Split Routines Superior!

Bigger Stronger Leaner Competitive Bodybuilding
21

[quote]IHateGymMorons wrote:
What you may not realize is that much of the highly succesful bodybuilder’s routines consist of big compound movements that are actually the same whole body exercises used in Cosgrove’s program.
I would never train someone seeking general fat loss and “health” with a Weider, Muscle and Fiction type of routine. If the split routine was truly superior for just getting a good body, why wouldn’t I and other non-Mickey Mouse, non-ACE certified trainers use it?.. Because it’s not superior.

[/quote]

I want to quash this arguement. Of course in the typical split there is the big compound movements involved. They are known for adding strength and mass. So both TBT and splits have that in common.

Secondly the Muscle and Fiction routines are notorious for not being effective for the general population, so that is a dumb point. The fact is it is up to the individual to experiment with both types of training and see which is best for meeting his goals. The reason for training will dictate what type of workout to use. One is not simply superior to the other. Different people respond differently to the same routines.

22

[quote]BIGRAGOO wrote:
IHateGymMorons wrote:
What you may not realize is that much of the highly succesful bodybuilder’s routines consist of big compound movements that are actually the same whole body exercises used in Cosgrove’s program.
I would never train someone seeking general fat loss and “health” with a Weider, Muscle and Fiction type of routine. If the split routine was truly superior for just getting a good body, why wouldn’t I and other non-Mickey Mouse, non-ACE certified trainers use it?.. Because it’s not superior.

I want to quash this arguement. Of course in the typical split there is the big compound movements involved. They are known for adding strength and mass. So both TBT and splits have that in common.

Secondly the Muscle and Fiction routines are notorious for not being effective for the general population, so that is a dumb point. The fact is it is up to the individual to experiment with both types of training and see which is best for meeting his goals. The reason for training will dictate what type of workout to use. One is not simply superior to the other. Different people respond differently to the same routines.
[/quote]

So you’re saying that the compound exercises are used for getting strong and adding size. This is just what every bodybuilder should want - size, and the strength to add more size. Why do I see so many BBs doing triceps kickbacks and one arm cable concentration curls? So then, what are the isolation moves for… “toning” and “sculpting” with no size or strength benefit?

It seems that you just admitted that movement based, compound based routines are better than a 4-5 day split. I don’t exactly get what was quashed here?

Concerning the popular magazines we read about in Ghost Wolf, you gotta be kidding - notorious??? Yes, notorious for being ineffective around here, but the general public who’s buying them? The 17 year old punk lifting 2.5 hours per workout, the guy who brings the very magazine to the gym with him so he can read the programs by the letter as he goes!

Notorious - I don’t think that’s the word.

23

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Lonnie123 wrote:
Splitting the body up into “movements” effectively do the same thing as a the body part split doesnt it? You are still training infrequently, which is what the debate is all about at its core.

I think the reason most trainers put their clients on full body routines is that its WAAAAY easier than a split routine. If you told your client “I need you here 5 days a week for an hour each day, and you might need to do some extra cardio at night” they will get up and never come back.

No way is full body less demanding than split routines. Full body automatically leads to compound exercises, or at least movements that work several muscle groups simultaneously.
Splits automatically lead to less compound and more isolated exercise, which means less stress on the hart and the lungs.

Lately I’ve been doing wood chops, with 45kg on the pulley for 20 reps. This gets my heartbeat up to 150 and over. The same for deadlifts. No triceps extension will ever be able to do that.[/quote]

I think he meant that it’s “easy” for the trainer to get results while meeting with them 2-3 days per week. Not that the workout is physically less challenging.

24

[quote]IHateGymMorons wrote:
So you’re saying that the compound exercises are used for getting strong and adding size. This is just what every bodybuilder should want - size, and the strength to add more size. Why do I see so many BBs doing triceps kickbacks and one arm cable concentration curls? So then, what are the isolation moves for… “toning” and “sculpting” with no size or strength benefit?

It seems that you just admitted that movement based, compound based routines are better than a 4-5 day split. I don’t exactly get what was quashed here?

Concerning the popular magazines we read about in Ghost Wolf, you gotta be kidding - notorious??? Yes, notorious for being ineffective around here, but the general public who’s buying them? The 17 year old punk lifting 2.5 hours per workout, the guy who brings the very magazine to the gym with him so he can read the programs by the letter as he goes!

Notorious - I don’t think that’s the word.[/quote]

Well we can agree that the workouts in the MF rags are shit. But you missed my point. Of course compound movements elicit the greatest results. That is why they are the core of my workouts, but the “sculpting” isolation exercises you see people doing are supposed to be the final movement after a compund lift. They should not be the main exercise. So those you see doing them like that maybe aren’t the most knowledgable. And I did admit compound movements are superior, but I use them on a 4 day split.

Yes, I end up hitting my whole body twice a week, but I don’t do lower body movements with upper body ones. That is what works for me. And obviously everyone else thinks it works for me too. It seems you’re a bit too adamant about hitting the whole body in one workout. If it works for you, fine. Then for you, it IS the best and superior to a slpit routine. I do better with at least a simple upper/lower body split. That’s all I’m saying. Also, the parameters of the workouts lend themselves to growth. I love 5x5 and 10x3 and 8x3 parameters. They kick ass.

25

[quote]IHateGymMorons wrote:

Notorious - I don’t think that’s the word.[/quote]

That is the correct term. Notorious, infamous, or having a bad reputation is how one can describe the routines in the mags. We know they aren’t the best, yet there they are time and time again.

26

How about male gymnasts who do no isolation movements whatsoever and train the entire body several times per week? Unbelievable development and strength, both relative and maximal-without bicep curls or similar exercises.

Bodypart splits are assinine and if you studied anatomy, kinesiology, or any similar science you’d realize the same thing.

27

[quote]MichaelJohnson wrote:
How about male gymnasts who do no isolation movements whatsoever and train the entire body several times per week? Unbelievable development and strength, both relative and maximal-without bicep curls or similar exercises.

Bodypart splits are assinine and if you studied anatomy, kinesiology, or any similar science you’d realize the same thing.

[/quote]

Ok, I guess the arguement will never be solved. I will stick by my assertion that you do what works for you. Btw, I’m a biology major that has studied both topics you listed. I am very familiar with the wokings of the body. However, if splits are so wrong, how come I keep adding mass and getting stronger? And I’ll add I do so better than most I see. I don’t like sounding arrogant or like a braggart, but like they say, the proof is in the pudding.

28

[quote]MichaelJohnson wrote:
How about male gymnasts who do no isolation movements whatsoever and train the entire body several times per week? Unbelievable development and strength, both relative and maximal-without bicep curls or similar exercises.

Bodypart splits are assinine and if you studied anatomy, kinesiology, or any similar science you’d realize the same thing. [/quote]

perhaps I’m misunderstanding the definitions of how a split routine and full body workouts are being defined…

but I’ve never met a successful powerlifter that did a full-body workout every time he/she stepped into the gym…

every successful powerlifter that I’ve ever met has ‘split’ their weekly workload onto different days…

29

Too bad they’re inferior for functional training.

Unless you’re a complete physique-geek, listen to Cosgrove and split up your body in movements, not body parts. Horizontal pulling, horizontal pushing, vertical pulling, vertical pushing, quad-dominant leg, ham-dominant leg.

Because legs are half your body, I like to split into pull, push, quad-dominant, ham-dominant routines.

30

[quote]BIGRAGOO wrote:
Ok, I guess the arguement will never be solved. I will stick by my assertion that you do what works for you. Btw, I’m a biology major that has studied both topics you listed. I am very familiar with the wokings of the body. However, if splits are so wrong, how come I keep adding mass and getting stronger? And I’ll add I do so better than most I see. I don’t like sounding arrogant or like a braggart, but like they say, the proof is in the pudding.[/quote]

I’m with you, BIGRAGOO. Biology Grad, 40 pounds of muscle with split routines. It doesn’t work? Huh?

31

I didnt mean that 3-days-a-week was “easy”, I meant to say it was an “easy sell”. No first time client wants to devote 5 days a week, sometimes a workout in the morning and cardio at night. It’s much easier to SELL a 3 day a week plan.

We are just beating a dead horse here. I make gains on a split routine, and some of you make gains on full body. It’s like Shugart said… We are all in the same game, lets just stick to making gains.

32

There is a reason that some of the Coaches are currently promoting fullbody routines over split routines. And honestly I don’t think it has a dang thing to do with effectiveness.

There is far too much evidence available which clearly demonstrates that both ways work just fine.

Split or fullbody not a huge difference. I think it’s more of whatever works best for you and the schedule which you live your life around.

So why the change?

Because about every few years there has to be a change. Change is what sells programs, DVD’s, tapes, books and reputations!

I know that might read a bit cynical for some of you younger guys. But, I have seen a whole lot of cycles of change. Almost to the point where everything has cycled back to where it started. And then of course the cycle repeats itself again.

I’m not saying we learn nothing during these cycles. Each new “Coach” adds his own little twist to the cycle and then of course it changes.

I remember in 1985 I grabbed one of my fathers old medicine balls that he had stored in his attic. I brought it to the Gym with me one day. My training partner and I were throwing it around after a workout just for kicks. Almost everyone there laughed at us. I mean laughing and pointing. It was big time retro, in 1985, to use a medicine ball. They hadn’t been popular fro probably 30 years or more.

Fast forward 20 years and medicine balls are big again. The same with Kettlebells, clubs etc.

Do any of you honestly think there is something new out there? No really, you don’t think that do you?

I’m sorry but many times it’s about change for the sake of it more often than not. You know why don’t you? Fame, reputation and of course the big gun: MONEY.!

Bottom line:

Not every change that every Coach recommends is done because of some great discovery. Much of the time the changes are simply promoted so that they can have a unique stance, a different look. It sells!

Now get out there and get some “functional strength.”

Functional strength? Um, ever witness strength that was not somehow functional?

And remember to train mucles not movements!

Yea okay…

33

I’m with you Zeb. (there IS a first for everything)

34

nice post Zeb

35

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Bottom line:

Not every change that every Coach recommends is done because of some great discovery. Much of the time the changes are simply promoted so that they can have a unique stance, a different look. It sells!

And remember to train mucles not movements!
Yea okay…[/quote]

what cracks me up is when an ‘Uber Trainer’ comes on the scene with his latest and greatest training method…they always say some shit like “if you don’t do things my way you won’t make gains unless you’re genetically gifted or on massive amounts of AAS or both!”…

I remember reading years ago that if you do total body workouts you’ll only make gains if you’re genetically gifted or on massive amounts of AAS or both…now a new crop of ‘Uber Trainers’ have come full around back to just the opposite view…LOL!

I wouldn’t doubt it if in a decade or so the Weider Principles will be popular again…

36

[quote]DPH wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Bottom line:

Not every change that every Coach recommends is done because of some great discovery. Much of the time the changes are simply promoted so that they can have a unique stance, a different look. It sells!

And remember to train mucles not movements!
Yea okay…

what cracks me up is when an ‘Uber Trainer’ comes on the scene with his latest and greatest training method…they always say some shit like “if you don’t do things my way you won’t make gains unless you’re genetically gifted or on massive amounts of AAS or both!”…

I remember reading years ago that if you do total body workouts you’ll only make gains if you’re genetically gifted or on massive amounts of AAS or both…now a new crop of ‘Uber Trainers’ have come full around back to just the opposite view…LOL!

I wouldn’t doubt it if in a decade or so the Weider Principles will be popular again…[/quote]

Whew, it’s so comforting to know that others understand this cycle.

37

[quote]ZEB wrote:
There is a reason that some of the Coaches are currently promoting fullbody routines over split routines. And honestly I don’t think it has a dang thing to do with effectiveness.

There is far too much evidence available which clearly demonstrates that both ways work just fine.

Split or fullbody not a huge difference. I think it’s more of whatever works best for you and the schedule which you live your life around.

So why the change?

Because about every few years there has to be a change. Change is what sells programs, DVD’s, tapes, books and reputations!

I know that might read a bit cynical for some of you younger guys. But, I have seen a whole lot of cycles of change. Almost to the point where everything has cycled back to where it started. And then of course the cycle repeats itself again.

I’m not saying we learn nothing during these cycles. Each new “Coach” adds his own little twist to the cycle and then of course it changes.

I remember in 1985 I grabbed one of my fathers old medicine balls that he had stored in his attic. I brought it to the Gym with me one day. My training partner and I were throwing it around after a workout just for kicks. Almost everyone there laughed at us. I mean laughing and pointing. It was big time retro, in 1985, to use a medicine ball. They hadn’t been popular fro probably 30 years or more.

Fast forward 20 years and medicine balls are big again. The same with Kettlebells, clubs etc.

Do any of you honestly think there is something new out there? No really, you don’t think that do you?

I’m sorry but many times it’s about change for the sake of it more often than not. You know why don’t you? Fame, reputation and of course the big gun: MONEY.!

Bottom line:

Not every change that every Coach recommends is done because of some great discovery. Much of the time the changes are simply promoted so that they can have a unique stance, a different look. It sells!

Now get out there and get some “functional strength.”

Functional strength? Um, ever witness strength that was not somehow functional?

And remember to train mucles not movements!

Yea okay…[/quote]

that is what I was thinking the other day, awesome post.
tin can

38

The argument has no right or wrong answer. It comes down to simply this:

  1. Are you progressing towards your goals with what you are doing? Then continue.

  2. Are you stalled or regressing? then change!

You cannot measure the success of a routine outside what it does for you personally. Sure, we can make generalizaitons like compound is better than isolation, higher volume of total work will at a given load with lead to more hypertrophy then lower volume at a given load, you can only train as much as you can recover, etc.

These debates start because people are looking for the ultimate super secret perfet routine.

It does not exist. Let your experience in the gym combine with trackable metrics be your guide.

39

So…will anyone EVER determine exactly how and why muscles grow and create a routine or set of guidelines to OPTIMALLY develope your phisyque as fast as possible??

40

[quote]Pound4Pound wrote:
So…will anyone EVER determine exactly how and why muscles grow and create a routine or set of guidelines to OPTIMALLY develope your phisyque as fast as possible??[/quote]

Now that is the better question. Until it is answered, I’ll only ask "What works better for me?

Rolo.