Whole body workouts vs. Split workouts

If someone is trying to gain strength what is better?

I know that each muscle grows and gets bigger for a total of 48 hours (men's health magazine). So theorically if you wanted to stimulate as much muscle as possible, you would work full body workouts every other day. You would take one day to work, and the next day to let your body rest.

Another possible solution would be a split workout of upper body on one day, then the next day lower body, and do that every single day. But then your muscles would not grow because you'd be using your body's nutrients and energy to fuel your lower body workout while your upper body is recovering, and you would not heal as fast and as big.

I've been doing the split workout, but i want to know what other people think.
 
any way you slice it, you cannot work a muscle more than 3x a week. the more volume you give the muscle in a single session, the lower the frequency.

on an upper/lower split, you should only hit each muscle twice a week.
 
Well Alwyn Cosgrove says splits for strength training and he is pretty much a god so I'd stick with that.

However if you do any isolation work it wont do you any good.
Alwyn says never to do more than 4 exercises in any 1 workout.
 
New rules of lifting. Everything is split work.

an e.g. strength training part 3...

workout a
squat
quater squat
seated good morning
swiss-ball cruch

workout b
Bench press
bent over row
Push press
woodchop

workout c
deadlift
rack deadlift
deadlift off box
hanging leg raise

workout d
close grip pull up
shoulder press
cable seated row
reverse woodchop


The whole book is like this man.
 
That looks more like upper/lower than a bodypart split though.

I know Alwyn's rapidly against bodypart-based routines in everything else he's written, which is why I found it odd.
 
Does he always use so many supersets???

Its killing me. Really good tho. as soon as I picked it up a dropped all my current workouts and stuck with this 100%. Its working great, Lots of stuff I didnt have the know how to plan myself.
 
that books on my list, but I'm waiting til I get closer to a bulking cycle to start reading it and implementing it.
 
Alwyn Cosgrove is a smart guy, but this is where I would definitely disagree with this rule.

Saying that you need 48 hours to heal a certain body part.....is also very flawed.

People who train full body all the time are not overtraining.

I currently train athletes who do squats 3x a week and deadlifts and pushups. I put them up against most of split type trainees anytime of the week.

Think of it this way, can you wake up and say I will not work quads today so I better just let my upperbody do all my life's activities today.

It just doesn't work that way. You will see faster results in losing fat/ gaining mass and strength when you do FULL body sessions.

Not that this is anything that should sway you==> I personally train 6x a week fullbody. 3x it's pretty intense....and the other 3x I do GPP. I have no joint problems (besides nagging injuries from semi pro football days) and I'm not overtrained.

I think a few of y'all should not dismiss fullbody type training, because of something a strength coach or writer has stated. In fact, I'm pretty sure, Alwyn would agree with me....that he will train athletes fullbody everytime he trains them.

Average joe or jane should do fullbody as well....the volume and frequency may be changed due to certain factors (nutrition, sleep, dysfunctions etc.)
 
Last edited:
I love it. Its the best muscle book Ive ever read. ok so most of it we already know but its writen in a really helpful way.
I only really got it because I wanted to know what all the fuss was about. But After doing 2 weeks of the workouts it has become my new bible.

PMdilly - Are upper/lower workouts not considered splits? He does also use upperbody splits, usually chest/traps = lats shoulders.
 
Alwyn Cosgrove is a smart guy, but this is where I would definitely disagree with this rule.

Saying that you need 48 hours to heal a certain body part.....is also very flawed.

People who train full body all the time are not overtraining.

I currently train athletes who do squats 3x a week and deadlifts and pushups. I put them up against most of split type trainees anytime of the week.

Think of it this way, can you wake up and say I will not work quads today so I better just let my upperbody do all my life's activities today.

It just doesn't work that way. You will see faster results in losing fat/ gaining mass and strength when you do FULL body sessions.

Not that this is anything that should sway you==> I personally train 6x a week fullbody. 3x it's pretty intense....and the other 3x I do GPP. I have no joint problems (besides nagging injuries from semi pro football days) and I'm not overtrained.

I think a few of y'all should not dismiss fullbody type training, because of something a strength coach or writer has stated. In fact, I'm pretty sure, Alwyn would agree with me....that he will train athletes fullbody everytime he trains them.

Average joe or jane should do fullbody as well....the volume and frequency may be changed due to certain factors (nutrition, sleep, dysfunctions etc.)


Please explain the science behind your statements. I am not calling you out, but I want to understand where you are coming from when you choose full body over upper/lower on all occasions? Is it simply b/c of the functionality/specificity issue that you mention regarding the fact that we never ONLY use our legs in the real world? If so, that is a weak argument in my opinion. Or is there more to your methods?

Thanks.
 
are we really gonna do this again. NOt too long ago there was a long thread about this same topic, where some research about FBW was posted, dont remember quite what it was though.
 
Sorry, I did not see it. Please don't assume I was trying to drudge up old news. I would love to the a link to the thread if you have it by chance.
 
No problem Stroutman,

I'm not going to try to out reference anyone here. There is probably a reference for any and every argument. I'll just say the majority of my research comes from Tudor Boumpa ("periodization for sports") and my own experience being an athlete and training them.
I won't be too lengthy with this....keeping it short as possible. The human body is hugely impacted by its ability to seek out the point of least resistance and use as many joints as possible to move itself and external loads. To limit the session (or attempt) to just one portion of the body, would be pretty inefficient and non functional. Also, it is impossible to truly isolate a muscle or muscle group. The best we can hope for is emphasizing a particular muscle for growth. Emphasis is not lost in a fullbody workout:
I.E.
If I am training a client who wishes to add muscle mass (emphasis in chest) and maintain or drop body fat, I can get him/her there faster by using hypertrophy volume on the entire body and simply add more rows/horizantol pushes.
So it would look something like this:
Decline Bench 6@6 80%max
Seated Row 6@6 80%max
Depth Plyo Pushups 4@6
Deadlift off blocks 4@6 80%max

day2
Front Squats 10@10 10rm
Wide Grip Pulls 10@5 5rm
Serratus Pushups 2@20

day3
Incline Db 3@10 10/9/8 rm
one arm db Rows 3@10 10/9/8 rm
Full Cleans 3@6 6rm
Clapping Pushups 3@10
Bear Walks 2@50 meters

in between (off days) this guy/gal will be doing GPP for trans and frontal planes

This persons body will be hit hard with frequency which is a HUGE key when it comes to the SAID principle. When you increase training to increase total mass with higher frequency, expect quicker results. If I gave you examples of the weight used. I guaranty this person would have lifted more total volume/intensity than a person who has split up his/her sessions. Lift more weight per session....you will get stronger....you will have more opportunity to put on more mass per session.

My idea (functional body must work with full body) is weak if you look at a person who doesn't do much with manual labor (i.e. typical cubicle joe/jane). However, if this person raised horses for a living or farmed for a living, the example would be quite valid. But here is another idea:

As I said before, I have people (athletes and average joe/jane) that are looking to gain mass or lose fat. Since, anatomy must adapt to a new higher level of living and training, would it be better if I split someones training to artificially cancel out or isolate a muscle (which opposes what the human body attempts to do) to get better results?
OR
Is it better to allow the many systems of the body to learn to adapt to a full body regiment (which it was designed to handle)? And would I indeed be adhering to the SAID principle (at a higher degree) to better prepare the athlete for the onslaught of his/her sport or average joe/jane for a more functional, beneficial, injury free lifestyle?

I'm going to stop writing and I hope I don't come across as a gimmicky clown trying to sell my new "step into the millenium" training dvds.

Hopefully you get my point here...
 
No problem Stroutman,

I'm not going to try to out reference anyone here. There is probably a reference for any and every argument. I'll just say the majority of my research comes from Tudor Boumpa ("periodization for sports") and my own experience being an athlete and training them.
I won't be too lengthy with this....keeping it short as possible. The human body is hugely impacted by its ability to seek out the point of least resistance and use as many joints as possible to move itself and external loads. To limit the session (or attempt) to just one portion of the body, would be pretty inefficient and non functional. Also, it is impossible to truly isolate a muscle or muscle group. The best we can hope for is emphasizing a particular muscle for growth. Emphasis is not lost in a fullbody workout:
I.E.
If I am training a client who wishes to add muscle mass (emphasis in chest) and maintain or drop body fat, I can get him/her there faster by using hypertrophy volume on the entire body and simply add more rows/horizantol pushes.
So it would look something like this:
Decline Bench 6@6 80%max
Seated Row 6@6 80%max
Depth Plyo Pushups 4@6
Deadlift off blocks 4@6 80%max

day2
Front Squats 10@10 10rm
Wide Grip Pulls 10@5 5rm
Serratus Pushups 2@20

day3
Incline Db 3@10 10/9/8 rm
one arm db Rows 3@10 10/9/8 rm
Full Cleans 3@6 6rm
Clapping Pushups 3@10
Bear Walks 2@50 meters

in between (off days) this guy/gal will be doing GPP for trans and frontal planes

This persons body will be hit hard with frequency which is a HUGE key when it comes to the SAID principle. When you increase training to increase total mass with higher frequency, expect quicker results. If I gave you examples of the weight used. I guaranty this person would have lifted more total volume/intensity than a person who has split up his/her sessions. Lift more weight per session....you will get stronger....you will have more opportunity to put on more mass per session.

My idea (functional body must work with full body) is weak if you look at a person who doesn't do much with manual labor (i.e. typical cubicle joe/jane). However, if this person raised horses for a living or farmed for a living, the example would be quite valid. But here is another idea:

As I said before, I have people (athletes and average joe/jane) that are looking to gain mass or lose fat. Since, anatomy must adapt to a new higher level of living and training, would it be better if I split someones training to artificially cancel out or isolate a muscle (which opposes what the human body attempts to do) to get better results?
OR
Is it better to allow the many systems of the body to learn to adapt to a full body regiment (which it was designed to handle)? And would I indeed be adhering to the SAID principle (at a higher degree) to better prepare the athlete for the onslaught of his/her sport or average joe/jane for a more functional, beneficial, injury free lifestyle?

I'm going to stop writing and I hope I don't come across as a gimmicky clown trying to sell my new "step into the millenium" training dvds.

Hopefully you get my point here...



Well said.

I too train people full body 6 days per week.

It isn't anything new. In fact, similar to what as you have said, studying the body's natural capacity to move and how it reacts to overload shows us that this method is the best.

Old time strongmen knew this.

Why do thier feats, which were officially recorded, stand as "impossible" today? Why do people think they need the roids? Full body training is the answer, strengthwise.

The funny thing I keep seeing on this site is that people reference the "t-nation" site, yet don't seem to see the info regarding full body training and how it works.

Hasn't anyone researched how and why modern strongman training methods are employed? Is anyone aware that these guys don't isolate? Is anyone aware that a significant portion of them work and rework the same muscle groups daily? If injury or overwork were an issue, they would clearly be weaker, smaller, and more injury prone than the rest of us. -Yet that doesn't happen. And, generally, you then get the usual excuse that it is "genetics".

Full body daily workouts are the great equalizer.

I like to point to my 63 year old dad who does this same style of routine. He is 5'7 and throws around 50 lb dumbbells after a day of ac/htg work. Weekends, he throws around 100lb rounds splitting firewood.

At 63, by modern belief, doing this sort of thing he should be dead, weak, or injured. -At least shrinking muscletone wise. In 6 months, he has gained 1 shirt size, 1 pants size, and stayed the same weight. Fat loss, no prob.

He is the healthiest and strongest he has ever been in his life.

Hmmmm.......
:)
 
So it would look something like this:
Decline Bench 6@6 80%max
Seated Row 6@6 80%max
Depth Plyo Pushups 4@6
Deadlift off blocks 4@6 80%max

day2
Front Squats 10@10 10rm
Wide Grip Pulls 10@5 5rm
Serratus Pushups 2@20

day3
Incline Db 3@10 10/9/8 rm
one arm db Rows 3@10 10/9/8 rm
Full Cleans 3@6 6rm
Clapping Pushups 3@10
Bear Walks 2@50 meters

Yeah this is the same sort of style as in new rules.

How long were you training before you started doing 6 days per week?
Do you ever get to too sore to train at 100%.
 
Sorry, I did not see it. Please don't assume I was trying to drudge up old news. I would love to the a link to the thread if you have it by chance.

no problem.. dont have a link and cant really be bothered to look for it either, besides, it seems that different arguments are brought up in this post.
 
as trainerty says there is evidence we can train everyday.

Title: Effects of a 7-day eccentric training period on muscle damage and inflammation.

Researchers: Chen TC, Hsieh SS.

Institution: Department of Ball-Related Sports Science, Taipei Physical Education College, Taipei City, Taiwan.

Source: Medicine and Science Sports & Exercise 2001 Oct;33(10):1732-8

Purpose: This study examined the effects of a 7-day repeated maximal isokinetic eccentric training period on the indicators of muscle damage and inflammatory response.

Methods: Twenty-two college-age males were randomly assigned to eccentric training (ET) and control groups (CON). The initial exercise was 30 repetitions of maximal voluntary isokinetic eccentric contraction (ECC1) on non-dominant elbow flexors with Cybex 6000 at 60 degrees.s-1 angular velocity. The ET group performed the same exercise for the following 6 consecutive days (referred to as ECC2 to ECC7) after ECC1. Upper arm circumference (CIR), range of motion (ROM), and maximal isometric force (MIF) were measured before, immediately after, and every 24 h for 7 consecutive days after ECC1. Plasma creatine kinase (CK), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), glutamic oxaloacetate transaminase (GOT), leukocyte counts, and serum interleukin-1beta and -6 (IL-1beta, IL-6) levels were assessed before; at 2 h; and at 1, 3, 4, 6, and 7 d after ECC1. Muscle soreness was measured before and for 7 consecutive days after ECC1.

Results: The ECC1 produced significant changes in most of the measures for both groups, with the exception of leukocyte counts. No indicators of increased damage were found from the second consecutive day of eccentric training to the 7th day for the eccentric training group.

Conclusion: Continuous intensive isokinetic eccentric training performed with damaged muscles did not exacerbate muscle damage and inflammation after ECC1. In addition, a muscular "adaptation effect" may occur as early as 24 h after ECC1, as shown by the ET group's performance for 6 consecutive days after ECC1.
 
Back
Top