[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
I’m not an expert on golden age bodybuilding, so feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, but their style of training seemed very different than the routines of some present day personal trainers advocating 3 full body sessions per week.
It is different, sure. By combining compound and isolation exercises (and some redundant exercises, but that’s another question of opinion), full body routines like you posted above are much longer and drawn out than the majority of trainers today would be comfortable recommending.
There’s nothing at all “wrong” with including isolation exercises - they’re (obviously) essential when training for hypertrophy - but it’s tough to include them in a full body program because they take up precious training space with relatively-limited return. This is why splits can be more effective when training for size.
The reason why I bring this up is because these personal trainers will often point to physiques like Reeves’ or Park’s as proof that you can develop a very respectable body on only 3 days per week.
Reeves and Park did build great physiques using full body workouts done three times each week. The huge difference is that they were training for maximum hypertrophy and it used to be acceptable to train for 2+ hours.
But just saying “See… full body workouts!” doesn’t really mean much. It’s comes down to the content of the workout itself. “Clean and press 10x4” is also a full body workout, but how does that relate to Steve Reeves or todays trainers?!? The label “full body workout” is just too vague and non-descript.
it just seems misleading that these men are always brought up as evidence that you can build a bodybuilder’s physique on such minimalistic present day full body workouts.
The basic outline of a full body routine (working all of the major muscles in each training session) is still the effective foundation for “present day full body workouts.”
The old school guys, who were looking to build absolute maximum muscle size, took that base principle and added isolation exercises that don’t need to be prioritized as much for someone just looking to build some muscle.
Modern trainers generally use the basic principle and peel away some of the “extras” (isolation lifts, multiple exercise per part per session) to maximize the results produced compared to the time spent in the gym.[/quote]
I am confused as to how “build some muscle” is now being completely separated from the BODYBUILDING aspect that has been the defining form of what “some muscle” looks like for decades.
Why would someone looking to “build some muscle” avoid isolation exercises? They will have weak points developing in the very areas they are ignoring.