Split vs. Full body ?

[908]

In general, splits are better. I read a couple of posts in the beginning of this thread and most of the arguments for full body side are ridiculous and those that are trying to defend splits didn't know how to present themselves or any information. Splits work better Anybody wanting to argue why full body might be better can list their reasons and I will discredit every one or atleast tell why splits would be more effective at whatever was listed.

[olinerules87]

In general, splits are better. I read a couple of posts in the beginning of this thread and most of the arguments for full body side are ridiculous and those that are trying to defend splits didn't know how to present themselves or any information. Splits work better Anybody wanting to argue why full body might be better can list their reasons and I will discredit every one or atleast tell why splits would be more effective at whatever was listed.

give us your reasoning

[908]

Anybody wanting to argue why full body might be better can list their reasons and I will discredit every one or atleast tell why splits would be more effective at whatever was listed.

give us your reasoning

That's not what I asked for.

[olinerules87]

"I'll throw out some theoretical numbers here. Probably around 80-90% of the population, 80-90% of the time, will respond best to total body workouts.

And I'd say that maybe 90-95% of the population, 90-95% of the time, will respond best to either total body or an upper and lower split. Now, the numbers may not be exact, but if you read what I said as "the majority of people" you'll see what I mean.

But also make sure to read my entire statement. I'm also saying that 10-20% of the population will not respond best to total body workouts, and that 10-20% of the time these programs won't work. There's definitely room in my philosophy for other approaches, but I'm comfortable with the "most of the people, most of the time" part.

Recently, the whole split routine vs. total body vs. body parts thing has been hotly debated on this site. The problem is, there can't be an answer that's 100% correct, 100% of the time for 100% of the people."
-Cosgrove

Chad Waterbury: "Whether a person chooses total body or split workouts all comes down to their goals and their available training time. Here's how I approach the issue.

Does the person want to gain more than ten pounds of muscle across his entire body? If so, I'd go with total body workouts because he'll stimulate more muscle fibers per session with a total body workout compared to a body part split. That point can't be debated.

I've made the following statement ad nauseam, but it bears repeating once more: if you want to build bigger, stronger muscles, your sole purpose of training should be to recruit as many motor units as possible in each workout. Now, it's true that statement can be taken two ways. You could say that a body part split will recruit more motor units because most splits use fatigue-inducing methods such as triple drop sets. Or you could take that statement to mean that a person should look to stimulate as many total motor units as possible.

I use the latter approach. I know this will piss many people off, but the fact of the matter is this: five cycles of triple drop sets is a waste of time for the majority of people. The time and energy wasted on the last two or three triple drop sets could've been spent on building another body part. So my question is: Which system is going to recruit more motor units in a given session, a body part split or total body training?

Speaking of points that can't be debated, it's probably no surprise to people that I believe the frequency of training is one of the most important factors for developing more muscle mass. If you organize a plan that allows for more training sessions throughout the week, you'll build more muscle if you manage fatigue. There's absolutely no way in our mathematical universe that someone on a body part split can train with the same frequency as a person who's on a total body plan, with total weekly workouts being the same.

Does the person want to increase his fitness levels and lose fat? Again, I'd go with total body workouts because the metabolic cost of a total body workout is significantly higher than a typical body part split.

Has the person already built a physique with the general proportions that he desires? And does he merely want to bring up a few lagging body parts without regard for athletic performance? If so, a body part split could be an option.

If a person is within 10% of his goal, I think a body part split is fine. What do I mean by within 10%? If a person has 17" arms and wants to bring them up to 18", a body part split might be the way to go because he can focus all his energy on the biceps, triceps, and shoulder girdle.

Does a person have an unlimited amount of time to train? If the answer is yes, whether I recommend total body or splits is based on how much muscle they want to gain.

I'm not completely against body part splits; I'm against the notion that they're better than total body training for hypertrophy for the vast majority. The majority of T-Nation readers that I encounter want to gain more than ten pounds of muscle across their entire body, and they want to increase their fitness levels too. That's why I focus on total body methods in my T-Nation articles.

As far as I know, there's no company that sells total-body training stock. And even if there is such a company, I don't own any of their stock. So the fact that I usually advocate total body training over body part splits is because my experiences have shown that it's more effective to add overall mass.

If a body part split worked better — and I've spent years experimenting with them — I'd advocate body part splits. There's no hidden agenda on my part."



Cosgrove: "I don't have a problem with splits per se. I keep getting misquoted on that. I'll confess though that I still have a problem with "body part" based splits. I'll explain my thinking and you can agree or disagree...

Now, I've read the Weider system. I've read Arnold's book. I've read pretty much every fitness magazine that's been released over the past twelve years at least, including the bodybuilding ones. And I still can't see any rhyme or reason to the allocation of body parts to a training day. It seems completely arbitrary to me.

Different splits I've seen: chest-only day; chest, shoulders and triceps; chest and biceps; chest and back. I've seen all of these once a week and twice a week. (Incidentally, I don't think most drug-free individuals with work or school can make optimal progress hitting a muscle group once a week.)

It doesn't mean these splits are wrong or don't work; I just can't see how there are any solid guidelines there based on physiology. It's hard for me to shape a physical training philosophy around anything but physiology. And body part allocation isn't physiology."

Waterbury: "You bet that a person's goal is the key factor! As I said, if a person already has most of the mass he desires, and if he's not looking for athleticism, a body part split could do the trick. But if a person is more than ten pounds of muscle from his goal, and if he wants the muscle added across his entire body, a total body plan is better in my book.

Splits are for advanced bodybuilders. I can't think of another group who would greatly benefit from a body part split. The reason is because bodybuilders don't need athleticism to win a competition.

With regard to athleticism, intelligent MMA fighters, for example, don't use body part splits because those who follow splits incur more sport injuries when they leave the weightroom to fight. That's a fact that I've seen for the last ten years. I've seen more sport injuries with body part splits than any other type of training. The reason is because body part splits are often arranged without respect for biomechanics.

The fact that I've seen more real world injuries from body part splits really concerns me. So I take that into account whether I'm working with a competitive bodybuilder or a world-class athlete or a weekend warrior.

But who cares if you only want to look good naked, right? Well, the human body functions as a whole, so I train it with that in mind. I've found that a whole body, systematic approach to training yields better results whether the goal is more muscle mass, more efficient energy systems, more strength, or a combination of those elements.

Case in point: let's say a guy is trying to make his biceps bigger. He can look at the biceps as an isolated unit and train them with curls, curls, and more curls. Or he can look at the biceps as a single element in a complex organization of structure and function.

With the whole body approach, it must be understood that the forearms, shoulder girdle, upper back, and posterior chain all play a major role in how big the biceps can grow. Since I've spent time in the clinical field of neuroscience, I can tell you that those who have nerve damage to their shoulder girdle and/or upper back muscles lose upper arm mass very quickly.

Since the forearms, shoulder girdle, upper back, and posterior chain are all determinants of how big and strong the biceps can get, I take that into account. So for a bodybuilder I'll train all of those muscles in each session. There's no reason not to. And with a body part split, that's simply not possible.
Many people can only make it to the gym three or four times each week. With a body part split, they're hitting each body part only once every week or so. And if you're training the muscles that infrequently, your mass gains per month will be very limited.

If you think that higher frequency plans are only for genetic prodigies, I'll retort by saying I've never worked with anyone who couldn't recover from a workout within 48 hours. I can say this because I know how to manage fatigue and I know how to instill and incorporate volume and intensity fluctuations so that they can recover. "

[908]

Cosgroves argument is simply stating what he believes the success percentages in relation to the two different lifting methods are. It's his opinion and could be the exact opposite. It does not provide any evidence for or against either side of this argument.

Chad Waterbury seems to be building his focus around the amount of motor units recruited. But logically, even for those that back low volume workouts you can't deny the fact that you can't possibly achieve the most progress when you only do one lift for a bodypart. Yes it is undeniable that if you're doing a fullbody workout that you will recruit more motor units than a split, but who says that's beneficial. That's like saying if you want to pass a major math exam you are going to study a little math, a little history, a little spanish, and a little of something else. How does that sound like the best way to achieve your goals at all? This is why full body work is superior, it enables you to train to be an "expert" in each area more than once a week.

And for Cosgroves second argument.. I don't even know what to say. I don't know where people come with the idea that splits are for more advanced people. You can also hit muscle groups more than once a week with splits. And injuries can occur with any method of lifting. Knowledge prevents this. Obviously more injuries would occur with splits because it is the more popular form of lifting.. he never mentioned that there were more injuries proportionally so I'm guessing he's taking advantage of the fact that way more people perform splits.

[Sick96stang]

it's not my job to enlighten you and nor do i want to. Your posts are filled with arrogance and misplaced confidence. You can do and believe anything you want.
However, there's some really good reads out there such as
The rippletoe program for beginners:
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=998224
And Waterbury's full body workout program:
http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do?id=508031

ROFL, aka you say something but have no proof to back up what you are saying. Sounds like my posts aren't the ones that are arrogant and misplaced confidence. I know all about both Rippetoes and Chad Waterbury's routines. Now explain to me if splits are only for advanced bodybuilders then why are there beginner splits

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...hreadid=143006

[olinerules87]

you can't deny the fact that you can't possibly achieve the most progress when you only do one lift for a bodypart.

but you do one exercise per bodypart 3 or more times a week.

I fail to see how doing 3 chest exercises on one day can be better than one exercise 3 days.

In a split say you do bench, incline and then dips. After bench you won't be able to put up as much weight as you can on incline because you chest/tris/delts are already tired. Then you do your last chest exercise and you have even less chest muscle fibers to recruit because they are tired.

If you do bench one day, you will be fully recovered by next workout and can do incline with maximal weights because your chest is fully recovered.

I just don't see how a split is better there than a more frequent program.

[Mr.JRB]

i do a split and always have and always will..to the idiot that said you wont even sweat on shoulders, you obviously have never worked your shoulders out hard...i dont know about you but i usually sweat and am tired after 20-24 sets.

Its interesting that at the age of 20 you have determined the course that your training will take for the rest of your life. Dealing in absolutes is a poor way to live your life, the world is not black and white and neither is training.

Its not TBT (Total Body Training) OR Splits, as training philosphy's both are sound and one should not be used to the exclusion of the other. To ignore the experience of experts and trainers who know much more than you do is cheating yourself out of a wealth of knowledge as well as a whole other dimension of training.

Don't lock yourself into a training mindset simply because its whats you've been doing of because someone told you too, read the literature and understand the pros and cons of both. I see this type of all or nothing thinking alot on these boards and it doesn't have to be one way or the other.

Personally I do recommend a full-body training scheme for most novices simply because I find it lends itself better to the progressive strength training that they require. After a strength loading phase, a split program can be a great way to catch lagging body parts up as well as be a good hypertrophy targetted training method.

Thats just my personal opinion on the matter, take it with a grain of salt and decide for yourself. However don't make the mistake of closing yourself off to new ideas.

John

[Sick96stang]

Earlier, you misread nWe's post and now you have misread mine. Where did i say two shoulder isolations per workout? I said you can still have isolations, for example:
Monday: 4 compounds + lateral raises and curls
Wednesday: 4 compounds + flyes and skull crushers
Friday: 4 compounds + rear lateral raises and calf raises

If you were to do a shoulder split once a week, you'd do a press of some sort, lateral raises, rear raises and maybe something else like upright rows.
So you see, the number of isolation sets are about the same.


you forget one thing, the volume on each body part is less per workout for a full body program so you might not need as much time to recover.
eg:
Splits (chest): 3xbench, 3xfly, 3xdips, 3xpullovers = 12 sets in one day!
Fullbody (chest): 3-5xbench and sometimes add 3xfly = 3-5 sets most of the time but can go high as 8 sets.
Which one do you think needs more recovery?

However let's not all forget we're really generalizing the issue, everyone is still different.

Except the isolations you are doing on the full body are not all working shoulders were as with the split all the isolations you are doing on that day are working your shoudlers. Maybe it's just me but I'd rather completely work my shoulders one day, give them plenty of rest them indirectly hit them later on in the week again rather than do 3 half ass shoulder workouts throughout the week.

Again like I said I would rather really break down the muscle one day and then let it recover and then indirectly hit it later on in the week instead of doing 3 half ass workouts on the muscle.

[duece49]

from what it looks like, seems like strength gains are more present in the fullbody, but for pure breaking down of the muscle, and thus having ability to build it back up, wouldnt a split be more efficient for building muscle? cause I mean one set of bench 5 days a week will never break down my chest enough for it to grow, but there is a good potential for strength gains.

I mean kinda experianced this first hand, football during highschool did fulldoby routines 3-4 times a week, strength gains were there, but size did not come as fast as when I started doing splits in the offseason before senior year. IDK from a pure bodybuilding perspective I would assume the split is better, because as of now as long as I look good, I wouldnt mind not being that strong

[Sick96stang]

Pros are also not who you should be basing your routine on. Unless of course your a genetic freak who also takes every supplement known to man, if so then sure, go ahead. For 99% of the population gaining MASS is their number 1 priority when bodybuilding. Volume/isolation work simply isnt' going to cut it for most people. When you excerice your body uses chemicals to stumulate muscle growth, which exercises cause the greatest stimulation? The ones that use the most muscles of course. At the early stages of bodybuilding, strength training IS size training. You should be training like a newbie powerlifter, not a 3x MR olympia, like it or not. You ever seen a bodybuilder doing 250lb squats? Didnt' think so. Until you phsyically have enough mass on your body to worry about isolation you really shouldn't. To get that mass as quickly as possible you need to work with high weights, low reps and fullbody or simple upper lower split, 2-3 days a week. I'm sure many pros didnt' follow this format, but heck, most pros have the genetics to grow by looking at the wieght. For average joe, sticking to actual strength training before worrying about pure hypertrophy work.

There are alot of people who would preach the same, DC and Iron Addict to name 2. Honestly, it's worked well for me. One kid at my gym works light almost all isolation movements, no big lifts but bench. He's there 4 days a week, 1-2 hrs each day. I've simply blown past him working out 2 days a week for maybe 45 minutes a day.

Since when does a split automatically mean all isolation exercises?? You are talking like that is the only exercises in all split routines. A split enables you to have a good mixture between compounds and isolations. Hence not only do you get the mass you are talking about but you also hit all parts of all the muscles. You said at the early stages of bodybuilding strength is size training. When you first start no matter if you are doing a full body or split you are going to gain size and strength quickly. Why would you want to do something like Rippetoes that complete neglects direct bicep, tricep, shoulder, calve at a time when you are going to gain massive size and strength quickly? I've seen plenty of bodybuilders doing 250lbs squats. The best routines whether advanced or beginning should include both compounds and isolations IMO.

[Sick96stang]

not trying to be an @ss but how does a split enhance recovery?

you have more recovery time which doesn't force the body to increase its recovery rate.

In a higher frequency program, you body must adapt and increase its recovery to be able to do the next workout. That is enhancing your recovery.

sorry, but I gotta totally disagree with your statement there

I'd like to see some solid studies done to prove this.

[Sick96stang]

but you do one exercise per bodypart 3 or more times a week.

I fail to see how doing 3 chest exercises on one day can be better than one exercise 3 days.

In a split say you do bench, incline and then dips. After bench you won't be able to put up as much weight as you can on incline because you chest/tris/delts are already tired. Then you do your last chest exercise and you have even less chest muscle fibers to recruit because they are tired.

If you do bench one day, you will be fully recovered by next workout and can do incline with maximal weights because your chest is fully recovered.

I just don't see how a split is better there than a more frequent program.

Would you rather do one real workout, or 3 half ass workouts? I doubt you are getting a full chest workout just from doing bench. Sure, on your next 2 exercises you won't be able to move as much weight but hypertrophy isn't just about how much weight you can move. Also each exercise is hitting different parts of your chest, so you really are not decreasing the amount of weight you are moving that much.

[olinerules87]

Obviously would could go on with this debate forever...but honestly why? We all have our own beliefs and we won't change anyones opinions on an internet forum.
Just do what works best for you for me that is higher frequency training. If splits work for you then do them- and best of luck to you.

Good points made on both sides no need to continue beating this same freaking bush.

[Mr.JRB]

Would you rather do one real workout, or 3 half ass workouts? I doubt you are getting a full chest workout just from doing bench. Sure, on your next 2 exercises you won't be able to move as much weight but hypertrophy isn't just about how much weight you can move. Also each exercise is hitting different parts of your chest, so you really are not decreasing the amount of weight you are moving that much.

There doesn't have to be anything half assed about a full body workout. Since hypertrophy isn't about how much weight you can move, what is it about? And what principles of hypertrophy is a split providing that a full body wouldn't?

Your very quick to point out the half assed nature of only doing 1-2 exercises 3 times a week per muscle group, but the increased intensity and focus given to each of those exercises allows them to be done with a higher weight, or higher reps, or in some way giving them more intensity.

If I do flat bench with high intensity, I should be able to do incline right afterwards with the same amount? Then I move onto my dips? My shoudlers and triceps and chest aren't tired by this point, so I give that 100%. Then I'll do some crossovers, but since I'm hitting the muscle a 'different way' I should be fine? Your sacrificing your later exercises for your earlier ones, you aren't getting the same benefit out of them as you would if they were done fresh.

Almost all physiological systems respond better with frequency, if your sick do you take one massive shot of medecine or several smaller doses? Do you eat 200g of protein in the morning and then call it quits for the day or do you eat it in smaller portions throughout? Afterall your still getting the same amount of medicine or protein, doesn't your body KNOW that it needs 200g a day so it should save it all? Of course it doesn't, just because you know something don't make the mistake of assuming your bodies on the same page.

You think of time in terms of weeks, so monday's chest day and you wait a week for it to recover and then hit it again next monday. Don't you find it strange that your body is so well adjusted to a calendar system?

If instead you were to give your muscles regular stimulii the adaptive mechanisms in your body are given more chances to recognize the frequent loading thats occuring and respond to it.

Soreness isn't an indicator of growth, the 'pump' hasn't been proven to mean anything. In fact all those wonderful signs of a 'good workout' aren't all their cracked up to be. Soreness also doesn't have to mean that recovery is required, nor that muscle growth is occuring. I mean I could go out and try to run a marathon right now and my legs would be hella sore tomorrow, I doubt they'd be getting any bigger.

I do think that splits should be used when coming off a cycle of full body training. You should be stronger than before, and whacking them with a bunch of different exercises can be a good way of squeezing some growth out of them.

John

[Sick96stang]

There doesn't have to be anything half assed about a full body workout. Since hypertrophy isn't about how much weight you can move, what is it about? And what principles of hypertrophy is a split providing that a full body wouldn't?

Your very quick to point out the half assed nature of only doing 1-2 exercises 3 times a week per muscle group, but the increased intensity and focus given to each of those exercises allows them to be done with a higher weight, or higher reps, or in some way giving them more intensity.

If I do flat bench with high intensity, I should be able to do incline right afterwards with the same amount? Then I move onto my dips? My shoudlers and triceps and chest aren't tired by this point, so I give that 100%. Then I'll do some crossovers, but since I'm hitting the muscle a 'different way' I should be fine? Your sacrificing your later exercises for your earlier ones, you aren't getting the same benefit out of them as you would if they were done fresh.

Almost all physiological systems respond better with frequency, if your sick do you take one massive shot of medecine or several smaller doses? Do you eat 200g of protein in the morning and then call it quits for the day or do you eat it in smaller portions throughout? Afterall your still getting the same amount of medicine or protein, doesn't your body KNOW that it needs 200g a day so it should save it all? Of course it doesn't, just because you know something don't make the mistake of assuming your bodies on the same page.

You think of time in terms of weeks, so monday's chest day and you wait a week for it to recover and then hit it again next monday. Don't you find it strange that your body is so well adjusted to a calendar system?

If instead you were to give your muscles regular stimulii the adaptive mechanisms in your body are given more chances to recognize the frequent loading thats occuring and respond to it.

Soreness isn't an indicator of growth, the 'pump' hasn't been proven to mean anything. In fact all those wonderful signs of a 'good workout' aren't all their cracked up to be. Soreness also doesn't have to mean that recovery is required, nor that muscle growth is occuring. I mean I could go out and try to run a marathon right now and my legs would be hella sore tomorrow, I doubt they'd be getting any bigger.

I do think that splits should be used when coming off a cycle of full body training. You should be stronger than before, and whacking them with a bunch of different exercises can be a good way of squeezing some growth out of them.

John

If you think hypertrophy is soley based on how much weight you can move you have a lot to learn. Well this little thing called nutrition plays just a bit of a role in hypertrophy. Read up on glycogen depletion and how that affects hypertrophy. No where did I ever say how much weight you can move has no affect on hypertrophy but certainly is not all that affects it. If hypertrophy was soley based on weight moved everybody would be doing low reps, heavy weight. Also think about it. How do nutrients get delivered to your muscles? Through your blood. With a full body workout you are not getting the blood pumped into 1 particular part, as with a 5 day split or working 1 muscle group per day you are pumping all the blood into that 1 part of your body. So that one part of your body is getting more nutrients and also getting the nutrients faster, which in turn would help increase recovery rate.

Why does the intensity and focus have to be higher when only doing 1-2 exercises, as opposed to 3 or 4? Focus has nothing to do with how many sets you do. Again intensity might drop a bit with doing 3-4 exercises as opposed to 1-2 but again you should be doing exercises that target different parts of the muscle so the intensity should not drop that much.

It seems you are so mindset that how much weight you can move is the only thing that affects hypertrophy. Again your 3rd or 4th exercise might lack a bit of intensity as compared to the first two but with hitting different parts of the muscle and also focusing more on higher reps for glycogen depletion you can still make those 3rd and 4th exercises very effective for causing hypertrophy.

Not all physcological systems requite a recovery time either. Your analogy's really don't hold a candle because it's like comparing apples to oranges.

Do you really want your body to adapt to your lifting regimes? Last time I checked people generally switch up their routines to shock their body so they don't get used to same the routine.

I never said soreness was an indicator of growth. A 'pump' is feeling blood rushing to your muscle. Which again the more blood you can get pumping into that mucle the more nutrients are going to be deliverd to that muscle and faster which in turn will produce faster recovery and greater hypertrophy.

I think a split should be used all the time. Why just whack your muscles with a bunch of different exercises only at a certain time. Why not do it all the time? I've said it before and I'll say it again. IMO the best routine will have a consistent good combination between isolations and compounds.

[Big_fuzzy]

The moral of the story kids.

DO WHATEVER THE **** WORKS BEST FOR YOU!

I personally found I actually lost muscle on a split, some people cant recover from 3 full bodies a week.

I need alot of volume, and alot of intesity.

Wich is why training twice a day on Bulgarian Olympic training is working so well for me, I recover, others dont.

Find what works.

THE END.

(ps, I think full body is better)

[nWe]

The shoulder day would produce more growth in your shoulders. You are isolating all parts of your shoulder and working them specifically and also doing a compound shoulder exercise. You do realize there is more to muscle growth than just testerone levels right?

When you train period you break down your muscles and then your body sends out a signal to repair the muscles bigger. You don't have to lift your whole body hard in one workout to grow bigger.

ROFL, that last paragraph is hilarious. Is that why there are tons of pro bod-builders who do "training stupid days with one body part each day".

What do you think your should will grow the most of militarypress 1-3 times every week with heavy benching and bent over rows or some stupid latteral raises with 20lbs DB?

And it's wrong that most BB train their body once every week, they usualy do that on on-season. But on off-season most people might do an am/pm split that alowes them to train 12-14 times every week and having "one bodypart per training" twice every week.

Just look at Arnold's program, he training every bodypart three times every week:

Mon, Wed, Fri

Chest:
Bench press - 5 sets, 6-10 reps
Flat bench flies - 5 sets, 6-10 reps
Incline bench press - 6 sets, 6-10 reps
Cable crossovers - 6 sets, 10-12 reps
Dips - 5 sets, to failure
Dumbbell pullovers - 5 sets, 10-12 reps

Back:
Front wide-grip chin-ups - 6 sets, to failure
T-bar rows - 5 sets, 6-10 reps
Seated pulley rows - 6 sets, 6-10 reps
One-arm dumbbell rows - 5 sets, 6-10 reps
Straight-leg deadlifts - 6 sets, 15 reps

Legs:
Squats - 6 sets, 8-12 reps
Leg presses - 6 sets, 8-12 reps
Leg extensions - 6 sets, 12-15 reps
Leg curls - 6 sets, 10-12 reps
Barbell lunges - 5 sets, 15 reps

Calves:
Standing calf raises -10 sets, 10 reps
Seated calf raises - 8 sets, 15 reps
One-legged calf raises (holding dumbbells) - 6 sets,12 reps

Forearms:
Wrist curls (forearms on knees) - 4 sets, 10 reps
Reverse barbell curls - 4 sets, 8 reps
Wright roller machine - to failure

Abs:
Nonstop instinct training for 30 minutes

Tues, Thurs, Sat

Biceps:
Barbell curls - 6 sets, 6-10 reps
Seated dumbbell curls - 6 sets, 6-10 reps
Dumbbell concentration curls - 6 sets, 6-10 reps

Triceps:
Close-grip bench presses (for the all three heads) - 6 sets, 6-10 reps
Pushdowns (exterior head) - 6 sets, 6-10 reps
Barbell French presses (interior head) - 6 sets, 6-10 reps
One-arm dumbbell triceps extensions (exterior head) - 6 sets, 6-10 reps

Shoulders:
Seated barbell presses - 6 sets, 6-10 reps
Lateral raises (standing) - 6 sets, 6-10 reps
Rear-delt lateral raises - 5 sets, 6-10 reps
Cable lateral raises - 5 sets, 10-12 reps

Calves and Forearms:
Same as Monday, Wednesday and Friday

Abs:
Same as Monday, Wednesday and Friday.

The reason pro bodybuilders train a bodypart just once every week is because the steroids gives them a better protein synthesis and when their training latteral raises they will produce more growth than normal people because they will activate more musclefibers and they will stress and break the muscle up better than normal bodybuilders.

[Pro-Choice]

always have and always will

This is a bad mistake to make... life is long, try different things out. You might be surprised, I was. Why never try something new that could be better just because you haven't done it before? If it doesn't work, you can always go back. There's such a good chance of finding something better when you switch up your lifts that there's no reason not to.

[Sick96stang]

What do you think your should will grow the most of militarypress 1-3 times every week with heavy benching and bent over rows or some stupid latteral raises with 20lbs DB?

And it's wrong that most BB train their body once every week, they usualy do that on on-season. But on off-season most people might do an am/pm split that alowes them to train 12-14 times every week and having "one bodypart per training" twice every week.

Just look at Arnold's program, he training every bodypart three times every week:

Mon, Wed, Fri

Chest:
Bench press - 5 sets, 6-10 reps
Flat bench flies - 5 sets, 6-10 reps
Incline bench press - 6 sets, 6-10 reps
Cable crossovers - 6 sets, 10-12 reps
Dips - 5 sets, to failure
Dumbbell pullovers - 5 sets, 10-12 reps

Back:
Front wide-grip chin-ups - 6 sets, to failure
T-bar rows - 5 sets, 6-10 reps
Seated pulley rows - 6 sets, 6-10 reps
One-arm dumbbell rows - 5 sets, 6-10 reps
Straight-leg deadlifts - 6 sets, 15 reps

Legs:
Squats - 6 sets, 8-12 reps
Leg presses - 6 sets, 8-12 reps
Leg extensions - 6 sets, 12-15 reps
Leg curls - 6 sets, 10-12 reps
Barbell lunges - 5 sets, 15 reps

Calves:
Standing calf raises -10 sets, 10 reps
Seated calf raises - 8 sets, 15 reps
One-legged calf raises (holding dumbbells) - 6 sets,12 reps

Forearms:
Wrist curls (forearms on knees) - 4 sets, 10 reps
Reverse barbell curls - 4 sets, 8 reps
Wright roller machine - to failure

Abs:
Nonstop instinct training for 30 minutes

Tues, Thurs, Sat

Biceps:
Barbell curls - 6 sets, 6-10 reps
Seated dumbbell curls - 6 sets, 6-10 reps
Dumbbell concentration curls - 6 sets, 6-10 reps

Triceps:
Close-grip bench presses (for the all three heads) - 6 sets, 6-10 reps
Pushdowns (exterior head) - 6 sets, 6-10 reps
Barbell French presses (interior head) - 6 sets, 6-10 reps
One-arm dumbbell triceps extensions (exterior head) - 6 sets, 6-10 reps

Shoulders:
Seated barbell presses - 6 sets, 6-10 reps
Lateral raises (standing) - 6 sets, 6-10 reps
Rear-delt lateral raises - 5 sets, 6-10 reps
Cable lateral raises - 5 sets, 10-12 reps

Calves and Forearms:
Same as Monday, Wednesday and Friday

Abs:
Same as Monday, Wednesday and Friday.

The reason pro bodybuilders train a bodypart just once every week is because the steroids gives them a better protein synthesis and when their training latteral raises they will produce more growth than normal people because they will activate more musclefibers and they will stress and break the muscle up better than normal bodybuilders.

Since when did a split routine only incorportate lateral raises on shoulder days? You sound quite naive by calling them "stupid lateral raises". Lateral raises are one of the best shoulder exercises. On chest day I do bench so I'm hitting shoulers again then on back day I do bent over barbell rows so again hitting shoulders. Then on the actual shoulder day you hit all parts of the shoulders instead of just doing 1 compound exercise.

It's wrong... by your opinion. You act like your opinion is a fact or something. If it's wrong why do 1000's of bodybuilders do it?

You make no sense. It's not like steroids go into your body and say "oh hey he's doing lateral raises, now I'm going to grow more than a normal person would". I don't know a lot about steroids but I don't believe they help activate more muscle fibers. Also steroids increase protein synthesis which would speed up recovery, so why would they go to a program that only works a body part once a week when there recovery is sped up even more by the steroids?

[olinerules87]

Are Yall Still Arguing This?!?! Give It A Break. This Is Not A Fight Either Side Will Ever Win

[Defiant]

The point is whatever works better for you and whatever you enjoy more is the one you should use, since you'll see gains from both.

[Beowolf Agate]

Just so everyone knows, if you're doing a two-day split, it's not actually a 'split' as we're defining it. We're using the term 'split' to identify a 'body part split'.

Chest/Tris/Shoulders day and a Back/Bis/Legs day is called a push/pull routine.

There are:

Full Body Workouts
Push/Pull Splits
Upper/Lower Splits
Body Part Splits

The first three are, IMO and in the opinion of most professionals, going to be the most productive for beginners around 90% of the time.

[Mr.JRB]

If you think hypertrophy is soley based on how much weight you can move you have a lot to learn. Well this little thing called nutrition plays just a bit of a role in hypertrophy. Read up on glycogen depletion and how that affects hypertrophy. No where did I ever say how much weight you can move has no affect on hypertrophy but certainly is not all that affects it. If hypertrophy was soley based on weight moved everybody would be doing low reps, heavy weight. Also think about it. How do nutrients get delivered to your muscles? Through your blood. With a full body workout you are not getting the blood pumped into 1 particular part, as with a 5 day split or working 1 muscle group per day you are pumping all the blood into that 1 part of your body. So that one part of your body is getting more nutrients and also getting the nutrients faster, which in turn would help increase recovery rate.

Why does the intensity and focus have to be higher when only doing 1-2 exercises, as opposed to 3 or 4? Focus has nothing to do with how many sets you do. Again intensity might drop a bit with doing 3-4 exercises as opposed to 1-2 but again you should be doing exercises that target different parts of the muscle so the intensity should not drop that much.

It seems you are so mindset that how much weight you can move is the only thing that affects hypertrophy. Again your 3rd or 4th exercise might lack a bit of intensity as compared to the first two but with hitting different parts of the muscle and also focusing more on higher reps for glycogen depletion you can still make those 3rd and 4th exercises very effective for causing hypertrophy.

Not all physcological systems requite a recovery time either. Your analogy's really don't hold a candle because it's like comparing apples to oranges.

Do you really want your body to adapt to your lifting regimes? Last time I checked people generally switch up their routines to shock their body so they don't get used to same the routine.

I never said soreness was an indicator of growth. A 'pump' is feeling blood rushing to your muscle. Which again the more blood you can get pumping into that mucle the more nutrients are going to be deliverd to that muscle and faster which in turn will produce faster recovery and greater hypertrophy.

I think a split should be used all the time. Why just whack your muscles with a bunch of different exercises only at a certain time. Why not do it all the time? I've said it before and I'll say it again. IMO the best routine will have a consistent good combination between isolations and compounds.

I hate to break it to you champ, but muscle building occurs AFTER the workout. How much blood your feeling in your arms during it has absolutely NOTHING to do with how much nutrients are being delivered there. Of course nutrition is an integral part of muscle building, but so is lifting more weight. I never said to only do 3-5 reps. Increasing the weight is increasing the weight, if your 8RM goes up, then when your training in the so called 'muscle building range' the loading on your muscles will be greater eliciting a greater adaptive response. I'd love to see where you got the information that the pump is indicative of greater nutrient delivery to the muscle. After all I can get a pump from curling a 5lb weight 1000 times, not likely to make me huge is it? But theres ALL sorts of nutrients being delivered!

Were not arguing about nutrition so don't bring it into this, assume the diet is ideal in both situations.

How much weight your lifting might not be the only thing effecting hypertrophy, however getting stronger sure has a lot more evidence behind it than your nutrient delivering pump.

My analogies do apply actually, hypertrophy is adaptation. When your placing a muscle under a load it adapts to it, when your doing it consistently your body responds by building more muscle mass and increasing motor neuron recruitment. This is your bodies way of ADAPTING to the new loads your placing on it. So constantly increasing these loads by getting stronger and lifting more weight will cause your body to have to consistently adapt to the new stimulus, if the nutrition is there then it will build muscle. By doing the exercises with higher intensity more frequently your providing your body with more stimulus for adaptation. I'd just like to wonder, what other physiological system would react better once a week?

The reason people switch routines is because they think their going to 'trick' their muscles, which is attributing a lot of intelligence to them. In reality if your programs stalled its likely that the adaptation has taken place and you haven't done anything to provoke a different response. Incrementing the weight every week will provide nearly all the different stimulus required, changing rep ranges, de-loading for a week etc... can all work.

Strength-Hypertrophy-Strength-Hypertrophy

The increases in strength will provide the fuel for your next 'hypertrophy specific' phase.

Your last line is particularly interesting:

"Why just whack your muscles with a bunch of different exercises only at a certain time. Why not do it all the time?"

With a full body 3x a week you are hitting your muscles much more often, which is a lot closer to 'all the time' than a split.

John

[Sick96stang]

I hate to break it to you champ, but muscle building occurs AFTER the workout. How much blood your feeling in your arms during it has absolutely NOTHING to do with how much nutrients are being delivered there. Of course nutrition is an integral part of muscle building, but so is lifting more weight. I never said to only do 3-5 reps. Increasing the weight is increasing the weight, if your 8RM goes up, then when your training in the so called 'muscle building range' the loading on your muscles will be greater eliciting a greater adaptive response. I'd love to see where you got the information that the pump is indicative of greater nutrient delivery to the muscle. After all I can get a pump from curling a 5lb weight 1000 times, not likely to make me huge is it? But theres ALL sorts of nutrients being delivered!

Were not arguing about nutrition so don't bring it into this, assume the diet is ideal in both situations.

How much weight your lifting might not be the only thing effecting hypertrophy, however getting stronger sure has a lot more evidence behind it than your nutrient delivering pump.

My analogies do apply actually, hypertrophy is adaptation. When your placing a muscle under a load it adapts to it, when your doing it consistently your body responds by building more muscle mass and increasing motor neuron recruitment. This is your bodies way of ADAPTING to the new loads your placing on it. So constantly increasing these loads by getting stronger and lifting more weight will cause your body to have to consistently adapt to the new stimulus, if the nutrition is there then it will build muscle. By doing the exercises with higher intensity more frequently your providing your body with more stimulus for adaptation. I'd just like to wonder, what other physiological system would react better once a week?

The reason people switch routines is because they think their going to 'trick' their muscles, which is attributing a lot of intelligence to them. In reality if your programs stalled its likely that the adaptation has taken place and you haven't done anything to provoke a different response. Incrementing the weight every week will provide nearly all the different stimulus required, changing rep ranges, de-loading for a week etc... can all work.

Strength-Hypertrophy-Strength-Hypertrophy

The increases in strength will provide the fuel for your next 'hypertrophy specific' phase.

Your last line is particularly interesting:

"Why just whack your muscles with a bunch of different exercises only at a certain time. Why not do it all the time?"

With a full body 3x a week you are hitting your muscles much more often, which is a lot closer to 'all the time' than a split.

John

Your not breaking anything to me by telling me that. Recovery starts as soon as you stop lifting weights. You apparently have never had a 'pump' before because you seem to think that once you are done lifting all that blood goes away from that one body part immediately. I've had my arms feel pumped for an hour or so after lifting still. But wait an hour or so that would be the optimal window for when to take your post-workout shake. Obvioulsy if you have more blood being pumped into one part of your body more nutrients are going to be going into that part of your body. Pretty simple concept if you ask me. You seem to think that during your workout getting nutrients to your muscles is not important for some reason. Might want to take a read here

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/layne21.htm

Read the question "why I should drink my protein shake during my workout" and it makes quite a few points as to why nutrients are needed during your workout. You seem to be quite narrow minded and only take 1 part of what I say into consideration. Remind me again where I said that the 'pump' is the only thing involved in hypertrophy? Last time I checked you were the one who thought how much weight you can move is the sole basis of hypertrophy.

Again never did I say how much weight you move has no affect on hypertrophy, nor did I say nutrients being delivered plays more a role in hypertrophy than how much weight you can move. I'm not quite sure were you are getting that from.

Hypertrophy is not adapting. I've never heard of something grow by adapting. Last time I checked muscles grew because you broke them down and then protein came in and built them back up stronger. There was no adapting going on. In fact most of the bodybuilding community would consider adaptation a bad thing, because as I said before your muscles don't want to adapt to what you are doing because that actually stops growth.

Everybody reaches a point were they can't move up in weight every week. If we could all move up in weight every week, there would be a lot more people out there benching 300+. You say changing rep ranges or de-loading will work, I'd like to see some solid proof to back up your point. I'm sure there are plenty of first hand stories out there of people changing up their routines and they helped them break a platuea.

Strength and hypertrophy are different things. Why would an increase in strength give you fuel for your next hypertrophy phase. If that was true than the vice-versa would be true as well and I could say hypertrophy will give you fuel for your next strength phase. Strength doesn't provide fuel, that's what carbs do.

You missed the opperative phrase in there which was "different exercises". On a split you will be doing far more different exercises than on a full body routine.

Hopefully to end this once and for all I'm going to say a hybrid between the two is probably a really good option. Both splits and full bodies have their merits and I think if you can find something to take advantage of both would be optimal. Layne Norton does something like this, and I plan to start it very soon as I think it will deliver the best of both worlds.

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/insidethelife3.htm

[Mr.JRB]

Your not breaking anything to me by telling me that. Recovery starts as soon as you stop lifting weights. You apparently have never had a 'pump' before because you seem to think that once you are done lifting all that blood goes away from that one body part immediately. I've had my arms feel pumped for an hour or so after lifting still. But wait an hour or so that would be the optimal window for when to take your post-workout shake. Obvioulsy if you have more blood being pumped into one part of your body more nutrients are going to be going into that part of your body. Pretty simple concept if you ask me. You seem to think that during your workout getting nutrients to your muscles is not important for some reason. Might want to take a read here

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/layne21.htm

Read the question "why I should drink my protein shake during my workout" and it makes quite a few points as to why nutrients are needed during your workout. You seem to be quite narrow minded and only take 1 part of what I say into consideration. Remind me again where I said that the 'pump' is the only thing involved in hypertrophy? Last time I checked you were the one who thought how much weight you can move is the sole basis of hypertrophy.

Again never did I say how much weight you move has no affect on hypertrophy, nor did I say nutrients being delivered plays more a role in hypertrophy than how much weight you can move. I'm not quite sure were you are getting that from.

Hypertrophy is not adapting. I've never heard of something grow by adapting. Last time I checked muscles grew because you broke them down and then protein came in and built them back up stronger. There was no adapting going on. In fact most of the bodybuilding community would consider adaptation a bad thing, because as I said before your muscles don't want to adapt to what you are doing because that actually stops growth.

Everybody reaches a point were they can't move up in weight every week. If we could all move up in weight every week, there would be a lot more people out there benching 300+. You say changing rep ranges or de-loading will work, I'd like to see some solid proof to back up your point. I'm sure there are plenty of first hand stories out there of people changing up their routines and they helped them break a platuea.

Strength and hypertrophy are different things. Why would an increase in strength give you fuel for your next hypertrophy phase. If that was true than the vice-versa would be true as well and I could say hypertrophy will give you fuel for your next strength phase. Strength doesn't provide fuel, that's what carbs do.

You missed the opperative phrase in there which was "different exercises". On a split you will be doing far more different exercises than on a full body routine.

Hopefully to end this once and for all I'm going to say a hybrid between the two is probably a really good option. Both splits and full bodies have their merits and I think if you can find something to take advantage of both would be optimal. Layne Norton does something like this, and I plan to start it very soon as I think it will deliver the best of both worlds.

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/insidethelife3.htm

I asked for an article that linked the pump to increased blood flow as well as an increased delivery of nutrients to the muscle, and its impact on recovery. Not one on the benefits of workout nutrition, I know nutrition is important. As I've said before if the nutrition is optimal what will the trainee gain from a pump, simple as that. Show me an article/study where people who induced a pump had faster recovery times and more gains than people who didn't, or one detailing the increase in nutrient delivery from the increased bloodflow.

Just to be clear, do not respond with 'increased bloodflow means increased nutrient delivery'. I would wholeheartedly accept that if it was a case of turning the tap on versus having it off. If your muscles need it and your body has it, its going to get it. I'm under the impression that your body will be able to deliver a greater volume of nutrients than a muscle will actually require to build even with regular bloodflow.

I will actually look into it and I'd appreciate if you did some hard reading on the subject as well. Hopefully one of us will be able to find something on it.

I'm going to re-adjust my stance here and deal with an issue were having based on the crappy form of communication that is a forum post. I never said how much weight your lifting is the only thing that impacts hypertrophy, nor is the total amount that you CAN lift. It is a large contributing factor, and a stronger person is going to have more capacity for growth.

a?dapt /əˈd?pt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uh-dapt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
?verb (used with object)
1. to make suitable to requirements or conditions; adjust or modify fittingly: They adapted themselves to the change quickly. He adapted the novel for movies.
?verb (used without object)
2. to adjust oneself to different conditions, environment, etc.: to adapt easily to all circumstances.

I think you might be misunderstanding my usage of the word. When your doing resistance training you are providing your body with a stimulus, in this case you are asking it to move a signifigant load. A single workout will cause very little adaptation which is why you can only build muscle over time, most of this will be neural in the short term. However if your consistently providing it with a load that it is unacustomed to you body begins making physiological changes to itself in order to better prepare it for that stimulus, it does this through neural and hypertrophic adaptation. This takes time but eventually you will have adapted, at this point you have hit a 'plateau'. Were really not arguing that people will hit plateau's, and we agree that a routine change is required (I merely used change rep schemes and deloading as examples). Adaptation is what allows us to get bigger and stronger, your body is changing itself so that the loads your applying to it are no longer as taxing on your systems.

The reason for this goes back to your bodies basic fundamental 'directive' which is simply "stay alive so you can have kids". The only reason that your body can imagine you would want to pop 500lb on your shoulders and squat is if its a case of eating or not eating, killing or being killed. Survival is the fundamental goal, so what your telling your body by lifting weights frequently is that your in an environment where if you can't move around alot of weight your survival is at stake. Its adapting to the environment your placing it in.

In this way adaptation is both a blessing and a curse, you want your body to adapt to what your doing because then you'll get bigger and stronger, but you don't want to bring it to the point where it has adapted. You want it to be constantly adapting, this is when people switch their routines, you've provided it with the same stimulus for too long and your body no longer needs to adapt, its arrived. So when your changing your routine your also changing the stimulus which in turn elicits a different adaptive response than the one you were doing before. Your muscles want to adapt to what your doing to them, building muscle is expensive for your body, it wants to get away with the bare minimum, fats much easier to store and also makes a better energy source. So you've got your excess calories which can go to fat or muscle, by providing a heavy stimulus your letting your body know "build muscle and get stronger or die".

cont'd

[Mr.JRB]

I guess I can try and summarize it with, adaptation is good however being adapted is bad. One represents a process, the other is a state.

I recognize that everyone can't be adding weight to the bar every workout or week. As you advance the occurance of these new personal records becomes less and less frequent, at those points the planning becomes more and more important. Taking a run at a new max may happen only once or twice a year for some people. Most people however are far away from achieving anywhere near their genetic potential so weight increases can come more frequently.

The problem is that people will often continue to train like they did when they were a beginner, just loading up the bar with whatever you know you can push/pull for that exercise and occasionally adding weight when they think they can.

You can add weight every week, just not on top of your maximum. If you start at say 80% of your #RM(I don't care what range your training in(calculate this based off of your 1RM which you should establish based on your maximum in whatever training cycle you just finished)) in Week1. Next week do 85%, then 90%, then 95% then 100% and finally 105%. You can start at 80% and move to 90% then 100% and finally 110%, or whatever variation you desire. The point is that your providing a different stimulus every week in a different rep range from where you were training before and you'll likely find that your last week actually isn't particularily hard. Thats what I mean by adding weight to the bar every week, your progressively loading the muscle causing a variation in stimulus that is consistently getting more difficult. Eventually you won't be able to ramp like this any longer, the simple answer is then to switch rep ranges, or if you prefer try different routines or exercises.

I'd also like to point out that I never said changing your routine won't work, of course it will since your changing the stimulus. People often mistake 'vary your routine' with 'change your exercises'. Its one way to skin a cat, but its sure not the only way. But changing your rep range IS changing your routine which is why I used it as an example.

I'm going to explain what I meant by a strength phase providing 'fuel' for hypertrophy. I don't mean it in the literal sense that your muscles are going to be burning it. I look at it this way:

Do a strength phase with a 5x5 scheme, working on increasing your 5RM. Lets say it goes up 10% before you stall, you ramp again in the 5x5 range and get another 5% out of the deal. So during this phase your strength has gone up 16% (rounded up). But now your stalling, you've plateau'd. So you deload (Lets say the strength phase was 12 weeks), and decide now your going to engage in a little more hypertrophy specific training. You decide that 10 reps is going to be the range your training in (smack dab in the middle of the 'muscle building' zone). Calculate your 10RM off of your 5RM (the new bigger one) and start training at 80% of that, ramp the weight and try and get to 105%.

So now over the course of this your strength has gone up, by focusing on the strength first you have allowed yourself to lift more when your focusing on hypertrophy. Lifting more during hypertrophy will of course gain a better response. (same person, same form, same nutrition, same rep range - lifting more will be better I hope we can agree on that?)
In this way does strength provide fuel for hypertrophy, its the mechanism through which your body is being provided with stimulus. The idea is to get stronger so that when you are lifting for size your able to lift more in the same rep range. When that growth stalls go back to strength. Cycle between concentrating on the two of them seperately prevents you from bashing your head against the brick wall that is stalling.

I'm glad to see that you are now at least willing to accept them as an alternative. I completely agree with you that both do have their merits, and I do use splits. My problem was actually with your intial stance of 'splits should be done all the time'. If theres anything else you'd like clarified about what I'm saying I'll be more than happy to oblige.

John

[Sick96stang]

I asked for an article that linked the pump to increased blood flow as well as an increased delivery of nutrients to the muscle, and its impact on recovery. Not one on the benefits of workout nutrition, I know nutrition is important. As I've said before if the nutrition is optimal what will the trainee gain from a pump, simple as that. Show me an article/study where people who induced a pump had faster recovery times and more gains than people who didn't, or one detailing the increase in nutrient delivery from the increased bloodflow.

Just to be clear, do not respond with 'increased bloodflow means increased nutrient delivery'. I would wholeheartedly accept that if it was a case of turning the tap on versus having it off. If your muscles need it and your body has it, its going to get it. I'm under the impression that your body will be able to deliver a greater volume of nutrients than a muscle will actually require to build even with regular bloodflow.

I will actually look into it and I'd appreciate if you did some hard reading on the subject as well. Hopefully one of us will be able to find something on it.

I'm going to re-adjust my stance here and deal with an issue were having based on the crappy form of communication that is a forum post. I never said how much weight your lifting is the only thing that impacts hypertrophy, nor is the total amount that you CAN lift. It is a large contributing factor, and a stronger person is going to have more capacity for growth.

a?dapt /əˈd?pt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uh-dapt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
?verb (used with object)
1. to make suitable to requirements or conditions; adjust or modify fittingly: They adapted themselves to the change quickly. He adapted the novel for movies.
?verb (used without object)
2. to adjust oneself to different conditions, environment, etc.: to adapt easily to all circumstances.

I think you might be misunderstanding my usage of the word. When your doing resistance training you are providing your body with a stimulus, in this case you are asking it to move a signifigant load. A single workout will cause very little adaptation which is why you can only build muscle over time, most of this will be neural in the short term. However if your consistently providing it with a load that it is unacustomed to you body begins making physiological changes to itself in order to better prepare it for that stimulus, it does this through neural and hypertrophic adaptation. This takes time but eventually you will have adapted, at this point you have hit a 'plateau'. Were really not arguing that people will hit plateau's, and we agree that a routine change is required (I merely used change rep schemes and deloading as examples). Adaptation is what allows us to get bigger and stronger, your body is changing itself so that the loads your applying to it are no longer as taxing on your systems.

The reason for this goes back to your bodies basic fundamental 'directive' which is simply "stay alive so you can have kids". The only reason that your body can imagine you would want to pop 500lb on your shoulders and squat is if its a case of eating or not eating, killing or being killed. Survival is the fundamental goal, so what your telling your body by lifting weights frequently is that your in an environment where if you can't move around alot of weight your survival is at stake. Its adapting to the environment your placing it in.

In this way adaptation is both a blessing and a curse, you want your body to adapt to what your doing because then you'll get bigger and stronger, but you don't want to bring it to the point where it has adapted. You want it to be constantly adapting, this is when people switch their routines, you've provided it with the same stimulus for too long and your body no longer needs to adapt, its arrived. So when your changing your routine your also changing the stimulus which in turn elicits a different adaptive response than the one you were doing before. Your muscles want to adapt to what your doing to them, building muscle is expensive for your body, it wants to get away with the bare minimum, fats much easier to store and also makes a better energy source. So you've got your excess calories which can go to fat or muscle, by providing a heavy stimulus your letting your body know "build muscle and get stronger or die".

cont'd

I linked that because your previous post made it seem as if nutrient delivery during workouts really didn't matter. That article although it was mainly about why he prefers an in workout drink also tells points as to why nutrients are crucial during a workout not just after a workout.

I'll look around and see if I can find anything on it but just off the top of my head check out this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vptnIuCoYC0

Go to around 3:20 and you will hear Jay start talking about blood volume and the importance of that. Notice he says "a pump muscle is going to get a better workout". Not only does this provide evidence toward the fact that a 'pump' does exsist, but also the importance of getting a 'pump'. Might not be a scientific study but something coming from Mr. O I generally tend to listen to that advice.

I understand more now what you are talking about with adaptation.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you are saying but why would you only want to lift 80% or 90% or 95% when you were just advocating how much weight you can move to play a huge role in hypertrophy? You are pushing less weight for the sake of providing a different stimulus. Why would you not want to be pushing max weight all the time? I don't mean in every workout only doing your max on every single lift but whatever rep range you might choose. There are other ways to provide a different stimulus without the need to be moving less weight. Lets take 2 examples one person who lifts 3x8 at 200 lbs for 3 weeks. Then lets take another person who in the first workout does 3x8 at 160, next week does 3x8 at 180, next week does 3x8 at 200. Which person in the fourth week do you think is going to be able to move more weight? I would put my money on the person who was doing 3x8 at 200 for 3 weeks. IMO there is no need to progressively move up like that just to try and prevent plateauing or providing different stimulus. There is other techniques you can do to break the plateau and provide different stimulus. Something I do is I do 3-4 exercises per muscle group. On my first exercise I will do 3x5, second and third 3x8 and fourth 3x15. I'm still moving my max weight for each of those rep ranges but I'm also providing a different stimulus because I'm doing different rep ranges. Also the fact that I'm doing different exercises is also providing different stimulus.

I understand what you are saying now about the strength and hypertrophy as well, however, you are making it sound like the hypertrophy workouts will not benefit your strength workouts at all. And again the good thing with a split routine is I can lift for both strength and hypertrophy all in one workout.

Both do have their merits but I don't agree that a split should only be used after a full body cycle. But again like I said I plan on starting a hybrid mix between the two and hopefully will see some good results from that.

[magnate]

I've done body part splits, upper/lower and push/pull. Seen the best results from body part splits. Does that mean its the same for everyone? Hell no. I've not even tried full body days (I like to lift more days a week than 3-4).

To the OP, Try a split for a while, maybe an upper/lower or push/pull instead of a body part split. See if you like it. Nobody can say which will work better for you, you have to experiment to find that out.

[phil2007]

i've just written down my first split routine ever. i start on monday.

this fullbody routine is rubbish. 3 days a week. my muscles were always sore