TLDR: Consistency and lifestyle fit outweigh the specific mechanics of any training split. While the fitness industry often debates which structure is "optimal," I argue that the best program is simply the one you can sustain without it breaking your schedule.

Full body training is highlighted as the most versatile and underrated option, debunking the myth that it’s only for beginners or requires hours in the gym; in reality, it offers the greatest flexibility and can produce significant results in as little as two 30-minute sessions per week. Upper-lower and push-pull-legs splits are presented as valid alternatives if they align with your personal preferences or discipline levels, though they often come with higher scheduling costs and potential recovery overlaps in the lower back. Ultimately, because muscle growth is primarily driven by hitting 10 to 20 hard sets per muscle group per week, any of these three vehicles can work as long as the volume is consistent and the intensity is high.

Have you ever searched for the best training split and walked away more confused than when you started? One source swears by push-pull-legs. Another insists upper-lower is the gold standard. A third tells you full-body training is only for beginners. The internet is full of confident, contradictory advice — and if you’re trying to make a sensible decision about how to structure your training, it can feel impossible to cut through the noise.

Here’s the frame I come back to every time: the best program is the one you will consistently do. That means it has to fit your life, your schedule, and your goals — not someone else’s. With that in mind, let’s take an honest look at all three splits, what the evidence actually says about them, and how to figure out which one belongs in your life.

Full-body splits

One of the biggest barriers I see keeping people out of the gym isn’t laziness — it’s a lack of nuance. When people don’t have a clear picture of what effective training actually requires, they default to all-or-nothing thinking. They assume a workout has to be 60, 90, maybe even 120 minutes to be worth doing. So when life gets in the way, and they only have 30 minutes, they skip it entirely. That’s a real problem, and full-body training is one of the best tools I have for dismantling it.

With a well-designed full-body program, I can get a beginner meaningful results in two 30-minute sessions per week. If someone can only train once a week, that’s not a failure — I’ll apply minimum effective dose principles and build them a solid 60-minute session that covers everything.4,5 Using compound lifts as the foundation, prioritising machines and dumbbells to cut setup time, and structuring the session around circuits, supersets, and drop sets, I can fit in a proper warm-up, some balance and plyometric work, and still get through all the main lifts in under 45 minutes.

For volume, I typically program two sets per exercise and one to two exercises per muscle group. That might sound conservative, but if those sets are taken close to — or all the way to — failure, the stimulus is more than enough for beginners to see consistent progress.1 And honestly, it’s enough for advanced trainees too, especially those balancing other demands on their recovery. I do full-body training myself to balance my strength work with my swim training. It lets me train hard in the water and in the gym without one undermining the other.

The flexibility of full-body training is, I think, the most underrated thing about it. Miss a session and you haven’t lost an entire muscle group for the week. Adjust the frequency up or down based on what life is throwing at you. It’s a structure that bends without breaking — and that makes it far more sustainable for most people than anything requiring four, five, or six days of commitment from day one.

Upper-lower splits

Upper-lower splits are a solid option for people who have built consistent training habits and have fewer time constraints — whether that’s someone who has been training for a year or two, or simply someone who is naturally more disciplined about scheduling. Some people also prefer to keep upper- and lower-body work separate, and that preference is worth respecting.

One advantage upper-lower splits have over push-pull-legs is structural. Pull days and leg days share a lot of overlap in the posterior chain — particularly the erectors — which can create a recovery problem that shows up both on paper when I’m programming and in what clients report feeling in practice. Upper-lower splits are not entirely immune to this either; upper days load the erectors isometrically through rows and pulls, and lower days hit them directly through hinges and deadlifts. But the four-day structure provides enough of a buffer that it’s manageable — it’s more a matter of programming thoughtfully than a fundamental flaw.

That said, I want to push back on a common assumption: that upper-lower splits are inherently better for more advanced trainees than full-body. The evidence doesn’t support that. What the research does suggest is that keeping hard sets per muscle group under around 10 per session is likely optimal for most people — beyond that, you get diminishing returns quickly.2 Full-body splits actually handle this well, easily accommodating 10 sets for at least a couple of muscle groups per session, while staying within that productive range. And for most people who aren’t chasing a stage, 10 to 20 hard sets per muscle group per week is probably the sweet spot anyway3 — full-body can cover that just as effectively as upper-lower, often with more scheduling flexibility.

Upper-lower splits do retain some flexibility, but less than full-body. A missed session costs more when your week is built around four specific days rather than two or three interchangeable ones.

Push-pull-legs splits

Of the three splits, push-pull-legs is the one I recommend most on the basis of preference. If someone genuinely enjoys the structure — keeping pushing movements, pulling movements, and leg work in dedicated sessions — that enjoyment is a legitimate reason to use it. Adherence matters, and a program someone likes is one they’ll actually stick to.

The posterior chain overlap I mentioned in the context of upper-lower is more pronounced here. Pull days and leg days both load the erectors significantly, which can compromise recovery between sessions. The best way to mitigate this is to organise the week as pull-push-legs rather than the more commonly seen push-pull-legs, and to run it on a three-day schedule. That structure gives enough buffer between the pull and leg sessions that the overlap becomes manageable rather than problematic.

As for the six-day version, I don’t think three days is almost always the better call. Six-day PPL is a legitimate option for anyone with the schedule and recovery capacity to handle it. I’m just not aware of a strong performance case for PPL over the other splits at any experience level. If you’re drawn to it and your life supports it, run it. If you’re choosing it because you think it’s the most advanced or effective structure available, the evidence doesn’t really back that up.

Comparing the three splits

Across flexibility, volume efficiency, and beginner-friendliness, full-body splits come out on top in all three categories. That’s not a knock on upper-lower or push-pull-legs — both are legitimate, well-supported approaches — but if you’re weighing the three against each other on those dimensions, full-body wins.

What all three splits share, though, is the capacity to support muscle growth for anyone hitting 10 to 20 hard sets per muscle group per week. That’s the real variable. The split is just the vehicle for delivering that volume — and any of these three can do it effectively when programmed well.

The most common mistake I see people make is dismissing full-body training because they assume it demands the most time. It’s an understandable assumption — “full-body” sounds like more work than “upper body” or “push day.” And it doesn’t help that a lot of full-body programs floating around online are genuinely bloated and poorly designed, which reinforces the perception. But as I’ve outlined above, a well-designed full-body session can be done in 30 to 45 minutes. The misconception is about the label, not the reality.

So which split should you choose?

All three splits can support muscle growth, improve strength, and serve you well over a long training career. But if there is one takeaway from this comparison, it’s that full-body training is more versatile than most people give it credit for. It works for beginners. It works for advanced trainees. It works for competitive swimmers balancing two demanding training modalities. And it works especially well when time efficiency becomes a priority — which, for most people at most points in their lives, it eventually does.

The best program is the one you will actually do. That means it has to fit your schedule, bend when life gets in the way, and not require a two-hour time commitment every session. More often than not, that description fits a full-body split better than anything else.

If you’re ready to explore what that looks like in practice, the best next step is working with a coach or trainer who has real experience designing this kind of programming — someone who can build around your goals, your schedule, and your life, not just a generic template.

References

1.  Refalo MC, Helms ER, Trexler ET, Hamilton DL, Fyfe JJ. Influence of resistance training proximity-to-failure on skeletal muscle hypertrophy: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Sports Medicine. 2023;53(3):649–665. doi:10.1007/s40279-022-01784-y

2.  Remmert JF, Pelland JC, Robinson ZP, Hinson SR, Zourdos MC. Is there too much of a good thing? Meta-regressions of the effect of per-session volume on hypertrophy and strength. SportRxiv. 2025. doi:10.51224/srxiv.537

3.  Pelland JC, Remmert JF, Robinson ZP, Hinson SR, Zourdos MC. The resistance training dose-response: meta-regressions exploring the effects of weekly volume and frequency on muscle hypertrophy and strength gain. Sports Medicine. 2024. doi:10.1007/s40279-025-02344-w

4.  Androulakis-Korakakis P, Fisher JP, Steele J. The minimum effective training dose required to increase 1RM strength in resistance-trained men: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine. 2020;50(4):751–765. doi:10.1007/s40279-019-01236-0

5.  Fyfe JJ, Dalla Via J, Jansons P, Scott D, Daly RM. Minimal-dose resistance training for improving muscle mass, strength, and function: a narrative review of current evidence and practical considerations. Sports Medicine. 2022;52(3):463–479. doi:10.1007/s40279-021-01605-8