Jordan Feigenbaum MD SSC: The Texas Method and 5/3/1.

[Jordan Feigenbaum]

https://forums.t-nation.com/t/where-...h-5-3-1/218012

Thank you. Matt Jones please post your disagreement.

[shib]

Thank you. Matt Jones please post your disagreement.

Justin that post is almost an entire year old. You could have written a better critique of you followed Jim's posts on the board.

Come on man.

[greywar]

Thank you. Matt Jones please post your disagreement.

His disagreement will be that it wasn't a watermarked video of JW holding yesterday's newspaper saying that he liked the template.

[Jonathon Sullivan]

What's "good data"? If analyzing program structure in the absence of "good data" is "putting the cart before the horse", we're in an impossible position & kinda fucked. How do we make any programming decision for advanced athletes?

I never said we shouldn't analyze program structure, or think about programs. But Jordan's presentation concludes that 5/3/1 is "one of the worst programs out there." I don't think his model demonstrates this, and based on experience, many people--myself included--would beg to differ. Other people will agree withe Jordan. If we actually knew that 5/3/1 was a poor program--that it really did not work most of the time, then Jordan's analysis would go a long way toward telling us why. But we don't know that 5/3/1 is a poor program, and Jordan's analysis doesn't prove that it is. It seems to work really well for some people and not for others. And as I have made clear, if we had a better idea, based on data, who those people were and what they were like, Jordan's approach would give us a better way to evaluate why it worked for some and not for others. This would be immensely valuable and I think Jordan's work is a terrific first step towards an analytical model that could prove to be very profitable indeed.

What we have here is a situation exactly analagous to having an excellent putative mathematical approach to a particular phenomenon, but we still don't have a complete picture of what the actual phenomenon is really like, in the field, and the available observations appear to be anecdotal and in conflict (some say TM gud, some say TM evil, or whatever). If we actually knew whether it was this or that, we could apply Jordan's approach--which, to repeat, I think is really amazing--and get a better idea of why, or at least a better idea of whether Jordan's model could tell us why.

I'll treat your contention seriously, and observe that, quite obviously, none of this obviates our ability to make programming decisions. People make decisions with little or no data all the time. As coaches, we work in a field with very little dispositive data, so we work with what we have--field experience and judgement. But there isn't just one approach to training intermediate or advanced athletes, is there? So given two comparable but distinct approaches, X and Y, which one is "better?" Some will argue for X, dude, I've had great results with it. Others will say, yo, I think X sucks, I've never seen it work well. So who's "right?" We don't know. But it's clear we have a variety of approaches to choose from that have worked at least some of the time, and varying degrees of experience with those approaches, and we can start with a program that we're familiar with and go from there. I'm not paralyzed by a lack of knowledge, or my very annoying skepticism. I'm just willing to acknowledge it and move forward, and it is that very skepticism that helps me judge the results critically and make changes when I have to.

[Aaron Montgomery]

For the best tl;dr visit Question and Answer Podcast-Part 1 of 4 - YouTube and go to the 40 minute mark. "Stop 5/3/1, Forever".

[Jonathon Sullivan]

I suppose I could've mined the logs of all the failed TM and 5-3-1 attempts based on improvements in objective metrics like 1RM, meet performance, etc., but that simply was not what I wanted to write about to make the argument.

I totally get that, Jordan, and I want to emphasize, again, for the Annoyed Crowed, that I think this article was a beautifully executed and potentially important contribution--I haven't seen anything like this level of analysis. I'm just saying that it might tell us, in depth, why a program's bad, or at least function as a robust hypothesis-generator...not that a program is bad. To say that any reasonable subject program is bad, you have to carefully observe the results of that program in a reproducible way. And this is in no way an insurmountable objective, except in the Exercise Physiology community, for whom it is clearly impossible.

I think this is a very good point, though I would counter if we're going to hold that practicioner experience that "5/3/1 and TM do work" in great esteem, then we cannot deny that RPE programs do work either.

I agree completely (except for the "great esteem" part, either pro or con). That, in fact, is the entire problem I'm trying to point out, and that problem is not your fault. It just is.

Similarly, I would be very surprised to hear that folks who coach lifters for money or who train and are no longer novices have not regularly adjusted the workload based on subjective feedback.

Of course, jsut as physicians and pilots and businessmen use their judgement, all the time. But I remain unconvinced, for example, that certain clinical decision rules perform better than my judgement. I have to concede that they might. But I haven't been presented with clear evidence that they might not. All serious endeavours are confronted, at some degree or another, with the problem of operating even though the relevant data is in equipoise.

I think we definitely need more study, of course. Finally, do we value practicioner experience equally? Hard to answer that one for sure.

Almost impossible. For example, if we have a multicenter trial, how do we know that physician judgement or intensity of treatment was the same across study institutions? We don't. But if we put that aside, I think if we had a well-conducted, well-powered study that took a bunch of advanced, well-matched subjects and ran them through this program or that, and showed that results were uniformly <good/bad>, the approach you have outlined here would be an excellent way to begin to understand and analyze the findings. And such a study is entirely feasible. Instead, we can probably just look forward to more creatine studies and papers about how you can get just as strong with light weights as with heavy ones. Maybe you should write a grant.

[Brian Harlin]

Justin that post is almost an entire year old. You could have written a better critique of you followed Jim's posts on the board.

Come on man.

I have never run 5/3/1 or TM. However I have read Beyond 5/3/1 and PP. it's weird to me that there is the backlash against Jordan for the 5/3/1 analysis specifically. Both are templates with multiple variations. People are pissed that Jordan is somehow attacking Wendler but I don't see the same level of concern for Rippetoe or Baker.

[John Hanley]

Hanley, what's the real problem here?

I'm going to re-answer: at present the science sucks.

[Bryan Dobson]

Jordan did an excellent job of putting quantified analysis of these programs training stimulus. He also spelled out what makes good training stimulus. From his analytical view there are weaknesses to them. It doesn't mean that you can't plug in Numbers on 531 or a Texas method calculator and not be successful. But you could be less than successful too.
I do agree that the early intermediate does not have the knowledge or experience to understand why their training is going off the rails. A little professional guidance at this stage can save a lot of wasted time and effort and that is the just of what I got from this artice.
Not really anything to get upset �� about. Any boiler plate program can be critiqued in a similar fashion. If you match the intended demographic you are lucky, most likely you do not.

[dpinsen]

Not really. How? The core of the program - virtually all templates - is to use a training max that is already 90% of 1RM (or even 85%) and then work mostly at 70-90% of that. I.e. the intensity is low.

At first, yes, but you add 5lbs to your training max for upper body and 10lbs to your training max for lower body every month. And, invariably, your training max drifts up to the point where it's your actual max or higher (at which point you need to reset). So I'm not sure I'd agree that the intensity of 5/3/1 is low. I would agree that you end up with fewer intense sets in 5/3/1 than you do in TM.