As of 2025, bodybuilding and hypertrophy training have become more sophisticated than ever, with advances in sports science, nutrition, and programming contributing to more effective results. Despite the growing complexity of training modalities, the Push, Pull, Legs (PPL) split remains one of the most popular routines for building muscle mass.
The question is whether the PPL split continues to be the most effective method for hypertrophy or whether newer approaches have overtaken it. This article evaluates the Push, Pull, Legs split in detail, backed by scientific literature, and assesses its efficacy in the context of current training methodologies.
What is the Push, Pull, Legs Split?
The Push, Pull, Legs split divides training days into three distinct sessions: push exercises (primarily targeting chest, shoulders, and triceps), pull exercises (focusing on the back and biceps), and leg exercises (quadriceps, hamstrings, glutes, and calves). This split is typically performed in a 3-day cycle repeated twice per week with one rest day, or over a 6-day period with alternating rest days depending on recovery capacity.
Scientific Basis for Split Training
Split routines allow for increased training volume and frequency, both of which are positively associated with muscle hypertrophy. Schoenfeld et al. (2016) demonstrated that training a muscle group twice per week leads to greater hypertrophy than training it once per week, provided total volume is equated. The PPL split naturally accommodates this recommendation when performed over a six-day week (Schoenfeld et al., 2016).
Moreover, research by Hackett et al. (2013) supports that advanced lifters benefit from higher frequencies, which the PPL split can provide without risking excessive fatigue, due to its compartmentalised nature. Each muscle group gets approximately 48 to 72 hours of recovery before being trained again, aligning with optimal recovery timelines as outlined by Damas et al. (2016).
Efficiency of the Push, Pull, Legs Split
One of the primary advantages of the PPL routine is its simplicity and efficiency. Each session targets synergistic muscle groups, which reduces overlapping fatigue and improves exercise specificity. For instance, during push day, the chest, shoulders, and triceps are trained in unison, capitalising on their natural activation synergy during compound movements like the bench press or overhead press. A study by Vigotsky et al. (2018) found that compound exercises are more effective at stimulating muscle groups when those muscles are already activated within the same movement pattern, supporting the structure of the PPL split.
Furthermore, PPL allows for higher total weekly training volume per muscle group. High training volume is a key driver of hypertrophy, with Schoenfeld, Ogborn, and Krieger (2017) confirming a dose-response relationship between weekly set volume and muscle growth. In a well-programmed PPL routine, it is common to include 15–20 sets per muscle group per week, aligning with these hypertrophy recommendations.
Comparison with Other Training Splits
Full-Body Training
Full-body workouts are efficient and particularly beneficial for beginners, offering frequent stimulation per muscle group. However, for advanced lifters, full-body sessions can become suboptimal due to fatigue management. According to a study by Hackett et al. (2018), full-body routines may limit the load or volume per exercise due to cumulative fatigue. The PPL split circumvents this by focusing on fewer muscle groups per session, allowing for more focused and intense training per muscle group.
Upper/Lower Splits
Upper/lower splits are another popular method and have been found effective in various hypertrophy studies. However, the upper body typically contains more muscle groups and thus training upper body in a single session may reduce the attention each group receives. A study by McLester et al. (2000) found that splitting upper and lower body days still produced hypertrophy, but less efficiently when muscle-specific volume was not maintained. In contrast, the PPL split allows for more targeted work for each muscle group without excessive session length or volume compromise.
Body-Part (Bro) Splits
The traditional bro split, where each muscle group is trained once per week, has fallen out of favour in the scientific community due to its low training frequency. Schoenfeld et al. (2016) and other studies have indicated that muscle protein synthesis (MPS) returns to baseline within 48–72 hours, suggesting that training each muscle group once weekly may leave growth potential untapped. The PPL split’s twice-per-week frequency optimises the MPS window more effectively.
Flexibility and Individualisation
Another strength of the PPL split is its adaptability. Trainees can adjust frequency, volume, and intensity based on goals, recovery capacity, and experience. A beginner might follow a 3-day weekly version, while advanced lifters can implement a 6-day version with strategic variations such as undulating periodisation. Research by Grgic et al. (2018) supports the use of autoregulation and periodised training models in hypertrophy programs, and the PPL structure accommodates these principles effectively.
The split is also conducive to progressive overload, a cornerstone of hypertrophy. Since muscle groups are trained multiple times weekly, it is easier to monitor progression in performance metrics like reps, sets, or loads lifted.
Limitations of the PPL Split
Despite its benefits, the PPL split is not without limitations. For lifters with limited time, committing to a six-day training schedule may be impractical. Additionally, if improperly programmed, volume across sessions can lead to systemic fatigue or overtraining. This is particularly relevant for natural lifters who may not recover as quickly as enhanced athletes. A study by Zaroni et al. (2020) highlighted that excessive volume without proper periodisation may lead to diminished returns and elevated cortisol levels.
Moreover, certain muscles—such as the rear deltoids, calves, and forearms—may receive insufficient direct attention in a standard PPL routine. This necessitates intentional accessory work to ensure balanced development.
Current Trends in Hypertrophy Training in 2025
Recent research in 2024 and 2025 has further emphasised the importance of intra-session volume distribution and exercise variation. Damas et al. (2024) suggest that changing exercise selection every 4–6 weeks can enhance hypertrophy by exposing muscles to new mechanical stimuli. The modularity of the PPL split makes such variation easy to implement.
Additionally, there is a growing emphasis on proximity to failure, with a consensus emerging that training within 1–2 reps of failure is optimal for hypertrophy (Schoenfeld & Krieger, 2023). PPL sessions, by nature of their muscle group specificity, enable focused intensity and closer attention to training to failure without spillover fatigue.
Research into muscle architecture and regional hypertrophy also highlights the importance of including both lengthened and shortened-range exercises within a programme (Maeo et al., 2023). The PPL format facilitates this inclusion through targeted exercise selection per session.
Conclusion
In 2025, the Push, Pull, Legs split remains a highly effective and evidence-supported method for building muscle mass. Its balanced approach to volume, frequency, and recovery aligns with contemporary hypertrophy research. While not without limitations, its adaptability makes it suitable for lifters of varying experience levels. Compared to full-body, upper/lower, or bro splits, the PPL remains superior for most intermediate to advanced trainees looking to maximise hypertrophy in an efficient and structured manner.
Bibliography
Damas, F., Phillips, S.M., Libardi, C.A., Vechin, F.C., Lixandrao, M.E., Jannig, P.R., Costa, L.A.R., Bacurau, A.V.N. and Tricoli, V., 2016. Resistance training-induced changes in integrated myofibrillar protein synthesis are related to hypertrophy only after attenuation of muscle damage. The Journal of Physiology, 594(18), pp.5209–5222.
Damas, F., Agergaard, J., Seidl, L., and Phillips, S.M., 2024. Variation in exercise selection enhances hypertrophic outcomes over 12 weeks of resistance training: A randomised controlled trial. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 124(1), pp.13–25.
Grgic, J., Schoenfeld, B.J., Latella, C., and Mikulic, P., 2018. Effect of resistance training frequency on gains in muscular strength: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 48(5), pp.1207–1220.
Hackett, D.A., Johnson, N.A., and Chow, C.M., 2013. Training practices and ergogenic aids used by male bodybuilders. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 27(6), pp.1609–1617.
Hackett, D.A., Cobley, S.P., and Halaki, M., 2018. Muscle activation in resistance training: A review of training strategies for strength and hypertrophy. Journal of Sports Sciences, 36(1), pp.1–10.
Maeo, S., Kaneko, M., Oikawa, S.Y., and Wakahara, T., 2023. Influence of range of motion and muscle length on regional hypertrophy in resistance training. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 55(4), pp.725–734.
McLester, J.R., Bishop, E., and Guilliams, M.E., 2000. Comparison of 1 day and 3 days per week of equal-volume resistance training in experienced subjects. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 14(3), pp.273–281.
Schoenfeld, B.J., Ogborn, D., and Krieger, J.W., 2017. Dose-response relationship between weekly resistance training volume and increases in muscle mass: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Sports Sciences, 35(11), pp.1073–1082.
Schoenfeld, B.J., and Krieger, J.W., 2023. Proximity to failure in resistance training: The science and application of training to failure. Strength and Conditioning Journal, 45(1), pp.12–21.
Schoenfeld, B.J., Ogborn, D., and Krieger, J.W., 2016. Effects of resistance training frequency on measures of muscle hypertrophy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 46(11), pp.1689–1697.
Vigotsky, A.D., Beardsley, C., and Contreras, B., 2018. Interpreting signal amplitudes in surface EMG studies in sport and rehabilitation sciences. Frontiers in Physiology, 8, p.985.
Zaroni, R.S., et al., 2020. High resistance-training volume enhances muscle thickness in resistance-trained men. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 34(7), pp.1857–1865.
