because of science! Don’t you know science?
SCIENCE!
2 Likes
Lol. Well that’s, just, like, your opinion, man. I wonder, if I don’t look like a physique competitor or a bodybuilder, what do I look like? What, exactly, am I missing? Furthermore, you have no idea what I compete in, how accomplished I am, or what my stats are. For all you know, I’m more accomplished and more developed than the other competitors ITT, and you know what? It wouldn’t mean a thing if I was, because me looking better than them, or them looking better than me, doesn’t prove which of us is right nor does it prove which of us knows more.
One thing you have to be weary of when taking advice from people who are genetically gifted and/or on drugs is that just about anything works for them, so just because they find splits work best for them, or I find full-body works best for me, doesn’t mean it’s what’s best on-balance for most lifters. That’s where the science comes in.
That’s a cool story, bro
Do you… not understand what it means to say “hypertrophy is a systemic response”? Or do you not understand how hypertrophy being a systemic response implies full-body training sessions would result in greater total hypertrophy than any given training session on a split program?
You have no idea where I formed my opinions from lol
I’m almost impressed at how shamelessly you guys will make shit up about me
Yeah, you’re not getting it.
Nvm, it’s not really that important.
THIS is the exact concept I am speaking of!
2 Likes
Sayings something is part of something else either means nothing, that you lifted the quote to sound smart (lots of folks Contantly quoting and arguing studies online yet looking like amateurs physique -wise themselves these days), or you don’t quite get the big picture yourself.
Sure we can all reference schoenfeld, and discuss the variously methods of stimulating muscle growth via different pathways (I’ve written about this several times over the last 15 years or so), but at the end of the day, whether supported by science, or decades and decades or anecdotals, there’s a reason why none of the top physiques have been built with the approach your suggesting. Sure, I’ll give you credit for acknowledging that the “pros” don’t all start out on complicated programs, but unless we’ve got a time machine and a cloning machine we’ll never truly know if that was even the optimal approach or not.
Personally, I have somemore experienced clients that I don’t put on full blown “bodybuilding” splits, but even with the most rank newb I can’t think of a single time I gave someone a full body, 3x/week program and thought to myself: yeah, this will really pack on some size! -lol
S
6 Likes
People get too campy in these things. Instead of doing what works, they just do what they think should work harder.
1 Like
I don’t need to.
Posters like you are all the same to me.
1 Like
No one hear suggested he train as if he is advanced. @pitbull97
1 Like
@pitbull97 will be following along. It’s a long journey that we all travel together and it never stops, but with time and consistency you can accomplish anything you want.
2 Likes
What quote am I lifting? What are you even talking about? How does it mean nothing to understand that the process of hypertrophy is systemic as opposed to localized? Also, you can know if full body programs are effective or not without time machines (lol). It’s not like no one has ever studied this.
And just to be clear, are you saying a full body 3x/week programs won’t pack on size? Because that’s nonsense.
You said he should do a split where he hits every muscle group every 5-7 days. That may be fine if you’re advanced, but it’s not sufficient for a beginner.
So you just straight up admit you’re strawmanning me.
Neato.
He’s not a rank beginner.
I’m seeing a lot of dick-waving in this thread of people saying/implying things like “I look better therefore I’m right,” “I’ve been doing this longer therefore I’m right,” etc. But not one of you has even attempted to explain exactly what it is about split-programs that supposedly makes them better than full-body programs. You all keep insisting that this is true, and get flustered that I won’t just “take your word for it” like I owe you something, or don’t have the right to disagree.
Hell I’ve done more in this thread to explicate the comparative advantages of split programs (easier on the body, sufficient for muscle retention, specialized recovery, etc) than you guys have thus far. Maybe you guys think you’re too good to actually explain your reasoning to a lowly nobody like me. Who knows.
He’s far closer to rank beginner than advanced, through. So if his program should slant in any particular direction, it should be towards beginner programming.
Perhaps, but he has a double-bodyweight-plus deadlift and squat so far, which indicates he has the base condition to move onto a split routine for intermediate lifters–not advanced–and no, not one to simply bring up weaknesses or used advanced techniques either.
Not one of us said we “look better” and being I know two of the posters here personally and speak to them on a daily or near-daily basis in person or via phone, I can assure you, they would never be this distasteful, nor do they think they are “better” than anyone, bodybuilder or not.
The reason why we are not doing much more explaining is because this issue, body part splits for bodybuilding versus the protein-synthesis-high-frequency-obsession for natties is because we have all covered this issue in depth in the threads I mention: my thread: “Leaning Out/Contest Prep”, “Bodybuilding Training 2.0”, “Rob’s Road to the Herc”, and “Bodybuilding Training–Let’s Make this Clear.” Please, take a look at what’s been discussed in those threads at length!
1 Like