Classic Physique - Muscle Building, Workouts and Information.

[CoopDawg]

Originally Posted by glwanabe

Well sort of, but there is more to it than that. The post you linked really is just the tip of the iceberg. There is a lot more about fullbody that we have not talked about.

One of the things I would like to happen is for people to participate with their opinion about what is being discussed. I am not an expert in this subject matter, rather I am a fan and a student myself.

When I say tear apart the Reeves I will be doing from my own viewpoint as to why I did what I did. Anybody can feel fee to tear into it and give their opinion both from a good and bad standpoint. We learn the most when we listen to each other, and from our own mistakes. I can promise you that I will make mistakes, I'm human.

I am not here to preach. I want to discuss and share information. If anybody has a topic to discuss, write a post about it.

Good Post!!!! Thanks Gl, since we are breaking this particular program down, I may not be able to perform dips as regular as i like and i know there is no sub for dips(which i was gonna use as a finisher for triceps after bench) what could i put in that place, would bench dips suffice

[Trevor Lane]

I've said this many, many, many times, but I'll say it again. Chuck Sipes is my favorite classic bodybuilder. Here's some pix of him for those who don't know who he is: http://muscleandbrawn.com/forums/mem...uck-sipes.html

And here are a few articles/interviews on how he built that body: Chuck Sipes Golden Era Classic Bodybuilder Strength Feats
The Tight Tan Slacks of Dezso Ban: Chuck Sipes On Power Training - Dennis Weis

[BendtheBar]

The old school lifters re-ignited my passion for lifting several years ago. For so long I only had access to Weider style splits, and never knew how pre-steroid lifters trained.

It opened my eyes to new possibilities.

Regardless of what someone believes about splits/full body workouts, etc., I encourage them to dig into the past and learn about these guys and how they trained. It was an era that relied on hard work with basic exercises, and helped me reconnect with the things I like best about weight training.

Sometimes the modern era is all about being ripped or getting abs or working biceps and chest, or about people constantly bickering over studies and philosophies and things that detach you from your true love of the iron.

In the modern era I often feel like I have to screen articles, because I feel like most materials are trying to market a great new concept or approach and convince me that it's what I need. I don't feel saturated and having to weed through marketing when I read about Hepburn or Anderson or Park or Grimek.

Anyway, I'm a bit tired and probably didn't say this as well as I would have like to. I appreciate GL's passion about this topic. It helps keep me stoked.

[BendtheBar]

Originally Posted by glwanabe

Working the entire body in one session has become a program that is set aside for beginners. At one time it was the way everybody trained for a majority of the year. Some people continued to train this way year round, while others transitioned to splits leading up to contest.

This is an important point, and one I stress often. Prior to the steroid era fullbody workouts were THE way to train. In the modern era, they are generally relegated for beginners only.

While one can engage in the endless debate over which approach is better, it should not be forgotten that fullbody workouts are viable for all levels of training.

Some of the strongest naturals of all time used them in one form or fashion.

Originally Posted by glwanabe

There is enough scientific knowledge that an entire book, or books could be written about fullbody workouts. Over the course of the next few months we will delve into this subject in small bites of information. Trying to present all of the information in one post would be like trying to drink water from a fire hose.

Casey Butt's research alone is exhaustive. While it is certainly obvious that splits can work, as most modern naturals use them, it becomes apparent from Casey's research that fullbody workouts are not just for newbs or Rippetoe followers.

Casey Butt Muscle and Brawn Bodybuilding and Powerlifting.

Originally Posted by glwanabe

A common scenario for people today who try to train fullbody coming off of a typical modern bodybuilding split is that they fail at it. It is actually easy to understand why they fail. You have to realize that a fullbody program and a split are so different from one another that they simply cannot be approached in the same manner. Working a fullbody program requires that you build up the conditioning needed to complete the session without failing. It is quite literally the difference between running a sprint, and running a marathon.

I failed quite a bit in 2010 when trying to use them. It definitely does take more of an evolutionary approach - meaning that you start slow and build into them either with weight or training volume.

This "training evolution" was actually more of a common practice in the pre-steroid era. In the modern era you don't see this preached often. It's usually enter with guns a-blazin'.

Originally Posted by glwanabe

In performing a traditional modern 5 day split, you are concerned with working a particular muscle hard enough to disrupt it, and have the muscle respond by growing. Typically you will hit it directly once a week and possibly indirectly again, depending on what muscle it is. This is normally done by the application of numerous sets ranging anywhere from 9-20, again depending on what muscle you are targeting.

One thing I have found is that with splits (which I have used for 20+ years) is that I tend to overwork my joints a bit more because the focus was on doing as much as possible for a given bodypart in X amount of time.

Though a fullbody took be a while to "get into a groove" with, I found my joints tended to handle it better because it was a lower volume per session.

Mileage may vary of course...

I have run fullbody workouts for only 2-3 months this year, but I have fewer strains on them...(so far!)

Originally Posted by glwanabe

The problem as I see it is this. Once you have worked a muscle hard enough to disrupt it, do you really need to keep hammering it to oblivion? Are you doing more harm than good?

It is my opinion that far too many trainees think only about muscle fatigue, and do not consider other factors such as the stresses place upon their joints, connective tissue, etc, when training.

I have run higher volume only several times during my lifting career, but on these occasions I have been smashing my joints to death, and have incurred the most strains.

Obviously some lifters handle this better than others. I do not wish to speak in generalizations. There are levels of conditioning at work with splits as well.

But for me as I age the question becomes - when lifting, looking through the lens of training longevity, what impact does high volume training have on the joints and connective tissue?

I worked in a factory as a machinest for 3 years and had to do an extremely high volume of heavy lifting. While my muscles did adapt to these demands, my body was beat up to no end (joints, connective tissue, CNS fatigue, poor recovery).

What this taught me is that while you can condition your body to handle extremes, some aspects of the body just don't handle things as well as others. Once again, I was forced to view lifting with more than just a "muscle" lens.

I want to repeat that I am not saying high volume workouts can't work. They are used successfully by many lifters. My greater points are that:

A) I am not convinced they are needed to achieve the same levels of muscularity and strength.

B) I am not convinced that high volume split workouts are healthy choices for non-competitors who enjoy training and have an eye on training longevity.

My personal slant - even though I have used splits, my set volume was rarely high volume.

Originally Posted by glwanabe

I like to say, stimulate, not annihilate. During the course of the weeks work you actually do close to the same total amount of work to the muscle, but it is left in better shape to recover from more shorter sessions than from the one long blasting. You sti

Again the question everyone needs to ask themselves...am I annihilating my joints and connective tissue doing 20 sets for chest in one session?

Originally Posted by glwanabe

In the case of the fullbody workout you also work several muscles both directly and indirectly in one session. Another scenario I see from many people is the complaint that they can’t work their arms on back or chest day. The arm muscles the want to work are too tired from the compound movements of the major muscle. They do not make the connection of the simple concept of pre exhausting the muscle. Triceps tired from benching? Well then it should not take much too just finish them off and be done with your tricep work, right? No, they want to hit the tricep from 18 different angles. Seriously, why?

Modern lifting often strains really hard to separate compound lifts into "muscle groups" because that is the primary vessel it uses (splits). Each of us is different, with different strengths and weaknesses. This can mean that for some, a chest workout destroys the triceps, and a back workout the biceps and traps.

The natural tendency in the modern era, with splits, is to turn a compound lift into more of an isolation lift by lightening the weight and using intensity techniques and/or slowing the tempo and "feeling" the muscle work. This is a point rarely talked about.

Another point rarely talked about is that most naturals make the bulk of their gains on simple, basic programs and generally only adopt the above when the gains (naturally) stall. They do so with the hopes of "re-igniting" gains, which is a myth of course. Naturals can't re-ignite gains. They have finite gains.

This is not to say that certain new approaches can't create a small boost - they can. But realistically, if you are an experienced natural who is only gaining 1 pound of muscle per year, are these techniques really working to boost gains? This is a tough question to answer, and depends on the circumstances of the lifter involved. But as a general rule, I do not believe that this focus on "isolation-i-fying" compound lifts is any more effective than simple progression.

It does make the lift more mentally taxing, and you are working harder to battle the CNS and lactic acid buildup, but is this working the muscle as hard as a natural lift speed with heavy weight? That is the question.

[dmaipa]

solid points being brought up in here..good stuff BTB

[bamazav]

It would be an interesting study to look at the effectiveness of body part splits vs full body in a controlled situation. Most of the information you read today is experiential in nature and biased toward what ever the writer prefers. That said, I like these full body routines.

[BendtheBar]

Originally Posted by bamazav

It would be an interesting study to look at the effectiveness of body part splits vs full body in a controlled situation. Most of the information you read today is experiential in nature and biased toward what ever the writer prefers. That said, I like these full body routines.

I would love to have two groups...rank beginners and intermediates who have already gained about 15 pounds of mass but have some room left to grow.

One of the common flaws with bodybuilding is that all lifters are grouped together in one big pile. A beginner can gain doing pretty much anything as long as they work hard. But with that said, this doesn't always mean they are training in an efficient manner.

[bamazav]

Originally Posted by BendtheBar

I would love to have two groups...rank beginners and intermediates who have already gained about 15 pounds of mass but have some room left to grow.

One of the common flaws with bodybuilding is that all lifters are grouped together in one big pile. A beginner can gain doing pretty much anything as long as they work hard. But with that said, this doesn't always mean they are training in an efficient manner.

I whole heartily agree with the last statement because I have lived it. While I do not feel I experienced the typical noob gains, I did see gains even though I am self taught and have to push myself. My best strength gains have come in the past few months when I determined to end mediocrity in my life. I also made two decisions that have really helped. 1.) I have sought to surround myself with folks who have been successful at what I want to achieve. 2.) I returned to what I feel the most comfortable with, the full body, classic style training session. This is one area I have really enjoyed about this forum, the like mindedness concerning classic training.

[dmaipa]

Originally Posted by BendtheBar

One of the common flaws with bodybuilding is that all lifters are grouped together in one big pile. A beginner can gain doing pretty much anything as long as they work hard. But with that said, this doesn't always mean they are training in an efficient manner.

I totally agree with this BTB..when i trained with some of my track athletes, us coaches treated them totally like beginners..we would just make sure they lift heavy and hard, somedays focused on speed and some days focused on strength and the guys who were football/track athletes were noticing they were putting on more muscle and strength as they did during their offseason for football.

On another note, i agree with total body training. I don't train that way simply because i found a way that works for me. But with total body training you get to train the muscle with more frequency which plays a large role in muscle growth.

[bamazav]

Originally Posted by BendtheBar

Casey Butt

Full-body and 'strength' and 'power' training go hand and glove in an energy substrate sense, but frying the nervous system and overloading the joints have to be guarded against. There's a little different mentality involved. You have to start focusing on every rep rather than the overall workout for any particular body part. You can't think of saving yourself for the rest of the workout, you have to build up to having the full-body endurance to hit everything at once and not back-off on anything just so you can get through. That ability comes with time.

The liver also has to increase it's glycogen storage and glucose production capacities to get you through very demanding full-body workouts - which is a large part of the reason you must eat well after a hard full-body workout. Liver glycogen content is an indicator of the body's overall state --> depleted liver glycogen = body catabolic, full liver glycogen = body anabolic (in a broad sense). So, good nutrition is crucial to getting full-body to work - you must replenish that liver glycogen afterwards. Until your body begins upregulating the enzymes and substrates involved you probably won't feel 'right' doing full-body. After you've adapted to it you'll be surprised just how much you can do (take ) in one workout.

So, it's important not to jump into full-body training headlong, especially if you haven't trained that way in awhile. Like anything else it's an adaptation process and that has to run it's course before you can go all-out. Not giving themselves proper time to adapt is why a lot of people training on split routines feel like they couldn't possibly train their full bodies in one session. From the other perspective, once you get used to training your full body hard in one session, training just a few body parts on a split feels like the lightest of 'light' days.

Saw this and thought of this discussion going on in here.