Full Body Training Doesn't Work?

[quote]mojo_ wrote:
its_just_me wrote:
In my experience, when training splits didn’t work for me, it was because I wasn’t developed enough to use them. The stimulus (load) was far to little to merit the rest days for splits (e.g. 3 way). I was recovering, overcompensating, then going back to what I was before by the time training for a muscle group came around again.

In my opinion, people who still have a lot of strength gains to make (and so their recovery is fast), or people who don’t make their training intense, need more frequent muscle group training so that their muscles don’t return to homoeostasis.

Obviously, if we’re talking about advanced lifters using a specialised full body routine (where fatigue is managed)…the above statements don’t apply.

This man knows what he’s talking about.

It’s counter productive for a new lifter to wait a whole 7 days to directly work a lift that hes trying to get stronger on again = bigger. Most guys will REGRESS during such a long period between performing the same lift again and struggle to add weight or reps to progress from workout to workout. I know for a fact when I started lifting, the weights I was using and the intensity I was generating pretty much never needed more than 48 hours to recover from, waiting any longer is just wasting time.

I think the advice of bodypart 3x a week as a begginer then backing off to say 2x a week as the weights get heavier and you are using more intensity, therefore probably need more recovery time, is pretty solid advice. [/quote]

Thank you! Good to know I’m not just speaking out my arse :slight_smile:

Eastern European sports scientists calculated the average recovery times here -

Training Load of 1 Workout / Restoration Time (in hours)

Extreme —> >72
Large —> 48-72
Substantial —>24-48
Medium —> 12-24
Small —> 12

Note to Prof X: Sorry - I did get that one out a book :slight_smile:

So as a begginner, the training load is a lot less than that of an advanced lifter (due to learning intensity and motor development etc)…and so, less recovery days are required. Some begginners can put in more intensity and adapt quicker than others, this just means that their recovery days will have to increase quicker (or maybe even straight away if they have a good mentor…e.g. like Antares had LOL).

I think Prof x was trying to say there is no argument over split vs full body…just frequency. I guess someone new COULD train using a split that trains their muscle groups 3 x per week, but maybe it’s not all that practical. I don’t see the problem with begginers doing a small selection of lower body (maybe even just one exercise) mixed with about twice as many upper body exercises all in one workout (which means only having to go to the gym 3x / week). A begginer who does it right (even with just the compound movements) will not be at this stage for long (at least not long enough to create serious imbalances…e.g. forearms, bi’s/tri’s, ham’s); just a matter of months.

The reason why I said concentrate only on the main compound movements was to emphasise the fundamentals - the importance of learning the basic lifting skills and making sure that one focuses on putting more pounds on the bar (rather than thinking that a “magical routine” will make one bigger). A begginer doesn’t need complication…they need focus (something which is far easier to do with just 3-5 exercises per workout). As has already been mentioned, routines evolve. Better to have a FOUNDATION to evolve from than a complicated, tweaked routine that COULD cause distraction / lack of focus…something that an “inexperienced person” often falls prey to. A beginner needs to learn how their body responds, and put on decent amounts of mass etc. before worrying TOO much about specialising body parts.

[quote]joe shumsky wrote:
my goodness! i go away for a day or two and this thread turns into some kind of monster… to any who responded with constructive criticism, thank you. to those who resorted to condescension, insult, or otherwise, i truly feel sorry for you.

believe you me, i am suffering under NO ILLUSION WHATSOEVER that i’m some sort of “huge bodybuilder”… i’m seriously beginning to wonder whether or not some of you are even literate… perhaps you just saw the photos and, like the ignorant, arrogant, bullying lemmings that you proved yourselves to be, just decided to try to tear me down instead.

i mean, by my estimation, i’m one of the few people here who’s actually put his money where his mouth is and put it all out there (photos, stats, etc.) i’m not trying to hide anything from you, here… and the reason i’m being so forthcoming is because i was truly hoping to be able to have some semblance of an adult conversation about weight training and aesthetics with people who allegedly cared about such topics.

the plain and simple fact of the matter, though, is that SOME of you sound more like the third string of my old high school football team (you know, the ones who never made it out of remedial math, stayed back once or twice, never saw any playing time, yet STILL thought they were god’s gift, for some reason?)

i really don’t know when or where things got so fucked up in bodybuilding… if any of you have ever read anything written by some of OUR HEROES, you’d realize that you’re truly a disgrace to the sport.

i’m gonna go get a haircut now.

tom petty, out.

[/quote]

You’ll get used to it :slight_smile:

SOME people on here are not very tactful or tolerant…but what you can guarantee, is a no-nonsense straight to the point response. No one who is relatively inexperienced (compared to these guys) can have an ego on here - we just have to keep our heads low and accept it the way it comes (LOL). You won’t get much better all rounded, advanced and customized advice elsewhere.

PS - I too need a haircut…don’t feel bad, they’re just jealous cause they got none (haha).

[quote]its_just_me wrote:

The reason why I said concentrate only on the main compound movements was to emphasise the fundamentals - the importance of learning the basic lifting skills and making sure that one focuses on putting more pounds on the bar (rather than thinking that a “magical routine” will make one bigger). A begginer doesn’t need complication…they need focus (something which is far easier to do with just 3-5 exercises per workout). As has already been mentioned, routines evolve. Better to have a FOUNDATION to evolve from than a complicated, tweaked routine that COULD cause distraction / lack of focus…something that an “inexperienced person” often falls prey to.[/quote]

… and you somehow believe you need to do a full body routine in order to ‘emphasis the fundamentals’ and ‘learn the basic lifting skills’?

did you know that in bodybuilding, training your ARMS DIRECTLY as WELL AS everything else is part of the ‘fundamentals’?

Why do you think someone can’t build a foundation on a split routine, considering thousands of people have been doing just that for decades?

[quote]joe shumsky wrote:
my goodness! i go away for a day or two and this thread turns into some kind of monster… to any who responded with constructive criticism, thank you. to those who resorted to condescension, insult, or otherwise, i truly feel sorry for you.

believe you me, i am suffering under NO ILLUSION WHATSOEVER that i’m some sort of “huge bodybuilder”… i’m seriously beginning to wonder whether or not some of you are even literate… perhaps you just saw the photos and, like the ignorant, arrogant, bullying lemmings that you proved yourselves to be, just decided to try to tear me down instead.

i mean, by my estimation, i’m one of the few people here who’s actually put his money where his mouth is and put it all out there (photos, stats, etc.) i’m not trying to hide anything from you, here… and the reason i’m being so forthcoming is because i was truly hoping to be able to have some semblance of an adult conversation about weight training and aesthetics with people who allegedly cared about such topics.

the plain and simple fact of the matter, though, is that SOME of you sound more like the third string of my old high school football team (you know, the ones who never made it out of remedial math, stayed back once or twice, never saw any playing time, yet STILL thought they were god’s gift, for some reason?)

i really don’t know when or where things got so fucked up in bodybuilding… if any of you have ever read anything written by some of OUR HEROES, you’d realize that you’re truly a disgrace to the sport.

i’m gonna go get a haircut now.

tom petty, out.

[/quote]

…Do you have some sort of mental problem? this was in your original post: “discuss and critique (and, of course, what i really mean is, proceed directly to tearing me apart.)” Now you’re complaining because people are confused as to the purpose of this thread, which seemed to be you needing validation for your theory, which was that everyone who isn’t doing TBT is limiting themselves? With TBT you accomplished…nothing to compare against, there were no befores, only afters. You asked for criticism, and you sure as hell got it…and it was constructive, until you started ripping on the guys who are a lot more experienced and knowledgeable than you. Hell, anyone can starve themselves lean. Is that an accomplishment after 4 years?

And what do you mean “people who allegedly care about such topics”? I’m pretty sure that everyone with the exception of dankid actually does care…To sum it up, you start an aimless thread, you then proceed to avoid explaining the purpose of said thread, then you go and insult the more experienced people on here…while asking for an adult conversation. Congratulations, your retard level is officially over 9000.

I just want to throw this gem out here again, from our last tbt discussion:

[quote]
ect0m0rph wrote:
Heres Reg park from the 1950’s PRE STEROID ERA AFAIK.

Reg Park’s program circa 1950 (from an old Iron Man issue from around 1985)

Mon - Wed - Fri

  • Barbell Curl 4x6-8
  • Seated Behind Neck Press 4x6-8
  • Bench Press 5x5
  • Barbell Row 4x6-8
  • Barbell Squat 5x5
  • Deadlift 5x5

jus sayin’ :wink:

Cephalic_Carnage wrote:

Hmmm. I found the article below on reg parks official site… :

How I Trained to Win Mr. Universe
by Reg Park
from Health and Strength (1967)

My interest in development was kindled by my grandfather who worked in a coal mine from the age of ten to sixty-five, during which time he had pushed trucks full of coal along tunnels, and in doing so had developed a pair of enormous calves. His calves were so big that I remember my grandmother telling me that when he was in uniform during the 1914-1918 war, when soldiers wore puttees, his calves were so big that people thought he had balloons under his trouser legs. My grandparents had two paintings of an ancient Greek wedding where the man wore a toga and I recall thinking that whilst the groom had wonderful legs, his upper arms were poorly developed.

These memories go back to the time when I was about eight years old, so it is apparent that I was physique conscious at a very early age. At school I reveled in sport, in particular soccer, athletics and gymnastics, but although I possessed an athletic physique, at 16 I was 6 ft. and weighed only 160 lbs., certainly nothing to set the world alight. At the Leeds open-air swimming pool I was constantly aware of fellows who possessed good physiques, and I suppose it was inevitable that sooner or later I would meet someone who for those days possessed an outstanding physique in the person of Dave Cohen. Dave was 5 ft. 8�??�??�??�?�½�??�??�?�¢?? ins. and weighed 185 lbs. with 16�??�??�??�?�½ in. upper arms, a 47 in. chest, 26 in. thighs and a 32 in. waist. It turned out that Dave trained with weights in a room in his friend�??�??�?�¢??s house, and when I asked if I could join him, he readily said yes.

I started weight training in about August/September 1945, and trained in a haphazard kind of way until April 1946, and from then until July 1946 when I was �??�??�?�¢??called up�??�??�?�¢??, I spent my free time at the pool and did very little training. At my army medical in 1946 I was 6 ft. and weighed 180 lbs. In the army I was in the P.T. staff in Malaya, and whilst I had plenty of exercise, only once or twice did I have access to weights.

I was demobbed in July 1948 and weighed 190 lbs. This was about a month before the 1948 Olympics held that year in London, and also the first ever Mr. Universe contest held in London. Naturally, by this time I was an avid reader of the muscle magazines and was therefore familiar with the top bodybuilders who were participating in the contest, namely John Grimek and Steve Reeves. It�??�??�?�¢??s history now that Grimek won the 1948 Mr. Universe with Reeves runner-up.

I recall saying after the contest that one day I�??�??�?�¢??d win the Mr. Universe title, and amongst those present were Oscar Heidenstam and John Barrs, editor of the old Vigor magazine. I�??�??�?�¢??ve often wondered what their thoughts must have been as they listened to a young punk like me boasting that I�??�??�?�¢??d win the Mr. U.

My training started in earnest about September 1948, when I was 20 years of age and weighed 190 lbs. In those days I trained three nights a week and Sunday morning, and if my memory serves me well, my course was something like this:

Incline D.B Press �??�??�?�¢?? 5 sets of 5 reps
Flat Bench D.B. Press �??�??�?�¢?? 5x5
Pushups with Press �??�??�?�¢?? 5 x 10
Standing Barbell Press �??�??�?�¢?? 5x5
Press Behind Neck �??�??�?�¢?? 5x5
Standing Two D.B Press �??�??�?�¢?? 5x5
Chins �??�??�?�¢?? 5x8
Barbell Row �??�??�?�¢?? 5x8
D.B. Row �??�??�?�¢?? 5x8
Barbell Curl �??�??�?�¢?? 5x8
Incline D.B. Curl �??�??�?�¢?? 5x8
Central Loading Curl �??�??�?�¢?? 5x8
Standing D.B. Triceps Curl �??�??�?�¢?? 5x8
Lying D.B. Triceps Curl �??�??�?�¢?? 5x8
Triceps on Lat Machine �??�??�?�¢?? 5x8
Donkey Calf �??�??�?�¢?? 5 sets
Cross Bench D.B. Pullover �??�??�?�¢?? 5x8

I don�??�??�?�¢??t recall doing any squats in those days, but when I look back I realize that I was doing about 90 sets a workout which I�??�??�?�¢??m sure was far more than any British bodybuilder was doing in 48/49. By March/April 1949 I entered and won the Mr. N.E. Britain, beating the previous national winner, Charlie Jarrett, who was also placed in the 48 Mr. Universe. Not bad for only 7 or 8 months of serious training. At this time I weighed 205 lbs. and my measurements were 48 in. chest and 16�??�??�??�?�½ in. upper arm.

Three weeks before the 1949 Mr. Britain final I trained at Henry Atkins�??�??�?�¢?? gym in Walthamstow, London, during which time I worked calves and thighs (3 sets of 20 reps) superset with pullovers on the Yoga bench, three mornings a week, and trained upper body in the evenings. I ate and drank great quantities of food and liquid, and my bodyweight by the time of the contest was 226 lbs. I drank two pints of diluted concentrated orange juice with glucose and honey mixed in it at every workout.

I won the 1949 Mr. Britain title with Paul Newington second and John Lees third. At that time my chest was about 51 in., arm 18 in. and thigh 26�??�??�??�?�½. In December 1949 my parents gave me the greatest gift I could have had, a six month visit to America. In America I met and trained with many champion bodybuilders, such as Bill Barad, Marvin Eder, Abe Goldberg, Clancy Ross, Floyd Page, Norman Marks, Malcolm Brenner, etc. I also trained at the Weider Barbell Co. and am the first to admit that Weider, Barton Horvath and Charlie Smith all helped me considerably with my training, but Weider made far too many claims about training me, so many that I eventually wrote to him severing all connections with him. This was in April 1952.

I came back to England in May 1952 and decided to enter the Mr. U. which was held early that year in either June or July. In the meantime, York Barbell Co. had persuaded Steve Reeves to represent them at the same Mr. U. and he had gone to York to finalize his training there.

On the day of the contest I weighed in at 215 lbs. and Reeves at 225. Reeves was bigger than I was, but I was terribly muscular, with my legs, torso and arms cut up with definition. Reeves won the contest, but he was a very worried man prior to the announcement, and I recall the then editor of Health and Strength, Johnson, striving to convince him backstage that he had won. When I reflected that with less than two years�??�??�?�¢?? serious training I had given the very famous Steve Reeves, who had been training at least five years, such a good run for his money, I did not feel too bad, but then and there I was determined that no one would beat me in the 1951 Mr. Universe.

In September 1950 I went back to the States, where I trained hard at Abe Goldberg�??�??�?�¢??s gym in New York for the 1950 America�??�??�?�¢??s Best Developed Man contest, held at St. Nick�??�??�?�¢??s Arena in New York. I won this title and with it most of the subdivisions, and in doing so beat such famous bodybuilders as Floyd Page, Al Stephan, Ed Theriault and Al Pavio, who was the current Mr. Canada. From New York I went of to give exhibitions in Montreal, Toronto, Oakland, Los Angeles and Hawaii, returning to England in January 1951.

From January until the Mr. Universe contest I trained regularly, hard and heavy. Regular poundages used in training were sets and reps with over 200 lbs. on the Press and Press Behind Neck, Incline and Flat D.B. Press sets and reps with 2x140 lb. dumbells, Bent Rowing with 250-300 lbs., Incline D.B. Curls with 2x70 lb. dumbells, and 3 sets of 20 reps on the Squat with 320 lbs. My workouts in those days were:

Incline D.B. Press �??�??�?�¢?? 5x5 with 140 lb. dumbells
Flat Bench D.B. Press �??�??�?�¢?? 5x5 with 140 lb. dumbells
Pushups
Press Behind Neck �??�??�?�¢?? 5x5 with 210 lbs.
Press �??�??�?�¢?? 5x5 with 210 lbs.
Two D.B. Press �??�??�?�¢?? 5x5 working up to 100 lb. dumbells
Dumbell Lateral �??�??�?�¢?? 5x8 with 50-60 lb. dumbells
Chins �??�??�?�¢?? 5x8
Bent Barbell Row �??�??�?�¢?? 5x8 with 250-300 lbs.
One Arm D.B. Row �??�??�?�¢?? 5x8 with 100-120 lb. dumbell
Lat Pulldown �??�??�?�¢?? 5x8
Central Loading Curl �??�??�?�¢?? 5x8 with 140 lbs.
Incline D.B. Curl �??�??�?�¢?? 5x8 with 70 lb. dumbells
Barbell Curl �??�??�?�¢?? 5x8
Lying On Back Two Dumbell Curl �??�??�?�¢?? 5x8 with 50-60 lb. dumbells
One D.B. Two Arm French Press �??�??�?�¢?? 5x8
Lying B.B. Triceps Extension �??�??�?�¢?? 5x8
Triceps Dips or Parallel Bar Dips �??�??�?�¢?? 5x8
Triceps On Lat Machine �??�??�?�¢?? 5x8
Donkey Calf On Machine �??�??�?�¢?? 10x20
Squat �??�??�?�¢?? 3x20 with 320 lbs.
D.B. Pullover �??�??�?�¢?? 3x10

My weight went back to 225 lbs. but I possessed a much different physique compared to when I won the Mr. Britain at 226. Now I was proportionate, balanced and more heavily developed.

My eating habits were not difficult. My mother cooked and baked well, and I ate anything and everything, and I was particularly fond of my mother�??�??�?�¢??s baking and cups of tea, relying on hard training to use up the carbohydrates. As you know, I won the �??�??�?�¢??51 Mr. Universe after only three years of serious training.

As with each of the other two occasions when I won the title I was a little flat emotion wise after being announced the winner, and I REALIZED THAT THE EXCITEMENT WAS NOT IN WINNING BUT IN TRAINING TO WIN.

So either you’re wrong, or Reg himself is.

Not that it really matters.
You get the choice between a shorter routine containing Squats AND Deadlifts 3 times a week… Yeah…

Or a routine so long it’d take me a year to get through a single session.

Hm.
Yeah, them good old full-body programs from the “pre-steroid-era”… Ahaha [/quote]

These guys must have had genetics at the very least as good as Ronnie and co in order to get anywhere with such BULLSHIT routines and absolutely RIDICULOUS diets… And no wonder they never got beyond 220 or whatever…
The whole argument how full body training supposedly worked so well for “Pre-steroid era guys” and people with “average genetics”(bwahahaha!) is just hilariously stupid.
The routines used then and what almost every full-body guy does now (and claims the oldschool guys did back then) don’t even look remotely alike, either.

/edited

[quote]destroyedquads wrote:
… and you somehow believe you need to do a full body routine in order to ‘emphasis the fundamentals’ and ‘learn the basic lifting skills’?

did you know that in bodybuilding, training your ARMS DIRECTLY as WELL AS everything else is part of the ‘fundamentals’?

Why do you think someone can’t build a foundation on a split routine, considering thousands of people have been doing just that for decades?[/quote]

To clarify, I’m talking about training muscle groups 3x per week (frequency), not just full body workouts per se.

I didn’t say that split routines do not work for beginners - just that if they can recover from training their muscle groups 3x per week (e.g. full body Mon/Wed/Fri)…why say that it doesn’t work as good as a split? Like I said, recovering this quickly won’t last long, and they’ll be on a 2x / week muscle training routine in no time. Of course you can build a foundation using a split (e.g. Upper/Lower twice weekly), it just depends how quickly YOU recover from your routine (genetics / intensity etc).

As regards not training the arms as a beginner, I hate to “spew out” what many on here hate to hear…but, if the BEGINNER is adding decent weight to the bar/body (which will be FAR more hypertrophy stimulus than an advanced person would get), they’ll get decent growth in their arms. I’m NOT saying that this is OPTIMAL…BUT…if it stops beginners from doing endless isolation movements for arms etc. (more volume on their arms than any other muscle group)…then so be it. I’d rather be 100% stronger in a few months (but some lagging bodyparts to bring up) than to be stuck at a “measly poundage” for the big lifts (and still only be curling 25lb dumbbells). But that’s obviously two EXTREMES.

I do NOT have a problem with beginners devoting a few sets to their arms etc. In fact, many beginners simply could not bring themselves around to not doing this anyway (leave out direct arm work).

The basic exercises that I showed is just the START…something to develop. This is common sense to most on here, but maybe not to the more inexperienced lifter.

I’ve just come back to these forums from after a year or so (although I joined earlier, I haven’t been on here all that long)…so I’m not sure what others have already said to get the bodybuilders “riled up” about the basics that I’m on about here - I’m guessing that there have been extremists? I’m not being narrow minded here, just saying that getting the mains lifts up first is a beginners main priority - never did I say that they do not ever need to train the smaller muscle groups etc.

[quote]dankid wrote:

Ya I know. I see all the same idiots trying to talk crap to me and others, which by defult pretty much guarantees that im a genius. Its pretty re-assuring to know a bunch of people that know nothing think you are wrong.

[/quote]

It’s high time you realized it’s exactly that kind of attitude which leads people to talk so much crap to you in the first place. You are not a genius: you’re just some kid that thinks he is because he is (or was) a kinesiology student, works as a PT and reads a lot (apparently far too much). It’s pretty clear that your habit of dispensing advice at every given opportunity is just your way of ‘honing your craft’ for your chosen career after graduating. Which really only benefits you.

The problem is, you continually insist on promoting yourself as an authority on areas of training you have only read about, yet have no real world experience in. All of the most respected members on this site have one thing in common: any advice they give is gleaned from a foundation of knowledge built in the gym - everything they suggest they have actually tried(I’d ask if you can say the same, but I already know the answer).

They haven’t spent years in a library, only to emerge as a training Messiah, fully-formed and jacked, like a butterfly from a chrysalis. Things don’t work that way. I personally wouldn’t take advice from you because what you say lacks consistency - something that only comes with experience.

You say that you are mocked because people don’t understand you. What you repeatedly fail to understand is that you are mocked because people understand your posts too well.

Just offering some perspective.

[quote]Producer wrote:
Total body training doesn’t work for anyone. It makes beginners lose muscle faster than a cancer patient.[/quote]

This post is laughable…Bill Starr, in the 70’s with the Colts, and Mark Rippetoe with many trainees over the years, have helped build tremendous size and strength using solely full/total body training methods.

You have either never tried full body training, or never did it correctly. One of the most inane posts I have read.

[quote]its_just_me wrote:
destroyedquads wrote:
its_just_me wrote:

The reason why I said concentrate only on the main compound movements was to emphasise the fundamentals - the importance of learning the basic lifting skills and making sure that one focuses on putting more pounds on the bar (rather than thinking that a “magical routine” will make one bigger). A begginer doesn’t need complication…they need focus (something which is far easier to do with just 3-5 exercises per workout). As has already been mentioned, routines evolve. Better to have a FOUNDATION to evolve from than a complicated, tweaked routine that COULD cause distraction / lack of focus…something that an “inexperienced person” often falls prey to.

… and you somehow believe you need to do a full body routine in order to ‘emphasis the fundamentals’ and ‘learn the basic lifting skills’?

did you know that in bodybuilding, training your ARMS DIRECTLY as WELL AS everything else is part of the ‘fundamentals’?

Why do you think someone can’t build a foundation on a split routine, considering thousands of people have been doing just that for decades?

I didn’t say that split routines do not work for beginners - just that if they can recover from training their muscle groups 3x per week (e.g. Mon/Wed/Fri)…why say that it doesn’t work as good as a split? Like I said, recovering this quickly won’t last long, and they’ll be on a 2x / week muscle training routine in no time. Of course you can build a foundation using a split (e.g. Upper/Lower twice weekly), it just depends how quickly YOU recover from your routine (genetics / intensity etc).

As regards not training the arms as a beginner, I hate to “spew out” what many on here hate to hear…but, if the BEGINNER is adding decent weight to the bar/body (which will be FAR more hypertrophy stimulus than an advanced person would get), they’ll get decent growth in their arms. I’m NOT saying that this is OPTIMAL…BUT…if it stops beginners from doing endless isolation movements for arms etc. (more volume on their arms than any other muscle group)…then so be it. I’d rather be 100% stronger in a few months (but some lagging bodyparts to bring up) than to be stuck at a “measly poundage” for the big lifts (and still only be curling 25lb dumbbells). But that’s obviously two EXTREMES.

I do NOT have a problem with beginners devoting a few sets to their arms etc. In fact, many beginners simply could not bring themselves around to not doing this anyway (leave out direct arm work).

The basic exercises that I showed is just the START…something to develop. This is common sense to most on here, but maybe not to the more inexperienced lifter.

I’ve just come back to these forums from after a year or so (although I joined earlier, I haven’t been on here all that long)…so I’m not sure what others have already said to get the bodybuilders “riled up” about the basics that I’m on about here - I’m guessing that there have been extremists? I’m not being narrow minded here, just saying that getting the mains lifts up first is a beginners main priority - never did I say that they do not ever need to train the smaller muscle groups etc.[/quote]

You see, now you are getting irritating. You are the one who logged in over a week ago asking for the advice of the bigger lifters here on how to get big…yet you turn around and act as if we don’t know what we are talking about when we say that split routines have built more skinny beginners into huge mutherfuckers than any other strategy.

Your thinking is about as “black and white” as you can get. Why would there even be a fucking need to train everything 3 times a week? Why do you assume ALL beginners have the same recovery rate or that all beginners are so fucking weak when they first start lifting?

Those who actually have the genetics for this will progress in strength very rapidly. Training muscle groups more than twice may actually be overkill. Everyone didn’t start this using just the pink dumbbells.

I’ve said it before, if you don’t make more progress than average on a split routine that is actually set up logically ASSUMING YOU ARE EATING TO GROW, then you likely do not have the genetics to take this to any extreme degree.

I am really sick of everything being explained as if everyone here is swimming in the shallow end of the gene pool.

This activity isn’t exactly for the “I can’t gain no matter what I have done over 10 years” crowd.

[quote]Professor X wrote:

You see, now you are getting irritating. You are the one who logged in over a week ago asking for the advice of the bigger lifters here on how to get big…yet you turn around and act as if we don’t know what we are talking about when we say that split routines have built more skinny beginners into huge mutherfuckers than any other strategy.

Your thinking is about as “black and white” as you can get. Why would there even be a fucking need to train everything 3 times a week? Why do you assume ALL beginners have the same recovery rate or that all beginners are so fucking weak when they first start lifting?

Those who actually have the genetics for this will progress in strength very rapidly. Training muscle groups more than twice may actually be overkill. Everyone didn’t start this using just the pink dumbbells.

I’ve said it before, if you don’t make more progress than average on a split routine that is actually set up logically ASSUMING YOU ARE EATING TO GROW, then you likely do not have the genetics to take this to any extreme degree.

I am really sick of everything being explained as if everyone here is swimming in the shallow end of the gene pool.

This activity isn’t exactly for the “I can’t gain no matter what I have done over 10 years” crowd.[/quote]

I don’t see why my posts are being taken the wrong way - they are NOT directed at ones like yourself LOL (I don’t recall ever saying that?)

I DID NOT say / presume that all beginners have the same recovery rate (I said quite the opposite). All I’m saying is, as an example, if the beginner “trained” his chest on Mon, is recovered by Wed (because he is weak)…why wait until Thursday/Friday to train it again? If a lifter is genetically disadvantaged, then high frequency bodypart training with low volume (at least for the first few months or so) seems to benefit THEM better. What’s the problem with that?

Correction: I asked how to get big-ger (how to get past stagnation), it’s not like I was clueless…as it turns out, it wasn’t so much the split that was the problem - it was my training mentality (i.e. “you only get out what you put in”, “no pain no gain” - A.K.A., going to the extreme as regards taking EVERY set to failure).

Here’s an example routine for the beginners who have less than average genetics:

Mon and Fri:
-Legs (e.g. Squats and leg curls)
-Upper and Lower Chest (e.g. Incline Barbbell press and Dips)
-Upper and middle back (e.g. Chin ups and Rows)
-Arms (e.g. Tricep extensions and Curls)
-Calfs and Abs

Wed:
-Back/Legs - (e.g. Deadlifts, Lunges and back extensions)
-Upper and Lower Chest (e.g. Incline dumbell press and Decline barbell press)
-Upper and middle back (e.g. Wide grip pullups and 1 arm dumbell rows)
-Calfs and Abs

On average, 2 sets per exercise, upper body movements 8-12 reps/set and lower body/trunk 12-20 reps per set.

Can be alternated with lower reps and higher set schemes (e.g. 6-8 reps per set, 3-4 sets per exercise).

If you have below average genetics… How do you recover so well, how can you do 8-10 exercises per session (5-6 of which are compound movements), how can you do your upper body justice after heavy squatting, and how can you do multiple pressing exercises per session, three times a week (doubtlessly with shitty setup and execution because, well, you’re a clueless beginner)… Plus shoulder strain from back squats BEFORE the pressing on 2 out of 3 sessions… And so on.

I think your concept of “less than average genetics” drastically differs from mine…

[quote]its_just_me wrote:
Here’s an example routine for the beginners who have less than average genetics:

Mon and Fri:
-Legs (e.g. Squats and leg curls)
-Upper and Lower Chest (e.g. Incline Barbbell press and Dips)
-Upper and middle back (e.g. Chin ups and Rows)
-Arms (e.g. Tricep extensions and Curls)
-Calfs and Abs

Wed:
-Back/Legs - (e.g. Deadlifts, Lunges and back extensions)
-Upper and Lower Chest (e.g. Incline dumbell press and Decline barbell press)
-Upper and middle back (e.g. Wide grip pullups and 1 arm dumbell rows)
-Calfs and Abs

On average, 2 sets per exercise, upper body movements 8-12 reps/set and lower body/trunk 12-20 reps per set.

Can be alternated with lower reps and higher set schemes (e.g. 6-8 reps per set, 3-4 sets per exercise).[/quote]

Looks pretty good but I would change it for a beginner. I dont think 2 sets of each exercise is enough for a beginner. It would look more like this.

A:
-Legs (e.g. Squats and leg curls)
-Chest (Bench or dips)
-Back (Chins)
-Arms (Biceps)
-Calfs and Abs

B:
-Back/Legs - (Deadlift or unilateral hip dominant)
-Chest/shoulders - shoulder press or incline bench
-back (Rows)
-Triceps
-Calves and abs

On average, 3-4 (edit: 2 sets only on “accessory” stuff like calves, and leg curls, and arms) sets per exercise, upper body movements 5-10reps/set and lower body/trunk 5-10 reps per set.

This would be the starting point that MOST people would go with. After a good amount of time following this and building muscle (maybe 3-6 mos) changes would be made, by adding things, and subtracting things to account for lagging areas. Areas thatare developing fat may reduce sets down to 2 or drop certain exercises all together, and lagging areas may recieve more sets up to 4-5 or add exercises. And there may come a point where it makes sense to switch to upper/lower or a split, if needed to keep workout lengths under control, but for the most part I think just about everyone could do just fine on 3x per week full body. I would do it myself as a first choice, but I want to be able to train more often, because I like to.

[quote]dankid wrote:
Looks pretty good but I would change it for a beginner. I dont think 2 sets of each exercise is enough for a beginner. It would look more like this.

A:
-Legs (e.g. Squats and leg curls)
-Chest (Bench or dips)
-Back (Chins)
-Arms (Biceps)
-Calfs and Abs

B:
-Back/Legs - (Deadlift or unilateral hip dominant)
-Chest/shoulders - shoulder press or incline bench
-back (Rows)
-Triceps
-Calves and abs
[/quote]

That’s just as shitty as the one he posted.

[quote]dankid wrote:
its_just_me wrote:
Here’s an example routine for the beginners who have less than average genetics:

Mon and Fri:
-Legs (e.g. Squats and leg curls)
-Upper and Lower Chest (e.g. Incline Barbbell press and Dips)
-Upper and middle back (e.g. Chin ups and Rows)
-Arms (e.g. Tricep extensions and Curls)
-Calfs and Abs

Wed:
-Back/Legs - (e.g. Deadlifts, Lunges and back extensions)
-Upper and Lower Chest (e.g. Incline dumbell press and Decline barbell press)
-Upper and middle back (e.g. Wide grip pullups and 1 arm dumbell rows)
-Calfs and Abs

On average, 2 sets per exercise, upper body movements 8-12 reps/set and lower body/trunk 12-20 reps per set.

Can be alternated with lower reps and higher set schemes (e.g. 6-8 reps per set, 3-4 sets per exercise).

Looks pretty good but I would change it for a beginner. I dont think 2 sets of each exercise is enough for a beginner. It would look more like this.

A:
-Legs (e.g. Squats and leg curls)
-Chest (Bench or dips)
-Back (Chins)
-Arms (Biceps)
-Calfs and Abs

B:
-Back/Legs - (Deadlift or unilateral hip dominant)
-Chest/shoulders - shoulder press or incline bench
-back (Rows)
-Triceps
-Calves and abs

On average, 3-4 (edit: 2 sets only on “accessory” stuff like calves, and leg curls, and arms) sets per exercise, upper body movements 5-10reps/set and lower body/trunk 5-10 reps per set.

This would be the starting point that MOST people would go with. After a good amount of time following this and building muscle (maybe 3-6 mos) changes would be made, by adding things, and subtracting things to account for lagging areas. Areas thatare developing fat may reduce sets down to 2 or drop certain exercises all together, and lagging areas may recieve more sets up to 4-5 or add exercises. And there may come a point where it makes sense to switch to upper/lower or a split, if needed to keep workout lengths under control, but for the most part I think just about everyone could do just fine on 3x per week full body. I would do it myself as a first choice, but I want to be able to train more often, because I like to.[/quote]

Beginner or not, put leg work at the end of the session. I have done full body before and had to learn the hard way.

[quote]roybot wrote:
dankid wrote:

Ya I know. I see all the same idiots trying to talk crap to me and others, which by defult pretty much guarantees that im a genius. Its pretty re-assuring to know a bunch of people that know nothing think you are wrong.

It’s high time you realized it’s exactly that kind of attitude which leads people to talk so much crap to you in the first place. You are not a genius: you’re just some kid that thinks he is because he is (or was) a kinesiology student, works as a PT and reads a lot (apparently far too much). It’s pretty clear that your habit of dispensing advice at every given opportunity is just your way of ‘honing your craft’ for your chosen career after graduating. Which really only benefits you.

The problem is, you continually insist on promoting yourself as an authority on areas of training you have only read about, yet have no real world experience in. All of the most respected members on this site have one thing in common: any advice they give is gleaned from a foundation of knowledge built in the gym - everything they suggest they have actually tried(I’d ask if you can say the same, but I already know the answer).

They haven’t spent years in a library, only to emerge as a training Messiah, fully-formed and jacked, like a butterfly from a chrysalis. Things don’t work that way. I personally wouldn’t take advice from you because what you say lacks consistency - something that only comes with experience.

You say that you are mocked because people don’t understand you. What you repeatedly fail to understand is that you are mocked because people understand your posts too well.

Just offering some perspective. [/quote]

Good post, but I think you’re wasting your breath. This guy is never going to see the light, as it would require him to totally redefine himself. Most people can’t do that, least of all this arrogant tool.

I think the best thing would be to totally ignore and not to debate with him any longer. We would of course still have to tell newcomers not to listen to his bullshit, but that can be done without communicating with him directly.

I mean Jesus H. Christ. C_C close grip benches over 500lbs for reps(or is it 600 now? lol) and just about all of T-Nation goes to him for training advice, yet dankid thinks he knows more about training. How delusional can you get?

So let me get this straight… someone with below average genetics is supposed to train his muscles MORE frequently than someone with BETTER genetics? And while doing MORE work in each session?

I think I should buy a new dictionary because I guess my definition of logic is out-dated.

[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
I just want to throw this gem out here again, from our last tbt discussion:

…From January until the Mr. Universe contest I trained regularly, hard and heavy. Regular poundages used in training were sets and reps with over 200 lbs. on the Press and Press Behind Neck, Incline and Flat D.B. Press sets and reps with 2x140 lb. dumbells, Bent Rowing with 250-300 lbs., Incline D.B. Curls with 2x70 lb. dumbells, and 3 sets of 20 reps on the Squat with 320 lbs. My workouts in those days were:

Incline D.B. Press �??�??�??�?�¢?? 5x5 with 140 lb. dumbells
Flat Bench D.B. Press �??�??�??�?�¢?? 5x5 with 140 lb. dumbells
Pushups
Press Behind Neck �??�??�??�?�¢?? 5x5 with 210 lbs.
Press �??�??�??�?�¢?? 5x5 with 210 lbs.
Two D.B. Press �??�??�??�?�¢?? 5x5 working up to 100 lb. dumbells
Dumbell Lateral �??�??�??�?�¢?? 5x8 with 50-60 lb. dumbells
Chins �??�??�??�?�¢?? 5x8
Bent Barbell Row �??�??�??�?�¢?? 5x8 with 250-300 lbs.
One Arm D.B. Row �??�??�??�?�¢?? 5x8 with 100-120 lb. dumbell
Lat Pulldown �??�??�??�?�¢?? 5x8
Central Loading Curl �??�??�??�?�¢?? 5x8 with 140 lbs.
Incline D.B. Curl �??�??�??�?�¢?? 5x8 with 70 lb. dumbells
Barbell Curl �??�??�??�?�¢?? 5x8
Lying On Back Two Dumbell Curl �??�??�??�?�¢?? 5x8 with 50-60 lb. dumbells
One D.B. Two Arm French Press �??�??�??�?�¢?? 5x8
Lying B.B. Triceps Extension �??�??�??�?�¢?? 5x8
Triceps Dips or Parallel Bar Dips �??�??�??�?�¢?? 5x8
Triceps On Lat Machine �??�??�??�?�¢?? 5x8
Donkey Calf On Machine �??�??�??�?�¢?? 10x20
Squat �??�??�??�?�¢?? 3x20 with 320 lbs.
D.B. Pullover �??�??�??�?�¢?? 3x10

/edited[/quote]

Please C_C, as a courtesy please don’t post that again. Otherwise, some night I’m gonna swap a workout drink for a bottle of tequila & give that routine a go.
(I’ll probably be using crossfit weights a quarter of the way through, though) ;')

[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
If you have below average genetics… How do you recover so well, how can you do 8-10 exercises per session (5-6 of which are compound movements), how can you do your upper body justice after heavy squatting, and how can you do multiple pressing exercises per session, three times a week (doubtlessly with shitty setup and execution because, well, you’re a clueless beginner)… Plus shoulder strain from back squats BEFORE the pressing on 2 out of 3 sessions… And so on.

I think your concept of “less than average genetics” drastically differs from mine…
[/quote]

That program would be overkill if the lifter was as advanced as you. But since they are quite weak, the load would be small enough to recover from. Besides that, they could split it up more if they needed.

As regards volume, if they were only benching, say, less than 125lbs (not unusual for a weak beginner), it would not be hard to add a few pounds to the bar after just 2 days rest (even if they lifted to near failure). Another thing, many of these individual never actually reach failure. The weak trainee would only be working in the lower percentage of their rep max (due to motor learning etc) - which again allows higher volume due to the lower intensity. Even if this routine is too much for the “less than average genetics” person, they could tweak it slightly and drop a few exercises/sets.

If you leave out the isolation exercises (which don’t effect recovery ability THAT much), the total volume of sets per workout is about 10 or just over (not far off what most people do in a workout). But like I said, the apparent extra work is to overcompensate for the lack of intensity.

The main difference is the fact that the muscle part’s training is spread out more (e.g. the average person’s split may do 6 sets for chest twice a week, but the “less than average” person may do 4 sets for chest 3 times per week).

“How can one do their upper body justice after doing their lower body?”

I guess this is individual. Many swap it arround. For me, when I first started doing full body workouts ages ago, I did 6 sets of squats, then went on to do 9-13 more exercises (7-9 of which were compound!)…needless to say, this was overkill even for someone with average genetics, let alone someone like me with poor genetics. BUT, because my intensity was low and the load was light (e.g. was only squating 130 to 175lbs, near failure), I only burned out after about 6-8 weeks (anyone advanced doing this would probably have burned out after 2-3). Lasting 6-8 weeks on low calories and poor genetics, with 14 exercises per workout, and up to 6 sets per exercises - I’m lucky to still be alive LOL. It’s amazing what volume you can manage when you’re weak…

“shoulder strain from back squats BEFORE the pressing”

Again, when the load is light (for weak individuals) this does not become a problem.

“how can you do multiple pressing exercises per session”

The pressing movements can be supersetted with the pulling movements (to make workout more efficient and allow better rest). Again, as regards total volume, it’s manageable due to lack of intensity/adaptation.

But like I keep saying, this sort of workout is not for the average beginner. It would only work well on a small percentage of the population (people with crappy genetics…at the beginning of their “lifting career”).

[quote]destroyedquads wrote:
So let me get this straight… someone with below average genetics is supposed to train his muscles MORE frequently than someone with BETTER genetics? And while doing MORE work in each session?

I think I should buy a new dictionary because I guess my definition of logic is out-dated.[/quote]

I know it doesn’t seem logical…maybe the below average genetics person could leave out a few exercises (like 2 pushing/1 pulling exercise). But again, like I said above, the lack of load can allow more volume. The more intense the lifter’s workouts become, the less the exercises per session (becomes more split).