full body workouts let you work out 3 times a week hitting each muscle group moderatly each session.
the other extreame would be to work out every day hitting a different muscle group super intensly, but your only hitting a muscle once every week.
so do you build more muscle by obliterating a muscle group and letting it heal for a week, or do you builc more muscle by stimulating it 3 times a week?
Short answer is YES.
Too many variables to answer accurately.
ok
Why do you assume this as there is ample evidence to the contrary?
my bad, i forgot exactly what i was asking i take back what i said
You don’t have to take it back, I was just asking why you assume this. Most people I’ve known who had a good amount of muscle got it on a split routine. I have seen very few big guys, as in almost none, who did full body to get that way. That’s what I base my question on. If I constantly saw big guys with defined physiques doing full body workouts for bodybuilding I might feel differently. I don’t often count the bodybuilders of the 40s and 50s because, one they were the genetic elite, and two they weren’t trying to get as big as they could.
If you want to do full body, do it. Maybe you will make great progress. I just look at full body vs. split like choosing a wrench or a hammer to drive a nail. Both tools may do it, but one is a hell of a lot better than the other.
the thing i dont understand, is that inorder to work out 5 or more days a week, you have to split up your workout quite a bit. and the more your split up your workout, the less frequently you can train each muscle group. yes your going to the gym 5 or 6 or 7 days a week, but your major muscle groups are getting as much as 7 days of rest!
so if you dedicate an entire day to chest each week, that means that you can only train chest once a week. i dont get how training a muscle only once a week could be any better than training it 2 or 3 times a week.
people on this forum have claimed that people who only go to the gym 3 times a week are lazy, but then they get off the computer and go to the gym to train “arms” and do 10 sets of curls and 10 sets of tricep extensions. or they go and train “shoulders” and its a shoulder press or two, then a bunch of lateral raises and reverse flys. so they may go to the gym more often, but honestly they arn’t doing shit most days. ive seen people’s back day’s an its a few sets on the lat pulldown and a few sets on the seated rows and they call that a back day. even for chest day, i mean what are you really gonna do for chests? a bunch of bench pressing and a bunch of flys. im sure your working hard but its just not the same as working your entire body in one day, or your entire upper or lower body.
[quote]docthal wrote:
the thing i dont understand, is that inorder to work out 5 or more days a week, you have to split up your workout quite a bit. and the more your split up your workout, the less frequently you can train each muscle group. yes your going to the gym 5 or 6 or 7 days a week, but your major muscle groups are getting as much as 7 days of rest!
so if you dedicate an entire day to chest each week, that means that you can only train chest once a week. i dont get how training a muscle only once a week could be any better than training it 2 or 3 times a week.
people on this forum have claimed that people who only go to the gym 3 times a week are lazy, but then they get off the computer and go to the gym to train “arms” and do 10 sets of curls and 10 sets of tricep extensions. or they go and train “shoulders” and its a shoulder press or two, then a bunch of lateral raises and reverse flys. so they may go to the gym more often, but honestly they arn’t doing shit most days. ive seen people’s back day’s an its a few sets on the lat pulldown and a few sets on the seated rows and they call that a back day. even for chest day, i mean what are you really gonna do for chests? a bunch of bench pressing and a bunch of flys. im sure your working hard but its just not the same as working your entire body in one day, or your entire upper or lower body. [/quote]
from this post it sounds like you’ve never done a progressive and intense body part split.
maybe you should try a “chest” day for 6 months and see how you progress. I know that when I had an arms day, I was putting 1/4" on my arms about every month.
There are many splits that aren’t just once a week. Some people may do a four day split with one or no days off before repeating. I’ve seen push/pull/leg splits done with three on and one day off then repeat with a light day of each. Upper/Lower is another type of split.
In this thread and the other you seem stuck on the idea that full body is somehow a better way to gain mass or workout in general. It is possible on larger bodyparts to workout so hard you have almost nothing left. There is also a big difference between a guy squating 135 three times a week and a guy who squats 400-500lbs once a week. Do you think the guy squatting a quarter ton isn’t working hard?
Once again, if you want to do full body, do it. Post your pics, and show the world how the big guys are wrong.
[quote]ryno76 wrote:
There is also a big difference between a guy squating 135 three times a week and a guy who squats 400-500lbs once a week. Do you think the guy squatting a quarter ton isn’t working hard?
[/quote]
i dont know what program you are talking about, im talking about the program where you squat 400-500 pounds 3 times per week.
My point is the level of experience someone has. A beginner can squat three times a week, where I have seen alomst no advanced lifter using maximal weights in the same exercise three times a week. You’re still asking a question based in absolutes of which there are none.
All you can do is look at the evidence of what the majority of lifters have done to build a lot of muscle mass. By far, the biggest guys have followed a split because it works. You keep making the same statements and asking the same questions regarding full body workouts. If you want to follow a full body program then do it.
If I wanted to be a successful businessman I would look at what other successful businessmen have done. Then I would choose the method that a majority of them used. If I want to build a lot of mass I am going to look at what most of the big natural bodybuilders have done to get where they are.
I now dub thee, “Troll,” and wish you luck.
[quote]ryno76 wrote:
I now dub thee, “Troll,” and wish you luck.[/quote]
what are you so upset about? you asked why i thought full body workouts were better and i gave my reasons. then you commented on my reasoning. that seems like perfectly normal forum conduct there are no grounds for making degrading statements like that.
So would I be correct in assuming that the conclusion you folks have come to is that full body 3 day programs are better for beginners (because they are able to lift less weight and because doing full body can help keep them from overdeveloping in specific areas) and that splits are better for intermediate/advanced (because of greater efficiency)?
[quote]fisban0 wrote:
So would I be correct in assuming that the conclusion you folks have come to is that full body 3 day programs are better for beginners (because they are able to lift less weight and because doing full body can help keep them from overdeveloping in specific areas) and that splits are better for intermediate/advanced (because of greater efficiency)?[/quote]
no, it depends on your goals.
if you want to look anything like a bodybuilder, you could start off with a split routine. the difference between you and a more advanced trainee would be volume and intensity. yours would probably be lower given that you wouldn’t need as much volume or intensity as the more advanced trainee to grow. hell, even if you “only” wanted to look like Greg Plitt, you’d be better off doing a split routine. look at guys on here like Bug, ebomb, Stu… those physiques were not built with full body training.
and full body training runs you the risk of underdeveloping overlooked areas. only a poorly designed split routine would “overdevelop” anything.
I might recommend full body training for the obese/overweight trainee, or for the advanced trainee that knows his body inside and out (iirc Synergy has trained or is training with a full body routine). but even for the obese trainee, fat loss/better conditioning can also be obtained on a split routine by keeping rest periods short.
anyway, it’s all besides the point. you train with the program, diet, volume, intensity and frequency that YOU can grow with. as a true beginner, yes you can make gains on a full body program. however, eventually you’ll get to the point where you NEED more volume to grow, and you just won’t be able to get that with a full body program.
I’m not upset, but when someone posts basically the same points and asks the same questions in multiple threads and then continue to argue against the evidence they are usually either a troll or have read too much crap by one author. Bodybuilding has to be the only event/sport/hobby or whatever you want to call it that a very vocal group feels that training methods were better 60 years ago. Would you go in for surgery if they were using 1950s technology and methods? Football players don’t train the same as they did in the 50s yet NOBODY even suggests that they should.
As I’ve stated before, full body training has a purpose, but there is ample evidence that it is not the most efficient way to gain mass for anyone interested in bodybuilding or improving their appearance. If you don’t agree then prove me wrong.
Look, I admire the bodybuilders from the 40s and 50s, but many of them were not that big and weren’t trying to get big. They wanted their calves, biceps, and neck to be the same circumference and many of them had small legs by todays standards. What most people overlook is they were the genetic elite of their time.
If you are not attempting to be a troll then I apologize, but you were resembling one.
ok, i respect that you feel that way about my behavior. i disagree however that i have been making the same points and questions repetidly. I made the point in another thread that it would be counter productive to train the same muscle group hard two days in a row. You seem to agree with me on this, because you mentioned that “I have seen alomst no advanced lifter using maximal weights in the same exercise three times a week.”
in this thread i stated that a routine with a higher frequency would be just as good as one as only trained each muscle group once per week. The general answer to that point so far is “since the biggest bodybuilders use split routines, splits must be better” and i havent argued that, i accept that as an answer.
The only point i have made, is that people who do full body workouts 3 times a week are just as dedicated as people who use once specifically split routines that work every muscle group once per week. That was my thrid post in this thread and nobody seems to argue that point.
Those are all the points i have made thus far, and none of them are the same, so you cant say im acting like a troll because im saying the same shit over and over again.
I have asked two questions in a previous thread. one was why somebody would do a 3 day per week split routine instead of a 3 day per week full body routine, and the other was about how many days a week Professor X reccomends one should work out, Professor X answered my first question, and replied to my second with something along the lines of you need to work more than 3 days week for optimal results, which didnt really address the question i asked.
In this thread the only question i asked
Again, these are not the same questions at all. So you cant say im a troll because im asking about the same thing over and over again.
And i have never preached full body workouts over splits. I mentioned once in this thread that i didnt understand why higher frequency routines were any less effective than splits that work muscle groups once per week. I mentioned once that id rather do a 3 day full body routine over a 3 days split routine. both points got shot down and i accept that. I have even mentioned on more than one occasion that i agree with you guys that splits are a more effective way of training in general.
I hate to have to analyze my freaken forum activity, but im being accused of shit that just aint true and the evidence is there that im not a troll or some kind of thick headed split hater or whatever you think i am.
I actually just found an article on this topic on T-Nation.
Just thought I would post it because of relevance.
[quote]docthal wrote:
why would somebody use splits if they are only going to the gym 3 times a week? id rather use a full body workout and take advantage of the increased frequency. i was refering to FBW in my post, obviously you dont want to destroy your chest with 10 sets 3 times a week.
wow, i had no idea. i guess starting strength and bill stars 5x5 and all those good systems are crap then. and i guess all the classic bodybuilders like steve revees and reg park were working innefficiantly.
full body workouts let you work out 3 times a week hitting each muscle group moderatly each session.
the other extreame would be to work out every day hitting a different muscle group super intensly, but your only hitting a muscle once every week.
so do you build more muscle by obliterating a muscle group and letting it heal for a week, or do you builc more muscle by stimulating it 3 times a week?
[/quote]
The above posts all revolve around the same theme, that’s why I thought you were trolling. As far as X’s statement goes, his point was that if you are trying to make OPTIMAL progress, i.e. adding mass for BODYBUILDING purposes, you need to be in the gym more than three days a week. From that perspective, someone doing full body 3x a week is not as dedicated to making optimal mass gains as someone who is hitting the gym four times or more a week. It deals with the goal and the end state.
Since you weren’t trolling, I apologize. But damn don’t be so thinned skin, it’s just the internet and I assumed you were one of the full body die hards.