Brief Review

Efficacy of Split Versus Full-Body Resistance

Training on Strength and Muscle Growth: A
Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis
Domingo J. Ramos-Campo,1 Pedro J. Benito-Peinado,1 Luis Andreu-Caravaca,2,3 Miguel A. Rojo-Tirado,1
and Jacobo Á. Rubio-Arias4
1
LFE Research Group, Department of Health and Human Performance, Faculty of Physical Activity and Sport Science (INEF),
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain; 2Sports Physiology Department, Faculty of Health Sciences, UCAM Universidad
Católica San Antonio de Murcia, Murcia, Spain; 3Facultad de Deporte. UCAM Universidad Católica de Murcia, Murcia, Spain; and
4
Health Research Center, Department of Education, Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Almerı´a, Almerı´a, Spain

Abstract
Ramos-Campo, DJ, Benito-Peinado, PJ, Caravaca, LA, Rojo-Tirado, MA, and Rubio-Arias, JÁ. Efficacy of split versus full-body
resistance training on strength and muscle growth: a systematic review with meta-analysis. J Strength Cond Res 38(7):
1330–1340, 2024—No previous study has systematically compared the effect of 2 resistance training routines commonly used
to increase muscle mass and strength (i.e., split [Sp] and full-body [FB] routines). Our objective was to conduct a systematic
review and meta-analysis following PRISMA guidelines to compare the effects on strength gains and muscle growth in healthy
adults. 14 studies (392 subjects) that compared Sp and FB routines in terms of strength adaptations and muscle growth were
included. Regarding the effects of the Sp or FB routine on both bench press and lower limbs strength, the magnitude of the
change produced by both routines was similar (bench press: mean difference [MD] 5 1.19; [21.28, 3.65]; p 5 0.34; k 5 14;
lower limb: MD 5 2.47; [22.11, 7.05]; p 5 0.29; k 5 14). Concerning the effect of the Sp vs. FB routine on muscle growth, similar
effects were observed after both routines in the cross-sectional area of the elbow extensors (MD 5 0.30; [22.65, 3.24]; p 5 0.84;
k 5 4), elbow flexors (MD 5 0.17; [22.54, 2.88]; p 5 0.91; k 5 5), vastus lateralis (MD 5 20.08; [21.82, 1.66]; p 5 0.93; k 5 5), or
lean body mass (MD 5 20.07; [21.59, 1.44]; p 5 0.92; k 5 6). In conclusion, the present systematic review and meta-analysis
provides solid evidence that the use of Sp or FB routines within a resistance training program does not significantly impact either
strength gains or muscle hypertrophy when volume is equated. Consequently, individuals are free to confidently select a re-
sistance training routine based on their personal preferences.
Key Words: cross-sectional area, frequency, hypertrophy, muscle mass, one repetition maximum

Introduction effect over time, resulting in enhanced hypertrophic responses

compared with lower-frequency training programs (8). By con-
Resistance training is commonly recognized as the most effective
trast, evidence showed a significant effect of resistance training
method of improving muscle strength and size, also known as
frequency on muscle strength gains, with higher training fre-
muscle hypertrophy, in human individuals (28). To optimize
quencies resulting in greater muscle strength gains (14). However,
muscle adaptation, it is crucial to properly manipulate several
the effects of higher training frequencies appear to be primarily
variables associated with resistance training programs.
due to greater training volume because when training volume is
A specific variable of great importance in resistance training is
equated, the effect of resistance training frequency on muscle
training frequency. Frequency is often described as the number of
strength gains is similar (14). Therefore, research suggests
training sessions performed each week. However, a more com-
a gradual dose-response relationship whereby increases in re-
mon definition of frequency relates to the number of times a spe-
sistance training volume produce greater gains in muscle hyper-
cific muscle group is trained in a week (9). Thus, there is strong
trophy (32). Consequently, it is widely accepted that volume plays
evidence that resistance training frequency does not significantly
a key role in both strength and hypertrophic adaptations and, for
affect muscle hypertrophy when volume is equated (29). How-
this reason, for a given training volume, individuals can choose
ever, previous findings suggest that higher-frequency resistance
a weekly frequency per muscle group based on their personal
training programs, through more frequent stimulation of muscle
preferences (29).
protein synthesis pathways, may lead to a greater cumulative
Contrary to scientific evidence, there are common practices
among bodybuilders and strength athletes. In this sense, a survey
Address correspondence to Dr. Domingo J. Ramos-Campo, domingojesusramos@
gmail.com.
conducted with 127 competitive male bodybuilders revealed that
more than two-thirds of respondents trained each muscle group
Supplemental digital content is available for this article. Direct URL citations appear
in the printed text and are provided in the HTML and PDF versions of this article on only once a week (15). In addition, none of the respondents
the journal’s Web site (http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr). trained a muscle group more than twice a week, and all reported
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 38(7)/1330–1340 using a split routine. This differs from weightlifters and power-
ª 2024 National Strength and Conditioning Association lifters, who typically train muscles more frequently through full-

1330

Copyright © 2024 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Split vs. Full-Body on Strength and Body Composition (2024) 38:7 | www.nsca.com

body routines (11). Full-body routines include exercises that muscle size, muscle thickness, cross-sectional area, growth,
stimulate the body’s major muscle groups in the same training muscle fiber, muscle fiber, lean body mass, muscle mass, lean
session, whereas split routines include multiple exercises per- tissue, fat free mass, strength, and one repetition maximum.
formed for a specific muscle group in one training session (21).
Split routines are typical of bodybuilding-style training and serve
to increase muscle metabolic stress by increasing volume loading Selection Criteria
within a muscle group (20), which in turn can enhance the hy- This systematic review only considered controlled interventions
pertrophic response to the exercise bout (28). In this way, it is that investigated the comparative effects of split vs full-body
suggested that the split routine is believed to improve the ability to routines within a strength training program. Split-routine re-
perform a greater volume of training per muscle group while sistance training consists of dividing all the exercises in a program
maintaining intensity, generating greater muscle strain in a spe- into 2 or more groups and doing each group of exercise on sep-
cific training session (9). In addition, this type of routine facilitates arate days of the week (10). To be included, studies had to meet
recovery because alternating between muscle groups allows the following criteria: be published in English, involved subjects
a certain muscle to have more recovery time between training aged $18 and ,40 years, compared split vs. full-body routines,
sessions (9). Therefore, implementing a split routine may be an and assess strength (one repetition maximum) or muscle mass
effective strategy to improve hypertrophic gains by facilitating the (lean body mass, fat-free mass, or cross-sectional area) as out-
use of higher volumes over time. However, controversial results comes. Studies were excluded if they did not provide data on the
are obtained in studies comparing the effect of split vs. full-body specified variables, were editorials, letters to the editor, or meet-
routines on muscle growth and strength gains. For example, ing abstracts, focused on the acute effects of split versus full-body
similar gains in muscle mass and strength performance have been routines or included subjects who (a) were obese or had certain
reported after split and full-body routines between untrained pathologies; (b) included drugs during training or had a history of
(10,13,25) and trained (12,22) people. By contrast, other studies drug use or addiction; and (c) had other capacities, such as
reported that full-body routines may be more effective at im- adapted sport.
proving cross-sectional area than split routines (34,39) . Con-
versely, Bartolomei et al. (2) found opposite results, reporting that
the full-body training paradigm may be more appropriate for Data Extraction
improving maximal strength, whereas a split routine training may
be more optimal for stimulating muscle growth in experienced Two authors (D.J.R.C. and J.A.R.A.) independently reviewed the
resistance-trained men. Thus, to obtain an answer to determine retrieved articles to identify potentially relevant ones. Any dis-
the effect of split or full-body routines to optimize muscle growth agreement regarding inclusion/exclusion was resolved through
and improve strength, it is necessary to analyze the quantitative consensus discussions. For the studies that met inclusion criteria,
and meta-analytical effect of the current literature. the primary outcome analyzed was strength performance, spe-
Remarkably, no previous study has systematically analyzed cifically bench press or lower-limb one repetition maximum
and compared the effect of these 2 resistance training routines (1RM). In addition, secondary outcomes such as cross-sectional
commonly used as an intervention to increase muscle mass and area of elbow extensors, cross-sectional area of elbow flexors,
strength. Therefore, we aimed to conduct a systematic review and cross-sectional area of vastus lateralis, and lean body mass were
meta-analysis to compare the effects of split and full-body rou- analyzed in the articles that fulfilled the inclusion criteria and
tines on strength gains and muscle growth in healthy adults. assessed the primary outcome.
In addition, the following study characteristics were extracted:
authors’ names, year, country, study design, number of subjects in
Methods each group, subjects’ sex, type of subjects, as well as their age,
height, body mass, fat mass (%), bench press 1RM (kg), lower
Experimental Approach to the Problem limb 1RM (kg), and training experience. Moreover, information
The present systematic review with meta-analysis was developed regarding the strength training program characteristics was
following the guidelines described in the Preferred Reporting extracted, including volume (weeks), training frequency (days per
Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) week), intensity (%1RM), number of exercises, total number of
statement (24). In addition, it was preregistered in the In- sessions in the program, muscle groups trained per week, sets,
ternational Prospective Registry of Systematic Reviews (PROS- repetitions, rest (s), total volume (kg), and the primary and sec-
PERO) with identifier number 444324. ondary outcomes described above.

Data Sources and Search Strategy Data Synthesis and Statistical Analysis
Two independent researchers (D.J.R.C. and J.A.R.A.) conducted Meta-Analysis. Meta-analysis and statistical analysis were per-
a comprehensive literature search using the Web of Science formed using the Review Manager software (RevMan 5.4;
(WOS) and PubMed-Medline electronic databases. The search Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, United Kingdom). The mean
covered articles from the inception of the databases up to June 23, difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calcu-
2023, without date restrictions. Article retrieval used a combina- lated as the effect size measure to compare the outcomes between
tion of terms, including split training or split routine or split the split and full-body routine. The pooled effect size was esti-
weight training or frequency resistance training or frequency mated using the inverse variance random-effects method (esti-
workout and full-body or total body training or frequency re- mation method: DerSimonian-Laird). In addition, statistical
sistance training or full-body training or frequency workout or heterogeneity was evaluated using the Cochrane’s chi-square (x2),
full-body routine. The Boolean operator “AND” was used to the I2 statistic, and the between-study variance using the tau-
combine these descriptors with hypertrophy, body composition, square (t2). Values of I2 between 30 and 60% were considered as

1331

Copyright © 2024 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Split vs. Full-Body on Strength and Body Composition (2024) 38:7

moderate levels of heterogeneity, whereas a value of t2 . 1 sug- analysis included 28 groups (14 articles, 194 subjects in the split
gests the presence of substantial statistical heterogeneity. A p routine groups and 198 subjects in the full-body routine groups)
value of ,0.1 for x2 was defined as an indicator of the presence of (Table 2).
heterogeneity. In addition, a sensitivity analysis was performed
using the leave-1-out method (37) with OpenMetaAnalyst.
Publication Bias and Heterogeneity
Risk of Bias Assessment (Study Quality). Three researchers
(D.J.R.C., J.A.R.A. and M.A.R.T.) assessed the quality of study Risk of Bias. The risk of bias assessment is shown in Figure 2.
methodologies using the Cochrane’s risk-of-bias tool RoB2 (18), According to the RoB2 assessment tool, 10 of the 14 (71.4%)
and each domain of each study was classified as low risk of bias, included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) had a low overall
some concerns, or high risk of bias. Any disagreements were re- and domain-specific risk of bias, whereas the other 4 (28.6%) had
solved by discussion. Publication bias was considered with the some concerns in domain 1 (randomization process) and mainly
funnel plot, and Egger’s test was used to assess publication bias. in domain 2 (deviations from the intended interventions).
Egger’s test and funnel plot were used to assess publication bias in No publication bias was shown in the analysis of bench press
variables that included 5 or more studies. A p value of #0.05 was 1RM, lower-limb 1RM, vastus lateralis cross-sectional area, el-
considered statistically significant. Publication bias analysis was bow flexors cross-sectional area, and lean body mass, through the
calculated using SPSS software. funnel plot (see Table 1, Supplemental Digital Content, http://
links.lww.com/JSCR/A477). Furthermore, Egger’s regression test
indicated no significant bias, further supporting the absence of
Results performance bias. In addition, in the leave-one-out meta-analysis
Search Results and General Characteristics of Subjects test, no study was found that significantly altered the direction or
and Protocols statistical value of the effect on the variables of 1RM bench press,
1RM lower-limb, and elbow flexors cross-sectional area (see
A total of 3,108 articles (WOS: n 5 1,420; Medline: n 5 1,688) Table 2, Supplemental Digital Content, http://links.lww.com/
were identified in the initial search. The title and abstract of 2,999 JSCR/A477). However, in the vastus lateralis cross-sectional
articles were reviewed after removing duplicate articles. Sub- area, the study by Schoenfeld et al. (34) modified the direction of
sequently, 109 full-text articles were reviewed. Finally, 14 studies the effect without significant changes (p 5 0.972), and in the lean
were selected for inclusion in the statistical analysis (Figure 1). body mass, the study by Franco et al. (10) also modified the di-
The characteristics of the studies included in the systematic rection of the effect without significant changes (p 5 0.972).
review with meta-analysis are described in Table 1. A total of 28
groups (14 studies) were included in the statistical analyses (194
subjects in the split routine groups and 198 subjects in the full-
Meta-Analysis
body routine groups). Of the 14 studies included in the systematic
review, 2 studies included women, 11 included, men and 1 en- Effects of Split or Full-Body Routine on Strength (1RM). Re-
rolled both men and women. The average age of the subjects garding the effects of split or full-body routine on both bench
included in the studies was 25.3 years (range: 20.7–35.1 years), press and lower-limb strength (Figures 3A and B), the magnitude
and an average body mass of 78.1 kg (range: 60.2–92.9 kg). The of the change produced by both routines was similar (bench press:
one repetition maximum of the subjects was 76.1 kg (range: MD 5 1.19; [95% CI 5 21.28, 3.65]; p 5 0.34; k 5 14; lower
28.7–104.8 kg) in bench press and 107.1 kg (range: 71.2–159.7 limb: MD 5 2.47; [95% CI 5 22.11, 7.05]; p 5 0.29; k 5 14).
kg) in lower-limb exercises. The main outcome (strength perfor- Heterogeneity of effects was low among strength performance
mance assessed by a one-repetition maximum test) of the meta- studies (I2 5 0%).

Figure 1. Diagram flow of the systematic review.

1332

Copyright © 2024 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Split vs. Full-Body on Strength and Body Composition (2024) 38:7 | www.nsca.com

Table 1
Main characteristics of the subjects of the included studies.*
Age Body Mass Height Fat mass 1 RM bench 1 RM lower
(y) (kg) (cm) (%) press (kg) limb (kg)
Study, year of
publication Country Design Groups n Type of subjects Sex Mean 6 SD Mean 6 SD Mean 6 SD Mean 6 SD Mean 6 SD Mean 6 SD
Bartolomei et al. Italy RCT Split 11 Trained (6.6 6 3.5 y Men 24.9 6 4.2 79.2 6 9.5 175.2 6 6.0 12.3 6 3.5 99.0 6 22.2 114.0 6 25.5
(2) Full 10 of training 24.1 6 4.4 78.7 6 11.3 177.0 6 3.9 10.4 6 1.8 92.8 6 25.1 114.3 6 31.8
body experience)
Lasevicius et al. Brazil RCT Split 14 Trained (3.2 6 1.1 y Men 21.0 6 3.0 78.7 6 9.8 178.5 6 6.0 80.9 6 15.6 159.7 6 27.7
(22) Full 14 of training 78.1 6 19.8 156.5 6 26.5
body experience)
Prieto et al. (13) Saudi RCT Split 16 Untrained Men 21.12 6 82.6 6 27.6 178 6 6.7 18.6 6 8 59.5 6 26.9 109 6 35.8
Arabia 1.36
Full 12 21.17 6 80.1 6 24.1 176.6 6 4.6 18.6 6 7.6 51.6 6 16.1 108.6 6 26.8
body 1.70
Evangelista et al. Brazil RCT Split 35 Untrained Men 26.2 6 4.6 69.9 6 9 169 6 7 56.4 6 20.9 85.5 6 26.6
(9) Full 32 27.5 6 7.6 72.5 6 13.9 170 6 8 63.8 6 28.9 89.8 6 30.2
body
Pedersen et al. Norway RCT Split 19 Resistance untrained Women 22.5 6 3.3 70.9 6 9.6 167.8 6 6.4 35.3 6 5.5 149.3 6 26.3
(25) Full 25 22.9 6 3.1 66.5 6 8.5 168.3 6 4.4
body
Calder et al. (5) USA RCT Split 10 Resistance untrained Women 20.7 6 1.3 63.3 6 8.8 166.9 6 5.1 29.9 6 5.5 108.5 6 23.9
Full 10 21.2 6 0.9 60.2 6 6.3 166.4 6 5.4 28.7 6 4.6 112.8 6 14.7
body
Zaroni et al. (39) Brazil RCT Split 9 Well trained (6.6 6 Men 26.4 6 4.7 84.4 6 8.1 177.8 6 6.6 93.2 6 13.5 111.9 6 18.8
2.4 y of experience)
Full 9 Well trained (6.4 6 25.6 6 3.7 83.4 6 11.7 179.1 6 6.7 104.2 6 17.6 105.6 6 20.2
body 2.4 y of experience)
Schoenfeld et al. USA RCT Split 10 Trained (4.5 6 3.1 y Men 23.5 6 2.9 78.0 6 10.7 176 6 5 93.3 6 17.2 115 6 19.5
(34) Full 10 of training 97.1 6 12.0 134.5 6 22.4
body experience)
Franco et al. (10) Brazil RCT Split 9 Untrained Men 22.8 6 2.4 76.14 6 11.85 176 6 5 62.3 6 4.2 71.2 6 4.4
Full 9 21.4 6 2.0 80.49 6 15.52 176 6 6 69.2 6 4.2 86.7 6 4.4
body
Gomes et al. (12) Brazil RCT Split 12 Well trained (6.0 y of Men 25.5 78.2 6 9.8 174.0 6 5.2 103.5 6 15.4 132.9 6 28.1
experience)
Full 11 Well trained (7 y of 27.1 78.8 6 9.9 176.8 6 4.1 100.6 6 14.5 123.3 6 17.5
body experience)
Crewther et al. (7) New RCT Split 24 Rugby players (.2 y Men 29.8 6 6.8 92.9 6 12.2 179.5 6 7.9 18.5 6 4.7 103.1 6 15.8 131.1 6 19.6
Zealand crossover Full 24 of RT experience) 17.9 6 4.6 102.6 6 18.3 128.6 6 23.6
body
Thomas and United RCT Split 9 Trained (47.5–55.2 Men 35.1 6 6.9 81.7 6 15.95 167.5 6 7.4 78.6 6 40.8 90.2 6 41.5
Burns (35) States (5 mo of RT experience) and
m) women
Full 10 34.2 6 11.0 80.3 6 12.8 173.6 6 8.7 84.8 6 31.4 96.8 6 40.3
body (7
m)
Johnsen and van Norway RCT Split 10 Resistance trained Men 30.6 6 9.5 87.0 6 13.3 184 6 5 91.6 6 24.0 124.8 6 20.3
den Tillaar (19) Full 11 4.7 6 2.8 y of RT 24.8 6 4.0 83.7 6 11.6 187 6 7 101.0 6 25.4 118.0 6 19.0
body experience
Schoenfeld et al. United RCT Split 8 Resistance trained Men 22.7 6 2.5 78.4 6 12.3 97.1 6 20.6 114.5 6 36.5
(33) States Full 9 4.2 6 2.4 y of RT 23.6 6 3.1 84.5 6 14.5 104.8 6 26.6 122.7 6 41.4
body experience

*RCT 5 randomized controlled trial; RM 5 repetition maximum.

Effects of Split or Full-Body Routine on Cross-Sectional Area and Discussion

Lean Body Mass. Concerning the effect of split vs. full-body
This review aimed to conduct a systematic review with a meta-
routine on muscle growth, similar effects were observed after both
analysis of the existing literature, comparing the impact of split
routine on cross-sectional area of elbow extensors (Figure 4A;
versus full-body resistance training routines on strength gains and
MD 5 0.30; [95% CI 5 22.65, 3.24]; p 5 0.84; k 5 4), elbow
flexors (Figure 4B; MD 5 0.17; [95% CI 5 22.54, 2.88]; p 5 muscle hypertrophy. The main findings suggest that the choice
0.91; k 5 5), and vastus lateralis (Figure 4C; MD 5 20.08; [95% between split and full-body routines, which represent the 2 most
CI 5 21.82, 1.66]; p 5 0.93; k 5 5). prevalent forms of resistance training distribution in programs, has
Similarly, no differences were observed on lean body mass minimal effect on strength gains and muscle growth when con-
(Figure 4D; SMD 5 0.002; [95% CI 5 20.28, 0.31]; p 5 0.91; sidering equal training volumes in programs ranged 4–12 weeks.
k 5 6) between split and full-body routine. Heterogeneity of According to the primary findings of this review, both split and
effects was low among studies for muscle growth (I2 5 0%). full-body training routines yield similar strength adaptations

1333

Copyright © 2024 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Split vs. Full-Body on Strength and Body Composition (2024) 38:7

Table 2
Characteristics of the training intervention of studies included in the meta-analysis.*
Frequency
(days 3
week/
weekly Muscle
training days Intensity Total group Rest Total volume
Volume per muscle (% RM or Exercises session trained Sets Repetitions between in training
Study Group (wk) group) other) (number) (number) per week (number) (number) sets (s) (kg) Observations
Bartolomei Split 10 4/1 RIR 1 5–8 each 40 1 5 6 120 147,762 6 Both groups performed
et al. (2) session 28,194 a training program
Full 10 4/3-4 RIR 1 6–7 each 40 4 5 6 120 143,480 6 using the same
body session 33,713 exercises and the same
total number of
repetitions per set.
During each training
session, subjects in the
FB group performed
exercises recruiting
muscle groups of both
the upper and lower
body, whereas subjects
in the SR group
performed a training
program involving
a limited number of
muscle groups per
training
Session. Specifically,
the SR training group
trained the chest and
triceps on Monday, the
legs on Tuesday, the
back and biceps on
Thursday, and the
shoulders on Friday
Lasevicius Split 10 4/2 Failure 3–4 40 2 6 8–12 90 Bench press: Split: muscle groups
et al. (22) 63,428.9 6 were trained twice per
27,848.0; Lat week (4 sessions per
pulldown week). Full-body:
61,491.4 6 muscle groups were
17,635.5; Biceps trained 3 times per
curl 31,083.6 6 week. Cadence 2:2
7,812.0; Triceps
pushdown
62,426.8 6
29,094.2; Smith
Squat 158,611.2
6 33,466.6; Leg
press 45˚
237,917.1 6
50,199.9; Leg
Extension
79305.5 6
16,733.3
Full 10 3/3 Failure 7 30 3 4 8–12 90 Bench press:
body 62,154.6 6
27,848.0; Lat
pull-down
63,444.5 6
21,597.2; Biceps
curl 34,527.7 6
7,749.4; Triceps
push-down
59,001.4 6
25,613.2; Smith
squat 185,532.7
6 92,670.7; leg
press 45˚
44,459.2 6
61,992.5; leg
extension
79305.5 6
16,733.3
Prieto et al. Split 8 2/1 62–78% 10 16 1 3 6–12 60–120 On Monday, the SPLIT
(13) 1RM group only performed
Full 8 2/2 62–78% 10 16 2 3 6–12 60–120 exercises to stimulate
body 1RM the muscles of the

1334

Copyright © 2024 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Split vs. Full-Body on Strength and Body Composition (2024) 38:7 | www.nsca.com

Table 2
Characteristics of the training intervention of studies included in the meta-analysis.* (Continued)
Frequency
(days 3
week/
weekly Muscle
training days Intensity Total group Rest Total volume
Volume per muscle (% RM or Exercises session trained Sets Repetitions between in training
Study Group (wk) group) other) (number) (number) per week (number) (number) sets (s) (kg) Observations
upper body, and on
Wednesday, they did
exercises to strengthen
the upper body,
whereas the FB group
did full-body workouts
in all the sessions over
the period. The strength
exercises carried out by
both groups were the
same each week
Evangelista Split 8 4/2 RPE 9.5–10 6 32 2 8 8–12 60 The weekly sets Split routine: “A”
et al. (9) Full 8 4/4 RPE 9.5–10 7 32 4 4 8–12 60 volume was (Mondays and
body equated between Thursdays) and a “B”
the groups (Tuesdays and Fridays):
A session: bench press,
inclined bench press,
cable triceps
pushdown, triceps
kickback, shoulder
press, and front
dumbbell raise. B
Session consisted of
seated row, lat pull-
down, biceps curl,
hammer curl, squat and
leg curl. Full body:
routine trained each
muscle group 4 times
per week (Mondays,
Tuesdays, Thursdays,
and Fridays) with the
following exercises:
bench press, cable
triceps push-down,
shoulder press, seated
row, biceps curl, squat
and leg curl
Pedersen Split 12 4/2 Failure 8–12 4 in lower 48 2 3 8–12 60 Ranged from Full-body trained all the
et al. (25) RM body and 6 in 23,543 (21,345, major muscle groups in
upper body 25,741) kg to one session twice per
32,215 (30,017, week; split performed 4
34,412) kg weekly sessions (2
weekly upper body and 2 lower
Full 12 2/2 Failure 8–12 10 24 2 3 8–12 60 Ranged from body). Both groups
body RM 22,771 (20,855, performed the same
24,687) kg to exercises and weekly
31,348 (29,433, number of sets and
33,265) weekly repetitions
Calder Split Two 10-wk 4/2 Failure 4 in upper 80 2 5 Upper body: 120
et al. (5) separated by (75–90%) body and 3 in 6–10 RM; lower
2 wk of lower body body: 10–12
Full Christmas 2/2 Failure 7 40 2 5 RM 120
body (75–90%)
Zaroni Split 8 5/1 Failure 5 each 40 1 3 8–12 RM 120 More total load 25 exercises of the
et al. (39) session lifted in full body major muscle groups.
Full 8 5/5 Failure 5 each 40 5 3 120 15 sets per session (3
body session sets per exercise)
Franco Split 8 2-5/1 Failure 7 34 1 4–10 per week 8–12 RM 90–120 No differences:
et al. (10) (70–80%) FB: 27,318.1 6
Full 8 2-5/2-5 Failure 7 34 5 4–10 per week 90–120 10,937.0 SP:
body (70–80%) 26,295.3 6
10,820.0 kg in
8th week
Gomes Split 8 5/1 Failure 2–3 40 1 10 8–12 RM 90 353,243.5 6 Split:
et al. (12) (70–80%) 42,255.3 Monday—shoulder
Full 8 5/5 Failure 11 40 5 10 90 410,652.9 6 adductors and elbow
body (70–80%) 51,940.5† extensors,
Tuesday—knee

1335

Copyright © 2024 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Split vs. Full-Body on Strength and Body Composition (2024) 38:7

Table 2
Characteristics of the training intervention of studies included in the meta-analysis.* (Continued)
Frequency
(days 3
week/
weekly Muscle
training days Intensity Total group Rest Total volume
Volume per muscle (% RM or Exercises session trained Sets Repetitions between in training
Study Group (wk) group) other) (number) (number) per week (number) (number) sets (s) (kg) Observations
extensors and hip
extensors and flexors,
Wednesday—shoulder
extensors and elbow
flexors,
Thursday—knee
flexors and plantar
flexors and
Friday—shoulder
abductors, lumbar
spine flexors and
extensors. Full-body:
performed the RT
(length time ;32 min)
for all body segments
Schoenfeld Split 8 3/1 Failure 6–9 24 1 2–3 per 8–12 RM 90 SPLIT, where multiple
et al. (34) Full 8 3/3 Failure 7 24 3 exercise (18 90 exercises were
body per session) performed for a specific
muscle group in
a session with 2–3
muscle groups trained
per session or a full-
body, where 1 exercise
was performed per
muscle group in
a session with all
muscle groups trained
in each session
Crewther Split 4 3/1 Failure 4–5 12 1 3–6 8 RM 60–90 2 groups to complete
et al. (7) Full 4 3/3 Failure 7 12 3 60–90 either a 4-wk FB or a 4-
body wk SB training protocol.
The groups then
crossed over to
complete the other
training protocol after
an 8-wk washout
period. The prescribed
exercises included;
back squats, leg curls,
leg press, bench press,
bent-over row, pull-
downs, shoulder press,
bicep curls and calf
raises. To equate for
training volume, the
total number of
repetitions prescribed
each week were
identical (i.e., FB
training 5 21
exercises, 2–3 sets 3
8 repetitions; SB
training 5 13
exercises, 3–6 sets 3
8 repetitions)
Thomas Split 8 3/1 Failure 5–6 24 1 9 per muscle 8–12 RM Split: Day 1) pectoralis,
and Burns (75–85%) per week deltoids, and triceps,
(35) Full 8 3/3 Failure 8 24 3 day 2) upper back and
body (75–85%) biceps, day 3)
quadriceps,
hamstrings, calves, and
abdominals
Johnsen Split 8 4/2 65–90% 4–6 32 2 3–6 per 2–10 Volume matched SPLIT: 2 sessions
and van den exercise between the training barbell back
Tillaar (19) (14–21 per conditions squat and exercises for
session): 70 the lower body and 2
per week sessions training bench
Full 8 4/4 65–90% 6 32 4 2–3 per press and exercises for
body exercise the upper body; FULL-

1336

Copyright © 2024 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Split vs. Full-Body on Strength and Body Composition (2024) 38:7 | www.nsca.com

Table 2
Characteristics of the training intervention of studies included in the meta-analysis.* (Continued)
Frequency
(days 3
week/
weekly Muscle
training days Intensity Total group Rest Total volume
Volume per muscle (% RM or Exercises session trained Sets Repetitions between in training
Study Group (wk) group) other) (number) (number) per week (number) (number) sets (s) (kg) Observations
(16–18 per BODY trained 4 full-
session): 70 body sessions with
per week barbell back squat and
bench press each time
Schoenfeld Split 8 3/1 Failure 3 per session 24 1 3 10RM 90 Total volume load 3 exercises per session
et al. (33) Full 8 3/3 Failure 3 per session 24 3 7 3RM 180 (number of rep 3 drawn from a pool of 9
body load) was total exercises: 3
equalized exercises targeting the
anterior torso (incline
barbell press, flat
barbell press, and
Hammer strength chest
press), 3 exercises
targeting the posterior
torso (wide-grip lat pull-
down, close-grip lat
pull-down, and seated
cable row), and 3
exercises targeting the
thigh (barbell back
squat, machine leg
press, and machine leg
extension)

*RIR 5 repetitions in reserve; RM 5 repetition maximum. †The symbol implies significant differences between groups.

when the training volume is equal. This suggests a dose-response group (2 sessions·wk21). However, a previous meta-analysis
relationship between resistance training volume and muscular suggests that there is no difference in muscle hypertrophy between
strength adaptations, as previously noted (26). Consequently, it training frequencies of 2–3 days per week (31).
can be inferred that resistance training volume plays a more im- It should be noted that all articles included in this meta-
portant role in driving strength adaptations than the choice of analysis, which looked at muscle hypertrophy, observed
resistance training routine (split or full body). However, even improvements in muscle hypertrophy in both groups. This could
when training volume is kept equal, it is sensible to consider that be attributed to the correct manipulation of training variables to
excessive training volume during a single resistance training ses- enhance hypertrophy, including intensities near failure (2) and
sion might not be optimal. This excess volume could cause fatigue even to failure (5,7,10,12,22,25,33,35,39) and training frequen-
buildup, which could ultimately hinder performance (27). For this cies (14) ranging from 2 (5,10,25) to 5 days (10,12,39), although
reason, experienced individuals usually include higher resistance significant increases in muscle mass have also been reported at
training frequencies in their routines, enabling them to distribute low intensities (30).
training volume throughout the week while maintaining peak Although all studies included in this meta-analysis used valid
performance during each resistance training session (14). This and reliable methods for quantifying muscle mass, different
approach may lead to greater muscle strength gains due to greater authors employed methods with varying levels of precision. Ul-
weekly volume (14). trasound was the most widely used method, employed by up to 5
Meta-analytic analysis of hypertrophy variables revealed that studies (2,9,22,34,35,39) followed by dual-energy X-ray
both training modalities (split vs. full-body) similarly increase absorptiometry (DXA), which was used by 3 studies (5,10,12),
muscle size. This implies that based on the current scientific evi- anthropometry, used in 2 studies (7,13), and bioelectrical im-
dence, the distribution of training volume throughout the week pedance, used only by Pedersen et al. (25).
does not play a significant role in improving muscle mass. Re- Although the most common variable in the scientific literature
markably, the muscle growth observed in the studies included in is fat-free mass, in the studies included in this publication, the
this review aligns with previous research findings (3). concept of lean body mass is more frequently used. This concept,
Numerous RCTs and meta-analyses consistently demonstrate which is related to lean mass, can vary significantly in its defini-
that training volume is a key factor in stimulating muscle growth tion because it may exclude bone content or an estimation of live
(6,32). Therefore, when the total training volume is held constant, bone (17). In general, it involves subtracting bone from fat-free
there are no differences between the different distribution mass. This heterogeneity among studies could be a limitation, but
approaches. Although this meta-analysis matched groups based because the studies use the same internal criterion, and the hy-
on weekly total training volume, other training variables that pertrophy results they provide are consistent with those presented
likely influence muscle growth were not equal between the groups in the scientific literature, we believe that this limitation, although
(31). For example, studies such as Calder et al. (5) and Pedersen noteworthy, does not prevent us from drawing conclusions.
et al. (25) reported higher weekly training frequencies in the split Anthropometry and bioelectrical impedance have been widely
routine group (4 sessions·wk21) compared with the full-body used by coaches and researchers due to their accessibility, low

1337

Copyright © 2024 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Split vs. Full-Body on Strength and Body Composition (2024) 38:7

Figure 2. Risk of bias in the included RCTs. RCT 5 randomized controlled trial.

cost, and simplicity for assessing body composition, including subcutaneous fat distribution and interindividual variability (1).
muscle mass (23). However, despite being validated methods, However, muscle mass results obtained through bioelectrical
their precision in measuring segmental muscle mass specifically impedance may be influenced by numerous variables (subject
may be limited (38). Anthropometry is based on skinfold meas- hydration or body temperature, for example), making it difficult
urements, circumferences, and bone diameters, which can un- to assess muscle mass accurately (4). By contrast, both ultraso-
derestimate or overestimate muscle mass depending primarily on nography and DXA (36) provide a more direct assessment of the

Figure 3. A) Effects of split vs. full-body routine on bench press 1RM; (B) effects of split vs full-body routine on lower-limb 1RM.
1RM 5 one repetition maximum; FB 5 full-body routine.

1338

Copyright © 2024 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Split vs. Full-Body on Strength and Body Composition (2024) 38:7 | www.nsca.com

Figure 4. A) Effects of split vs. full-body routine on elbow extensors cross-sectional area; (B) effects of split vs full-body routine
on elbow flexors cross-sectional area; (C) effects of split vs full-body routine on vastus lateralis cross-sectional area; (D) effects
of split vs full-body routine on lean body mass. FB 5 full-body routine; SMD 5 standardized mean difference; MD 5 mean
differences.

anatomical cross-sectional area of the muscle, offering more de- on personal preference. It is important to consider that higher
tailed information about potential muscle mass changes following resistance training frequencies allow for a higher weekly training
strength training programs. volume. This fact is especially interesting for experienced indi-
Certainly, it is crucial to recognize the variability in split- viduals looking to promote strength and hypertrophic adapta-
routine training program organization among the studies in- tions. However, studies involving highly resistance-trained
cluded in the current meta-analysis. The distinctiveness in the individuals are limited. Future research should investigate the
application of full-body or split routines inherently alters effects of both types of resistance training routines (full-body and
the training frequency for each muscle group. For instance, the split) in this population. In addition, a limitation of the present
study by Gomes et al. (12) incorporated exercises targeting
review is the small number of studies (only 3) comparing the
multiple muscle groups within each session, blurring the lines
effects of split and full-body routines specifically in women. It is
between training frequency and overall program organization.
worth noting that previous studies have highlighted the signifi-
Conversely, studies such as Thomas and Burns, (35), Bartolomei
cance of training volume and frequency in influencing muscular
et al. (2), and Johnsen and van den Tillaar, (19) adopted a more strength in female subjects (16). Therefore, future research should
segregated approach, delineating specific muscle groups in their focus on examining the effects of manipulating resistance training
training sessions, whereas Lasevicius et al. (22) introduced routines exclusively in female populations. Furthermore, research
minimal differences in the number of muscle groups engaged in should aim to directly compare male and female adaptations to
each split-routine session. Recognizing these intricacies in pro- the same training interventions, rather than grouping male and
gram design is paramount, as they undoubtedly contribute to female subjects together for analysis.
the observed disparities in strength and muscle growth out- In conclusion, the present systematic review and meta-analysis
comes. Hence, it is imperative to consider these program char- provides strong evidence that the utilization of split or full-body
acteristics when interpreting the results of the meta-analysis, routines within a resistance training program does not signifi-
acknowledging their potential impact on the research question cantly impact strength gains and muscle hypertrophy when vol-
at hand. ume is equated. Consequently, individuals are free to confidently
Therefore, from a practical standpoint, individuals can choose select a resistance training routine based on their personal
between the split and full-body resistance training routines based preferences.

1339

Copyright © 2024 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Split vs. Full-Body on Strength and Body Composition (2024) 38:7

References 20. Kerksick CM, Wilborn CD, Campbell BI, et al. Early-phase adaptations to
a split-body, linear periodization resistance training program in college-
1. Al-Gindan YY, Hankey CR, Leslie W, Govan L, Lean MEJ. Predicting aged and middle-aged men. J Strength Cond Res 23: 962–971, 2009.
muscle mass from anthropometry using magnetic resonance imaging as 21. Kraemer WJ, Ratamess NA. Fundamentals of resistance training: Progression
reference: A systematic review. Nutr Rev 72: 113–126, 2014. and exercise prescription. Med Sci Sports Exerc 36: 674–688, 2004.
2. Bartolomei S, Nigro F, Malagoli Lanzoni I, et al. A comparison between 22. Lasevicius T, Schoenfeld BJ, Grgic J, et al. Similar muscular adaptations in
total body and split routine resistance training programs in trained men. resistance training performed two versus three days per week. J Hum Kinet
J Strength Cond Res 35: 1520–1526, 2021. 68: 135–143, 2019.
3. Benito PJ, Cupeiro R, Ramos-Campo DJ, Alcaraz PE, Rubio-Arias J. A 23. Matthie JR. Bioimpedance measurements of human body composition:
systematic review with meta-analysis of the effect of resistance training on Critical analysis and outlook. Expert Rev Med Devices 5: 239–261,
whole-body muscle growth in healthy adult males. Int J Environ Res 2008.
Public Health 17: 1285, 2020. 24. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement:
4. Brodie D, Moscrip V, Hutcheon R. Body composition measurement: A An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Int J Surg. 88:
review of hydrodensitometry, anthropometry, and impedance methods. 105906, 2021.
Nutrition 14: 296–310, 1998. 25. Pedersen H, Fimland MS, Schoenfeld BJ, et al. A randomized trial on the
5. Calder AW, Chilibeck PD, Webber CE, Sale DG. Comparison of whole efficacy of split-body versus full-body resistance training in non-resistance
and split weight training routines in young women. Can J Appl Physiol 19: trained women. BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil. 14: 1–9, 2022.
185–199, 1994. 26. Ralston GW, Kilgore L, Wyatt FB, Baker JS. The effect of weekly set
6. Carvalho L, Junior RM, Barreira J, et al. Muscle hypertrophy and strength volume on strength gain: A meta-analysis. Sports Med 47: 2585–2601,
gains after resistance training with different volume-matched loads: A 2017.
systematic review and meta-analysis. Appl Physiol Nutr Metabol 47: 27. Ribeiro AS, Schoenfeld BJ, Silva DRP, et al. Effect of two- versus three-
357–368, 2022. way split resistance training routines on body composition and muscular
7. Crewther BT, Heke T, Keogh J. The effects of two equal-volume training strength in bodybuilders: A pilot study. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab 25:
protocols upon strength, body composition and salivary hormones in male 559–565, 2015.
rugby union players. Biol Sport 33: 111–116, 2016. 28. Schoenfeld BJ. The mechanisms of muscle hypertrophy and their appli-
8. Dankel SJ, Mattocks KT, Jessee MB, et al. Frequency: The overlooked cation to resistance training. J Strength Cond Res 24: 2857–2872, 2010.
resistance training variable for inducing muscle hypertrophy? Sports Med 29. Schoenfeld BJ, Grgic J, Krieger J. How many times per week should
47: 799–805, 2017. a muscle be trained to maximize muscle hypertrophy? A systematic review
9. Evangelista AL, Braz TV, La Scala Teixeira CV, et al. Split or full-body and meta-analysis of studies examining the effects of resistance training
workout routine: Which is best to increase muscle strength and hyper- frequency. J Sports Sci 37: 1286–1295, 2019.
trophy? Einstein (Sao Paulo). 2021;19:1–8. 30. Schoenfeld BJ, Grgic J, Ogborn D, Krieger JW. Strength and hypertro-
10. Franco CMC, Carneiro MAS, de Sousa JFR, Gomes GK, Orsatti FL. phy adaptations between low- vs. high-load resistance training: A sys-
Influence of high- and low-frequency resistance training on lean body tematic review and meta-analysis. J Strength Cond Res 31: 3508–3523,
mass and muscle strength gains in untrained men. J Strength Cond Res 35: 2017.
2089–2094, 2021. 31. Schoenfeld BJ, Ogborn D, Krieger JW. Effects of resistance training fre-
11. Fry AC, Schilling BK, Staron RS, et al. Muscle fiber characteristics and quency on measures of muscle hypertrophy: A systematic review and
performance correlates of male Olympic-style weightlifters. J Strength meta-analysis. Sports Med 46: 1689–1697, 2016.
Cond Res 17: 746–754, 2003. 32. Schoenfeld BJ, Ogborn D, Krieger JW. Dose-response relationship
12. Gomes GK, Franco CM, Nunes PRP, Orsatti FL. High-frequency re- between weekly resistance training volume and increases in muscle
sistance training is not more effective than low-frequency resistance mass: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Sports Sci 35:
training in increasing muscle mass and strength in well-trained men. 1985–1987, 2017.
J Strength Cond Res 33(Suppl 1): S130–S139, 2019. 33. Schoenfeld BJ, Ratamess NA, Peterson MD, et al. Effects of different
13. González PP, Zabala EL, Brahim MB. Split versus full-body strength volume-equated resistance training loading strategies on muscular adap-
training workouts in untrained people. A randomised study. Arch Med tations in well-trained men. J Strength Cond Res 28: 2909–2918, 2014.
Deporte 37:78–83, 2020. 34. Schoenfeld BJ, Ratamess NA, Peterson MD, Contreras B, Tiryaki-Sonmez
14. Grgic J, Schoenfeld BJ, Davies TB, et al. Effect of resistance training fre- G. Influence of resistance training frequency on muscular adaptations in
quency on gains in muscular strength: A systematic review and meta- well-trained men. J Strength Cond Res 29: 1821–1829, 2015.
analysis. Sports Med 48: 1207–1220, 2018. 35. Thomas MH, Burns SP. Increasing lean mass and strength: A comparison
15. Hackett DA, Johnson NA, Chow CM. Training practices and ergogenic aids of high frequency strength training to lower frequency strength training.
used by male bodybuilders. J Strength Cond Res 27: 1609–1617, 2013. Int J Exerc Sci 9: 159–167, 2016.
16. Hagstrom AD, Marshall PW, Halaki M, Hackett DA. The effect of re- 36. Trutschnigg B, Kilgour RD, Reinglas J, et al. Precision and reliability of
sistance training in women on dynamic strength and muscular hypertrophy: strength (Jamar vs. Biodex handgrip) and body composition (dual-energy
A systematic review with meta-analysis. Sports Med 50: 1075–1093, 2020. X-ray absorptiometry vs. bioimpedance analysis) measurements in ad-
17. Heymsfield SB, Smith R, Aulet M, et al. Appendicular skeletal muscle vanced cancer patients. Appl Physiol Nutr Metabol 33: 1232–1239, 2008.
mass: Measurement by dual-photon absorptiometry. Am J Clin Nutr 52: 37. Wallace BC, Dahabreh IJ, Trikalinos TA, et al. Closing the gap between
214–218, 1990. methodologists and end-users: R as a computational back-end. J Stat
18. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, et al; Cochrane Bias Methods Group, Software. 2012;49:1–15.
Cochrane Statistical Methods Group. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for 38. Ward LC. Segmental bioelectrical impedance analysis: An update. Curr
assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ (Online) 343: d5928, 2011. Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care 15: 424–429, 2012.
19. Johnsen E, van den Tillaar R. Effects of training frequency on muscular 39. Zaroni RS, Brigatto FA, Schoenfeld BJ, et al. High resistance-training
strength for trained men under volume matched conditions. PeerJ 9: frequency enhances muscle thickness in resistance-trained men. J Strength
e10781, 2021. Cond Res 33(Suppl 1): S140–S151, 2019.

1340

Copyright © 2024 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.