are not even remotely the same thing! My position is that different people will respond differently to different things… i.e. I have an open mind. You are disagreeing and saying that your way is right, people will all respond the same way to the same thing… a closed mind. Do you not see the difference there? I am open to different approaches, you are not.

[quote]mr popular wrote:

cop-out.[/quote]

If you say so.

[quote]mr popular wrote:

First of all, a bodypart split doesn’t mean you only have to train a muscle once a week.

Secondly, what you’ve suggested is like saying “A LOT of people respond best to Mentzer’s HIT style of training”.

I guess if you want to turn the exception into the rule, and if you think phantom anonymous confessions of incredible progress count, then sure. yeah. HIT and TBT are great for a really significant amount of people.[/quote]

No, but I think the ‘spirit’ of a body part split is less frequent training of muscles, no? Onbiously there are middle grounds to be found, I was going for the typical ‘once every 7 days’ approach. I apologise if you were thinking along different lines.

Secondly, phantom anonymous confessions? What? I am talking about people I know, and I have directed you to a website populated by people who have been lifting a lot less time than most of the posters here who will tell you something similar. These people are no more phantom than posters here are.

[quote]mr popular wrote:

These people are “less advanced” for a reason.[/quote]

Yes, because they have been training a shorter period of time. Well spotted.

[quote]mr popular wrote:

Two-way splits are bodypart splits, sorry to burst your bubble but you TBT guys always try to steal that one. No dice.[/quote]

If you insist. It’s one of those middle ground areas… sure, an upper/lower split (for example) may technically be a body part split, but in reality it’s just as close to TBT as it is to a body part split. Much more so if you train more than 4 days per week because of the increased frequency and necessarily decreased volume per body part per session.

[quote]mr popular wrote:

Also, Arnold’s original “tbt” involved pullups from a tree branch, and calisthenics, and was done for a very short period of time before he decided he wanted to make BETTER progress and started splitting his training.[/quote]

OK, fine, look at any pre-steroid era bodybuilder in that case.

[Squelchy]

[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:

Huh? Dorian used full body for a single month… And then a 2-way, and his physique sucked and kept on sucking until he dropped his sets and split things up in a way that actually allowed continued strength gain at a good speed. He made significantly better progress later on, not as a beginner.

And Arnold’s idea of a split is ridiculous. I don’t see many trainees succeed on such an approach, but that does not mean that all splits are like that?

Most of the guys training with splits on here and not responding well to high volume… Still use ridiculous volume because somehow they think that all splits must be like that or that all the pro’s do straight sets
(HA!).

I have yet to see someone actually respond badly to regular bb training (as most pro’s do it nowadays, i.e. McGrath) as long as they’re under guidance and don’t mess it up by doing a ton of straight sets etc.

There are differences in how people respond to many things, sure… But you know what? I start pretty much everyone that comes to me for advice off with a 4-way or 3-way… And as it happens, they all seem to do pretty damn well on those. Weird. Must be a fluke, I’m sure I’m just missing all these people whose bodies turn the growth switch off whenever they smell a split.

I stand by my opinion that hardly anyone on here has a goddamn clue how to create a good split. You see the evidence all the time “gained little strength on splits, but a lot on tbt”.

Besides, we’ve been through all the overuse-injury, lagging muscle-groups etc bs before, not going to go into it yet again.

If you keep focusing on progression, then all the other parts should fall into place. Food intake, routine, etc… Beginners do better on full-body stuff? Oh really? Make them a good split and tell them what to focus on and they gain just as well.

5*5 programs are popular choice for beginners mostly because they usually come with a full explanation of basic big-3 technique and many other factors. The strength gains are hardly better than what you can gain with a well-designed split…

Split vs. full body has more to do with convenience and how fresh you want to be for what body parts when you train them/energy levels etc, recovery and what have you.

[/quote]

OK, I’m really not sure what you’re saying here. You’re getting on my case for what, exactly? And what are you saying? All routines are created equal? Splits are better? What? Are you saying all people will respond better to one type of training?

My point is simple and I will reiterate it because people don’t seem to be getting it: I am not saying A is better than B, I am saying try everything (within reason) because you know what? Different people DO respond differently to different stimulus, and if you want to know what you respond to then you will try different things and KNOW instead of just assuming.

And on a slight side note, I find it funny that you say that people who don’t respond to splits optimally aren’t doing a good one, yet this is never a defence (not that you have said this, but in general) whenever someone attacks TBT… “You’re just not doing a good TBT routine.”

Again, you haven’t said this but it seems to be quite a common attitude and it’s hypocritical.

[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Ha!

Do people really believe that their gains will stop coming if they use a split rather than tbt? As if by magic?

Squelchy, you apparently know what matters… So why bring up this nonsense?

Or did you simply just repeat statements you’ve read all the time from us on here to make it seem like you truly understand them when you were talking about what matters?

[/quote]

Hang on, when did I say that gains will stop coming if you use a split routine? It’s like you’re completely ignoring what I’ve actually said and made it into what you want me to have said. Read this, one of my first posts in this thread:

“…it’s a smart idea to at least experiment with the main types of routine you can do…”

I’m not saying don’t do splits, do TBT. I am saying try everything and find out what works for you. Keep an open mind and experiment. What is so hard to understand about that?

I would’ve thought it was common sense to make progress by simply lifting more. There’s not really a great to deal to understand there, is there? Bigger weights + food = bigger muscles. It’s hardly rocket science.

P.S: To anybody else who is replying to me it’s getting a bit much replying to all of you in detail, so sorry if I miss something.

[rotty88]

Seeing debates like this all the time just makes my head spin. IMO, if you want to get big, do at minimum a 4 day split, and adjust the volume for each bodypart based upon how you are growing and adapting to your workouts.

Keep it simple stupid–bodybuilding in theory is not quantum physics, hit everything hard and intelligently, eat, and you’ll get results.

Chest/tri, back/bi, shoulders, and legs has been my split for a while now, it’s simple, it works.

All of this overanalysis is just dumb

[Cephalic_Carnage]

[quote]Squelchy wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:

Huh? Dorian used full body for a single month… And then a 2-way, and his physique sucked and kept on sucking until he dropped his sets and split things up in a way that actually allowed continued strength gain at a good speed. He made significantly better progress later on, not as a beginner.

And Arnold’s idea of a split is ridiculous. I don’t see many trainees succeed on such an approach, but that does not mean that all splits are like that?

Most of the guys training with splits on here and not responding well to high volume… Still use ridiculous volume because somehow they think that all splits must be like that or that all the pro’s do straight sets
(HA!).

I have yet to see someone actually respond badly to regular bb training (as most pro’s do it nowadays, i.e. McGrath) as long as they’re under guidance and don’t mess it up by doing a ton of straight sets etc.

There are differences in how people respond to many things, sure… But you know what? I start pretty much everyone that comes to me for advice off with a 4-way or 3-way… And as it happens, they all seem to do pretty damn well on those. Weird. Must be a fluke, I’m sure I’m just missing all these people whose bodies turn the growth switch off whenever they smell a split.

I stand by my opinion that hardly anyone on here has a goddamn clue how to create a good split. You see the evidence all the time “gained little strength on splits, but a lot on tbt”.

Besides, we’ve been through all the overuse-injury, lagging muscle-groups etc bs before, not going to go into it yet again.

If you keep focusing on progression, then all the other parts should fall into place. Food intake, routine, etc… Beginners do better on full-body stuff? Oh really? Make them a good split and tell them what to focus on and they gain just as well.

5*5 programs are popular choice for beginners mostly because they usually come with a full explanation of basic big-3 technique and many other factors. The strength gains are hardly better than what you can gain with a well-designed split…

Split vs. full body has more to do with convenience and how fresh you want to be for what body parts when you train them/energy levels etc, recovery and what have you.

OK, I’m really not sure what you’re saying here. You’re getting on my case for what, exactly? And what are you saying? All routines are created equal? Splits are better? What? Are you saying all people will respond better to one type of training?

My point is simple and I will reiterate it because people don’t seem to be getting it: I am not saying A is better than B, I am saying try everything (within reason) because you know what? Different people DO respond differently to different stimulus, and if you want to know what you respond to then you will try different things and KNOW instead of just assuming. [/quote] You stated that the majority of people grow better on full-body training.[quote]

And on a slight side note, I find it funny that you say that people who don’t respond to splits optimally aren’t doing a good one, yet this is never a defence (not that you have said this, but in general) whenever someone attacks TBT… “You’re just not doing a good TBT routine.”

Again, you haven’t said this but it seems to be quite a common attitude and it’s hypocritical. [/quote] So… What do you consider a good tbt routine? (and don’t say "oh, everyone responds differently, so… I have yet to see someone under my guidance respond badly to that yates-inspired 3-way, whether trained over only 3 days a week or over 5… So I’m sure you can come up with a TBT routine that most people can do very well on? After all, you said that most grow better on tbt…)[quote]

Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Ha!

Do people really believe that their gains will stop coming if they use a split rather than tbt? As if by magic?

Squelchy, you apparently know what matters… So why bring up this nonsense?

Or did you simply just repeat statements you’ve read all the time from us on here to make it seem like you truly understand them when you were talking about what matters?

Hang on, when did I say that gains will stop coming if you use a split routine? [/quote] How about you explain to me why you think that most people grow better via TBT? “because they’re not advanced”? What?
[/quote]
I start practically all the people coming to me for help at the beginner stage off with a 4-way or 3-way… And they all do well on them from what I can tell. Strength gains sure seem to be rather good, as long as they eat a ton and do the exercises right…

Are these guys all just odd exceptions?

/edited, quote function…

[Professor_X]

[quote]rotty88 wrote:
Seeing debates like this all the time just makes my head spin. IMO, if you want to get big, do at minimum a 4 day split, and adjust the volume for each bodypart based upon how you are growing and adapting to your workouts.

Keep it simple stupid–bodybuilding in theory is not quantum physics, hit everything hard and intelligently, eat, and you’ll get results.

Chest/tri, back/bi, shoulders, and legs has been my split for a while now, it’s simple, it works.

All of this overanalysis is just dumb[/quote]

Agreed, and I can guarantee if we put pics side by side of all of the people claiming “TBT works best for size gains” right next to the guys who actually got big using splits, that alone would kill the discussion.

I could care less about theory. I wanted to get big so I did what the big guys did. I got big. When I see any of you TBT guys gain like that, then we can talk. Until then, the people trying stuff just to try it based on theory and not real world results are missing the basics and will continue making less progress.

[Squelchy]

[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:

You stated that the majority of people grow better on full-body training.

[/quote]

Where on earth did I say most people will grow better on TBT? Please, point out the post to me. You have used that adjective “most” a lot, and I know I definitely did not say that.

[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:

So… What do you consider a good tbt routine? (and don’t say "oh, everyone responds differently, so… I have yet to see someone under my guidance respond badly to that yates-inspired 3-way, whether trained over only 3 days a week or over 5… So I’m sure you can come up with a TBT routine that most people can do very well on? After all, you said that most grow better on tbt…)[/quote]

Once again, I did not say that, I said lots of people will grow better on it, not most. Most T-Nation posters? Of course not. But most people in gyms aren’t at that stage. We’ll take as a given that most people here will grow better from a split, but Joe Average who’s just started, or been training a couple of years or less? Yeah, I’ll stand by the idea he’ll grow better on TBT. Waterbury’s TBT is a good example, and again, I would suggest heading over to the Mens Health forums if you want examples of less advanced lifters who are well read on T-Nation and have tried a bit of both.

[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:

How about you explain to me why you think that most people grow better via TBT? “because they’re not advanced”? What?[/quote]

Oh God, I can tell I’m going to sound like a twat here, but OK. I don’t want to be one of those ‘studies have shown’ guys, but studies HAVE shown that increased frequency leads to improved gains. Now obviously this needs to be balanced against sufficient overload and recovery time to grow, but a 280lb bodybuilder who squats 800lbs is going to need more recovery time from his squatting than a 120lb guy who squats 100lbs. Surely we can agree on this at least, for the obvious reasons? Thus doing exercises like squats and deadlifts more often can only be a good thing because of the growth hormone benefits, etc. This is up until the point those exercises become more demanding and more recovery time is needed, as well as more overload for optimal growth. Which is when splitting comes in. Obviously the overwhelming majority of posters here are past that point, but I’d hardly say posters here are representative of the general gym-going populace.

[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:

I start practically all the people coming to me for help at the beginner stage off with a 4-way or 3-way… And they all do well on them from what I can tell. Strength gains sure seem to be rather good, as long as they eat a ton and do the exercises right…

Are these guys all just odd exceptions?[/quote]

If you start them all off on a 3 or 4 way split and not on TBT then how would you be able to tell if they’re exceptions or not? You’re only seeing the results from the one type of training and not the other.

[Professor_X]

[quote]Squelchy wrote:

If you start them all off on a 3 or 4 way split and not on TBT then how would you be able to tell if they’re exceptions or not? You’re only seeing the results from the one type of training and not the other.[/quote]

LOL. Then show us the guys who got huge using TBT after starting out significantly skinnier IN THIS DECADE.

It is as simple as that.

The ball is in your court.

[Cephalic_Carnage]

[quote]Squelchy wrote:
waylanderxx wrote:

You said “lots of people WILL grow better with total body training than splits”.

Total hypocrisy for you to say that and then get on my case for making “such a ridiculous blanket statement” b/c it is the exact opposite of your view.

What?! The two are not even remotely the same thing! My position is that different people will respond differently to different things… i.e. I have an open mind. You are disagreeing and saying that your way is right, people will all respond the same way to the same thing… a closed mind. Do you not see the difference there? I am open to different approaches, you are not.

mr popular wrote:

cop-out.

If you say so.

mr popular wrote:

First of all, a bodypart split doesn’t mean you only have to train a muscle once a week.

Secondly, what you’ve suggested is like saying “A LOT of people respond best to Mentzer’s HIT style of training”.

I guess if you want to turn the exception into the rule, and if you think phantom anonymous confessions of incredible progress count, then sure. yeah. HIT and TBT are great for a really significant amount of people.

No, but I think the ‘spirit’ of a body part split is less frequent training of muscles, no? Onbiously there are middle grounds to be found, I was going for the typical ‘once every 7 days’ approach. I apologise if you were thinking along different lines.

Secondly, phantom anonymous confessions? What? I am talking about people I know, and I have directed you to a website populated by people who have been lifting a lot less time than most of the posters here who will tell you something similar. These people are no more phantom than posters here are.

mr popular wrote:

These people are “less advanced” for a reason.

Yes, because they have been training a shorter period of time. Well spotted. [/quote] Most of them can keep training for 20 years straight and never make a lot of progress. And that has nothing to do with genetics either. [quote]

mr popular wrote:

Two-way splits are bodypart splits, sorry to burst your bubble but you TBT guys always try to steal that one. No dice.

If you insist. It’s one of those middle ground areas… sure, an upper/lower split (for example) may technically be a body part split, but in reality it’s just as close to TBT as it is to a body part split. Much more so if you train more than 4 days per week because of the increased frequency and necessarily decreased volume per body part per session.
[/quote] An upper/lower is a 2-way split. SPLIT. S-P-L-I-T. The point is to split things up so that you aren’t exhausted as fuck by the time you get to train your legs and can still put up decent numbers. How is that close to full-body? There is full-body training, there is split training.
The “spirit” of split training (Idea behind them/purpose/whatever), as you put it, lies in SPLITTING THINGS UP and has less to do with frequency as such. A 2-way over 6 days a week is a split as much as a 6-way over 6 days is. [quote]
mr popular wrote:

Also, Arnold’s original “tbt” involved pullups from a tree branch, and calisthenics, and was done for a very short period of time before he decided he wanted to make BETTER progress and started splitting his training.

OK, fine, look at any pre-steroid era bodybuilder in that case.[/quote]

Why would anyone want to spend 2+ hours at the gym with a routine like the one Reeves was using, if you can get the same results by doing a 3-way over 3 days only, for example?

Why deal with the extra fatigue, joint-abuse and all that? Not to mention that after a certain point, these routines were simply too much for people to keep on getting stronger/growing…

People started splitting things up and stopped worrying about fat gain in the off-season for good reasons.

[BONEZ217]

Well I stopped reading when my nipples started to itch from some of the estrogen-filled posts by my idea is this:

Someone start a thread or two in performance photo section. One thread everyone who uses a body part split post a few pics. In the other everyone who does TBT post a few pics. I won’t because I’m busy and lazy (wicked combo)

People who have done both don’t count because I can’t figure out a way to include them.

I predict that this idea will never work because once a handful of people who use a split post a pic a large portion of TBTers won’t want to take the ego hit.

edit
I started using a 4 day split when I was 16. I have been using a 4-6 day split ever since. Good times.

[Squelchy]

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Agreed, and I can guarantee if we put pics side by side of all of the people claiming “TBT works best for size gains” right next to the guys who actually got big using splits, that alone would kill the discussion.

I could care less about theory. I wanted to get big so I did what the big guys did. I got big. When I see any of you TBT guys gain like that, then we can talk. Until then, the people trying stuff just to try it based on theory and not real world results are missing the basics and will continue making less progress.[/quote]

OK, let’s use me as an example. I started off at 144lbs (5’10") training with a 4 day split routine given to me by a competing bodybuilder/bouncer. I gained quite poorly on ot despite busting my ass really hard and eating like mad. I then followed a routine I read on T-Nation. Can’t remember what one, but it was a split routine.

In 8 months I went up to a whopping 160. Going by your logic I shouldn’t have tried anything else because I was doing what the big boys do, I was putting in the effort in, eating enough calories (because I was gaining fat as well), yet my gains were sub-optimal. But according to you I should’ve kept at it because it’s the thing all the big boys do.

Soon as I started messing about with TBT and two way split I went up to 210 in less than a couple of years without gaining any more fat and I started gaining strength at a far greater rate, and I noticed in the mirror myself getting bigger.

Going by your logic I would’ve continued growing at a poor rate because I would never have tried anything else. No thanks.

Anyway, I’ve been out of training for 15 months and am getting back to where I was before now (albeit with a fractured ankle so no squatting and deadlifting for a long time), but as always I like to keep an open mind (and am currently doing a three way split in fact! Shock horror!) and will continue to look at what everybody else does and keep the stuff that works and discontinue the stuff that doesn’t.

You feel free to keep living in your little bubble though. I know you’re a huge guy, but you know what? You don’t absolutely know for sure you wouldn’t have got bigger, faster if you’d tried something else, you just THINK you wouldn’t have. Surely you must be willing to acknowledge you don’t know for sure, at least?