[quote]laroyal wrote:
Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day, show a man to fish and he will eatfor a lifetime. [/quote]
That’s exactly the point I think you’ve missed.
Prof X I did write my own program. It is a 5 day split (spread out over 7 days to hinder over-training. In your opinion what do you see wrong with it?
I did not neglect legs whatsoever. I never do. If anything I usually train harder for legs than anything. My arms and calves are lagging behind the rest of my torso and trunk. I said this was my focus for that reason…not cause I wanted to work my “beach muscles.” LaRoyal saw this and tried to help and I commend him for that.
[quote]AlterEgo721 wrote:
Prof X I did write my own program. It is a 5 day split (spread out over 7 days to hinder over-training. In your opinion what do you see wrong with it?
I did not neglect legs whatsoever. I never do. If anything I usually train harder for legs than anything. My arms and calves are lagging behind the rest of my torso and trunk. I said this was my focus for that reason…not cause I wanted to work my “beach muscles.” LaRoyal saw this and tried to help and I commend him for that.
[/quote]
First, you have to realize that I don’t follow any of the terms you may be familiar with. I don’t follow “5x5” or anything like that. For most beginners, I would rather they stick with basic concepts like finding 2-3 exercises for each body part and sticking with a rep range between 5 and 10. Obviously this depends on the body part since you could easily do more exercises than that for back alone.
I would avoid grouping two big muscle groups together on the same day. While it can be done, leave that decision for when you don’t have to ask what to do. That means your grouping of back with chest on the same day is something I would avoid.
You also only chose two exercises for those muscle groups and then decided to do one for back, one for chest, one for back and one for chest. Learn to focus on one muscle group at a time. Learn how to feel your chest working. learn how to pound the shit out of it and then do a smaller muscle group with it so that you aren’t too burned out to work either efficiently. that is why so many older routine would stick triceps with chest and not back with chest.
Your turn.
Show me what you come up with.
This is true, and is the main reason I would advise him to continue reading. It’s often hard to sort out fact from fiction, and it’s not even always that simple. Sometimes, everything you read can be true for different groups of people at different times, etc. The point is, I think he should continue to practice this skill, seperating useful information from crap, because he’ll need it someday. It’ll be a lot less painful and frustrating this way, reading a little bit while he pays his dues in the gym, then trying to dig through everything all at once the first time he hits a major plateau.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Professor X wrote:While someone with a solid background in the sciences can determine what info is valuable and what is worthless, a rank newbie with little educational background will have no base of knowledge to pull from. They will assume everything they read is simply truth without question.
This is true, and is the main reason I would advise him to continue reading. It’s often hard to sort out fact from fiction, and it’s not even always that simple. Sometimes, everything you read can be true for different groups of people at different times, etc. The point is, I think he should continue to practice this skill, seperating useful information from crap, because he’ll need it someday. It’ll be a lot less painful and frustrating this way, reading a little bit while he pays his dues in the gym, then trying to dig through everything all at once the first time he hits a major plateau.
[/quote]
And there are many people here who will disagree with you, mostly because we know for a fact that it doesn’t take some reliance on the internet just to see progress. I doubt there is much that is “groundbreaking” that I am missing in many of these articles…at least nothing I couldn’t learn myself by seeing what works for other people or actually getting a REAL education.
You give these articles a lot more credit than I do.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
AlterEgo721 wrote:
Prof X I did write my own program. It is a 5 day split (spread out over 7 days to hinder over-training. In your opinion what do you see wrong with it?
I did not neglect legs whatsoever. I never do. If anything I usually train harder for legs than anything. My arms and calves are lagging behind the rest of my torso and trunk. I said this was my focus for that reason…not cause I wanted to work my “beach muscles.” LaRoyal saw this and tried to help and I commend him for that.
First, you have to realize that I don’t follow any of the terms you may be familiar with. I don’t follow “5x5” or anything like that. For most beginners, I would rather they stick with basic concepts like finding 2-3 exercises for each body part and sticking with a rep range between 5 and 10. Obviously this depends on the body part since you could easily do more exercises than that for back alone.
I would avoid grouping two big muscle groups together on the same day. While it can be done, leave that decision for when you don’t have to ask what to do. That means your grouping of back with chest on the same day is something I would avoid.
You also only chose two exercises for those muscle groups and then decided to do one for back, one for chest, one for back and one for chest. Learn to focus on one muscle group at a time. Learn how to feel your chest working. learn how to pound the shit out of it and then do a smaller muscle group with it so that you aren’t too burned out to work either efficiently. that is why so many older routine would stick triceps with chest and not back with chest.
Your turn.
Show me what you come up with.[/quote]
Prof X, I agree with what you post on this site 99% of the time, but that being said, this is one of the exceptions. On a split such as he’s using, there is nothing wrong with chest and back on the same day. Chest/back/shoulders no way, but why would you discourage him from chest and back? I notice you say it “can be done” - are you suggesting he needs to be more advanced to try it?
I’m not saying I think the program is otherwise OK as written, but I’m curious as to your rationale behind what you said.
[quote]doubleh wrote:
Professor X wrote:
AlterEgo721 wrote:
Prof X I did write my own program. It is a 5 day split (spread out over 7 days to hinder over-training. In your opinion what do you see wrong with it?
I did not neglect legs whatsoever. I never do. If anything I usually train harder for legs than anything. My arms and calves are lagging behind the rest of my torso and trunk. I said this was my focus for that reason…not cause I wanted to work my “beach muscles.” LaRoyal saw this and tried to help and I commend him for that.
First, you have to realize that I don’t follow any of the terms you may be familiar with. I don’t follow “5x5” or anything like that. For most beginners, I would rather they stick with basic concepts like finding 2-3 exercises for each body part and sticking with a rep range between 5 and 10. Obviously this depends on the body part since you could easily do more exercises than that for back alone.
I would avoid grouping two big muscle groups together on the same day. While it can be done, leave that decision for when you don’t have to ask what to do. That means your grouping of back with chest on the same day is something I would avoid.
You also only chose two exercises for those muscle groups and then decided to do one for back, one for chest, one for back and one for chest. Learn to focus on one muscle group at a time. Learn how to feel your chest working. learn how to pound the shit out of it and then do a smaller muscle group with it so that you aren’t too burned out to work either efficiently. that is why so many older routine would stick triceps with chest and not back with chest.
Your turn.
Show me what you come up with.
Prof X, I agree with what you post on this site 99% of the time, but that being said, this is one of the exceptions. On a split such as he’s using, there is nothing wrong with chest and back on the same day. Chest/back/shoulders no way, but why would you discourage him from chest and back? I notice you say it “can be done” - are you suggesting he needs to be more advanced to try it?
I’m not saying I think the program is otherwise OK as written, but I’m curious as to your rationale behind what you said.
[/quote]
I am saying that back is a big muscle group. Chest is a big muscle group. Why would someone feel some strange NEED to group both of these big muscle groups on the same day unless they specifically had some reason for doing it?
The GOAL is to kill the shit out of whatever muscles you are working that day. What sense does it make to purposely group the most grueling muscle groups on one day?
That makes about as much sense as training legs and back on the same day.
Back involves biceps to some degree…which means if I train back one day, I will NOT be training biceps the next.
Chest involves triceps and shoulders. That means if I am training chest, I will not be training triceps or shoulders the next day.
Therefore, if chest and back are trained the same day, that eliminates biceps, shoulders and triceps for at least a couple of days in an attempt to reduce overlap.
Why group things this way? What REASON do you have for this?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
doubleh wrote:
Professor X wrote:
AlterEgo721 wrote:
Prof X I did write my own program. It is a 5 day split (spread out over 7 days to hinder over-training. In your opinion what do you see wrong with it?
I did not neglect legs whatsoever. I never do. If anything I usually train harder for legs than anything. My arms and calves are lagging behind the rest of my torso and trunk. I said this was my focus for that reason…not cause I wanted to work my “beach muscles.” LaRoyal saw this and tried to help and I commend him for that.
First, you have to realize that I don’t follow any of the terms you may be familiar with. I don’t follow “5x5” or anything like that. For most beginners, I would rather they stick with basic concepts like finding 2-3 exercises for each body part and sticking with a rep range between 5 and 10. Obviously this depends on the body part since you could easily do more exercises than that for back alone.
I would avoid grouping two big muscle groups together on the same day. While it can be done, leave that decision for when you don’t have to ask what to do. That means your grouping of back with chest on the same day is something I would avoid.
You also only chose two exercises for those muscle groups and then decided to do one for back, one for chest, one for back and one for chest. Learn to focus on one muscle group at a time. Learn how to feel your chest working. learn how to pound the shit out of it and then do a smaller muscle group with it so that you aren’t too burned out to work either efficiently. that is why so many older routine would stick triceps with chest and not back with chest.
Your turn.
Show me what you come up with.
Prof X, I agree with what you post on this site 99% of the time, but that being said, this is one of the exceptions. On a split such as he’s using, there is nothing wrong with chest and back on the same day. Chest/back/shoulders no way, but why would you discourage him from chest and back? I notice you say it “can be done” - are you suggesting he needs to be more advanced to try it?
I’m not saying I think the program is otherwise OK as written, but I’m curious as to your rationale behind what you said.
I am saying that back is a big muscle group. Chest is a big muscle group. Why would someone feel some strange NEED to group both of these big muscle groups on the same day unless they specifically had some reason for doing it?
The GOAL is to kill the shit out of whatever muscles you are working that day. What sense does it make to purposely group the most grueling muscle groups on one day?
That makes about as much sense as training legs and back on the same day.[/quote]
See below.
[quote]Back involves biceps to some degree…which means if I train back one day, I will NOT be training biceps the next.
Chest involves triceps. That means if I am training chest, I will not be training triceps the next day.
Therefore, if chest and back are trained the same day, that eliminates biceps and triceps for at least a couple of days in an attempt to reduce overlap.[/quote]
Agree 100%. See below.
Well, I cannot answer for the OP, but in a split such as he seems to be trying to set up, there are reasons. I know because I use a “similar” split. Mine:
Day 1: Chest and back
Day 2: Legs/lower body
Day 3: Shoulders and arms
Days 4 & 5: Off
Day 6: Repeat
That’s the basic, what I actually do is even more involved but you get the gist. As for the reasons:
-
Chest/back exercises will produce the most overall upper body mass, hence do them at start of split when most fresh.
-
I find agonist/antagonist muscle groupings to be very effective (may not apply for everybody, but I’m willing to bet for most).
-
Your reason above; need 48 hours between chest/back and arms/shoulders to recover b/c of overlap.
-
Most important IMO Splitting like this will give you more frequency than old-school 1 body part per week routines WHILE AT THE SAME TIME still allowing you to blast said parts with high intensity and have time to recover. So, if one were to train with a 3-2 split like this, I don’t see how avoiding training chest and back on the same day can be avoided, not that I think it needs to be.
There are others but I think these are the main points. Believe me, I came up with what I do now after a lot of trial and error.
**One point of clarification: when I say “back” I mean upper and middle back (for lack of a better description), not lower back. To wit, I deadlift on Legs/lower body day.
[quote]doubleh wrote:
Professor X wrote:
doubleh wrote:
Professor X wrote:
AlterEgo721 wrote:
Prof X I did write my own program. It is a 5 day split (spread out over 7 days to hinder over-training. In your opinion what do you see wrong with it?
I did not neglect legs whatsoever. I never do. If anything I usually train harder for legs than anything. My arms and calves are lagging behind the rest of my torso and trunk. I said this was my focus for that reason…not cause I wanted to work my “beach muscles.” LaRoyal saw this and tried to help and I commend him for that.
First, you have to realize that I don’t follow any of the terms you may be familiar with. I don’t follow “5x5” or anything like that. For most beginners, I would rather they stick with basic concepts like finding 2-3 exercises for each body part and sticking with a rep range between 5 and 10. Obviously this depends on the body part since you could easily do more exercises than that for back alone.
I would avoid grouping two big muscle groups together on the same day. While it can be done, leave that decision for when you don’t have to ask what to do. That means your grouping of back with chest on the same day is something I would avoid.
You also only chose two exercises for those muscle groups and then decided to do one for back, one for chest, one for back and one for chest. Learn to focus on one muscle group at a time. Learn how to feel your chest working. learn how to pound the shit out of it and then do a smaller muscle group with it so that you aren’t too burned out to work either efficiently. that is why so many older routine would stick triceps with chest and not back with chest.
Your turn.
Show me what you come up with.
Prof X, I agree with what you post on this site 99% of the time, but that being said, this is one of the exceptions. On a split such as he’s using, there is nothing wrong with chest and back on the same day. Chest/back/shoulders no way, but why would you discourage him from chest and back? I notice you say it “can be done” - are you suggesting he needs to be more advanced to try it?
I’m not saying I think the program is otherwise OK as written, but I’m curious as to your rationale behind what you said.
I am saying that back is a big muscle group. Chest is a big muscle group. Why would someone feel some strange NEED to group both of these big muscle groups on the same day unless they specifically had some reason for doing it?
The GOAL is to kill the shit out of whatever muscles you are working that day. What sense does it make to purposely group the most grueling muscle groups on one day?
That makes about as much sense as training legs and back on the same day.
See below.
Back involves biceps to some degree…which means if I train back one day, I will NOT be training biceps the next.
Chest involves triceps. That means if I am training chest, I will not be training triceps the next day.
Therefore, if chest and back are trained the same day, that eliminates biceps and triceps for at least a couple of days in an attempt to reduce overlap.
Agree 100%. See below.
Why group things this way? What REASON do you have for this?
Well, I cannot answer for the OP, but in a split such as he seems to be trying to set up, there are reasons. I know because I use a “similar” split. Mine:
Day 1: Chest and back
Day 2: Legs/lower body
Day 3: Shoulders and arms
Days 4 & 5: Off
Day 6: Repeat
That’s the basic, what I actually do is even more involved but you get the gist. As for the reasons:
-
Chest/back exercises will produce the most overall upper body mass, hence do them at start of split when most fresh.
-
I find agonist/antagonist muscle groupings to be very effective (may not apply for everybody, but I’m willing to bet for most).
-
Your reason above; need 48 hours between chest/back and arms/shoulders to recover b/c of overlap.
-
Most important IMO Splitting like this will give you more frequency than old-school 1 body part per week routines WHILE AT THE SAME TIME still allowing you to blast said parts with high intensity and have time to recover. So, if one were to train with a 3-2 split like this, I don’t see how avoiding training chest and back on the same day can be avoided, not that I think it needs to be.
There are others but I think these are the main points. Believe me, I came up with what I do now after a lot of trial and error.
**One point of clarification: when I say “back” I mean upper and middle back (for lack of a better description), not lower back. To wit, I deadlift on Legs/lower body day.
[/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]Professor X wrote:
doubleh wrote:
Professor X wrote:
AlterEgo721 wrote:
Prof X I did write my own program. It is a 5 day split (spread out over 7 days to hinder over-training. In your opinion what do you see wrong with it?
I did not neglect legs whatsoever. I never do. If anything I usually train harder for legs than anything. My arms and calves are lagging behind the rest of my torso and trunk. I said this was my focus for that reason…not cause I wanted to work my “beach muscles.” LaRoyal saw this and tried to help and I commend him for that.
First, you have to realize that I don’t follow any of the terms you may be familiar with. I don’t follow “5x5” or anything like that. For most beginners, I would rather they stick with basic concepts like finding 2-3 exercises for each body part and sticking with a rep range between 5 and 10. Obviously this depends on the body part since you could easily do more exercises than that for back alone.
I would avoid grouping two big muscle groups together on the same day. While it can be done, leave that decision for when you don’t have to ask what to do. That means your grouping of back with chest on the same day is something I would avoid.
You also only chose two exercises for those muscle groups and then decided to do one for back, one for chest, one for back and one for chest. Learn to focus on one muscle group at a time. Learn how to feel your chest working. learn how to pound the shit out of it and then do a smaller muscle group with it so that you aren’t too burned out to work either efficiently. that is why so many older routine would stick triceps with chest and not back with chest.
Your turn.
Show me what you come up with.
Prof X, I agree with what you post on this site 99% of the time, but that being said, this is one of the exceptions. On a split such as he’s using, there is nothing wrong with chest and back on the same day. Chest/back/shoulders no way, but why would you discourage him from chest and back? I notice you say it “can be done” - are you suggesting he needs to be more advanced to try it?
I’m not saying I think the program is otherwise OK as written, but I’m curious as to your rationale behind what you said.
I am saying that back is a big muscle group. Chest is a big muscle group. Why would someone feel some strange NEED to group both of these big muscle groups on the same day unless they specifically had some reason for doing it?
The GOAL is to kill the shit out of whatever muscles you are working that day. What sense does it make to purposely group the most grueling muscle groups on one day?
That makes about as much sense as training legs and back on the same day.
Back involves biceps to some degree…which means if I train back one day, I will NOT be training biceps the next.
Chest involves triceps and shoulders. That means if I am training chest, I will not be training triceps or shoulders the next day.
Therefore, if chest and back are trained the same day, that eliminates biceps, shoulders and triceps for at least a couple of days in an attempt to reduce overlap.
Why group things this way? What REASON do you have for this?
[/quote]
This is very similar to what I stated previously. You have to map out a split that does not allow for much overlap.
However, where I do differ with PX is that in SOME cases, one could get away with training chest and back in the same session. Even Dorian, during his intermediate years ('83 to '85) trained half of his body one day and half of his body the other, training three times per week, and training each muscle group three times over two weeks. Day A had him training chest, back, and shoulders in one day and Day B had him training hams, quads, calves, tris, and bis in one day. When I was still a rank beginner, I followed a similar routine but with a lot number of sets per exercise. However, I, like Dorian (not that I am anything NEAR nor will I ever be like Dorian), had to split the muscle groups up over four days.
Right now, after training back, I am completely trained, even more so than when I train legs now. Bent over rows and weighted pullups are extremely training! So are deadlifts, which I do not do much anymore. I am taking a break from them and squats for a few months as I have used those exercises for years on end, EVERY week that I have trained for years. I am in agreement with PX that you should smash a muscle very well but not so much to the point where you feel nauseous and drained the next day. As Duchaine once said “if you are extremely nauseous or tired the next day, you are too damaged to grow!”
There is NOTHING wrong with reading! Its just that you have to read what is appropriate for bodybuilding. Much of the writers on this site write articles intended for bodybuilding purposes. However, the programs in their writigns are absolutely nothing like what traditional bodybuilding training is or will ever be nor should be, in my and others’ views. CW and AC are not bodybuilders, nor do they look like them. However, CW is pretty big and BOTH are well versed in their trades and I believe, if memory serves me well, are both involved with athletics personally. I just don’t know why they bother writing about bodybuilding.
If you want to excel in bodybuilding, read articles by successful bodybuilders or guys who LOOK like bodybuilders:
Clay Hyght
Lonnie Lowery
Dave Tate
Christian Thibaudeau
Tom Venuto
Just Harris
and so on.
The only writers on THIS site who even did anything with bodybuilding or are or were bodybuilders are Lonnie Lowery, Clay Hyght, Dave Tate, and Don Alessi, although Alessi’s program recommendations are in outer fucking space
I have taken stuff from the strength and conditioning field to avoid injury and to achieve some structural/postural balance like Ian King, Eric Cressey, Mike Boyle, and Mike Robertson. I use a lot of their flexibility and mobility drills and make sure that I have balance, structurally speaking, in my routine (ie: single leg exercises, about the same amounts of pulling and pushing), but thats as far as it goes. Leave them to their trade and we can do ours.
Sometimes I do think authors, particularly Poliquin, make outrageous claims. So steer clear of that as well. He may not be lying but Poliquin has stated that he outlifts some IFBB guys who weigh 40 lbs more than him. It may be true but I want to see a fucking You Tube clip to back it up! I also want to see the female athlete that he trained who has thighs bigger than Tom Platz. He also recommends lifestyle and nutrition habits that only retired millionaires or subsidized or professional athletes can afford to do. I do like much of his material, but this is also an example of how to distinguish what is applicable to the Average Joe bodybuilder who despite having a shitload of muscle, still has a normal work life, and will NEVER be an IFBB or WNBF (natural) or OCB (natural) pro.
So keep reading. But as yourself as you read “do ANY big guys do shit like this? Would any big guy even experiment with such asinine shit?!”
Damn pics! This is Lonnie Lowery. Too bad he doesn’t write here anymore! He was great!
[quote]Professor X wrote:
doubleh wrote:
Professor X wrote:
doubleh wrote:
Professor X wrote:
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]
Indeed, chest/(upper) back day is my longest day in the gym by a fair margin. Hence another reason why this day begins the split. But I hope you see why I disagreed with the premise that training chest and back on the same day was no good.
[quote]doubleh wrote:
Professor X wrote:
doubleh wrote:
Professor X wrote:
doubleh wrote:
Professor X wrote:
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.
Indeed, chest/(upper) back day is my longest day in the gym by a fair margin. Hence another reason why this day begins the split. But I hope you see why I disagreed with the premise that training chest and back on the same day was no good.
[/quote]
If you actually have a logical, well thought out REASON for doing what you do, no one should have shit to say about it. I take issue with those who have no fucking clue WHY they are doing things the way they are but who stand up and cry out that it is the best one way to train…like many who used to debate TBT about a year ago.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Professor X wrote:While someone with a solid background in the sciences can determine what info is valuable and what is worthless, a rank newbie with little educational background will have no base of knowledge to pull from. They will assume everything they read is simply truth without question.
This is true, and is the main reason I would advise him to continue reading. It’s often hard to sort out fact from fiction, and it’s not even always that simple. Sometimes, everything you read can be true for different groups of people at different times, etc. The point is, I think he should continue to practice this skill, seperating useful information from crap, because he’ll need it someday. It’ll be a lot less painful and frustrating this way, reading a little bit while he pays his dues in the gym, then trying to dig through everything all at once the first time he hits a major plateau.
And there are many people here who will disagree with you, mostly because we know for a fact that it doesn’t take some reliance on the internet just to see progress. I doubt there is much that is “groundbreaking” that I am missing in many of these articles…at least nothing I couldn’t learn myself by seeing what works for other people or actually getting a REAL education.
You give these articles a lot more credit than I do.[/quote]
You’re inventing arguments. Who the hell said anything about Internet articles? There are a lot of books on this stuff, you know.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Professor X wrote:While someone with a solid background in the sciences can determine what info is valuable and what is worthless, a rank newbie with little educational background will have no base of knowledge to pull from. They will assume everything they read is simply truth without question.
This is true, and is the main reason I would advise him to continue reading. It’s often hard to sort out fact from fiction, and it’s not even always that simple. Sometimes, everything you read can be true for different groups of people at different times, etc. The point is, I think he should continue to practice this skill, seperating useful information from crap, because he’ll need it someday. It’ll be a lot less painful and frustrating this way, reading a little bit while he pays his dues in the gym, then trying to dig through everything all at once the first time he hits a major plateau.
And there are many people here who will disagree with you, mostly because we know for a fact that it doesn’t take some reliance on the internet just to see progress. I doubt there is much that is “groundbreaking” that I am missing in many of these articles…at least nothing I couldn’t learn myself by seeing what works for other people or actually getting a REAL education.
You give these articles a lot more credit than I do.
You’re inventing arguments. Who the hell said anything about Internet articles? There are a lot of books on this stuff, you know.
[/quote]
Well gee, genius, if I keep responding that someone needs a REAL education, do you think they hand out degrees without ever needing to read a book?
If you didn’t mean articles then you had little to argue about to start with.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
doubleh wrote:
Professor X wrote:
doubleh wrote:
Professor X wrote:
doubleh wrote:
Professor X wrote:
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.
Indeed, chest/(upper) back day is my longest day in the gym by a fair margin. Hence another reason why this day begins the split. But I hope you see why I disagreed with the premise that training chest and back on the same day was no good.
If you actually have a logical, well thought out REASON for doing what you do, no one should have shit to say about it. I take issue with those who have no fucking clue WHY they are doing things the way they are but who stand up and cry out that it is the best one way to train…like many who used to debate TBT about a year ago.[/quote]
I agree with that whole-heartedly.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
doubleh wrote:
Professor X wrote:
doubleh wrote:
Professor X wrote:
doubleh wrote:
Professor X wrote:
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.
Indeed, chest/(upper) back day is my longest day in the gym by a fair margin. Hence another reason why this day begins the split. But I hope you see why I disagreed with the premise that training chest and back on the same day was no good.
If you actually have a logical, well thought out REASON for doing what you do, no one should have shit to say about it. I take issue with those who have no fucking clue WHY they are doing things the way they are but who stand up and cry out that it is the best one way to train…like many who used to debate TBT about a year ago.[/quote]
do you mean arguing that tbt is the best way to train or arguing that it works at all? from reading your posts it seems like your definitely against that style of training in general
[quote]Professor X wrote:Well gee, genius, if I keep responding that someone needs a REAL education, do you think they hand out degrees without ever needing to read a book?
If you didn’t mean articles then you had little to argue about to start with.[/quote]
That’s fine, but don’t pretend like I took you way out of context. You’re well-known for you “shut up and lift” attitude which, when one hears you say something like he needs a “real education” and you tell him to stop reading, one can’t help but assume that you mean he should get under the bar and quit reading. Sorry, we can’t read your mind. If your advice is so nuanced, maybe you should be a little more detailed in conveying it, instead of expecting everyone to know what you mean.
[quote]David1991 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
doubleh wrote:
Professor X wrote:
doubleh wrote:
Professor X wrote:
doubleh wrote:
Professor X wrote:
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.
Indeed, chest/(upper) back day is my longest day in the gym by a fair margin. Hence another reason why this day begins the split. But I hope you see why I disagreed with the premise that training chest and back on the same day was no good.
If you actually have a logical, well thought out REASON for doing what you do, no one should have shit to say about it. I take issue with those who have no fucking clue WHY they are doing things the way they are but who stand up and cry out that it is the best one way to train…like many who used to debate TBT about a year ago.
do you mean arguing that tbt is the best way to train or arguing that it works at all? from reading your posts it seems like your definitely against that style of training in general
[/quote]
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I also really hate TBT.
Two reasons:
-
I can’t focus on one or two muscle groups all day. Once this happens, I don’t make gains.
-
Not enough frequency. I love working out, and TBT forces me to have to many rest days.
[quote]ukrainian wrote:
David1991 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
doubleh wrote:
Professor X wrote:
doubleh wrote:
Professor X wrote:
doubleh wrote:
Professor X wrote:
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.
Indeed, chest/(upper) back day is my longest day in the gym by a fair margin. Hence another reason why this day begins the split. But I hope you see why I disagreed with the premise that training chest and back on the same day was no good.
If you actually have a logical, well thought out REASON for doing what you do, no one should have shit to say about it. I take issue with those who have no fucking clue WHY they are doing things the way they are but who stand up and cry out that it is the best one way to train…like many who used to debate TBT about a year ago.
do you mean arguing that tbt is the best way to train or arguing that it works at all? from reading your posts it seems like your definitely against that style of training in general
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I also really hate TBT.
Two reasons:
-
I can’t focus on one or two muscle groups all day. Once this happens, I don’t make gains.
-
Not enough frequency. I love working out, and TBT forces me to have to many rest days.[/quote]
TBT is actually high frequency for each muscle group, im guessing you meant workouts in general though. you could do 4 days full body. Im not sure why you would need an entire day to focus on just one muscle group.
i’m definitely not someone who only likes tbt but i realized i was fighting for splits a lot lately when i really dont mind TBT. i like both and think they both have their places so whenever i see someone say they dont like splits/TBT i argue on the other side since i think both can work well