Muscle and Brawn Forums

Muscle and Brawn Forums (http://www.muscleandbrawn.com/forum/index.php)
-   Muscle Building and Bodybuilding (http://www.muscleandbrawn.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=37)
-   -   Fullbody vs Split routines. (http://www.muscleandbrawn.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5316)

Trevor Ross 01-27-2011 01:44 PM

Fullbody vs Split routines.
 
Yep that just happened. I opened an argument that's as old as Bodybuilding, now this discussion (argument) is geared towards muscle-building purposes only. Round one, ding ding.:)

Trevor Ross 01-27-2011 01:56 PM

I'll throw the first punch. Based on my experience, when I used a Fullbody workout I dropped lots of fat, got strong, and gained a little size. When I used a two way split I got big and strong.

5kgLifter 01-27-2011 02:07 PM

I haven't really used splits to any degree but when I first started with weights I was doing fullbody and gained around 10 lbs of muscle in a year.

Carl1174 01-27-2011 02:14 PM

I have gained muscle from splits, but I have just moved to a fullbody and i am loving the way it is feeling at the moment and I expecting big things from it. Personally I think they both have there place and will work as long as set up correctly. I dont think either is 'better' per se. Its an individual choice.

I think as long as the diet is right then 'most' sensible splits/fullbody programs/upper lower etc etc will work.

There is also the problem of 'assistance' some one on gear is probably gonna gain more on a body part split, whereas naturals (like the classics did) seem to respond well to full body or upper lower splits, working things a bit more often without battering the muscle into complete submission is IMO better for a natural who has natural recovery abilities.

just my 2p worth

Carl.

BendtheBar 01-27-2011 02:25 PM

We have to draw the line in the sand between AAS use and natural lifting. Because they are two different games physiologically, and require different approaches to maximize progress.

For more information on receptor repair and stimulus needed for AAS training, check out this thread:

http://muscleandbrawn.com/forums/pro...kam-files.html

Dharkam is one of the foremost authorities on this topic.

Quote:

But we have many studies showing that training a muscle will renew those receptors. This is why why there is a synergy between androgen and training in bodybuilders while steroids only work to a limited extent in untrained persons.
Take home point...intense contractions during AAS use help to repair damaged/insensitive receptors, meaning that a battery of work is a more viable option...thus elaborate splits work much better for AAS users....and fill the pages of bodybuilding magazines.

While an elaborate split "may" work for most naturals, it's generally not needed. The beginning gains curve, as studied by Casey Butt, goes something like this:

Year 1 - 16 pounds
Year 2 - 8 pounds
Year 3 - 4 pounds
Year 4 - 2 pounds
Year 5 - 1 pounds

I think most of us will agree that beginners should not be placed on complicated programs. Yet they make the bulk of their gains during the first 18 months of training, if done correctly. In many cases, if starting at a normalized weight, and not beginning underweight, trainees will gain 70% of their natural potential lean body mass during the first 18 months of training.

Because training should be an evolutionary process rather than a random jumping from one program to the next, it makes sense for a trainee to abstain from excessive training splits during their first 18 months of training - for most. Not all. This is not a rule, but rather an observation and generalization.

After this point, gains are minimal. There is little return on investment for doing a complicated split. For a natural, the biggest factors in continued gains after this point are:

1) Continued persistence - getting their back ends to the gym and doing the work.
2) Continued resistance - adding progression in some form or fashion.

Adding volume for volume's sake is often seen as a solution during this time because bodybuilding magazines and broscience "common knowledge" push the belief that naturals can get as big as they'd like to get, that it only takes longer. This is tag-teamed with the foolish belief that a natural can "re-ignite" gains after they slow via the use of muscle confusion and swapping of programs.

Do splits work? Yes.
Are they used for the right purposes? Rarely.
Are they the most effective form of training? Generally, no. Not for the 80% of people who will never compete.

Most people overwork, lack a proper diet, add too much fluff into workouts, and don't focus insanely upon progression of weight. If they do things correctly, evolve their training over time instead of jumping into volume when gains slow, the average natural trainee will never need an elaborate split.

Caveat...hard work generally trumps all. So those that work hard and eat right will gain muscle pretty much no matter what they do. Also, part of training involves pleasure. Some like to train every day, and I would never try to minimize their enjoyment of the iron by telling them not to. On the other hand, beating your joints and connective tissue into oblivion with heavy weight once you have gained a good amount of muscle is not generally an effective approach with regards to training longevity. God knows I've tried...

Carl1174 01-27-2011 02:28 PM

repped^^^^

And with that your honour the defense rests their case !!!!

Carl.

BendtheBar 01-27-2011 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carl1174 (Post 111266)
repped^^^^

And with that your honour the defense rests their case !!!!

Carl.

Thanks Carl.

Unfortunately few believe in natural limits, nor do they take the time to study the information available on how exactly steroids work to build muscle, so 9 times out of 10 my opinions are seen as fringe and idiotic.

glwanabe 01-27-2011 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trevor Ross (Post 111247)

Yep that just happened.
There are already more than a few threads on this topic. One of the things about MAB, is that, as you will have seen by BTB"S post, we talk about this a lot.

This topic usually changes gears to a different topic rather quickly, when some deeper knowledge is brought to the table about natural limits, and the rate of muscle gains.


Round one, ding ding.:)


Quote:

Originally Posted by Trevor Ross (Post 111248)
I'll throw the first punch.

Based on my experience, when I used a Fullbody workout I dropped lots of fat, got strong, and gained a little size.

What was the workout, how long did you stay with it, what was the progression plan, what were the sets and reps?

Give us some more details about this.



When I used a two way split I got big and strong.


I would be interested in finding out a little more about your time spent with a fullbody program.

Carl1174 01-27-2011 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glwanabe (Post 111271)
I would be interested in finding out a little more about your time spent with a fullbody program.

and the diet/supplements you used whilst doing it, and was that the same diet/supplements as when you were using the split

Carl.

Carl1174 01-27-2011 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BendtheBar (Post 111269)
Thanks Carl.

Unfortunately few believe in natural limits, nor do they take the time to study the information available on how exactly steroids work to build muscle, so 9 times out of 10 my opinions are seen as fringe and idiotic.

I have to admit I had never really though about natural limits before you brought it up in a thread a while back. I have read quite a bit about it since, I am staggered that there are people who refuse to think that natural limits exist. If you can only naturally grow a certain height, have certain sized bones, then why would you be able to naturally keep growing muscle. It makes no sense whatsoever that the ARENT natural limits to musculature.

The body will not grow any part of it (except fat, but that is stored not grown) beyond what is naturally needed.

Carl.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:16 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.