Full-Body vs. Split Workouts: Body Composition Changes Favor Volume-Equated FB Workouts in Trained Athletes

Full-Body vs. Split Workouts: Body Composition Changes Favor Volume-Equated FB Workouts in Trained Athletes

1rm bench build muscle build strength full body lose fat performance split routines split training squat training volume volume

I guess that most of you will be training according to a split workout, right? You can do so many great bench press and biceps curl variations on "International Chest + Biceps"-Monday... awesome, right? Ok, enough of the sarcasm and back to the science. In this case, a recent study by scientists from the National Research Institute in Warsaw, the Sports Performance Research Institute New Zealand, the Bond University in Australia and the University of the Sunshine Coast.

Said study was conducted by Crewther et al. and published recently in the Biology of Sport. It examined the effects of two equal-volume resistance-training protocols upon strength, body composition and salivary hormones in male rugby union players.

You can also incorporate full body training into your periodization schemes.

30% More on the Big Three: Squat, DL, BP!

Mix Things Up to Make Extra-Gains

Linear vs. Undulating Periodizationt

12% Body Fat in 12 Weeks W/ Periodizatoin

Detraining + Periodization - How to?

Tapering 101 - Learn How It's Done!

The scientists used a crossover design, involving 24 male rugby players (mean age 29.8 ± 6.8 years; height 179.5 ± 7.9 cm; body mass 92.9 ± 12.2 kg) with at least 2 years of resistance-training experience (3-4 times per week) who completed a 4-week full-body (FB) and split-body (SB) training protocol of equal volume during the competitive season.

"Both training approaches involved 3 weekly sessions (Monday, Wednesday and Friday) completed between 1600 to 1800 hours. Training involved 8 repetition maximum lifts for selected exercises, performed for 3-6 sets with rest periods of 60-90 seconds between sets and exercises. In the FB protocol, all muscle groups were ex ercised during each of the 3 weekly training sessions, while in the SB protocol only a sub-set of the muscle groups was exercised dur ing each session. The prescribed exercises included; back squats, leg curls, leg press, bench press, bent-over row, pull downs, shoulder press, bicep curls and calf raises. To equate for training volume, the total number of repetitions prescribed each week were identical (i.e. FB training = 21 exercises, 2-3 sets × 8 repetitions; SB training = 13 exercises, 3-6 sets × 8 repetitions). The 2 protocols are commonly used in research and practice and these were incorporated into the weekly schedule of the study population to improve the ecological validity of our findings. A standard warm-up was performed before all training sessions comprising of basic exercises performed with increasing intensities and stretching of the major muscle groups [18], with the athletes self-selecting the inten sity and duration of stretching" (Crewther. 2016).

One repetition maximum (1RM) strength, body composition via skinfold measurements and salivary testosterone (T) and cortisol (C) concentrations were assessed pre and post training.

Figure 1: Rel. changes in strength (1RM in bench presses and squats) and body composition (body mass, body fat (%), fat mass and fat free mass) during the FB and SB training phases (Crewther. 2016).

As you can see in Figure 1, the FB and SB protocols improved upper (7.3% and 7.4%) and lower body 1RM strength (7.4% and 5.4%) to a similar extend. The data in Figure 1 does yet also reveal that the full body workout had a slight edge in terms of its effects on the body fat percentage and total fat mass of the subjects and reduced the latter by 0.5% and 3.6% more than the split training.

Figure 2: Post training period (not immediately post-workout) changes in hormone concentration (Crewther. 2016).

Whether or not this is related to the hormonal changes in Figure 2 is questionable, but it is at least worth mentioning that the testosterone to cotrisol (T/C) increased only (+28%) after the FB training. As the scientists point out,

"slope testing on the individual responses identified positive associations (p ≤ 0.05) between T and C concentrations and absolute 1RM strength in stronger (squat 1RM = 150.5 kg), but not weaker (squat 1RM = 117.4 kg), men" (Crewther. 2016),

a result that does not exactly make it easier to decide whether the hormonal differences were corollary or causative for the differential effect on the body composition of the athletes. What is quite clear, though, is that even within a short window of training, both, FB and SB protocols, can improve strength and body composition in rugby players.

In that, the scientists rightly point out that "[t]he similar strength gains highlight training volume as a key adaptive stimulus" - a result we've encountered in numerous previous studies, as well. What is "news", though is that the program structure (i.e. FB or SB) had a measurable influence on the the body composition and hormonal outcomes, of which the latter were only partly (namely in the strong athletes) related to the strength gains.

Blood flow restriction could also have a place in your periodization plan.

Bottom line: If you are asking me if you should trash your split training routine now and switch to full-body workouts, my answer may surprise you: "No!" Even though, or rather because the study population is significantly more representative of the average SuppVersity reader than in many other studies... what? Well, you will probably train at a significantly higher volume per muscle part, when splitting (in the study this didn't change), the results could thus be completely different for you than they were for the subjects in this volume-equated FB to SB comparison.

Furthermore, we cannot exclude that the subjects benefited from a novelty effects that occurred, because the full body workout was a welcome change from their own regular split routines (we can safely assume that 90% of trainees with more than 2y training experience train according to a body part split). This, in turn, could yet be a reason to answer the previously stated question in the affirmative: "Yes, switch to a full body split, but do it not once and forever, but temporary, as part of a well-planned periodiziation routine." | What do you think? Comment on Facebook!

References:

• Crewther BT, Heke TOL, Keogh JWL. The effects of two equal-volume training protocols upon strength, body composition and salivary hormones in male rugby union players. Biol Sport. 2016;33(2):111–116.

Nine Short Workouts (AM+PM) p. Week Yield Extra Strength, Size and Performance Gains Compared to Volume Matched 3-Day Split, All Differences are Non-Significant, Though

Nine Short Workouts (AM+PM) p. Week Yield Extra Strength, Size and Performance Gains Compared to Volume Matched 3-Day Split, All Differences are Non-Significant, Though

AM/PM bodybuilding build muscle exercise science fitness fitness model frequency high volume lose fat performance training science training volume workout frequency workout routines

15 min in the AM, 15 in the PM = Win? For many of you that may sound laughable, but according to a recent study from the University of Copenhagen it is at least as effective as three "mammoth" workouts-sessions per week.

What kind of trainee are you? Do you hit the gym thrice a week, spend two hours there and crawl out of the gymdoors totally exhausted? Yeah... Well that means you're not the fitness model guy, who trains twice a day for 15-20 minutes only and swears that this is the only way to do it?

After all these questions you're probably asking yourself if the answers you gave in your mind were good or bad for ya? Right? Well, eventually, both forms of training can be equally effective. If we take a closer look at the non-significant study outcomes in a recent paper by scientists from the University of Copenhagen (Kilen. 2015), though body composition and strength may in fact benefit more if you train more frequently - even if the total workout volume is the same.

No single workout routine works forever. Periodize to make continuous progress!

30% More on the Big Three: Squat, DL, BP!

Block Periodization Done Right

Linear vs. Undulating Periodizationt

12% Body Fat in 12 Weeks W/ Periodizatoin

Detraining + Periodization - How to?

Tapering 101 - Learn How It's Done!

Workout volume? Yes, that's the number of sets and reps. So, let's say you do three 45-minute training sessions weekly, including 1 strength on Monday, 1 high intensity cardiovascular (HIIT) session on Wednesday, and 1 muscle endurance session on Thursday, then those 3x45 minutes + warm-up exercise are your total workout volume.

In case that's what you're doing on a regular basis, you're training just like those of the 21 study subjects (10 men, 11 women; 25 +/- 3 years) with some previous training experience who were randomly assigned to the "classical" training program in the previously mentioned study by Kilen, et al. (2015). If you're rather the fitness model type, you may recognize your own training in what the other subjects did, i.e. a "micro training" program with a total of nine 15-minute training sessions weekly that were divided equally between strength training, high-intensity cardiovascular training, and muscle endurance training and performed in the AM and PM from Monday to Friday (there was no PM training on Friday, though, and cardio and strength were rotated | see caption of Table 1).

Table 1: Description of the two different training regimen (Kilen. 2015) | *To minimize the potential negative effect of concurrent cardio + strength training, MI performed 2 days of strength (Mon and + Tue) and 1 day of cardio training (Wed) in odd weeks, and 1 day of strength (Mon) and 2 days of cardio training (Tue + Wed) in even weeks.

Unlike the training frequency and rest between workouts, the strength training, HIIT and muscular endurance training sessions, themselves, were identical in both groups:

• Strength training consisted of leg exercises (deadlifts, lunges, step-ups, and 1 leg squats), with 1–2 warm-up sets and 2–3 target sets of 8RM, and upper-body exercises (pullups, dips, weighted push-ups, and 1 arm rows), with 1–2 warm-up sets and 2–3 target sets of 5RM. For progression, the exercises were adjusted using extra loading (sandbags in 1-kg steps) if the subjects were able to accomplish more repetitions than prescribed. If the subjects were not able to perform the number of repetitions prescribed, they performed as many as they could in proper form and finished the set conducting only the eccentric phase of the exercise. 
• High-intensity cardiovascular training (HIIT) consisted of running for 2 and 4 minutes at an average speed of 15.1 and 14.5 km/h, respectively, which elicited ;90% maximal heart rate during exercise. Micro training performed two 4-minute run intervals in the morning with 3 minutes of rest in between and four 2-minute run intervals in the afternoon with 1 minute of rest in between. Classical training performed three 4-minute and six 2-minute run intervals in the same training session with the same rest as MI in between. The training volume was evaluated and the only significant difference was running distance during 2-minute and 4-minute intervals, where MI ran significantly further than CL in each interval. 
• Muscle endurance training consisted of three 5-minute exercise sessions involving 5 different exercises performed continuously for 30 seconds with 30-second rest periods. Micro training conducted 3 sessions; the first was “easy,” the second “hard,” and the third “very hard.” Classical training conducted 9 sessions in the same order, starting over with “easy” on the fourth and seventh sessions. The exercises were weighted lunges (with a 20-kg sandbag); push-ups; shuttle runs; abdominal exercises ([a] regular sit-ups from a supine position with knees bent at 908, fists in contact with the ears and the lumbar arch supported by a folded towel, and [b] diagonal sit-ups from a horizontal supine position, outstretched hand to opposite raised foot, alternating); and back exercises ([a] back extensions on an incline bench and [b] kettlebell swings in a standing position). 

As Kilen et al. point out, "[a]ll training sessions were supervised by scientific staff, and subject attendance" as well as "[h]eart rate [...] during high-intensity cardiovascular training and muscle endurance training for the last 5 weeks of the training intervention" (Kilen. 2015) were recorded.

Figure 1: Relative pre- vs. post changes in all measures performance markers (calculated based on Kilen. 2015).

After the 8-weeks on the respective training regiment, a comparison of the pre- vs. post-training data yielded the following results:

• Increases in shuttle run performance were observed in both group, albeit with a higher significance as far as the pre- vs. post-difference is concerned in the classical training (CL) vs. micro training (MI) group (MI: 1,373 +/- 133 m vs. 1,498 +/- 126 m, p < 0.05; CL: 1,074 6 213 m vs. 1,451 6 202 m, p , 0.001).
• Significant improvements in peak oxygen uptake (3,744 6 +/- 615 mL/min vs. 3,963 +/- 753 mL/min | p < 0.05), maximal voluntary isometric (MVC) force of the knee extensors (646 +/- 135 N vs. 659 +/- 209 N | p < 0.001), MVC of the finger flexors (408 +/- 109 N vs. 441 +/- 131 N, p < 0.05), and the maximal number of lunges performed in 2 minutes (65 +/- 3 vs. 73 +/- 2, p , 0.001), however, were seen only in the micro = high frequency training group.

The question you may be asking yourselves now is: Why does the headline say that there were no significant differences? Well, the lack of statistical significance of the improvements in the classical training group does not suffice for a statistically significant between difference to the micro training group. Statistical significant inter-group differences did not exist either before or after the study. The scientists conclusion that

"similar training adaptations can be obtained with short, frequent exercise sessions or longer, less frequent sessions where the total volume of weekly training performed is the same" (Kilen. 2015)

is thus absolutely correct. The fact that statistical significance for the aforementioned study outcomes was achieved in the micro, yet not in the classical training group does still suggest that the high(er) frequency training regimen may have an adaptive edge... albeit in terms of study outcomes not everyone will deem practically relevant.

Figure 2: Neither the in-group nor the inter-group changes in body composition did reach statistical significance (calculated base on Kilen. 2015). At least in my humble opinion, though, they are still interesting.

Speaking of what people will deem relevant: We haven't addressed the changes in body composition yet. Why's that? Well, if we go by statistical significance, there were none. If we go by %-ages, though, the increase in lean and decrease in fat mass in the micro training, as well as the opposite trends in the classical training group add to the non-significant evidence that it may make sense to train more frequent and that - when all is said and done - total volume may eventually not be the only thing that matters... I mean, if you look at the data in Figure 2 it would - in defiance of the statistical insignificance of the changes - still seem as if the previously mentioned fitness model was right: For him or her, for whom improves body composition are the primary goal, his / her frequent AM/PM training regimen does in fact appear to be the training model of choice | Comment!

References:

• Kilen, Anders, et al. "Adaptations to Short, Frequent Sessions of Endurance and Strength Training Are Similar to Longer, Less Frequent Exercise Sessions When the Total Volume Is the Same." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 29 (2015): S46-S51.