Muscle and Brawn Forums

Muscle and Brawn Forums (http://www.muscleandbrawn.com/forums/index.php)
-   Workouts (http://www.muscleandbrawn.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=70)
-   -   Fullbody Workout Q&A plus Resources (http://www.muscleandbrawn.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5340)

BendtheBar 01-30-2011 11:14 AM

Fullbody Workout Q&A plus Resources
 
This thread contains resources on Muscle and Brawn related to fullbody workouts.

It is also a thread for Q&A...If you have a question post it up.

Note: This is not a debate thread. If you do not believe in the validity of fullbody training, and are looking to debate, please start a new thread. We would be happy to debate, just not here.

WORKOUTS

TBA

CoopDawg 01-30-2011 11:32 AM

ready for this

Carl1174 01-30-2011 01:30 PM

nice thread Steve :)

Carl.

BendtheBar 01-30-2011 03:00 PM

One of the issues I have with split training is that because of its nature, meaning that workouts are divided into bodyparts, compound lifts must be pieced together into nice little compartments so they fit.

Though this is rarely an issue for a semi-seasoned lifter, it creates a lot of confusion for beginners because they are trained to view everything through the lens of bodyparts rather than as individuals movements.

So when they look at fullbody workouts, the workouts are hard to make sense of because they are viewing it though the lens of "this lift is associated with this bodypart."

Another issue with split training, and again this is not a broad condemnation but rather an observation about the consequences of sorting compound lifts by bodypart, is that many will try to turn a compound lift into more of an isolation lift for a certain bodypart.

Bench press, for example, in a split context is seen as a chest lift. Often times the form is tweaked, or training techniques are implemented to try and turn the bench press into more of an isolation lift for chest.

I am not a big fan of this approach. Compound lifts should be performed naturally, in my opinion; using the best form possible. But that is a topic for another thread.

In fullbody training, you do not view lifts through the lens of bodyparts. You view them in their totality.

Often times I will hear..."where is the direct tricep work? This fullbody will make my arms shrink!" But if you look closely at most fullbody workouts, there are often 6-10 working sets per day (including ramped 5x5 programs, etc.) that involve triceps.

You will also hear..."There is not enough quad work! I need leg extensions or leg press..." But if you look closely, there are 6-12 sets of squats per week. Brutal!

Take home point: Do not try to view fullbody workouts through the lens of bodyparts. View the compound lifts as they are, perform them as they were meant to be performed, and do not try to turn them into isolation lifts by tweaking form, or by adding endless advanced training techniques meant to "better isolate" a muscle group.

lurker 01-30-2011 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BendtheBar (Post 111960)
So when they look at fullbody workouts, the workouts are hard to make sense of because they are viewing it though the lens of "this lift is associated with this bodypart."

this is very true, and i never really thought about it til i read this. i have been lifting for about year, and still consider myself a beginner. but when i think military press, i think shoulders, when i think bent row, i think back. i understand that they are compound lifts and will work other muscle groups, but in my head i still associate them with certain body parts

BendtheBar 01-30-2011 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lurker (Post 111975)
this is very true, and i never really thought about it til i read this. i have been lifting for about year, and still consider myself a beginner. but when i think military press, i think shoulders, when i think bent row, i think back. i understand that they are compound lifts and will work other muscle groups, but in my head i still associate them with certain body parts

I am still mentally detaching from this. Even when trying to design my own fullbody workouts.

It certainly is ok to use bodyparts as a guideline, but once we get into the thought that 6-10 semi-indirect sets per day for triceps won't help our arms grow, we've become unable to see the forest through the trees.

kitarpyar 08-22-2011 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BendtheBar (Post 111960)
Take home point: Do not try to view fullbody workouts through the lens of bodyparts. View the compound lifts as they are, perform them as they were meant to be performed, and do not try to turn them into isolation lifts by tweaking form, or by adding endless advanced training techniques meant to "better isolate" a muscle group.

So, would it make more sense to select exercises on a full body routine based on movement patterns, as opposed to body-parts?

The simplest I can think of is push, pull and legs. Well, legs isn't a movement pattern, but you get the idea ...

Fazc 08-22-2011 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kitarpyar (Post 164042)
The simplest I can think of is push, pull and legs. Well, legs isn't a movement pattern, but you get the idea ...

You'd be in good company, that simple system is what Bill Starr and most of York at the time based their lifting on. For Starr pressing covered everything from Benches to Inclines to Overheads, he strongly believed they all helped each other and placed a lot of emphasis on that in his routines.

Pulls were mainly the quick lifts, with exercises that we might traditionally view as "upper pull" such as Chins being relegated to assistance. For Starr the quick lifts built enough upper back power.

I like the simplicity of the system, for strength I'd say it's superior to a 5-6 movement pattern which we're used to. Something like this for example:

Heavy: Squat, Bench, Power Shrugs
Light: Overhead Press, Power Clean, Front Squat
Medium: High Pull, Incline, Squat

Would be a quality strength routine, add in some chins, dips and ab work and you're good to go.

Although for bodybuilding i'd prefer the variety of a 5-6 movement pattern routine, which incidentally is what Starr went for as well in the few times he wrote for bodybuilders.

Wlfdg 08-22-2011 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kitarpyar (Post 164042)
So, would it make more sense to select exercises on a full body routine based on movement patterns, as opposed to body-parts?

The simplest I can think of is push, pull and legs. Well, legs isn't a movement pattern, but you get the idea ...

"Train movements, not muscles" is the popular catch phrase.
Dan John's 5 Basic Human Movements
Push - vertical & horizontal

Pull - vertical & horizontal

Squat - no more need be said

Hinge - deadlifts, cleans, snatches, kettlebell everything

Loaded carry - Farmer's Walks, Waiter's Walks, backpacks, sandbags, etc...
I think loaded carry has the greatest training benefit of all.

BendtheBar 08-23-2011 06:18 PM

I fastened a method of viewing them and them realized it was a lot like Dan's. I looked at lifts like this:

--Pull down from overhead - vertical
--Pull toward body - horizontal
--Push overhead - vertical
--Push away from body - horizontal
--Squat
--Deadlift variations

I never considered to loaded walk or burden style walk.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:21 PM.

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