Hey guys,
I've done both types of splits and I don't really see a difference in whether or not you hit a muscle twice per work or totally obliterate it once a week. It seems that total volume is what matters per week, but some say to hit twice a week to take advantage of that higher protein synthesis. However, people claim that there is no way you can not hit all your muscles several times a week, giving an example of doing chest that hits tris and shoulders etc. So its a moot argument.
Currently I am doing Upper, Lower, OFF, then Push, Pull, Legs OFF. Its gets me in the gym but i limit myself to 3 exercises for 3 sets each per muscle group. Its a nice split but something is telling me to go back to once per week and add more cardio. The reason for this is because I actually need to lose a lot of fat and I recently learned that a work out is not really much caloric expenditure.
I say this because I recently saw a video from IFBB pro Greg Doucette who has a masters in Kinesiology basically explaining how in order to burn 10 calories weight lifting, you need to move like 800 lbs 3 meters or something. So in other words, if you did 10 reps of 400lbs, you maybe burned 10 cals. That's Not much at all, compared to as he said with cardio (LISS) being superior in creating a caloric deficit (along with diet obvious) because you are moving your entire weight over and over and over again over a longer period of time than a few sets. He said if you're lucky you could maybe burn 300 calories on a BRUTAL leg day. I think this makes sense and is a huge revelation for me. I always thought workouts created like 400-500 calorie deficits but they don't.
So that's why i was thinking get hit the weights 4x a week to maintain muscle while hitting cardio 3x a week.
What do you guys thinks?
Reply With Quote