Full body workout is the new split.

[duchaine]

I've been pushing high frequency full body since 2000, when I read Brian Haycock and modified HST.
After some researches and personal experiences, I changed some HST variables: specifically, I increased volume and frequency and used some rest pause techniques.
Some years ago, I read Scott Stevenson's book/ideas and I said "shit, I was right!".

I talked with Eric helms, Jeff nipped, Mike Israetel about my methodology...Their replies were always the same "it is too much" "you can train your entire body because, after some sets, performance will suffer" "you can't train a muscle everyday because the muscle has not recovered yet (!)".
I hoped these guys were going to change their minds and said "maybe Brian and Scott are right.."
Now all of them are pushing for full body training. Full body is the new split: an "on style" training method.

Ok, it is on style but it is old style too!
Call it vintage training!

Now, the bad part.
They changed their mind but they are not paying any tribute to Brian or Scott or...Arthur jones. Because that man had no scientific background but was a fucking intuitive genius!
It is embarrassing how these guys recycle old ideas but do not say anything about the story behind "their" ideas. It makes me crazy!
We know bodybuilding is a business and if you are trying to make money, one of the strategies is showing you invented something new.
But I can't tolerate this unethical attitude: this is stealing ideas.

[flairsjobber]

To be fair, the full body workouts predates everybody you mentioned. Steve Reeves did a full body workout. Everybody has always taking from the past and added a few tweaks here and there.

[duchaine]

To be fair, the full body workouts predates everybody you mentioned. Steve Reeves did a full body workout. Everybody has always taking from the past and added a few tweaks here and there.

Sure!
We have 2 arms, 2 legs and 7 seven/week to workout so it is very hard to say something really new in 2019
I remember that lyle mcdonlad quoted a very old book (it I'm not wrong, it was late '800, suggestions 3x week, 8-10 reps for muscle group).
there is a reason why I quoted Brian and Scott.
Brian was the first to analyze training method in a very scientific way and was the first to fix the idea that "protein super compensation doesn't exists" and that completly changed the approach to training.
anyway, HST had some problems, especially related to volume and periodization.
Scott moved from many of the researches Brian used, training a more holistic and flexible approach.
now, consider Jeff nippaRd: he is pushing the idea to train full body, high frequency, 2-3 movement for lower body and 4-5 for upper body and says that stretching increases hypertrophy.
Does it sound familiar?!?!?!?!?!?!?
He was a split routine supporter, now he completly changed his mind. Nothing wrong with that but if you are using FT, call it FT. Do not sell it has your genuine idea and pay to Scott the moral tribute!

[Scott Stevenson]

Duchaine,

Thanks for the support, but really, man - this is the nature of things. I'm not terribly concerned about recognition, as long as I can reach folks and help them out.

I didn't develop FT in a vacuum (as flairsjobber was pointing out), which I explain in the FT e-book, but you're right in that I do try to acknowledge my sources if info / inspiration.

I think Eric Helms recently did an interview where he explained how he spent a couple years coming to the conclusion the the 5x / week full body split he does. (This may be in the YouTube video he has with Jeff Nippard...)

I thinks it's possible you may be falsely attributing some deception to Eric - I can't say for sure, either - but I don't get the sense he is intentionally no giving credit to "those who came before him..."

Really, though - thanks for the support. It's interesting how things do come around, though, eh?...

-S

[duchaine]

Really, though - thanks for the support. It's interesting how things do come around, though, eh?...

-S

Scott, The first thing that comes to my mind is: "shit, the scientific based crew sells itself very very well!".
If Raffaele (me) said: high frequency is better because "several reasons", all their fans replied "shut up, mr nobody!".
If Jeff nippard says the exact same thing, the same guys follow him like the sheep follow the Sheppard!

Yesterday I was reading a paper about rest pause sets.
At the beginning the authors wrote that "net muscle gain is anabolism - catabolism" and cited "Schoenfeld 2013".
Ok...schoenfeld 2013???? I've been reading researches on pubmed since 1999. All the researches I read during this years say that muscle gain is the net difference between anabolism and catabolism. Why do they quote Schoenfeld that is not the first to say that? Because they are a buttKiss and hope he will invite them to a siminar.
I've a PHD and work in university. I know very well these kind of academical dynamics. and let me say: I hate them!

---

Sorry my digression!

[Scott Stevenson]

Scott, The first thing that comes to my mind is: "shit, the scientific based crew sells itself very very well!".
If Raffaele (me) said: high frequency is better because "several reasons", all their fans replied "shut up, mr nobody!".
If Jeff nippard says the exact same thing, the same guys follow him like the sheep follow the Sheppard!

Yesterday I was reading a paper about rest pause sets.
At the beginning the authors wrote that "net muscle gain is anabolism - catabolism" and cited "Schoenfeld 2013".
Ok...schoenfeld 2013???? I've been reading researches on pubmed since 1999. All the researches I read during this years say that muscle gain is the net difference between anabolism and catabolism. Why do they quote Schoenfeld that is not the first to say that? Because they are a buttKiss and hope he will invite them to a siminar.
I've a PHD and work in university. I know very well these kind of academical dynamics. and let me say: I hate them!

---

Sorry my digression!

LOL!!!

It's all good, man, and I understand your sentiments...

There are a few reasons why I'm not longer in academia and you touched on one. It's not ALL bad and not all apples are rotten, but it's quite political. At least, outside the ivory tower, I'm not shackled to the political arena.

You might enjoy reading these. (I found them all via Google scholar or researchgate, so you should be able to get the the full publications.)

Original Publication:
1. Figueiredo VC, de Salles BF, and Trajano GS. Volume for Muscle Hypertrophy and Health Outcomes: The Most Effective Variable in Resistance Training. Sports Med 2017.

Follow-up letter to editor:
Souza DC, Viana RB, Coswig VS, Fisher JP, Steele J, and Gentil P. Comment on: Volume for Muscle Hypertrophy and Health Outcomes: The Most Effective Variable in Resistance Training. Sports Med 48: 1281-1284, 2018.

Response of authors: Figueiredo VC, de Salles BF, and Trajano GS. Author's Reply to Souza et al: Comment on: "Volume for Muscle Hypertrophy and Health Outcomes: The Most Effective Variable in Resistance Training". Sports Med 48: 1285-1287, 2018.

-S