Benefit of Upper Push/Pull Splits

[Phineas]

So, I've read many times on here how upper/lower push/pull splits are effective. I've began to finally understand the importance of splitting legs into two days. I'm doing, what at this point would be, lower push and pull, though (should I later include leg extensions) it really is just quad dominant/ham dominant (which usually works out to push/pull).

Anyway, for upper I still can't see the reasoning for the push/pull splits. Don't get me wrong, I do see the logic behind working in a more natural way (i.e. the body doesn't work in muscle groups), but I have a few points to make..which I KNOW will be shot down by our elites and moderators...but, that's okay because I need to learn this and I figured this would be the easiest way to do it. So please, everyone, CORRECT THE HELL OUTTA ME!

1 - Certain muscles will always fall under certain workouts (i.e. biceps and back, if the primary muscle, can be ONLY pulls) while others can vary...leaving imbalances in your program when you're mixing up exercises. For instance, you might have 3 triceps exercises/program, where 2 could be pull and 1 is push, but the other program has 1 pull and 2 push...if not placed on an "arm" day this would creative imbalances in sets/exercises per workout.
Same thing with chest presses/dips and flies. Most chest exercises are pushes, but sometimes you incorporate a pull. Shoulders as well; they're 50/50.

2 - Whereas working a muscle group once a week hits that muscle hard each time, it gives that muscles (depending on your rest time) a week to not only heal but store glycogen for improved performance when working out. On the other hand, in the case of my 1st point, working the triceps partially one day and then again several days later would interrupt with the healing process.

3 - The body doesn't work in muscle groups argument...does the body really work in upper push/pull either? I realize it's supposed to be a more practical approach, but wouldn't then the most practical be full body workouts? I mean, if I was lost in a forest, would I say "okay, I'm gonna get myself outta this jam, but only using upper body push movements"? I mean, really nothing is natural about bodybuilding at all...even natural bodybuilding. We weren't meant to be muscular and lean. It's counter-productive (not in all ways, obviously) to our survival. I mean, I wouldn't try to get outta the forest only with my chest/back either.

I guess that's it. Again, I don't disbelieve any of our members who have discussed the push/pull splits. I know they must be effective. I just (yet) don't understand why. These are my three arguments. I KNOW they're wrong (see, at least I admit ignorance). I just would like some of our knowledgeable members to smarten me up. Plus, it'll be fun for you!

Thanks a lot everyone. I really want to learn. And, I don't care how stupid I show myself to be in the process! At the end of the day, if it makes me stronger, then I'm on the path!

 

[Built]

I'll take a stab...

So, I've read many times on here how upper/lower push/pull splits are effective. I've began to finally understand the importance of splitting legs into two days. I'm doing, what at this point would be, lower push and pull, though (should I later include leg extensions) it really is just quad dominant/ham dominant (which usually works out to push/pull).

Anyway, for upper I still can't see the reasoning for the push/pull splits. Don't get me wrong, I do see the logic behind working in a more natural way (i.e. the body doesn't work in muscle groups), but I have a few points to make..which I KNOW will be shot down by our elites and moderators...but, that's okay because I need to learn this and I figured this would be the easiest way to do it. So please, everyone, CORRECT THE HELL OUTTA ME!

1 - Certain muscles will always fall under certain workouts (i.e. biceps and back, if the primary muscle, can be ONLY pulls) while others can vary...leaving imbalances in your program when you're mixing up exercises. For instance, you might have 3 triceps exercises/program, where 2 could be pull and 1 is push, but the other program has 1 pull and 2 push...if not placed on an "arm" day this would creative imbalances in sets/exercises per workout.
Same thing with chest presses/dips and flies. Most chest exercises are pushes, but sometimes you incorporate a pull. Shoulders as well; they're 50/50.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Can you give a specific example?

While you do so, please pay attention to the difference between closed-chain compound movements (bench press, deadlift) and open-chain concentration movements (bicep curls).

2 - Whereas working a muscle group once a week hits that muscle hard each time, it gives that muscles (depending on your rest time) a week to not only heal but store glycogen for improved performance when working out. On the other hand, in the case of my 1st point, working the triceps partially one day and then again several days later would interrupt with the healing process.

You don't need an entire week to heal. Most folks aren't doing one-rep maxes on every movement every workout - and the newer you are to lifting, the less microtrauma you are able to generate with the light weights you are lifting.

In short, a day or two between assaults is generally just fine.

3 - The body doesn't work in muscle groups argument...does the body really work in upper push/pull either? I realize it's supposed to be a more practical approach, but wouldn't then the most practical be full body workouts?

For a lot of applications, you're right. Many believe in this practice, and I myself train this way from time to time.

I mean, if I was lost in a forest, would I say "okay, I'm gonna get myself outta this jam, but only using upper body push movements"? I mean, really nothing is natural about bodybuilding at all...even natural bodybuilding. We weren't meant to be muscular and lean. It's counter-productive (not in all ways, obviously) to our survival. I mean, I wouldn't try to get outta the forest only with my chest/back either.

I guess that's it. Again, I don't disbelieve any of our members who have discussed the push/pull splits. I know they must be effective. I just (yet) don't understand why. These are my three arguments. I KNOW they're wrong (see, at least I admit ignorance). I just would like some of our knowledgeable members to smarten me up. Plus, it'll be fun for you!

Thanks a lot everyone. I really want to learn. And, I don't care how stupid I show myself to be in the process! At the end of the day, if it makes me stronger, then I'm on the path!

Did this cover it, or did it raise more points to ponder?

 

[Stewart14]

well, if you;re not going to do a bodypart split and you don't think a push/pull split is the way to go, then what are you going to do? The only way you are going to replicate the way the body actually works is to do those actual movements as "lifts" and practice and get strong on them (ie. practice climbing a tree or running through uneven forest land, as in your example). The gym lifts are a tool to get your body stronger overall to make sure it will work correctly when you are put in a real life situation. I mean, who is going to have an easier time moving a couch, the guy who does a bodypart split and deadlifts 150 pounds, or the guy who trains in movements and can deadlift 500? I would guess the later guy by transfer of strength...

My advice is don't overanalyze things, choose gym lifts that cover all parts of your body, even if there is overlap, and focus on getting stronger and making progress on those lifts. As for bodybuilding being unnatural, well maybe actual bodybuilding is unatural, you know, the getting on stage and posing part of bodybuilding and being sub 10% bodyfat, but lifting weights to get stronger isn't unatural at all, so long as you are properly feeding your body to get stronger.

 

[rayray715]

body part splits?

i've always been confused about this bodypart split training. i personally do upper and lower push/pull, but isnt bodypart split just a play in words. if your doing horizontal push, thats the same as saying chest workout, for example, on monday, i do horizontal push/pull, which is chest and back. unless when speaking of bodyparts split, its basis is of isolation vs. compound?

 

[gtbmed]

The main problem with bodypart splits, IMO, is that the organization leads to imbalances in your program. Sure, pushing generally works the chest/tris and pulling generally works the back/bis, but both pushing and pulling movements should recruit muscles from the entire body (if done properly).

How many times have you seen a bodypart split that has "shoulder" and "arm" days? This is despite the fact that the people who use these splits get tons of shoulder and arm stimulation when they do "chest" or "back" day.

Plus, the idea of "shoulder" and "arm" days usually leads to a big emphasis on isolation movements and a move away from compound movements.

I like fullbody workouts TBH. To quote p funk, "Push something, pull something, and do something for your legs."

 

[Stewart14]

i've always been confused about this bodypart split training. i personally do upper and lower push/pull, but isnt bodypart split just a play in words. if your doing horizontal push, thats the same as saying chest workout, for example, on monday, i do horizontal push/pull, which is chest and back. unless when speaking of bodyparts split, its basis is of isolation vs. compound?

Basically you're right, the only reason to do a bodypart split would be to get a lot more exercises in for each "bodypart". So yeah you would have the presses, and the rows, but then you add in like you said all the isolations that would hit just a particular bodypart.

As far as I'm concerned, the only people who should be doing bodypart splits are advanced competing bodybuilders who are on AAS, otherwise, the compound movements are the way to go, with maybe the exception of curls for biceps and side laterals for shoulders since they really don't get hit on by anything else.

 

[CowPimp]

So, I've read many times on here how upper/lower push/pull splits are effective. I've began to finally understand the importance of splitting legs into two days. I'm doing, what at this point would be, lower push and pull, though (should I later include leg extensions) it really is just quad dominant/ham dominant (which usually works out to push/pull).

Anyway, for upper I still can't see the reasoning for the push/pull splits. Don't get me wrong, I do see the logic behind working in a more natural way (i.e. the body doesn't work in muscle groups), but I have a few points to make..which I KNOW will be shot down by our elites and moderators...but, that's okay because I need to learn this and I figured this would be the easiest way to do it. So please, everyone, CORRECT THE HELL OUTTA ME!

1 - Certain muscles will always fall under certain workouts (i.e. biceps and back, if the primary muscle, can be ONLY pulls) while others can vary...leaving imbalances in your program when you're mixing up exercises. For instance, you might have 3 triceps exercises/program, where 2 could be pull and 1 is push, but the other program has 1 pull and 2 push...if not placed on an "arm" day this would creative imbalances in sets/exercises per workout.
Same thing with chest presses/dips and flies. Most chest exercises are pushes, but sometimes you incorporate a pull. Shoulders as well; they're 50/50.

2 - Whereas working a muscle group once a week hits that muscle hard each time, it gives that muscles (depending on your rest time) a week to not only heal but store glycogen for improved performance when working out. On the other hand, in the case of my 1st point, working the triceps partially one day and then again several days later would interrupt with the healing process.

3 - The body doesn't work in muscle groups argument...does the body really work in upper push/pull either? I realize it's supposed to be a more practical approach, but wouldn't then the most practical be full body workouts? I mean, if I was lost in a forest, would I say "okay, I'm gonna get myself outta this jam, but only using upper body push movements"? I mean, really nothing is natural about bodybuilding at all...even natural bodybuilding. We weren't meant to be muscular and lean. It's counter-productive (not in all ways, obviously) to our survival. I mean, I wouldn't try to get outta the forest only with my chest/back either.

I guess that's it. Again, I don't disbelieve any of our members who have discussed the push/pull splits. I know they must be effective. I just (yet) don't understand why. These are my three arguments. I KNOW they're wrong (see, at least I admit ignorance). I just would like some of our knowledgeable members to smarten me up. Plus, it'll be fun for you!

Thanks a lot everyone. I really want to learn. And, I don't care how stupid I show myself to be in the process! At the end of the day, if it makes me stronger, then I'm on the path!

1 - You're trying to apply body part split ideas to that of a movement pattern based split. That's part of your problem. Furthermore, I can't really think of any "pulling" chest/tricep movements. You could argue for pullovers perhaps, but that's the exception not the rule, and even then, your lats are the prime move on this exercise.

2 - Muscles can fully recover within a couple of day. You don't need to wait an entire week for a muscle group to recover, unless possibly, you have some kind of super high volume marathon workout that trashes the muscles way beyond reasonable. Furthermore, you are operating on the idea that single-factor theory is the ideal way to train. Basically, that means you workout, wait until full recovery, then workout again. However, dual-factor theory is largely accepted as superior by many coaches out there. That is fatigue masks fitness gains, and you accumulate fitness and fatigue both to a large degree. Then, because fitness gains remain longer than fatigue does, you back off the volume/intensity (Deload) and the fitness gains manifest because the fatigue dissipates.

3 - You're right. It's not perfect. However, currently, it's the best idea that anyone has come up with to date. In fact, I think full body programs are highly underrated. This is partly because people don't know how to appropriately manage volume/intensity or appropriately select exercises for a comprehensive full body program. Some exercises also don't fall neatly into any category. What the Hell do you call a Turkish getup? How about a clean and jerk? Overhead squats? I mean it gets fuzzy at a certain point, but we do the best we can.

 

[Phineas]

2 - Muscles can fully recover within a couple of day. You don't need to wait an entire week for a muscle group to recover, unless possibly, you have some kind of super high volume marathon workout that trashes the muscles way beyond reasonable. Furthermore, you are operating on the idea that single-factor theory is the ideal way to train. Basically, that means you workout, wait until full recovery, then workout again. However, dual-factor theory is largely accepted as superior by many coaches out there. That is fatigue masks fitness gains, and you accumulate fitness and fatigue both to a large degree. Then, because fitness gains remain longer than fatigue does, you back off the volume/intensity (Deload) and the fitness gains manifest because the fatigue dissipates.

First of all, thanks everyone! This info is great!

So, my first question is for you CowPimp. So, if muscles don't need a full week of recovery, then why do so many people's upper/lower push/pull programs seem to work out to 4 days/week? If you have lower push (which basically works out to quad-dominant) on Tuesdays then you have a week of rest in between. I remember reading the sticky from P-Funk about push/pull splits and I think most of his example programs were based on 4 days/week. I guess I should've mentioned I'm not just starting now. I've been at it for a year now and have made some significant gains for that time. So, whereas in the beginning I could work out very often, the loads I'm lifting are too great (even with periodization) to train successfully more than once/week per muscle group. And, while I do still have an arm/shoulders day, I'd say about 90% of my exercises are compound.

I want to drop my chest/back and arms/shoulders day for upper push/pulls. I already have split my legs into push/pull, only because it works out so simply. But, I'm just unsure how many and what exercises I want to keep, because I would have to drop a number.

 

[Phineas]

1 - You're trying to apply body part split ideas to that of a movement pattern based split. That's part of your problem. Furthermore, I can't really think of any "pulling" chest/tricep movements. You could argue for pullovers perhaps, but that's the exception not the rule, and even then, your lats are the prime move on this exercise.

I forgot. Pulling for chest: flies

Pulling for triceps: dumbbell/barbell extensions; skullcrushers; french curls; etc.

 

[Phineas]

I'm not sure what you mean here. Can you give a specific example?

While you do so, please pay attention to the difference between closed-chain compound movements (bench press, deadlift) and open-chain concentration movements (bicep curls).

You don't need an entire week to heal. Most folks aren't doing one-rep maxes on every movement every workout - and the newer you are to lifting, the less microtrauma you are able to generate with the light weights you are lifting.

In short, a day or two between assaults is generally just fine.

For a lot of applications, you're right. Many believe in this practice, and I myself train this way from time to time.



Did this cover it, or did it raise more points to ponder?

Thanks Built. Again, I'm confused how I would train so often (as in not resting a week/muscle group. This would have me training 6-7 days/week. Doesn't that seem like overkill?

Also, I don't train with full-body splits. I just raised that point for argument's sake.

 

[Gazhole]

I forgot. Pulling for chest: flies

Pulling for triceps: dumbbell/barbell extensions; skullcrushers; french curls; etc.

Those are all pushes...how are they pulls?

 

[Built]

I forgot. Pulling for chest: flies

Where are you pulling?

Pulling for triceps: dumbbell/barbell extensions; skullcrushers; french curls; etc.

How are any of these considered pulls?

Thanks Built. Again, I'm confused how I would train so often (as in not resting a week/muscle group. This would have me training 6-7 days/week. Doesn't that seem like overkill?

Why would you train 6-7 days a week?

Also, I don't train with full-body splits. I just raised that point for argument's sake.

You ought to try it. It can be very effective.

 

[Ben dur]

a great way to distinguish a push from a pull is to consider which direction the weight is moving in relation to the joint of flexation

it is only possible for muscles to exert force while contracting, they cannot expand with force.

so therefor there is no pulling motion that (concentrically) activates the triceps

in each of your examples, the weight is moving AWAY from the elbow, thus being PUSHED

likewise there are no pushing motions which (concentrically) activate the biceps. Any motion which contains a concentric contraction of the bicep, moves resistance TOWARDS the elbow (from full extension, past the elbow)

i do believe that "push" and "pull" are partly based on a concept which is a play on words.

a push workout, would not be significantly different from a "chest and tri" workout, or possibly a "shoulders and tri workout"

french press would also fit into either of these workouts, although generally not perfered by "push/pull" advocates because it isnt compound.

furthermore there are alot of mucles which overlap from one motion to another

lats play a major roll in dips, but this is almost a mixed exercise in my opinion.

your back is pulling you arms down(pulling your upper arms toward the lats), while your tris are extending your elbows away

though this is usually considered a "push motion"

thus you can see how the lats overlap...

 

[CowPimp]

First of all, thanks everyone! This info is great!

So, my first question is for you CowPimp. So, if muscles don't need a full week of recovery, then why do so many people's upper/lower push/pull programs seem to work out to 4 days/week? If you have lower push (which basically works out to quad-dominant) on Tuesdays then you have a week of rest in between. I remember reading the sticky from P-Funk about push/pull splits and I think most of his example programs were based on 4 days/week. I guess I should've mentioned I'm not just starting now. I've been at it for a year now and have made some significant gains for that time. So, whereas in the beginning I could work out very often, the loads I'm lifting are too great (even with periodization) to train successfully more than once/week per muscle group. And, while I do still have an arm/shoulders day, I'd say about 90% of my exercises are compound.

I want to drop my chest/back and arms/shoulders day for upper push/pulls. I already have split my legs into push/pull, only because it works out so simply. But, I'm just unsure how many and what exercises I want to keep, because I would have to drop a number.

You don't HAVE to organize it as lower push/pull. Even if you do, these is substantial carryover between the two. Squats use your glutes and so do deadlifts. Hamstrings cross at both the hip and the knee, so they are definitely getting worked on both days. Other movements are harder to classify as either hip or knee dominant. For example, the step-up. Where this exercise lies in that continuum is really varied depending on who you ask.

Lifting for a year doesn't make this training method invalid for you. Olympic weightlifters do full body workout routines multiple times per week. Professional athletes often train with this type of split in the off-season to increase strength, power, and maybe size if needed. A year of lifting is not very advanced, I hate to break it to you. Furthermore, powerlifters routinely use this kind of breakdown, and they are arguably the strongest lifters in the world as far as your typical gym lifts go. If you "think" you can't handle it then it is either completely psychological, or you aren't designing the program appropriately.

 

[CowPimp]

I forgot. Pulling for chest: flies

Pulling for triceps: dumbbell/barbell extensions; skullcrushers; french curls; etc.

Nope, none of those are pulls. The definition of a pushing or pulling movement is based on the movement of the active limbs closer to (A pull) or further from (A push) one's center of gravity.