T Nation

Routine + Diet = Muscle?

I’m 24, 5’10, 160lbs. My sole goal is gaining muscle. Strength is nice, athletic ability is nice, but #1 on my list is being a lean 180lbs. To do that, I need to gain muscle, and lots of it.

I’ve been lifting seriously for about 3-4 years (I started at around 130lbs) and the only type of split I’ve EVER used is the typical chest/tris, back/bis, shoulders, legs.

The more reading I do on here, the more I realize this is probably not the best way I should be training.

So, after doing a bunch of reading, I came up with this upper/lower routine. Please let me know what you think…

-Monday: Upper
Flat Bench Press - 4 sets
Incline Bench Press - 3 sets
Flyes - 2 sets
Bent Over Barbell Rows - 3 sets
Seated Cable Rows - 3 sets
Barbell Curls - 3 sets
DB Curls - 2 sets

-Tuesday: Lower
Squats: 5 sets
Split Squats: 3 sets
Seated Leg Curls: 3 sets
Standing Calf Raises: 4 sets
Abs

-Wednesday: off

-Thursday: Upper
Seated Overhead DB Press: 5 sets
Lateral Raises: 3 sets
Pull Ups: 5 sets
Skullcrushers: 4 sets
Tricep Press Downs: 3 sets

-Friday: Lower
SLDL: 4 sets
Laying Leg Curls: 3 sets
Leg Press: 3 sets
Calf Press (in the leg press) - 4 sets
Shrugs - 4 sets
Abs

-Saturday: off

-Sunday: off

Any thoughts and feedback would be very much appreciated. Aside from that, what I’m really looking to know is, if I combine this workout with a clean bulking diet… will a natural guy such as myself get the kind of results I’m looking to get?

Thanks in advance.

this routine + bulking diet + HARD WORK = muscle

[quote]PHGN wrote:
this routine + bulking diet + HARD WORK = muscle[/quote]

which is true for most routines, even partly shitty ones.

So then I guess the question becomes… is this routine partly shitty? Or, at the very least, less shitty than my original body part split?

[quote]lookcloser wrote:
So then I guess the question becomes… is this routine partly shitty? Or, at the very least, less shitty than my original body part split?[/quote]

Try it and see.

If put maximum effort in and get good results, more power to you. If it doesn’t work, try something else.

I personally am the fan of CW’s method of training abs through other compound exercises such as DL’s, standing press, and things like that. Overall I think antagonist training is a good plan and a good change up from your split.

I was on the same chest/tri back/bi legs/shoulders abs thing for my first 8 months of training. Switching it up will definitely produce results faster than you have been seeing with the old program.

Eat a lot, constantly.

It’s not an ideal training plan (you have some imbalances), but if you work hard and believe in the program, you should make good gains for a period of time.

Thanks for the replies.

[quote]Nate Dogg wrote:
It’s not an ideal training plan (you have some imbalances), but if you work hard and believe in the program, you should make good gains for a period of time.[/quote]

By “imbalances” do you mean, like, more sets are being done for Body Part X than Body Part Y, or do you mean something else?

Also, one other quick question… how much does this routine really differ from my original body part split routine? I was just thinking about it and I realized my upper/lower split is just a form of body part split that just isn’t being described as much.

For example, if I called it chest/back/bis, quads/calves, off, shoulders/back/tris, hams/calves, off, off it looks like a body part split not TOO far off from my original routine. But if I call it upper, lower, upper, lower, it seems worlds different.

Any of that make sense to anyone?

[quote]lookcloser wrote:
By “imbalances” do you mean, like, more sets are being done for Body Part X than Body Part Y, or do you mean something else?[/quote]

Yes. You had more chest exercises (horizontal pushing) than back exercises (horizontal pulling), and I thought some of your leg stuff was imbalanced.

It pretty much still is a bodypart split, it just depends on how you want to look at it. An upper/lower body split can be set up as an overall mass gaining program, but in essence, you’re still working on certain bodyparts, it’s just that you are combining them all in one workout.

For example, one of your upper body days could be all horizontal pushing and pulling exercises (benches and rows = chest/back/triceps) and the other could be all vertical pushing and pulling exercises (chins, overhead pressing = back/shoulders/biceps).

Your lower body days could be divided up so that one is all quad dominant and the other is all hip/hamstring dominant.

Overall, you’re still working certain bodyparts during each workout, but you’re getting overlap as well.

[quote]Nate Dogg wrote:
lookcloser wrote:
By “imbalances” do you mean, like, more sets are being done for Body Part X than Body Part Y, or do you mean something else?

Yes. You had more chest exercises (horizontal pushing) than back exercises (horizontal pulling), and I thought some of your leg stuff was imbalanced.

Also, one other quick question… how much does this routine really differ from my original body part split routine? I was just thinking about it and I realized my upper/lower split is just a form of body part split that just isn’t being described as much.

It pretty much still is a bodypart split, it just depends on how you want to look at it. An upper/lower body split can be set up as an overall mass gaining program, but in essence, you’re still working on certain bodyparts, it’s just that you are combining them all in one workout.

For example, one of your upper body days could be all horizontal pushing and pulling exercises (benches and rows = chest/back/triceps) and the other could be all vertical pushing and pulling exercises (chins, overhead pressing = back/shoulders/biceps).

Your lower body days could be divided up so that one is all quad dominant and the other is all hip/hamstring dominant.

Overall, you’re still working certain bodyparts during each workout, but you’re getting overlap as well.[/quote]

Ah, I see. Thanks for explaining.