Question about splits

[armyguy29]

So I've been experimenting with some different splits the past few months, trying to see what works best for me. Currently, I'm doing a pretty basic back/bis, chest/tris split for upper body. Seems like this is pretty common, and it makes sense, given that chest/tris are both pushing movements, while back/bis are pulling.

The issue I'm having is when I do, say, chest/tris, by the time I get to my tris, they're fatigued from being worked in the chest, and I can only lift much less then what I was doing in previous splits (basiclly, when the triceps are fresh).

So my question is this: does anyone do the opposite splits? That is, Chest/bis, and back/tris? The thinking being that even after a good chest workout, your bis should still be fresh, and you can then lift heavier with them. Would this be a good idea?

Or is it a GOOD thing that your tris are fatigued from the chest, and even though you can't lift as much as you could if they were fresh, your still going to work them effectively, with the cumulative effect of the workout?

Obviously, I realize both ways would "work" I just want to make sure I'm doing everything optimally and not leaving anything on the table.

[Judge248]

So I've been experimenting with some different splits the past few months, trying to see what works best for me. Currently, I'm doing a pretty basic back/bis, chest/tris split for upper body. Seems like this is pretty common, and it makes sense, given that chest/tris are both pushing movements, while back/bis are pulling.

The issue I'm having is when I do, say, chest/tris, by the time I get to my tris, they're fatigued from being worked in the chest, and I can only lift much less then what I was doing in previous splits (basiclly, when the triceps are fresh).

So my question is this: does anyone do the opposite splits? That is, Chest/bis, and back/tris? The thinking being that even after a good chest workout, your bis should still be fresh, and you can then lift heavier with them. Would this be a good idea?

Or is it a GOOD thing that your tris are fatigued from the chest, and even though you can't lift as much as you could if they were fresh, your still going to work them effectively, with the cumulative effect of the workout?

Obviously, I realize both ways would "work" I just want to make sure I'm doing everything optimally and not leaving anything on the table.

It depends on the level of the lifter. I think for most lifters its generally good that the triceps are fatigued from chest as they will get the stimulation they need from handling the heavy chest load. But I think for some advanced lifters who really need a lot of intensity to properly stimulate growth in the triceps, then its better to do a split where the triceps are going to be fresh and able to handle the heaviest amount on the tricep lifts.

I don't know what your specific level of experience is, but I say this to most posters on here - don't overlook full body programs. Most people try to jump right into splits when they don't need them. Generally the progression should be full body, then a split like upper/lower or push/pull, then something like push/pull/legs or other body split. Most lifters could get a lot more progression out of a linear full body program than they realize, and are actually missing out on some potential gains.

[Determinednoob]

Or is it a GOOD thing that your tris are fatigued from the chest, and even though you can't lift as much as you could if they were fresh, your still going to work them effectively, with the cumulative effect of the workout?

I would say the above is valid. That said, since you said you want to do things optimally, why do a bodypart split with such low frequency?