In an old episode of The Office, the following exchange occurs as Jim jokingly imitates (or antagonizes) Dwight:
Jim: “Question: What kind of bear is best?”
Dwight: “That’s a ridiculous question.”
Jim: “False. Black bear.”
Dwight: “That’s debatable. There are basically two schools of thought…”
Jim (interrupting): “Fact: bears eat beets.”
Dwight: “No…”
Jim: “Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica.”
…
We never do discover how Battlestar Galactica relates to bears (or beets) or learn about the two schools of thought regarding which bear might actually be best. (And, really, why only two schools considering there are black bears, polar bears, grizzlies, and pandas?!?)
Still, it seems to me that the entire exchange could be accurately compared to how a lot of fitness and nutrition information is presented today and why so many people are confused about all of the seeming contradictions between sources.
That is, context is often overlooked or ignored in the discussion.
Case in point:
In this article from Today covering potential strength-training changes to enhance progress, one of the suggestions is to “break your body up into muscle groups, and train each muscle group two times per week”.
And in this post from StrongFirst, the suggestion (actually the entire program) is to perform one working set of five repetitions in five full-body exercises precisely five days per week.
So here we have “muscle groups vs. full-body exercises” and “twice per week (per muscle group) vs. five times per week for the entire body (i.e. every muscle group)”.
Which is right? Can they both be right? If so, which is best? Are there other options? Does either suggestion apply only to strength development? What about for someone whose goal is to lose weight? Do they work for beginners, intermediate or advanced exercisers, or everyone? What if someone wants to train more often or is unable to train as often?
None of those questions are answered or even hinted at in either piece of advice.
Now, it’s obviously not feasible to answer every possible contextual question in every article or social media post. And even if it was, my point here isn’t to actually answer the question about which option might be best anyway.
It’s simply to emphasize that context is important and to suggest that you make a practice of taking most fitness and nutrition advice with a grain of salt in the event that context is missing and you’re unable to ask clarifying questions. In those cases, read/listen with curiosity, and then record your questions to later ask an experienced professional who you trust (e.g. coach, trainer, nutritionist, physical therapist).
It’ll take a bit more effort on your part, but it’ll save you confusion, stress, and wasted effort from excessive program-switching in the long run.
Putting it into practice
If you feel like you’ll be left hanging if I don’t answer the question about which of the linked options might be best, I’ll say this: Both options and a variety of others are, in fact, “effective”. (Quotations and term meaning that, other variables considered, both options would produce specific effects. But, to my point, the effects just might not be what you’re after.)
Speaking from both education and personal experience, the “muscle group” option might be better if your goal is body-building, while the “full body” option is probably better for just about everyone else… although certain modifications might fit the context of your specific situation better.
See?!? Context matters!
Also, pandas are best… 😉