Working Chest and Back on Same Day

Training Bodybuilding
61

[quote]forlife wrote:
Poetikaal wrote:
however, if your goals are gaining size, is that still the most effective approach? after all, more total weight with greater intensity doesnt necessarily mean great size gains, though possibly greater strengthgains, if that is your primary concern

I really can’t say for size, since strength has been my goal. I’ve found that my strength has increased more from TBW than splits, but that’s just me.[/quote]

When did people start gaining all of this “strength” without any muscle coming right along with it?

I work for strength gains as well. I eat to support the muscle gains that allow even more strength gains.

If you aren’t gaining the muscle, there is no doubt that your “strength” isn’t increasing as much as it could.

62

[quote]Professor X wrote:
forlife wrote:
Poetikaal wrote:
however, if your goals are gaining size, is that still the most effective approach? after all, more total weight with greater intensity doesnt necessarily mean great size gains, though possibly greater strengthgains, if that is your primary concern

I really can’t say for size, since strength has been my goal. I’ve found that my strength has increased more from TBW than splits, but that’s just me.

When did people start gaining all of this “strength” without any muscle coming right along with it?

I work for strength gains as well. I eat to support the muscle gains that allow even more strength gains.

If you aren’t gaining the muscle, there is no doubt that your “strength” isn’t increasing as much as it could.[/quote]

I think it’s that low-rep strength vs. moderate or high -rep strength thing again…

Poetikaal, if you keep doing very low-rep work only with little to no assistance work then you’re not going to gain much size…

When we talk about strength in the bb forum, we usually refer to your 4-20 RM or so, mostly 5-8.

63

[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:

I think it’s that low-rep strength vs. moderate or high -rep strength thing again…
[/quote]

If it is then the question still stands. Heavy weight powerlifters are not generally weaker than smaller lifters. When discussing IDEAL training for size and strength, it is a little ridiculous to have that discussion with people who seem to actively be avoiding gains in size.

64

[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:

I think it’s that low-rep strength vs. moderate or high -rep strength thing again…

Poetikaal, if you keep doing very low-rep work only with little to no assistance work then you’re not going to gain much size…

When we talk about strength in the bb forum, we usually refer to your 4-20 RM or so, mostly 5-8.

[/quote]

CC, in this thread, FORLIFE and I were discussing whether TBW or SPLITS were effective for different means. he was saying he feels that doing one exercise for bodypart per workout allowed him to go heavier and harder for those few sets for that one bodypart

i said thats fine if your goal is to simply improve the lifts, but my point was that one exercise with a few sets per muscle group per workout was not enough volume to effectively stimulate the muscle into significant growth

ive been doing higher rep work and increasing the volume of my workouts in the past two months, and made some noticeable size gains, which continue increasing as such.

i guess i am just confused as to where that comment came from

65

All strength indices are related for the most part, if you improve performance in one, you improve performance in another. Specialization in one type of strength will still carry over to another.

Say, if you focus on strength endurance and perform lots of reps and volume but still progress to a decent standard, your low rep maximal strength will still be very good.

And yeah, avoiding hypertrophy gains will limit your strength potential. You can train for relative strength all you want, but at some point progress will diminish unless you increase muscle size, reducing relative strength.

Comparing light weight lifters to heavyweight lifters is like comparing apples to oranges IMO. The goal of most lightweight lifters is to lift the maximum within a defined category. Howwever, most HW and SHW lifters are simply trying to lift as much weight as possible, unless scaling and adjusting for bodymass factors into the final score.

Strength and size are not independant. The biggest are typically the strongest.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:

I think it’s that low-rep strength vs. moderate or high -rep strength thing again…

If it is then the question still stands. Heavy weight powerlifters are not generally weaker than smaller lifters. When discussing IDEAL training for size and strength, it is a little ridiculous to have that discussion with people who seem to actively be avoiding gains in size.[/quote]

66

[quote]Dave Rogerson wrote:
All strength indices are related for the most part, if you improve performance in one, you improve performance in another. Specialization in one type of strength will still carry over to another.

Say, if you focus on strength endurance and perform lots of reps and volume but still progress to a decent standard, your low rep maximal strength will still be very good.

And yeah, avoiding hypertrophy gains will limit your strength potential. You can train for relative strength all you want, but at some point progress will diminish unless you increase muscle size, reducing relative strength.

Comparing light weight lifters to heavyweight lifters is like comparing apples to oranges IMO. The goal of most lightweight lifters is to lift the maximum within a defined category. Howwever, most HW and SHW lifters are simply trying to lift as much weight as possible, unless scaling and adjusting for bodymass factors into the final score.

Strength and size are not independant. The biggest are typically the strongest.

[/quote]

I don’t disagree with that. I am pointing out that we are discussing what is OPTIMAL with people who claim they know what optimal is (and are arguing it “works”) yet they aren’t gaining much muscle from it. That makes ZERO sense especially since we are discussing the process of building size and strength.

Most of the people who do this are NOT light weight competing power lifters who have to stay within a specific weight range. They are simply smaller lifters who think they know what is “optimal” because they measure “strength gains” on a much lesser scale than the rest of us.

67

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:

I think it’s that low-rep strength vs. moderate or high -rep strength thing again…

If it is then the question still stands. Heavy weight powerlifters are not generally weaker than smaller lifters. When discussing IDEAL training for size and strength, it is a little ridiculous to have that discussion with people who seem to actively be avoiding gains in size.[/quote]

Very true, though most heavyweight powerlifters also do a fair amount of assistance (and higher rep) work along with their maximal effort lifting. They also (as you stated above) are not trying to watch their girlish figures when it comes to eating. :wink:

I think what CC is referring to is that very low rep work (ME, 1-3 reps) tends to result in mostly neurological improvements in strength, while moderate to higher rep work (4-20 reps) tends to work better for building muscle. And that this often gets portrayed by authors/trainers/forum members into being a separation of strength and muscle building. When in reality the two entities are very much linked together.

68

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
When in reality the two entities are very much linked together.[/quote]

What I am thinking is someone like Forlife doesn’t quite get that…or if he does, thinks he needs to be only working on strength at the exclusion of gaining significant muscle mass.

69

[quote]Poetikaal wrote:
i said thats fine if your goal is to simply improve the lifts, but my point was that one exercise with a few sets per muscle group per workout was not enough volume to effectively stimulate the muscle into significant growth
[/quote]

You just can’t make blanket statements/rules like that though. One exercise with a few sets per muscle group can be enough to stimulate significant muscle growth, provided of course that the individual can push themselves hard enough and is eating enough to support that growth.

What stimulates growth is overload, not some magical amount of volume.

Is it optimal? Depends on the individual.

Just pick a training methodology that you believe in, focus on progression, give it 110% intensity when you train, and by all means give it the same amount of intensity when it comes to eating. From there it’s just trial and error to figure out what works best for you.

Good, now keep it up.

70

[quote]RSGZ wrote:
I do back on a Monday with biceps, and chest with triceps tuesday.

[/quote]

I trained for many years that way. It worked well, but about 3 years ago I switched up to Chest/Back, and arms (bis, tris & forearms) on their own separate day, and I’ve been pleased with the results.

But again, different things work for different people, and depend on your training history and other factors. However, I’d definitely give the push/pull combo a try and see how it goes for you…

71

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
When in reality the two entities are very much linked together.

What I am thinking is someone like Forlife doesn’t quite get that…or if he does, thinks he needs to be only working on strength at the exclusion of gaining significant muscle mass.[/quote]

I know what you mean, and it seems like a far too often encountered misconception on these boards. Luckily we have members like yourself who have been harping on the relationship of size and strength for years now. The people who stick with this almost always come around and see the light, so to speak.

Hopefully forlife eventually puts two and two together as well.

72

[quote]doubleh wrote:
Growing Boy’s post brings up an important distinction that must be made: what we are talking about re: back day. I do back and chest on the same day, but it is “upper” back, i.e. rows, chins, lat pulls, etc. I agree that I would never have the intensity to deadlift properly on chest day, so I deadlift another day.

[/quote]

Yea, I should also point out that I do DLs on my leg day…

73

Different strokes for different folks, but i am of the belief that chest and back should be done on seperate days. The intensity required is so much that the best gains will come from doing them on seperate days. Over the xmas holidays i had to double up with some sessions because of the gym being closed and i had to do a chest/back session, the session was good, however no way would it make me consider training chest and back together.

I dunno bout you guys but the amount of concentration needed to hit the back good is so much that coming back the next day or whatever for chest is a good idea.

74

[quote]Poetikaal wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:

I think it’s that low-rep strength vs. moderate or high -rep strength thing again…

Poetikaal, if you keep doing very low-rep work only with little to no assistance work then you’re not going to gain much size…

When we talk about strength in the bb forum, we usually refer to your 4-20 RM or so, mostly 5-8.

CC, in this thread, FORLIFE and I were discussing whether TBW or SPLITS were effective for different means. he was saying he feels that doing one exercise for bodypart per workout allowed him to go heavier and harder for those few sets for that one bodypart

i said thats fine if your goal is to simply improve the lifts, but my point was that one exercise with a few sets per muscle group per workout was not enough volume to effectively stimulate the muscle into significant growth

ive been doing higher rep work and increasing the volume of my workouts in the past two months, and made some noticeable size gains, which continue increasing as such.

i guess i am just confused as to where that comment came from[/quote]

95 percent or more of pro, npc and bodybuilders in general work up to one top set per exercise, with 2-3 exercises per muscle-group on their split.
That is quite enough to grow as long as you don’t just do 1-3 reps on that work-set.

As Sentoguy said, overload is the main thing but you also need some volume (in this case not additional sets but a higher rep range, 4-8 for example) to grow when using only one work-set.

You don’t need to do 3 exercises with 4 work-sets at the same weight each. In fact, that slows your strength gains down too much (for most people, though test will mask that in assisted lifters)…
And the guy benching 500 for one set of 8 at 300 lbs has the bigger chest than the guy benching 350 for 4 sets of 8.

75

[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Poetikaal wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:

I think it’s that low-rep strength vs. moderate or high -rep strength thing again…

Poetikaal, if you keep doing very low-rep work only with little to no assistance work then you’re not going to gain much size…

When we talk about strength in the bb forum, we usually refer to your 4-20 RM or so, mostly 5-8.

CC, in this thread, FORLIFE and I were discussing whether TBW or SPLITS were effective for different means. he was saying he feels that doing one exercise for bodypart per workout allowed him to go heavier and harder for those few sets for that one bodypart

i said thats fine if your goal is to simply improve the lifts, but my point was that one exercise with a few sets per muscle group per workout was not enough volume to effectively stimulate the muscle into significant growth

ive been doing higher rep work and increasing the volume of my workouts in the past two months, and made some noticeable size gains, which continue increasing as such.

i guess i am just confused as to where that comment came from

95 percent or more of pro, npc and bodybuilders in general work up to one top set per exercise, with 2-3 exercises per muscle-group on their split.
That is quite enough to grow as long as you don’t just do 1-3 reps on that work-set.

As Sentoguy said, overload is the main thing but you also need some volume (in this case not additional sets but a higher rep range, 4-8 for example) to grow when using only one work-set.
[/quote]

Right, didn’t mean to suggest that you don’t need some volume to grow, just that some people place too much emphasis on it IMO.

76

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Hopefully forlife eventually puts two and two together as well.[/quote]

It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that size and strength are correlated. I never said otherwise.

My point was that I have seen greater gains in both size and strength by doing total body workouts than by doing splits.

I do fine for someone my height (5’6"):

3x10 decline bench at 450 pounds
3x10 leg press at 1080 pounds
3x10 dips with 90 pounds around waist
3x10 pullups with 45 pounds around waist

Just because I value leanness doesn’t mean I don’t also value size and strength. It’s a balance based on the person’s individual goals, and people should respect that.

77

[quote]forlife wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Hopefully forlife eventually puts two and two together as well.

It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that size and strength are correlated. I never said otherwise.

My point was that I have seen greater gains in both size and strength by doing total body workouts than by doing splits.

I do fine for someone my height (5’6"):

3x10 decline bench at 450 pounds
3x10 leg press at 1080 pounds
3x10 dips with 90 pounds around waist
3x10 pullups with 45 pounds around waist

Just because I value leanness doesn’t mean I don’t also value size and strength. It’s a balance based on the person’s individual goals, and people should respect that.
[/quote]

Guy, this isn’t about “preferences”. If we are discussing what is OPTIMAL, the issue becomes just how much muscle mass you are gaining.

The guy trying to worry about how lean he is will always make less progress than the guy whose main focus is on making sure their body has everything it needs to grow the most. No study results (which I would LOVE to see by the way) will change that.

78

I quite agree, actually, and I think that me previous post probably didnt articulate the point too well. Essentially, I think that training exclusively for one, at the expense for the other, is wrong unless you are an athlete in a weight categorized sport. On a BODYBUILDING furum, I cant imagine too many are.

The goal in bodybuiling, as you have pointed out too I believe, is to build the body. Overload via strength increases is just one way to get bigger, however if an aesthetic, balanced physique is the goal, it probably isnt ‘optimal’. I sometimes wish more people understood that, you know.

In any event, muscle size gains chase muscle strength gains, as long as nutrients are sufficient.

[quote]Professor X wrote:

I don’t disagree with that. I am pointing out that we are discussing what is OPTIMAL with people who claim they know what optimal is (and are arguing it “works”) yet they aren’t gaining much muscle from it. That makes ZERO sense especially since we are discussing the process of building size and strength.

Most of the people who do this are NOT light weight competing power lifters who have to stay within a specific weight range. They are simply smaller lifters who think they know what is “optimal” because they measure “strength gains” on a much lesser scale than the rest of us.[/quote]

79

[quote]forlife wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Hopefully forlife eventually puts two and two together as well.

It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that size and strength are correlated. I never said otherwise.

My point was that I have seen greater gains in both size and strength by doing total body workouts than by doing splits.

I do fine for someone my height (5’6"):

3x10 decline bench at 450 pounds
3x10 leg press at 1080 pounds
3x10 dips with 90 pounds around waist
3x10 pullups with 45 pounds around waist

Just because I value leanness doesn’t mean I don’t also value size and strength. It’s a balance based on the person’s individual goals, and people should respect that.
[/quote]

how much do you weigh, for life? just curious. you dont do badly at all

i think at some point this thread diverged from your initial posts, and then other discussions were tied into your original thoughts

though this was said by yourself at some point

which is where this flak is coming from

the OP was whether chest/back was effective and that is what you commented on, but the forum turned into a different debate

80

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Guy, this isn’t about “preferences”. If we are discussing what is OPTIMAL, the issue becomes just how much muscle mass you are gaining.
[/quote]

My point on preferences was that it gets old having my personal experience dismissed because I’m not as massive as you are. I have respectable size/strength for my height, and I’ve tried both splits and TBWs. For me, TBWs were more effective in producing muscle mass and strength.

I’m glad splits have worked so well for you. You should be proud of what you’ve achieved. Maybe if you had done TBWs instead, you would have achieved the same or even better? I have no idea, but everyone’s mileage varies and all you can do is share what has worked for you.