# Switching to a Bro Split



## Dr Gearhead (Aug 15, 2012)

Following on from a conversation started in another thread with @nWo I am seriously considering moving to a bro split.

I was doing PPL twice a week, then switched to PPL/UL due to work etc but finding I am having trouble recovering and fitting everything in so am going to either go to upper / lower twice a week or bro split with the volume roughly the same either way.

Has anyone done anything similar ?

I am on 600mg Tren, 300mg Test (maybe gonna add in Winni at 50mg a day), would it would hinder my progress much training each muscle once per week as opposed to twice. I suspect not if volume is equated, obviously theoretically the intensity should be higher overall with twice per week but I am finding at the moment I am holding back in my second session due to poor recovery so not even sure that's relevant at the moment


----------



## RexEverthing (Apr 4, 2014)

Why not try just PPL and be in the gym three times per week if you're assisted and trying to find a better balance between gym / life?


----------



## Dr Gearhead (Aug 15, 2012)

RexEverthing said:


> Why not try just PPL and be in the gym three times per week if you're assisted and trying to find a better balance between gym / life?


 A very good suggestion thanks


----------



## Matt6210 (Feb 15, 2018)

I still train bro split I don't feel you get enough exercises in on each muscle group ppl


----------



## swole troll (Apr 15, 2015)

Muscle protein synthesis is kind of out the window when blasting

So if strength isn't your primary goal (movement practice and motor unit recruitment) there's no reason you couldn't train a muscle just once per week and get similar results

As a natural I feel you are short changing yourself no stimulating MPS every 48 to 72 hours irrelevant of your goals


----------



## nWo (Mar 25, 2014)

Here's a copy-paste of an upper/lower I wrote on another thread a while ago. I'll post up a 4 day split later also when i get time.

UPPER 1

Bench 531

Crossovers 12-15 reps

Dumbbell OHP 6-10

Close grip pulldowns 6-10

Wide grip rows 6-10

Shrugs 8-12

Skullcrushers 6-10

Rope curls 10-12

LOWER 1

Squats 531

Leg presses 8-10

Lying leg curls 8-10

Standing calves 10-12

Seated calves 12-15

UPPER 2

OHP 531

Incline DB press 6-10

Lateral raises 12-15

Wide pulldowns 10-12

Close grip rows 6-10

Rear delts 12-15

Barbell curls 6-10

Overhead extensions 10-12

LOWER 2

Deadlifts 531

Leg extensions 12-15

Seated leg curls 12-15

Standing calves 10-12

Seated calves 15-20


----------



## AestheticManlet (Jun 12, 2012)

Ppl 6 days A week is hard work and if your sessions are intense you will burn out I used to do the same.

I aim for ppl once every 5 days. Ie PPOLO or fit as needed so 2 dedicated rest days.


----------



## nWo (Mar 25, 2014)

4 day split:

*CHEST & BIS*

Bench 531

Incline DB bench 6-10 reps

Pec dec 10-15 reps

Incline cable flyes 15-20

BB curls 6-10

Incline curls 10-15

Rope curls 15-20

*LEGS*

Squats 531

Leg ext 15-20

Leg curls 6-10

SLDLs 12-15

Calf raises 10-15

Seated calf raises 15-20

*SHOULDERS & TRIS*

OHP 531

Arnold presses or DB shoulder presses 8-12

Lateral raises 15-20

Skullcrushers 6-10

Overhead extensions 10-15

Pushdowns 15-20

Shrugs 8-12

*BACK*

Deadlifts 531

Pulldowns 8-12

Pullovers 15-20

Cable v-grip rows 6-10

Dumbbell Pendlay rows 10-15

Rear delt flyes 15-20


----------



## Dr Gearhead (Aug 15, 2012)

nWo said:


> Here's a copy-paste of an upper/lower I wrote on another thread a while ago. I'll post up a 4 day split later also when i get time.
> 
> UPPER 1
> 
> ...


 Thank you mate much appreciated. Am I being more thick than usual or is the number of sets missing (assuming it's not just one for each exercise)


----------



## nWo (Mar 25, 2014)

Dr Gearhead said:


> Thank you mate much appreciated. Am I being more thick than usual or is the number of sets missing (assuming it's not just one for each exercise)


 Yeah, I purposely leave the number of sets out as people have their own preferences. Generally, though, you'd need more warmup sets on the earlier exercises and maybe on the last high rep exercise for each muscle group for example you won't need any, just 2 sets to metabolic failure will do the trick. Whereas with BB curls for example you'll probably want a couple of ramp-up sets and a couple of worksets, just as an example. So a good rule of thumb is follow 531 protocol on the first big compound of each workout, 3-4 total sets on the secondary exercises and 2 sets on the finishers.


----------



## AestheticManlet (Jun 12, 2012)

My version of upper lower

Upper - Bench press focus
Bench press - 5x5 or 531
Bent over rows - 3x10
Overhead press - 3x10
Tricep - 3x12
Bicep - 3x12
Rear delts - 3x12

Lower - Deadlift focus
Deadlifts - 5x5 or 531
Squats - 3x10
Leg press - 3-4x15
Calf raises- 3-4x15
Abs

Upper - Overhead press focus
Overhead press - 5x5 or 531
Pullups - 3 sets
Bench press - 3x10
Tricep - 3x12
Bicep - 3x12
Rear delts - 3x12

Lower - Squat focus
Squats - 5x5 or 531
Deadlifts - 3x10
Leg press - 3-4x15
Calf raises- 3-4x15
Abs


----------



## simonboyle (Aug 5, 2013)

Dr Gearhead said:


> Following on from a conversation started in another thread with @nWo I am seriously considering moving to a bro split.
> 
> I was doing PPL twice a week, then switched to PPL/UL due to work etc but finding I am having trouble recovering and fitting everything in so am going to either go to upper / lower twice a week or bro split with the volume roughly the same either way.
> 
> ...


 No. And if for no other reason than a change is good and your body will have to adapt.

There are many reasons that people will say not to, but how many great physiques were built on a bro split? Thousands.

Try it. Give it a month, see how it goes. There is no wrong (sensible) workout split.

Also maybe change your type of training too if you're struggling with recovery. Are you pushing max weights? Maybe go for reps?

Try super and Tri sets instead of straight sets.

Force a change. Force an adaptation.

f**k it, even just for a bit of mental stimulation so you're not just going through the motions.


----------



## simonboyle (Aug 5, 2013)

AestheticManlet said:


> Ppl 6 days A week is hard work and if your sessions are intense you will burn out I used to do the same.
> 
> I aim for ppl once every 5 days. Ie PPOLO or fit as needed so 2 dedicated rest days.


 Do you wear a ppolo shirt while training like that?


----------



## AestheticManlet (Jun 12, 2012)

simonboyle said:


> Do you wear a ppolo shirt while training like that?


 Stringers baby x


----------



## Mayzini (May 18, 2016)

ultimately consistency and progressive overload will help build your physique and therefore which ever split you enjoy most is the one you will stay consistent with. I prefer a ppl repeat set up personally but run the odd bro split week in here an there. unless your going to compete and even then its not 100% essential but training is supposed to be about enjoyment so enjoy it lift weight and progressively get stronger over your compound lifts, and providing you happy and enjoying it and your body is adapting run with it.


----------



## RexEverthing (Apr 4, 2014)

simonboyle said:


> Do you wear a ppolo shirt while training like that?


 Didn't realise you had a stutter mate?


----------



## Dr Gearhead (Aug 15, 2012)

Thanks to everyone for all the info, much appreciated


----------



## Jordan08 (Feb 17, 2014)

When you say twice a week? Does it mean you do PPL on Monday, Tuesday, wednesday and then repeat again on Thursday, Friday and Saturday?

If yes, This would be too much of work and that can be the reason behind all your concerns.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Jordan08 said:


> When you say twice a week? Does it mean you do PPL on Monday, Tuesday, wednesday and then repeat again on Thursday, Friday and Saturday?
> 
> If yes, This would be too much of work and that can be the reason behind all your concerns.


 It depends how much is done per session. Plenty of people do, and I'm talking natty. I essentially train this way.


----------



## Jordan08 (Feb 17, 2014)

Ultrasonic said:


> It depends how much is done per session. Plenty of people do, and I'm talking natty. I essentially train this way.


 Why anyone do this way?. How you manage your workout?. Curious to know.


----------



## Ferenor (Jun 27, 2018)

I'm currently running PPLPP and it burns me out lol second week already. Maybe will switch back to 4 days like

push pull legs push

pull legs push pull

etc

what is your opinion?


----------



## nWo (Mar 25, 2014)

Jordan08 said:


> Why anyone do this way?. How you manage your workout?. Curious to know.


 Very low volume per workout, I'd imagine. Just a few exercises and then call it a day. When I used to train at home a few years back I used to train every day but just do 2-3 exercises per day depending on how hard the exercises were. I'd always finish the workout knowing I'd still have energy left which helped with the motivation to train, and it just became a part of my daily routine. Thinking about doing it again now that my gym is just 3-4 mins drive around the corner tbh.

So a 6 day a week PPLx2 workout might look like









*(HR) = high reps


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Jordan08 said:


> Why anyone do this way?. How you manage your workout?. Curious to know.


 Not ignoring this but will reply properly when I get time. Check out Sparkey's thread with Jeff Nippard's PPL videos for an example, albeit with more volume than I use (but then I'm rather less advanced than Jeff!)


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Ferenor said:


> I'm currently running PPLPP and it burns me out lol second week already. Maybe will switch back to 4 days like
> 
> push pull legs push
> 
> ...


 If you're doing so much that you can't properly recover and grow before you next workout then you need to either reduce the volume per workout, or the workout frequency.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Jordan08 said:


> Why anyone do this way?


 Two main reasons:



Mechanistically I think that training muscle groups more than once per week probably makes the most sense.


By splitting training for a body part across multiple sessions I can do more work at a higher load/intensity. If I tried to do all of my training for a particular body part in one workout then I'm sceptical how truly useful the later exercises/set would actually be.


Increasingly I think the evidence based view is that the main advantage of higher frequency training is as a means to increase volume, so more point 2 than 1.



> How you manage your workout?. Curious to know.


 I'll post my current routine but don't take this as a recommendation, it may well not be best for me let alone anyone else! Also bear in mind I train at home and so don't have as many exercise options as some. Note that although I train every day some sessions are more demanding than others. This week I'm away and doing no training at all though  .

Saturday



RDL 8x10


Jefferson squats 4x15


Sunday



Superset of 8x10-12 EZ bar curls and ab exercises (mix of cable crunches and long lever planks)


Monday



Decline dumbbell presses 8x6-8


Superset of 3 sets each lateral raises (12-15 reps) and tricep pushdowns (12-15 reps)


Tuesday



Barbell rows 8x10


Superset of 3 sets each of rear delt rows (12-15 reps) and EZ bar curls (10-12 reps)


Wednesday



6x10 squats


3x8-10 lateral raises


Thursday



Weighted chin-ups, alternate weeks are 8x6-8 and 8x10-12


Superset of 3 sets each of cable crunches and a gripper (forearm exercise)


Friday



Decline dumbbell presses 8x10-12


Superset of 3 sets each lateral raises (12-15 reps) and tricep pushdowns (12-15 reps)


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

There are potential pros and cons to all splits, but ultimately it's about finding what you can consistently sustain and be progressive with for a long period, at a decent intensity of course.

For me personally that means higher frequency, low-ish volume per session, and alternating different exercises between sessions for the same muscle groups.

Ideally I'd like to do a bro split as that's what I enjoy the most but, for me at least, it's not as optimal however I set it up - large volume per session and I can't train frequently, and that seems less effective for me than split volume but higher frequency. If I try to take the other approach and drop volume per session and have fewer rest days to bump up my frequency then my systemic recovery is shot. I simply need 2-3 non resistance training days a week or I just can't perform well. So, for me, the solution always comes back to either an A/B or A/B/C full body day on/day off or some version of a two way split - usually upper/lower (but not always) with A/B versions to get my exercise variety.

It's always about balancing fatigue, intensity, and all the other factors into something that works for you. It doesn't even have to be conventional split. Mine at the moment isn't.


----------



## Prince Adam (Mar 17, 2012)

Bro split is fine if juiced


----------



## SuperRips (Sep 14, 2015)

Bro split, 4 on 3 off...simples!!


----------



## Jordan08 (Feb 17, 2014)

Ultrasonic said:


> Two main reasons:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Its Still a lot of work for me personally.


----------



## Ferenor (Jun 27, 2018)

I am thinking of trying to do PHUL for 12 weeks, what can I do after that? I mean, I want to alternate 12 weeks PHUL and 12 weeks another program.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Ferenor said:


> I am thinking of trying to do PHUL for 12 weeks, what can I do after that? I mean, I want to alternate 12 weeks PHUL and 12 weeks another program.


 If you find the PHUL structure works well for you then there is no need to ditch it after 12 weeks. You could say take a week or two at reduced volume as a deload and then continue with it, with perhaps some changes to exercise choices or order.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Jordan08 said:


> Its Still a lot of work for me personally.


 As usual dtlv summed it up pretty perfectly:



dtlv said:


> It's always about balancing fatigue, intensity, and all the other factors into something that works for you.


 It's perhaps worth mentioning that the volume I do is within the currently generally recommended range of 10-20 sets per body part per week range, and that I don't deliberately take any sets to failure (it may happen but then I've screwed up!)

From a natural perspective I think the general bias here seems to be towards the lower end of the volume spectrum than is used more widely.


----------



## Ferenor (Jun 27, 2018)

Ultrasonic said:


> If you find the PHUL structure works well for you then there is no need to ditch it after 12 weeks. You could say take a week or two at reduced volume as a deload and then continue with it, with perhaps some changes to exercise choices or order.


 Thank you so much, I'm really novice in what regards training.


----------



## Pancake' (Aug 30, 2012)

So much hype around MRV, what good is total volume, when the sets aren't intense? I believe the stress induced on a muscle is the main driver for muscle growth. Intensity triumphs volume imo. subjecting a muscle to more and more stress, it must adapt, it must grow. this is why just 2 working sets is fantastic, because you can give everything to those 2 sets you couldn't give to 5


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Pancake' said:


> That routine above ^ is not feasible, certainly not in the long run.


 And yet I've been doing something along these lines for about 6 months and have been making reasonable progress on it, and have followed much lower volume and frequency approaches with worse results. I therefore respectfully disagree with your POV. I will also reiterate that the volume I use is very much in line with recommendations from coaches I trust and respect like Eric Helms and Mike Israetel.

I'm not suggesting anyone follows my routine but I posted it purely to answer @Jordan08's question.


----------



## Pancake' (Aug 30, 2012)

Ultrasonic said:


> And yet I've been doing something along these lines for about 6 months and have been making reasonable progress on it, and have followed much lower volume and frequency approaches with worse results. I therefore respectfully disagree with your POV. I will also reiterate that the volume I use is very much in line with recommendations from coaches I trust and respect like Eric Helms and Mike Israetel.
> 
> I'm not suggesting anyone follows my routine but I posted it purely to answer @Jordan08's question.


 What are your lifts and how much have you added to them in this period?


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Pancake' said:


> So much hype around MRV, what good is total volume, when the sets aren't intense? I believe the stress induced on a muscle is the main driver for muscle growth. Intensity triumphs volume imo. subjecting a muscle to more and more stress, it must adapt, it must grow. this is why just 2 working sets is fantastic, because you can give everything to those 2 sets you couldn't give to 5


 The general evidence view is at odds with you here, but I do absolutely accept there will be variations between individuals. What works best for you will not necessarily work best for me, and vice versa. Similarly what Ronnie Coleman or Dorian Yates may have done has very little relevance to me. There are also huge numbers of bodybuilders, both natural and assisted, who have done very well not training like Ronnie or Dorian.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Pancake' said:


> What are your lifts and how much have you added to them in this period?


 Nothing hugely impressive and I am not going to post numbers. I very deliberately stay out of all such p1ssing contests on this forum.

I have made decent size gains by my standards using the routine I mentioned and this is all I'm interested in.


----------



## Jordan08 (Feb 17, 2014)

Ultrasonic said:


> As usual dtlv summed it up pretty perfectly:
> 
> It's perhaps worth mentioning that the volume I do is within the currently generally recommended range of 10-20 sets per body part per week range, and that I don't deliberately take any sets to failure (it may happen but then I've screwed up!)
> 
> From a natural perspective I think the general bias here seems to be towards the lower end of the volume spectrum than is used more widely.


 Each to himself. Thats why i used the word personally. If you are getting tge results from it, bang on. For myself, more than two working sets on compounds for one muscle group in one session where one of them is AMRAP, i lose a lot on my intensity aspect. What you have posted above is my two weeks work load. You can call me weak


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Jordan08 said:


> Each to himself. Thats why i used the word personally. If you are getting tge results from it, bang on. For myself, more than two working sets on compounds for one muscle group in one session where one of them is AMRAP, i lose a lot on my intensity aspect. What you have posted above is my two weeks work load. You can call me weak


 The AMRAP set will definitely limit what can be done in subsequent sets by presumably being taken to failure.


----------



## Devil (May 31, 2016)

To keep my experience short.

Started with FBx3, did pplx2, did ULx2 and now on bro split which is sort of a push pull legs arms. I do one main compound and actually track this per session. (OHP, DL and squat/LP respectively), then whatever the fvck I feel like doing. Any machine or free weight, 10-25 reps, super sets, drop sets, short rest times, you name it.

I moved to a bro split after I realising I could not give a s**t about strength gains and train for aesthetics and no injuries. It's by far the most enjoyable type of training also, and so I actually like my sessions rather than "going through the motions".

Results wise, as you'd expect, I've seen far better muscle gain and/or fat loss (diet dependent) on the bro split.

I saw best strength gains on the FB and UL.

PPL PPL was a bit of a mix, but 6x a week in the gym for nothing better results wise than the others got monotonous.

Yes, I'm enhanced.


----------



## Jordan08 (Feb 17, 2014)

Pancake' said:


> *So much hype around MRV, what good is total volume*, when the sets aren't intense? I believe the stress induced on a muscle is the main driver for muscle growth. Intensity triumphs volume imo. subjecting a muscle to more and more stress, it must adapt, it must grow. this is why just 2 working sets is fantastic, because you can give everything to those 2 sets you couldn't give to 5


 I second you on bold.


----------



## Jordan08 (Feb 17, 2014)

Ultrasonic said:


> The AMRAP set will definitely limit what can be done in subsequent sets by presumably being taken to failure.


 I Just aim at doing the isolation movements after it. I feel if i would be doing more work, it more looks like a job rather than really enjoying the lifts. Though, currently not doing any of AMRAP kind of things and focusing on high rep training where number of sets and reps are freezed and after 6 weeks, i do the same set of scheme with additional load.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Jordan08 said:


> I Just aim at doing the isolation movements after it. I feel if i would be doing more work, it more looks like a job rather than really enjoying the lifts. Though, currently not doing any of AMRAP kind of things and focusing on high rep training where number of sets and reps are freezed and after 6 weeks, i do the same set of scheme with additional load.


 I don't particularly enjoy training to be honest but I train as I do with results in mind instead. That said when I have for example done 4x4 squats in the past I didn't find that fun either!

Are you trying for any form of progression during your 6 week blocks?


----------



## Jordan08 (Feb 17, 2014)

Ultrasonic said:


> I don't particularly enjoy training to be honest but I train as I do with results in mind instead. That said when I have for example done 4x4 squats in the past I didn't find that fun either!
> 
> Are you trying for any form of progression during your 6 week blocks?


 The day i will stop enjoying my training, i might quit training.

Yes. During the 6 weeks block, i do the increment on load. Suppose in workout 1 i did 80kgs on BP (2*15), Next workout would be 85 and so on.

Currently doing all my work on 15RM's. So, if my current 15RM(~65% of 1RM) is lets say 100kgs, My Workout 1 would start from 40% of RM and at the end of week 6 my 15RM work would end at more than 100kgs.

For the next block, i would derive all my percentage on 105kgs.

I started the thread in natural bodybuilding section with a name "HST training". I am bad at explaining the things. That thread has spreadsheet in it, It would give you an exact idea what i am aiming at.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Jordan08 said:


> Yes. During the 6 weeks block, i do the increment on load. Suppose in workout 1 i did 80kgs on BP (2*15), Next workout would be 85 and so on.


 Ah, I read what you posted above to mean you only increased load every 6 weeks  .


----------



## Pancake' (Aug 30, 2012)

Devil said:


> I moved to a bro split after I realising I could not give a s**t about strength gains and train for aesthetics and no injuries. It's by far the most enjoyable type of training also, and so I actually like my sessions rather than "going through the motions".


 You do know, that some of the most aesthetically pleasing physiques was usually built on FB style training? at least for the most part, see, I train predominately for the aesthetic too. It's what I'm oriented towards genetic wise,

but I'm aware strength must and should be a priority. pump style training gains, majority made training this way are lost, but muscle built from a strength base, very likely to be more retainable. Elchapo also approved of this.


----------



## Devil (May 31, 2016)

Pancake' said:


> You do know, that some of the most aesthetically pleasing physiques was usually built on FB style training? at least for the most part, see, I train predominately for the aesthetic too. It's what I'm oriented towards genetic wise,
> 
> but I'm aware strength must and should be a priority. pump style training gains, majority made training this way are lost, but muscle built from a strength base, very likely to be more retainable. Elchapo also approved of this.


 Yes of course I am.

As I said, I still do one strength orientated compound lift per session where I focus on and apply proper progressive overload to ensure progress is moving smoothly and in the right direction..


----------



## Pancake' (Aug 30, 2012)

Ultrasonic said:


> I don't particularly enjoy training to be honest but I train as I do with results in mind instead. That said when I have for example done 4x4 squats in the past I didn't find that fun either!
> 
> Are you trying for any form of progression during your 6 week blocks?


 I just lost what I typed to you in response to previous quotes, what I will say is, I wouldn't find 4x4 or 5x5 on squats fun either. Reverse pyramid training I really favour for squats. e.g

1x2

1x5-8

1x8-15


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Pancake' said:


> I just lost what I typed to you in response to previous quotes, what I will say is, I wouldn't find 4x4 or 5x5 on squats fun either. Reverse pyramid training I really favour for squats. e.g
> 
> 1x2
> 
> ...


 I train for results not fun  .

I generally dislike pyramids as I think prioritising volume at a meaningful weight will be more productive. If that 1x2 is anywhere close to a 2 RM it is also way heavier than I'd consider to be worth the injury risk or to be a good use of training and recovery capacity for hypertrophy goals. (I know you won't agree with this  .)


----------



## 19072 (Aug 11, 2010)

Currently running a legs/push/pull/legs

but now switching to U/L/U/L with this

*Upper*

Bench press - 3x5

Bent over rows - 3x10

EZ press - 3x10

CGBP - 3x12

Barbell curls - 3x12

Side delts - 3x12

*Lower*

Deadlifts - 3x5

Thrusters - 4x10

DB Hams - 4x12

DB RDL - 3x8-10

Calf raises- 4x15

*Upper*

Log press - 3x5

Weighted chins - 3 sets x failure

Inc Bench press - 3x10

Weighted dips - 3x12

Hammer curls - 3x12

Rear delts - 3x12

*Lower*

Squats - 3x5

Bulgarian split squats - 4x10-12

Leg press - 3x8-12

Leg extensions - 3x15+

Calf raises- 4x15


----------



## Pancake' (Aug 30, 2012)

Ultrasonic said:


> I train for results not fun  .
> 
> I generally dislike pyramids as I think prioritising volume at a meaningful weight will be more productive. If that 1x2 is anywhere close to a 2 RM it is also way heavier than I'd consider to be worth the injury risk or to be a good use of training and recovery capacity for hypertrophy goals. (I know you won't agree with this  .)


 Reach failure and rest more then. 

I dislike standard pyramid method, but favour reverse pyramid training. yes a 2RM, scary I know.

Getting strong in low rep ranges = gaining strength in higher = more hypertrophic gainzzz brahh

Makes your rep work easier. also builds character, resilience and is a real battle. I quiet like the rush.


----------



## AestheticManlet (Jun 12, 2012)

Bro split I used to use a while ago. Problem is I feel a dedicated shoulder day is a waste which made me follow ppl.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Pancake' said:


> Reach failure and rest more then.


 That still limits total volume. I've tried using failure much more than I do now BTW. I'm not sure if the physiology is fully understood but there is something disproportionately tiring about the extra failed rep, and although I can't say I've definitely experienced this a general view that intra-wirkout recovery takes disproportionately longer too.

I probably take longer rests than most actually as I very much prioritise load over getting a pump. My first exercise of each day I have a minimum of 2m30s between sets, and by my final set of squats or RDLs it might be 4 minutes.



> Getting strong in low rep ranges = gaining strength in higher = more hypertrophic gainzzz brahh


 To some extent. Very low rep work has a significant skill component, and below about 5 reps we're getting into rate coding rather than recruitment territory. Not getting injured is also a key component of long term progress for me.

I do vary rep ranges but I doubt I'll go below 6 reps again, 5 at a push. I guess I might reconsider if I got to the point I was no longer making progress but it wouldn't be the first thing I'd try.



> Makes your rep work easier. also builds character, resilience and is a real battle. I quiet like the rush.


 I totally get that for most making progress on a 1RM is a real objective and sense of pride. I have genuinely never even attempted a 1RM though as my priorities are size, health and real-world strength (in roughly that order). By real-world strength I mean strength for reps, which for most practical situations is actually what is useful.

I understand and respect where you're coming from about it being helpful for you though.


----------



## Pancake' (Aug 30, 2012)

Ultrasonic said:


> That still limits total volume. I've tried using failure much more than I do now BTW. I'm not sure if the physiology is fully understood but there is something disproportionately tiring about the extra failed rep, and although I can't say I've definitely experienced this a general view that intra-wirkout recovery takes disproportionately longer too.
> 
> I probably take longer rests than most actually as I very much prioritise load over getting a pump. My first exercise of each day I have a minimum of 2m30s between sets, and by my final set of squats or RDLs it might be 4 minutes.


 I have heard of numerous different perspectives, advanced guys suggesting total accumulated workload in the session being most important. but if this was the case, you could achieve this moving tiny weights for ultra high reps.

I'm aware isratel believes volume being the main driver for growth. this is what brings me to my stance being, it's not what you do, but the execution. Quality>quantity. Data can be for and against, I have seen of no real benefit to higher frequency as long as volume equated is the same. I've also seen no real differences in muscle gain training a muscle more than twice a week. You can find what you want to find these days.

I rest exactly 5minutes per each set on compounds, I simply have to and resting that long is supposedly beneficial towards testosterone amongst whatever else it contributes towards.



Ultrasonic said:


> To some extent. Very low rep work has a significant skill component, and below about 5 reps we're getting into rate coding rather than recruitment territory. Not getting injured is also a key component of long term progress for me.
> 
> I do vary rep ranges but I doubt I'll go below 6 reps again, 5 at a push. I guess I might reconsider if I got to the point I was no longer making progress but it wouldn't be the first thing I'd try.


 It requires intense focus, collected aggression and concentration. Form being paramount. I admit, I have trained like a reckless d1ckhead and I always have, because I feel cheated if I don't train till failure. Knowing if I can get 7 but stop at 5, I would overthink that and would experience a sense of disappointment. Ofc it's risky and it explains, my recent break, being more aware, as I really don't want a pec tear. I'm having fun atm.

What I will say is performing singles, doubles, triples will build a lot of muscle. especially if natural. don't believe the must be minimum 8 reps or bodybuilding ranges. you might think, what could a single offer? you're pushing the muscle to it's maximum capacity, think of the fibre recruitment for a second. look at Eric Bugenhagen, performs lots of singles, in fact, he also trains Bulgarian light and I think ED, is a natural athlete with a background. has A LOT of muscle for a true natural and stronger than majority of per users. He can thank intensity for that.



Ultrasonic said:


> I totally get that for most making progress on a 1RM is a real objective and sense of pride. I have genuinely never even attempted a 1RM though as my priorities are size, health and real-world strength (in roughly that order). By real-world strength I mean strength for reps, which for most practical situations is actually what is useful.
> 
> I understand and respect where you're coming from about it being helpful for you though.


 I am certainly a fan of low reps. despite being bodybuilding oriented. It's a different world, the build up, the rush, @BLUE(UK) will tell you anything over 5 isn't quite the same. Low reps will compliment your goals and provide real world strength, this is a funny term actually, because real world is usually clumsy, awkward etc. Atlas stones, farmers walks, log, sandbag, strongman stuff takes more focus here. simply research about, perhaps experiment yourself, if you wish, please don't feel, I'm pushing what I think is only method, different paths often lead to same destinations.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Pancake' said:


> I have heard of numerous different perspectives, advanced guys suggesting total accumulated workload in the session being most important. but if this was the case, you could achieve this moving tiny weights for ultra high reps.


 All volume is not equal. There is lots of debate about how to 'count' meaningful volume about (including in YouTube videos I've posted links to and here) but the simplest definition that is gaining favour is one I believe suggested by Greg Nuckols: the number of 'hard sets'. Greg discusses this idea and the wider subject in the following excellent link, which I'd encourage you to read if you're genuinely interested in this subject:

https://muscleandstrengthpyramids.com/counting-training-volume-greg-nuckols/



> I'm aware isratel believes volume being the main driver for growth.


 Along with the overwhelming majority of people in what could broadly be called the evidence based community, including both coaches and researchers. Believing that volume is not the main driver for hypertrophy is very much a fringe idea. But as above we're not just talking about any old volume, and Mike Israetel and others will use the term 'junk volume' for that which is not productive.

Note that a major reason for my training routine structure is with the aim to ensure that all my sets are productive. If I reduced my number of training days but tried to maintain the same training volume I would need to drop the load significantly for the later exercises/sets, and even then I would probably struggle mentally to truly push myself. I don't disagree with your thoughts on prioritising quality, we just have different interpretations of this.



> Knowing if I can get 7 but stop at 5, I would overthink that and would experience a sense of disappointment.


 Something like 18 months ago I tried experimenting with taking every set to failure. Firstly I quickly concluded this really wasn't sensible for all exercises (e.g. squats) but persevered for most. I make much better progress with what I do now. Just making the point that whilst I do very much listen to people I feel are well-respected and knowledgeable coaches I have also tried different things.


----------



## BLUE(UK) (Jan 9, 2008)

Just my personal experience here and not something backed up by multiple links or the views of expert YouTube trainers.

Volume works well if you're not strong/powerful. Lifting lots of weight for many sets is a sure way to ruin yourself. Think Marathon type trainers.

Low reps is great if you can muster up the explosive energy/adrenaline to work the muscles within the given reps. Think 100m sprinters.

High reps are good for those who can't lift heavy but have the mental capacity to keep pushing on. TUT may also work well for these people.

Personally I train low reps although sometimes I'll do a few high rep sets which will be pushing hard(60kg OHP for 20 reps or so) but sometimes if I do this I can be burnt out in one set but then afterwards it feels like I've wasted my time as in the past I get no growth nor strength from doing higher reps.

If I feel niggly injuries I may switch to TUT for a few weeks or so, again no real benefit to me doing TUT except that I gain more muscle control through the movement when I go back heavy.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

BLUE(UK) said:


> Low reps is great if you can muster up the explosive energy/adrenaline to work the muscles within the given reps. Think 100miles sprinters.


 100 miles is some sprint  .

More seriously though, where for me the sprinting analogy falls down is that a quick Google suggests Usain Bolt takes 41 steps to complete a 100m sprint. Similarly sprint cyclists with huge quads also generate force over what by weight training standards would be a relatively high number of reps. My point being that whilst sprinters are undoubtedly more muscular than marathon runners, their performance (and training) is mostly about sustained* force production over many reps rather than a powerlifting style all-out effort for a single rep.

I take your point about higher volume at heavier absolute weights being more fatiguing though. I don't particularly follow assisted pro-bodybuilders but I get the impression that Kai Greene primarily trains with lots of sets of around 20 reps, and giant sets/drop sets, and I do wonder if deliberately limiting absolute weights lifted may be a reason for this. Just a thought.

The sprinter/marathon runner analogy also reminds me of a factor I wonder if may account for at least some of the apparent variation in how different people respond to different types of training, which is the varying mix of slow-twitch (type I) and fast-twitch (type II) muscle fibres (yes there are sub-types but let's keep it simple.) Good sprinters will I think be genetically more fast-twitch dominant whilst marathon runners are likely to be more slow-twitch dominant. I've not seen any work investigating this but I wonder if people who appear to do better on lower volume and lower rep focused training might be more fast-twitch dominant whilst those that do better on higher volumes and reps might be more slow-twitch dominant. Just speculation on my part.

Genetically I have much more of a marathon runner's physique than than of a sprinter unfortunately  .

*Yes, there will be more force needed for the initial acceleration but the broad point stands.


----------



## BLUE(UK) (Jan 9, 2008)

Ultrasonic said:


> 100 miles is some sprint  .
> 
> More seriously though, where for me the sprinting analogy falls down is that a quick Google suggests Usain Bolt takes 41 steps to complete a 100m sprint. Similarly sprint cyclists with huge quads also generate force over what by weight training standards would be a relatively high number of reps. My point being that whilst sprinters are undoubtedly more muscular than marathon runners, their performance (and training) is mostly about sustained* force production over many reps rather than a powerlifting style all-out effort for a single rep.
> 
> ...


 I've edit my post, I've no idea how I wrote miles!! Haha.

I'll try and keep this brief(as always);

Usain Bolt is a genetic freak, I watched a programme about him, he's a once in a lifetime type guy. Jonah Lomu is another such freak that blows the ideals we have of types that should do what. If I believed in God, I'd say that he sends someone now n again to test our thoughts. Haha. Training wise, around 20yrs ago, I used to train in 'Powerbase', this was/is Loughborough university's weights gym(they had two at the time, the other was cardio based with some weights). All Eleiko kit and very good quality benches and machines. Anyways, in here was more often than not some of the country's best performers at various times of the day. I'd often see sprinters coming in with their coaches to do many different types of Olympic style lifts before going back to the indoor hall to continue their explosive starts or whatever(I'd sometimes watch for a bit to get ideas). These people would be doing low reps. Not always though but often. Leicester Tigers also trained here at the time, their fronts and backs did different training(two different S&C coaches as well as students helping/learning).

I personally wouldn't believe half of what bodybuilders say or claim to do although saying that, not only must they be genetically gifted but also using so much AAS that their biceps would grow more from just whacking off than I'd grow using any optimal training programme.

Fast/slow twitch fibres, yes, take advantage of what you've got.

Your genetics- given your genetic type, IMO, I'd say you're better suited to GVT although no one could say 100% unless you tried other training types as I think only the few would be 100% suited to a set type of training due to their genetic make up. Most would be 70/30 or suchlike which means they're kinda bolloxed whichever training they do.

I recall a lad talking to me about training back when I worked the doors(he'd been to the gym for a year then lost interest, tried again and lost interest). One of the lads on the doors told me quite a while before that he'd been on AAS and I dismissed it as the most ridiculous thing ever, he didn't look like he trained never mind used any AAS. Anyways, when I was talking to him, he was actually upset as he was telling me that he'd tried and tried but just didn't respond. He couldn't even do a pull up nor a press up despite not even being very heavy. He told me that it was ok for me as I just rock up to the gym and lift big heavy weights, eat what I want, didn't even need to use AAS like the others(the gym I used was full of AAS users) and yet I looked better than most of them. At the time, I always thought that I get out what I put in, I only cheat myself when I cut sets short without good reason. I told him that he doesn't realise the effort that I put into my sessions, he can probably see but he doesn't realise what my body is going through. I don't just inhale and push/pull that bar, no, I look deep within myself, my heart rate increases, my body temp goes up a notch or three, at this point I'm just pretending, it needs to be higher otherwise I'm gonna fail...

Sometimes I am so psyched that I should've had another 10kg aside that bar as I felt nothing, but sometimes I should've had 10kg aside less!! Haha.

What i now realise is, not everyone has this or perhaps they do but they can't find it within themselves hence it is pointless them training with me. For these types, they need higher reps or even GVT but for some, even these won't work for them.


----------



## Ferenor (Jun 27, 2018)

I'm doing the standard PHUL which has first two days a strength approach and the last two days a hypertrophy approach. With the lower part, I prefer to do only strength approach. Is it ok in your opinion two do the Power workout also the second lower day?


----------

