T Nation

Why Split This Way?

I’m currently on a push pull split. Is there a particular reason why people train with an antagonistic split (chest/back or quad/hams, etc)? The only advantage I can see is that it can be useful for alternating sets or supersets, although I have heard it can be helpful in preventing injury. It seems like a popular method but I was wondering about the distinct advantages.

Thanks.

I guess in theory if you train chest and back together they would each be “fresh” as opposed to training chest and then hitting shoulders and triceps as they would be already fatigued. Also adds some variety for people who are stagnating and need to livin’ up the program. Arnold like this method.

It still leaves open being able to do an upper/lower split, so it’s not as if it forces a full-body routine.

Indeed, if comparing typical push-pull with upper-lower, both are 2-way splits. Kind of stating the obvious but it’s relevant.

[quote]pepperman wrote:
I’m currently on a push pull split. Is there a particular reason why people train with an antagonistic split (chest/back or quad/hams, etc)?

The only advantage I can see is that it can be useful for alternating sets or supersets, although I have heard it can be helpful in preventing injury. It seems like a popular method but I was wondering about the distinct advantages.

Thanks.[/quote]

It depends on my goal.

If I’m looking for more frequency per body part/group, I like the push/pull split because it minimizes overlap (assuming the volume is low enough).

If I’m using maximal stimulation per body part/group on a 1x a week basis, then I’ll use the chest/back, legs, shoulders/arms or chest/bi, legs, back, shoulder/tri split. Either way allows me to hit each part/group when it’s relatively fresh.