Abbreviated Training

Flynn

Anyone here use an abbreviated routine? I have been doing so for the past 6 months and find it excellent. Just wondering if anyone else does and what routines you use.

I was doing a full body x3 a week routine that looks like this

Monday
Weighted Chins
One Arm Rows
Curls
Shrugs

Wednesday
Over head Press
Squats
Leg Curl
Calves

Friday
Bench Press
Weighted Dips
Deadlifts
L Flys

And throw in abs on 2 of those days.


I'm think of making the above a x2 routine and replacing the middle day with cardio.

So something like this

Monday
Squat
Bench
Chins
Calves
Shrugs
Abs

Friday
Overhead Press
Deadlifts
Dips
Rows (or curls?)
L Flys
Abs

After reading Beyond Brawn i'd like to give the x2 routine a shot. Does anybody do anything similar. Care to discuss?

Thud

trainin ?

Hanley

Does the fact it has 4 exercises per day make it abbreviated or am I missing something?

Mellor

What exactly is abbr. train.?
A quick google suggests its based around a few big lifts in a session and some recovery time.

So its pretty vague, and tbh it would cover a lot decent beginner/intermediate routines.
The name just looks an attempt make it sound like a secret or something.

Flynn

Hanley wrote: »

Does the fact it has 4 exercises per day make it abbreviated or am I missing something?

Abbrev. Training is conservative. It the takes the "less is more" approach and argues that 90% of people in the gym are over-training. It's made up of basic compound movements and lifting big. So although it's 4 basic compound exercises you'll add in accessory exercises too (say abs or delts for instance) and might have a total of 6 or 7 exercises per workout. which will take an hour or thereabouts.

Stuart McRoberts advocates it in his books "Brawn" & "Beyond Brawn" (I've read the second one) I was doing split routines for over a year and tried this out and have made more gains in the 6 months than i did in the year. Works for me was just wondering if anyone here trains the same?

BlueIsland

Flynn wrote: »

Abbrev. Training is conservative. It the takes the "less is more" approach and argues that 90% of people in the gym are over-training. It's made up of basic compound movements and lifting big. So although it's 4 basic compound exercises you'll add in accessory exercises too (say abs or delts for instance) and might have a total of 6 or 7 exercises per workout. which will take an hour or thereabouts.

Stuart McRoberts advocates it in his books "Brawn" & "Beyond Brawn" (I've read the second one) I was doing split routines for over a year and tried this out and have made more gains in the 6 months than i did in the year. Works for me was just wondering if anyone here trains the same?

Im missing something. How did that get its own name? its a step up from SS or loads of different intermediate lifting programmes no?

Flynn

BlueIsland wrote: »

Im missing something. How did that get its own name? its a step up from SS or loads of different intermediate lifting programmes no?

Well i suppose it is nothing new it's the original training that has been left to gather dust while all these new "12 steps to bigger arms" etc. etc. routines came along. Although it's even more conservative.

he argues everyone over trains (aimed at beginners & so called "hardgainers") Many people are out there doing Arnie's routines but just don't have the genetics so it's counter productive. Also no compound exercise will be done more than once in a week.

Flynn

BlueIsland wrote: »

its a step up from SS or loads of different intermediate lifting programmes no?

SS is abbreviated training too. So i wouldn't say this is a "step-up". just the same concept.

BlueIsland

Flynn wrote: »

SS is abbreviated training too. So i wouldn't say this is a "step-up". just the same concept.

Step up in sense you do more in a session! Right I still dont get it. Basically the question is are body splits better than full body sessions?

Flynn

BlueIsland wrote: »

Step up in sense you do more in a session! Right I still dont get it. Basically the question is are body splits better than full body sessions?

Well i'm not too familiar with SS. Just that it's abbreviated. The Brawn method argues that full body is better than splits. This doesn't apply to already developed bodybuilders who will need to use isolation exercises to work on specific body parts. But it applies to beginners and intermediates and argues that you can develop are great physique using basic compound exercises, eating lots, and getting lots of rest. Then when you are big and strong move on to isolation moves.

Having done split routines for over a year I saw results but i was a beginner and they say whatever you do you will get results. Then i moved to Abbrev and can honestly say i got stronger. (first time i felt like my chest was noticeably bigger) I now do weighted chins and dips where before i struggled with bodyweight dips.

I'd highly recommend the book, even if you got a loan of it off someone and just read the third chapter. There's a lot of good stuff in there.

BlueIsland

Flynn wrote: »

Well i'm not too familiar with SS. Just that it's abbreviated. The Brawn method argues that full body is better than splits. This doesn't apply to already developed bodybuilders who will need to use isolation exercises to work on specific body parts. But it applies to beginners and intermediates and argues that you can develop are great physique using basic compound exercises, eating lots, and getting lots of rest. Then when you are big and strong move on to isolation moves.

Having done split routines for over a year I saw results but i was a beginner and they say whatever you do you will get results. Then i moved to Abbrev and can honestly say i got stronger. (first time i felt like my chest was noticeably bigger) I now do weighted chins and dips where before i struggled with bodyweight dips.

I'd highly recommend the book, even if you got a loan of it off someone and just read the third chapter. There's a lot of good stuff in there.

Do you not think thats from lifting weights for a sustained period of time rather than something specific like one book?

Flynn

BlueIsland wrote: »

Do you not think thats from lifting weights for a sustained period of time rather than something specific like one book?

Well it's not something specific like one book, he didn't invent it. He just promotes it. As do many other books. And yes weight lifting over a period of time will make you stronger but the improvements (for me) were much greater in a smaller space of time. I spent 12 months + on a split and as i mentioned earlier saw greater gains in half that time with abbrev. training.

Mellor

Flynn wrote: »

Having done split routines for over a year I saw results but i was a beginner and they say whatever you do you will get results. Then i moved to Abbrev and can honestly say i got stronger.

You did a bodybuilding type split for 12 months.
Then moved on to a strength program. And you got stronger.

BlueIsland

Mellor wrote: »

You did a bodybuilding type split for 12 months.
Then moved on to a strength program. And you got stronger.

my point exactly

Flynn

Mellor wrote: »

You did a bodybuilding type split for 12 months.
Then moved on to a strength program. And you got stronger.

How is going from a split to a full body a "strength program"? Bench pressing on a split is different than bench pressing on full body how?

Flynn

Actually forget that, i'm not here to get into a debate. started the post looking for someone else who trains this way. None found. job done.

FTA69

Flynn wrote: »

How is going from a split to a full body a "strength program"? Bench pressing on a split is different than bench pressing on full body how?

Bench pressing on a split will lead to you benching once a week usually, from a body-building perspective you may end up benching 8-10 reps; often with other chest exercises such as dumbell benching, flys etc. With a program like Starting Strength you may end up benching twice a week at times (alternating A and B workouts) with the rep range at 5 max.

This is a different way of training from a split.

BlueIsland

Flynn wrote: »

How is going from a split to a full body a "strength program"? Bench pressing on a split is different than bench pressing on full body how?

bodybuilding programmes and strength programmes are different.

d'Oracle

A split was just how you organise your training to stop you doing everything on one day.

It's something that bodybuilders use, but also strength athletes used.
There is no real need to add to the definition.

Mellor

Flynn wrote: »

How is going from a split to a full body a "strength program"? Bench pressing on a split is different than bench pressing on full body how?

Which are you calling full body?
I'd describe your program as three distinct days;
Back and biceps
Shoulders and legs
Chest and triceps

The program you posted, or other abbreviated programs mentioned are typically strength programs. You haven't given us details of the "split". But it's prob not a strength program. Or there could be various other reason why it wasn't working.

My own program could probably be described as abbreviated, but it's not how I'd ever describe it.

Flynn

FTA69 wrote: »

Bench pressing on a split will lead to you benching once a week usually, from a body-building perspective you may end up benching 8-10 reps; often with other chest exercises such as dumbell benching, flys etc. With a program like Starting Strength you may end up benching twice a week at times (alternating A and B workouts) with the rep range at 5 max.

This is a different way of training from a split.

Why are we talking about starting strength? I don't, nor have i ever done starting strength or any strength program. As the title suggests it's abbreviated training not a strength program.. on splits i benched once a week 8-10 reps. Now, with abbrev training i bench once a week 8-10 reps. Hence my original question. How does that differ?

Sorry FTA69 thought i was qouting someone else there!

Flynn

BlueIsland wrote: »

bodybuilding programmes and strength programmes are different.

Exactly.. where are you getting that i'm not getting that?

You're confusing abbreviated training with strength training. My goal is to build muscle, gain and look good, not build strength (obv. this will come with all lifting ) but it's not my main goal as it is to a power-lifter say.

Again, i am not on a strength program.

Flynn

Mellor wrote: »

Which are you calling full body?
I'd describe your program as three distinct days;
Back and biceps
Shoulders and legs
Chest and triceps

The program you posted, or other abbreviated programs mentioned are typically strength programs. You haven't given us details of the "split". But it's prob not a strength program. Or there could be various other reason why it wasn't working.

My own program could probably be described as abbreviated, but it's not how I'd ever describe it.

How is that so? Considering you don't know what i'm lifting nor the # reps how can you assume i'm on a strength program. Someone using the exact program i posted for a x2 a week say, could be on a cut, lifting very light for high reps. How is this a strength program?

Mellor

Flynn wrote: »

How is that so? Considering you don't know what i'm lifting nor the # reps how can you assume i'm on a strength program...

Given no info on sets/reps/intensity. It's not not a massive leap to assume you were talking about strength training, given this is the strength and strength sports forum.

But also because you said things like;

Then i moved to Abbrev and can honestly say i got stronger.

and

And yes weight lifting over a period of time will make you stronger but the improvements (for me) were much greater in a smaller space of time. I spent 12 months + on a split and as i mentioned earlier saw greater gains in half that time with abbrev. training.

Flynn wrote:

..Someone using the exact program i posted for a x2 a week say, could be on a cut, lifting very light for high reps. How is this a strength program?

Any program type can be "abbreviated". I said it was typical of strength programs. "Basic compounds, lifting heavy, fewer exercises" is the general template that they typically follow.

To be honest, I find your posts a little confusing. You mention how your move to a full body routine was so much better than the split previously.
But you posted a 3 day split routine.
I was only trying to engage in discussion. But when ever anyone asked a question for clarity, you just replied "It's abbreviated training".
It's just a name,.

Flynn

Mellor wrote: »

Given no info on sets/reps/intensity. It's not not a massive leap to assume you were talking about strength training, given this is the strength and strength sports forum.

Sorry if i came across rude. Everyone was bagging abbreviated training having not tried it. I can see how the x3 looks like a split buts it's actually not. For instance if i moved calves to the monday i would be doing legs everyday. The other exercises, being compound, involve must muscles. ie. rows, OHP & dips are all going to target the shoulders in some form but on different days - that's not my idea of a split. The x2 routine makes it look a lot clearer truth is i split them into 3 as I cycle to the gym and wanted the extra cardio. So if the x3 looks more like a split to you that's why. Sorry for the confusion.

Mellor wrote: »

Given no info on sets/reps/intensity. It's not not a massive leap to assume you were talking about strength training, given this is the strength and strength sports forum.

Sorry i don't understand. Do you not draw a line between bodybuilding and say a strength program? If you do then the above comment is irrelevant. Strength Training, however is different. A chin-up is strength training, curling a 1kg dumbbell is strength training. You can view any form of weight lifting as strength training (or bodyweight) But i never mentioned i wasn't strength training I simply said i wasn't on a strength program. (Like SS) Which people kept bringing up and comparing to abbreviated training.

Then i moved to Abbrev and can honestly say i got stronger.

Yeah fair point. But i meant i got stronger, got bigger, improved. (although i had mentioned that earlier here....

and have made more gains in the 6 months than i did in the year

And yes weight lifting over a period of time will make you stronger but the improvements (for me) were much greater in a smaller space of time. I spent 12 months + on a split and as i mentioned earlier saw greater gains in half that time with abbrev. training.

Again, i don't see why you quoted this, It simply states my muscles grew larger.

But when ever anyone asked a question for clarity, you just replied "It's abbreviated training".
It's just a name,.

That's not true my first response was ...

Abbrev. Training is conservative. It the takes the "less is more" approach and argues that 90% of people in the gym are over-training. It's made up of basic compound movements and lifting big. So although it's 4 basic compound exercises you'll add in accessory exercises too (say abs or delts for instance) and might have a total of 6 or 7 exercises per workout. which will take an hour or thereabouts.

Sorry if it's not indepth enough for you, But as i said i didnt start this thread to get in to a debate on the merits of the book, the training or anything. I simply asked had anyone read the book? Does anyone else train like this?
Afterall there's always google. the first search result for abbreviated training brings up this

Hope i've answered your questions there as best i could. Once again, i'm not here for a debate.

BlueIsland

Flynn wrote: »

Sorry if i came across rude. Everyone was bagging abbreviated training having not tried it. I can see how the x3 looks like a split buts it's actually not. For instance if i moved calves to the monday i would be doing legs everyday. The other exercises, being compound, involve must muscles. ie. rows, OHP & dips are all going to target the shoulders in some form but on different days - that's not my idea of a split. The x2 routine makes it look a lot clearer truth is i split them into 3 as I cycle to the gym and wanted the extra cardio. So if the x3 looks more like a split to you that's why. Sorry for the confusion.



Sorry i don't understand. Do you not draw a line between bodybuilding and say a strength program? If you do then the above comment is irrelevant. Strength Training, however is different. A chin-up is strength training, curling a 1kg dumbbell is strength training. You can view any form of weight lifting as strength training (or bodyweight) But i never mentioned i wasn't strength training I simply said i wasn't on a strength program. (Like SS) Which people kept bringing up and comparing to abbreviated training.




Yeah fair point. But i meant i got stronger, got bigger, improved. (although i had mentioned that earlier here....



Again, i don't see why you quoted this, It simply states my muscles grew larger.




That's not true my first response was ...



Sorry if it's not indepth enough for you, But as i said i didnt start this thread to get in to a debate on the merits of the book, the training or anything. I simply asked had anyone read the book? Does anyone else train like this?
Afterall there's always google. the first search result for abbreviated training brings up this

Hope i've answered your questions there as best i could. Once again, i'm not here for a debate.

If you post on this forum about a specific trainind method and applaud it's merits you have to be up for debating/discussing the claims. You Have the right to not post/ not reply of course but do ya just want people to agree with you FULL STOP? If you can't see how wrong this it I give up.

You are saying you made more progress doing heavy compound lifts twice a week than lifting three times a week. Thats great. The problem people have is that it is given this name that comes across as different to tonnes of other starter/intermediate strength programmes. How is it different?

Flynn

BlueIsland wrote: »

If you post on this forum about a specific trainind method and applaud it's merits you have to be up for debating/discussing the claims. You Have the right to not post/ not reply of course but do ya just want people to agree with you FULL STOP? If you can't see how wrong this it I give up.

I can see that. But for people to have an opinion on it that havn't tried it surely you can see where i'm coming from with that? Forgive me but would you get into a debate with someone on how good or bad a movie was if the person you're having the discussion with had not seen the movie?

You are saying you made more progress doing heavy compound lifts twice a week than lifting three times a week. Thats great. The problem people have is that it is given this name that comes across as different to tonnes of other starter/intermediate strength programmes. How is it different?

t's different than a 4 day split of Arms / Back / Chest / Legs Which is what i used to do. It might not be different to other starter programs that you guys are using but i don't know what you guys are doing so why would i compare? Ive done the 4 day split and a push pull legs routine. It's different to those in that it's more conservative, and promotes less is more (i'm repeating this again for the third time here)

Does that answer your question?

BlueIsland

Flynn wrote: »

I can see that. But for people to have an opinion on it that havn't tried it surely you can see where i'm coming from with that? Forgive me but would you get into a debate with someone on how good or bad a movie was if the person you're having the discussion with had not seen the movie?



t's different than a 4 day split of Arms / Back / Chest / Legs Which is what i used to do. It might not be different to other starter programs that you guys are using but i don't know what you guys are doing so why would i compare? Ive done the 4 day split and a push pull legs routine. It's different to those in that it's more conservative, and promotes less is more (i'm repeating this again for the third time here)

Does that answer your question?

Ah hold on a movie is 2 hours long. completly different to embarking on a training programme/cycle.. the point is EVERYBODY reading this to a large extent has done the "abbreviated training" method. They just dont give it a silly name and pass it off as something new and inventive. It is heavy compunds lifts twice a week.

Ill say it again. To build overall strength, you are saying, heavy compound lifting twice a week is better than bodybuilding/mass gaining 4 days splits?

Tigger

Flynn wrote: »

and promotes less is more

but less is less isn't it?

please post your actual program and what it used to be

honestly i think every program done well and consistantly is better than any program done badly and inconsistantly

Flynn

BlueIsland wrote: »

Ah hold on a movie is 2 hours long. completly different to embarking on a training programme/cycle.. the point is EVERYBODY reading this to a large extent has done the "abbreviated training" method. They just dont give it a silly name and pass it off as something new and inventive. It is heavy compunds lifts twice a week.

When did i pass it off as new and inventive???! :eek: The original brawn came out in the early 90's! And it just played up on the conservatism approach used by some of the pioneers in the 60's.


And the with the movie point i was taking the piss. Point was i wasn't getting into a discussion with someone that hadn't tried it. If you don't agree with it fine i'm not here to prove otherwise. I really don't understand why the thread is getting side tracked. I was looking for someone else who trains this way and to discuss routines. now its become a "it's nothing new" "how is it any different? etc. etc. WTF?

Ill say it again. To build overall strength, you are saying, heavy compound lifting twice a week is better than bodybuilding/mass gaining 4 days splits?

IMO - Yes. You have already stated in your box squats thread that you're "not a bodybuilder or a sports strength guy" Another reason im not getting into a debate with you about it. So there is my answer. If you head over to bodybuilding.com and do some searching on Stuart Mcroberts or Abbrev. training you will get a lot of people who share the same opinion. Please if you want to take this further take it up with one of them i can't be arsed!

Flynn

Tigger wrote: »

but less is less isn't it?

No! Jesus! The book argues the fact that 90% of bodybuilders overtrain. (repeating myself again here - if you don't agree with that Im not here to tell you otherwise - I on the on the other hand do)

It's the recovery time. Say i did arms on a monday and chest on a tuesday. My triceps would be knackered from the previous day that my bench press would suffer. (You could argue that you might stick back inbetween but then your chin up will suffer from the previous sessions bicep curls) Allowing yourself to recover 100% and then going into the next session fully prepared to beat your PB.

BlueIsland

Flynn wrote: »

When did i pass it off as new and inventive???! :eek: The original brawn came out in the early 90's! And it just played up on the conservatism approach used by some of the pioneers in the 60's.


And the with the movie point i was taking the piss. Point was i wasn't getting into a discussion with someone that hadn't tried it. If you don't agree with it fine i'm not here to prove otherwise. I really don't understand why the thread is getting side tracked. I was looking for someone else who trains this way and to discuss routines. now its become a "it's nothing new" "how is it any different? etc. etc. WTF?




IMO - Yes. You have already stated in your box squats thread that you're "not a bodybuilder or a sports strength guy" Another reason im not getting into a debate with you about it. So there is my answer. If you head over to bodybuilding.com and do some searching on Stuart Mcroberts or Abbrev. training you will get a lot of people who share the same opinion. Please if you want to take this further take it up with one of them i can't be arsed!

Listen I am just trying to understand why this is called abbreviated training as opposed to I am not a bodybuilder (dont train for that). i just lift weights for a chosen sport. Like it has to be abbreviated form of something. But to me its how a person should train for strength. i genuinely have no clue how this gets a different name than strength training with compound heavy lifts.

Tigger

Flynn wrote: »

No! Jesus! The book argues the fact that 90% of bodybuilders overtrain. (repeating myself again here - if you don't agree with that Im not here to tell you otherwise - I on the on the other hand do)

It's the recovery time. Say i did arms on a monday and chest on a tuesday. My triceps would be knackered from the previous day that my bench press would suffer. (You could argue that you might stick back inbetween but then your chin up will suffer from the previous sessions bicep curls) Allowing yourself to recover 100% and then going into the next session fully prepared to beat your PB.

i train to bulk and train to get strong either with a mix like westside or i do a strength / hypertrophy split like layne norton's stuff or just doing 5x3 to get stronger. then a couple of month of bodyweight.
its a hobby i do it for me its more about doing it to learn how i work than anything else but what you are taking about is what i do to do strength gains

you should google layne norton
your take on abbreviated training sounds to me like something he's expanded on

Mellor

Flynn wrote: »

And yes weight lifting over a period of time will make you stronger but the improvements (for me) were much greater in a smaller space of time. I spent 12 months + on a split and as i mentioned earlier saw greater gains in half that time with abbrev. training.

Again, i don't see why you quoted this, It simply states my muscles grew larger.

I quoted that because you mentioned getting stronger, and improvements in a short space of time.
You didn't mention muscles growing anywhere.
"Gains" can can mean strength gains, as well as size gains.


You've mention you are looking for people who do abbrev. training.
Just so we're on the same page and all. My weight train consists of;
3 workouts, Each workout is 3 exercises, work up to a heavy top set.
Squat/Bench/Row
Squat/Press/Deadlift
Squat/Bench/Row - different sets and reps for Day 1

But its over 10 days not 7, so I only each exercises only once each week. The exception is squats, but the second day is light.
On top of that i add in assistance where I can - pull ups, press ups, bridges, handstand, leg raises.

So that's, heavy compounds, less is more, spaced out workouts, assistance where needed.
So, does that count as abbreviated training?

Flynn

Mellor wrote: »

I quoted that because you mentioned getting stronger, and improvements in a short space of time.
You didn't mention muscles growing anywhere.
"Gains" can can mean strength gains, as well as size gains.


You've mention you are looking for people who do abbrev. training.
Just so we're on the same page and all. My weight train consists of;
3 workouts, Each workout is 3 exercises, work up to a heavy top set.
Squat/Bench/Row
Squat/Press/Deadlift
Squat/Bench/Row - different sets and reps for Day 1

But its over 10 days not 7, so I only each exercises only once each week. The exception is squats, but the second day is light.
On top of that i add in assistance where I can - pull ups, press ups, bridges, handstand, leg raises.

So that's, heavy compounds, less is more, spaced out workouts, assistance where needed.
So, does that count as abbreviated training?

Absolutely. The fact that it's over 10 days means you're not overtraining (the whole point of abbreviated) What do you mean by assistance? Are they done in the gym in between your main sets? In Beyond Brawn adding in a few push ups on a day that you're not doing chest would be seen to "hinder" your bench. (Although this is very strict and i wouldn't expect many people to stray away from extra work, but that's his take on abbreviated.)

Mellor

By assistance, I mean I do them to assist those lifts. But never in between sets. I need my recovery.
I might finish with leg raises for abs, or bridges if its been a while, sometimes its uneven press ups at the end.
Hand stand press up progression I tend to do on a rest day.

It's not the only training I do though, if I do 3 weight sesions over 10/11 days i'll also do 3 MMA/BJJ sessions and maybe a conditioning once.