Jun 17, 2009, 6:18am, Muscle and Brawn wrote:
I've read the debates, and some of the reasoning on either side confuses me.
Let's say you work bench press, military press and closegrip bench press three times a week, at 1-2 sets each as part of a full body.
Now let's say you work the above exercises only once a week, but on different days as part of a chest, shoulder and tricep day.
You performed the same exercises each week, and the same sets. The only difference is rest between workout.
I might be missing some things, and would love to hear what others think on this subject...
Let's get back to the "training theory".
In every plan you have 3 main variable you can work with:
volume: the amount of reps per session
frequency: the time interval between the training of the same muscle
intensity: the "load" used to train and the "hardness" of the workout.
You can't maximize every one of these variables, ie if you pump up the volume you have to lower the intensity... if you highen the frequency you have to lower the intensity and so on.
Now, how does that fills in the split vs fullbody?
Simple, splits are low frequency high volume (or high intensity) training program.
Fullbody are instead high frequency but low volume training methods...
So when split are best? when you need to work with high volume or high intensity (in a Jones/Yates like mean).
Fullbody are better to achieve atletic and strenght performance target. Cause frequency (with periodization) is the better weapon for perfomance gain (CNS improve with frequency)