Do you guys do this too?

[Big Beat]

I was all quads, glutes and calves -- high reps, low reps, squats, no squats, didn't matter -- if I was putting weight on the bar, legs were growing. After 2 years of solid training and then dieting down, I had to look at my physique honestly -- realized that upper body overall was lagging relative to lower body (good problem to have, I guess?) -- so I went to a 3:2 ratio of upper-to-lower for the next few years:

-push
-pull
-legs
-push

Next week:

-pull
-push
-legs
-pull


I think the most "sage" advice is what Dante Trudel used to say:

1) first 2-3 years, focus on your basics (bench, squat, deadlift, bent row, pullup, overhead press, close grips, RDLs)
2) get strong as a forklift on those lfts
3) then step back and evaluate your physique; whatever is lagging, it's a mechanical issue (triceps take over for chest on chest press), OR you're just genetically doomed (don't have the insertions or muscle fiber density in that area for good development, no matter what you do)
4) the points that are strong -- stop worrying about them, just keep doing what you're doing
5) the points that are not strong -- throw out the book and reinvent things from an entirely different angle (ha) or perspective


I think THAT is what "figuring our your body" really means -- and it takes years. Diet is diet, for the most part. Drugs are drugs, for the most part. Learning your unique anatomy -- hard work and discipline is a prerequisite, and there's still no guarantees, so many ways to screw it up and get stuck in a rut doing the same shit for years.

In the 1980's before Dante it was very common to train each bodypart 3 times every two weeks.

This was a practical thing, the 4 day a week split in Arnold The Education was extremely popular. It was done 3 nights instead of 4 with the 4th workout rolling into the following week perpetually. This was a practical thing as a lot of the old barbell clubs didn't open every night of the week and some only in the afternoons and evenings.

[lifepulse]

In the 1980's before Dante it was very common to train each bodypart 3 times every two weeks.

This was a practical thing, the 4 day a week split in Arnold The Education was extremely popular. It was done 3 nights instead of 4 with the 4th workout rolling into the following week perpetually. This was a practical thing as a lot of the old barbell clubs didn't open every night of the week and some only in the afternoons and evenings.

I started with the Arnold Education split -- doing it at home, all free weights, so I had to change every plate every exercise -- and even from the jump, it seemed like nutty overkill to me. Granted I was new, so things took longer (to figure out) -- but the workouts would stretch to over 2 hours each. And I was moving furniture for a living at the time, so by the end, I felt like I had gotten hit by a truck, day after day. (Luckily I'm very endomorphic, my body could kinda' hold up to the volume; but I was also trying to push every single set to failure, and trying to progress in poundage every single workout, ha.)


I started intuitively editing down Arnold's workouts after about 4 months -- reducing total working sets from 5 to 4 then 3, etc.


So I kinda' already figured out "this extreme volume is near impossible to handle", even though I was eager to grow. Two years in, found Dante's stuff -- again, he used so many historical examples and such seemingly sound logic, I was swayed and flipped to the HIT club.


Came back later to volume.


I see the logic and application of each approach, depending on what stage of your lifting you're in -- what your weak points are and if you have any injuries to work around, etc. I think both sides ultimately get to the same end state -- "lift heavy weights, for lots of reps, with good form/mind-muscle connection -- and do what you can to optimize recovery with food and rest". End of the day, if you don't at some point get to a 405 bench or incline for reps, 500-600 squat for reps, etc., you're probably not going to be a monster, volume or HIT. So consistency over time with progression of some form, plus recovery (food/sleep/drugs), is the "trick", lol.

[Big Beat]

As a teen I did high volume and every set to failure. I did a lot of damage to me joints particularly my hips. Practically everybody I trained with did high volume at the time and 2 hour workouts.

I too changed to low volume after I was just overtrained all the time, I wasn't taking gear but I was eating 6 times a day.

I used Stuart McRoberts workouts that he did in Ironman Magazine in the 1980's that were very low volume but focused on perpetual very small increases in poundages every week for 12-16 weeks and then backing off again for a few weeks. By 17 years old I was squatting 400lbs and deadlftting 500lbs for 6 reps as a natural. I grew like a weed at the time on that programme.

[bigmikecox]

In the 1980's before Dante it was very common to train each bodypart 3 times every two weeks.

This was a practical thing, the 4 day a week split in Arnold The Education was extremely popular. It was done 3 nights instead of 4 with the 4th workout rolling into the following week perpetually. This was a practical thing as a lot of the old barbell clubs didn't open every night of the week and some only in the afternoons and evenings.

I followed Gaspari's split as a teen and wondered why I wasnt improving but back in the 80s as a teenager, we didnt have a lot of knowledge. Six days on and 1 off was insanity for a 16 year old

[lifepulse]

As a teen I did high volume and every set to failure. I did a lot of damage to me joints particularly my hips. Practically everybody I trained with did high volume at the time and 2 hour workouts.

I too changed to low volume after I was just overtrained all the time, I wasn't taking gear but I was eating 6 times a day.

I used Stuart McRoberts workouts that he did in Ironman Magazine in the 1980's that were very low volume but focused on perpetual very small increases in poundages every week for 12-16 weeks and then backing off again for a few weeks. By 17 years old I was squatting 400lbs and deadlftting 500lbs for 6 reps as a natural. I grew like a weed at the time on that programme.

Funny, my experience was very similar, and similar numbers. I didn't start lifting seriously until I was 24, so I was older than you; but by the end of my 5 year natty run, I was squatting 455 for reps and puling 500 x 6. Using almost the same approach that you were. Put on size and density pretty steadily, even while natty.

[Giles]

When I trained chest & back together I did chest first, then back.

To subvert my confusion, my final chest movement would be Dumbell pullovers!

…or you could argue it was my first back exercise?

Either way, they made me sore in both areas.

I’m still uncertain which bodypart to include them with! Bloody chest or back???

Saying that, I can’t even remember the part time I ever did them? Think I’ll restart this week…oh shit, but do I include them with my chest OR back workouts though?? Dammit!!!

[Beti ona]

I never understood the idea of training chest and back on the same session.

[Bestia]

I never understood the idea of training chest and back on the same session.

I don't do it regularly (in fact I haven't done it for years) but supersetting exercises in a push/pull split (bis/Tris, quads/hams, chest/back) the intense, sustained pump can be awesome. I've used it in the final few weeks leading into a show also.

[1Patrick]

I don't do it regularly (in fact I haven't done it for years) but supersetting exercises in a push/pull split (bis/Tris, quads/hams, chest/back) the intense, sustained pump can be awesome. I've used it in the final few weeks leading into a show also.

Back in the golden era guys like Arnold used to train like that .
I did it few times with bi + tri and quads + hams / but chest & back was just too much unless I was in a hurry and needed good efficient superset pump up workout done quickly.

[Beti ona]

I don't do it regularly (in fact I haven't done it for years) but supersetting exercises in a push/pull split (bis/Tris, quads/hams, chest/back) the intense, sustained pump can be awesome. I've used it in the final few weeks leading into a show also.

Biceps and triceps makes sense since they are small muscles and it is easy to sustain prolonged intensity.

Full legs also makes sense because most free weights exercises (or even leg presses) hit hams, glutes, and quads, so doing a split between quads and hams is a bit difficult.

[lifepulse]

Biceps and triceps makes sense since they are small muscles and it is easy to sustain prolonged intensity.

Full legs also makes sense because most free weights exercises (or even leg presses) hit hams, glutes, and quads, so doing a split between quads and hams is a bit difficult.

It all depends which stage of lifting you're at and how you're lifting.


I trained mostly on a "bro split" during most of my "getting massive" years, then took a few years off training, drugs, lost a ton of my size (most of it). When I came back to training again, I knew I didn't want to lift heavy like I used to -- I knew my body couldn't handle it, nor did I have any desire. After a few months of playing with different approaches, I locked into all supersets, fairly light to moderate weight (but sets still taken close to failure) -- I got my cardio very strong first, so I wouldn't get winded easily or shut down by lactic acid.


Supersetting chest and back -- my entire upper body would get the craziest pump I had ever gotten in my life. And I was back on TRT, so I had hormones again in my body for the first time in over 2 years.


I started putting muscle back on at a crazy fast rate. Granted, it was all muscle memory -- from years of having built muscle neurons earlier, I was just regaining a lot of what I had lost, especially when combined with TRT. No, I don't think I would have grown during my earlier years if I had trained that way. But once older and gaining muscle back, trying to avoid injury and just feel good while lifting, it was a potent combo. I even started training in almost circuit fashion at times, or like Milos giant sets -- stacking 4-5 movements in a row with absolute minimal rest, pushing each one towards momentary muscular failure (even if it was with sub-maximal load) -- and it felt great. I would have amazing workouts, I got substantially bigger, I got a lot of my strength back, I never felt like I might hurt myself, and end of the workout, I didn't feel like I got hit by a truck, I felt GOOD when I was done.

[lifepulse]

When I trained chest & back together I did chest first, then back.

To subvert my confusion, my final chest movement would be Dumbell pullovers!

…or you could argue it was my first back exercise?

Either way, they made me sore in both areas.

I’m still uncertain which bodypart to include them with! Bloody chest or back???

Saying that, I can’t even remember the part time I ever did them? Think I’ll restart this week…oh shit, but do I include them with my chest OR back workouts though?? Dammit!!!

Pullovers don't directly stimulate the chest. They stretch the chest a bit (in the extended-overhead position) -- and you'll feel your pecs contracted if you sit there holding the DB over your face between reps (because, well, your arms are in front of your body, just like the end of a chest press), but that's it.


Feeling the stretch in the pecs during a pullover -- if you do pullups and come to a dead hang (and have big pecs), you will feel your pecs stretch up around your neck (and possibly choke you a bit) -- so pullups also "stretch the pecs" -- so does a cable row -- doesn't mean pullups and cable rows are "for pecs".


As Big Beat noted above, the guys in the 70s did pullovers for chest -- but they were aiming more at expanding the rib cage, not working the actual pecs. DB pullovers WILL work the hell out of your intercostals and serratus anterior -- part of the reason so many guys in the 70s had all of those muscles so well developed. Some guys (like Frank Zane) considered pullovers a "total upper body movement", precisely because it is difficult to isolate a particular muscle when you're heaving a 140lbs DB over your face (you kinda' feel it everywhere, like BB squats taken to failure -- they hurt everything, including your soul).


But technically -- done correctly, with good form -- keep the arms fairly straight (only a minor bend in the elbow to avoid ripping your shoulders out of the socket and not hinging at the elbow as you do them, not arching the ever-loving-shit out of your lower back to compensate for the weight as it stretches you backwards -- done how John Meadows does them) -- pullovers are a lat exercise.


If you feel them in both -- and want to do them end of chest as an intro to lats -- I think that makes the most sense. Chest is warm, and so stretching it out at the end is a good thing -- and pullovers are an isolation movement for lats, so doing them first as a pre-exhaust makes sense.


However, if you're splitting chest and back -- they belong on back day, Giles. The very fact that there are numerous machines called a "machine pullover", all designed for lats -- and that all the new-age lifters are now calling stiff-arm pressdowns "cable pullovers" -- kinda' supports that (as does the biomechanics of the movement).

[lifepulse]

And on that note, I just saw Cutler posted his "Fit for 50" video 3 hours ago, training chest -- and he finishes chest with DB pullovers, lol. So you know, feel it out and go with feel I guess -- but science wise, I'm going with Dorian over Cutler.

[Big Beat]

I remember Arthur Jones sales pitch was his nautilus pullover machine could but lats on a stick.

[Bestia]

I remember Arthur Jones sales pitch was his nautilus pullover machine could but lats on a stick.

With the way things are trending nowadays with a simultaneous resurgence of retro movements and machines along with the widespread use of unilateral movements I could easily see some "innovator" creating a pullover machine where each arm can move individually.

Then won't it be fun for Orthopedic docs treating the increase in torn labrums and rotator cuffs