If Full-Body programmes equal split, then why............

[Stevedot]

....Hasn't anyone found the success with Full-body's on all the Transformation articles on Bodybuilding.com? - they are all users if split routines.

I was looking through loads of the articles, just hoping to see more than 1!

...I guess I'm just looking for a little re-assurance Full-body's are just as good.

[MiscDoYouEven]

just my opinion but full bodys only work for newbie's after that they are useless

[DrunkonMilk]

just my opinion but full bodys only work for newbie's after that they are useless

Not true at all. Full-body routines have always worked for everyone. If you look at pictures of old bodybuilders from the 40's, 50's, etc. they used full-body routines. They didn't have a choice, since gyms were open to men three days a week. I am not sure when that rule at gyms stopped.

[Stummi386]

I think full body routines can work just fine, as long as you continuously switch it up wether it be rep or weight scheme. As long as you continuously break a plateua, any type of split will work.

[SuffolkPunch]

There are plenty of examples in the workout journals. Dunno whats up with the supersite, I tend not to trust anything on it as a rule.

[Nexxus]

lol the supersite is full of ads for supplements, no wonder half their stuff makes me cringe just like opening any fitness magazines...

Yeah I stay away from those things now lol

[broad.stance]

For bodybuilding, full-body training is more associated with the golden age and pre-roid eras. I've always figured there's not a lot of on-site articles on this topic because many forum members are likely used to modern bodybuilding methods used by professionals and would reject full-body programs. Also, common techniques used for bodypart and splits simply won't work with them. Bodypart workouts and splits are familiar and consistent, so you'll see them recommended more for a target audience.

Depending on your goals, full-body programs do work, but nowadays you'll see them written more for athletic and performance-based training than those interested in bodybuilding. (Golden Age bodybuilders had elements of athleticism in their routines where they'd pull stunts or demonstrate skills, so their full-body training sort of played into that.) For full-body programs, you'll have to look to those writing more on strength, conditioning, and performance. I can recommend Chad Waterbury (one article on this site about full-body training is based on his methods), Joy Victoria, Jason Ferruggia (IIRC his Renegade system leans towards full-body), and then there's people like Eric Cressey, Mike Robertson, and Martin Rooney. There are a lot of coaches and writers who recommend full-body training, you're just not going to find them on this site.

[Marine man]

Full body programs work for longer than just the noob stage. However, if you want to take it to the advanced level, you will have to do some sort of split (upper-lower, etc). The people in the transformation articles would have done just fine with a full body workout. What works and what is optimal are two different things, not to mention that the workouts and diets listed in the majority of the transformation articles are god awful.

[Stevedot]

So conclusion is.....full body's 100% have their place BUT not in the world of 'sculpting' your body I.e focusing on getting those boulder shoulders, chiseled chest, V-shape back etc etc etc.

I have done both split and full body. My take on it is this....Both offered great results BUT both offered different results.

Split = more shape, better aesthetics and have me the fitness model look.

Full body = rounder 'full' muscles built to handle heavy loads. Less shape, less detail the scales went upper faster. I got a more 'rugby' build rather than 'fitness model'.

So yes, both are good but you have to review what your goals are. Me, my goals more relate to the results I get from split routines so split routines is what I shall do......

[Stevedot]

not to mention that the workouts and diets listed in the majority of the transformation articles are god awful.

That's quite interesting you say that. What do you mean? 98% of the Transformations are great and very inspirational. All the workout routines and nutrition they state on their story must have worked for them. If you can, please give us an example of one with poor info

[SuffolkPunch]

So conclusion is.....full body's 100% have their place BUT not in the world of 'sculpting' your body I.e focusing on getting those boulder shoulders, chiseled chest, V-shape back etc etc etc.

I have done both split and full body. My take on it is this....Both offered great results BUT both offered different results.

Split = more shape, better aesthetics and have me the fitness model look.

Full body = rounder 'full' muscles built to handle heavy loads. Less shape, less detail the scales went upper faster. I got a more 'rugby' build rather than 'fitness model'.

So yes, both are good but you have to review what your goals are. Me, my goals more relate to the results I get from split routines so split routines is what I shall do......

Not sure how you came to this conclusion. Muscle growth is muscle growth. The only qualitative factor might be down the amount of growth in type 1 fibers - from doing higher reps - and of course bodyfat %.

The choice of wether to do full body or not is most influenced by degree of exerience and goals. People who do full body don't look as "sculpted" simply because they haven't trained as long as those doing more personalised split routines.

By the way, when you see people with full rounded muscle bellies, especially in the delts, this is apparently a sign of steroid use. Some people can look at a bber and tell you exactly which substances they are taking.

[Jasonk282]

You can make progress on both as long as you are progressive overloading the weight or adding reps.

The decision to do with a full body or split usually comes down to goals and expierence. Beginners with little to no time under the bar can advance much faster on a full body hitting everything 3x a week as opposed to 1-2x a week.

As you gain more time under the bar and start to handle heavier and heavier loads then you need to split up your workouts, typically upper/lower or push/pull...p/p/l for a more bodybuilderish routine.

For me personally my goal is to lift the most weight I can while in the 198 lb weight class. So I'm on an upper/lower split with very low volume 4x3 and high intensity. Though I ran 4 months of starting strength and 9 cycles of 5/3/1 full body before I went to a split.

[SkydogGinsberg]

98% of the Transformations are great and very inspirational. All the workout routines and nutrition they state on their story must have worked for them. If you can, please give us an example of one with poor info

Consistent progressive overload and a goal-appropriate calorie level can make up for a lot of mis-steps and other ignorance along the way. Relying on the supersite material is an exercise in naivety. It's common to see some lifter attribute their success to getting in that brotein supp 28 min. after his last bench rep. In reality, he coincidentally ate enough calories, period. Having nothing to do w/ bro-shake timing. Others will attribute some dramatic fat-loss to some silly jumping jack cardio + green tea regimen -- when in reality, they coincidentally were burning more cals than eating, period.

Prog. overload and basic nutrition are very forgiving -- if those are the only two things you get right, you can do a lot of other stupid chit and still succeed. Sometimes not even knowing why you succeeded.

[Marine man]

So conclusion is.....full body's 100% have their place BUT not in the world of 'sculpting' your body I.e focusing on getting those boulder shoulders, chiseled chest, V-shape back etc etc etc.

I have done both split and full body. My take on it is this....Both offered great results BUT both offered different results.

Split = more shape, better aesthetics and have me the fitness model look.

Full body = rounder 'full' muscles built to handle heavy loads. Less shape, less detail the scales went upper faster. I got a more 'rugby' build rather than 'fitness model'.

So yes, both are good but you have to review what your goals are. Me, my goals more relate to the results I get from split routines so split routines is what I shall do......

Your conclusion is wrong and so misinformed. Please try again.

[Marine man]

That's quite interesting you say that. What do you mean? 98% of the Transformations are great and very inspirational. All the workout routines and nutrition they state on their story must have worked for them. If you can, please give us an example of one with poor info

How about the sentence right before what you quoted? What works and what is optimal are two different things. Realize that consistency is a huge part of this. Having a **** program but sticking to it will do more than having a great program and working out once every three months. With that said, if you think doing one body part a day with 4 exercises per body part and HIIT 3-4 days a week is where a beginner should start off at, then you are woefully misinformed.

[Determinednoob]

Consistent progressive overload and a goal-appropriate calorie level can make up for a lot of mis-steps and other ignorance along the way. Relying on the supersite material is an exercise in naivety. It's common to see some lifter attribute their success to getting in that brotein supp 28 min. after his last bench rep. In reality, he coincidentally ate enough calories, period. Having nothing to do w/ bro-shake timing. Others will attribute some dramatic fat-loss to some silly jumping jack cardio + green tea regimen -- when in reality, they coincidentally were burning more cals than eating, period.

Prog. overload and basic nutrition are very forgiving -- if those are the only two things you get right, you can do a lot of other stupid chit and still succeed. Sometimes not even knowing why you succeeded.

I have sometimes thought about people who seem to "make gains in spite of themselves"

[VoxExMachina]

You can meet your goals with many types of programs. Likely, those with successful transformations are merely the ones most dedicated to putting in hard work, eating right, and sticking with whatever plan they have. Most people are too lazy to really do that kind of work and correct eating.

Splits vs. Full body are primarily a difference in managing workload vs. recovery, but often also involve the amount of time people have to get to the gym.

More reading.... http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...hp?t=139911893

[Stevedot]

Your conclusion is wrong and so misinformed. Please try again.

I was in no way saying that IS the results EVERYONE would/should get. I was merely expressing the experiences I have had.

I like splits and I like full body. Just sometimes I do doubt full body is the optimal routine for my goals. This is definately not a 'Full body over Split' and vice-versa debate...there are tons of those.

Right now I'm doing 3 days a week (Sunday, Tuesday, Wednesday are my workout days) on off days I do no form of exercise including cardio...maybe I should? My routine looks like this....

Monday: Squat, Bent over Rows, Overhead Press

Tuesday: Deadlift, Bench Press, Pull ups

Wednesday: Leg Press, Dips, Power Cleans

I do 2 progressive warm up sets followed by 3 sets of 5.

I just think my body responds to more volume hence why I started this thread. I was in doubt of current routine. Plus, I enjoy training a lot and would like at least 4 days so was think about a push pull or upper lower workout

[dk240t]

Most people do split routines and not full-body routines because they see that most people do split routines and not full-body routines, hence most transformations are of split routines and not full-body routines.