# Pros and Cons to Push/Pull Split?



## Leatherface (Mar 16, 2005)

I have read various opinions on the old Push/Pull training split of Chest/Shoulders/Tris one day, Legs another day, and Back/Bis another.

Many feel that the arms are a smaller muscle and therefore recuperate faster than the back, legs etc. so can be worked more often.  Others feel that by doing arms AFTER chest or back they are too tired lift with sufficient intensity while some feel that this is a BONUS becasue the arms are pre-fatigued by the chest and back work.

There are a ton of pros and cons to this split but I'd love to hear everyone's opinions on this topic and think it would make for a great debate.


----------



## Yanick (Mar 16, 2005)

i've never done a push/pull split. push/pull/legs i like and i also like upper/lower. i'm sure it will work as long as it is set up correctly.


----------



## CursedOne (Mar 16, 2005)

im just always on the fence as to where to throw in lateral raises, back day or front day.  i dont do a seperate shoulder day, i usually throw em in with front day.

as for the push pull split, i think it works best in the intermediate stages of your progress, but as you start to really put meat on its good to seperate stuff more.  scheduling is always a pain for me these days  

i think also changing up your routine to include both types of schedule at some point is always good.

Curse


----------



## gopro (Mar 17, 2005)

I like doing chest and shoulder together for periods of time. I do not like doing chest and tris together and I HATE back and biceps together.


----------



## M.J.H. (Mar 17, 2005)

I used a push/pull/legs split for some time with great success. I think its a good program overall.


----------



## IRONBXR (Mar 17, 2005)

I always used the "push pull split" in away even before I heard the phrase.  My thoughts were that I go to the gym Mon. chest back and bis  then Tues. shoulders legs and 2 pushdown movements for my tris nothing heavy just what I call shaping movements Wed off and then the same Thurs. as Mon. and Fri same as Tues  It works well for me with my schedule.  being married and working to pay the bills, yard work and general maintenance on the house and trying to fish   You get my drift.  The back is a huge set of muscles that need alot of weight on the bar to stimulate them to grow same with legs thats my main thoughts on a split those two muscle groups are exhausting to work and they IMO should be split up to get the proper intensity they deserve.  This is just my opinion and what has worked for me with my schedule.  My body I think gets plenty of rest and my triceps do get a little extra but I've never felt I was over training them.


----------



## DanK (Mar 17, 2005)

I like push pull leg splits... it's what I been doing lately. My shoulder work tends to mostly end up on push days, like I do military press and some other stuff on push day... and on pull day I do shrugs and other stuff that strikes me as more pull.


----------



## Premiere (Mar 18, 2005)

when i 1st started i used push/pull/legs and had nice gains on it, then i went to p/rr/s


----------



## PreMier (Mar 18, 2005)

Premiere said:
			
		

> when i 1st started i used push/pull/legs and had nice gains on it, then i went to p/rr/s



Why?


----------



## CowPimp (Mar 18, 2005)

Premiere said:
			
		

> when i 1st started i used push/pull/legs and had nice gains on it, then i went to p/rr/s



Push-Pull-Legs is a split, not a training protocol.  You can use Push-Pull-Legs with P-RR-S, which is a training protocol.


----------



## gopro (Mar 19, 2005)

PreMier said:
			
		

> Why?



Because eventually EVERYONE goes to P/RR/S


----------



## PreMier (Mar 20, 2005)

gopro said:
			
		

> Because eventually EVERYONE goes to P/RR/S



Hahahaha.. Its funny, I was listening to Billy Jean(MJ) and that banana dances perfect to it.

Anyway, people who dont know how to periodize their training will see good results on prrs.  It is a good program, look at tank, riss and yourself.  Just not for me


----------



## ACEOUTDOOR (Mar 20, 2005)

gopro said:
			
		

> Because eventually EVERYONE goes to P/RR/S


Stupid question, what is P/RR/S?


----------



## soxmuscle (Mar 20, 2005)

PreMier, why wouldn't P/RR/S be for you?


----------



## PreMier (Mar 20, 2005)

The training program in general is to consiolidated, and I like to use variable loading parameters each week.  I have also been gaining interest in strongman, and want to train more for strength.  The power week od prrs has nothing to do with power at all.


----------



## soxmuscle (Mar 20, 2005)

I see.


----------



## KarlW (Mar 20, 2005)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> Push-Pull-Legs is a split, not a training protocol. You can use Push-Pull-Legs with P-RR-S, which is a training protocol.


Quite true.



			
				PreMier said:
			
		

> The power week od prrs has nothing to do with power at all.


You mean low reps and powerful explosive moves are completely different things?


----------



## P-funk (Mar 20, 2005)

power has a time element to it.  strength does not.  that is the difference between the two.  Simply lifting as heavy as you can for 4 reps is not power training.  Power training would be using something like 60-80% of your 1RM for low reps like 2 and working on your velocity to make sure that you are in that threshold.  Power =  work/time.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Mar 20, 2005)

P-funk said:
			
		

> power has a time element to it.  strength does not.


What is, exactly, the definition of strength?
Both power and strength are functions of force...

Power = force * distance/time 

It is thusly the rate of force that influences the velocity of movement, e.g. velocity and acceleration are a result of force, and nothing else.  Which means, as far as I can tell, that any correlating increase in strength (force potential) is an increase in power.


----------



## P-funk (Mar 20, 2005)

Duncans Donuts said:
			
		

> What is, exactly, the definition of strength?
> Both power and strength are functions of force...
> 
> Power = force * distance/time
> ...




power- the ability to exert maximal force in the shortest amount of time.
strength- the ability of the neuromuscular system to provide internal tension and exert force against external resistnace.



I guess you could say that if strength increases power will increase but if you are looking at a 1RM bench press or deadlift.  A guy is going to attempt to move that bar as fast as possible.  but at that intensity more often then not the bar is going to be travelling pretty slowly.  So, it wouldn't really be catagorized as power since it is not in that threshold of time (remeber, there is a time element involved there).  An olympic lifter on the other hand is going to clean a weight in like fractions of a second (or a sprinter getting out of the blocks).  Now that is power.  In that short amount of time these guys have applied maximal force.  I may not be the best at explaining it.  haha.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Mar 20, 2005)

P-funk said:
			
		

> I guess you could say that if strength increases power will increase but if you are looking at a 1RM bench press or deadlift.  A guy is going to attempt to move that bar as fast as possible.  but at that intensity more often then not the bar is going to be travelling pretty slowly.  So, it wouldn't really be catagorized as power since it is not in that threshold of time (remeber, there is a time element involved there).  An olympic lifter on the other hand is going to clean a weight in like fractions of a second (or a sprinter getting out of the blocks).  Now that is power.  In that short amount of time these guys have applied maximal force.  I may not be the best at explaining it.  haha.



I don't understand...power is the rate of doing work, so if any work is done by a physics standard, then power is involved.

As far as this is concerend: "An olympic lifter on the other hand is going to clean a weight in like fractions of a second."



> Kinectic energy = 1/2 mv2.  Since mass remains constant (barbell), if velocity changes, so too must force, and in direct proportion.



It is the force that dictates speed of movement, in any endeavor, including the bench press or the power clean.  It can be further deduced that any increase in force potential (strength) is an increase in power regardless of the speed that the exercise is conducted at.

In other words, if a muscle increases it's force potential by utiliizing a superslow protocol, then the rate that the actual work was done is of no significance.  Strength increase = force increase = velocity increase.


----------



## P-funk (Mar 20, 2005)

I see what you are saying.  Yes strength increase=power increase.  What I was getting at was power training (or trying to train at a higher velocity) using a specific percentage of your 1RM in conjunction with a strength training (using higher intensities) like a westside program.


----------



## Squaggleboggin (Mar 20, 2005)

Deadlifting 1000 lbs. in 10 seconds is strength. Deadlifting 200 lbs. in 1 second is power. Power involves speed; strength involves the amount of weight you move, regardless of the time it takes.

 At least, that's my understanding of it...


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Mar 20, 2005)

Squaggleboggin said:
			
		

> Deadlifting 1000 lbs. in 10 seconds is strength. Deadlifting 200 lbs. in 1 second is power.



You just gave the same defiinition, in as far as a load divided by time in both examples.


----------



## KarlW (Mar 20, 2005)

So DD, by your reasoning is there any such thing as power training?


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Mar 20, 2005)

Nope, absolutely not.

edit:
actually, any kind of good strength training or skill training is power training, but given the general definition of "power training" I say no way.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Mar 21, 2005)

I should note that I believe actual increases in force output potential THROUGH a weight training protocol MUST be related to actual cross-sectional increases (hypertrophy) if the advancement goes to be applied to a real world situation, e.g. a sport - any other advancements (i.e. more weight, more reps, without correlating increase in size) will be related to attunement (the refinining of specific qualities related to mechanics involved with the exercise as well as central nervous system adaptations to performing the necessary work with the lowest resources nessary relating to the principle of least effort) that is related to a specific skill (i.e. a military press) and does not transfer to real world situations.

So, in my best evaluation, power training to improve a football player is essential only if doing FOOTBALL tasks, and that goes to skill training.  As I've said before, given my understanding of motor-learning research, our central nervous system learns complex tasks in a very linear way.  Given the complexity of power cleans (several different steps that involve the firing and collaboration of THOUSANDS of motor units, muscle fibers, etc. - including the SPECIFIC adjustment of joint position, lever movement, isometric flexion, balance etc.) it makes sense that the body would learn these complexities SPECIFICALLY in order to avoid injury as the load increases (can you imagine trying to clean a 300 pound weight the first time you ever try it, just because your legs can provide enough force to??) as well as to figure out how to economically coordinate all these functions biologically.

Imagine you've been doing power cleans for years, and suddenly you're told to do the snatch.  Similar exercises, indeed, but I can promise you that if you use a maximal load that you use with a power clean, you'll likely kill yourself if you try and snatch it over your head.  Many things can go wrong even when adding a single additional step to something that is so complex.  Balance issues, joint position, ancillary muscle involvement - a few extra seconds and steps in a complex movement can involve all the muscle groups in your body!

In any case, I don't believe that even marginally complex skills transfer to other completely unrelated tasks.  If such were the case, quarterbacks could be good pitchers because of various commonalities between the tasks; such is not the case because they are not exact.  So learning to be powerful in an exercise (clean) does not make one more powerful generally, unless a cross-sectional increase occurs over the muscle.  This is possible, but the rate of speed that the actual exercise is performed is not relevant (see posts above).  There is no evidence to suggest that power cleans are better at increasing hypertrophy of the hips, glutes, or quads beyond the capacity of a squat or a lunge, for example, and I'm not dimissing their potential for such things, but I do think it's quite unsafe.


----------



## CowPimp (Mar 21, 2005)

Power involves your ability to generate maximal force in a short time period (The rate of force generation).  Maximal strength does not necessarily involve generating this force as quickly as possible.


----------

