Split Routines

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Split Routines

    Interview with Casey Butt about ‘Split Routines’



    Muscle and Strength: You mentioned that you carry several other beliefs that are somewhat controversial. I want to ask you about them. Let’s talk about full body routines. Why do you believe they are best for naturals? And why have they gone the way of the dinosaur over the last 30-40 years? For the most part on lifting forums, I only see HIT practitioners and 5×5 programs that slant towards being “full body”…


    Casey Butt: Year-round, elaborate split routines, in the typical bodybuilding sense, were essentially “born” as a consequence of several occurrences in the early 1960s and have become popular because bodybuilders copied the routines of their drug-using heroes. In the 1950s and early ’60s Weider was promoting higher volume, more isolation laden, training routines as more modern and sophisticated than the “old fashioned” lower volume routines that were the staple of the York training courses – and in certain regards it was true. And the magazines naturally focused on bodybuilding champions’ pre-contest training, which was higher in volume than the rest of the training year. Several top bodybuilders did, in fact, train on split routines in the 1950s and earlier, but this was typically reserved for sharpening up in the weeks leading up to contests, with full-body routines used for building up during the rest of the year.


    By the early 1960s steroids entered the picture as primarily a pre-contest training aid (following the Weightlifters’ practice of ramping up steroid use as contests drew near) and this allowed for yet further increases in training volume. Around this point split routines became the norm rather than the exception. Again, pre-contest training was the focus of the magazines as readers wanted to know what Mr. So-and-so did to win the title. What got lost however, was the fact that most of these lifters followed full-body routines to build up during the off-season and when they were not dosing Nilevar or Dianabol.


    As bodybuilders realized that steroids could be used to very effectively bulk up in the “off-season” their use spilled over to the entire training year and split routines were adopted as the off-season template followed by top bodybuilders. It’s natural that aspiring trainees copied their heroes’ routines and practices, but they were generally kept in the dark about steroid use as the major magazines purposefully hid it and promoted aspects of bodybuilding more profitable to them (training courses such as isometrics in the power rack and the supplements of the day – wheat germ oil, desiccated liver, protein powders and pills, etc.). That practice has been part and parcel of the training media since the introduction of steroids, and if anything is even more rampant today.


    Steroids change a trainee’s tolerance and response to exercise in a number of ways. Most importantly, steroids are an artificial source of testosterone and mimic it’s anabolic/androgenic properties. For that reason, steroid users do not have to be concerned with maintaining and manipulating their own naturaltestosterone levels through training and diet. A natural trainee’s progress, however, is inexorably linked to his hormonal response to training. Training of too low a systemic magnitude and there is no response, too much and the body can’t keep up and overtraining results.

    On the scientific front, several studies over the decades have shown that protein synthesis and hormonal responses to training return to baseline within 36-48 hours of even intense, high-volume weight training. At the same time, routines consisting of compound exercises have been shown to be vastly superior to those consisting predominantly of isolation exercises and machines, with regards to lean body mass and strength gains. Volume wise, 2-4 sets in the 8-12 rep range have been shown to be the most efficient count for hypertrophy and growth hormone release, whereas 4-6 sets of 4-6 reps have been shown to be near optimal for strength building and testosterone release. On top of that are the findings that intense exercise involving larger total muscle masses, such as performing heavy Squats andDeadlifts, results in the most dramatic responses of the body with regards to testosterone and growth hormone levels. The blood cortisol:testosterone ratio begins to climb into unfavorable territory after 45-60 mins of intense training as well.


    Put together, the body of credible scientific literature over the past 60+ years points directly to relatively brief (an hour or so) full-body routines as being the superior form of exercise for hypertrophy and strength building purposes, particularly in the absence of exogeneous anabolic steroids. For a bodybuilder trying to build up, there’s no advantage to performing many isolation exercises and no need to do more than 2-6 sets of any exercise. Each session should include movements that tax the largest amount of muscle mass as possible so as to elevate testosterone and growth hormone levels. The most logical routine design that fits this prescription best is the full-body routine, centered around basic free-weight exercises.


    I find it ironic that the majority of modern science supports not what is considered modern by most, but what is considered old-fashioned and was exactly what Reg Park, Clancy Ross, John Grimek, Steve Reeves, George Eiferman, Jack Delinger, etc, all recommended before the introduction of steroids into bodybuilding. Park and Ross were even particularly careful to caution trainees that split routines are okay before contests to lean out, but not best for building up in the off-season …and building up is what most natural bodybuilders spend the majority of their time aspiring to do.


    I’ve been deliberately careful to specify here that this is all within the context of building muscle mass. There are times when split routines are an equally or more viable training option, particularly pre-contest when lagging muscle heads begin to become apparent at low body fat levels and must be addressed (though for trainees who never intend to dip much below 10% body fat or so they may never even be aware of such deficiencies). There are also certain groups of trainees who naturally respond well to split routines, even in the off-season. Those are typically people who have naturally high testosterone levels, robust joint structures, and can deliver significant enough training loads to the muscles in a single bout to justify longer breaks between training sessions. Highly experienced trainees who are close to their genetic potentials can also benefit from a split routine that allows them to focus more work on lagging body parts – though this can also usually be done on an advanced full-body routine.


    The majority of drug-free trainees, however, who are looking to build more overall body muscle mass, strength, a visually impressive physique, and don’t have particularly robust joints, would be far better off focusing on just getting stronger on the basic free-weight movements to the practical exclusion of every other thought – and full-body routines are the near ideal vehicle for that, most of the time. That’s how Park did it, he didn’t have any glaring weaknesses, and as I mentioned in response to the previous question, no drug-tested bodybuilder yet has surpassed that level of development.


    bron: Interview with Casey Butt about ‘Split Routines’ - SuperBootCampsBlog
    Last edited by inferno_0666; 20-03-2012, 13:03.
    I know from teaching hundreds of seminars that the guys who say they have “awesome technique” are usually the biggest disasters—their ego just doesn’t let them see it.
    - Dave Tate

  • #2
    dus naturels kunnen beter gewoon een full body work out doen i.p.v een split schema?

    Comment


    • #3
      En Upperbody/lower body schema's?
      Of tellen die als een split
      lucky short-armed-spine-bending bastard

      ~~~You wanna be strong, let a cute girl spot you~~~

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by axel1994 View Post
        En Upperbody/lower body schema's?
        Of tellen die als een split
        Technisch gezien is UB/LB wel een split, er is immers geen sprake van full body, maar met split schema bedoelt men meestal elke spiergroep 1x per week aanpakken.
        I know from teaching hundreds of seminars that the guys who say they have “awesome technique” are usually the biggest disasters—their ego just doesn’t let them see it.
        - Dave Tate

        Comment


        • #5
          Met ub/lb pak je nog steeds alles minstens 2x pw aan.
          Lid van de 200 club

          Comment


          • #6
            Erg mooi stukje, super interessant om te lezen. Hij beweert inderdaad dat een full body programma in de meeste gevallen werkt (op enkele uitzonderingen na).
            Nu doet dit me eigenlijk gelijk weer denken aan de schema's van mark rippetoe en starting strength. Deze zijn beiden op dit principe gebasseerd en schijnen erg goed te werken.

            Nu ik dit artikel gelezen heb is mijn twijfel weggenomen en ben ik zeker van plan om binnenkort starting strength te gaan volgen.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by inferno_0666 View Post
              Technisch gezien is UB/LB wel een split, er is immers geen sprake van full body, maar met split schema bedoelt men meestal elke spiergroep 1x per week aanpakken.
              Mijn keuze voor UB/LB was omdat ik 4x per week train. Als ik dan fullbody zou doen dan zou ik onvoldoende hersteltijd hebben. Mijn idee is dat je met fullbody meer GH/test vrijzetting krijgt, maar dat je beperkt wordt door de trainingsfrequentie. Denk je dat bij goede compounds als chin-ups je ook voldoende spieren aanspreekt om tot een goede GH/test vrijzetting te komen?

              Wat zou beter zijn? 3 dagen fullbody, met als voordeel hogere test/GH waarden en 3 prikkels per week per spiergroep? Of 4 dagen UB/LB met wellicht minder GH/test waarden, minder prikkels per spiergroep, maar betere hersteltijd?
              Train hard or go hormone

              Comment


              • #8
                3 dagen full body lijkt me beter. Dit omdat je hier een hogere test/GH waarden mee bereikt. Hersteltijd is geen probleem bij full body, gewoon zorgen dat je steeds 1-2 dagen rust pakt tussen de trainingen.

                Als je gewoon ma-woe-vrij doet hebben je spieren voldoende tijd om te rusten hoor!


                Het enige wat ik me afvraag: hij heeft het over fullbody trainingen.
                Gaat hij er hierbij vanuit dat je elke training hetzelfde doet qua oefeningen, of is het ook mogelijk dat je 2 verschillende workouts hebt en dat je die afwisselt?
                (denk aan rippetoe)?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Denk dat het toch altijd persoonlijk zal blijven !

                  Wel geloof ik erin in dat de rust heel erg belangrijk is , maar het is natuurlijk ook de bedoeling dat je het een en ander blijft aanspreken.

                  Vandaar dat ik er voor heb gekozen om mn schema eens per 6 weken compleet op de kop te gooien

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Toph View Post
                    Mijn keuze voor UB/LB was omdat ik 4x per week train. Als ik dan fullbody zou doen dan zou ik onvoldoende hersteltijd hebben. Mijn idee is dat je met fullbody meer GH/test vrijzetting krijgt, maar dat je beperkt wordt door de trainingsfrequentie. Denk je dat bij goede compounds als chin-ups je ook voldoende spieren aanspreekt om tot een goede GH/test vrijzetting te komen?

                    Wat zou beter zijn? 3 dagen fullbody, met als voordeel hogere test/GH waarden en 3 prikkels per week per spiergroep? Of 4 dagen UB/LB met wellicht minder GH/test waarden, minder prikkels per spiergroep, maar betere hersteltijd?
                    dis vraag ik me dus ook af.
                    En mijn keuze voor UB/LB is exact hetzelfde.
                    lucky short-armed-spine-bending bastard

                    ~~~You wanna be strong, let a cute girl spot you~~~

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Als je fullbody traint dan moet het volume wel erg laag zijn. Of zie ik dat verkeerd?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Waarom zou je volume laag moeten zijn?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Damn View Post
                          Waarom zou je volume laag moeten zijn?
                          Wanneer je met het hogere volume van een splittraining zou toepassen op een fullbody training dan is de rusttijd van 2 dagen te kort om volledig te herstellen. Dus moet het volume omlaag om wel volledig te kunnen herstellen.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            kwestie van planning....

                            bijv.
                            ma ochtend training
                            woe avond training
                            za ochtend training

                            Nu heb je steeds min. 48 uur rust tussen 2 trainingen... dit is meer dan voldoende om te kunnen herstellen.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Dat is dus alleen mogelijk wanneer de persoon zelf ook tijd heeft om of s ochtends of s avonds te gaan trainen !

                              Voor mij zou dat niet werken !

                              Comment

                              Sidebar top desktop

                              Collapse

                              Actieve discussies

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X