Working Chest and Back on Same Day

Training Bodybuilding
201

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
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.[/quote]

The faith part is believing that your method is superior to others, without having fairly tried other training methods under the same nutrition and intensity.

Prior to the popularity of splits, there were also many large, heavily muscled people that followed more of a TBT routine. Clearly, a lot of people shifted to splits and discovered great results. But is that due to splits or to stimulating the body in a different way? For all we know, switching from splits to TBT could similarly lead to new muscle stimulation and growth.

[quote[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.[/quote]

That is true, but the body also benefits from making changes in the routine, like low reps at max weight vs. more reps at less weight. You can follow the identical routine year after year and consistently challenge your muscles with greater loads, but you are less likely to see optimal muscle growth than if you switch it up from time to time.

I think people sometimes take this to the opposite extreme though, and are constantly changing their routines before realizing the maximum benefit from the current routine. There’s a balance, but I believe an occasional change in the training regimen does a body good.

202

[quote]Josh Rider wrote:
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?

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.

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.

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”).

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.

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’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.

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. [/quote]

Are CW and Cosgrove really saying it should be used most of the time? or are they saying the majority of people who work train 3 days a week for an hour a day would be better off doing TBT during that time?

203

[quote]forlife wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
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.

The faith part is believing that your method is superior to others, without having fairly tried other training methods under the same nutrition and intensity.
[/quote]

No, believing that a method is superior based on statistical data is not faith.

Far fewer than the number who got there using some sort of split, and not as heavily muscled. We’ve already had the “switching back to TBT could result in new growth” discussion earlier in this thread. BB’ers have switched to splits for a reason, since building muscle is their primary goal, I think it’s safe to assume what that reason is.

Pure theory not at all based on actual people. Take a look at just about every single high level (natural or otherwise) BB’er and you’ll see that they’ve stuck to pretty much the same routine (with minor changes when their bodies demanded it) for their training career.

Sure, some had no idea what they were doing in the beginning and may have tried a number of programs, but once they figured out what actually worked, that’s what they stuck to.

[quote]
I think people sometimes take this to the opposite extreme though, and are constantly changing their routines before realizing the maximum benefit from the current routine. There’s a balance, but I believe an occasional change in the training regimen does a body good.[/quote]

I agree with you that one should not change their routine until it becomes necessary to do so. Any other time (perhaps with the exception of having overwhelming evidence to support another routine’s superiority, and the knowledge to know when that routine is appropriate) is a waste of time/energy though.

204

[quote]Mr.Purple wrote:

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]

To understand why I set it up this way, you have to understand the rationale behind it first. The best place to start is here…(2/3 of the way down on pg 2 is my first post, can read from there): http://www.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/sports_body_training_performance_bodybuilding/writing_your_own_program?id=2322532&pageNo=0

…because I’ve already typed out the key points (saves me re-typing). And yes, you will notice the person I was debating with about this exact same issue last time was none other than… Professor X.

From there, check out this thread: http://www.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/sports_body_training_performance_bodybuilding/so_whose_right_ct_or_waterbury_frequency_for_muscle_growth?pageNo=0#2251953

See my single post about halfway down, where I quote the line, “The optimal training frequency per muscle group is 2 sessions every 5 to 7 days”. Not my words - that’s Thibs. The icing on the cake there was CT suggesting the exact split I use, and his post is what prompted mine.

Anyway, after reading those, you should be able to see why I chose the split I use. What really jumpstarted me to this split was thinking about optimal volume. There is a fine balance between volume and frequency. When I trained the classical 1-bodypart-per-week type split (and I did), I always felt I could be doing better because if I trained, say, chest on Monday, by the end of the week I was fully recovered and felt I was ready to hit chest again, but the next session was 2 days away. I figured there had to be a better way, and after tinkering for a while, it boiled down to this question:

In a regular 1-bodypart-per-week split, and with intensity being constant, will the extra 3-5 working sets I am stacking on top of an already-tired muscle group elicit more growth than hitting the same muscle group more frequently with less volume?

To answer, think about this: In a year, hypothetical bodybuilder Guy X, using a “normal” split, will train his chest exactly 52 times (once per week), with perhaps 10-16 working sets (maybe more). Using my split, I would train chest approximately 66 times, give or take (assuming the use of the frequency day I mentioned, and an extra day of rest here and there), with about 8-12 working sets.

On the old split, since I was always fully recovered before the end of the week, the answer was a no-brainer. I could trash a bodypart, recover fully, and sit on my hands for a day or 2, OR I could semi-trash a bodypart, allow just enough time to recover, then start the split again.

I made the switch and I haven’t looked back.

205

[quote]Airtruth wrote:
Josh Rider wrote:
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?

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.

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.

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”).

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.

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’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.

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.

Are CW and Cosgrove really saying it should be used most of the time? or are they saying the majority of people who work train 3 days a week for an hour a day would be better off doing TBT during that time?
[/quote]

I don’t know about Cosgrove, but CW definitely makes statements along the lines of “TBT is superior most of the time”, and he believes (at least he writes like he believes) that his TBT programs will put muscle on people faster than any split.

As far as people who work out 3 days a week for around an hour a day, I still think there are better (and more substantiated by actual results) programs than TBT.

It’s really such a loaded discussion though. You have to take into account strength levels, recovery abilities, nutrition, stress/activity from everyday activities, age, etc…

206

[quote]doubleh wrote:

…because I’ve already typed out the key points (saves me re-typing). And yes, you will notice the person I was debating with about this exact same issue last time was none other than… Professor X.

[/quote]

With my direct response to you being:

[quote]The bottom line is, you do what works for you…and it sounds like it is so keep doing it.

I personally know that I put too much into my back and chest training to do them both on the same day and still feel like I worked them hard enough.
[/quote]

In fact, throwing my name into the mix over and over accomplishes what?

207

[quote]Professor X wrote:
doubleh wrote:

…because I’ve already typed out the key points (saves me re-typing). And yes, you will notice the person I was debating with about this exact same issue last time was none other than… Professor X.

With my direct response to you being:
The bottom line is, you do what works for you…and it sounds like it is so keep doing it.

I personally know that I put too much into my back and chest training to do them both on the same day and still feel like I worked them hard enough.

In fact, throwing my name into the mix over and over accomplishes what?[/quote]

LOL, it just shows that you have a one-track mind, which perhaps explains your attacking me. It’s your way or the highway, and on that other thread, you only made those concessions AFTER I had explained my reasoning, so to speak. That was the kinder, gentler Professor X. On this thread, you were much more… abrasive.

208

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

…because I’ve already typed out the key points (saves me re-typing). And yes, you will notice the person I was debating with about this exact same issue last time was none other than… Professor X.

With my direct response to you being:
The bottom line is, you do what works for you…and it sounds like it is so keep doing it.

I personally know that I put too much into my back and chest training to do them both on the same day and still feel like I worked them hard enough.

In fact, throwing my name into the mix over and over accomplishes what?

LOL, it just shows that you have a one-track mind, which perhaps explains your attacking me. It’s your way or the highway, and on that other thread, you only made those concessions AFTER I had explained my reasoning, so to speak. That was the kinder, gentler Professor X. On this thread, you were much more… abrasive.[/quote]

I could care less about being abrasive to you. The point from the very beginning is that the more weight you put up and the more muscle you gain, the LESS likely it will be that you can train both of those muscle groups efficiently in one session.

If you want to train chest five days a week that is up to you. It still doesn’t make sense for someone to approach this like they NEED to put those two muscle groups together.

Doing shit just to be doing it makes no sense at all.

209

[quote]Professor X wrote:

I could care less about being abrasive to you. The point from the very beginning is that the more weight you put up and the more muscle you gain, the LESS likely it will be that you can train both of those muscle groups efficiently in one session. [/quote]

You mean, you COULDN’T care less.

You clearly have reading comprehension issues. MY point from the very beginning is basically to refute your self-serving claim. You say you’re so huge and the weight you move so immense that chest/back is an impossibility. That’s your old stand-by when someone disagrees with you, “I’m big and your not”. Well guy, based on information in this thread, I’m not so far off from you, if at all, at least chest-wise. Strike 1. You claim intensity to be the issue with 2 bodyparts, yet what is the difference between doing 15 intense sets for back and a total of 15 intense sets split between chest and back??? I might argue the latter is more efficient because of the inherent rest you will be giving one bodypart while training the other. Strike 2. Finally, have I not explained enough how this split allows GREATER FREQUENCY of training, which makes up for the lower volume and therefore cannot be less efficient that training once per week (if you understand anything about the relationship between volume and frequency)??? Strike 3.

Need??? You NEED to do it if you want to take advantage of training with more frequency!! You could pair other muscle groups I suppose but I prefer agonist/antagonist. What part of this are you not understanding??

[quote]Doing shit just to be doing it makes no sense at all.
[/quote]

If, after everything I’m written about this, you honestly think I’m just “doing shit just to be doing it”, then you don’t need reading comprehension help, you need to go back and re-learn how to fucking read.

Why are you even still posting in this thread?

210

Thanks for the info, doubleh.

211

[quote]doubleh wrote:
Professor X wrote:

I could care less about being abrasive to you. The point from the very beginning is that the more weight you put up and the more muscle you gain, the LESS likely it will be that you can train both of those muscle groups efficiently in one session.

You mean, you COULDN’T care less.
[/quote]I know it as a sarcastic expression which seems to have pretty much replaced “I couldn’t care less” in modern English.

Just thought that this link was somewhat interesting /hijack [quote]

You clearly have reading comprehension issues. MY point from the very beginning is basically to refute your self-serving claim. You say you’re so huge and the weight you move so immense that chest/back is an impossibility. That’s your old stand-by when someone disagrees with you, “I’m big and your not”. Well guy, based on information in this thread, I’m not so far off from you, if at all, at least chest-wise. Strike 1. You claim intensity to be the issue with 2 bodyparts, yet what is the difference between doing 15 intense sets for back and a total of 15 intense sets split between chest and back??? I might argue the latter is more efficient because of the inherent rest you will be giving one bodypart while training the other. Strike 2. Finally, have I not explained enough how this split allows GREATER FREQUENCY of training, which makes up for the lower volume and therefore cannot be less efficient that training once per week (if you understand anything about the relationship between volume and frequency)??? Strike 3.

If you want to train chest five days a week that is up to you. It still doesn’t make sense for someone to approach this like they NEED to put those two muscle groups together.

Need??? You NEED to do it if you want to take advantage of training with more frequency!! You could pair other muscle groups I suppose but I prefer agonist/antagonist. What part of this are you not understanding??

Doing shit just to be doing it makes no sense at all.

If, after everything I’m written about this, you honestly think I’m just “doing shit just to be doing it”, then you don’t need reading comprehension help, you need to go back and re-learn how to fucking read.

Why are you even still posting in this thread?

[/quote]

212

[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:

Just thought that this link was somewhat interesting /hijack

[/quote]
lol!
dude,
is there anything you don’t know.

213

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
No, believing that a method is superior based on statistical data is not faith.[/quote]

Where is the statistical data that splits are superior to TBT, under the same levels of nutrition and training intensity?

214

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

I could care less about being abrasive to you. The point from the very beginning is that the more weight you put up and the more muscle you gain, the LESS likely it will be that you can train both of those muscle groups efficiently in one session.

You mean, you COULDN’T care less.
I know it as a sarcastic expression which seems to have pretty much replaced “I couldn’t care less” in modern English.

Just thought that this link was somewhat interesting /hijack

You clearly have reading comprehension issues. MY point from the very beginning is basically to refute your self-serving claim. You say you’re so huge and the weight you move so immense that chest/back is an impossibility. That’s your old stand-by when someone disagrees with you, “I’m big and your not”. Well guy, based on information in this thread, I’m not so far off from you, if at all, at least chest-wise. Strike 1. You claim intensity to be the issue with 2 bodyparts, yet what is the difference between doing 15 intense sets for back and a total of 15 intense sets split between chest and back??? I might argue the latter is more efficient because of the inherent rest you will be giving one bodypart while training the other. Strike 2. Finally, have I not explained enough how this split allows GREATER FREQUENCY of training, which makes up for the lower volume and therefore cannot be less efficient that training once per week (if you understand anything about the relationship between volume and frequency)??? Strike 3.

If you want to train chest five days a week that is up to you. It still doesn’t make sense for someone to approach this like they NEED to put those two muscle groups together.

Need??? You NEED to do it if you want to take advantage of training with more frequency!! You could pair other muscle groups I suppose but I prefer agonist/antagonist. What part of this are you not understanding??

Doing shit just to be doing it makes no sense at all.

If, after everything I’m written about this, you honestly think I’m just “doing shit just to be doing it”, then you don’t need reading comprehension help, you need to go back and re-learn how to fucking read.

Why are you even still posting in this thread?

[/quote]

LOL, thanks, I know but it’s a stupid expression and I was all fired up.

215

[quote]forlife wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
No, believing that a method is superior based on statistical data is not faith.

Where is the statistical data that splits are superior to TBT, under the same levels of nutrition and training intensity? [/quote]

please let this go… i have a headache.

216

[quote]Mr.Purple wrote:
Thanks for the info, doubleh.[/quote]

No problem.

217

This is getting boring.

218

[quote]doubleh wrote:

You clearly have reading comprehension issues. MY point from the very beginning is basically to refute your self-serving claim. You say you’re so huge and the weight you move so immense that chest/back is an impossibility. That’s your old stand-by when someone disagrees with you, “I’m big and your not”. Well guy, based on information in this thread, I’m not so far off from you, if at all, at least chest-wise. Strike 1. [/quote]

Gee, yes, you are clearly right at my strength and development level…even though you are 3" taller than me and still weigh less than I do at your 270lbs.

You got me.

Why are you?

219

[quote]alit4 wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:

Just thought that this link was somewhat interesting /hijack

lol!
dude,
is there anything you don’t know.[/quote]

Your credit card and bank account numbers :frowning:

You can help me alleviate that issue, though :slight_smile:

220

[quote]forlife wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
No, believing that a method is superior based on statistical data is not faith.

Where is the statistical data that splits are superior to TBT, under the same levels of nutrition and training intensity? [/quote]

Real life.