Working Chest and Back on Same Day

Training Bodybuilding
181

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
It’s not about keeping your body guessing though, it’s about providing your body with the stimulus/nutrients that produce a specific adaptation (in this case muscle mass).
[/quote]

My point was that your body becomes increasingly efficient under a fixed training method, which tends to reduce the rate of muscle mass you gain under that particular method.

I wouldn’t recommend changing your routine on a dime, but it can be beneficial to switch things up from time to time. You can do this at the micro level for a particular training method by changing number of reps/set, etc. You can also do this at the macro level by changing the training method itself.

People seem to become religious zealots when it comes to training, insisting that their particular method is “optimal”. If anything, I think strategic variation is more likely to produce “optimal” results than staying with the same method for your entire training career.

182

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

It’s not about keeping your body guessing though, it’s about providing your body with the stimulus/nutrients that produce a specific adaptation (in this case muscle mass).

If I go out and run a marathon today, and then try a powerlifting meet tomorrow, and then play some pick-up games of basketball the next day, wrestle the next, and do a diving competition the next my body is going to be guessing the whole time. But that’s not going to result in anything even closely resembling an optimal muscle building program.

I know some authors are big on sayings like “everything works, but nothing works forever”, “muscle confusion”, and “preventing adaptation to a program” (one of my personal pet peeves)

And reading such things severely overcomplicates training in young impressionable newbie’s minds and often times leads to mistakes like “training ADD”, or thinking that you need to totally re-write your program every (insert arbitrary period of time).

The truth is that this building muscle thing is really pretty simple, and if you want a specific type of adaptation, you must provide the body with a specific type of stimulus.

If your program doesn’t provide that specific type of stimulus, then no matter how much your muscles are guessing, it’s won’t be an optimal muscle building program.

If it does, then there really is no reason to change it (unless you hit a legitimate plateau, that isn’t the result of needing to eat more), and even then, minor changes are better than major ones in most cases.

BTW, this is more of a rant on the general subject than specifically directed towards any one person in particular.[/quote]

Great post. Too many people scrap their entire training program rather than adjust an exercise or switch set/rep schemes here and there to keep providing new stimulus. Totally changing gears is rarely needed IMO.

183

[quote]doubleh wrote:

I never said that at all. I just said you might be surprised at how HS strength correlates to barbell stength. It’s 2 different worlds.[/quote]

Why do you keep speaking to me like I’m a newbie? I could see if I was even your size or smaller, but you keep writing things like this that imply I don’t already know how “barbell strength” correlates to “HS strength”.

Gee, it’s two different worlds, huh?

184

[quote]Professor X wrote:
doubleh wrote:

I never said that at all. I just said you might be surprised at how HS strength correlates to barbell stength. It’s 2 different worlds.

Why do you keep speaking to me like I’m a newbie? I could see if I was even your size or smaller, but you keep writing things like this that imply I don’t already know how “barbell strength” correlates to “HS strength”.

Gee, it’s two different worlds, huh?[/quote]

Hmm, I don’t know, maybe because you did the same to me at the beginning of this debate?

185

[quote]doubleh wrote:
Professor X wrote:
doubleh wrote:

I never said that at all. I just said you might be surprised at how HS strength correlates to barbell stength. It’s 2 different worlds.

Why do you keep speaking to me like I’m a newbie? I could see if I was even your size or smaller, but you keep writing things like this that imply I don’t already know how “barbell strength” correlates to “HS strength”.

Gee, it’s two different worlds, huh?

Hmm, I don’t know, maybe because you did the same to me at the beginning of this debate?[/quote]

Gee, you mean the discussion about me doing 405lbs years ago and you making the claim that you can do that much as a max now? Well, that would mean you are at a point I reached a long time ago thus the response.

186

[quote]Professor X wrote:
doubleh wrote:
Professor X wrote:
doubleh wrote:

I never said that at all. I just said you might be surprised at how HS strength correlates to barbell stength. It’s 2 different worlds.

Why do you keep speaking to me like I’m a newbie? I could see if I was even your size or smaller, but you keep writing things like this that imply I don’t already know how “barbell strength” correlates to “HS strength”.

Gee, it’s two different worlds, huh?

Hmm, I don’t know, maybe because you did the same to me at the beginning of this debate?

Gee, you mean the discussion about me doing 405lbs years ago and you making the claim that you can do that much as a max now? Well, that would mean you are at a point I reached a long time ago thus the response.
[/quote]

Well guy, I then asked you a direct question, and you responded with a HS weight and rep range as for where you were on the bench. I replied I am real close to that working weight, if not there already. Thus my posts regarding going back to free weights. I don’t use HS lifts to gauge where I am at.

My issue with you is you always assume you are the only one around here that has built a decent physique, and therefore anyone who disagrees with you in the slightest must be 100% wrong because they are not nearly as big as you. This is usually true when you are arguing with some newb about TBT vs splits, but I am not a newb, and it is not always the case.

187

[quote]doubleh wrote:
Professor X wrote:
doubleh wrote:
Professor X wrote:
doubleh wrote:

I never said that at all. I just said you might be surprised at how HS strength correlates to barbell stength. It’s 2 different worlds.

Why do you keep speaking to me like I’m a newbie? I could see if I was even your size or smaller, but you keep writing things like this that imply I don’t already know how “barbell strength” correlates to “HS strength”.

Gee, it’s two different worlds, huh?

Hmm, I don’t know, maybe because you did the same to me at the beginning of this debate?

Gee, you mean the discussion about me doing 405lbs years ago and you making the claim that you can do that much as a max now? Well, that would mean you are at a point I reached a long time ago thus the response.

Well guy, I then asked you a direct question, and you responded with a HS weight and rep range as for where you were on the bench. I replied I am real close to that working weight, if not there already. Thus my posts regarding going back to free weights. I don’t use HS lifts to gauge where I am at.

My issue with you is you always assume you are the only one around here that has built a decent physique, and therefore anyone who disagrees with you in the slightest must be 100% wrong because they are not nearly as big as you. This is usually true when you are arguing with some newb about TBT vs splits, but I am not a newb, and it is not always the case.[/quote]

You were told several times that I used the barbell for years, then dumbbells and then the HS machines.

Great, you weigh 240lbs. I first hit that about 8 years ago. You are also about 3-4" taller than me so excuse me if I point out that you are not speaking to someone who needs to be told that the barbell isn’t just like an HS machine.

188

I was wondering, what are the pros and cons of lifting chest and back on the same day with a heavy load? 3x6 is what micgoins uses in a mass building phase. Do you think its better to put them on separate days?

189

[quote]Professor X wrote:
doubleh wrote:
Professor X wrote:
doubleh wrote:
Professor X wrote:
doubleh wrote:

I never said that at all. I just said you might be surprised at how HS strength correlates to barbell stength. It’s 2 different worlds.

Why do you keep speaking to me like I’m a newbie? I could see if I was even your size or smaller, but you keep writing things like this that imply I don’t already know how “barbell strength” correlates to “HS strength”.

Gee, it’s two different worlds, huh?

Hmm, I don’t know, maybe because you did the same to me at the beginning of this debate?

Gee, you mean the discussion about me doing 405lbs years ago and you making the claim that you can do that much as a max now? Well, that would mean you are at a point I reached a long time ago thus the response.

Well guy, I then asked you a direct question, and you responded with a HS weight and rep range as for where you were on the bench. I replied I am real close to that working weight, if not there already. Thus my posts regarding going back to free weights. I don’t use HS lifts to gauge where I am at.

My issue with you is you always assume you are the only one around here that has built a decent physique, and therefore anyone who disagrees with you in the slightest must be 100% wrong because they are not nearly as big as you. This is usually true when you are arguing with some newb about TBT vs splits, but I am not a newb, and it is not always the case.

You were told several times that I used the barbell for years, then dumbbells and then the HS machines.

Great, you weigh 240lbs. I first hit that about 8 years ago. You are also about 3-4" taller than me so excuse me if I point out that you are not speaking to someone who needs to be told that the barbell isn’t just like an HS machine.[/quote]

Apparently you do, because one wouldn’t assume that working weight on a HS machine equates at all with working weight on a barbell. 450 for reps on HS does not equal 450 for reps with free weights; not even close. Of course I know you know that, so why would you even bring it up, and then still act the whole high and mighty routine?

It is also irrelevant if you hit 405 years ago, you have no idea what your strength level is unless you find out. But if we go right off of machines, then we are at virtually the same level strength-wise, at least for chest. This is good, it means you now can’t be dismissive so quickly, because by your criteria anyone who is less developed than you isn’t allowed to disagree.

And FWIW, the 240 lbs stat was from a leaned out state I was in the summer before I joined this site, more than a year and a half ago. I have not bothered to update, actually totally forgot about it. I am significantly more than that now. And while we’re at it, here’s another direct question - what are you tipping the scales at nowadays? I would assume you’d have to be pushing 300 if you hit 240 8 years ago. That would be impressive.

Anyway, this is a stupid pissing contest and dragging the thread down. To get back on topic, if anyone at all cares, I will lay out why I feel chest and back on the same day can be more effective than splitting them up if done correctly. Just let me know.

190

[quote]doubleh wrote:
Professor X wrote:
doubleh wrote:
Professor X wrote:
doubleh wrote:
Professor X wrote:
doubleh wrote:

I never said that at all. I just said you might be surprised at how HS strength correlates to barbell stength. It’s 2 different worlds.

Why do you keep speaking to me like I’m a newbie? I could see if I was even your size or smaller, but you keep writing things like this that imply I don’t already know how “barbell strength” correlates to “HS strength”.

Gee, it’s two different worlds, huh?

Hmm, I don’t know, maybe because you did the same to me at the beginning of this debate?

Gee, you mean the discussion about me doing 405lbs years ago and you making the claim that you can do that much as a max now? Well, that would mean you are at a point I reached a long time ago thus the response.

Well guy, I then asked you a direct question, and you responded with a HS weight and rep range as for where you were on the bench. I replied I am real close to that working weight, if not there already. Thus my posts regarding going back to free weights. I don’t use HS lifts to gauge where I am at.

My issue with you is you always assume you are the only one around here that has built a decent physique, and therefore anyone who disagrees with you in the slightest must be 100% wrong because they are not nearly as big as you. This is usually true when you are arguing with some newb about TBT vs splits, but I am not a newb, and it is not always the case.

You were told several times that I used the barbell for years, then dumbbells and then the HS machines.

Great, you weigh 240lbs. I first hit that about 8 years ago. You are also about 3-4" taller than me so excuse me if I point out that you are not speaking to someone who needs to be told that the barbell isn’t just like an HS machine.

Apparently you do, because one wouldn’t assume that working weight on a HS machine equates at all with working weight on a barbell. 450 for reps on HS does not equal 450 for reps with free weights; not even close. Of course I know you know that, so why would you even bring it up, and then still act the whole high and mighty routine?

It is also irrelevant if you hit 405 years ago, you have no idea what your strength level is unless you find out. But if we go right off of machines, then we are at virtually the same level strength-wise, at least for chest. This is good, it means you now can’t be dismissive so quickly, because by your criteria anyone who is less developed than you isn’t allowed to disagree.

And FWIW, the 240 lbs stat was from a leaned out state I was in the summer before I joined this site, more than a year and a half ago. I have not bothered to update, actually totally forgot about it. I am significantly more than that now. And while we’re at it, here’s another direct question - what are you tipping the scales at nowadays? I would assume you’d have to be pushing 300 if you hit 240 8 years ago. That would be impressive.[/quote]

If I wanted everyone to know all of my stats, I would post them. I have already posted more info and pics on this site than you and 90% of the people posting here.

If I look like I weigh 240lbs in the last pics I posted over a month ago, then there is something wrong with your computer.

If I look like someone who can’t bench 405lbs for reps in the last pics I posted, the same applies.

I am officially done proving myself on this website.

191

[quote]Professor X wrote:
doubleh wrote:
Professor X wrote:
doubleh wrote:
Professor X wrote:
doubleh wrote:
Professor X wrote:
doubleh wrote:

I never said that at all. I just said you might be surprised at how HS strength correlates to barbell stength. It’s 2 different worlds.

Why do you keep speaking to me like I’m a newbie? I could see if I was even your size or smaller, but you keep writing things like this that imply I don’t already know how “barbell strength” correlates to “HS strength”.

Gee, it’s two different worlds, huh?

Hmm, I don’t know, maybe because you did the same to me at the beginning of this debate?

Gee, you mean the discussion about me doing 405lbs years ago and you making the claim that you can do that much as a max now? Well, that would mean you are at a point I reached a long time ago thus the response.

Well guy, I then asked you a direct question, and you responded with a HS weight and rep range as for where you were on the bench. I replied I am real close to that working weight, if not there already. Thus my posts regarding going back to free weights. I don’t use HS lifts to gauge where I am at.

My issue with you is you always assume you are the only one around here that has built a decent physique, and therefore anyone who disagrees with you in the slightest must be 100% wrong because they are not nearly as big as you. This is usually true when you are arguing with some newb about TBT vs splits, but I am not a newb, and it is not always the case.

You were told several times that I used the barbell for years, then dumbbells and then the HS machines.

Great, you weigh 240lbs. I first hit that about 8 years ago. You are also about 3-4" taller than me so excuse me if I point out that you are not speaking to someone who needs to be told that the barbell isn’t just like an HS machine.

Apparently you do, because one wouldn’t assume that working weight on a HS machine equates at all with working weight on a barbell. 450 for reps on HS does not equal 450 for reps with free weights; not even close. Of course I know you know that, so why would you even bring it up, and then still act the whole high and mighty routine?

It is also irrelevant if you hit 405 years ago, you have no idea what your strength level is unless you find out. But if we go right off of machines, then we are at virtually the same level strength-wise, at least for chest. This is good, it means you now can’t be dismissive so quickly, because by your criteria anyone who is less developed than you isn’t allowed to disagree.

And FWIW, the 240 lbs stat was from a leaned out state I was in the summer before I joined this site, more than a year and a half ago. I have not bothered to update, actually totally forgot about it. I am significantly more than that now. And while we’re at it, here’s another direct question - what are you tipping the scales at nowadays? I would assume you’d have to be pushing 300 if you hit 240 8 years ago. That would be impressive.

If I wanted everyone to know all of my stats, I would post them. I have already posted more info and pics on this site than you and 90% of the people posting here.

If I look like I weigh 240lbs in the last pics I posted over a month ago, then there is something wrong with your computer.

If I look like someone who can’t bench 405lbs for reps in the last pics I posted, the same applies.

I am officially done proving myself on this website. [/quote]

(sighs)

You miss the point entirely. I don’t even know where you got the idea I thought you were 240 lbs. I know you are big and I know you are strong. You don’t have to prove anything else, I have seen you do it before. I am always sure to give you the respect you deserve when I see you in the forums, because you HAVE put the time in under the iron, unlike many other self-professed gurus. However, that respect appears to be a one-way street.

Maybe I will alleviate this issue and take some pics. I will be sure to let you know if I do.

/end argument

192

This thread ended long ago, it’s totally off topic.

193

Still, the debate is interesting.

194

[quote]Josh Rider wrote:
The fact is, its easy to find 100 heavily muscular individuals who use splits but its difficult to point out even a dozen heavily muscular individuals who use exclusively TBT. I think this is the root of my belief of why training exclusively with TBT forever is foolish, especially if one wants to reach their genetic maximum. [/quote]

Interesting… You say “100 heavily muscular individuals who use splits”… then “a dozen individuals who use exclusively TBT”…why do TBT user examples have to be exclusive?

People who use hammers don’t stop using screwdrivers for the rest of their life. TBT is a FUCKIN TOOL. You’re a TOOL your supposed to be able to recognize a tool when you see one.

The shining star of the T-Cell Army Crip Crew 100morerep clearly stated he has been using TBT and ACTUALLY SEEING GOOD PROGRESS. But guess what the Cult leader of SPLITSFOREVER army still felt the need to shape the guys comments into only use splits. The thread title appeared to be all about 100…rep but nooooooooooooo, you guys still had to find a way to try and shape HIS thread on HIS routine into how to properly use splits.

I’ll admit this maybe YOU and ProfessorX never used TBT, but outside of that MOST people who have used a gym for any period of time have used it with success at some point in time of their life. Because most people pro bodybuilder - to local gym rat don’t stick with the exact same routine all their life. They try to figure out what they need at the time and use it, and at some point in time TBT for everybody but you, X and maybe a few others on here can be very useful.

195

[quote]doubleh wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:

It’s not about keeping your body guessing though, it’s about providing your body with the stimulus/nutrients that produce a specific adaptation (in this case muscle mass).

If I go out and run a marathon today, and then try a powerlifting meet tomorrow, and then play some pick-up games of basketball the next day, wrestle the next, and do a diving competition the next my body is going to be guessing the whole time. But that’s not going to result in anything even closely resembling an optimal muscle building program.

I know some authors are big on sayings like “everything works, but nothing works forever”, “muscle confusion”, and “preventing adaptation to a program” (one of my personal pet peeves)

And reading such things severely overcomplicates training in young impressionable newbie’s minds and often times leads to mistakes like “training ADD”, or thinking that you need to totally re-write your program every (insert arbitrary period of time).

The truth is that this building muscle thing is really pretty simple, and if you want a specific type of adaptation, you must provide the body with a specific type of stimulus.

If your program doesn’t provide that specific type of stimulus, then no matter how much your muscles are guessing, it’s won’t be an optimal muscle building program.

If it does, then there really is no reason to change it (unless you hit a legitimate plateau, that isn’t the result of needing to eat more), and even then, minor changes are better than major ones in most cases.

BTW, this is more of a rant on the general subject than specifically directed towards any one person in particular.

Great post. Too many people scrap their entire training program rather than adjust an exercise or switch set/rep schemes here and there to keep providing new stimulus. Totally changing gears is rarely needed IMO.[/quote]

well said. it seems to me that the most succesful people find a routine that works for them after some initial experimentation, then stick with it for the long haul,just making minor tweeks on the way.

196

[quote]doubleh wrote:

Anyway, this is a stupid pissing contest and dragging the thread down. To get back on topic, if anyone at all cares, I will lay out why I feel chest and back on the same day can be more effective than splitting them up if done correctly. Just let me know.[/quote]

I would like to see how you set up a chest and back day, if you would care to share. I’ve been waiting for the whole chest and back thing to come up. You know, in the “Working Chest and Back on Same Day” thread.

197

[quote]Airtruth wrote:

Interesting… You say “100 heavily muscular individuals who use splits”… then “a dozen individuals who use exclusively TBT”…why do TBT user examples have to be exclusive? [/quote]

I’m not stringently against TBT like Prof X, but I’m just trying to point out that I disagree with the likes of Cosgrove and Waterbury who basically say that 90% of people should only do TBT. TBT is a tool, yes, but it isn’t the ultimate tool. I’m just saying my opinion that TBT shouldn’t be used exclusively or even most of the time.

[quote]Airtruth wrote:

People who use hammers don’t stop using screwdrivers for the rest of their life. TBT is a FUCKIN TOOL. You’re a TOOL your supposed to be able to recognize a tool when you see one. [/quote]

You’re response has the maturity level of maybe a 12 year old. You are taking my comments as if they are personal attacks and responding with personal attacks (“you’re a tool”).

[quote]Airtruth wrote:

The shining star of the T-Cell Army Crip Crew 100morerep clearly stated he has been using TBT and ACTUALLY SEEING GOOD PROGRESS. But guess what the Cult leader of SPLITSFOREVER army still felt the need to shape the guys comments into only use splits. The thread title appeared to be all about 100…rep but nooooooooooooo, you guys still had to find a way to try and shape HIS thread on HIS routine into how to properly use splits. [/quote]

I’m not part of any group or clan. Not everyone plays Cowboys and Indians like you seem to. 1morerep has a great physique and I’ve heard that recently he has been doing TBT. Still, he didn’t exclusively use TBT to build his physique; hell, he probably did splits 2+ times the amount of time he did TBT. Still, I have nothing specifically against TBT as a tool to use, I am just pointing out how it is not clearly superior to splits as people point out.

I never said that I never did TBT. My first few months training were exclusively TBT and I sometimes incorporate TBT when trying to lose fat. I’ll probably go back to it eventually as well.

198

[quote]Mr.Purple wrote:
doubleh wrote:

Anyway, this is a stupid pissing contest and dragging the thread down. To get back on topic, if anyone at all cares, I will lay out why I feel chest and back on the same day can be more effective than splitting them up if done correctly. Just let me know.

I would like to see how you set up a chest and back day, if you would care to share. I’ve been waiting for the whole chest and back thing to come up. You know, in the “Working Chest and Back on Same Day” thread.[/quote]

OK, I will put it up tomorrow. I don’t have time tonight.

199

[quote]forlife wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
It’s not about keeping your body guessing though, it’s about providing your body with the stimulus/nutrients that produce a specific adaptation (in this case muscle mass).

My point was that your body becomes increasingly efficient under a fixed training method, which tends to reduce the rate of muscle mass you gain under that particular method.

I wouldn’t recommend changing your routine on a dime, but it can be beneficial to switch things up from time to time. You can do this at the micro level for a particular training method by changing number of reps/set, etc. You can also do this at the macro level by changing the training method itself.

People seem to become religious zealots when it comes to training, insisting that their particular method is “optimal”. If anything, I think strategic variation is more likely to produce “optimal” results than staying with the same method for your entire training career.
[/quote]

It’s not anything like religion though, because religion is based on faith while what we are talking about is based on actual flesh and blood living test subjects who have actually succeeded at building large amounts of muscle.

Whether anyone wants to admit it or not, the overwhelming majority of very large, heavily muscled people got to that point by training in fairly similar ways (using some form of split training).

They also likely stuck to the same routine for an extended period of time (once they actually figured out what worked for them) and only changed it when their body/recovery systems demanded that they do so.

Your first statement is exactly the type of thinking that I was arguing against.

Sorry, but building muscle is a form of making your body more efficient. Why do you think your body would make it’s muscles bigger if not to attempt to more easily handle the demands that you are putting on it?

If you are consistently challenging your muscles with greater loads, then it must continue to adapt (build muscle) in order to continue to improve it’s efficiency. If your muscle mass starts to significantly slow down, then chances are that it’s your diet that is to blame, not the program. And no matter how many different programs that you try, you’re going to be forever limited by your food intake.

The only time it’s really beneficial to change something IMO is when your body can no longer keep up with the rate of progression that you are exposing it to. At that point it makes sense to continue using the same methods that have gotten you to this point, just making slight adjustments (like using a different variation of the same exercise, or allowing for more recovery, aka adjusting your split).

It wouldn’t make sense to use a completely different approach (unless maybe there was significant evidence as to it’s superiority over the methods that you had been using).

200

I think this doesn’t make any sense. TBT can make someone grow, so splits. A program consisting only of pushups can make a beginner grow.

The thing is that it has been proven in the trenches that split training is more efficient than TBT.

TBT is normally used for people who don’t have enough time to train.

You need enough time to create optimal body hypertrophy.

There’s no way for the same stimulation on TBT than it is given by split training.