Into the Great Wide Open: The Texas Method and 5/3/1

[tbranson]

Hi Jordan,
Thanks for the article. I've been doing SSLP for about two and a half months now and having just moved into my sporting (volleyball) season I'm training/playing 3 x 2 hours of volleyball a week and am struggling to recover adequately between my SS workouts. What are your views on changing to an intermediate program like the upper/lower split in PP which also works in well with my volleyball training schedule slightly before my LP would've otherwise lasted till to reduce the stress on an athlete during the season?

[Jordan Feigenbaum]

- I do not think you're bashing Wendler. I trust that you're professional. I think experience is really useful and you might have (or might not, who has the numbers?) coached more people than them, and they're probably been training longer and we're stronger (again, I don't know your stats)

All of this is easily google-able. I would safely say that I am a stronger than Tate or Wendler Raw for total with a below parallel squat and I weight >100 and 80lbs less. This (strength) doesn't make the coach, but it's hard to fathom why people think these guys are so impressive. I am not impressed by the above parallel, canvas suit squat done in the IPA with a 700lb DL in a suit (Wendler) or 740 in a suit as a SHW(Tate). For reference, I've pulled 725 in a meet, conventional, at 196 BW at weigh ins. Again, this does not make me a better coach, but it's certainly not an advantage for them.

I also agree that no one has the numbers, but given the amount of people I've coached and the amount of years I've actually been doing it vs their easily accessible histories on the net, I think I have the advantage there than you are yet.

Anyway, none of this really matters because I believe you all know your stuff and do a good job as a coach.

Copy that.

- I don't think you're wrong pointing out the frequency/intensity etc. differences in the article. It is a well made comparison which happens in a vacuum. My criticism was pointed out to the assumption that one can point out optimal dozes of there variables done in real life.

What does point out optimal dozes of there variables done in real life mean?

You know that 3 times week squatting might be good thing to other trainer, but terrible choice to the other. Or lets take other example - some people are just more efficient using their muscles and do not need as much volume as others.

For the lifter, there's pretty clear evidence that number of exposures with sufficient volume at the appropriate intensity= optimal results. There is data on this. 5/3/1 does not comport with this data on any level until modified into something that is not 5/3/1-esque. Also, I would disagree that the people who don't need as much volume are more efficient with their muscles, but rather there are other things going on, e.g. they are gaining weight, are still novices, are taking drugs, or form improves markedly.

- I also think that you should have done more background work with the 5/3/1. I do not mean pointing out every variation, but getting to know the core principles in 5/3/1 and Wendlers thinking.

Is 5/3/1 not based around the core percentages, volume, and AMRAP sets for the main lifts discussed in the article even though things like FSL and the joker sets exist (but are still unlikely to be optimal)?

5/3/1 was not done to be the optimal program for powerlifting intermediates

The article was not about programming for a powerlifting intermediate.

It was done to be the simplest way to build strength, Jim made it personally for himself at first

I find it fascinating that people think Wendler actually did this program, tried it on people, and then published the book. What's more fascinating is that you could argue for monthly progression OR weekly progression in the context of increasing the training max used or estimated 1RM increases via the AMRAP sets. Neither of which seem to be the "simplest way to build strength", which would be to add weight to the bar each session without changing rep ranges or using a training max (see novice LP).

For an intermediate, that won't work obviously, but in no world without the above criteria (e.g. weight gain, still novice, marked form improvement, or drugs) does less volume/tonnage/frequency work to continue progressive overload from the novice stage if running a program like novice LP prior to it.

Intermediates who uses 5/3/1 do often something much different than "the triumvirate". I have never done that and I have used 5/3/1 3 years. But there is nothing kind of "wrong" in triumvirate either. Is it the most efficient program for the majority of intermediates? Probably not. But training is more than just optimal. PR sets are fun and teach you a lot, I'm also positive that most would progress with it anyway, which is kind of Wendlers point too. Most people are, or should not be, in a rush.

I think this is a fundamental disagreement here. In my estimation, the supposition that people will "make progress anyway" is emphatically not the case unless meeting one of the aforementioned criteria. There needs to be a change in the variables contributing to training improvement in a way that is known to increase strength in order for strength to increase. Without doing so, you spend years farting around and never getting better unless meeting one of those criteria. I do not think there is evidence of people just casually training for years after completing a no-shit novice LP without increasing progressive overload (by the appropriate means) and getting much stronger, which is why 5/3/1 has a low likelihood of working for folks not meeting the above criteria.

- 3x? So you claim I would have gotten almost 400lbs to my deadlift under a year? I'll doubt that even Coan had such progress. I'm not sure would I be willing to do this even if I could get such poundages in such a short time, the strain would be too much.

You misunderstand. You would've made that progress in much less time, which gets you to the next level of training requiring more complex programming and more time to accumulate training, which you can now initiate vs waiting the extra time it may take (if ever) to get their pulling once every 7-10 days.

Anyway, I might have had better progress with something else, but I don't mind. This was good for me, since I was rarely beat up, had
time for my family, job and thesis while I was getting stronger. I don't really care will I pull 600lbs in 3 or 4 years now.

Hey, 600lbs is a good tug regardless of the road to get there. I think the opportunity cost of protracting the training period required to do that is too great for most folks, but hey that's just my own bias.

One thing I'm astonished that you're not willing to admit people actually progress with 5/3/1.

I've legitimately never said that. I am sure people are "doing 5/3/1" and making some progress, especially if fitting into the caveats listed above. That said, I would state that 5/3/1 as published (it's not a set of principles chiseled in stone by Lord Wendler) is not compatible with long term development of strength

Probably it deviates too much from your thinking. I might repeat myself, but I know individuals who have gotten to 1500/1600 totals with 5/3/1 that is fine enough for me, besides the fact that I'm getting stronger.

If you know of people who have not self modified 5/3/1, who were not novices, who did not gain a bunch of weight (perhaps reverting them to novice-ish status), who did not introduce a lot of gear, and who did not have glaring form issues that got fixed via training exposures or coaching, then I want to know about them. I legitimately know zero competitive powerlifters who use 5/3/1. I grant you, I do not know all powerlifters, but a 1600lb total is stout for the 93kg class and national level for the 83kg class and I do know what those lifters who have those totals in those classes run and it's not 5/3/1 or based upon "principles" of 5/3/1 either.

So in short - I think my criticism has very little to do with your article, just trying to point out how I think your standing point is kind of limited.

Well, okay. I hadn't considered that.

[Cmmm]

- I'm pretty sure Wendler has pulled close to 700lbs, benched 500 and squatted at least 700lbs all raw. He has also strict pressed 300lbs, if I recall right. But like you said, all of this dick measuring does not really matter.

- Now can really define optimal amounts of these variaties to individual lifter. Too much things affecting to progress outside the program (goals, backround, stress, leverages etc..). This is why I believe "the optimal" can only be achieved by well done coaching. Wendler himself coach the football kids with something completely different than basic 5/3/1. Therefore I believe that if people use a program and it yields results it is good enough. (no matter do the results come from hypertrophy, form improvement etc. -> can you really separate these from the program done in real life?)

- I also want to clarify that Wendler himself have said that he did not invent these things out of nowhere, and does not present 5/3/1 as the ultimate method out there. Some fanboys might, but fanboys are fanboys. Internet heroes are as much as guilty promoting the SS as the only true method out there. Lets not care about these idiots.

Wendler has himself also said that 5/3/1 original is not "optimal", and that he has developed the method a lot after that. PR sets are not always there, there is also more periadisatio and balance and every aspect (main work, supplemental work, assistance work, conditioning, recovery - also volume, frequency, intensity etc.) are put to parameters which can be used effectively with each others. Maybe it would be a worth noting too, that 5/3/1 is not mainly for powerlifting stuff, at least anymore. It is often geared towards more general athleticism, but can be also used as max. strength program. Here are some standards which might clear things up: From Average to Athlete | T Nation

- About powerlifting: There are literally hundreds of examples, probably not in the top league, but people there should not be compared to regular guys. I know some people who have had success with 5/3/1 in powerlifting, I can give information to you, but wont put stuff here public, since they don't necessarily want that. I've also seen lot of really inspiring writeouts by people who have used 5/3/1 in powerlifting/max effort training. Not all of them can be validated of course. Here is just one example: 5/3/1 and 40 / Elite FTS


And just because, I quoted Wendler here from 3 different sources. Hope these clears things a bit. I know we're far from the original article, but I really think you misinterpret the 5/3/1, or look it from a totally different angle than me, and I just want to make you aware of why many people use 5/3/1.

"Now, I'll be the first to admit that shooting for PR's and pushing sets isn't always the most optimal way to train. But maybe we spend too much time trying to find the optimal way to train when we should be embracing the right kind of training.

The "right" way to train largely depends on who you are and what drives you to be better. For me, this is goal-oriented training. And that's what this and all the 5/3/1 challenges are about." - 5/3/1 Beach Body Challenge from Tnation.

"This book is a good example of how training evolves when one always seeks to be a student of your passion. Even now, the training continues to evolve with athletes I coach; nothing remains stagnant and I'm always looking to learn and evolve to help others."

---

"The final step of recovery is what I hope to accomplish with this book: having a plan. My goal is to put you in the best position, month after month, for success. I see too many people trying to run Boring But Big, First Set Last, PR sets, Joker sets, a ridiculous amount of assistance work and then push the Prowler – all done four days/week. This may work for you, but only for a short time. A smart way to program for the long term is to mix/match each different portion of your training. A smart approach does not make you less hardcore.

This doesn’t mean you’ll always make huge gains every week. This means you’ll have a system of principles that allow you to make progress over a long period of time."

- Excerpt from "Forever" can be found in Jims blog

[Cmmm]

PS. some pretty known names who have used 5/3/1 are:

-Vincent Dizenzo (has benched 600lbs raw, I'm not sure did he used 5/3/1 then).

- Matt Rhodes (you should know him).

- Ric Rabourn (has done some WRs in his age and weight class, used almost exlusively original 5/3/1).

There are more names I can come up if needed.

[crookedfinger]

This is another large disagreement I have and an assumption I would not make. Intensity matters here as does what we define as "high" volume. I find that using intensity to drive the boat is a common, yet often critical mistake people make when programming for older folks. I also find that people will inappropriately increase volume too much, vs. intelligently layer it in over time. For instance, going from 3 sets of 5 to 5 sets of 5 or 1 squat session per week at 5 sets of 5 to 2 squat sessions per week with one at 5x5 and one at 3x5. I don't like to move volume by more than ~10% total in older or less trained folks.

Jordan, I am curious about this statement and would love to hear you expand more upon it. I have never run a bare bones version of 531. I have always just sort of tweaked volume and used the percentages and rep schemes as a guide for training structure. Squatting twice a week--1 lightish day with 5x5 and a work set day. So, yes, a very bastardized and self-customized version of 531. That said, I have found as I move into my 40's that balancing volume is becoming more and more of a challenge and at the same time, more and more integral to being able to progress. If you have the time and/or interest in expanding on your thoughts about volume with regards to folks that are starting to get long in the tooth, I would gratefully read and ponder it. As I am sure others would.

Appreciate what you do here.

[Cmmm]

P.P.S Just checked. Wendler personally has done 1760 raw total with 5/3/1.

[Tim K]

Neither of which seem to be the "simplest way to build strength", which would be to add weight to the bar each session without changing rep ranges or using a training max (see novice LP).

For an intermediate, that won't work obviously, but in no world without the above criteria (e.g. weight gain, still novice, marked form improvement, or drugs) does less volume/tonnage/frequency work to continue progressive overload from the novice stage if running a program like novice LP prior to it.

In context of this statement, what are your thoughts about the "Running it out" and rotating rep ranges for TM intensity day or the Heavy day of an HLM routine? The deload in total volume is supposed to dissipate fatigue while the intensity keeps moving up from week to week in lower rep ranges. Do you think this strategy is flawed, or needs to be supplemented with backoff sets to keep the volume/tonnage up?

[Jordan Feigenbaum]

- I'm pretty sure Wendler...(Just checked. Wendler personally has done 1760 raw total with 5/3/1.

My best total is 1795 @ 196, raw. I also highly doubt Wendler uses any version of 5/3/1 that does not revolve around other measures to regular volume and intensity. This is how advanced programming works and is not explicitly described 'how-to-do it" in the publications, because that's not how 5/3/1 is ran.

- Now can really define optimal amounts of these variaties to individual lifter. Too much things affecting to progress outside the program (goals, backround, stress, leverages etc..).

I disagree, but I think if you consider the variables in isolation then you cannot pre determine the optimal amount of them. Rather, we (or I) look at the entire amount of fatigue placed upon the lifter and what the goal stressors should be in general. There is no space for this in 5/3/1, which uses discrete loading parameters and explicit parameters for volume.

This is why I believe "the optimal" can only be achieved by well done coaching. Wendler himself coach the football kids with something completely different than basic 5/3/1.

Do you think it's possible to look at this interesting situation in a different way, perhaps?

Therefore I believe that if people use a program and it yields results it is good enough. (no matter do the results come from hypertrophy, form improvement etc. -> can you really separate these from the program done in real life?)

Yes, you can objectively evaluate hypertrophy, strength, power, and performance. Form you can only evaluate indirectly really and is context dependent, but I wouldn't be agree with "if it works, it's good enough."

Wendler has himself also said that 5/3/1 original is not "optimal", and that he has developed the method a lot after that. PR sets are not always there, there is also more periadisatio and balance and every aspect (main work, supplemental work, assistance work, conditioning, recovery - also volume, frequency, intensity etc.) are put to parameters which can be used effectively with each others.

I believe that he said this, but I do not think he understands these things very well based on what he's published so far. The reasons why are incorporated into the article and unless the main lifts are programmed significantly different than the article I published here, then I would continue to make that statement, as it confirms a lack of understanding. Doesn't mean he's a bad guy, just means the programming is lacking.

Maybe it would be a worth noting too, that 5/3/1 is not mainly for powerlifting stuff, at least anymore. It is often geared towards more general athleticism, but can be also used as max. strength program. Here are some standards which might clear things up:

How would a program that does not optimally develop strength and conditioning from an efficiency standpoint be a good option for developing strength and conditioning for sport when efficiency is paramount to success?

And just because, I quoted Wendler here from 3 different sources. Hope these clears things a bit. I know we're far from the original article, but I really think you misinterpret the 5/3/1, or look it from a totally different angle than me, and I just want to make you aware of why many people use 5/3/1.

See that's the thing, Cmmm- I don't think I'm misunderstanding 5/3/1- rather I'm defining it as presented rather than saying it's a bunch of squishy principles that would have some meaning if the method actually fulfilled those principles better than other options out there without heavy customization.

"Now, I'll be the first to admit that shooting for PR's and pushing sets isn't always the most optimal way to train. But maybe we spend too much time trying to find the optimal way to train when we should be embracing the right kind of training.

The "right" way to train largely depends on who you are and what drives you to be better. For me, this is goal-oriented training. And that's what this and all the 5/3/1 challenges are about." - 5/3/1 Beach Body Challenge from Tnation.

To me, this is quotable bullshit that people repost on the Internet that does not actually mean anything. Seriously, like what does it actually mean.

"This book is a good example of how training evolves when one always seeks to be a student of your passion. Even now, the training continues to evolve with athletes I coach; nothing remains stagnant and I'm always looking to learn and evolve to help others."

...I'm not sure how this statement, which is at odds with the truth as represented by the programming, helps clear up what 5/3/1 "is" or, more specifically, how I'm misunderstanding it.

"The final step of recovery is what I hope to accomplish with this book: having a plan. My goal is to put you in the best position, month after month, for success. I see too many people trying to run Boring But Big, First Set Last, PR sets, Joker sets, a ridiculous amount of assistance work and then push the Prowler – all done four days/week. This may work for you, but only for a short time. A smart way to program for the long term is to mix/match each different portion of your training. A smart approach does not make you less hardcore.

This doesn’t mean you’ll always make huge gains every week. This means you’ll have a system of principles that allow you to make progress over a long period of time."

I really can't, man. It's just too much histrionic bullshit without any content.

PS. some pretty known names who have used 5/3/1 are:

-Vincent Dizenzo (has benched 600lbs raw, I'm not sure did he used 5/3/1 then).

- Matt Rhodes (you should know him).

- Ric Rabourn (has done some WRs in his age and weight class, used almost exlusively original 5/3/1).

There are more names I can come up if needed.

Ah, 3 people who have run (and published) heavily modified "5/3/1" who are examples of how "5/3/1" works, when modified by an individual who is equipped to do so. Excellent.

Jordan, I am curious about this statement and would love to hear you expand more upon it. I have never run a bare bones version of 531. I have always just sort of tweaked volume and used the percentages and rep schemes as a guide for training structure. Squatting twice a week--1 lightish day with 5x5 and a work set day. So, yes, a very bastardized and self-customized version of 531. That said, I have found as I move into my 40's that balancing volume is becoming more and more of a challenge and at the same time, more and more integral to being able to progress. If you have the time and/or interest in expanding on your thoughts about volume with regards to folks that are starting to get long in the tooth, I would gratefully read and ponder it. As I am sure others would.

Appreciate what you do here.

Yea, it's another article I'm working on ATM, so it's coming.

In context of this statement, what are your thoughts about the "Running it out" and rotating rep ranges for TM intensity day or the Heavy day of an HLM routine? The deload in total volume is supposed to dissipate fatigue while the intensity keeps moving up from week to week in lower rep ranges. Do you think this strategy is flawed, or needs to be supplemented with backoff sets to keep the volume/tonnage up?

I don't think that's a good idea for long term development unless implemented into a sort of block periodization setup. I think it's more changing the goal posts than actually developing strength, e.g. "testing vs. building".

[Cmmm]

Ah, 3 people who have run (and published) heavily modified "5/3/1" who are examples of how "5/3/1" works, when modified by an individual who is equipped to do so. Excellent.

No they have not. Where did you get this information? They did all run 5/3/1. Rhodes 5x5/3/1 does not really deviate far away from the original 5/3/1. Rabourn used only Wendler made variations, all basically the 5/3/1. Vincent used different assistance with original 5/3/1 (and Wendler has ALWAYS said you can use whatever assistance you feel it is important).

I can give you more and more examples in private if you really don't believe that there are hundeds, if not thousands, of people (other than novices) who progress with 5/3/1 and its variations. You can just check how popular it is among athletes (football, etc.), I'm sure the coaches would not use it year after year if it would have proven to be obsolete.

Now, lets stop this here. I'm not actually qualified enough to speak about other elite athletes method to a other elite athlete (we should also decide that do we discuss only the original 5/3/1, or about the Wendlers content more generally). Lets put it this way:

- Wendler did over 2300lbs geared total, which is quite amazing. No matter the union or gear.

- Then he stopped powerlifting, started using 5/3/1 and put out quite amazing PRs (includind 300lbs ohp).

- He also half-assed 1760 total raw (unpeaked, with 5/3/1 - no big modifications, while losing weight, doing a lot of conditioning work etc.). You can check out that he did only 1 attempt at bench and 2 attempts at squat and dl. All his lifts were fast and easy.

- Many of lifters have gotten much much stronger/bigger/more conditioned with Wendlers programs.

- Wendler and his programs are commonly accepted among elite lifters/pros.

Now we can use the Occams razor here:

- The guy actually knows his shit. His programs, specially the 5/3/1 may not be optimal, but it yields results. And it is quite safe call for a lifter to follows his advice.

- He is a scam and has this conspiracy going on with many other top level lifters/coaches (including Mark?). They have gotten strong with esoteric lifting methods and lie to people by selling ineffective programs.

What I'm trying to say, that you might have a point in strength training theory perspective. But I honestly think you'r claims are a bit bold and misleading at times.

Now I've gotta work. Good training to you.

[wk105]

Great article. Really enjoyed it and learnt a lot!

'For hypertrophy, volume is the nearly the sole determinant of a workout causing a resulting increase in muscle protein synthesis. This is limited by the body’s ability to respond to volume greater than that which maximizes muscle protein synthesis, however. Thus, volume must be managed appropriately.'

That got me thinking. If I do 2 chins or so between every set of every exercise over the whole week (I'm doing RTS-style programming, so this might work out at 100 chins a week or so), this would be a pretty efficient way to get some more arm and back hypertrophy, right?

Even though the RPE for each set would be really low, the total reps at each workout would still elevate muscle protein synthesis because the threshold for MPS 'does not always have to be met with significant loading...If the lifter is exposed to enough volume, loading, and range of motion to accumulate enough stress to qualify as an “overload event,” this exposure produces an increase in muscle protein synthesis rates.'