What's wrong with a brosplit?

Oh god wouldn’t want lifting weights to wear you out

SS for beginners followed by 4day upper/lower split

Bullshit.
Myofibrillar protein synthesis lasts for a long time, all the research we have on muscle protein synthesis is not looking at MYOFIBRILLAR muscle protein synthesis specifically, but a combination of sarcoplasmic, mitochondrial and myofibrillar, and mitochondrial muscle protein synthesis is by far the biggest component of muscle protein synthesis.
Mitochondrial muscle protein synthesis has 0 impact in the growth of actual contracting muscle tissue and is the one that lowers a few hours after training.
We actually haven't measured for how long contracting muscle tissue is growing for after being resistance training, we only have very short term studied done on trained people and as you can see its synthetic rate is increased modestly compared to whole muscle proteins, and it shows no signs of slowing down after 24 hours, it seems to stay elevated for several days but we have never measured how long it lasts.

The only reason why higher frequency shows to be superior in SOME cases is due to the fact that it allows greater voloume to be used, that and in most studied comparing low frequency to high frequency fail to equate total volume, because warmups are not taken into account, and warmups are in higher ammount in higher frequencies.
There are studied done that indicate that once a week is as good as three times a week for some muscle groups for example, others show that it doesn't matter as long as volume is equated.
The only big difference is in strength gain/peaking where higher frequencies are superior at least in the short term.

Attached: unknown.png (478x489, 249K)

brosplits aren't designed for natties

Biggest meme out there. I've never seen any guy who looks good doing full body workouts.

Post your brosplits

Attached: 1537636059612.jpg (791x960, 564K)

What does this mean Jerry??

(My opinion)

I think that studies just show something that should be an obvious truth: the more work you put at the gym, the bigger you'll be. Adding workout days (or more workouts per day) is an easy way of getting in more volume.

Of course you gotta be smart about it. Putting a ton of volume in a single day is asking for injury, so the smart way would be to spread it out. The closer you are to your genetic potential, pretty sure you'll need more volume to get ever-decreasing results.

Full body is usually done for beginners, no shit they don’t look good.

The reason frequency is a good thing is it means you spend a greater proportion of your time, on any one muscle group, fresh. This means your technical execution will be better and you could be able to lift more weight, and mechanical tension is a driver of hypertrophy.

Like if you do 16 sets/week for chest, if you do them all on one day then most of them will be done in a state of fatigue, if you split that in to two sessions, you'll be fairly fresh the whole time, and you can go hard for most of it knowing you aren't compromising all the exercises you're going to do next

True, I don't disagree.
But you have to take into account that the big peaks in muscle protein synthesis( that people associate with growth) are mostly associated with mere muscle repair, not actual net growth.
Training more often makes it far easier to do more volume which is what makes you grow, that is true.
I just dislike this notion that bro splits don't work on natties which is simply not true, roidfags grow on any routine, even not training makes then grow if they're juicing.
Natties grow even with infrequent training.
Imo it is far easier to avoid overreaching if you do lots of volume on one day instead of doing lots a bunch of sets every other day, it makes it far easier to manage fatigue imo but yeah overdoing it on any given day is also bad, and easier to avoid on higher frequencies because you are less motivated to push yourself as hard on any given day if you are training often.
It is mostly personal preferance.

frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphys.2018.00744/full
No difference in muscle thickness between once a week and three times a week training frequency when volume is equated,but strength increased a bit faster in the 3x a week group(it also started to significantly decline at the end of the study during the detraining period).
It's really all up to personal preferance.
The less often you train the more damaging and the more of a training stimilus you get from each session, the more often you train the less you will respond to any given session but due to how they're spaced out throughout the week you get less of a detraining effect so it balances the results.

Nothing, brosplits are awesome. It's the most fun, you get to go to the gym more often, and you get the best aesthetic gains.

Refer to this bro:

You're wrong. High frequency training resulted in 20% higher strength gains.

Attached: 1537912728350.jpg (400x393, 41K)

Generally in order to gain muscle you want to have high frequency and high volume. If you do a bro split you won't push as hard as when doing full body training because after a certain number sets of a certain exercise your muscles are exhausted. When training full body I usually hit upper body compounds, then lower body compounds and then isolation. If I did all my bench sets (or press or squat sets) in one training session I wouldn't be able to lift as much weight as I usually do in the second press or squat variation.

Sorry I'm a retard, I meant high intensity and high volume

>big peaks in muscle protein synthesis( that people associate with growth) are mostly associated with mere muscle repair, not actual net growth.

Very true. One reason to not jump to the conclusion that a particular kind of lifting leads to improved gains just from muscle synthesis data. It could be that the exercise itself is simply causing more damage to be repaired.

Experiments measuring changes in lean mass are (derp) the best way to detect if something causes changes in lean mass.

strength gains, in some studies, muscle growth is a different story and depends on the given study you're looking at.
You're just ignoring some that disagree with what you claim, what I am saying is that it doesn't make a difference, and that centering one's training around "muscle protein synthesis rates post workout" is a waste of time.

something to emphasize:

-myofibrillar muscle protein synthesis is the one thing that matters for muscle growth and strength, it's also associated with sarcoplasmic muscle protein synthesis so there's no need measure one and the other.
-mitochondrial muscle protein synthesis has nothing to do with muscle growth but is the biggest component of muscle protein synthesis, so we cannot take muscle protein synthesis as the end all be all of muscle growth.
-We don't actually know how long muscles keep growing after being trained, and we don't know how much the growing rates differ depending on how much volume is done, we just know that myofibrillar muscle protein synthesis elevates slightly and then stays elevated for at least 16h with no signs of slowing down, and we also don't know if the synthesis rates stay elevated with each frequent meal throughout the following hours and days.
The "muscles only grow for 48h after a workout" meme is based on the misunderstanding of the data.

In english professor!

Fucking learn some words, faggot.

Muscles usually take between 48- 72 hours to fully recover, and a brosplit usually has the recovery take a week long break between working a specific muscle and is as such, inefficient compared to other programs such as PHUL, PPL, or certain full body variations which work the same muscle groups more frequently while still allowing adequate recovery time. Not sure why other anons are going into microbiology for a pretty simple question.

This

>all these recoverylets who can't lift heavy multiple days in a row
>don't realize consistent, heavier higher quality reps are better than doing all of those reps in one day where they get lighter and with lower quality as the workout continues

No wonder Jow Forums is so weak.

Hardcore descension

>more volume = more gains
Beginner, pls it's not that simple. If the stimulus from the weight you're lifting isn't challenging to move, you'll be doing absolutely nothing but exhausting yourself. You aren't going to get big lifting 20s for 20 reps.

Also, hitting the muscles more times a week means more volume per week. Workouts are more than just the hour or so you're in the gym.

It still provides more volume than you could ever achieve in a single workout.

It's what undulating periodization is made for.

This guy is going to make it

That is just horseshit. "most People" (where do you even get that idea from? Who is most People? How many have you observed doing 3 day full body routines? ) that get burned out on full body routines are missmanaging intensities volume and fatigue and are shitty at lifting.

Most guys doing full body are fatties trying to lose fat. Of course they look bad.

frequency is a variable inside volume retart

Now post body

guy doing full body after one year:
>bench 500lbs
>squat 900lbs
>still looks skinnyfat and dyel

guy doing brosplits after 3 months:
>look aesthetics af
>"user your body is my goal tell my your workout"

I swear bros use Jow Forums to troll beginners

Attached: 015.png (434x327, 37K)

Is a brosplit..
>any kind of split
>upper/lower
>ppl
>four ways or even more split

??

a bro split is ppl + shoulder day + arm day
so 5 days of training with 2 day rest

fuck u

Thanks family

>an entire day for shoulders
Surely a decent push and or pull day would take care of both shoulders and arms

not enough squats reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Attached: 1531957420872.jpg (789x750, 94K)

yeah this
completely dyel guys by Jow Forums strength standards look aesthetic as fuck while benching 160lbs in some ppl program

You should only do a full body routine if you're building a base with the plan of hopping on gear a year later, and then switching to a bro split.

Nobody looks good after 3 months, unless he already looked good

They look assthedick because they use good lighting and abuse angles. If you saw them in real life they'd look small as fuck and disappear in a medium shirt.

Optimal gains for beginner & intermediate lifters occur when you hit the same muscle group with good intensity twice per week with exercises that have multiple joins in action and require a developed core to perform. When you plateau you need to do some more advanced techniques to tease out gains.

The pill very few in the fitness game are willing to swallow.

Pick any non-retarded program and do it. The results will be more or less the same assuming consistent effort after a period of a few years.

What a waste

>God to manlet

Attached: 1538775928856.png (592x533, 14K)

Exactly. Like it's interesting to look at experiments that try different routines, frequencies of lifts at particular times of the day etc.

But most of these studies produce relatively small differences between groups and even if they are statistically significant aren't large enough to be meaningful and might be non-existent for you if you're already well trained etc. And for all we know they may not even be replicable.

Behold, the biggest reason to stay natty. Huge traps are disgusting and on gear your traps swell up even if you neglect them. Built shoulders and small traps is the peak of human aesthetics.

Attached: download (1).jpg (259x194, 10K)

dennis the golden god inventor of the DENNIS system

There is a difference between actually working out a muscle and just getting exhausted

I bet you're so fucking stupid you thinking running gives you big legs

>le brosplits are bad!
>by fat the most common and popular workout routines
>most guys who do them get swole if they stick to it
Full body, 3 day split, 2 day split, 4 5 who gives a shit. If you lift you make gains. End of /thread.

Selection bias, most people doing brosplits are big because they're on steroids not because they're doing brosplits.

Can confirm. Am swole after 7 months of bro splits without being athletic at all prior.