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

[Tim K]

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".

But if you rotate back to 5's and you are able to use a higher weight then you're getting stronger, no?

[Jordan Feigenbaum]

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.'

Eh, I think the volume per exposure (training session) is important too, so hard to say if that low level of volume per workout will drive this.

But if you rotate back to 5's and you are able to use a higher weight then you're getting stronger, no?

Not necessarily. It may have just been a prolonged SRA cycle or you may have just changed the goal posts and not realized your previously developed strength until you went back to it.

[Tim K]

Not necessarily. It may have just been a prolonged SRA cycle or you may have just changed the goal posts and not realized your previously developed strength until you went back to it.

You mentioned block periodization before... isn't that basically the same thing you're describing here? Maybe this should be your next article.

[strengthcycle]

Jordan, after looking at the program you posted the link to in the article, your intermediate template, it seems that instead of cycling rep ranges for intensity day you believe its better to stay at a certain rep range while using RPE to set the weights each week, to build strength over the long term as opposed to "displaying" that strength with say sets of 3, 2, 5 singles, etc? Do you believe that keeping that rep range constant helps remove variables so that its easier to see your actual progress as opposed to "changing the goal posts" on a weekly basis?
Personally i agree with your assessment of 531. Taking into account the 10% drop from your actual 1rm the intensity level of the program is severely low. In addition to a lack of frequency. Despite having done TM for a long time and enjoyed it and loved the results id have to agree that without a full understanding of the whole method and how to tweak it over time it seems quite brutal for many people. Especially if its been taken off the Internet in the absence of the explanations provided in "practical programming for strength training" excellent book btw.

[Tiedemies]

So, not 5/3/1....
Again, not 5/3/1, right?

I think you are a bit harsh in this interpretation, but let us say that no, it was not textbook 5/3/1, in this sense. I did two successful singles of 350lbs at the end of my previous program cycle, and instead of using 80% of that as my 531-starting point work weight, I used 350 as the workweight, and started from there. I used an app on the phone and used my own "custom" assistance template.

But other than that, from then on, I followed the 531 progression, i.e., four times a week, and the weights prescribed by the program.

So, you modified the program based on your subjective interpretation of your recovery and presumed needs as a lifter, ultimately deviating from any 5/3/1 template or recommendation that's been published and around the 6-8 week mark, you broke some PR's?

I'm not trying to be obtuse here, I'm blatantly stating that you didn't do 5/3/1 and further that I think if you objectively reflect on your training you will see room for improvement on how the meaningful variables (outlined in the article) can be tweaked to optimize progress within the confines of your training resources.

This, I agree with fully. It can be further optimized, but I don't believe that the room for optimization is quite as significant *in terms of the meaningful variables as outlined in the article* as you seem to imply. But I believe you know way more about this than I do. I am not arguing against what you say, but you seem to represent my slight modification as more significant than it is. Wendlers original argument for using 80% instead of 100% of your 1RM was solid for people who have been stuck (for example) and who have an inflated view of what they can do. And whereas it may well be so that his theory is wrong, I don't think you are taking into account the volume effect of the last AMRAP set in the way you make the argument. (It may be that you do take it into account, but I don't see it in the article, or in this commentary; this may well be a shortcoming of my perception rather than your argumentation)

Again, I think this is something I would nearly absolutely disagree with. Cyclinc 5/3/1 rep ranges seems more like moving the goal posts than getting stronger. I am not sure if any records are being broken really unless someone is breaking an absolute 5, 3, or 1RM. If they had not previously tested it, then I'm sure someone could "make progress" on 5/3/1 for a few months in their brain but not really be doing anything objectively with respect to strength improvement.

I don't understand your argument here at all. Perhaps you misunderstood my point, and this may be again a shortcoming of what I said, because I did not say it as it should have been said. Because of the AMRAP set at the end, what often happened was I would set a 5RM on the "3" week or on the "1" week. And the AMRAP set would very often give me a new "record", though not necessary on some predetermined number of reps.

I'll give an example on deadlifts. (Luckily, I kept book). On July 22nd I did two singles on 350, this was the last week before starting 531. On weeks that followed, my heavy worksets on DL were (5)8x275, (3)8x285, (1)6x295, (5)5x290, (3)3x310, (1)3x330 (PR for 3RM), (5)5x305 (5RM), (3)5x320 (PR for 5RM), (1)2x340, etc. So from week 6 onwards I broke records on these rep ranges. I don't think this was happening "in my brain", because I have kept record and when doing other programs.

I don't think that you meant to say that the ability to do 5 reps on a weight with which you could previously only do 3 or 2 doesn't mean you are gaining strength.

Having said that, I think I am convinced about the main argument, i.e., that 531 is not a very good program. Thanks.

[BBB]

- 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.

Dude, the guy weights 300lbs and cycles vitamins. Not taking anything away from Wendlers numbers, but clearly Jordan's are better; and at a lighter weight class/more strict organization, etc. In other words: Jordan's is longer without a pump

There are so many more impressive lifters than Wendler. Why do you guys treat him like some god?

Despite having done TM for a long time and enjoyed it and loved the results id have to agree that without a full understanding of the whole method and how to tweak it over time it seems quite brutal for many people. Especially if its been taken off the Internet in the absence of the explanations provided in "practical programming for strength training" excellent book btw.

I think that's a great and often overlooked point. I did take my TM from the T-Nation article, but modified it immediately as I wasn't into weightlifting and have been tweaking it as well.

In re-reading the article, I noticed that Jordan was very specific in his conclusion and even suggested people try a modified TM. I just wish it were as obvious from the outset that we're talking about the program as written, followed to the letter. Many times TM and 5/3/1 are heavily modified, especially as the lifter learns what works for them, etc. This is also obvious in reading the responses in this thread.

[Cmmm]

Dude, the guy weights 300lbs and cycles vitamins. Not taking anything away from Wendlers numbers, but clearly Jordan's are better; and at a lighter weight class/more strict organization, etc. In other words: Jordan's is longer without a pump

There are so many more impressive lifters than Wendler. Why do you guys treat him like some god?

This happens all over the place. Wendler is not only one who is hyped around a bit too much. People seem to need heroes.

I don't see reason to bash him either. He was elite level lifter and has been successful coach, which are good traits to me. No matter what people think about the original 5/3/1 (which is just a small part of Wendlers programming).

[strengthcycle]

If anyone has read "practical programming for strength training 3rd edition" it is very clear that the Texas Method is a method and not a program. There is no program "as written". As written the texas method has almost infinite room and requirements for modification. These modifications are done as a response to the lifter 's progress and recovery. For those without the book it may be helpful to go to Jordan's own site barbellmedicine.com and read the article called "10 ways to skin the texas method."

[strengthcycle]

Another point here that people seem to be missing is that the starting strength method was also mentioned in this article and Jordan has said many times that he likes that method very much for beginners. He points out that if a novice has done that program first as he recommends then a switch to a system with vastly lower intensity, volume and frequency as 5/3/1 then the results will be very poor. Furthermore the definition of intermediate seems to be forgotten in this discussion. An intermediate is a person who can still make weekly increases in performance as opposed to getting better each workout, like a novice or needing multiple weeks of volume to see an improvement as is the case with an advanced lifter. Using a rigid scale based on percentages seems inappropriate here since if you're doing things right (at this stage of training) then you're getting stronger every week so those percentages would be decreasing weekly until you stopped gaining strength and then the reduced percentages will not be enough to drive improvement and you plateau or regress. None of this seems simpler to me then TM or a heavy, light, medium plan. At the heart of all of this it seems that most defenders of 531 are simply looking for an easier plan and are making excuses why they're ok with less then optimal results.

[Cmmm]

Another point here that people seem to be missing is that the starting strength method was also mentioned in this article and Jordan has said many times that he likes that method very much for beginners. He points out that if a novice has done that program first as he recommends then a switch to a system with vastly lower intensity, volume and frequency as 5/3/1 then the results will be very poor. Furthermore the definition of intermediate seems to be forgotten in this discussion. An intermediate is a person who can still make weekly increases in performance as opposed to getting better each workout, like a novice or needing multiple weeks of volume to see an improvement as is the case with an advanced lifter. Using a rigid scale based on percentages seems inappropriate here since if you're doing things right (at this stage of training) then you're getting stronger every week so those percentages would be decreasing weekly until you stopped gaining strength and then the reduced percentages will not be enough to drive improvement and you plateau or regress. None of this seems simpler to me then TM or a heavy, light, medium plan. At the heart of all of this it seems that most defenders of 531 are simply looking for an easier plan and are making excuses why they're ok with less then optimal results.

Well, the 5/3/1 is method as well. You can change any variables in it just taking ready stuff made by Wendler. He also engourages lifters to do their own decisions withing parametres.

I dont claim Jordans article was wrong, even that the triumvirate and TM was odd pair to compare ( there would have been intermediate fullbody templates in 5/3/1 too). But many people here do not really know 5/3/1 ehen they critizise it.