Splits are so one can increase volume per bodypart… why would you split the body into groups and then only train with 12 sets… That was an uncharacteristically ignorant statement.
For example, 12 sets for a chest workout is ‘OK’, but if training JUST the chest and having a full 6-7 days off afterwards i would be opting for over 12 sets personally (built up over time of course… dont jump from 6 sets to 12 from one day to the next) for a natural but conditioned trainee…
Also… Chest is more of a Medium sized bodypart… with thighs and back being large. So you have the same amount of work for the whole lower body as you do for your bicep and triceps - yet this is still only 6 sets each muscle, they are small muscles but i find that when trained fresh (not after back and chest for example) they can handle a good 8 sets at least…
With a week off between sessions 12 sets PER WORKOUT is not pushing it.
Why the obsession with sets? If doing more sets were somehow the key to growing larger and stronger, 90 percent of the people in this forum would be four times my size…
Either you missed the point or i didn’t do a good job at explaining it. I am most certainly not obsessed with volume and it is but a single factor of intensity.
[/quote] Perhaps you forget that for a drug-free bodybuilder, just adding shit so that some internet guy things your routine is no longer “dry” is not such a good idea?
We can’t rely on test to boost our strength gains.
Modok’s “bodypart once weekly?” thread touched on that subject nicely… For a natty, doing everything once a week with, say, 4 sets of 12 (all sets at working weight) and 3-5 main exercises per bodypart eventually has you stall out and progress in general is ridiculously slow.
You can get away with shit like that via vitamin T… But even most Pro’s would not train that way. The only one I can think of right now is Evan Centopani, who was also 260 or whatever before he hit 20 y.o…
Add intensity techniques and what is going to happen? You stall even faster.
The point is, his workout is dry… it has no intensity principles, straight sets (IIRC) AND a low frequency… in those circumstances volume is going to be the deciding factor to increase the intensity to the muscle worked.
[/quote] You said the purpose of a split is to allow you to increase the volume…
If you look at, say, PX’s old splits, he did everything once a week (2 main exercises usually per muscle-group, with shoulders and legs getting 3 originally… +1 for the pump with no regards to progression) and simply trained a single muscle-group twice a week to bring it up faster… He also does no “sets across/all sets with the same weight”, but ramped (and still does) with fairly large weight-jumps between sets.
CT has been talking along the same lines recently… Put emphasis on a muscle-group you want to bring up, have the rest at regular frequency.
I got up to 230+ from 120 by actually training everything once a week, that was
Day 1 Chest+Back
Day 2 off
Day 3 Legs
Day 4 Delts
Day 5 Arms (that includes heavy pressing for tris)
Day 6 off
Day 7 off
For example… Again, 2 main exercises per bodypart, perhaps one for the pump if I felt like it…
Of course it would be fine to suggest an increase in frequency, the addition of intensity principles, lowering rest times, or some loading protocol such as pyramiding or waves… but then it wouldn’t be his workout. I worked up to a single top-set on each main exercise, too, generally for 6-8 or 8-15 or whatever… Not that this is the only way or anything…
Now the more gifted you are (or if you get some extra t), the more useless shit you can add and still get stronger (though you can easily off-set most of the strength-gain-boost you get as a gifted or assisted trainee that way, but no one likes to hear that.). But the margin of error is rather small for a drug-free guy looking for the fastest possible gains.
The only reason i was using sets as the measurement of volume is purely down to simplicity…
For example, while some may consider total volume to be equal to (sets x reps x load), in this case, with the sets and rep range given - assuming he chose the rep range for a reason and is going to be using maximal weights for that TUT… THEN the number of sets is the simplest manner to suggest he increase (or decrease) volume in this particular program.[/quote] There are very, very damn few large people who care about “TUT”, “total volume (tonnage)” and so on.