Why do people say you cant build muscle on Fullbody workouts?

[SanShou007]

Just wondering why quite a few people on this site say that full body workouts are rubbish for muscle gain but all the "experts" like chad Waterbury (I think) Jason ferruga and so on really. IS there a limit to the amount of muscle which can be gained on a full body. Im trying to workout which would be better for me, looking for a rugby league player type of physique nothing like a Bodybuilder, a full body or some type of upper lower or push pull.

I like the idea of doing a full body to get the strength and numbers up on the big main lifts, but is a bench press and dips enough to build a big chest, same as are pull ups good for a wide back. Do I really need to chit a muscle group from every conveiveable angle to induce muscle growth?

Basically if I aim to get good numbers on my bench my chest and tri's wont be small, if I can do weighted chin ups/pull ups my back and bi's should be larger than normal.

Is any of this right or should I do a body part split or some other split.

BTW I want muscle growth, increase speed power and just be that bit more athletic.

Thanks

[JaredPunch]

Many think it's too little volume but they fail to understand these points

1) frequency is better than volume, many studies have proven this showing there's no significant difference between 2-3 sets or 5-6 sets.
2) most muscle groups are worked out 100% with 2 exercises per muscle group, back being an exception and doing better with 3 or 4. But except back there is no significant difference between 2 exercises versus 4-6.

People think they're getting better results by "destroying the muscle" but scientifically, destroying the muscle (feeling as fatigued as to be unable to train that muscle again before 5-7 days) just does nothing relevant to muscle hypertrophy compared to just "training the muscle" with 2 exercises per muscle group and 3 sets

Another point, which might actually be valid, is that on a full body you can't focus on minor muscles like traps, rear delt, forearm. Others say you train them anyway with compounds but I'm not totally sure.

Is any of this right or should I do a body part split or some other split.

Given these points, the right amount of volume before diminishing returs, the ideal number of exercises and the desire to focus on some smaller muscle groups I'd say the best thing is a upper/lower or push/pull or at most leg/push/pull

[SanShou007]

Hi mate that was a great reply and I do agree with what you said. Just a question you said that 2 exercises is similar to doing 4-6. Should I aim to get 2 exercise per muscle group on a full body or should I try to over lap some exercise for example instead of doing flat and incline bench should I do a flat and dip or close grip bench as they are primarily tricep exercises and work the chest

[Brenjam]

Many think it's too little volume but they fail to understand these points

1) frequency is better than volume, many studies have proven this showing there's no significant difference between 2-3 sets or 5-6 sets.
2) most muscle groups are worked out 100% with 2 exercises per muscle group, back being an exception and doing better with 3 or 4. But except back there is no significant difference between 2 exercises versus 4-6.

People think they're getting better results by "destroying the muscle" but scientifically, destroying the muscle (feeling as fatigued as to be unable to train that muscle again before 5-7 days) just does nothing relevant to muscle hypertrophy compared to just "training the muscle" with 2 exercises per muscle group and 3 sets

Another point, which might actually be valid, is that on a full body you can't focus on minor muscles like traps, rear delt, forearm. Others say you train them anyway with compounds but I'm not totally sure.



Given these points, the right amount of volume before diminishing returs, the ideal number of exercises and the desire to focus on some smaller muscle groups I'd say the best thing is a upper/lower or push/pull or at most leg/push/pull

No hate on your post, but IMO volume is very important for muscle growth and you should do basically as much volume as you can recover from

[JaredPunch]

No hate on your post, but IMO volume is very important for muscle growth and you should do basically as much volume as you can recover from

But frequency wins over volume, this is scientifically proven. There's a diminishing return where 1 set provides just 70% of the gains of 2 sets. 2 sets provide 99% of the gains of 3 sets. 3 sets provide the 99.9% the gains of 4 sets. 4 sets provides 100% or maybe 99.99% of the gains of 5 sets. In other words after the 3 sets point it becomes statistically irrelevant and the outcome is not worth the extra effort.

[JaredPunch]

Hi mate that was a great reply and I do agree with what you said. Just a question you said that 2 exercises is similar to doing 4-6. Should I aim to get 2 exercise per muscle group on a full body or should I try to over lap some exercise for example instead of doing flat and incline bench should I do a flat and dip or close grip bench as they are primarily tricep exercises and work the chest

On a full body 2 exercises is too much, just do 1 exercise per muscle group on your A routine and then choose a different exercise for the same muscle group in your B routine and then alternate A B A; B, A, B; and so on

[bigbrady]

gggggg

[wedo3]

On ICF 5x5 now
Results:Crazy strength gains but hardly muscle mass gains
1) lack of volume + most people don't go for full rep motion which is worse with lower volume
2) Rear delts not even once.......Traps hardly any good chit for it, back you will hardly feel that you are working it with 1-2 exercises also forearms, rotator cuffs bla bla bla
3)This is my own theory: if u smash one muscle or two a day won't it heal better than if it's your whole body?

[JaredPunch]

3)This is my own theory: if u smash one muscle or two a day won't it heal better than if it's your whole body?

No, because "smashing one muscle" is just an illusory feeling, actually you can hit the muscle that much before you reach a point where any further hit provides 0 further results. It's like being covered with mud and taking a shower. You can go "low volume" and be still dirty after your shower. Or you can shower properly and be clean. From that point you know better than thinking that washing yourself even more, using even more soap will results in even more cleaness. You're as clear as possible period.

Also no scientific evidence exists that a muscle group need more than 90 hours to recover. Even if your smash your muscle they won't still need 160 hours to recover, so you're actually waiting to train that muscle again while it could already be trained and hence wasting potential gains by not training it when healing is already completed and no further growth is occurring unless you work it out.

Optimum volume for bigger muscle groups is around 120 weekly reps on a bulk. with a 5x5 you're just doing 75 weekly reps which may explain why you find it "too little volume" for ideal muscle growth.

But say you do 4x8 with 6 exercises just for chest day. That's 200 weekly reps, that's beyond the threshold where adding more reps or exercises provide no further benefit while at the same time feeling so tired to being unable to train the muscle again for another 7 days, even though healing and growth completes in 48-90 hours and so many days are wasted with no muscle growth and no training.

[wedo3]

No, because "smashing one muscle" is just an illusory feeling, in reality you can hit the muscle that much before you reach a point where any further hit provides 0 further results. It's like being covered with mud and taking a shower. You can go "low volume" and be still dirty after your shower. Or you can shower properly and be clean. From that point you know better than thinking that washing yourself even more, using even more soup will results in even more cleaness. You're as clear as possible period.

Also no scientific evidence exists that a muscle group need more than 90 hours to recover. Even if your smash your muscle they won't still need 160 hours to recover, so you're actually waiting to train that muscle again while it could already be trained and hence wasting potential gains by not trying it when healing is already completed and no further growth is occurring unless you work it out.

Optimum volume for bigger muscle groups is around 120 weekly reps on a bulk. with a 5x5 you're just doing 75 weekly reps which may explain why you find it "too little volume" for ideal muscle growth.

But say you do 4x8 with 6 exercises just for chest day. That's 200 weekly reps, that's beyond the threshold where adding more reps or exercises provide no further benefit while at the same time feeling so tired to being unable to train the muscle again for another 7 days, even though healing and growth completes in 48-90 hours and so many days are wasted with no muscle growth and no training.

Wait a sec so if i get to 120 reps weekly i will see more gains? then why shouldn't i add like more exercises with 2/3 of the reps and sets of original so i reach 120-125 reps?

[JaredPunch]

Wait a sec so if i get to 120 reps weekly i will see more gains? then why shouldn't i add like more exercises with 2/3 of the reps and sets of original so i reach 120-125 reps?

You can actually, but it won't make a difference, more like be more fun because of variety, but emg studies show 2 exercises is enough to hit every fiber of a muscle, three or four is redoundant, but with a big and well equipped gym it's more fun. Also weight can be a problem too. Ideal if a weight you can do for 7-8 reps. Heavier weight leads to bad form in the last rep, not blatantly bad but there's always a compromised form when lifting that heavy that leads to less hypertrophy results. Also with heavier weight you don't give the smaller muscle a chance to kick in (i.e 2 RM squats there's not much hamstrings, calves and glute activity as the explosive nature of the lift allows quads to be the dominant lifters) but if you do 7 reps, perfect form till the last rep, slow and controlled motions, there's more activity in all the leg muscles.

[wedo3]

You can actually, but it won't make a difference, more like be more fun because of variety, but emg studies show 2 exercises is enough to hit every fiber of a muscle, three or four is redoundant, but with a big and well equipped gym it's more fun. Also weight can be a problem too. Ideal if a weight you can do for 7-8 reps. Heavier weight leads to bad form in the last rep, not blatantly bad but there's always a compromised form when lifting that heavy that leads to less hypertrophy results. Also with heavier weight you don't give the smaller muscle a chance to kick in (i.e 2 RM squats there's not much hamstrings, calves and glute activity as the explosive nature of the lift allows quads to be the dominant lifters) but if you do 7 reps, perfect form till the last rep, slow and controlled motions, there's more activity in all the leg muscles.

I kinda really care about forum that even on my failure rep i either do it perfect form or fail trying.I just feel like the inner part of chest like between 2 pecs(inner side of them) and rear delts aren't worked with fullbody stuff

[CompoundUK]

Just wondering why quite a few people on this site say that full body workouts are rubbish for muscle gain but all the "experts" like chad Waterbury (I think) Jason ferruga and so on really. IS there a limit to the amount of muscle which can be gained on a full body. Im trying to workout which would be better for me, looking for a rugby league player type of physique nothing like a Bodybuilder, a full body or some type of upper lower or push pull.

I like the idea of doing a full body to get the strength and numbers up on the big main lifts, but is a bench press and dips enough to build a big chest, same as are pull ups good for a wide back. Do I really need to chit a muscle group from every conveiveable angle to induce muscle growth?

Basically if I aim to get good numbers on my bench my chest and tri's wont be small, if I can do weighted chin ups/pull ups my back and bi's should be larger than normal.

Is any of this right or should I do a body part split or some other split.

BTW I want muscle growth, increase speed power and just be that bit more athletic.

Thanks

Jared is right,

a lot of people dont like the lack of volume. they fail to realise that training full body hits more muscles at once thus promoting greater growth overall. You might get some better growth on a particular muscles isolating it on a split but overall its not going to be any better for hypertrophy and mass gain.
Also again, agreeing with Jared, a lot of people like to do 4+ sets on splits, thats fine as it is personal preference, but in reality the extra gain from those further sets is negliable if not nothing. I do like some volume myself, just feels good and does do well for training your endurance doing more sets and higher vol sets but i think its important to mix it up.

You gotta do you research at the end of the day and decide what suits you best. i dont 6/7 months full body on stronglifts 5x5 and now i have my own split. Both have worked in different ways. I have to admit my bench and OHP as improved drastically since going onto the split but weight gain slowed and my deadlift has stalled completely. Still bulking atm and over winter i shall be going back to the 3 days full body in a couple of months and see if it fires up the weight gain again, and of course hit that 400lb deadlift im so dam close to :P

[Manc33]

People think they're getting better results by "destroying the muscle" but scientifically, destroying the muscle (feeling as fatigued as to be unable to train that muscle again before 5-7 days) just does nothing relevant to muscle hypertrophy compared to just "training the muscle" with 2 exercises per muscle group and 3 sets.

Going to failure worked for Dorian Yates. In fact he used to go to failure and then do partial reps (same weight) with a spotter.

If it is taking 5-7 days before you do that muscle group again then I have to wonder how you're progressing at all.

If I go 5-7 days without lifting on that muscle group I start to lose strength. The only time a recovery that long was needed was in the very beginning on my first ever workouts. More like 3 days. Biceps after 2 days.

[JaredPunch]

I kinda really care about forum that even on my failure rep i either do it perfect form or fail trying.I just feel like the inner part of chest like between 2 pecs(inner side of them) and rear delts aren't worked with fullbody stuff

You could superset the last set of shoulder press with rear flys or face pulls. It's such a small muscle that one set would do since that part is being worked by the main exercise as well. Same for chest, superset the last bench set with flys or press-push or chins.

[CompoundUK]

Going to failure worked for Dorian Yates. In fact he used to go to failure and then do partial reps (same weight) with a spotter.

If it is taking 5-7 days before you do that muscle group again then I have to wonder how you're progressing at all.

If I go 5-7 days without lifting on that muscle group I start to lose strength. The only time a recovery that long was needed was in the very beginning on my first ever workouts. More like 3 days. Biceps after 2 days.

Not sure i agree with that, i take rest weeks off once and a while and come back stronger...

Also depends on the kinda of training im doing.

Higher vol stuff is great for carb depletion so good in times of cutting. i also like the "burn" and pump but im not blinded by it.

Yates may have been training till failure, but not necessarily with higher numbers of sets. Just work with a greater weight so failure comes sooner. This is what Jared means by "destroying". There is a big difference between training a set till failure and doing so many sets you cant physically do any more!
Ill say it again as well, mixing it up is good. Some higher vol sets or higher number of sets and some lower rep high intensity sets. just keep your body adapting.

[mittywilliams]

full body splits aren't that bad, if volume is lowered and you train say 2-3 a week.

i'd say optimal gains would lay in a 2-3day split. (upper lower or legs/push/pull)
frequency is key for the strength athlete, the more you do something, the better you get, to a degree.
just my $0.02

[wannabebigrick]

who says you can't do full body and have a decent amount of volume as well?

its easy enough to get a decent frequency and get in a high amount of weekly volume, heck i do 16 sets of benching alone a week (19 if you include floor presses), then over the week i also have and additional 6 other sets for chest from dips and db press's


pick an exercise and hit it hard, you don't need to do loads of different exercises for each muscles group.

chest is built by benching
delts by over head pressing
back by rowing
legs by squating
whole body by deadlifting (7 sets on wednesdays alone)

then add in some pull ups and dips and you are golden

[Aasemd]

Math wise full body 3 times a week hits every muscle group more than any other split.

52 weeks in a year
52x3 is 156 per year. However the isolation work isn't as high as a brosplit or a PPL.

On average a PPL comes in about 94 workouts per muscle a year


With brosplit a simple 52.

[bigklepp99]

who says you can't do full body and have a decent amount of volume as well?

its easy enough to get a decent frequency and get in a high amount of weekly volume, heck i do 16 sets of benching alone a week (19 if you include floor presses), then over the week i also have and additional 6 other sets for chest from dips and db press's


pick an exercise and hit it hard, you don't need to do loads of different exercises for each muscles group.

chest is built by benching
delts by over head pressing
back by rowing
legs by squating
whole body by deadlifting (7 sets on wednesdays alone)

then add in some pull ups and dips and you are golden

^^^This, I switched to a fully body workout with a 3 day split. I have more recovery and don't get burnt out as easily. I've gained a ton of mass and my lifts have all gone up. I've honestly never heard anyone say you can't gain mass off full body. Most football programs go with a full body workout.

[Bugler666]

Going to failure worked for Dorian Yates.

Not trying to take away from anything you said, but what works best for a professional bodybuilder who is taking an enormous amount of dat dere is not what may be best for a natural guy who is very new to bodybuilding.

When you're on celltech it's supposedly more about 'finding the burn' and holding it there for optimal growth, where as for a natural bodybuilder who's only just starting out heavy compound movements are likely to display better initial results than high volume training that focuses on single bodyparts.

I personally don't think working full body is a bad way to start at all if you include the right movements, but it may be wise to progress to a split after 6 months or so. 5x5 is a very popular and proven program, maybe look into that as well.

[SanShou007]

Thanks for the replies some good info and advice there. Its awkward really as you look in the transformation thread and the majority did some kind of split. Im not entirely sure of the guys name something like VOXMACHINE, wrote a really good thread about full body and splits for beginners but reading it, this guy says he has always done a split, also there is a video by TMW who say they done a fullbody for the first months of training but they suggest doing a three day bro split.

Again thanks

[theiceman13]

Its a true fact that compounds are king for building muscle not like isolation's what only intermediate or advanced bodybuilders need to shape their muscles, the only isolation a beginner should use is barbell curls.

But dos not matter what type of program you do, its still gonna take decades to build muscle.

[JaredPunch]

Thanks for the replies some good info and advice there. Its awkward really as you look in the transformation thread and the majority did some kind of split.

They do work, you're going to build muscle anyway, it's just not that ideal for a beginner... but we're probably talking of building 85% of one muscle growth potential versus 100%. Sometimes it's hard to determine the impact of doing something that it's ideal but that is still going to work, like will be the differences compared to a more ideal approach that big or almost irrelevant on the grand scheme of things?