[quote]Professor X wrote:
If you are a beginner, you can get away with it. If you are benching 400+lbs for reps, it is probably a bad idea to think you will go all out for back on the same day as chest.[/quote]
This is sounding like the old split vs. TBW debate.
For those that hit multiple body parts in the same workout, the research shows that alternating chest/back produces the best gains.
I don’t know if that asymptotes at higher levels or not, but I’m curious why you think it would?
Yes, you are moving more weight but you also have more muscle to support that weight. Are you saying that a 250 pound guy should be more physically exhausted from his workout than a 150 pound guy?
[quote]forlife wrote:
Professor X wrote:
If you are a beginner, you can get away with it. If you are benching 400+lbs for reps, it is probably a bad idea to think you will go all out for back on the same day as chest.
This is sounding like the old split vs. TBW debate.
For those that hit multiple body parts in the same workout, the research shows that alternating chest/back produces the best gains.
I don’t know if that asymptotes at higher levels or not, but I’m curious why you think it would?
Yes, you are moving more weight but you also have more muscle to support that weight. Are you saying that a 250 pound guy should be more physically exhausted from his workout than a 150 pound guy?[/quote]
YES. Perception is everything, but the larger guy has taxed his muscles and entire system more with much more weight than the weaker guy.
No matter what “newbie” does in the gym, it does not equal benching 400+lbs for several reps or the usual routine of someone like that which often involves 4-5 exercises all taken to that level.
“Newbie” might be tired from his workout, but he has NOT stressed his muscles the same or put his ENTIRE body through the same stress.
I couldn’t work back and chest directly as hard I work them now on the same day. Maybe some younger guys can. I know I couldn’t. One or the other would be compromised.
If somebody’s happy with how their training is going far be it from me to say they’re not, but as far as I’m concerned push, pull and legs each get a direct day.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
“Newbie” might be tired from his workout, but he has NOT stressed his muscles the same or put his ENTIRE body through the same stress.[/quote]
I can see that, since someone new to the gym could reach max fatigue without recruiting his muscles to nearly the same level.
That said, I’m curious what you think about the caveat of total body workouts. It’s clear you support splits, but if someone is going to work multiple body parts, are you arguing that they will get less benefit from working opposing muscle groups than working non-related muscle groups?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
doubleh wrote:
Professor X wrote:
It can be done, depends on how you have your workouts structured. I think I remember you lift 1 bodypart per week; obviously in that type of split combining back and chest on one day is neither ideal nor even necessary.
Do you deadlift Professor? Just curious…
No, I don’t deadlift. I also don’t train muscle groups only once a week. I usually train shoulders twice at least…which may be why I get more comments on them lately than any other body part.
It isn’t about whether it can be done. It is about if it will lead to the most progress.[/quote]
Well in some instances I think it can. See below.
[quote]
If you are a beginner, you can get away with it. If you are benching 400+lbs for reps, it is probably a bad idea to think you will go all out for back on the same day as chest.[/quote]
Well, I do bench 400+ lbs, although sadly not for reps. But I am working on it. I think it’s volume- and frequency-dependent. I would assume you’re not hitting your shoulders twice a week with the same volume you are your chest, which you only train once (if I remember correctly). So if one had a program in which they trained chest and back on the same day, but with less volume because they trained it MORE FREQUENTLY than once a week, I’ve found that there aren’t really any sacrifices in intensity necessary.
Is it a long workout? Sure. It’s my longest of the split. But I start the split with it so I am fresh.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
forlife wrote:
Professor X wrote:
If you are a beginner, you can get away with it. If you are benching 400+lbs for reps, it is probably a bad idea to think you will go all out for back on the same day as chest.
This is sounding like the old split vs. TBW debate.
For those that hit multiple body parts in the same workout, the research shows that alternating chest/back produces the best gains.
I don’t know if that asymptotes at higher levels or not, but I’m curious why you think it would?
Yes, you are moving more weight but you also have more muscle to support that weight. Are you saying that a 250 pound guy should be more physically exhausted from his workout than a 150 pound guy?
YES. Perception is everything, but the larger guy has taxed his muscles and entire system more with much more weight than the weaker guy.
No matter what “newbie” does in the gym, it does not equal benching 400+lbs for several reps or the usual routine of someone like that which often involves 4-5 exercises all taken to that level.
“Newbie” might be tired from his workout, but he has NOT stressed his muscles the same or put his ENTIRE body through the same stress.[/quote]
[quote]forlife wrote:
Professor X wrote:
“Newbie” might be tired from his workout, but he has NOT stressed his muscles the same or put his ENTIRE body through the same stress.
I can see that, since someone new to the gym could reach max fatigue without recruiting his muscles to nearly the same level.
That said, I’m curious what you think about the caveat of total body workouts. It’s clear you support splits, but if someone is going to work multiple body parts, are you arguing that they will get less benefit from working opposing muscle groups than working non-related muscle groups?[/quote]
That isn’t what I am saying at all. Anyone who has done this long enough has tried pretty much everything from training chest and back on the same day to alternating muscle groups from one set to the next. That is WHY I know this won’t work for someone at my level. I’ve been there and done that.
As far as TBT training, I think it is HORRIBLE for optimal results as far as muscle and strength gains. As soon as I see some of these guys making much better gains than they are or going from skinny to huge training that way, then maybe I will change my mind.
That doesn’t mean there isn’t someone out there who can benefit from it. But the numbers just don’t point in that direction when it comes to those who actually try to see the most progress.
Well, I do bench 400+ lbs, although sadly not for reps. But I am working on it.
[/quote]
Then you aren’t at the level of guys who DO lift that much for reps. I made that point because the strength level of someone who actually TRAINS with that much for several reps is far beyond that of the guy who has that as his one rep max.
[quote]forlife wrote:
There is research that when you alternate exercising two opposing muscle groups, you see better results. This goes not just for chest/back, but for biceps/triceps, quads/hams, etc.
I used to do splits, but have been doing total body workouts the past couple of years. I always do chest/back at the top of the workout, alternating between the two exercises. I find I have greater intensity as a result.[/quote]
I have seen research that says if you want to lift heavier with one, slightly fatigue the antagonist, but never alternating the two at maximum intensity for building muscle. There is a difference from pushing your maximum weight for a workout and building muscle.
I can’t see someone having greater intensity on the second exercise after training the other at maximum intensity. The only way I know that his could happen is that the person usually doesn’t warm up properly or psych themselves up for their workout, but to each his own.
I do chest back same day but only because I’m short on lifting time since I try to do other stuff like run or play basketball. I alternate either by days or routines which muscle group are start with, since generally the one I start with receives the greatest training effect.
I would suggest the OP do that, because naturally a person’s concentration diminishes from start to finish. The other con is you start to lose motivation for arms, which leads to the big body smaller arm look. This is not to say your arms won’t grow, but proportianately your body will be thicker then your limbs.
Well, I do bench 400+ lbs, although sadly not for reps. But I am working on it.
Then you aren’t at the level of guys who DO lift that much for reps. I made that point because the strength level of someone who actually TRAINS with that much for several reps is far beyond that of the guy who has that as his one rep max.[/quote]
I would love to train at a gym where guys are benching 400+ for reps.
[quote]forlife wrote:
There is research that when you alternate exercising two opposing muscle groups, you see better results. This goes not just for chest/back, but for biceps/triceps, quads/hams, etc.
[/quote]
Do you define ‘better results’ as ‘smaller size gains’?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
That isn’t what I am saying at all. Anyone who has done this long enough has tried pretty much everything from training chest and back on the same day to alternating muscle groups from one set to the next. That is WHY I know this won’t work for someone at my level. I’ve been there and done that.
As far as TBT training, I think it is HORRIBLE for optimal results as far as muscle and strength gains. As soon as I see some of these guys making much better gains than they are or going from skinny to huge training that way, then maybe I will change my mind.
That doesn’t mean there isn’t someone out there who can benefit from it. But the numbers just don’t point in that direction when it comes to those who actually try to see the most progress.[/quote]
That is what I meant when I said your comments are more directed at the total body vs. split debate.
The question here, as I see it, is whether alternating opposing muscle groups makes sense within the context of a total body workout.
I know you don’t see TBW as ideal, but for those that do I think alternating opposing muscles is the way to go and the research supports it.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Do you define ‘better results’ as ‘smaller size gains’?
[/quote]
I don’t recall if the research measured size vs. strength gains. It just showed that for those that do total body workouts, alternating opposing muscle groups is the most effective.
Well, I do bench 400+ lbs, although sadly not for reps. But I am working on it.
Then you aren’t at the level of guys who DO lift that much for reps. I made that point because the strength level of someone who actually TRAINS with that much for several reps is far beyond that of the guy who has that as his one rep max.[/quote]
Perhaps. No point in even arguing that line of reasoning, though. It’s not as if there’s some magic # you have to bench whereby it then becomes impossible to train back with the same intensity the same day. Fatigue and intensity are too subjective and vary too greatly person to person.
Incidentally, Professor, what is your bench 1RM these days?
Anyway, my main point about volume and frequency remains. Professor X is free to disagree based on his advanced level of strength, but I do train them both the same day, and I’d be a few lbs short of a raw elite total in the 242 class if I ever cut a few lbs to get back to 240 and competed.
There’s plenty of stronger people out there, including Professor X I suppose, but I think I stack up pretty favorably in that regard. So take that FWIW.
I can’t imagine doing back/chest on the same day even if I were in the gym for an extra long time. The amount of weight capable of being handled seems to be the biggest issue I think. The only pairing I do right now is bicep/tricep because I can go heavy on both without it being an issue in my performance of either body part.
Large body parts especially should have their own days and is necessary I think if you have the goal of being really big. If you’re doing back/chest and you say its effective at gaining alot of mass, then I’d question your level of intensity.
[quote]IronDude17 wrote:
I can’t imagine doing back/chest on the same day even if I were in the gym for an extra long time. The amount of weight capable of being handled seems to be the biggest issue I think.
The only pairing I do right now is bicep/tricep because I can go heavy on both without it being an issue in my performance of either body part. Large body parts especially should have their own days and is necessary I think if you have the goal of being really big. If you’re doing back/chest and you say its effective at gaining alot of mass, then I’d question your level of intensity.[/quote]
Define “effective”. I have been training this way for years. At my peak condition I was a pretty lean 248 lbs. I am now considerably more than that, although not as lean. As I mentioned I would be very close to raw elite powerlifting #s if I cut some fat. I would imagine many people on this board could not claim the same.
I think you are missing my point. For a 1-bodypart-per-week split, with high volume - yes keeping up intensity for that type of session for TWO bodyparts would be difficult. But by cutting volume and increasing frequency it is not an issue.
I’d say how many sets I do per bodypart, but we could get bogged down in semantics again by who defines what as a “set”.
Screw it, I’ll take a shot. I do 8-12 sets per bodypart that I count, usually between 3 different exercises. Some might consider 2-3 of those sets warm-ups.
[quote]doubleh wrote:
Professor X wrote:
doubleh wrote:
Well, I do bench 400+ lbs, although sadly not for reps. But I am working on it.
Then you aren’t at the level of guys who DO lift that much for reps. I made that point because the strength level of someone who actually TRAINS with that much for several reps is far beyond that of the guy who has that as his one rep max.
Perhaps. No point in even arguing that line of reasoning, though. It’s not as if there’s some magic # you have to bench whereby it then becomes impossible to train back with the same intensity the same day. Fatigue and intensity are too subjective and vary too greatly person to person.
Incidentally, Professor, what is your bench 1RM these days?
[/quote]
I don’t do one rep maxes. I work out with 450lbs for 8 reps as my last set on flat bench hs presses. that is after doing two other exercises before that. I first hit 405lbs several years ago when I was training more like a powerlifter and was doing one rep maxes.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
doubleh wrote:
Professor X wrote:
doubleh wrote:
Well, I do bench 400+ lbs, although sadly not for reps. But I am working on it.
Then you aren’t at the level of guys who DO lift that much for reps. I made that point because the strength level of someone who actually TRAINS with that much for several reps is far beyond that of the guy who has that as his one rep max.
Perhaps. No point in even arguing that line of reasoning, though. It’s not as if there’s some magic # you have to bench whereby it then becomes impossible to train back with the same intensity the same day. Fatigue and intensity are too subjective and vary too greatly person to person.
Incidentally, Professor, what is your bench 1RM these days?
I don’t do one rep maxes. I work out with 450lbs for 8 reps as my last set on flat bench hs presses. that is after doing two other exercises before that. I first hit 405lbs several years ago when I was training more like a powerlifter and was doing one rep maxes.
[/quote]
Ummm, Professor X… I also can rep 400+ on Hammer Strength bench. Comparing that to a barbell free weight bench is, well, there’s no comparison. I only do them rarely, but I just checked my journal and last time I did them I finished up with 430x5, also after 2 other exercises, which incidentally were free weight presses, not more machines. So we’re probably pretty close.
I knew I remembered you were mostly a machine guy.