My workout routine

[MAD King]

I see many young people working out for hours, trying to kill their muscles.
My routine is: Get in and out as fast you can get.

Day 1 Chest, Shoulder, Trizeps
Day 2 Off
Day 3 Back, Bizeps, Abs
Day 4 Off
Day 5 Legs, Calves
Day 6 Off
Day 7 Start over

Sets on large muscles 5 x 10-12 (heavy and slow, 1-1-3)
Small muscles 2 sets.
Short breaks.
Time from entering gym until leaving most 25 minutes.

My data: 50/ 5'7"/ 210lbs
Bizeps 43.5 cm, legs reaching to the floor.

Don't kill your muscle and don't spent too much time in the gym.

 

[Fireproof]

I am of the opinion that multiple-bodypart splits (hitting each muscle group once per week) is not optimal for muscle growth. (If that's your goal). I think higher frequency is needed (from twice/week to three times per week) and I've personally seen much more success since increasing my workout frequency. Of course, total volume needs to be adjusted accordingly.

Here's a great article that summarizes various scientific studies on training frequency:
http://www.lookgreatnaked.com/blog/how-many-times-should-you-train-a-muscle-each-week/

The conclusion:
The primary take-away from the meta-analysis is that there appears to be a pretty clear benefit to training muscle groups with higher weekly frequencies. At the very least, the study shows that training a minimum of 2 days a week is needed to maximize muscle growth.


Here's another study from renowned expert Lyle McDonald:
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/muscle-gain/training-frequency-for-mass-gains.html/

His summary:
And while it's still common to emulate the training pattern of elite (read: drug using) bodybuilders and bomb and blast everything once per week, my experience (and that of many others) is simply that the majority of natural trainees (and even many drug users) simply don't get optimal growth that way. This is one of those cases where the athletes seem to be succeeding in spite of the training rather than due to it.
Which brings us to my preferred training frequency for the majority of folks seeking optimal size gains: somewhere between once every 5th day and twice per week. I find that this yields about optimal results for most people (and recent research supports that recommendation anyhow), offsetting the cons of both the higher and lower training frequencies.


My preferred split is:
- Upper
- Lower
- off
- Upper
- Lower
- off
- off

Allows me to hit each muscle group twice per week. And only working half the body at once (vs. full body training) allows me to keep volume sufficient without an exceptionally long workout.

 

[Jay]

Lee Haney use to say "stimulate don't annihilate muscle", also some great bodybuilder who were loaded up only hit muscles groups only once a week (Dorian Yates)..

One thing I will say that is important is whenever I hit a muscle group more than once a week, (heavy or light) I am more prone to overuse injuries. Like TRT treatment, everybody is different, and I suggest experiment and don't work through the pain if you know what I mean

 

[Fireproof]

I do totally agree with "stimulate don't annihilate muscle". As well as managing volume and overuse issues.

Now that I'm older, I do prefer higher reps with lower % of 1RM, versus really heavy sets in the 6-8 rep range I used to do. My joints just can't handle that anymore.

We have to be careful not to compare what worked for professional bodybuilders to what might be ideal for natural lifters. I need to locate the studies, but I believe they show that post-exercise anabolic period (elevated protein synthesis) lasts about 3 days for average folks. Then returns to baseline. But at the supra physiological steroid levels of pro bodybuilders - it is extended to a week. So it seems logical to me that a bit more frequency than once/week would serve us better (and my and others I've worked with do support that anecdotally).

The above articles have reference studies that support that theory as well.

But like the second article says - that's NOT to say that you CAN'T grow on once/week frequency. Many people do make nice gains. So I think there is also some genetics at play here too...

 

[ERO]

I do totally agree with "stimulate don't annihilate muscle". As well as managing volume and overuse issues.

Now that I'm older, I do prefer higher reps with lower % of 1RM, versus really heavy sets in the 6-8 rep range I used to do. My joints just can't handle that anymore.

We have to be careful not to compare what worked for professional bodybuilders to what might be ideal for natural lifters. I need to locate the studies, but I believe they show that post-exercise anabolic period (elevated protein synthesis) lasts about 3 days for average folks. Then returns to baseline. But at the supra physiological steroid levels of pro bodybuilders - it is extended to a week. So it seems logical to me that a bit more frequency than once/week would serve us better (and my and others I've worked with do support that anecdotally).

The above articles have reference studies that support that theory as well.

But like the second article says - that's NOT to say that you CAN'T grow on once/week frequency. Many people do make nice gains. So I think there is also some genetics at play here too...

I hear you on the joint pain - or actually in my case - I seem to get tendon pain as my first sign of over training. I know that is one of the side effects of getting older, but dang it is annoying. That and I know better than to push through as you tear a tendon you are looking at months of healing time, and even then it may not every be quite the same.

 

[MAD King]

My workout routine were the same for years. Each muscle once per week until the muscle is killed. I read a study that it takes up to 6 weeks for the muscle to recover.
Then I changed my routine to Franco Columbo's workout plan. 5 sets per big muscle and 2-3 for the smaller once. Hitting each muscle every six day.
I am working out for 15 years and since I changed my workout plan I gained another 10 lbs.
I do not see it, but people say that I am pretty good packed for my size and for my age.

 

[Fireproof]

That's awesome. It's nice when you dial in a routine that really works for you.

 

[MAD King]

That's awesome. It's nice when you dial in a routine that really works for you.

Yes, it really proves that everyone is different. When you take Arnold and Franco back in the days. Arnold was working out like crazy for hours in the gym. Franco came in, finished his workout and was gone. Arnold was always jealous about that.

I also think that a constant level of testosterone around 1100 helps a lot. Mine is always between 1100-1200 and my doc is absolute fine with that. He says as long as your blood test is coming back good, I should not have any problems. He just filled out the form for therapeutic phlebotomy today. I am very lucky to have a doc like him.

 

[Nelson Vergel]

I work out my entire body every time I go in. I do not use extra heavy weights and aim at barely able to finish 10 reps on any exercise while I focus on contracting the muscle group I am working on.

 

[Fireproof]

I work out my entire body every time I go in. I do not use extra heavy weights and aim at barely able to finish 10 reps on any exercise while I focus on contracting the muscle group I am working on.

I'm a fan of full-body workouts periodically.

How often do you tend to workout?

 

[MAD King]

Full body workout takes too much time. I rather go into gym, lift heave, but as Nelson mentioned, keep contracting the muscle. The muscle is done after roughly 5 sets and 25 minutes. When I see people train, they keep relaxing their muscles with every rep. Does not make any sense. I took my father as an example. He never lifted weights, but he had forearms like Popeye. He was a glassblower for 30 years back in the days making the letter lights for Las Vegas. He had his arm muscles always contracted due the job and they were HUGE. So, why keep spending countless time at the gym with relaxing the muscle when you can archive with contacting in a much faster time?

 

[Fireproof]

A few comments, not to critique or state any different views, but because I like training discussions. ��

1. Like you, I like doing the minimum amount of work to get the job done. No need to kill ourselves, especially as we age. And also - if we've had an extended layoff from the gym - it doesn't take much at all to induce the needed stimuli in our muscles for growth. Almost any quick workout will work as either a newbie, or when returning from a long layoff. This is where I tend to use Full-Body workouts. I was out of the gym for 1.5 years - and was easily able to do a few sets of compound movements for the whole body in 45 minutes and it worked great for about 5-6 weeks until I needed a bit more volume.

2. I do agree that many gym-rats train poorly. Time Under Tension is very key to muscle growth. And if you throw weights around, relax them at top or bottom of movements, you are sacrificing that.

3. Genetics does make a difference. I've trained with gym rats and bodybuilders off and on for 25 years. It's obvious some people are just gifted genetically and can grow easier than others. But everyone can make progress with proper diet and training. (and certainly optimal testosterone levels with TRT can have a big impact).

4. Then there's just work/life balance and one's personal schedule. There may be "text book idea" training plans - but if you can't stick to that due to your schedule (or due to other physical limitations) - then don't do it. Go for the plan that appears to get decent results for you, and is one that you enjoy and will stick with. We're all different.

Happy lifting!

 

[MAD King]

My words. I do not think that it has anything to do with genetics. I think that many beginners read too much of the BB magazines workout routines from the pro BB which are on lot of gear. It does not take much to stimulate the muscle. Only to the point where it cannot resist anymore. That is more than enough. What people do not understand is, that every workout is stress for the body. The longer they need at the gym for their workout, the more stress they do to their body and CNS.

Until my mid 35', my weight was around 135 lbs at a height at 5'7". I did martial arts since I was 15 years old. At mid 30 I had constantly pain in my right hip from too much high kicking. My doc recommended to strengthen the muscles on the hip. This brought my into lifting. For years I did the same mistake most beginner do. Working out too much and too long. As I wrote earlier. A few years ago I changed it into lazy workout with heavy weight and, voila, I grew, a lot.

The thing is, if you tell beginners your workout routine, they do not believe it and believe that someone with my size must train for 2 hours a day. Best example is Dorian Yates. Did not spend much time at the gym considered his huge mass.

 

[Fireproof]

I totally agree that no one needs to be training for 2 hours per day to see results. They don't even need to workout every day of the week. I've made awesome progress in 3x per week training or 4x per week training and never spend more than 70 minutes in the gym - many times, depending on my split - it's 45-50 minutes unless I extend stretching, foam rolling, etc.

BUT but but - be careful about using examples of Pro Bodybuilders as proof points due to the enormous amount of steroids they took. With the level of AAS they were taking - just about anything would work (not to discount their hard work at all - they were monster trainers).

N Engl J Med. 1996 Jul 4;335(1):1-7.
The effects of supraphysiologic doses of testosterone on muscle size and strength in normal men.Bhasin S1, Storer TW, Berman N, Callegari C, Clevenger B, Phillips J, Bunnell TJ, Tricker R, Shirazi A, Casaburi R.
[h=3]Author information[/b]

[h=3]Abstract[/b][h=4]BACKGROUND:[/b]Athletes often take androgenic steroids in an attempt to increase their strength. The efficacy of these substances for this purpose is unsubstantiated, however.
[h=4]METHODS:[/b]We randomly assigned 43 normal men to one of four groups: placebo with no exercise; testosterone with no exercise; placebo plus exercise; and testosterone plus exercise. The men received injections of 600 mg of testosterone enanthate or placebo weekly for 10 weeks. The men in the exercise groups performed standardized weight-lifting exercises three times weekly. Before and after the treatment period, fat-free mass was determined by underwater weighing, muscle size was measured by magnetic resonance imaging, and the strength of the arms and legs was assessed by bench-press and squatting exercises, respectively.
[h=4]RESULTS:[/b]Among the men in the no-exercise groups, those given testosterone had greater increases than those given placebo in muscle size in their arms (mean [+/-SE] change in triceps area, 424 +/- 104 vs. -81 +/- 109 square millimeters; P < 0.05) and legs (change in quadriceps area, 607 +/- 123 vs. -131 +/- 111 square millimeters; P < 0.05) and greater increases in strength in the bench-press (9 +/- 4 vs. -1 +/- 1 kg, P < 0.05) and squatting exercises (16 +/- 4 vs. 3 +/- 1 kg, P < 0.05). The men assigned to testosterone and exercise had greater increases in fat-free mass (6.1 +/- 0.6 kg) and muscle size (triceps area, 501 +/- 104 square millimeters; quadriceps area, 1174 +/- 91 square millimeters) than those assigned to either no-exercise group, and greater increases in muscle strength (bench-press strength, 22 +/- 2 kg; squatting-exercise capacity, 38 +/- 4 kg) than either no-exercise group. Neither mood nor behavior was altered in any group.
[h=4]CONCLUSIONS:[/b]Supraphysiologic doses of testosterone, especially when combined with strength training, increase fat-free mass and muscle size and strength in normal men.

This study showed that those using testosterone way outperformed non-users in size and strength. No difference in Training vs. the placebo group. And this was at baby doses of 600mg/week compared to the crazy amounts that Pro BB take.

Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2001 Dec;281(6):E1172-81.
Testosterone dose-response relationships in healthy young men.Bhasin S1, Woodhouse L, Casaburi R, Singh AB, Bhasin D, Berman N, Chen X, Yarasheski KE, Magliano L, Dzekov C, Dzekov J, Bross R, Phillips J, Sinha-Hikim I, Shen R, Storer TW.
[h=3]Author information[/b]

[h=3]Abstract[/b]Testosterone increases muscle mass and strength and regulates other physiological processes, but we do not know whether testosterone effects are dose dependent and whether dose requirements for maintaining various androgen-dependent processes are similar. To determine the effects of graded doses of testosterone on body composition, muscle size, strength, power, sexual and cognitive functions, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), plasma lipids, hemoglobin, and insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I) levels, 61 eugonadal men, 18-35 yr, were randomized to one of five groups to receive monthly injections of a long-acting gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist, to suppress endogenous testosterone secretion, and weekly injections of 25, 50, 125, 300, or 600 mg of testosterone enanthate for 20 wk. Energy and protein intakes were standardized. The administration of the GnRH agonist plus graded doses of testosterone resulted in mean nadir testosterone concentrations of 253, 306, 542, 1,345, and 2,370 ng/dl at the 25-, 50-, 125-, 300-, and 600-mg doses, respectively. Fat-free mass increased dose dependently in men receiving 125, 300, or 600 mg of testosterone weekly (change +3.4, 5.2, and 7.9 kg, respectively). The changes in fat-free mass were highly dependent on testosterone dose (P = 0.0001) and correlated with log testosterone concentrations (r = 0.73, P = 0.0001). Changes in leg press strength, leg power, thigh and quadriceps muscle volumes, hemoglobin, and IGF-I were positively correlated with testosterone concentrations, whereas changes in fat mass and plasma high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol were negatively correlated. Sexual function, visual-spatial cognition and mood, and PSA levels did not change significantly at any dose. We conclude that changes in circulating testosterone concentrations, induced by GnRH agonist and testosterone administration, are associated with testosterone dose- and concentration-dependent changes in fat-free mass, muscle size, strength and power, fat mass, hemoglobin, HDL cholesterol, and IGF-I levels, in conformity with a single linear dose-response relationship. However, different androgen-dependent processes have different testosterone dose-response relationships.

And this study shows that gains are dose-dependent. The more you take - the bigger and stronger you get...even with the same training...

 

[MAD King]

The more you take - the bigger and stronger you get...even with the same training...

This is not totally correct. There is a point where a diminishing returns occurs. The point where you put too much roids into the body without the expected gains.