Assuming you are eating the same amount of calories in these 2 hypothetical situations:

assuming you are eating the same amount of calories in these 2 hypothetical situations:

-a man is doing a full body routine

-a man is solely working one muscle group (shoulders)

will there be a difference in the amount of muscle growth in size+strength for shoulders in these different situations?

the reason I ask is because I often isolate calves and forearms - and of course my body uses energy to repair these muscles after I've worked them. will this mean I'm sacrificing speed of gains for the more important muscles?

incase I'm not articulating myself well enough- would I make gains faster if I only worked one muscle group instead of all of them?

>will there be a difference in the amount of muscle growth in size+strength for shoulders in these different situations?

depends solely on the volume done for shoulders in both groups

>dat image
>literally The fox and the grapes

those guys do look like shit though, the commenters are just saying the wrong reasons why

if the only difference is the fact that additional muscles are being worked, surely the body has to use its energy on a wider spread, so the gains you make for shoulders specifically will be reduced if you work more than just shoulders?

bump

That pic better not be real

so what the fuck is the question then? if both groups do the same shoulder exercise with the same weight/reps/sets then the gains will be similar, otherwise the group that does more volume (hypetrophy) will see better muscle gains.

working on legs has no impact on tiring out your upper body. even doing bench before doing any shoulder work would barely be noticeable if you rest long enough.

it all comes down on volume done looking at it from weekly perspective. someone training for strength with 3x5 scheme that does shoulder exercise 3x/week will do 45 reps/week and that's not counting warm up sets and reps.

someone doing isolations and training shoulders just once per week but doing the usual hypertrophy routine with 3x12-15 will do around 36-45, again not counting warmup sets. obviously if you'd train more than 1x/week the gains would be superior.

the difference in muscle gain will be similar in that case but the strength gain would probably be much higher in the strength group. everyone is different and requires different amount of volume done to grow. someone can blow up by just doing 40 reps/week while someone else might need more than 70 to get the same results.

the question is basically, if more muscles are being broken down it will take my body more energy to fix them all. if I'm eating the same in both situations, wouldn't I gain slower if I'm working more muscles as opposed to just one because my body has more to repair?
but your answer definitely helped

Obviously if you take the same amount of macros and rest, shoulder isolation will give better results both strength and size
>implying strength isn't size

/thread

Also
>that pic

yes, but surely because the body has to repair more the overall repair speed will be slower, and therefore so will muscular gains

I can fix a broken computer
I can fix 2 broken computers simultaneously
I can fix 3 broken computers simultaneously
I can fix 4 broken computers simultaneously
I can fix 5 broken computers simultaneously

the more I have to repair, the slower the overall progress and quality of repair is on each individual computer

That's not how it works.

do you think your body has a handful of hamsters in hats running around repairing the muscle damage? your body can repair multiple muscles at the same time.

it's a cellular process, not something that needs to be tended individually.

imagine it being something like a supermarket and your body is driving a truck full of food to restock it. it only needs to dump the food outside and then it doesn't have to worry about it anymore because the individual workers (cells) in that supermarket will deal with it. so your body can drive off and restock other empty stores.

the process to bring nutrients to the damaged muscles that are in need of repair the damage is negligible.

no, they actually look pretty shittastic compared to a alpha ottermode natty. at least to girls

For every girl on tumblr that virtue signals against buff men, there are 5 or 6 girls in real life that admit that it looks good. If women truly didn't care about being buff, then you wouldn't see every tv show on earth casting buff men for important roles

...

>For every girl on tumblr
every girl on tumblr is a fucking whale that has the size of at least 2 normal girls

I don't understand why really really ugly people don't at least lose weight.

Anyone else notice all those girls look like fat fucks?

Whoever sleeps more and has a better macro ratio.


But assuming both of those are equal (never the case, but why not feed the troll)

But if it's an advanced lifter:
The split, because you can't lift full body 3x a week when you're lifting heavy weight.

If you're a novice/intermediate:
The full body, because you can lift everything 3x a week.