Planes or Bodypart Splits?

Training Bodybuilding
1

I’d like to get peoples opinion on planes of movement rather than bodypart splits. I know they’ve been around for quite some time but I’ve been doing alot of reading lately about how planes of movement should be considered rather than focusing on bodypart splits.

CT, Cosgrove, Joel Marion just to name a few have recent routines that recommend vertical push, horizontal pull, quad domniant, ham dominant,etc rather than recommending a split such as chest/bi’s, back/tri’s etc.

I guess why I’m asking is this: Has anybody used a split based on planes of movement for bodybuilding purposes, what does your weekly split look like and do you prefer this kind of split over typical bodypart splits.

Thanks.

2

In my opinion it is nonsense.

3

Aren’t they essentially the same?
Vertical Push = Shoulders (and tris)
Horizontal Push = Chest
Vertical Pull = Lats
Horizontal Pull = Back (and bis)

Quad Dominant = Quads
Ham Dominant = Hamstrings

4

In that article there is a way to design a plane or pattern oriented program. It has the amount of exercises to use what exercises and anything you need. I see nothing wrong with that type of training. Just throw in arms somewhere. Ian King has a similar basic routine is his bulk building workout. That same workout also has twenty rep squats and deads, but you could use the same basic template.

5

The thing is… theres just no REASON to train that way.

6

Its interesting. I mean look at some of CT’s stuff. Uses movements planes contained within a bodypart split. For example i remember a post he did. I think it was a chest day. He had a horizontal push, dips, pull overs and flyes. He chose these because of the different angles and abilities to stimulate the chest. Rather then 4 horizontal movements.

While some people prefer one method i think a lot of people are combining the two. I think there is a nice rational for antagonist training too…

7

[quote]Beatnik wrote:
Its interesting. I mean look at some of CT’s stuff. Uses movements planes contained within a bodypart split. For example i remember a post he did. I think it was a chest day. He had a horizontal push, dips, pull overs and flyes. He chose these because of the different angles and abilities to stimulate the chest. Rather then 4 horizontal movements.

While some people prefer one method i think a lot of people are combining the two. I think there is a nice rational for antagonist training too…[/quote]

Most people with any significant background doing this are concerned about training specific body parts, or in the case of chest upper or lower parts of it, instead of worrying about “planes of movement”. I am not sure why anyone would even think in terms of “planes”. You should be doing different movements for a specific reason in order to stimulate growth where you need it, not just to do “different planes”.

Most people training chest aren’t going to do 4 different exercises that work the chest the exact same way. They will work their upper chest with inclines and use flat presses or declines depending on if they need those movements or not.

Why are some of you complicating this?

8

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Why are some of you complicating this?
[/quote]

So they can justify the fact that the amount of time they spend doing “research” far exceeds the amount of time they spend actually lifting weights.

9

[quote]kelleyb wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Why are some of you complicating this?

So they can justify the fact that the amount of time they spend doing “research” far exceeds the amount of time they spend actually lifting weights.

[/quote]

True story.

10

[quote]shookers wrote:
Aren’t they essentially the same?
Vertical Push = Shoulders (and tris)
Horizontal Push = Chest
Vertical Pull = Lats
Horizontal Pull = Back (and bis)

Quad Dominant = Quads
Ham Dominant = Hamstrings[/quote]

Yep.

I think the whole reason for breaking it down into “planes of movement” is so people won’t forget to give equal attention to certain bodyparts.

For example, many people may perform pull-ups/chin-ups or lat pulldowns, but they may not perform many rowing movements. Both movements work the back, but they work the muscles differently. For bodybuilding purposes, you would want to hit the back from both areas.

I think it makes sense from an organizing approach to your training. But overall, it’s not that complicated - as Professor X said.

Work all the muscles from the various angles (planes of movement).

11

I feel a good pissing match coming.

So the horizontal push doesn’t work your triceps or your shoulder?
Horizontal pull doesn’t work you lats, but rather your back muscles???

12

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Beatnik wrote:
Its interesting. I mean look at some of CT’s stuff. Uses movements planes contained within a bodypart split. For example i remember a post he did. I think it was a chest day. He had a horizontal push, dips, pull overs and flyes. He chose these because of the different angles and abilities to stimulate the chest. Rather then 4 horizontal movements.

While some people prefer one method i think a lot of people are combining the two. I think there is a nice rational for antagonist training too…

Most people with any significant background doing this are concerned about training specific body parts, or in the case of chest upper or lower parts of it, instead of worrying about “planes of movement”. I am not sure why anyone would even think in terms of “planes”. You should be doing different movements for a specific reason in order to stimulate growth where you need it, not just to do “different planes”.

Most people training chest aren’t going to do 4 different exercises that work the chest the exact same way. They will work their upper chest with inclines and use flat presses or declines depending on if they need those movements or not.

Why are some of you complicating this?

[/quote]

But what if you have an individual who is all but 140 lbs? Does he need to focus on specific parts, or does he need to just add mass all over? In this case, he can get away by focusing on “planes” because specific mass is not needed, but rather overall mass.

Oh and, please don’t think Im trying to argue. Im just posing a scenario thats all.

13

[quote]forbes wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Beatnik wrote:
Its interesting. I mean look at some of CT’s stuff. Uses movements planes contained within a bodypart split. For example i remember a post he did. I think it was a chest day. He had a horizontal push, dips, pull overs and flyes. He chose these because of the different angles and abilities to stimulate the chest. Rather then 4 horizontal movements.

While some people prefer one method i think a lot of people are combining the two. I think there is a nice rational for antagonist training too…

Most people with any significant background doing this are concerned about training specific body parts, or in the case of chest upper or lower parts of it, instead of worrying about “planes of movement”. I am not sure why anyone would even think in terms of “planes”. You should be doing different movements for a specific reason in order to stimulate growth where you need it, not just to do “different planes”.

Most people training chest aren’t going to do 4 different exercises that work the chest the exact same way. They will work their upper chest with inclines and use flat presses or declines depending on if they need those movements or not.

Why are some of you complicating this?

But what if you have an individual who is all but 140 lbs? Does he need to focus on specific parts, or does he need to just add mass all over? In this case, he can get away by focusing on “planes” because specific mass is not needed, but rather overall mass.

Oh and, please don’t think Im trying to argue. Im just posing a scenario thats all.
[/quote]

Well, we aren’t leaving anything out with a regular BB split… I fail to see how it wouldn’t add mass “all over”.
I mean, you train every bodypart? It’s not like any serious trainee does a Monday, Wednesday, Friday: Chest and Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday: Biceps split…

I don’t quite see the logic behind that scenario you posted.

Edit: And I have yet to see a true bb split without the beloved compound exercises (not that that needs mentioning normally, but on here…).
Or have you ever seen Ronnie Coleman train his chest with flyes only, his triceps with kickbacks, his delts with laterals, biceps with spider curls, hams with leg curls, quads with leg extensions, lats with straight-arm pulldowns and back with hyperextensions and bent-over laterals… And doing no big movements at all?

Maybe he just squats when there is a camera nearby …

14

I never, ever said BB slits left out compounds. I also never said they never added mass allover. Heck, I do BB splits after years of wasted high volume TBT. But I just said that it COULD be used and still add mass.

15

[quote]forbes wrote:
I never, ever said BB slits left out compounds. I also never said they never added mass allover. Heck, I do BB splits after years of wasted high volume TBT. But I just said that it COULD be used and still add mass.[/quote]

Again, why talk about specific mass and such? Not focusing on planes gives you specific mass, but focusing on planes does add mass all-over? That post quoted below doesn’t really make sense, that’s what I’m saying.

As long as you make progress on exercises for every major muscle-group/bodypart/whatever, you will add mass everywhere.
Focusing on planes… Gotta say that most plane-focused routines I’ve seen thus far left something to be desired as far as balance (in case that the trainee wants to end up looking like a bodybuilder), but that may just be due to people posting/thinking up those routines being inexperienced still.

To me, all the talk about planes (Though you won’t find many serious bodybuilders who have even heard of this before because it has simply made zero impact in the big world of bodybuilding outside of certain websites whose main audience doesn’t even give a damn about bodybuilding… And powerlifters usually don’t think in planes either from what I’ve gathered) is just a way to make certain people sound intelligent/creative etc…
Just fancy stuff that isn’t really needed.

You can think that way if you want, but seriously… That isn’t all that different from loading up the bar and doing 1/19th of a squat with 3 spotters keeping that bar from crushing you. Just there to impress others (or yourself) and, in case of planes, to appear novel… So they can say “I’m different” for the sake of just being different.

16

[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
forbes wrote:
I never, ever said BB slits left out compounds. I also never said they never added mass allover. Heck, I do BB splits after years of wasted high volume TBT. But I just said that it COULD be used and still add mass.

Again, why talk about specific mass and such? Not focusing on planes gives you specific mass, but focusing on planes does add mass all-over? That post quoted below doesn’t really make sense, that’s what I’m saying.

As long as you make progress on exercises for every major muscle-group/bodypart/whatever, you will add mass everywhere.
Focusing on planes… Gotta say that most plane-focused routines I’ve seen thus far left something to be desired as far as balance (in case that the trainee wants to end up looking like a bodybuilder), but that may just be due to people posting/thinking up those routines being inexperienced still.

To me, all the talk about planes (Though you won’t find many serious bodybuilders who have even heard of this before because it has simply made zero impact in the big world of bodybuilding outside of certain websites whose main audience doesn’t even give a damn about bodybuilding… And powerlifters usually don’t think in planes either from what I’ve gathered) is just a way to make certain people sound intelligent/creative etc…
Just fancy stuff that isn’t really needed.

You can think that way if you want, but seriously… That isn’t all that different from loading up the bar and doing 1/19th of a squat with 3 spotters keeping that bar from crushing you. Just there to impress others (or yourself) and, in case of planes, to appear novel… So they can say “I’m different” for the sake of just being different.

But what if you have an individual who is all but 140 lbs? Does he need to focus on specific parts, or does he need to just add mass all over? In this case, he can get away by focusing on “planes” because specific mass is not needed, but rather overall mass.

Oh and, please don’t think Im trying to argue. Im just posing a scenario thats all.

[/quote]

Well said. I do not understand why so many seem to think you need to train so differently as a beginner. I have ALWAYS used a split routine from the time I weighed 150lbs to now. There is no real logic to avoiding working muscle groups in isolation at all. If you have the genetics to actually stand out, you also have the genetics to adapt to training specific body parts from the very beginning.

17

Way to go people, totally prove that you can argue articles without reading them. Point of planes are not to be the best mass builder of all time but to avoid injuries caused by imbalances. T-Nation example

Beginner section 2005
Hey guys look at my new routine
5x5 Military press
5x5 Bench
10x3 Incline
10x3 Decline
10x3 Front Raises
10x2 Lateral Raises

10x3 Cable Row
10x3 Lateral Pull downs

Get a Life section 2008
I have an impingement does fish oil fix this?

18

[quote]Airtruth wrote:
Way to go people, totally prove that you can argue articles without reading them. Point of planes are not to be the best mass builder of all time but to avoid injuries caused by imbalances. T-Nation example

Beginner section 2005
Hey guys look at my new routine
5x5 Military press
5x5 Bench
10x3 Incline
10x3 Decline
10x3 Front Raises
10x2 Lateral Raises

10x3 Cable Row
10x3 Lateral Pull downs

Get a Life section 2008
I have an impingement does fish oil fix this?
[/quote]

Why even go in that direction? Why not simply tell people to avoid working muscle groups while ignoring the antagonist?

Who is recommending programs here that focus on biceps but not triceps? Back but not chest? This is BODYBUILDING. No one should be that imbalanced in the first place as far as their training.

Is this site for serious lifters or not?

19

[quote]Airtruth wrote:
Way to go people, totally prove that you can argue articles without reading them. Point of planes are not to be the best mass builder of all time but to avoid injuries caused by imbalances. T-Nation example

Beginner section 2005
Hey guys look at my new routine
5x5 Military press
5x5 Bench
10x3 Incline
10x3 Decline
10x3 Front Raises
10x2 Lateral Raises

10x3 Cable Row
10x3 Lateral Pull downs

Get a Life section 2008
I have an impingement does fish oil fix this?
[/quote]

Gee, he’s doing stuff wrong in general… Could just as well learn how to create a proper split based on bodyparts… What was your point again?

20

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Is this site for serious lifters or not?

[/quote]

Well…