Hey,

It's time for another instalment of the Vitamin––the weekly fitness newsletter that helps you be healthier, stronger, and leaner while navigating fitness bullshit.

Is full-body training better for fat loss?

As far as muscle and strength gain are concerned, the way you set up your training split doesn’t seem to matter all that much as long as you’re doing enough training volume each week. [1]

But what about fat loss? Could a certain training split be better for shedding body fat? That’s what a recent study investigated. [2]

The primary aim of the study was to investigate whether a full-body routine was superior to a split-body routine for fat loss. Additionally, the researchers wanted to see whether a full-body routine induced lower levels of DOMS compared to a split-body routine.

What did they do?

23 men with at least three years of uninterrupted resistance training experience were randomised into two groups according to their muscle strength-to-body weight ratio to ensure an even distribution of strength levels across both groups.

• 11 participants were assigned to the full-body routine group
• 12 participants were assigned to the split-body routine group

Training

Participants engaged in resistance training five days a week (Monday to Friday) for eight weeks, with two different routines: full-body or split-body. Both routines were volume-matched, with a total of 75 sets per week. Participants performed 8–12 repetitions at 70%–80% of their 1-RM, with 90-second rest intervals between sets and exercises.

Full-Body Group:

• Trained 5 days per week (Monday to Friday) and performed all exercises in each session.
  ​
• This consisted of two sets of the bench press, seated row, hamstring curl, calf standing, lumbar spine flexors and extensors. And one set of the leg press, back squat, barbell curl, elbow extensors, and lateral raises.

Split-Body group:

• Trained different body parts on different days, hitting each muscle only once per week.
  • Monday: Bench press and elbow extensors.
  • Tuesday: Leg press and back squat.
  • Wednesday: Seated row and barbell curl.
  • Thursday: Hamstring curl and calf standing.
  • Friday: Lateral raises, lumbar spine flexors, and extensors.
• They performed 10 sets per exercise (except for elbow extensors, barbell curl, lateral raise, squat, and leg press, which were performed for five sets).

Nutrition

Participants were asked to maintain their normal nutrition habits. Dietary intake was assessed at baseline, week four, and week eight to assess total calories and macronutrients, and these were compared between time points to determine if any differences in intake were present.

Muscle soreness

A visual numeric pain rating scale was used to measure delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS), which is a fancy way of asking, “How much are you hurting right now on a scale from 0 to ‘Why the fuck did I do this to myself?’” Participants rated their soreness from 0 to 10 for different body parts (chest, elbow flexors, elbow extensors, thigh, and calf) the day after their first and last RT sessions, as well as in weeks one, four, and eight. Yes, the researchers turned subjective pain into cold, hard data because #science.

So, what happened?

Fat loss: The full-body group lost more body fat than the split-body group (-0.78 kg or 1.72 lbs versus + 0.32 kg or +0.7 lbs). Regional fat mass (i.e., arms, legs, stomach, hips, thighs) showed a similar trend.

Training volume: Across the 8 weeks, the full-body training group lifted ~615,000 kg total volume, while the split-body group lifted just over 394,000 kg total volume. However, the higher training volume in the full-body group didn’t correlate with more whole-body fat loss (though higher training volumes led to more significant fat loss in the upper limbs, hip and thighs).

Delayed-onset muscle soreness (DOMS): Muscle soreness was higher in the split-body group than in the full-body group, a trend that persisted throughout the 8 weeks. Additionally, the split-body routine consistently resulted in greater DOMS in the lower limbs than the upper limbs.

Finally, there were no differences in dietary intake within or between participants at all time points, and adherence to the full- and split-body routine was 98% and 97%, respectively.

So, is full body better?

If you just read the abstract, it would be tempting to think full-body training is better for fat loss than a split routine. And look, this could very well be the case––it was a well-done study, but it’s not without some limitations.

The researchers speculated the lack of fat loss in the split group might have been due to higher levels of DOMS, which could have resulted in a reduction in non-exercise activity thermogenesis. But it’s hard to say if this was actually the case since the researchers didn’t measure energy expenditure or physical activity outside of the gym.

Another hypothesis was the full-body program led to a higher degree of excess post-exercise oxygen consumption (EPOC), but the research as a whole tends to paint a pretty ‘meh’ picture of EPOC; there is an increase in metabolic rate after a strength workout, but it’s pretty modest and short-lived (I’ve discussed that topic here).

The full-body group also performed more sets than the split group (10-15 sets vs 11 sets, respectively, accounting for the warm-up sets), resulting in over 50% more total volume performed. While this didn’t correlate with whole-body fat loss, there was a ‘significant negative correlation’ between higher training volume and fat loss in certain regions, like the upper limbs, hips, and thighs. Annoyingly, the researchers skipped over this finding in their discussion. If I had to speculate, I’m guessing the fat loss in the upper limbs, hips, and thighs kind of washed out when looking at the fat loss in the whole body.

I mention this because total volume (sets x reps x weight) influences how much energy is expended during resistance training. More specifically, caloric expenditure during exercise is primarily driven by the amount of work performed, which is influenced by the force applied, the distance over which the force is exerted, and the time spent performing the exercise. In one study, the group who lifted a total volume load of 20,000 kg took ~90 mins to complete the session and burned 484 calories. Meanwhile, the other group lifted 10,000 kg, which took ~40 mins and burned 247 calories. [3]

João and colleagues reported something similar: The group that did 6 sets of 5 repetitions at 90% of 1-RM had a higher energy expenditure than the group that did 3 sets of 10 repetitions at 75% of 1-RM or 2 sets of 15 repetitions at 60% of 1-RM. [4]

It's also interesting to note the full-body group experienced significantly less DOMS than the split group, aligning with the repeated bout effect––where muscles adapt to repeated exercise sessions, leading to reduced soreness and muscle damage over time. While training frequency matters less when weekly training volume is matched, higher frequency training, where you target a muscle group at least twice per week, allows you to experience less soreness and recover quicker than hitting a muscle group once per week.

With all that being said (I swear, I’ll shut up soon), I don’t think you need to suddenly change your training plan to a full-body split. This is still one study, and the sample size was relatively small, consisting of men. I’d like to see more research replicating these findings (hopefully in women, too) before getting too excited.

Ultimately, the type of split you follow doesn’t matter too much as long as you’re doing enough volume for each muscle group. In most cases, splitting your training volume across 2-4 sessions will be more manageable than cramming all your volume into one session, especially as you become more advanced and your volume requirements increase.

Finally, just remember the purpose of your (strength) training isn’t to burn calories––it’s to build or maintain your muscle and strength. Any increase in energy expenditure is just a nice byproduct, but it shouldn’t be the primary goal.

​

​

Want to help support me?

If you enjoy and find value in my weekly emails, it would mean a lot to me if you could let others know about the Vitamin. It takes me hours to write these emails but it only takes a few seconds to share.

You can share on Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp, or Email.

Or, just copy and paste the link below via email or social media (or however else you want to share):

[RH_REFLINK GOES HERE]

​

If someone forwarded you this email, you can learn more about the Vitamin and subscribe here to get all future issues directly to your inbox. My emails are free, and your information is protected. No spam or any funny business (except for my lame jokes). Unsubscribe at any time.

•••

–Aa

P.S. How did you find this week's instalment of the Vitamin?

​👍 Loved it | 👎 Hated it​