Working Chest and Back on Same Day

Training Bodybuilding
141

[quote]forlife wrote:
It’s a bit arrogant to say that unless someone shares your goal of building muscle regardless of body fat percentage, they have a “complete lack of understanding of the rule of nutrition in training/building muscle”.
[/quote]

Ummm, nobody said that though. What I said was that if you don’t realize that you need to eat enough to support growth and recovery for the workout that you are doing, and not keep your caloric intake at some arbitrary amount, then you don’t understand the role of nutrition in building muscle, or at least have failed to apply that understanding.

The fact that you thought keeping your caloric intake the same while increasing/decreasing the energy demands that you were placing on your body had anything to do with how effective one form of training was or was not shows that you do not have a firm grasp on nutrition and it’s importance for building muscle.

Do you though? Why the complete lack of application of that understanding then? Why are you having a hard time realizing that eating at some arbitrary number of calories rather than eating in accordance to your energy demands proves nothing about the effectiveness of splits vs. TBT.

I don’t have to refute that point, because again, your nutrition was greatly flawed. In other words you never ate enough to support the growth from splits, so you don’t really know which would have produced better results had you eaten according to your needs.

Second, as Tirib said, that’s basically just running in circles.

[quote]
2) You have no foundation for claiming that splits are better for muscle gain, unless you compare your results against someone (ideally yourself) that has used TBT, while eating as much as you eat, and while working out as intensely as you do.[/quote]

I have compared my split results to my tbt results, and the splits are superior. The difference is that I was eating enough to support both types of training (which you have yet to do), not eating some arbitrary number of calories that had nothing to do with what my body actually needed.

142

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
What I said was that if you don’t realize that you need to eat enough to support growth and recovery for the workout that you are doing, and not keep your caloric intake at some arbitrary amount, then you don’t understand the role of nutrition in building muscle, or at least have failed to apply that understanding.[/quote]

Give people credit for having a little common sense. Obviously, you need to eat enough to support growth and recovery. It’s not a black and white issue.

If X nutrition is what is needed to maintain current muscle mass, you might choose:

  1. 1.2X for some muscle growth while maintaining leanness, or

  2. 1.5X for more muscle growth while gaining some fat, or

  3. 2X for significant muscle growth while gaining more fat

Where you fall along that continuum is a personal choice based on the goals you want to achieve, and choosing 3 doesn’t make you any more “educated” than choosing 1 or 2.

I increased my caloric intake when my training intensity increased from 3x per week to 5x per week, per Berardi’s G-flux. I was talking about keeping the nutrition/exercise proportion constant, not about keeping the calorie intake constant.

Why are you assuming I was eating at “some arbitrary number of calories”? I never said that, and it wasn’t the case.

I ate enough to increase my muscle mass, the point is that I saw greater gains with TBT than with splits. Just because I chose #2 above instead of #3 doesn’t mean I “never ate enough to support growth”.

You’re the first person in this thread to say that. If you truly kept your nutrition and training intensity constant between both exercise types, then you are justified in concluding that splits were more effective for you. I’m talking about people that point at heavy lifters following splits, while ignoring where those same lifters might be had they done intense TBT at the same nutrition level.

143

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

But the guy has made some huge mistakes (specifically in terms of his diet) that make his argument a hard pill to swallow. He has openly admitted that building muscle is not his primary goal, therefore his testimony doesn’t really hold much water in a conversation about what is the best method for building maximal amounts of muscle.

Might TBT (at least the way this guy has been doing it) require less calories to recover/grow from (due to less intensity, less volume, less energy demands)? Yes. Thus allowing him to make some gains while continuing to not eat enough.

Does that make it superior for him in terms of building muscle? Not necessarily. He might have built considerably more muscle if he’d used splits and eaten enough to support the recovery/growth that resulted from it.

You can’t make a fatal error like not taking in enough calories to support your growth/recovery from your workout and then claim this proves that one method works better than the other. It shows a complete lack of understanding of the role of nutrition in training/building muscle.[/quote]

Full body workouts require less calories to recover/grow? Maybe yes if you compare a BBing workout and a old ladie machine circuit… But i think most would agree that full body workouts are more demanding, thats the main reason i’m using a split routine now: i was finding hard to recover from tbt after i increased fighting training.

In my experience full body workouts can even allow you to eat a little without fat gain.
About the less weight/intensity thing… there isnt that much difference (if any difference) in the weights used after one is conditioned to do these workouts (look Mariusz routine for example). the main problem is that if you use a lot of weight your joints may not recover from all that frequency, so it makes more complicated to choose the exercises comparing with a split routine that gives you more time to recover.

This is in my opinion the biggest disadvantage of tbt: the frequent stress on back, knees or shoulders can be a limiting factor.

144

don’t argue with people are bigger than you, they know what the fuck they are talking about.

145

[quote]forlife wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
What I said was that if you don’t realize that you need to eat enough to support growth and recovery for the workout that you are doing, and not keep your caloric intake at some arbitrary amount, then you don’t understand the role of nutrition in building muscle, or at least have failed to apply that understanding.

Give people credit for having a little common sense. Obviously, you need to eat enough to support growth and recovery. It’s not a black and white issue.

If X nutrition is what is needed to maintain current muscle mass, you might choose:

  1. 1.2X for some muscle growth while maintaining leanness, or

  2. 1.5X for more muscle growth while gaining some fat, or

  3. 2X for significant muscle growth while gaining more fat

Where you fall along that continuum is a personal choice based on the goals you want to achieve, and choosing 3 doesn’t make you any more “educated” than choosing 1 or 2.
[/quote]

In thoery that could make sense. But again, those numbers don’t take into account actual energy demands. “1.5X” might be a caloric surplus for program A, and a caloric deficit for program B. That doesn’t mean that program A is superior for building muscle though, only that it requires less caloric intake to have a surplus.

That is my point, and that is what it seemed like you were saying that you did wit yout “keeping nutrition constant” remark.

Nutrition/exercise proportion? Maybe it’s just me, but I’ve never heard of such a thing. Can you explain what you mean by this, and how one would figure out a nutrition/exercise proportion?

You’ve stated several times that unless someone tried both TBT and splits while keeping their intensity and nutrition constant, that they couldn’t make an educated decision on which worked better. Perhaps you just didn’t word it right, but that sounds like you’re saying keeping your caloric intake constant.

So what are you saying, that you ate enough to move the scale up (at the same rate) with both the TBT and the splits (and adjusted your caloric intake to allow for this progression in both cases), but you stayed leaner with the TBT?

Because otherwise, you simply didn’t eat enough to allow for recovery/growth from the splits.

[quote]
You’re the first person in this thread to say that. If you truly kept your nutrition and training intensity constant between both exercise types, then you are justified in concluding that splits were more effective for you. I’m talking about people that point at heavy lifters following splits, while ignoring where those same lifters might be had they done intense TBT at the same nutrition level.[/quote]

Dude, screw keeping my nutrition constant, I adjusted it as needed in both cases and continue to adjust it as needed. Nutrition isn’t a static entity.

What I will say is that (other than the initial newbie period) my strength and muscle mass has always increased at a faster rate while using splits, than using TBT.

146

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
forlife wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
What I said was that if you don’t realize that you need to eat enough to support growth and recovery for the workout that you are doing, and not keep your caloric intake at some arbitrary amount, then you don’t understand the role of nutrition in building muscle, or at least have failed to apply that understanding.

Give people credit for having a little common sense. Obviously, you need to eat enough to support growth and recovery. It’s not a black and white issue.

If X nutrition is what is needed to maintain current muscle mass, you might choose:

  1. 1.2X for some muscle growth while maintaining leanness, or

  2. 1.5X for more muscle growth while gaining some fat, or

  3. 2X for significant muscle growth while gaining more fat

Where you fall along that continuum is a personal choice based on the goals you want to achieve, and choosing 3 doesn’t make you any more “educated” than choosing 1 or 2.

In thoery that could make sense. But again, those numbers don’t take into account actual energy demands. “1.5X” might be a caloric surplus for program A, and a caloric deficit for program B. That doesn’t mean that program A is superior for building muscle though, only that it requires less caloric intake to have a surplus.

That is my point, and that is what it seemed like you were saying that you did wit yout “keeping nutrition constant” remark.

I increased my caloric intake when my training intensity increased from 3x per week to 5x per week, per Berardi’s G-flux. I was talking about keeping the nutrition/exercise proportion constant, not about keeping the calorie intake constant.

Nutrition/exercise proportion? Maybe it’s just me, but I’ve never heard of such a thing. Can you explain what you mean by this, and how one would figure out a nutrition/exercise proportion?

Why are you assuming I was eating at “some arbitrary number of calories”? I never said that, and it wasn’t the case.

You’ve stated several times that unless someone tried both TBT and splits while keeping their intensity and nutrition constant, that they couldn’t make an educated decision on which worked better. Perhaps you just didn’t word it right, but that sounds like you’re saying keeping your caloric intake constant.

I ate enough to increase my muscle mass, the point is that I saw greater gains with TBT than with splits. Just because I chose #2 above instead of #3 doesn’t mean I “never ate enough to support growth”.

So what are you saying, that you ate enough to move the scale up (at the same rate) with both the TBT and the splits (and adjusted your caloric intake to allow for this progression in both cases), but you stayed leaner with the TBT?

Because otherwise, you simply didn’t eat enough to allow for recovery/growth from the splits.

You’re the first person in this thread to say that. If you truly kept your nutrition and training intensity constant between both exercise types, then you are justified in concluding that splits were more effective for you. I’m talking about people that point at heavy lifters following splits, while ignoring where those same lifters might be had they done intense TBT at the same nutrition level.

Dude, screw keeping my nutrition constant, I adjusted it as needed in both cases and continue to adjust it as needed. Nutrition isn’t a static entity.

What I will say is that (other than the initial newbie period) my strength and muscle mass has always increased at a faster rate while using splits, than using TBT.[/quote]

I still don’t see how someone can argue how optimal something is when they don’t grasp how important FOOD is to further progress. That’s like leaving out that whole “lifting weights” aspect and wondering why you aren’t growing.

147

I think I understand the reason for the confusion.

When I referred to “keeping nutrition constant”, I was talking statistical jargon. From a stats perspective, the effects of nutrition were methodologically controlled between the two training types, so any observed difference could not have been due to nutrition.

I wasn’t saying that I ate the same calories the whole time. If you think in terms of G-flux, as my caloric expenditure increased, my caloric intake increased as well.

Prof X, I grasp how important FOOD is to further progress. I understand that the more you exceed caloric expenditure, the more gains you will see in both muscle and fat. It is possible, but rare, to gain muscle and lose fat at the same time. Typically you have to be willing to put on some fat in order to gain significant muscle. Again, it’s not rocket science.

Respect that people can be knowledgeable, and still have different goals from you. I value increasing muscle, and have seen significant gains in muscle, but at a more balanced pace that allows me to maintain an acceptable level of leanness for me.

I understand very well that I would have more muscle today, had I been willing to eat more, and tolerate higher fat levels, over the past 6 years.

I made the choice, and it was the right choice for my goals. Doing so doesn’t make me ignorant when it comes to understanding the effects of nutrition on muscle growth.

148

[quote]forlife wrote:

I made the choice, and it was the right choice for my goals. Doing so doesn’t make me ignorant when it comes to understanding the effects of nutrition on muscle growth.

[/quote]

But it does mean that you don’t know “optimal” any more than Madonna knows celibacy and a life without STD’s.

149

[quote]Sagat wrote:
Full body workouts require less calories to recover/grow? Maybe yes if you compare a BBing workout and a old ladie machine circuit… But i think most would agree that full body workouts are more demanding, thats the main reason i’m using a split routine now: i was finding hard to recover from tbt after i increased fighting training.
[/quote]

I’m not sure where the misconception is coming from that TBT is any less intense than splits. If anything, I am able to go more intense with TBT. I push every set to failure, or near failure, and am able to move a lot more weight per week than if I were doing splits.

I understand that splits can work the targeted muscle group to a deeper level, by virtue of doing it all in one session. But you can’t typically move as much iron in a single day split session, compared with doing variations of the muscle group every day through TBT. Overall, my muscles are hit harder and longer through TBT than through splits.

150

[quote]Professor X wrote:
But it does mean that you don’t know “optimal” any more than Madonna knows celibacy and a life without STD’s.[/quote]

“Optimal” is in the eye of the beholder. You can’t define “optimal” unless you know what a person’s goals are.

If your goal is muscle growth at all costs, then “optimal” means eating significantly more than your caloric expenditure.

If your goal is balanced muscle growth and leanness, then “optimal” means eating moderately more than your caloric expenditure.

If your goal is fat loss, then “optimal” means eating less than your caloric expenditure.

151

This is where someone tells you that this is a bodybuilding forum, and that anything but maximum muscle growth is sub-optimal.

152

[quote]Mr.Purple wrote:
This is where someone tells you that this is a bodybuilding forum, and that anything but maximum muscle growth is sub-optimal.[/quote]

Building the most muscle regardless of fat levels is a valid goal, but it’s not the only valid goal for bodybuilders.

153

[quote]forlife wrote:
I think I understand the reason for the confusion.

When I referred to “keeping nutrition constant”, I was talking statistical jargon. From a stats perspective, the effects of nutrition were methodologically controlled between the two training types, so any observed difference could not have been due to nutrition.
[/quote]

How was it methodically controlled between the two training types?

Did you strap on thousands of dollars worth of equipment to know exactly how much energy you were expending during every single workout that you did and eat according to that? Did you use the scale to measure progress and then adjust calories based on that? How was this done?

Again though, how did you know what your caloric expenditure was? And how did you adjust your calories based on it’s continually adjusting needs?

154

[quote]forlife wrote:
Mr.Purple wrote:
This is where someone tells you that this is a bodybuilding forum, and that anything but maximum muscle growth is sub-optimal.

Building the most muscle regardless of fat levels is a valid goal, but it’s not the only valid goal for bodybuilders.[/quote]

I’m sorry, but who wrote “regardless of fat levels” anywhere? It’s like some of you only see “ripped abs” or “obese”. There is a middle ground and what you were doing was FAR from the act of trying to gain even a large amount of muscle mass.

If you are more worried about your abs, FINE. Just don’t act as if what you were doing gives you any concept what-so-ever about what is “optimal” as far as the rest of us…especially in this “splits vs tbt” debate.

No one is insulting your progress, but you have no clue at all what it is like to push your own physical limits far from where you started in terms of overall body weight or muscular body weight. You have never gained more than 50lbs of body weight. You don’t even know what changes you would have to make to accomplish that as far as your food intake and training.

That is simply the truth. You can’t deny that.

155

I don’t understand how someone can argue that diet has to be completely equal in order to make a fair comparison between TBT and splits. If a guy doing splits is eating the right amount to support an optimal rate of growth, then you can’t tell him to eat less just because you are. That’s like challenging someone to a race and saying “Wait -slow down! You’re running too fast. At this rate you’re going to win!”

Same goes for the intensity. If splits allow you to train at an intensity that stimulates a faster rate of growth, then splits are the superior method. A ‘controlled experiment’ isn’t going to change that.

I’m not pissing on TBT, but if a self-confessed intermediate trainee is to objectively argue the superiority of TBT with an advanced bodybuilder - who has used splits to reach a superior level of development - then he’s going to have to have reached a similar level of development. Otherwise he has no case to argue.

156

[quote]forlife wrote:
Sagat wrote:
Full body workouts require less calories to recover/grow? Maybe yes if you compare a BBing workout and a old ladie machine circuit… But i think most would agree that full body workouts are more demanding, thats the main reason i’m using a split routine now: i was finding hard to recover from tbt after i increased fighting training.

I’m not sure where the misconception is coming from that TBT is any less intense than splits. If anything, I am able to go more intense with TBT. I push every set to failure, or near failure, and am able to move a lot more weight per week than if I were doing splits.

I understand that splits can work the targeted muscle group to a deeper level, by virtue of doing it all in one session. But you can’t typically move as much iron in a single day split session, compared with doing variations of the muscle group every day through TBT. Overall, my muscles are hit harder and longer through TBT than through splits.[/quote]

But, you aren’t going to be working out as often as you are with the splits, and you aren’t going to be cutting into your recovery abilities as much with TBT (in most cases anyhow).

Most TBT programs are either going to be 3 days per week, or if they’re more, they either lower the intensity (as in avoid failure), lower the volume (which cuts significantly into recovery abilities), or are designed to literally run the body into the ground (like Poliquin’s “Super Accumulation Program”).

So, they either decrease the volume, intensity, frequency or are designed to destroy your recovery abilities (a concept called “dual factor theory”, which hasn’t proved much if any use for building significant muscle).

Splits are generally more volume, often times include intensity boosting techniques (rest-pause, forced reps, drop sets, supramaximal eccentrics, etc…), higher frequency and are designed to really hit a muscle group (or several muscle groups) hard, but then give them adequate time to recover and grow before hitting them again.

You just can’t do that with splits (and hope to progress at any appreciable rate) once you get to even an intermediate level of strength. At least one of those ingredients must be adjusted/removed in order to be able to progress (like avoiding failure in many of CW’s programs). Which, makes the program less intense/taxing on the bodies recovery systems.

Thus my comment about them being less intense (over all).

157

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
How was it methodically controlled between the two training types?

Did you strap on thousands of dollars worth of equipment to know exactly how much energy you were expending during every single workout that you did and eat according to that? Did you use the scale to measure progress and then adjust calories based on that? How was this done?[/quote]

I increased caloric intake as my caloric expenditure increased, based on rough estimates. Not perfect, but the ratio was pretty consistent across both splits and TBT.

158

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I’m sorry, but who wrote “regardless of fat levels” anywhere? It’s like some of you only see “ripped abs” or “obese”. There is a middle ground and what you were doing was FAR from the act of trying to gain even a large amount of muscle mass.[/quote]

That was exactly my point. It isn’t a black and white issue, where the only acceptable goal is gaining massive amounts of muscle, irrespective of fat gain. There is a whole continuum, where people choose how much to eat based on their particular goals. You can’t argue that your goal is any more respectable than anyone else’s goal, because it is a personal choice.

I’m not more worried about my abs. I have a balanced goal of gaining muscle without gaining significant fat in the process. For those that have a similar goal, my results on TBT vs. splits are relevant.

You are judging me for sharing my experience, when you haven’t even given TBT a serious attempt in your training. Until you do at least a year of TBT, with the same caloric intake and the same training intensity you use with splits, you have no idea whether or not TBT would work better or worse for you. All you can say is that splits have produced great results. For all you know, intense TBT or alternating the two training types would produce even better results.

159

[quote]forlife wrote:

You are judging me for sharing my experience, when you haven’t even given TBT a serious attempt in your training. Until you do at least a year of TBT, with the same caloric intake and the same training intensity you use with splits, you have no idea whether or not TBT would work better or worse for you. All you can say is that splits have produced great results. For all you know, intense TBT or alternating the two training types would produce even better results.
[/quote]

I am not judging you for sharing your experiences. I am judging you because you claimed you decided what was OPTIMAL even though you never even ate OPTIMALLY and have not achieved any level of extreme development.

Do you know how few people in gyms are able to get their arms over 18"? I did that within 3 years of making it to the gym seriously. When someone like you claims I should try something else because it MIGHT produce even better results, I am first going to ask that you find me several people training TBT who made even more progress.

We don’t have forever to make progress. If you aren’t REALLY developed by your late 20’s or early 30’s (enough for your development to be a topic of conversation almost daily), you can pretty much hang up actually shocking anyone with how big your muscles are outside of sedentary folk…and make no mistakes, this is a BODYBUILDING FORUM.

I have no intention of trying every random routine under the sun in hopes that it MAY work better, especially when most of you ranting about the benefits of TBT would still qualify as fairly small.

160

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I am not judging you for sharing your experiences. I am judging you because you claimed you decided what was OPTIMAL even though you never even ate OPTIMALLY and have not achieved any level of extreme development.[/quote]

I said, several times, that I have found what is optimal for me. I have never judged you for choosing more extreme muscle growth at the expense of fat, so why are you judging me for choosing moderate muscle growth with less fat?

As I said above, OPTIMAL is in the eye of the beholder. How can you say what is optimal when you have no idea what a person’s goals are?

[b]If your goal is muscle growth at all costs, then “optimal” means eating significantly more than your caloric expenditure.

If your goal is balanced muscle growth and leanness, then “optimal” means eating moderately more than your caloric expenditure.

If your goal is fat loss, then “optimal” means eating less than your caloric expenditure.[/b]

I don’t think there are many people that have trained as intensely, or eaten as heavily, as you do. The best comparison would be a “within groups” comparison where you give both a fair shot, but until you do how can you make any authoritative judgment on the merits of one vs. the other?

I’m not even suggesting you try TBT. I’m just pointing out that you have no idea whether or not it would work for you, unless you actually try it while eating the same amount and exercising with the same intensity.