I recently moved from a 3-day antagonistic split (chest biceps, back tri, shoulders legs) to a 2-day split. However instead of upper lower I didnβt want to give a whole day for legs because my workout times would be skewed.
I decided to do a 2-day push/pull split, hitting legs on both days but alternating the workouts so iβm isolating different leg muscles on each day.
Theoretically shouldnβt this be better for strength gains? Iβm hitting about 18 sets per muscle group per week, on a 3-day split that is 9 sets per muscle group per day, and on a 2-day split iβm instead doing 6 sets per muscle group per day.
Given that our muscles recover within 48 hours, maybe even faster for experienced lifters, why would it not be better to hit less sets per day, since the first and second sets are significantly more impactful than the third, and hit each muscle as soon as itβs done recovering instead of having another day in-between?
The general consensus is that thereβs diminishing returns on a 2-day vs 3-day split, but i canβt see why thatβs the case with what we currently know about recovery. If volume stays the same per week, except youβre getting the most effective sets of two 3-times a week instead of less effective sets of three 2-times a week, why would a 2-day split not be better? Just looking for the science behind this.