I bought the Powerbuilding II 2nd Generation template a while back and was a little surprised – negatively, perhaps – that it had switched to a Lower/Upper split, vs. the original’s 4 Full Body. It also appears to have a little less overall training load. I’m curious as to the reason behind this, and also looking for some reassurance, I guess, that this plan will be equally effective.
Powerbuilding 3 gave me my best gains ever – I wrote a glowing review on it years ago. I think squatting ~3x per week and benching 4x per week was uniquely beneficial for my strength development. The new Strength and PB templates have switched to L/U splits, which gives fewer exposures to practicing the big lifts. Am I overthinking all of this?
The training load is actually higher than both PB 2 and 3. I swapped to a upper/lower split in order to fit all that training load in without the sessions getting too long. Yes, I suspect this program will work well for someone who previously responded well to the PB programs.
My thought is that frequency is a tool to distribute training volume. I can fit in more volume on an upper lower split for a given amount of time, though spreading the fatigue to more days (time be damned!) may be preferable for some. I think more training volume is generally a better first move than increasing frequency without changing training volume.
This is very much a me issue, but I have found I am far better at staying at the right proximity to failure when I’ve got a higher frequency. Years of work harder = better results thinking means even though I know better the temptation to push a set to its limit is something I have to battle against constantly. Knowing I have to squat again tomorrow rather than not having to do it again for another 3 or 4 days makes me far less likely to YOLO any of my sets.
I get that isn’t an inherent benefit of that sort of structure but Ive found it a pretty interesting aspect