>2017 >/fit/ still thinks you can't make gains on

>>40368481
Post results

>>40368481
Pic

File: Starting Strength - 02.jpg (259KB, 1101x911px) Image search: [Google]

259KB, 1101x911px

>>40368481
Yeah, okay buddy. Bro-splits and natty don't mix

>>40368819
1. That's not a brosplit
2. He is weak as fuck and looks 100 pounds soaking wet because he doesn't eat
3. That's the most retarded exercise selection I've ever scene
4. If you think that's what a brosplit is meant to be you're showing your dyel colours

>>40368481
There'd be a million reasons at play here but basically:

-The longer you lift, the more volume is needed to stimulate hypertrophy. Bro splits have crazy high volume but aren't necessary for beginners because doing something like only bench press for chest is plenty of volume for a beginner, therefore they should bench several times per week. After you've been lifting for months-years, that amount of volume isn't going to give you any new gains, therefore you should up your volume. A practical way to do this is to start a bro split.

-to summarise the above, the more experienced you are as a lifter, the more volume you need, and the tradeoff in gains between volume and frequency starts to favour volume when you've been lifting for several years. There are a lot of physiological reasons for this but I don't remember in detail and don't want to explain.

-the American College of Sports Medicine recommends basically a full body program for beginners, P/P/L for intermediates (2-3 years lifting, gains from full body maxed out) and a bro-split for advanceds (5+ years lifting, gains from P/P/L maxed out)

Sounds basically like you're just training properly for your level of experience. Also you're probably eating better and getting better at working out in general as they years have gone on. Also it's probably in your head too because placebo effect

>>40369146
1. a brosplit is anything not named PPL or a dedicated strength program
2. sure
3. you havent lurked here long enough
4. see 1. also ur a faggot

>>40370123
>the more experienced you are as a lifter, the more volume you need
Nah, this isn't true for advanced/elite lifters.
When you get near your genetic potential, hypertrophy is going to be nearly non-existent and most of the training is going to be spent on strength, technique, and staying injury free.

>the tradeoff in gains between volume and frequency starts to favour volume when you've been lifting for several years
There isn't a trade off. High frequency is great to increase volume.
There is a trade off for intensity and frequency, and chance of injury and frequency, but not volume and frequency.

>>40370276
Mate, what you're saying just isn't technically true.

Speaking purely from a hypertrophy perspective with all other variables like strength and technique aside (assuming OP was), you will start to hit a wall with gains eventually, and the only way to increase gains is to increase volume PER workout. Frequency effects gains through different mechanisms, which become less important as your body adapts from years of lifting. Frequency and volume are not related, at least not conceptually. Volume is per workout, frequency is number of workouts, at least classically speaking.

There's a really good meta-analysis from the ACSM which basically tells you what I'm saying if you're interested

>>40370184
No

File: 1483483886110.png (847KB, 630x582px) Image search: [Google]

847KB, 630x582px

I started on a brosplit for my first year, then moved to a 1x a week freq plan. My numbers are
>DL 455
>squat 365
>bench 275
>press 165

BW 185-187

>>40370525
You're probably wrong though.
Latest research shows otherwise.
Take a look at the Norwegian High-Frequency powerlifting project, and knowledgable strength coaches like Eric Helms, Menno Henselman, and Mike Israetel.
There are a few interviews of them on youtube.

>the only way to increase gains is to increase volume PER workout
Nah, average volume per 3 or 4 days (or something close to that) is more important.
Anyway, that isn't the only way to increase gains.
Variation in exercise, eccentric/concentric/isometric, rest times, rep range, etc can also induce hypertrophy.

>Frequency effects gains through different mechanisms, which become less important as your body adapts from years of lifting.
The Norwegian project shows otherwise.
High frequency produced significant gains in already strong powerlifters.
Also, Henselman has theorized that frequency becomes more important the more experienced someone is, because MPS lasts less long in more advanced lifters.

>Frequency and volume are not related, at least not conceptually. Volume is per workout, frequency is number of workouts, at least classically speaking.
Conceptually maybe not, but practically they are related.
As a crude example, it's easy to do 5 sets of squats every day, but it's hard to do 35 sets of squats once a week.

>There's a really good meta-analysis from the ACSM
If you have a link, I'll give it a read.
But I don't trust the ACSM over knowledgeable strength coaches and researchers.

I don't know if doing squats more than twice (or even once) a week is necessary for optimal hypertrophy gains, but I do know that you don't know it for sure either.
There's just more research necessary.

I've never given a brosplit a proper try. Not going to jump to any conclusions till I do, but given that my goal is mass and strength, and that I'm getting both from the Texas method, I ain't going to go messing with it.

>>40370645
>Take a look at the Norwegian High-Frequency powerlifting project
I don't know what this is, link me. I do trust Eric Helms though, some of the same guys that taught him are now teaching me.

>Nah, average volume per 3 or 4 days (or something close to that) is more important
Interested in what you're basing this on. Elevated MPS from exercise lasts around 24 hours on average, but there's a lot more to muscular hypertrophy than just that. If I had to theorise, I'd say you're probably right about it being the average volume per about 3-4 days that is most important being correct, but I've never read this anywhere before.
You're right about variation, etc, also effecting gains but I was paraphrasing for the sake of OP.

>High frequency produced significant gains in already strong powerlifters
Is this muscle gains or strength gains though? While muscle gains are closely related to strength gains, there are a lot of different mechanisms other than muscular hypertrophy that can contribute to increases in strength. Though granted, hypertrophy and technique are responsible for most gains in strength past about 6-12 months.

>As a crude example, it's easy to do 5 sets of squats every day, but it's hard to do 35 sets of squats once a week
This is true, but the literature doesn't really show any benefits of doing 35 sets of squats in the same workout vs say 7. If the above theory of volume over a 4 day period is true, then a frequency of 1x per week vs 2 produces a similar amount of volume (7 sets/week vs 8.75).
That would make it seem like 2x per week is optimal vs 1x, but things are just more complicated than that. (2x per week might be more optimal than 1x for everyone except maybe advanced, and even then it might still be)

>If you have a link, I'll give it a read.
http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Fulltext/2009/03000/Progression_Models_in_Resistance_Training_for.26.aspx

>>40370870
Welp, upon reading, I was kind of right but mostly wrong lol.. It has been years since I studied this.. Well done, anon.

Basically as far as frequency goes, the ACSM (which may I remind you is one of the most recognised and cited institutions within the S&C industry) recommends:

Beginner - Full body 3x/week

Intermediate - U/L 2x/ week

Advanced - Bro split with multiple workouts per day, meaning training each body part 2x/week

^That should be right

>>40370870
http://www.strongerbyscience.com/high-frequency-training-for-a-bigger-total-research-on-highly-trained-norwegian-powerlifters/


>>Nah, average volume per 3 or 4 days (or something close to that) is more important
>Interested in what you're basing this on.
I've heard of those strength/bodybuilding coaches say it in an interview. I don't think I could find it back easily.

>Elevated MPS from exercise lasts around 24 hours on average
Henselman argues that because MPS is different for novices (MPS lasts for several days) than for advanced trainees (MPS lasts less than a day), more advanced trainees need a higher frequency.

>but there's a lot more to muscular hypertrophy than just that
True. I don't know if Henselman's argument is valid just based on MPS.

For the rest, I don't really know much about all this.
From all that I've read and heard I just know that we don't know what is optimal and how much it differs per person, and that more research needs to be done.

>>40370928
Yeah, there have been a lot of changing opinions on this, and we're not there yet.

>Beginner - Full body 3x/week
>Intermediate - U/L 2x/ week
>Advanced - Bro split with multiple workouts per day, meaning training each body part 2x/week
This is probably fine as a general recommendation, but you could probably also do it differently and still get good results.

Don't forget that the nature of institutions like the ACSM make them lag behind current research.
Which can be a good thing for general population recommendations, but doesn't necessarily show what current research shows.

>>40370123
>>40370525
>>40370870
>>40370928
What I wanna make clear most of all is that I think you (or anyone for that matter) shouldn't be too sure about how it all works, because nobody really knows yet how it all fits together.

If you have decent strength, bro splits work very well.

Anyone who says otherwise is just being a pedantic cunt who has probably never actually tried it and most likely starting lifting during the "muh UL" and "muh PPL" bandwagon thats taken off in the last 3-4 years.