Criticize this split: Upper/ Lower/ Push/ Pull/ Legs

Bigger Stronger Leaner
1

I’ve been doing some high volume, hypertrophy stuff and now feel it is time to get back to strength. However, although I have always valued big numbers on the basics, I am older and want something more well rounded than a 5/3/1 variation (which is great for pure strength). It takes me longer than it once did to recover from a heavy deadlift session. And I want to do some sprints, climbing and something for flexibility.

I have had great past results from push/pull and push/pull/legs. It can be awkward to schedule into a week, and sometimes results in Push1 to Push3, etc. to get all the desired variations in. Looking for something simpler now.

I picked up Nippard’s book The Muscle Ladder. It’s basic, but well structured and clear. I like it. At the back it contains some routines, including a couple with the “thread title” format, namely upper-lower-push-pull-legs. Not tried this before.

I like the idea. Most exercises have three working sets plus warmup. There are options for every exercise, but the layout is:

A. Upper (strength focus)

  • bench press
  • barbell row
  • dumbbell lateral raise
  • pull-ups
  • pec deck
  • superset: preacher curls, skull crushers

B. Lower (strength focus)

  • deadlift
  • leg press
  • glute-ham raise
  • calf raise
  • cable crunch

C. Push (hypertrophy focus)

  • overhead press
  • dumbbell press
  • cable lateral raise
  • cable fly
  • triceps kickback
  • overhead triceps extension

D. Pull (hypertrophy focus)

  • lat pulldown
  • dumbbell row
  • cable lat pull in
  • reverse pec deck
  • barbell shrug
  • hammer curl
  • another curl variation

E. Legs (hypertrophy)

  • back squat
  • back extensions
  • leg extensions
  • seated leg curl
  • calf variation
  • leg raise variation

I would modify it to include certain exercises I prefer. I like supported rows, Kroc rows, dips, etc. and could easily substitute for these as needed. I also like the Smith machine near the end of the workout, and stuff like loaded carries. I also want to do more sled work, which I have neglected. And while deadlifting once per circuit is fine, I might want a little more chest.

  1. Does anyone know The Muscle Ladder, or like Nippard? I don’t follow a lot of web influencers myself.
  2. Has anyone done up/low/push/pull/legs?
  3. This seems well balanced and no day is super long or super hard. I tend not to use cables that much, just because they tend to be crowded by times. Any comments on this routine?
2

Here is a push pull legs split for comparison, by the hard-to-beat Paul Carter..

3
  1. I like him. I considered buying that book, though I think it won’t inform me of anything new to me.
  2. Upper lower is my go-to split.
  3. It looks fine.
1 Like
4

It does quote several recent research papers, some of which I did not know about. I read a lot about fitness. I’d say I knew 95% of what was in the book, but really liked its format and approach. It seems expensive for the physical book ($80 in Canada?), but the Kindle is more reasonably priced.

It is great for beginners and intermediates. It is useful for trainers since the approach itself is good and teachable, and I like its use of recent research. However, it avoided many interesting topics to try to simplify things (a million lifting cues, details on major lifts, stuff like mTor and AMPK, it’s a long list TBH). This isn’t great, but it is also a plus since it is easy for most to get bogged down in trivia.

1 Like
5
  1. I like Nippard
  2. I’ve always felt that’s a smart split
  3. I think it looks kind of fun
6

It hits the major lifts once per week/circuit and allows good recovery time. It has too much cable stuff for me, given how popular those things are in my commercial gym, but it is easy to substitute sled work for that. I’ll
try my modification and see how it goes.

I like upper/lower but wish to do slightly less legs and more (but not long) sprinting sessions. I like push/pull but want a little more freedom to improve timing and recovery, and not be bound by mechanics. This looks like a decent compromise to me.