Current Bodybuilding Training Thread 2.0

Training
202

I thought I’d be arrogant enough to throw my two cents into a reply. Even though I’m not Brick, my ideologies largely match his, so I don’t think I’m too far out of line to respond.

First of all, I don’t think your statements/questions are baseless. It’s not impossible to start on a split routine from Day 1 in the gym…but I do think it’s impossible to utilize a split routine LIKE A BODYBUILDER from Day 1.

When @BrickHead says that all bodybuilders train with a split, I always read this statement as meaning that ‘the lifter-in-question is ALREADY a bodybuilder’ or ‘the lifter-in-question ALREADY has that foundation and WANTS to be a bodybuilder’; I never read that statement as if he said ‘All lifters that have never lifted a day in their life but want to become a bodybuilder’ train with a split. Thus, these lifters already have the foundation that you’re referencing.

Furthermore, when breaking down the reason for a split routine for bodybuilding purposes, I tend to equate that reason to bringing up weak points in order to create better balance and symmetry. Lacking symmetry/balance is the result of lagging muscle groups/visual weak points in ones physique. One can only have weak points if one has been lifting for a while/have developed muscle. Otherwise, EVERYTHING would be a weak point.

My last thought on this concerns advanced training techniques. It’s difficult to implement advanced training techniques such as forced reps, time under tension, iso holds/contractions, etc when your body doesn’t yet have the stability and strength. By this, I mean that it’s difficult to perform a drop-set when there’s not yet weight to drop, it’s difficult to execute a pause squat when your legs are shaking from simply stabilizing the weight while standing.

Thus (to bring this full-circle), I believe that most people benefit from a split routine MORE because they spent a year or two or three developing their foundation and strength via compound exercises. This isn’t to say, however, that perusing that for a couple years is completely necessary to benefit from a split routine.

Also to your point, I believe Brick as stated many times in other threads that, for ‘noobs’, the best way to start in the gym is the upper/lower or PPL type split, which focuses on compound lifts, but that there reaches a point where that is no longer the optimal routine for them.

I feel like @robstein writing a novel on here…:grinning:

2 Likes
203

[quote=“kd13, post:201, topic:221850”]
Could your current success with splits be down to the fact that you had those years of getting stronger and concentrating on compounds and weight progression?[/quote]

I think we need to readdress the fact that getting stronger does not equate to getting bigger. I myself wasted many MANY years getting pretty damn strong, but looking like crap and not even building a respectable amount of size in the process. If you look at the majority of the lighter weight class powerlifters (because the heavier guys have larger structures to begin with, so let’s just assume “average” sized lifters), they are not walking around sporting anywhere near the size of individuals who focus on the other variables in the gym as opposed to just getting stronger (“chasing numbers” as I call it).

[quote]
Is it inconceivable that many of the successful bodybuilders also started in this manner and then made the switch to a more bodybuilder routine? The argument that all successful bodybuilder train this way is kinda obsolete when many would have spent large periods of there earlier careers doing plenty of different stuff. [/quote]

I think you have to understand that it’s only a recent thing, maybe the last decade or so tops to be able to actually find studies to support any real science behind any of the gym myths/lore that getting brandied about. I could write a book of horrible advice I received in the college weight room waaaay back when, that I blindly followed having no other place to turn besides the crappy magazines on the newsstands. Is an abbreviated split a bad idea when starting out? Of course not, if anything, just from a performance standpoint, getting the body to work together in a synergistic manner can prevent plenty of injuries. Still, I was always told, and repeated myself for way too many years that if you wanted to get bigger, you needed to get stronger. Eventually I was dissatisfied enough with my progress to acknowledge that this little piece of gym law was complete bunk, and people needed to stop clinging to it as the end all be all.

Yup. I said the exact same thing in another post :slight_smile:

S

3 Likes
204

Just wanted to say thanks for breaking this down in layman’s terms, I’m definitely stealing this analogy when explaining nutrition to friends/family!

205

I agree fully buddy, I wasn’t trying to disagree with anyone’s opinions. I’m just trying to blur the lines a little. There seems to be two different camps and I think a mixture of the two approaches works best.

2 Likes
206

I think we are very much on the same lines

funny that both you and brick started out training for strength then made the switch and was successful, maybe that is the key after all and chasing strength numbers was all part of the journey! Without that you both could be doing wrist curls with the pink weights.

2 Likes
207

Go for it! Glad I could help!

208

  1. You are assuming that being able to use “bodybuilding methods” with heavier weights once strength is built translates into more hypertrophy. This is not the case. Progression in weight or reps or the quality of the contraction WHILE focusing on the target muscle is what causes growth.

  2. Strength, in this case, refers to technical skill, neurological adaption and maximising leverages to lift the most weight. If the amount of weight lifted, and not progression, was the main reason for growth, strength training(again, as defined here) alone would suffice for hypertrophy.

  3. Like 2, mmc itself is a skill that takes a long time to learn. Starting out simply chasing numbers on limited compound movements without isolations is not the way to go.

  4. Who said you can’t get strong on a bodypart split lol?

3 Likes
209

THIS! Where the heck did people get the notion that bodybuilders don’t also “chase weight” or “add weight to the bar” or dumbbell or machine for that matter. I’ve said it over and over. If I do incline flies today with 85 pounds, I want to eventually be able to do them with 90s in the future, or maybe more. If that’s possible or not is another story! Same goes for compound lifts or whatever kind of lift! If I can do 20 leg raises today, I want to eventually be able to do 25!

1 Like
210

And THIS too! Exactly!

I even said EVERYONE, regardless of future aims, should start out with full body routines (can be any sensible one: ACSM guidelines, Ellington Darden’S HIT, HST, 5 x 5, Starting Strength, Greyskull, whatever) and then eventually make a decision on what they want to do (eg, powerlifting, general fitness/beach body, bodybuilder, whatever).

211

Good post. Your posts are totally reasonable and I know you’re not trying to argue.

Thanks for the kind words!

212

Is point 1 based on experience or science? If it’s science then it can’t be taken seriously obviously. If it’s experience, how many bodybuilding shows have you won? (Winky face)

On a more serious note, to clear things up, I don’t advocate a full on strength routine, I don’t believe you can’t get strong using a split, I don’t believe bodybuilders don’t shoot for progression. I do believe there are factors far more important than what type of split you use, or frequency.

2 Likes
213

Yeah I think we agree on how people starting out should train. Seeing your prep thread has inspired me to possibly do my own prep, but I worry I may not have the mass so not sure yet!

I’ve enjoyed reading more stuff from the authors you recommend and have used them to help improve my current training, so this thread is great.

1 Like
214

Apropos of the tone of your questions and the evident innuendos, I believe you are being bad faith.

Yeah I agree.

215

here’s my tuppence-worth on the matter

as long as you are lifting heavier weights you are getting stronger. Doesn’t matter how you split it up over the week; the act of lifting weights makes you stronger provided it is done with sufficient intensity and effort.

And “strong” is such a relative term. It shouldn’t even really be used. The word should be “stronger.”

why not? So long as the intensity is there in the gym it doesn’t matter how skinny or weak they are. If you’re busting your hump to get stronger then it’ll happen, and you’ll get bigger. The only thing that matters is they are getting stronger than they were before.

Your post seems to be based on the assumption that newbs can’t lift heavy weights for a long time under tension. Why would that be the case? As long as the weights are relatively heavy then it’s all good, baby.

1 Like
216

There have been quite a few posts here about how trying to get stronger an focusing on the numbers is not where it is at.

That is exactly where it is at.

About 10 years ago, I read a study that concluded that until you reach elite levels strength and size are directly correlated.

But, the key is not that you increase numbers alone, the key is to do so while maintaining perfect form, in the right rep ranges and putting the focus on the right muscles while doing so. This is why it is so rare to see actual lat development, because people are increasing the weights without putting the emphasis where it ought to be.To take the rule I made and apply it: 1) do the crazy arch in the back that you normally see on bench pressers, couple that 2) with attempting to pull your elbows back rather than your hands, 3) do so under control and finally 4) aim to increase reps and/or weight while doing so.

To recap: adding strength is a necessary component, but not a sufficient one. I was planning on taking a couple of videos of what I mean, but related to leg exercises today, but I was sick today, so we<ll see how I feel tomorrow or the day after.

217

I think most of the posts you reference agree with you…There’s just a slight difference between chasing your 1RM every time you lift, and trying to increase strength and numbers within a higher rep range. I believe that, most of the time, when an advocate of bodybuilding makes a post saying that “chasing numbers” isn’t the best way to gain size, they’re making a statement that chasing the 1RM every session isn’t the best way to gain size. Brick, for example, just recently tried to describe this:

1 Like
218

There’s a big difference between chasing #s and pushing yourself as hard as you can in your training and inevitably getting stronger (while addressing the many other variables at play) in the process.

S

1 Like
219

I think there may be a different mindset, based on Stu’s subsequent post I reaffirm this. My goal every workout is to beat the numbers before within the framework I mentioned earlier. From what I can tell is that the other perspective does not focus on the numbers, and this where there will be some variation on how the individual deals with them. Some will not look at the weights at all, like Shawn Ray, others will record but not concern themselves with the numbers on the day in the gym. I can see how for people who do not train to failure, beating your past numbers does not make the same relation to their outcomes as it would for someone who does.

Perhaps to add some context, I should say that that was the way I used to train, it did not really get me anywhere.

220

I feel I also need to add that I think most people who read the types of posts perhaps without the clarification I added, read in the "weights don’t matter attitude that I used to see in the magazines all the time. I know that is how I interpreted the posts.

221

Yeah, I agree with you. I wasn’t trying to tell you that you’re wrong…I was merely trying to explain that your thoughts line up with most of the thoughts in this thread…many don’t always explicitly state it that way, though.