Gym Routines

Jelly Belly

Striker
Can anyone point me in the direction of a decent website to build a gym routine which will help help with weight loss and toning up? Whenever i use the gym I'm a bit aimless, walking about doing a bit here and a bit there on weight machines and concentrating mainly on the cardio equipment.
 


This is a pretty good article with a good starter routine -
It's got a good explanation of a lot of the key terms, keeps the workout quite simple and you don't have to touch cardio equipment! Weight loss is more about your diet, calories in vs calories out. If you're on Facebook look for Team RH and James Smith. They both tell it as it is.
 
Last edited:
Youtube is a great place to start in terms of learning more about what to do and why you’re doing it

Athlean X is a good channel if your aim is weight loss etc

Just try to avoid the steroid types as in reality, what they’re ‘teaching’ isn’t applicable to the average non-steroid taker.
 
Last edited:
This is a pretty good article with a good starter routine -
It's got a good explanation of a lot of the key terms, keeps the workout quite simple and you don't have to touch cardio equipment! Weight loss is more about your diet, calories in vs calories out. If you're on Facebook look for Team RH and James Smith. They both tell it as it is.
Brilliant thank you for that mate
Youtube is a great place to start in terms of learning more about what to do and why you’re doing it

Athlean X is a good channel if your aim is weight loss etc

Just try to avoid the steroid types as in reality, what they’re ‘teaching’ isn’t applicable to the average non-steroid taker.
Cheers Pete, that's my task this afternoon then
 
It doesn't get any simpler than Stronglifts 5x5.

Get the app on your phone (free) & it tells you what to lift, times your rests between sets.

As has already been said though, fat loss comes from the kitchen. You can't out-train a bad diet.
I’ve always been a volume trainer personally. It suits my particular body type - and I think that’s something people should look at when choosing a program.

I’ve always worked on the principle that it’s just about lifting and putting down heavy weights lots of times. And then next time doing the same thing but with an even heavier weight and/or doing more repetitions. It also serves the duel purpose of burning a few extra calories because I gain fat pretty easily. So there’s a slight aerobic component to it, too.

I always think that these low volume programs are more suited to a person who is naturally skinny and struggles to put on weight. When I’ve tried them myself through the years I’ve always tended to gain weight but not enough of the good kind. So the equation doesn’t really stack up well enough for my personal liking. Which is why I ultimately always go back to volume. If the OP however, is a naturally skinny person then I’m inclined to agree with your recommendation to do something like you’ve suggested.
 
I’ve always been a volume trainer personally. It suits my particular body type - and I think that’s something people should look at when choosing a program.

I’ve always worked on the principle that it’s just about lifting and putting down heavy weights lots of times. And then next time doing the same thing but with an even heavier weight and/or doing more repetitions. It also serves the duel purpose of burning a few extra calories because I gain fat pretty easily. So there’s a slight aerobic component to it, too.

I always think that these low volume programs are more suited to a person who is naturally skinny and struggles to put on weight. When I’ve tried them myself through the years I’ve always tended to gain weight but not enough of the good kind. So the equation doesn’t really stack up well enough for my personal liking. Which is why I ultimately always go back to volume. If the OP however, is a naturally skinny person then I’m inclined to agree with your recommendation to do something like you’ve suggested.

I work on a mix, which I suppose is easier doing a push/pull split than a bro split. I still do 6-8 reps per set on the more strength focused days, and then aiming for 9-10 slower reps on the other. I've found this gets better results than doing say 5 reps, but then people will react differently, and maybe some people are more suited to the heavy 5x5s... but it just doesn't work for me... plus there's the extra risk of injury.

I certainly don't think someone starting out should be doing 5 reps with heavy weight sets as there's no way their technique is going to be good enough to avoid injury without dropping the weight enough, which then makes it ineffective.
 
I work on a mix, which I suppose is easier doing a push/pull split than a bro split. I still do 6-8 reps per set on the more strength focused days, and then aiming for 9-10 slower reps on the other. I've found this gets better results than doing say 5 reps, but then people will react differently, and maybe some people are more suited to the heavy 5x5s... but it just doesn't work for me... plus there's the extra risk of injury.

I certainly don't think someone starting out should be doing 5 reps with heavy weight sets as there's no way their technique is going to be good enough to avoid injury without dropping the weight enough, which then makes it ineffective.
I always look for 8 to 12 quality reps personally. My goal is hypertrophy, which isn’t the same as getting strong. I mean, it can be, but I’m certainly not aiming for one rep maxes or anything like that. So particularly on legs where the majority of people seem to work up to a big weight for less reps, I go the other way. I get the best results from going for higher reps with a moderately challenging weight (e.g as high as sets of 15-20 squats with good form) because they’re such a big muscle group - and also it has the added benefit of reducing the risk of injury which you allude to.

Whereas I always think that if a person wants to go lower reps for hypertrophy, then they’d actually be more likely to see results with relatively smaller muscle groups like the delts or biceps which exhaust quickly in comparison to the legs or back.
 
I always look for 8 to 12 quality reps personally. My goal is hypertrophy, which isn’t the same as getting strong. I mean, it can be, but I’m certainly not aiming for one rep maxes or anything like that. So particularly on legs where the majority of people seem to work up to a big weight for less reps, I go the other way. I get the best results from going for higher reps with a moderately challenging weight (e.g as high as sets of 15-20 squats with good form) because they’re such a big muscle group - and also it has the added benefit of reducing the risk of injury which you allude to.

Whereas I always think that if a person wants to go lower reps for hypertrophy, then they’d actually be more likely to see results with relatively smaller muscle groups like the delts or biceps which exhaust quickly in comparison to the legs or back.

Interesting what you're say about squats, as that's the one area I've never seemed to settle on a rep range. I've done the sets of 10, then more recently I've done a 6x6 routine, before isolating the muscles... but never tried high reps but I might give it a go.

Do you slow your reps down for your squats when doing high reps? I think I'm maybe too quick on the way up sometimes with the heavier weight. I did try ending sessions a while ago with deep, slow, pause squats which I found worked as a finisher as you can really focus on contracting without momentum, but stopped for no reason other than changing the routine up a bit.
 
Last edited:
I’ve always been a volume trainer personally. It suits my particular body type - and I think that’s something people should look at when choosing a program.

I’ve always worked on the principle that it’s just about lifting and putting down heavy weights lots of times. And then next time doing the same thing but with an even heavier weight and/or doing more repetitions. It also serves the duel purpose of burning a few extra calories because I gain fat pretty easily. So there’s a slight aerobic component to it, too.

I always think that these low volume programs are more suited to a person who is naturally skinny and struggles to put on weight. When I’ve tried them myself through the years I’ve always tended to gain weight but not enough of the good kind. So the equation doesn’t really stack up well enough for my personal liking. Which is why I ultimately always go back to volume. If the OP however, is a naturally skinny person then I’m inclined to agree with your recommendation to do something like you’ve suggested.
I’ve always been a volume trainer personally. It suits my particular body type - and I think that’s something people should look at when choosing a program.

I’ve always worked on the principle that it’s just about lifting and putting down heavy weights lots of times. And then next time doing the same thing but with an even heavier weight and/or doing more repetitions. It also serves the duel purpose of burning a few extra calories because I gain fat pretty easily. So there’s a slight aerobic component to it, too.

I always think that these low volume programs are more suited to a person who is naturally skinny and struggles to put on weight. When I’ve tried them myself through the years I’ve always tended to gain weight but not enough of the good kind. So the equation doesn’t really stack up well enough for my personal liking. Which is why I ultimately always go back to volume. If the OP however, is a naturally skinny person then I’m inclined to agree with your recommendation to do something like you’ve suggested.

So you keep saying. It's still bollocks though no matter how many times you say it. If you're gaining fat while exercising then you're consuming too many calories no matter how you look at it.
 
Interesting what you're say about squats, as that's the one area I've never seemed to settle on a rep range. I've done the sets of 10, then more recently I've done a 6x6 routine, before isolating the muscles... but never tried high reps but I might give it a go.

Do you slow your reps down for your squats when doing high reps? I think I'm maybe too quick on the way up sometimes with the heavier weight. I did try ending sessions a while ago with deep, slow, pause squats which I found worked as a finisher as you can really focus on contracting without momentum, but stopped for no reason other than changing the routine up a bit.
Let me know your results.

It’s the eccentric portion (the ‘downward’ part) of the squat which really counts and where you really feel the contraction of the muscle. As long as that part is steady and controlled, you’re not going to have much to worry about. I like paused squats as you can get a lot of benefit out of them, and again, that’s a way of really working the muscle without going crazy with the weights. I actually haven’t been doing those so much lately as I’ve started using a much narrower stance to maximise the tension on the quads, and adding a 5 second pause feels absolutely brutal.
So you keep saying. It's still bollocks though no matter how many times you say it. If you're gaining fat while exercising then you're consuming too many calories no matter how you look at it.
If you’re looking to build muscle then you’re always going to gain some fat. That comes with the territory. The difference between doing something like 5x5 and the kind of training I prefer is for me night and day.

I’m talking about the difference between looking like I’m completely sedentary and having visible abs while eating the SAME diet. So bollocks? I don’t think so. It simply doesn’t burn enough calories for me, I don’t really enjoy that style of training and I’m too busy to micromanage my nutrition to make that style of training work for me, when I know that I can simply do a style of training I actually enjoy, keep eating the same food intake and still comfortably see the outline of my abs, let alone my feet. Which is my point. Thanks for your input though.
 
Last edited:
If you’re looking to build muscle then you’re always going to gain some fat. That comes with the territory. The difference between doing something like 5x5 and the kind of training I prefer is for me night and day.

I’m talking about the difference between looking like I’m completely sedentary and having visible abs while eating the SAME diet. So bollocks? I don’t think so. It simply doesn’t burn enough calories for me, I don’t really enjoy that style of training and I’m too busy to micromanage my nutrition to make that style of training work for me, when I know that I can simply do a style of training I actually enjoy, keep eating the same food intake and still comfortably see the outline of my abs, let alone my feet. Which is my point. Thanks for your input though.

If you'd bothered to read the OP before you waded in with your broscience nonsense you'd have realised that what he's after is losing fat not gaining more.
 
If you'd bothered to read the OP before you waded in with your broscience nonsense you'd have realised that what he's after is losing fat not gaining more.
So why the fuck are you recommending him a program which is more likely to cause him to gain weight than lose it, then?

Logic is evidently not a strong point for you.
This was my response. Honestly. Your reply is embarrassing.

I always think that these low volume programs are more suited to a person who is naturally skinny and struggles to put on weight. When I’ve tried them myself through the years I’ve always tended to gain weight but not enough of the good kind. So the equation doesn’t really stack up well enough for my personal liking. Which is why I ultimately always go back to volume. If the OP however, is a naturally skinny person then I’m inclined to agree with your recommendation to do something like you’ve suggested.
 
Last edited:
So why the fuck are you recommending him a program which is more likely to cause him to gain weight than lose it, then?

Weight doesn't necessarily mean fat which is why I also said " As has already been said though, fat loss comes from the kitchen. You can't out-train a bad diet."

It's pretty simple really. Stronglifts combined with a calorie deficit will achieve what the OP was asking.
 
I always look for 8 to 12 quality reps personally. My goal is hypertrophy, which isn’t the same as getting strong. I mean, it can be, but I’m certainly not aiming for one rep maxes or anything like that. So particularly on legs where the majority of people seem to work up to a big weight for less reps, I go the other way. I get the best results from going for higher reps with a moderately challenging weight (e.g as high as sets of 15-20 squats with good form) because they’re such a big muscle group - and also it has the added benefit of reducing the risk of injury which you allude to.

Whereas I always think that if a person wants to go lower reps for hypertrophy, then they’d actually be more likely to see results with relatively smaller muscle groups like the delts or biceps which exhaust quickly in comparison to the legs or back.

Interesting what you're say about squats, as that's the one area I've never seemed to settle on a rep range. I've done the sets of 10, then more recently I've done a 6x6 routine, before isolating the muscles... but never tried high reps but I might give it a go.

Do you slow your reps down for your squats when doing high reps? I think I'm maybe too quick on the way up sometimes with the heavier weight. I did try ending sessions a while ago with deep, slow, pause squats which I found worked as a finisher as you can really focus on contracting without momentum, but stopped for no reason other than changing the routine up a bit.
I’m finding 3x12 is giving me the best results I’ve had muscle definition wise in my legs (I can see proper definition for the first time since I was in my 20s and I’m about a stone and a half heavier than back then). I always used to find when I was doing 5x5 that I wasn’t getting low enough and when I was in the weight range to get low enough I could pretty much squat all day.

I’m now doing progression with 3x12 and really seeing the difference. I’m doing a legs/push/pull/hinge routine (all exercises somewhere in the 4x8 to 3x12 range) with light cardio on the 5th session of the week if I manage a 5th visit.
 
Last edited:
Weight doesn't necessarily mean fat which is why I also said " As has already been said though, fat loss comes from the kitchen. You can't out-train a bad diet."

It's pretty simple really. Stronglifts combined with a calorie deficit will achieve what the OP was asking.
I was being nice before, but 5x5 in a calorie deficit won’t help towards achieving significant strength gains which is first and foremost what it’s designed to do, so he wouldn’t be getting the maximum benefit out of the program anyway, add to the fact he’s a newbie anyway and there are far, far better programs to assist fat loss, making your suggestion not just inefficient but pointless, but you do you.
I’m finding 3x12 is giving me the best results I’ve had muscle definition wise in my legs (I can see proper definition for the first time since I was in my 20s and I’m about a stone and a half heavier than back then). I always used to find when I was doing 5x5 that I wasn’t getting low enough and when I was in the low enough range I could pretty much squat all day.

I’m now doing progression with 3x12 and really seeing the difference. I’m doing a legs/push/pull/hinge routine (all exercises somewhere in the 4x8 to 3x12 range) with light cardio on the 5th session of the week if I manage a 5th visit.
The majority of gym goers I see would do well to read this.

Always better to drop the weight and perform the movement correctly. It’s about working the muscles not the ego.
 
Last edited:
The majority of gym goers I see would do well to read this.

Always better to drop the weight and perform the movement correctly. It’s about working the muscles not the ego.

100%. There's a young lad who goes to the same gym as me who's always focused on technique and getting a decent amount of time under tension and his improvements are nuts compared to the ones who are just trying to lift as heavy a weight as possible while sacrificing form. There's one lad who benches for about 5 reps, with 3 of them heavily assisted by his mate, I just don't see the point.

I’m finding 3x12 is giving me the best results I’ve had muscle definition wise in my legs (I can see proper definition for the first time since I was in my 20s and I’m about a stone and a half heavier than back then). I always used to find when I was doing 5x5 that I wasn’t getting low enough and when I was in the weight range to get low enough I could pretty much squat all day.

I’m now doing progression with 3x12 and really seeing the difference. I’m doing a legs/push/pull/hinge routine (all exercises somewhere in the 4x8 to 3x12 range) with light cardio on the 5th session of the week if I manage a 5th visit.

Interesting to hear another suggest higher reps squats, I'm definitely going to give it a try when I finish the plan I'm doing. What kind of speed are you doing them?
 

Back
Top