Bro Split is not optimal!

[ThickAsABrick]

you a ****ing idiot bro splits do not rip apart your "sacroplasm" how did you come to the conclusion?

I chuckled.

[ironwill2008]

And you would rather deny all science that is right before your eyes. The bro split is just fed to you by muscle magazines including BB.com You are just using bro science if I've ever seen it. I mean C'mon "I had progress on the bro split", again that's a individual example. I also had progress on the bro split but nothing like the upper/lower split. What you don't seem to understand is no matter how hard you work your muscles it takes 48 hours to recover. Get that? Every study says that. And what you don't seem to understand is the bro split causes DOMS, DOMS is structural damage, structural damage is bad, do you understand that? Or has all the bro science got to your head?
Diet is most of it and of course you will get results off just about any program. But why not hit the muscle 2 or 3 times a week if it only takes 48 hours to recover? Doing the bro split is only slowing your gains by ripping apart your sarcoplasm which is associated with soreness and gains but is actually pain and structural damage.
And where you're wrong is almost everyone on this site would benefit more from hitting a muscle 2x or 3x a week because we don't juice. And if the bro split was so much better why do NATURAL ATHLETES hit a muscle 2 or 3 times a week and are bigger than either of us and they are faster, stronger, jump higher, etc, etc. You don't have to destroy a muscle to make it grow, just stimulate it.
You are just arguing with science because you like the bro split more. The bro split is called the bro split for a reason, because only bro's defend it with bro science claiming it's better than 2x or 3x a week despite science and athletes proving otherwise.

What is this 'science' you continue to babble about?

And how does it apply equally to everyone?

Post some links to something with some actual substance to it.

[TonyNail]

Bro splits always worked well for me. Probably get negged for this but I would rather listen to guys in the trenches who experimented on themselves and succeeded instead of some guy in a white lab coat. Science is nothing if it not put into practice. When it comes to bodybuilding, I will usually take anecdotal evidence from the accomplished, use it on myself and see what happens.

[chazzy1864]

Things I've learned in here:

1. OP is a f*cking idiot.
2. I still hate coming into this God forsaken section.



Cheers.

[Retoaded]

OP you better contact Wendler and inform him that his program is a bro split and doesn't work.

[Lencho]

http://articles.elitefts.com/trainin...eat-and-train/

For more info about this, please send a PM to therorschach. Don't forget to put "hey, *******" in the subject line.

[GGWarrior8]

I disagree that you need more volume the more advanced you are, you stimulate a muscle by either increasing the weight or increasing the repetitions. Science has proved 6-8 sets is enough to stimulate major muscle groups into growth like the chest and quads.

You also can grow muscle by increasing workload or total reps.

Also the 3-8 sets study thing was within the context of the research and the subjects but not individualized. Since muscle growth is specific, genetics vary as do training levels what we do know is that simply more work overtime = more growth. For some 6 hard sets of squats once a week may be enough for optimal quad growth, but others might need 12 hard sets done twice a week.

[SmallCap]

http://articles.elitefts.com/trainin...eat-and-train/

For more info about this, please send a PM to therorschach. Don't forget to put "hey, *******" in the subject line.

Saw that glutamine was used. Closed page.







EDIT: notsrs btw..

[wesleysh21]

Bro splits always worked well for me. Probably get negged for this but I would rather listen to guys in the trenches who experimented on themselves and succeeded instead of some guy in a white lab coat. Science is nothing if it not put into practice. When it comes to bodybuilding, I will usually take anecdotal evidence from the accomplished, use it on myself and see what happens.

What I find funny about many of the studies people quote is...they are lab coat, highly education, bro science. If they do a study by using sample participants, how is that not a form of bro science? They do, you watch the results, see if it works.

[ThickAsABrick]

http://articles.elitefts.com/trainin...eat-and-train/

*like*

[Adrian77]

I don't understand why anyone has to choose one or the other.

Just do what protocol you want to do. It all works!

What's optimal for you is the program that allows you to enjoy what you are doing, get results and train consistently week in, week out.

Even if you had the most scientifically proven program on earth, it's going to do jack if it sits in the bottom of your gym bag in the back of your car.

[a3sthetic]

Pretty much all of the aesthetic people I know did weekly splits their whole life. When the nerds talk about their high frequency/low volume routines, they always bring up people in the 1950's. But where are the modern examples?

The biggest proponents of high frequency/low volume have nothing on the bro-splitters. They are often small or fat or unaesthetic. The fall back argument is that the bro-splitters must be on steroids, and that's why they are huge. But then again, surely their must be high frequency guys of steroids too right?

The other argument is that it takes longer to get huge on a weekly split. Where's the proof? All of the studies are very short term (weeks). Where are the long term studies that show this over years of training?

[7Seconds]

Pretty much all of the aesthetic people I know did weekly splits their whole life.

Can't argue with this particular study; this is just good science. If you want modern examples of high frequency training working for people of all levels take a look in the workout journals. There are people getting big and strong on all kinds of training protocols.

There is a middle ground between science and personal experience that most people in these arguments choose to ignore.

[SuffolkPunch]

The advice for novices to start with a fairly high frequency is good advice IMO. But to take this to the nth degree and say the 1x frequency is NEVER as good is just foolish and close minded - not the mindset of someone who claims to adhere to science principles.

There is even science to back it up:

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...hp?t=150221493

[Quicktim3333]

how come all the people with my goal physiques all do a "bro split"

marc fitt
josef rakich
greg plitt

srsly ive been doing a bro split for about 2 months and my physique has never looked better. and i go to failure every set.

it seems like people with aesthetics all seem to do weekly splits.

and its fun as hell, being able to work out everyday hitting one body part a day, you're able to hit it from all different angles giving you better proportions, i've been enjoying it a lot so far.

so how come this is happening op?

the two things i was told never to do, train to failure every set and do a bro split. are giving me the best physique.

[SuffolkPunch]

You might end up using a split like that when you are more advanced and have more experience. But most people agree that novices should start with a higher frequency plan until they find their feet.

It's just that people think they are no longer novices when they clearly are. And they also think that the results they see from novice programs are unimpressive - because 180lbs and 16% fat doesn't look radically different to 170lbs and 22%. But is a start.

[Luwbz]

When your training natty. It's not gonna affect that massive 75gram muscle gain per week

[Luwbz]

Pretty much all of the aesthetic people I know did weekly splits their whole life. When the nerds talk about their high frequency/low volume routines, they always bring up people in the 1950's. But where are the modern examples?

The biggest proponents of high frequency/low volume have nothing on the bro-splitters. They are often small or fat or unaesthetic. The fall back argument is that the bro-splitters must be on steroids, and that's why they are huge. But then again, surely their must be high frequency guys of steroids too right?

The other argument is that it takes longer to get huge on a weekly split. Where's the proof? All of the studies are very short term (weeks). Where are the long term studies that show this over years of training?

That last part is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. The body works thesame way. It just adapts.
Training naturally. Once your past that beginner to new intermediate stage. It doesn't make that much difference. You can imply really make about 150grams muscle a week with amazing genetics from there on out

[Luwbz]

What is this 'science' you continue to babble about?

And how does it apply equally to everyone?

Post some links to something with some actual substance to it.

The body goes through the same process to synthesize protein as everyone else's... Of course one program is not optimal for everyone. Something as little as frequency is not going vary much with person to person in terms of how t affects muscle growth