Actually, I thought that both @BrickHead and I offered pretty thorough explanations. And we never said that the split program is BETTER (in totality) than a full-body program; rather, we simply (tried) to explain why split routines are better suited to the needs of a bodybuilding/physique competition goal.
2 Likes
You can’t know if it’s optimal because once you engage any program, you can’t un-do any progress whether hypertrophic or neurological. Hence all the talk people do about twins studies. Surprised that went over your head.
S
2 Likes
He does, but his musculature (assuming his stats are accurate) is only a little above the average non-lifter. I don’t think strength is a good measure of how advanced someone is because he may just have advantageous levers and muscle insertions.
Anyway, He’s told me he has his heart set on competing in physique, so I don’t see a problem with him doing a split routine so long as his frequency is adequate. It’s not what I would do, but to each their own, I guess.
Did you read our points in the other thread? By the way, with some thought there is considerable overlap of stimulation to body parts with a split!
1 Like
There can be tons of scientific observation and mathematical formulae behind it, but the art is in the application.
It’s hard to argue with results. These guys get results.
2 Likes
What a bizarre argument to make. I recommend he does full-body work 3x per week to maximize hypertrophy, therefore I think if he spams his biceps for years on end he can skip calf work LOL. I don’t even know how to respond to this. It’s not even “wrong,” it’s a total non-sequitur. It doesn’t even venture into the realm of “wrongness,” because your argument here is based assumptions that aren’t only unwarranted given pretty much everything I’ve said up to this point, but are pretty much the exact opposite of the warranted assumptions you ought to be making.
The dichotomy here isn’t between spamming one kind of isolation work vs another kind of isolation work. If hypertrophy is systemic (it is), then the logical conclusion is it’s better to hit as many muscle groups as possible per session to maximize total growth than to try and split up how many muscle groups you’re covering in any given training session in the hopes this will somehow result in more area-specific growth. This is why in my original post I recommended he do heavy compound lifts covering the entirety of his body 3x/week, and not “just do a bunch of curls and hope for the best.”
Your point about not being and to undo progress made on a program would only be compelling on the grounds that humans are too different in order for studies on what kind of training produces the best results to carry over to persons not in that study, which isn’t true. The “best” method for muscle growth as shown by the research tends to be the best method for most people, which is practically tautological to say.
Nothing went over my head, here. In fact to the contrary, I don’t think you understand how the results of a given study on how the human body adapts to a particular training method applies to the general population.
They absolutely do get results, but personal results are a poor indicator of knowledge on a topic like this. this isn’t like in business where anyone can become equally successful given the same opportunities and knowledge; each of our genetic potentials is, ultimately, the primary factor in how far we can go.
The guys I’m speaking to in this thread are much older than me, and in all likelihood more muscular than me, which would imply they know more than me prima facie, but it also means they’re all genetic elites (or on drugs, but let’s assume that’s not the case). The thing about genetic elites is, they will get great results almost regardless of what they do, which is why you have to be careful about taking advice from people in the top 99th percentile.
I would defer to them on matters of contest prep, for sure, but I just can’t agree with a low-frequency split-training method if the goal is maximizing muscle growth. If that’s not the goal (which in this case it isn’t), then by all means do a training split, but even then I’d say it’s best to keep the frequency with which you’re hitting any given muscle group to 3x/week for a beginner. I don’t think this is an unreasonable opinion and I don’t think it’s especially controversial, either.
I’m not sure what thread you’re referring to. And yeah, I see in the Clay article that his split template will almost definitely result in sufficient overlap, so for a physique competitor I can’t reasonably fault it.
I am certainly NOT of the elite! But I think my genes are very good. Otherwise I wouldn’t have watched my current. Heck, I’m about to do my FIRST show next week. See my thread if interested.
1 Like
Alright, I’ll check it out
Your Rationale of hypertrophy being systemic, and everything having an effect on the whole was the reason for my ludicrous example. Again, if you can’t see that than despite the big words and chosen wordings of your replies I would venture to say that you are nowhere near the intellect you apparently perceive yourself to be or are trying to come across as.
Your later comment about how if others on here are more developed than you, and it’s not solely due to time put in, it’s due to their being genetically elite,… Thats just laughable. The old online hater saying that anyone better must be in steroids comes to mind. I think if perhaps you knew the actual experience and education behind some of the impressive physiques on here you’d realize how silly you’re making yourself come across.
S
1 Like
Check my youtube channel, have my squat posted up there, 285 for a triple, working on getting up vids of other lifts just to verify my numbers. Just want to back up my numbers with some validity.
1 Like
Your “ludicrous example” doesn’t represent anything I’ve said or suggested ITT. I’m saying hypertrophy is systemic, not isolated, therefore you’re better off stimulating as much muscle across as many different muscle groups as possible to maximize total hypertrophy, as this will result in more growth in any given area than only training that area specifically would. I never once suggested anything even close to “just doing curls is sufficient,” in fact everything I’ve said suggests literally the exact opposite of that.
I mean, if you had at least said something like “wow, so you think deadlifts are better for building your arms than curls?” – that would at least be the correct application of reductio ad absurdum. The way you went about it was just… dumb. You’re being dumb, and I can’t tell if it’s deliberate or just incidental.
Quote me where I said, “if others on here are more developed than me, and it’s not solely due to time put in, it’s due to their being genetically elite.”
Alright, cool I’ll check it out
Jesus… lol. If hypertrophy is systemic, calf raises will make your chest grow. You are getting this confused with localized growth of primary and secondary muscles involved in the performance of a compound movement.
2 Likes
You should start a thread on this specific item. Draw it out in detail and use academic studies to back up your assertions.
It seems that you really want to be taken seriously about this, so lay it out in a substantive manner that can be taken seriously. Dropping tidbits interspersed with a different subject matter doesn’t seem to be helping to clarify your point.
2 Likes
Ok
[quote=“RyuuKyuzo, post:88, topic:222249”]
The guys I’m speaking to in this thread are much older than me, [/quote] ← that’s the bit about Time being put in due to age [quote] and in all likelihood more muscular than me, which would imply they know more than me prima facie, but it also means they’re all genetic elites (or on drugs, but [/quote] ← and that’s the bit about being genetic elite.
You apparently don’t understand how the quoting thing works either,… ya see I can actually take exactly what you said and have it repeat right here in my own reply! The technology on this site is amazing. Some might even go so far as to say it’s systemic in regard to the whole forum experience -lol
S
3 Likes
FYI, writing phrases like, “prima facie” doesn’t make you sound smart, it makes you sound like a smug jackass.
I’ve been biting my tongue during this entire thread, amazed at how you can be so childish while trying to maintain a vibe of intelligence, of which you are failing miserably, but still keep pressing on. But to assume I and the other competitors here, or anyone who is older than you and has more muscle than you is a “genetic elite” or “on drugs,” you sir, are an ignorant, clearly inexperienced poser who should take your bullshit to BBing.com. If you’ve spent any considerable amount of time training like a bodybuilder, which you haven’t, you’d realize what can be accomplished as a natural with time, dedication and consistency.
Obviously in the picture on the left we can all see I’m genetically gifted (clearly joking). I’ve never been genetically gifted, had a fast metabolism, or any muscle mass at all before I started exercising. I was fat as hell. Then I started training and eating with consistency, and 6 years later got the picture on the right, as a tested WNBF natty. If you read any of the contest prep logs of the competitors on here, you’d get just a little insight on what it’s like to put the time and sacrifices in to learn this stuff, something which you clearly haven’t done, as evident when you say things like I quoted above.
5 Likes
Okay I see, you don’t understand the quote you read. Me saying “you being more muscular than me means you have elite genetics,” =/= me saying “people more developed than me are only as such due to being genetically elite.”
if you’re more muscular than me, you are genetically elite. That’s not to say the only reason why someone would be more muscular than me is because they’re genetically elite, get it? You’ve mixed up me saying something is necessary with me saying something is both necessary and necessarily sufficient.
If you have a fat-free mass index score north of 24, you are genetically elite for a natty, but knowing how muscular someone is doesn’t tell you anything about how knowledgeable they are. It’s entirely possible that someone with a FFMI of 25 knows their shit really well, but you shouldn’t just take their words as gospel because they will likely grow more and grow faster from any given training method than someone with average genetics would.
Also, are you bragging about being able to put a quote box in your comment? Do you feel pride at that? Lmao. Yes, I’m very impressed with your mastery of this site’s interface. Congrats.
It’s really ironic that people on this site are being so stubborn about this concept seeing as T-nation was the site I first learned of this on LOL