[quote]countingbeans wrote:
ect0m0rph wrote:
WTF is an under armour shirt LOL?
A rock, you must live under one.[/quote]
must be an american thing 
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
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’ 
So what is the point? Are you saying the above proves something that was in question in this thread, or not saying that? If so, what such thing does it prove? I really don’t follow.
Or are you saying that if a person has the genetics of Reg Park, then he can look like the above with such a program carried out very diligently, though probably not literally this every single workout every single week? I don’t think that was in dispute.
But if you like discussing that particular picture, actually I think it illustrates some points working against what I think you are trying to say. At a glance I notice that he his triceps development does not seem balanced to the rest of his physique by modern standards and almost undoubtedly is less than he could have achieved, and the same seems true for his medial delts.
And whaddya know, from the above workout list, if it really were typical with few or rare major exceptions, that outcome would be predicted.[/quote]
Well I posted it because people have been saying in this thread that nobody ever got huge doing TBT and that its worthless beyond the begginer stage. So I’m giving an example of someone who was both big and most certainly not a begginer. Intrestingly if you look at what all the biggest guys of that era were doing, THE PRE STEROID ERA, it resembles something like the routine there. Then all of a sudden steroids are on the scene and everyone changes over to splits hmm??? I agree he doesnt have the same development of todays bodybuilders but how many of todays bodybuilders are drug-free?
BUT, I just found this interview with reg so that maybe wasnt the best example lol
IM: Were you still training in the garage at that time?
Reg: No, I had joined Henry Atkin’s Viking Gym for the express purpose of training for the Mr. Britain contest. With Henry’s help, I was able to increase my bodyweight from 196 lbs. to 226 lbs. in a month. For the first time in my life, I trained twice a day, six times a week. In the morning, I trained the lower body with high repetition squats, hack lifts, calf exercises and sometimes heavy bench presses. In the evening, I worked the upper body. All the squat sets were done in 20 reps with very deep breathing. The upper body work consisted of heavy standing presses, curls, bench presses, both barbell and dumbbell rows at anywhere from 6 to 10 reps per set. At this time, I did no other activity and rested whenever I was away from the weights.‘’
Even so, it still sounds as though the common theme of the pre steroid era was hitting a bodypart DIRECTLY 3x a week or more and I dont see how thats acheivable with the way most splits are set up?
There was a good discussion about TBT vs splits on another board, so heres a few gems supporting TBT…
“Split routines came in vogue because Weider pushed them heavily in the 1960s as the new, scientific approach to boost his sales above the Hoffman magazines. Conveniently, at the same time steroid users were switching to splits because they worked well with the escalating steroid use.”
“Most of the time people choose split routines simply because they’ve been persuaded by the magazines showcasing drug-dependent bodybuilders who use split routines, and a large part of the time they subconsciously gravitate to split routines because they are easier but allow the trainee to believe they are doing something ‘more advanced’. Sometimes, and for some trainees, they actually are the best choice. Split routines can certainly have their place, but the BS that full-body routines are somehow ‘not advanced enough’ needs to be put to rest.”
“With infrequent split training you’re waiting for extending periods to allow all systems to recover fully - even though they recuperate over different time frames. With advanced full-body training you’re manipulating loading patterns so that you can train the muscles at an optimal frequency while allowing the joints and connective tissues, nervous system and energy pathways to recover on their own times by adjusting your style and type of training on each training day. That’s what makes it a very sophisticated and advanced form of training for drug-free trainees, regardless of how the public perception has been of it since the popularization of steroid-fueled split routines in the mid-to-late 1960s (steroids maintain an anabolic environment within the muscle cells even over the long breaks between training sessions, allowing trainees to progress very well on infrequent splits. Some people with higher than average natural testosterone levels and robust joints react well too)”
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
RiVaL6 wrote:
And lastly, it’s obvious that SPLIT training is superior to tbt for bodyubuilding, for now.
I couldn’t name you one successful bodybuilder who won championships with tbt.
Well, not in the last 50 years anyway.
[/quote]
Viator. Only 38 years ago 
I believe you would find that Arthur had him do bodypart specific workouts – or ones where the vast majority of work was for only one or two bodyparts – as well as TBT, and while I don’t have first hand evidence, there have been any number of sources over the years that state that they have personal knowledge that Viator went and did his own workouts as well as Jones’ (as astonishing as that is, as Jones’ workouts were, to be sure, brutal.)
You would also find that Viator’s career was overall most surely not all TBT. I don’t know if his training was all-TBT prior to meeting Jones – probably not as that was no longer the custom – I don’t at all expect that Jones avoided his specialization workouts with Viator, and most certainly in his post-Jones IFBB career, Viator used a split routine, for whatever championships he won during that period.
But yes, that’s probably as close an example as there is.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
I believe you would find that Arthur had him do bodypart specific workouts – or ones where the vast majority of work was for only one or two bodyparts – as well as TBT, and while I don’t have first hand evidence, there have been any number of sources over the years that state that they have personal knowledge that Viator went and did his own workouts as well as Jones’ (as astonishing as that is, as Jones’ workouts were, to be sure, brutal.)
You would also find that Viator’s career was overall most surely not all TBT.[/quote]
Yea, I’ve read that too. I’m mainly going off his last workout with Jones before Mr. America (I’m pretty sure he couldn’t workout out on his own in the next 2 days). That workout was full body, and it was brutal.
Started with:
Leg press: 750 x 20
Leg extension: 225 x 20
Squat: 502 x 13
no rest in between those 3
[quote]ckallander wrote:
When I first started training I did full body (at least what I thought was relatively full body) dumbbell routines every other day. I went front 150-160 in a month or so. I used 35lb dumbbells. Once I realized that 35lbs was no longer challenging in any exercise, I joined a gym in hopes of taking my training up a notch with a five day split. From what I had read, this was the way to go. All my friends were all about this style of training.
I had absolutely terrible results with this design. I eventually realized I was too weak to train this way. This is when I stumbled upon Rippetoe’s, made the change and haven’t looked back. I know eventually the weight I’ll be lifting will be too much for my body to recover from in one day, but until that happens I’ll gladly follow a full-body routine. I never liked split training even though I wanted to. I just hate having a “shoulder day,” ya know? However, a lot of my friends (one in particular who is at like 225 and single digit body fat) started on split routines and to this day swears by them.
Also, to the people saying they couldn’t bench three days a week on a full body routine with their enormous bench numbers, well then only bench one or two days a week. I always liked:
Mon - Bench
Wed - Press
Fri - Dips
I think people automatically assume they’re confined to the basic five lifts in a total body routine or are benching every time they lift. There are many options. And as much as I would like to support the OP for his new found love for TBT, his arguments aren’t very solid. A lesson that I’m slowly learning is listen to the veterans around here dude. Unless of course, they try and talk you out of wearing skinny jeans. [/quote]
Please don’t post again.
What idiots want people to believe is happening.
Reality.
dont try argue size with bigger people. you can argue your more athletic, can jump higher, can do more chinups, pushups whatever. you cant argue size. also, eating is integral to whatever your doing. your body responds to frequent strenuous liftin by encouragin you to eat more, or you plateau fast. so if you work out 3x’s a week, you dont need as much muscle growth as 5x or 6x’s a week. you can get strong without gainin weight, but you cant get bigger without gaining weight, and you cant gain weight without eating, and the best way to encourage your body to utilize food is to lift, and the more often you lift the more food your body wants to utilize. therefore, 6x>3x.
obvious point is obvious, but often ignored by self righteous lifters who want recognition of their abilities even though they pale in comparison to real lifters
[quote]ect0m0rph wrote:
There was a good discussion about TBT vs splits on another board, so heres a few gems supporting TBT…
“Split routines came in vogue because Weider pushed them heavily in the 1960s as the new, scientific approach to boost his sales above the Hoffman magazines. Conveniently, at the same time steroid users were switching to splits because they worked well with the escalating steroid use.”
“Most of the time people choose split routines simply because they’ve been persuaded by the magazines showcasing drug-dependent bodybuilders who use split routines, and a large part of the time they subconsciously gravitate to split routines because they are easier but allow the trainee to believe they are doing something ‘more advanced’. Sometimes, and for some trainees, they actually are the best choice. Split routines can certainly have their place, but the BS that full-body routines are somehow ‘not advanced enough’ needs to be put to rest.”
“With infrequent split training you’re waiting for extending periods to allow all systems to recover fully - even though they recuperate over different time frames. With advanced full-body training you’re manipulating loading patterns so that you can train the muscles at an optimal frequency while allowing the joints and connective tissues, nervous system and energy pathways to recover on their own times by adjusting your style and type of training on each training day. That’s what makes it a very sophisticated and advanced form of training for drug-free trainees, regardless of how the public perception has been of it since the popularization of steroid-fueled split routines in the mid-to-late 1960s (steroids maintain an anabolic environment within the muscle cells even over the long breaks between training sessions, allowing trainees to progress very well on infrequent splits. Some people with higher than average natural testosterone levels and robust joints react well too)”
[/quote]
LOL, I don’t even have to guess which anti-bodybuilding site you got that shit from.
Dude there are plenty of natural people that are quite large and have used a split from day one. Spread your dumbass propaganda else where. We don’t hate bodybuilders here, nor do we hate people that use PED’s.
Holy fuck I feel dumber for responding to this shit…
[quote]mr popular wrote:
What idiots want people to believe is happening.[/quote]
This new layout sure has a lot of bugs doesn’t it? lol
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Dude, I thought we were going to keep that between us.
Oops.
[/quote]
Can’t quit you.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
nor do we hate people that use PED’s.
[/quote]
I do. Thats the pussiest shit ever.
A little quote from Kelly Bagget’s article “becoming a fast twitch machine”
"**Note: I am not advocating drug use but I feel it would be foolish not to mention it, especially considering the studies that demonstrate testosterone stimulates exercise independent muscle growth.
Users sitting on their butt doing absolutely nothing still gain nearly twice as much muscle as natural trainees who train their butt off. Now you know why there aren’t many innocent olympians."
This fact, along with individual differences makes just about anything beyond discussing theory a complete waste of time.
Ectomorph showed a pretty clear understanding of what was going on in the pre-steroids era, and im sure the OP has a pretty open mind. The point of all of this? It doesn’t matter how big some guy is or claims to be, if they try to state they know something like “TBT is inferior for size” or “This program is superior for growth” chances are they dont know shit, or even the basic principles. I dont care if Ronnie Coleman were to knock on my door and tell me that splits are the shit, i’d tell him he were an idiot if he tried to make some claim that you cant build a great physique without using a split.
These type of things are just trends, like low-carb dieting. Split training was poplarized by steroid using bodybuilders and magazines, and thus every kid growing up wanted to do a “bodybuilding split”. They work, thats for sure. But this trend does not dismiss TBT or anything else. If steroids had not become so prevelant, then all the “advanced” members would be sitting on here arguing that TBT is superior to split training.
Its the same thing with macronutrients. People got all tied up in the small details, and that you need to be taking in 300-400g of protein a day. And then there are those that say carbs are where its at, and those that say low carb is the way to go. When in fact, in the end it all comes down to total calories.
Labeling a program as a split, or TBT or upper/lower is just a minor detail, really all that matters is that you get stronger. IMO the less advanced you are, the fewer exercises you should use, but with more frequency. This favors TBT. As you get more advanced, a lower frequency, and possibly more variations are needed, and thus some form of split becomes more viable.
Setting some individual differences aside, for people to get pretty darn cloe to their natural genetic limit, split training and TBT are going to be very similar in effectiveness. Based on those individual differences, there will need to be little tweaks here and there. If you are training with TBT and your posterior delts are lagging, you simply do less pressing and more pulling, and maybe add some isolated posterior delt work.
I could talk out of my ass all day, but i’ll let some of the “alphas” bullshit for a bit.
[quote]dankid wrote:
countingbeans wrote:
nor do we hate people that use PED’s.
I do. Thats the pussiest shit ever.
[/quote]
For future reference, when I use the term “we” I do not mean you.
You are nothing but a troll.
I didn’t read the remainder of your post, because the above quoted statement proves you are a weak simpleton.
^^ agreed dankid.
Heres another good read on TBT vs Splits vs upper/lower.
Training Frequency for Mass Gains
In recent years, bodybuilding/hypertrophy training has divided itself into a number of different â??campsâ?? with quite a bit of argument and debate going on over what the optimal training frequency for muscle growth is.
In this article, I want to look at the three most common training frequencies (in terms of how often a given muscle group is hit each week, Iâ??m not talking about overall training frequency) and some of their pros and cons. First Iâ??m going to look at the two opposite extremes of training each muscle group before giving my own preferred training frequency.
I want to make it clear that Iâ??m looking only at training frequency as it applies to explicit mass gains and hypertrophy type goals. Iâ??m not talking about athletes or strength per se (although the recommendations end up being fairly similar) but focusing only on muscle growth as an explicit end goal of training.
Three Times Per Week for Each Muscle Group
Itâ??s often claimed that historically, bodybuilders trained every bodypart three times per week and there is certainly some indication that that is the case (especially in the pre-steroid era). Training systems that look a lot like the heavy/light/medium systems first advocated by Bill Starr and re-popularized in recent years by coaches such as Mark Rippetoe and Glenn Pendlay (as discussed in my article The 5X5 Program) seem to crop up fairly commonly when you look at the workouts of old time lifters.
Itâ??s worth noting that many lifters of that era trained primarily for strength with size gains being more of a â??side-effectâ?? of the training, rather than being such an explicit goal. Still, there is a point to be made that training for strength gains (plus sufficient food) tends to result in size gains. Whether or not they are a â??side-effectâ?? or however you want to look at it doesnâ??t change the overall success of that approach: grow stronger and eat and you will grow.
More modern training systems such as Bryan Haycockâ??s Hypertrophy Specific Training are also based around that type of higher training frequency. Iâ??m sure there are others.
Typical arguments for a higher frequency of training revolve around gene expression and keeping the genes involved in hypertrophy running more constantly by training at a higher frequency and, again, there is certainly some truth to that idea; arguments about the type course of increased protein synthesis often crop up as well. Typically full body workouts ranging from as few as three exercises per workout to as many as perhaps 8-10 depending on the specific implementation are performed with this type of training.
An additional potential benefit to a higher frequency of training, and this is especially true for beginning training, is that performing movements more frequently tends to improve motor learning. And since a majority of the adaptations that occur initially to training are neural in nature, the faster you can get through them adaptation, the sooner you can get into real growth.
However, outside of that one situation, I find that there are some major drawbacks to the idea of training full body three times per week for optimal growth. One of these is that once trainees start handling heavy loads, full body workouts can become incredibly difficult to complete: the loading used in exercises done early in the workout tend to severely limit what can be done later in the workout and something invariably suffers.
This is especially true if heavy leg training is done at the front of the workout: this often leaves about zero energy for the rest of the workout. And performing leg training last often means that it suffers. Back squatting heavily with a tired shoudler girdle after upper body training is problematic at best and dangerous at worst.
Additionally, there is at least some indication that there is an optimal training volume per muscle group (a topic Iâ??ll cover in a later article) and achieving that volume in the context of a full body workout tends to become nearly impossible without the workout being several hours long.
So under most circumstances, I donâ??t find that hitting each muscle group three times per week is optimal for most trainees. It can be accomplished with proper cycling of intensity for the different bodyparts but since, in my experience, bodybuilders like to train hard pretty much all of the time, suggestions to do that often fall on deaf ears.
Blast Every Muscle Group Once Per Week
At the other extreme of training is the idea, that seems to have primarily developed as steroids started to enter the picture, that a muscle group should be blasted into oblivion once per week and then allowed to rest before training again. Many critics of higher frequency training will point to successful elite (read: drug using) bodybuilders who train that way. Or who at least claim to train that way.
Typically in this approach, one or perhaps two muscle groups would be chosen for a single workout with a fairly large volume of training (often 15-20 sets of 3-4 different exercises) performed for each. Hitting all of the angles, blitzing and bombing were all ideas that came out of this type of approach and generally the body is split across 4 or more workouts which each muscle group getting blasted once every 7 days.
Now, there is no denying that this approach seems to work at the elite level of bodybuilding. However, there are often a lot of other factors involved that people tend to ignore. The main one, of course, is drugs especially steroids (itâ??s no coincidence that this approach to training developed primarily as steroid use was starting to increase among bodybuilders).
People donâ??t like to hear it but anabolic steroids will generate muscle growth without training at all and, to a great degree, many elite bodybuilders seem to succeed in spite of their training rather than because of it. In that context, I know of several coaches who work with drug using bodybuilders and invariably growth is better with a higher frequency of training, even in the context of steroid use.
Another factor is that even if top level bodybuilders only hit every bodypart once per week after they have been training for 10 or more years, thatâ??s usually not how they built the majority of their muscle mass (if their reports of what they did earlier in their career are accurate).
Basically, looking at the elite level of any sport and how they train after 15 years of training is usually a losing proposition, what they might be doing at the peak of their career and what they did to get there are often very different things indeed.
But of perhaps more relevance, outside of a small percentage of folks, I simply havenâ??t seen the majority of natural trainees grow optimally training in this fashion. Basically, it just doesnâ??t work for the majority in my experience (and in the experience of a lot of coaches I know). Sure, we can always look at the â??big guysâ?? in the gym who are doing fine hitting everything once per week but the fact is that the majority of folks training that way arenâ??t usually growing well at all.
As well, for naturals, the lower frequency of training tends to lead people to do far too much volume at any given workout. As I mentioned above, there appears to be an optimal volume of training for each bodypart with both too little and too much volume being a problem. Naturals who do endless sets in a given workout (which is not only allowed but usually mandated by low frequency training) not only arenâ??t stimulating better growth, they end up cutting into their recovery with excessive volume.
Few bodyparts in my experience need more than two exercises (back is possibly an exception) in the first place and being able to do a zillion overlapping and redundant exercises is usually pointless for most trainees anyhow.
For the most part, I canâ??t think of any situation where Iâ??d recommend only hitting a bodypart once per week for growth unless the goal was to simply maintain a given muscle group. And thatâ??s usually in the context of a specialization cycle (a topic for another day) when other bodyparts are being trained more frequently.
One that I might mention (in a sarcastic way) would be for people who are addicted to being sore or exhausted from training. At least one of the reasons that I think people stick with low frequency training in the absence of good results is that they always get to walk out of the gym feeling like they have completely exhausted a given muscle group. As well, low frequency training tends to get people sore more consistently than a higher training frequency.
People who are more concerned with acute exhaustion or crippling soreness rather than actual progress may want to just keep on doing what they are doingâ?¦.like I said, just a bit sarcastic.
Hit Each Muscle Group Between Every 5th Day and Twice Per Week
Which brings us to my preferred training frequency. Which, given my tendency to middle of the road types of recommendations for most things probably wonâ??t surprise anybody at all. For most applications, for the average trainee, I think hitting each muscle group somewhere between twice per week or a minimum of every 5th day yields about optimal results. Which is best for a given individual depends on individual recovery and how often they can be in the gym.
Again, here Iâ??m talking about an optimal training frequency for the majority of natural trainees. Again, as I noted above, I know of several coaches who work with steroid using bodybuilders who report better results with this type of training frequency.
Generally speaking, you might see this frequency of training implemented as some type of upper/lower split routine (which is the basis of my generic bulking routine) although there are many other workable options to achieve this training frequency per bodypart.
And itâ??s worth noting that a lot of successful training systems (whether strength or hypertrophy oriented) use this type of training frequency. Most powerlifting programs use a generic template with two upper body and two lower body workouts per week; although the exercises may differ on each day, there is generally sufficient overlap that each muscle group is being hit about twice per week.
Doggcrapp training, for example, uses a split of chest/shoulders/triceps/back for one workout and legs/arms for the other. The workouts are alternated on a three days per week program which means that each muscle group is being hit every 5 days.
To give you an idea of how this might be implemented weekly, Iâ??ve shown how the two different training frequencies could be achieved in several different ways depending on the circumstances. Although, Iâ??ve used an upper/lower body template in the example below, any type of approach that divided up the body into two different workouts would work just as well. Iâ??ve also shown a higher weekly training frequency for people with that kind of flexibility and/or who want to be in the gym more often.
Iâ??m also assuming that most people will train on the same days each week which I find is the most common pattern for people with a job, families, etc. Of course, people who can train different days each week can use other variations of the below approaches since they can vary the days of the week that they are in the gym.
Oh yeah, blank days would either be taken off or could be used for metabolic work (e.g. the type of thing I described in the article Cardio and Mass Gains).
Day Twice Per Week Twice Per Week (No Weekend) Higher Frequency* Every 5th Day
Monday Lower Body Lower Body Lower Body
Tuesday Upper Body Chest/Back
Wednesday Upper Body Legs/Abs Upper Body
Thursday Lower Body Delts/Arms
Friday Lower Body Upper Body Lower Body
Saturday Upper Body Upper Body
Sunday Lower Body
Monday Lower Body Lower Body Upper Body
Tuesday Upper body Chest/Back
Wednesday Upper Body Legs/Abs Lower Body
Thursday Lower Body Delts/Arms
Friday Lower Body Upper Body Upper Body
Saturday Upper Body Upper Body
Sunday Lower Body
- On the higher training frequency option, itâ??s important to keep the volumes of the split workouts (on Tue/Wed/Thu) down. Trainees who are prone to overdo it (you know who you are) probably shouldnâ??t use that option.
As you can see, all three of the first options hit each muscle group twice per week in varying combinations depending on the specifics. The first one gives better recovery during the week (since thereâ??s a day off between several of the workouts) but not everybody can train weekends. Thatâ??s option two which is for folks who can recover from four weekly training sessions per week but canâ??t get to the gym on weekends.
Option three might be for someone who works late during the week and wants to keep the weekly workouts a bit shorter by splitting things up, but who has time to train for longer on the weekends. The last option shows how a once every 5th day frequency would be achieved, while also avoiding weekends. This tends to be good for folks with poorer recovery and/or who simply need or want more recovery between workouts.
Again, the workouts donâ??t have to be upper/lower, that just tends to be my default choice for a variety of reasons Iâ??m not going to go into here. Any reasonable split can be used effectively in the above types of templates.
As you might imagine, I find that this type of training frequency tends to strike a balance between the other two extremes of frequency which is why I prefer it.
Since the body is split up a bit more compare to three full body workouts per week, individual workouts tend not to be quite so daunting with exercises early in the session not impacting as badly on later exercises.
And, as noted above, compared to the typical â??hit everything once and then let it rest a weekâ??, while soreness and acute exhaustion is lower, growth is almost invariably better. At the same time, the frequency is low enough that trainees can go pretty hard in the gym while still being able to recover by the time the next workout rolls around so that they can do it again, allowing them to make progressive strength gains. Which isnâ??t to say that I suggest going all out all the time but intensity cycling is another topic for another day.
Summing Up
So thatâ??s a quick look at optimal training frequencies for muscle growth. For the most part, I find that the cons of full body training three times per week tends to offset any potential benefits in terms of gene expression or what have you.
And while itâ??s still common to emulate the training pattern of elite (read: drug using) bodybuilders and bomb and blast everything once per week, my experience (and that of many others) is simply that the majority of natural trainees (and even many drug users) simply donâ??t get optimal growth that way. This is one of those cases where the athletes seem to be succeeding in spite of the training rather than due to it.
Which brings us to my preferred training frequency for the majority of folks seeking optimal size gains: somewhere between once every 5th day and twice per week. I find that this yields about optimal results for most people (and recent research supports that recommendation anyhow), offsetting the cons of both the higher and lower training frequencies
Wow, Im surprised this debate is still breathing…even if it is on life-support. Why hasnt it gotten to the “both sides have merit, lets move on with our lives” point yet?
[quote]Htowner wrote:
Wow, Im surprised this debate is still breathing…even if it is on life-support. Why hasnt it gotten to the “both sides have merit, lets move on with our lives” point yet? [/quote]
That’s the easiest question posed in this entire thread. It’s simple…the split advocates are quite convinced they’re right. That’s what turned this thread into a debate in the first place, as opposed to a simple response suggesting “Maybe making changes is the cause of your new found progress, and not necessarily the TBT approach”. And since full body routines fell out of fashion some 50 years ago, as mentioned, you’ll have a hell of alot more voices arguing against it and referencing more examples of split success.
dankid and ectomorph are the same person. Just sayin
[quote]ect0m0rph wrote:
^^ agreed dankid.
Heres another good read on TBT vs Splits vs upper/lower.
Training Frequency for Mass Gains
In recent years, bodybuilding/hypertrophy training has divided itself into a number of different �¢??camps�¢?? with quite a bit of argument and debate going on over what the optimal training frequency for muscle growth is.
In this article…
[/quote]
You know how you can find ANYTHING online if you look for it? I can’t believe I’m admitting this, but I did a bit of a search for “Lyle + McDonald + Shirtless” to see how well he practices what he preaches. result = 0 relevant hits.
So, from the single picture I have seen of him, I have to admit the only reason I’D care what he recommends, is to figure out what the opposite of what he’s teaching is, and do that.
[quote]Mad_Duck wrote:
ect0m0rph wrote:
^^ agreed dankid.
Heres another good read on TBT vs Splits vs upper/lower.
Training Frequency for Mass Gains
In recent years, bodybuilding/hypertrophy training has divided itself into a number of different �?�¢??camps�?�¢?? with quite a bit of argument and debate going on over what the optimal training frequency for muscle growth is.
In this article…
You know how you can find ANYTHING online if you look for it? I can’t believe I’m admitting this, but I did a bit of a search for “Lyle + McDonald + Shirtless” to see how well he practices what he preaches. result = 0 relevant hits.
So, from the single picture I have seen of him, I have to admit the only reason I’D care what he recommends, is to figure out what the opposite of what he’s teaching is, and do that.[/quote]
Why is everyone of his sheep obsessed with this place? Wasn’t it Defranco that said: “once people start shit talking you, you know you are doing something right.”