Full Body Training Doesn't Work?

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Total body programs never worked worth a crap for me. Great for fat loss, bad for mass. There is no way to get enough volume for each muscle group. Not for me, anyway.

And most of the BIG guys I’ve talked to about training say the same.

Volume aside, only the first couple of exercises are done at optimal performance. Either some body parts are going to get short-changed, or you have to rotate different parts to the front of the workout every time. And if you’re going to do that, why not just do a damn split?

[/quote]

Exactly. I really don’t see the problem. Its akin to studying for 5 classes in one night, or just focusing each day on one, maybe 2 classes. Its best to split them up.

[quote]forbes wrote:
Exactly. I really don’t see the problem. Its akin to studying for 5 classes in one night, or just focusing each day on one, maybe 2 classes. Its best to split them up.[/quote]

Thats a horrible analogy. When you go to school up until college, you go to EVERY class every single day. (TBT) Then when you get more advanced and reach college, you go to one maybe two classes per day. (SPLIT)

Science of learning is suggesting TBT and a higher frequency of training is better for beginner. Not me.

[quote]dankid wrote:
forbes wrote:
Exactly. I really don’t see the problem. Its akin to studying for 5 classes in one night, or just focusing each day on one, maybe 2 classes. Its best to split them up.

Thats a horrible analogy. When you go to school up until college, you go to EVERY class every single day. (TBT) Then when you get more advanced and reach college, you go to one maybe two classes per day. (SPLIT)

Science of learning is suggesting TBT and a higher frequency of training is better for beginner. Not me.
[/quote]

WTF? I took up to 19 hours one semester and never in my life only had one or two classes a day. What major do you know of where the students only go to two classes? Not to mention that his analogy involved STUDYING for 5 classes at once…which is a perfect fucking analogy.

What Biology majors have 2 classes a day as a full time student?

[quote]Professor X wrote:

What Biology majors have 2 classes a day as a full time student?[/quote]

Ones who look like they’re going to be spending 6 years to get a Bachelors Degree…

[quote]dankid wrote:

Thats a horrible analogy. When you go to school up until college, you go to EVERY class every single day. (TBT) Then when you get more advanced and reach college, you go to one maybe two classes per day. (SPLIT)

Science of learning is suggesting TBT and a higher frequency of training is better for beginner. Not me.
[/quote]

But you don’t study every subject at the same time.

I’m a full time double major (Mathematics and either Physics or Engineering) and I have only 2 classes on three of my days.

As far as this whole argument goes, I think that TBT has its place, but moreso for fat loss than muscle gain. That being said, a beginner can make some good gains on TBT since the high frequency will stress motor learning and help them learn proper technique and so on. But then again, a new trainee could make progress on just about anything (within reason).

[quote]Professor X wrote:
dankid wrote:
forbes wrote:
Exactly. I really don’t see the problem. Its akin to studying for 5 classes in one night, or just focusing each day on one, maybe 2 classes. Its best to split them up.

Thats a horrible analogy. When you go to school up until college, you go to EVERY class every single day. (TBT) Then when you get more advanced and reach college, you go to one maybe two classes per day. (SPLIT)

Science of learning is suggesting TBT and a higher frequency of training is better for beginner. Not me.

WTF? I took up to 19 hours one semester and never in my life only had one or two classes a day. What major do you know of where the students only go to two classes? Not to mention that his analogy involved STUDYING for 5 classes at once…which is a perfect fucking analogy.

What Biology majors have 2 classes a day as a full time student?[/quote]

[quote]BlakedaMan wrote:

As far as this whole argument goes, I think that TBT has its place, but moreso for fat loss than muscle gain. That being said, a beginner can make some good gains on TBT since the high frequency will stress motor learning and help them learn proper technique and so on. But then again, a new trainee could make progress on just about anything (within reason).

[/quote]

I’ve said this too many times to count, but if someone actually takes MONTHS to learn how to do a movement well, then they likely do NOT have the genetics to reach any extreme as far as muscle mass…which begs the question of why people like that keep infesting a bodybuilding forum where the whole goal is above average “extreme” development.

You all keep going on about “motor learning” as if this is some long coming project your body has to slowly work through. Natural athletes have “motor learning” abilities that allow them to catch onto movements faster than some guy who can’t even do a squat without falling over.

Why the hell do we keep discussing these topics in terms of people with the weakest genetic potential?

This is bodybuilding…and much like Sparta…if you can’t tow the line, find somewhere else to live.

[quote]BlakedaMan wrote:
I’m a full time double major (Mathematics and either Physics or Engineering) and I have only 2 classes on three of my days.

As far as this whole argument goes, I think that TBT has its place, but moreso for fat loss than muscle gain. That being said, a beginner can make some good gains on TBT since the high frequency will stress motor learning and help them learn proper technique and so on. But then again, a new trainee could make progress on just about anything (within reason).

Professor X wrote:
dankid wrote:
forbes wrote:
Exactly. I really don’t see the problem. Its akin to studying for 5 classes in one night, or just focusing each day on one, maybe 2 classes. Its best to split them up.

Thats a horrible analogy. When you go to school up until college, you go to EVERY class every single day. (TBT) Then when you get more advanced and reach college, you go to one maybe two classes per day. (SPLIT)

Science of learning is suggesting TBT and a higher frequency of training is better for beginner. Not me.

WTF? I took up to 19 hours one semester and never in my life only had one or two classes a day. What major do you know of where the students only go to two classes? Not to mention that his analogy involved STUDYING for 5 classes at once…which is a perfect fucking analogy.

What Biology majors have 2 classes a day as a full time student?

[/quote]

The motor unit argument conveniently leaves out the fact that you’ll eventually need to learn how to curl, and lateral raise, and shrug, and a decent list of other exercises that you won’t see in a TBT program, to build a complete bodybuilding physique, and those require recruitment patterns to be learned as well. There is just not really a context in which a 3way or some similar split(upper/lower/arms) is not superior to TBT for the purposes of bodybuilding, even for a beginner.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
This is bodybuilding…and much like Sparta…if you can’t tow the line, find somewhere else to live.[/quote]

Couldn’t resist.

Well throughout my undergrad, I NEVER had more than 2-3 classes in a day, but we might do things a bit differently in CA. And as far as studying goes, my “argument” still makes sense. In highschool, when you are taking 6 classes each day, you dont have homework/studying for one class per night. You have to do EVERYTHING each day to stay on track.

And im sorry X that you dont buy into motor learning, or dont understand its effects, but its very important. Even “high level” bb’ers and pl’ers are not “masters” when it comes to lifting. Genetics has VERY little to do with how quickly you are going to learn a lift. I’d actually argue that a LOT of the biggest guys have very good genetics, but very poor motor skill, but I definately dont want to get into tha right now.

The school analogy is a very interesting one though. And it really goes along with learning anything. You start out training everything at once, frequently but for low durations. And you start with the fundamentals. Then as you get those “down” you start to add the “little things”, this would be like addint plays in baseball, or creative writing, and calculus in school. You have to have a good foundation of the basics first, and then as you schedule gets more demanding, you may switch things around to focus more time on areas that you want to develop.

So, when you graduate high school and pick a major, then you start to focus specifically on that area, because nobody wants to be a “jack of all trades, master of none”. At this point, you begin to have more and more “complicated” factors going into your schooling and larger volumes of work, that are spread out more.

Undergrad classes were usually 50-75 minutes, and you might have 2-3 per day, but when you get past that, the classes are 2.5-3 hours and you certainly must do less.

So if you dont buy into the motor learning aspect of it, thats fine. Just click the back button, but if you do, then the following sorta makes sense.

You start training with a very high frequency, low load, and low volume. You might do TBT 5-6x per week, that is just 5 sets of 5 with a 10RM. And this would just be the basics. Bench, squat, deadlift, press, maybe clean, snatch, and jerk, if you are going to go into weigtlifting. Then when you develop a level of proficiency in those lifts, you start to load them, and cut down on the frequency. If you are going to train abut 3x per week then you keep the TBT, if you are going to go more, then a split will be necessary. After that, you are sorta at a middle school/high school level, and you start to add some assistance exercises and isolation moves. You load those as well, and by the time you are at the senior in highschool level, maybe undergrad level, you are still training with all of those basics, but you can clearly see areas that you want to FOCUS on. You start to put more focus on lagging muscles, and as you get to the post bachelor level, you start to use “special methods”. This is where things get complicated, but stuff like drop sets, and glycogen supercompensation, etc.

The analogy works pretty well, and you see that although there is a trend of progressively reducing frequency as you become more proficient, there is nothing definitive on split vs. TBT. When you need a higher frequency of training, like training each lift 3-5x per week, it just makes sense to do TBT, because how else will you fit that frequency in. You could do a split with multibple sessons per day (I know CT has done this) but not everyone has that amount of time. You figure if you have 3 main lifts / bodyparts to hit 3-5 times per week. If you are going to split them up, then you are going to have to hav 9-15 sessions. So TBT makes sense there, but doesnt have to be the only way.

Then when your “optimal” frequency gets down to 3 or less times per week, and you have more assistance/isolation exercises, you have a bit more options. And I really dont think it matters that much as long as you are still hitting those main exercises 2-3 times per week. The isolation stuff really isn’t that demanding and the main lifts are much more important, so as long as you are progressing on the main lifts, it doesn’t matter how you train the accessory/isolation stuff.

Aaaaah, too much text… Try again :stuck_out_tongue:

[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Aaaaah, too much text… Try again :stuck_out_tongue:
[/quote]

Methinks Dankid has written this in advance - fewer typos than usual.

[quote]red04 wrote:

The motor unit argument conveniently leaves out the fact that you’ll eventually need to learn how to curl, and lateral raise, and shrug, and a decent list of other exercises that you won’t see in a TBT program, to build a complete bodybuilding physique, and those require recruitment patterns to be learned as well. There is just not really a context in which a 3way or some similar split(upper/lower/arms) is not superior to TBT for the purposes of bodybuilding, even for a beginner.[/quote]

Ya, but im not saying that if you are interested in bb’ing that you avoid isolation moves for years. Im just saying that lifting weights and building muscle ‘optimally’ requires a lot greater “skill” than most people think. And as with anything it makes sense to start with less on your plate (fewer exercises) and after you get the fundamentals add all the other stuff. Its the same as any sport. I use baseball as an example because that what im familiar with, but you wouldn’t have a 6 year old kid learning how to throw a curve ball, or slide into second before they learned all the basics. There is an interesting phenomenon with motor learning and that is that the fundamentals provide the base for which everything else later on is built upon. In baseball, learning to play catch, field ground/fly balls, and swing a bat are the most important things. A player that has developed a higher level of skill in these will learn everything else much faster.

I dont think there will ever be any good research on this, but i’d like to see a good three year study with two groups. One group only does 3 exercise for the first year, and then a bunch from then on. And group 2 does all of the exercises from day one. My hypothesis would be that both groups would end up equal, or the group that started with just the three basic lifts would reach much higher levels.

All this is speculation but based on my experience and secondhand experience. But ive seen it time and time again, plenty of people that are very proficient at bicep curls, flys, and shoulder raises, but have a VERY low level of proficiency when it comes to squat, deadlift and bench. Sure some of these guys are big, which is an argument against what im saying, but I speculate they would be much bigger if they had learned the basics in the beginning.

I myself wish someone were around when I started to have me focus on the basics or direct me to starting strength.

[quote]roybot wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Aaaaah, too much text… Try again :stuck_out_tongue:

Methinks Dankid has written this in advance - fewer typos than usual.[/quote]

Actually just got done writing a term paper this week, so I got some of my skills back.

I never said I would prescribe TBT to anyone, even a beginner. I personally think splits take the cake no matter how you look at it, I was just pointing out the few limited benefits TBT can offer.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
BlakedaMan wrote:

As far as this whole argument goes, I think that TBT has its place, but moreso for fat loss than muscle gain. That being said, a beginner can make some good gains on TBT since the high frequency will stress motor learning and help them learn proper technique and so on. But then again, a new trainee could make progress on just about anything (within reason).

I’ve said this too many times to count, but if someone actually takes MONTHS to learn how to do a movement well, then they likely do NOT have the genetics to reach any extreme as far as muscle mass…which begs the question of why people like that keep infesting a bodybuilding forum where the whole goal is above average “extreme” development.

You all keep going on about “motor learning” as if this is some long coming project your body has to slowly work through. Natural athletes have “motor learning” abilities that allow them to catch onto movements faster than some guy who can’t even do a squat without falling over.

Why the hell do we keep discussing these topics in terms of people with the weakest genetic potential?

This is bodybuilding…and much like Sparta…if you can’t tow the line, find somewhere else to live.[/quote]

So, after about 50 threads with an average of 10 pages each thread, surely we’ve all come to a conclusion on this hotly debated topic?

Oh, we haven’t? Shit.

I have an idea! Let’s keep debating!

[quote]dankid wrote:
roybot wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Aaaaah, too much text… Try again :stuck_out_tongue:

Methinks Dankid has written this in advance - fewer typos than usual.

Actually just got done writing a term paper this week, so I got some of my skills back.[/quote]

You should try writing a paper a day, 6x a week. Then you’ll be like f’kin’ Shakespeare.

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
So, after about 50 threads with an average of 10 pages each thread, surely we’ve all come to a conclusion on this hotly debated topic?

Oh, we haven’t? Shit.

I have an idea! Let’s keep debating![/quote]

I love debating! Let’s debate, “Which came first, the chicken or the egg?” or “Tits or Ass”? That should keep us here forever!

[quote]That One Guy wrote:
LankyMofo wrote:
So, after about 50 threads with an average of 10 pages each thread, surely we’ve all come to a conclusion on this hotly debated topic?

Oh, we haven’t? Shit.

I have an idea! Let’s keep debating!

I love debating! Let’s debate, “Which came first, the chicken or the egg?” or “Tits or Ass”? That should keep us here forever![/quote]

Dinosaur eggs > 60 million years older than chicken eggs. Duuuh!

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
So, after about 50 threads with an average of 10 pages each thread, surely we’ve all come to a conclusion on this hotly debated topic?

Oh, we haven’t? Shit.

I have an idea! Let’s keep debating![/quote]

Its probably about time for this thread to die and someone else to start a new one. Or maybe its time for another functional vs. overall hypertrophy thread?