14 weeks to add as much muscle as you can - what do you do?

[permission to land]

Context

Check out the split I’ve been given!

Research shows that this split can be effective, but there are more effective training methods available.

Sources -

Mike Israetel (PHD)
Jeff Nippard
Dr Mike Tuchscherer
Menno Henselmans
Revive Stronger
Eric Helms
Alpha Destiny
Omar Isus

Issues

Issue 1 - Training most body parts once a week
Issue 2 - Lack of of volume

Goal

To add as much lean tissue as I can in 14 weeks. Specifically legs!

Cycle

Test 500mg.

My question

If you had 14 weeks to put on as much lean tissue as possible on cycle, are you following this plan or doing push pull legs twice a week?

Plan

Shoulders & Triceps

1: OHP:

2: Side Lat Raise:

3: Cable Lat:

4: Rear Delt Machine:

5: Dips:

6: Skullcrusher:

7: Tricep Pushdown

Back & Biceps

1: Single arm row:

2: Seated cable row:

3: Lat bar push down:

4: Bent over smith machine:

5: Ez bar

6: Preacher curl:

7: Chin ups:

Chest & Abs

1: Machine Fly

2: Cable Press

3: Incline Smith

4: Pec Deck

5: Push Up

6: Cable Crunch

7: Decline Sit Up

Legs

1: Back Squat

2: Leg Press

3: Smith Machine Romanian Deadlift

4: Leg Curl

5: Leg Extension

6: Smith Machine Lean

7: Standing Calf Raise

Arms

1: Incline DB Curl

2: Cable Bar Curl

3: Rope Drag Curl

4: Tricep Pushdown

5: Skullcrusher

6: Dips

7: Hammer Curls

 

[Jaxino]

From the cycle you’ve proposed, I gather that you’re a beginner. To build the majority of your muscle, starting with a Push-Pull-Legs routine is always the best approach. In the future, you’ll adjust your split to refine your physique and focus on developing any areas you feel are lagging.

 

[permission to land]

From the cycle you’ve proposed, I gather that you’re a beginner. To build the majority of your muscle, starting with a Push-Pull-Legs routine is always the best approach. In the future, you’ll adjust your split to refine your physique and focus on developing any areas you feel are lagging.

I’m not a beginner no, but I’ve not got loads of muscle. Test 500 is just a basic cycle!

The whole point of getting a plan was to target lagging muscles

Legs
Side Delts
Rear Delts

That’s why I was surprised to be given a bro split with so little volume.

Regardless of my time training, if your goal is to simply add as much muscle as, you would go with the push pull legs?

 

[jj89]

Full body 3 times a week, it's pretty brutal but it works.

Only reason not to do it is if you're too strong to recover from it.

Check Jordan Peters youtube channel I think he outlines it well

 

[permission to land]

Full body 3 times a week, it's pretty brutal but it works.

Only reason not to do it is if you're too strong to recover from it.

Check Jordan Peters youtube channel I think he outlines it well

Not enough training days for me and don’t have the time. 5 60 min sessions is what works for me.

 

[Dunkirk]

If I'm not mistaken, in your other post you said you work with a trainer. What most will do, if they're good, start with what they know works and adjust from there based on the individual.

There's so many methods out there because people respond to things differently from the physical aspect to the mental one. You won't find it on the forum. What might work for the majority here, might not work for you.

If you feel that you're recovering too fast between each one, increase the weight. I like burnout sets as well towards the end, they seem to work amazing for me.

I'm not sure how involved you are with the trainer, but those people you mentioned used them to help them understand their body's response to the training.

 

[permission to land]

Full body 3 times a week, it's pretty brutal but it works.

Only reason not to do it is if you're too strong to recover from it.

Check Jordan Peters youtube channel I think he outlines it well

What’s brutal about this?

If I'm not mistaken, in your other post you said you work with a trainer. What most will do, if they're good, start with what they know works and adjust from there based on the individual.

There's so many methods out there because people respond to things differently from the physical aspect to the mental one. You won't find it on the forum. What might work for the majority here, might not work for you.

If you feel that you're recovering too fast between each one, increase the weight. I like burnout sets as well towards the end, they seem to work amazing for me.

I'm not sure how involved you are with the trainer, but those people you mentioned used them to help them understand their body's response to the training.

He wanted me to do the bro split. He is more of a paid partner He’s just a gym rat PT! He’s into cross fit, so I’m not going to be taking plan advice from him.

ATM im doing Push Pull Legs Rest, Upper, Lower Rest and feel great. I hit everything twice a week and get 20 sets on lagging muscles.


If I was to do the suggested plan he said, I’d be getting major muscles once a week and doing 8-10 sets. Just doesn’t feel anywhere near enough volume.

 

[BigTomJ]

Bro split is not an acceptable training modality other than for elite level bodybuilders.

You will get better results with a more frequent training modality

 

[permission to land]

Bro split is not an acceptable training modality other than for elite level bodybuilders.

You will get better results with a more frequent training modality

Thanks. What I thought.

 

[eery]

I'd do push pull legs instead of this if i was somewhat new but both are going to work.

Depending on your genetics and strong/weak points, i wouldnt have a seperate day just for shoulders and triceps. It all comes down to what you need, respond to and can do practically.

 

[Jaxino]

Full body 3 times a week, it's pretty brutal but it works.

Only reason not to do it is if you're too strong to recover from it.

Check Jordan Peters youtube channel I think he outlines it well

I wouldn’t place too much trust in what a bodybuilder is doing now at the end of their career; instead, I would focus on understanding how they built their physique in the first place.

 

[Jaxino]

Issue 1 - Training most body parts once a week
Issue 2 - Lack of of volume

I would primarily focus on the points you mentioned here:

• 1) Volume isn’t the primary driver of growth—intensity is.
• 2) Higher frequency contributes to better growth outcomes.

With that in mind, you could consider an Upper/Lower, Rest, Upper/Lower, Rest, Rest split as a potential workout structure.

Regarding point 1, it largely depends on whether you can truly push yourself to complete failure. Here, you need to be brutally honest with yourself— but it's a skill that anyone can develop over time.

If you can consistently reach total failure—call it RPE 10, maximum effort, or whatever term you prefer—then I believe the Top Set, Back Off (beat the logbook) method can be highly effective.

If you're not quite there yet, you could start with 3 sets taken close to failure without reducing the weight. This approach can also "train" your mind to recognize and achieve true failure over time. After that, you can transition to training with low volume.

What I’ve written here isn’t set in stone—it’s just my perspective, developed over 8 years of training with the use of steroids.

 

[jj89]

I wouldn’t place too much trust in what a bodybuilder is doing now at the end of their career; instead, I would focus on understanding how they built their physique in the first place.

That's not how trains now it's how he trained when he was smaller, now he trains (I think) each body part roughly every 5 days or something like that.

That's just what he advises, train everything as frequently as possible until you can't recover enough to keep progressing, which I think is solid advice.

I agree with your overall point though you shouldn't necessarily emulate what the huge guys are doing, I think they'd all say the same.

 

[permission to land]

I would primarily focus on the points you mentioned here:

• 1) Volume isn’t the primary driver of growth—intensity is.
• 2) Higher frequency contributes to better growth outcomes.

With that in mind, you could consider an Upper/Lower, Rest, Upper/Lower, Rest, Rest split as a potential workout structure.

Regarding point 1, it largely depends on whether you can truly push yourself to complete failure. Here, you need to be brutally honest with yourself— but it's a skill that anyone can develop over time.

If you can consistently reach total failure—call it RPE 10, maximum effort, or whatever term you prefer—then I believe the Top Set, Back Off (beat the logbook) method can be highly effective.

If you're not quite there yet, you could start with 3 sets taken close to failure without reducing the weight. This approach can also "train" your mind to recognize and achieve true failure over time. After that, you can transition to training with low volume.

What I’ve written here isn’t set in stone—it’s just my perspective, developed over 8 years of training with the use of steroids.

Great reply. I definitely know how to go to failure, but I rarely do.

The evidence I’ve seen has “argued” that you don’t get any more gains failure compared to 3 RIR. I’m not saying this is true, just what I’ve seen! Unfortunately down to opinions by looks of it.

 

[permission to land]

Great reply. I definitely know how to go to failure, but I rarely do.

The evidence I’ve seen has “argued” that you don’t get any more gains failure compared to 3 RIR. I’m not saying this is true, just what I’ve seen! Unfortunately down to opinions by looks of it.

View: https://youtube.com/shorts/VsmSkg2h4d8?si=MHyRPX9zZGmBHHBl

 

[Alert_Custard]

I am a man of science myself, but "the evidence" when it comes to lifting is not something I trust.

When a scientist does an experiment to demonstrate something, like for example gravity, the strength of a particular piece of steel or a beam of concrete. Those essays or studies take a great deal of effort in controlling all variables possible.

When it comes to lifting studies, they control 3 or 4 variables, and measure results. There are a ton of factors that come into play. Genetic variations, whether a subject has been training for 2 years or for 20, most aspects of their diets, their own estimations of RIR or Failure, whether they work shifts and sleep like shit or not, 500mg of gear vs 4 grams, etc.

But in the end, observation of the results that others get, shows us that training very hard consistently, allowing for the right recovery, and having the diet dialed in and correct amounts of gear will make you grow. So do that and find a method of training that you enjoy and can stick to for 20 years.

I saw a video of Mike Israetel saying that if Dorian Yates wpuld have used his method of training he would have looked a lot better. Load of bollocks by somebody that wants to sell something in my opinion.

 

[egruberman]

Goal

To add as much lean tissue as I can in 14 weeks. Specifically legs!

Cycle

Test 500mg.

Does not compute.

I am a man of science myself, but "the evidence" when it comes to lifting is not something I trust.

Then you're drawing the wrong conclusion from the science.

"Science" doesn't prescribe a program, optimally it isolates a particular variable and indicates what effect that variable has.

This recent meta-regression suggests that training closer to failure yields more gains:

Exploring the Dose-Response Relationship Between Estimated Resistance Training Proximity to Failure, Strength Gain, and Muscle Hypertrophy: A Series of Meta-Regressions - PubMed

The dose-response relationship between proximity to failure and strength gain appears to differ from the relationship with muscle hypertrophy, with only the latter being meaningfully influenced by RIR. Strength gains were similar across a wide range of RIR, while muscle hypertrophy improves as...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Not particularly surprising to anyone. It also suggests that training to failure may impair strength gains, which is maybe a little surprising.

In discussions of this topic, folks may or may not assert that training to true failure causes excessive fatigue inhibiting recovery, which is reflected in the literature, but is not obviously helpful in developing a training program. If I take lateral raises to failure, that won't stop me from being able to do lateral raises again the next day or the day after. If I take all my work sets of hack squats to failure, I may not be able to do them again for another week. Hell, I may not be able to walk for a week.

To optimize muscle growth, do as many sets as one can per muscle group per week and take as many of those sets that one can as close to failure as possible. This approach is well-supported by the science, but the art is in figuring out how to implement it along with recovery, nutrition, etc.

I saw a video of Mike Israetel saying that if Dorian Yates wpuld have used his method of training he would have looked a lot better.

PhD or no, the way that Mike Israetel prescribes training is not entirely supported by science.

 

[permission to land]

Does not compute.



Then you're drawing the wrong conclusion from the science.

"Science" doesn't prescribe a program, optimally it isolates a particular variable and indicates what effect that variable has.

This recent meta-regression suggests that training closer to failure yields more gains:

Exploring the Dose-Response Relationship Between Estimated Resistance Training Proximity to Failure, Strength Gain, and Muscle Hypertrophy: A Series of Meta-Regressions - PubMed

The dose-response relationship between proximity to failure and strength gain appears to differ from the relationship with muscle hypertrophy, with only the latter being meaningfully influenced by RIR. Strength gains were similar across a wide range of RIR, while muscle hypertrophy improves as...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Not particularly surprising to anyone. It also suggests that training to failure may impair strength gains, which is maybe a little surprising.

In discussions of this topic, folks may or may not assert that training to true failure causes excessive fatigue inhibiting recovery, which is reflected in the literature, but is not obviously helpful in developing a training program. If I take lateral raises to failure, that won't stop me from being able to do lateral raises again the next day or the day after. If I take all my work sets of hack squats to failure, I may not be able to do them again for another week. Hell, I may not be able to walk for a week.

To optimize muscle growth, do as many sets as one can per muscle group per week and take as many of those sets that one can as close to failure as possible. This approach is well-supported by the science, but the art is in figuring out how to implement it along with recovery, nutrition, etc.



PhD or no, the way that Mike Israetel prescribes training is not entirely supported by science.

But, 2 RIR or failure? Does it make a difference to gains? Cause it sure makes a difference going to failure vs two reps left.

I’d rather not risk injury and stick to a few reps in reserve in most cases myself. Billions of people have put on plenty of muscle without going to failure. Unless you’re pro, I don’t really see the benefit.

In saying that, I have been implementing some failure/dropset work into my quad and calf work as I really want those to grow. Just for the last set. All out.

 

[permission to land]

Does not compute.



Then you're drawing the wrong conclusion from the science.

"Science" doesn't prescribe a program, optimally it isolates a particular variable and indicates what effect that variable has.

This recent meta-regression suggests that training closer to failure yields more gains:

Exploring the Dose-Response Relationship Between Estimated Resistance Training Proximity to Failure, Strength Gain, and Muscle Hypertrophy: A Series of Meta-Regressions - PubMed

The dose-response relationship between proximity to failure and strength gain appears to differ from the relationship with muscle hypertrophy, with only the latter being meaningfully influenced by RIR. Strength gains were similar across a wide range of RIR, while muscle hypertrophy improves as...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Not particularly surprising to anyone. It also suggests that training to failure may impair strength gains, which is maybe a little surprising.

In discussions of this topic, folks may or may not assert that training to true failure causes excessive fatigue inhibiting recovery, which is reflected in the literature, but is not obviously helpful in developing a training program. If I take lateral raises to failure, that won't stop me from being able to do lateral raises again the next day or the day after. If I take all my work sets of hack squats to failure, I may not be able to do them again for another week. Hell, I may not be able to walk for a week.

To optimize muscle growth, do as many sets as one can per muscle group per week and take as many of those sets that one can as close to failure as possible. This approach is well-supported by the science, but the art is in figuring out how to implement it along with recovery, nutrition, etc.



PhD or no, the way that Mike Israetel prescribes training is not entirely supported by science.

But, 2 RIR or failure? Does it make a difference to gains? Cause it sure makes a difference going to failure vs two reps left.

I’d rather not risk injury and stick to a few reps in reserve in most cases myself. Billions of people have put on plenty of muscle without going to failure. Unless you’re pro, I don’t really see the benefit.

In saying that, I have been implementing some failure/dropset work into my quad and calf work as I really want those to grow. Just for the last set. All out. Does feel good mentally, but I couldn’t do it every set or every exercise.

 

[permission to land]

Re Mike Iseratel, aside from his app, I don’t see him shilling anything. I can’t believe I’ve only fools fell for Turk scam Greg Douchette started. Made him and multi millionaire and then some.