Hey, wanna tick a lot of people off? Want to start a flame war, a heated academic discussion, or just a good old-fashioned penis-waving contest? Then come out publicly and say that total body training is better than body part split training.

And if that doesn't work, do the election year flip-flop and say that splitting muscle groups into separate training sessions is superior to full body training.

Which one is really better? T-Nation sat down with three strength training experts to hash it out. Let's see if they can reach some kind of consensus without leaving the room too bloody.

T-Nation: Chad, Alwyn, Christian, you've all been frisked and sent through the metal detectors. Your sharpened pencils have been replaced by felt tipped pens and your shock collars are in place. So, I think we're ready to jump into this debate.

Let's start off with your basic stance on this topic. Which is it, split training (chest and triceps day, leg day, etc.) or full body training (hitting every major muscle group in one workout)?

T-Nation: This concludes the politically correct bullshit portion of our discussion. Now, Alwyn, throw some dang punches!


T-Nation: Okay, Chad, jump in on this.

Chad Waterbury:

T-Nation: Alright, let's get the big Canadian in on this. Take it away, Thib!

Christian Thibaudeau:



T-Nation: Okay, one thing we need to be clear on here is why a person is weight training. Some train for aesthetics: bodybuilders and those who just want to look good naked. Others train for sport: team sport athletes, strength athletes, etc. Does that make a difference in the split vs. full body debate? You know, like "Splits are for advanced bodybuilders; total body training is for athletes."


T-Nation: Okay, Chad, what's your take here?



Stay tuned tomorrow for the next half of this debate!