Training FrequencyPublished 5 Oct 2026Last updated 5 Oct 20267 sources

PPL vs Upper Lower vs Full Body: Which Split?

When weekly volume is equated, a 2024 meta-analysis of 14 studies found no significant difference in strength or muscle growth between split and full-body routines — so the best split is mostly the one that delivers your weekly sets, hits each muscle about twice a week and that you will actually keep doing. Individual trials do find small differences, but they are inconsistent and mostly confounded with frequency or volume.

Key takeaways

A 2024 systematic review and meta-analysis (14 studies, 392 participants) found no significant difference in strength or muscle growth between split and full-body routines when volume is equated [1].
A 12-week trial in 50 untrained women found an upper/lower split and a twice-weekly full-body routine produced the same results — muscle mass rose 1.9% vs 1.7% [2].
The 2026 ACSM position stand recommends training each major muscle group at least twice a week and does not single out one split as superior [3].
By that yardstick, once-a-week body-part splits and a push/pull/legs cycle run only once fall short; upper/lower (4 days), full body (2-3 days) and push/pull/legs run twice (6 days) do not.
Individual trials sometimes favour the higher-frequency routine [4] or full-body for fat loss [5] — small samples, short durations; treat them as hypotheses, not verdicts.

Search for "best workout split" and you will find each of push/pull/legs, upper/lower and full body declared the winner. The research answer is less exciting and more useful: a split is just a way of dividing the week's work across days. It decides how often each muscle is trained and how much work lands in a single session. On the available evidence, it does not meaningfully change results when the weekly sets are the same.

What the evidence says about split vs. full body

The most direct evidence is a 2024 systematic review and meta-analysis in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. It pooled 14 studies and 392 participants comparing split routines (muscle groups trained on separate days) with full-body routines. Its conclusion: using a split or a full-body routine did not significantly affect strength gains or muscle hypertrophy when volume was equated, and lean body mass did not differ either [1].

A single randomized trial shows what that looks like in practice. Fifty women new to resistance training were randomized for 12 weeks to either a full-body routine twice a week or a split with four weekly sessions (two upper-body, two lower-body). Neither group came out ahead on maximal strength, explosive strength or muscle mass; muscle mass rose 1.9% in the full-body group and 1.7% in the split group [2]. Both groups trained every muscle twice a week, which is the point: the arrangement of the sessions differed, the weekly dose per muscle did not.

This lines up with the broader frequency literature. A meta-analysis that compared training frequencies at matched weekly volume also found no significant hypertrophy difference between training a muscle once, twice or three times a week [6]. Splits are one way of choosing a frequency; if frequency itself is mostly a volume-delivery mechanism, so are splits. See training frequency for the longer argument.

Where the answer is not a clean tie

Individual trials do not always agree with the pooled result. In a trial of 36 resistance-trained men, the higher-frequency total-body routine produced larger forearm-flexor thickness gains than the split, with no significant difference in maximal strength [4]. The authors framed that as evidence for the benefit of higher weekly frequency — which is a frequency finding, not a verdict on split design itself [4].

A second trial in 23 well-trained men matched volume at 75 sets per week for 8 weeks. The full-body group (each muscle trained five days a week) lost whole-body fat mass (−0.78 kg on average) while the split group (each muscle once a week) gained a little (+0.32 kg) [5]. That is a small sample, a short intervention and a secondary body-composition outcome, so it is a reason to be curious about full-body routines during a fat-loss phase, not a reason to switch.

Days you can train per week

Upper / lower, 4 days

Day 1: Upper · Day 2: Lower · Day 3: Upper · Day 4: Lower

chest 2×, back 2×, shoulders 2×, biceps 2×, triceps 2×, quads 2×, hamstrings 2× — every muscle at least twice a week

Twice a week for every muscle with rest days built in — the usual middle ground.

Layouts are examples of common splits, not prescriptions. Weekly sets per muscle matter more than which layout carries them.

Pick how many days a week you can train. The planner shows the common split layouts for that number of days and counts how often each muscle group is trained per week — useful for checking a layout against the twice-a-week guideline.

Comparing the common splits

How common splits compare on the one thing the evidence says they actually change: how often each muscle is trained.
Split	Days / week	Frequency per muscle	Fits when	Watch for
Full body	2-3	2-3×	You have few days, or miss sessions often	Each session covers everything, so it is long if volume is high
Upper / lower	4	2×	You want twice-weekly frequency in four days	Upper-body days carry many muscles — keep volume per muscle deliberate
Push / pull / legs (once)	3	1×	Three days only, and volume per muscle is modest	Falls below the twice-weekly floor [3]
Push / pull / legs (twice)	6	2×	You like many short sessions and can train six days	Six days is the cost; recovery and schedule are the constraints
Body-part split	5	1×	You enjoy it and your weekly volume fits in one session per muscle	Falls below the twice-weekly floor [3]; a missed day skips a muscle for the week

How to choose

Start from the days you can reliably train, not the split you read about. The ACSM position stand stresses consistency and adequate effort over any particular split [3].
Set weekly sets per muscle first with the training volume planner; the split only distributes them.
Aim for roughly twice a week per muscle [3]. Full body at 2-3 days, upper/lower at 4 and push/pull/legs at 6 all do that.
Check per-session workload. If a muscle needs many weekly sets, spreading them over more sessions keeps individual sessions productive — see the frequency planner.
Mind recovery between sessions for the same muscle. How long a muscle needs varies, and how close to failure you train is part of that — see training to failure.
Pick the one you will keep doing. If two layouts both deliver your volume and frequency, the evidence gives no reason to prefer one, so adherence decides [1].

Where the evidence is genuinely uncertain

How Reppit uses this

Reppit's workout programs schedule sets across specific days with per-set prescriptions, and its training analytics aggregate logged sets into weekly effective volume per muscle group [7]. That makes the two numbers this page keeps pointing to — weekly sets and how many days each muscle was actually trained — something you can read from your own log instead of inferring from the name of a split.

Is push/pull/legs better than upper/lower?

Not on the available evidence. Push/pull/legs run twice a week and upper/lower both train each muscle about twice a week, and the pooled data finds no significant strength or hypertrophy difference between split and full-body routines at equal volume [1]. The difference is mostly practical: six days vs. four.

Is full body better for beginners?

It is a convenient fit rather than a proven advantage. Untrained women made the same progress on a twice-weekly full-body routine as on a four-day upper/lower split [2], so beginners can use whichever they will attend. The ACSM stand also moves away from prescribing different frequency schemes by training age [3].

Is a body-part (bro) split bad?

It is not harmful, but it trains each muscle once a week, below the at-least-twice guideline [3]. The meta-analytic frequency data finds no hypertrophy penalty for once-weekly training at equal volume [6], so it can work if the weekly volume actually gets done — but a missed session skips that muscle entirely for the week.

Does the split matter for fat loss?

There is one small trial in well-trained men (23 participants, 8 weeks) in which a full-body routine lost more fat mass than a split at matched volume [5]. It is a single trial with a secondary outcome, so it is not strong enough to base a decision on.

Sources

[1]Efficacy of Split Versus Full-Body Resistance Training on Strength and Muscle Growth: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis — Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2024. meta-analysisSupports: Meta-analysis of 14 studies and 392 participants finding no significant effect of split versus full-body routines on strength gains or muscle hypertrophy when volume is equated, and no difference in lean body mass.
[2]A randomized trial on the efficacy of split-body versus full-body resistance training in non-resistance trained women — BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation, 2022. rctSupports: 12-week trial in 50 untrained women comparing twice-weekly full-body training with a four-session upper/lower split; no between-group differences in maximal strength, explosive strength or muscle mass (+1.9% vs +1.7%).
[3]American College of Sports Medicine Position Stand: Resistance Training Prescription for Muscle Function, Hypertrophy, and Physical Performance in Healthy Adults: An Overview of Reviews — Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 2026. position-standSupports: 2026 ACSM position stand synthesising 137 systematic reviews: recommends training every major muscle group at least twice a week, emphasises consistency and adequate effort over any specific split, and moves away from frequency schemes by training age.
[4]High Resistance-Training Frequency Enhances Muscle Thickness in Resistance-Trained Men — Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2019. rctSupports: Trial in 36 resistance-trained men comparing a total-body routine with a split routine; greater forearm-flexor thickness gain for the total-body (higher-frequency) group and no significant difference in maximal strength.
[5]Full-body resistance training promotes greater fat mass loss than a split-body routine in well-trained males: A randomized trial — European Journal of Sport Science, 2024. rctSupports: 8-week trial in 23 well-trained men with volume matched at 75 sets per week; full-body training (muscles trained 5 days/week) reduced whole-body fat mass (about -0.78 kg) while split-body training (1 day/week) did not (about +0.32 kg).
[6]How many times per week should a muscle be trained to maximize muscle hypertrophy? A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies examining the effects of resistance training frequency — Journal of Sports Sciences, 2019. meta-analysisSupports: Meta-analysis finding no significant hypertrophy difference between training frequencies once weekly volume is held equal.
[7]Reppit training analytics and workout programs: weekly effective sets per muscle group scheduled across specific days — Reppit (shipped product behaviour), 2026. product-sourceSupports: Reppit aggregates logged sets into weekly effective volume per muscle group and lets workout programs schedule sets across specific days with per-set prescriptions.

← All Learn articles