Eh, that might be okay but neither template advocates for that and still frequency is compromised. So, overall- my assessment stands IMO.
I would agree re: Paleo (and have said the same thing) but 4 day TM has no light day. By your own definition, this is no longer TM.Haha yeah... I kind of should've expected that kind of return...
This is an incorrect analysis IMO. Light day disrupts homeostasis during that point of recovery, which is the only way it can do anything.I agree... I've missed most of these points. But my point here was that Light day is not meant as a homeostasis-disrupting "overload event" by itself
No they do not, in my opinion.while this approach leaves out the fact that different workouts (as in TM) have a different type of goal/stress.
Hypertrophy can occur independently of strength increase and vice versa after initial training exposures, though this is complex.Ok that's interesting as well. Though this kind of uncouples the relationship between strength and hypertrophy whereas I always assumed the people around here viewed them as more tied together. But more on the hypertrophy thingy down below.
I'm not sure what you're saying I did not compare wrt strength.The more advanced a lifter .... return stronger the following week on VD because of overcompensation. Of course the focus here is on strength and you've argued above that this is not what happens from an hypertrophy standpoint, but this should still be a consideration if we're comparing strength programs.
I disagree. SRA applies to all, so not sure what your argument is.Sure but SSLP is still in there being compared to TM and 531... all 3 of them have different concepts on how they apply the stress and manage adaptation and recovery.
That's an interesting point, but since I disagree with the utility of 5/3/1 as an advanced program (laughable IMO), it would be an even worse analysis for 5/3/1 in that regard. Weekly tonnage and volume need to increase (in general) from SSLP or similar when moving up the ranks as a lifter, which is why I compared it to TM and 5/3/1 in this way.My point was just that in SSLP each workout is indeed an overload even...
Since all 3 programs have such different approaches, multiple "stages" with different stressors and generally different stress/recovery/adaptation cycles I'm not sure it makes them comparable from a (bi-)weekly accumulated volume, tonnage etc. point of view.
Please explain how one can have only sarcoplasmic or only myofibrillar hypertrophy. Again, I was very precise in my explanation there. If I had more space to write I could've gone on for pages there.PP differs between myofibrillar and sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. I think your article defines "hypertrophy" solely as sarcoplasmic, which certainly then is described correctly in your article as how to increase.
In the absence of volume, hypertrophy will not really occur to a great degree. ID on TM, for instance, is unlikely to produce any significant increase in hypertrophy despite the loading, especially when compared to a 5x5, 6x4, 8x3, etc.But it seems to completely ignore the myofibrillar side of hypertrophy which in PP is described as being mainly acquired by low rep, high intensity work because an increase in muscle fiber size is obviously going to increase strength production, which is the correct adaptation to low rep, high intensity work.
This is not accurate.Increased sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is indeed mainly the response to volume work, since volume requires muscle endurance and that's what is provided by the adaptation of larger glycogen stores etc.
At 30% 1RM, sure. But what about 70%? This is not so black and white- we have to be careful here.Ok sure, mainly sarcoplasmic hypertrophy.... think the most effective way to go about hypertrophy is to first have a good strength base (myofibrillar gainzZz) and then proceed to add high volume sarcoplasmic hypertrophy work just as described in PP as well. But this is a whole different discussion in and on itself.
Which is a mistake + changing the goal posts....trend of intermediate programs usually going down in volume and up in intensity. But of course there's potential to analyze this more intensely.
No, intensity always means % of 1RM.Ok so I've grouped these answers together. So basically you meant "weight on the bar" anyway which was what I thought you might have meant with "intensity", not necessarily % of 1RM.
The beauty of using a fixed intensity is that the desired stress of the workout can be modulated by volume. The beauty of using a fixed volume is that the desires stress of the workout can be modulated by intensity. But yes, the above works- though admittedly for more trained lifters. It's just a different type of progressive overload.
Your assumption that strength relies primarily on intensity is incorrect.My objection here specifically was to volume being significant for strength while intensity is "only" moderate to significant. From my standpoint strength relies primarily on intensity (i.e. heavy low rep work) and secondarily on volume. But this is just being picky as of course you've said yourself "Volume at the appropriate intensity...".
You cannot get better at something by doing it less (unless overreached) and with less specificity. Not sure how that makes sense. You get better at recovering from deadlifts the more you deadlift, per the Repeated Bout Effect. You get better at recovering from training the more you train, also. The absolute weight on the bar matters little. The relative weight on the bar and volume matter more.Oh ok. Could you elaborate on this if you have any time left? The argument in PP is that DLs get more and more taxing and hard to recover from the more weight the lifter has on the bar. I'd be interested in your view.
What is stock HLM?That's an interesting program I'll have to look into, thank you! But to be fair in the TM (which of course could be argued is not stock anymore then, but so is this .... Basically:
ID and lack of intensity specification are the main drawbacks here.Day 1- VD:
Squat 5x5
BP 5x5
Rack Pull
Day 2- Light Day:
Light Squats (whatever scheme, could be the same Tempo Squats as above I suppose)
Press 3x5
Rows
DB Bench
Day3- ID:
Squat 5RM
Bench 5RM
DL
And basically nothing major other than no power clean and the swap of the assistance exercises has changed.
So, I thanked Jordan earlier in this thread for this write up. The reason being is that I have heard/read him say several times that he doesn't like 531, but never expand upon that sentiment in an in depth manner. He has done so now and I appreciate that.
But see, I am on my 40th cycle of 531. I just pulled 620 last week as part of my programming and will squat 510 for 3 singles as part of my programming today or tomorrow. These aren't one rep maxes, they are just part of my programming.
Yes, I have made numerous changes to the volume I run based on my progression. I have never done AMRAP, I do sets across for squats, and implemented 7s, 5s, and 3s for deadlifts. Then made adjustments over time as needed. The tweaks I have made have been based on my reading in these forums and PPST.
I am a Special Ed teacher, I make $44k a year. I can't afford a coach or custom programming, so I figure it out. (That is not a whine, just a reality given my budget. When having to make the choice between paying for my kids braces or coaching, the kid wins).
I am 42 years old. I expect (hope) to be squatting 600 and pulling 700 in a little over a year as part of my programming. I am happy with adding 50-60 pounds to my lifts in a year. Is it optimal? Fuck if I know. Does it work for me? Yeah. But I am just a guy that trains 3 days a week, loves his wife and kids, goes to work and mows his lawn. I am pretty damn mediocre.
I often wonder what people who train alone, like myself, find themselves doing when a set turns into a complete bitch somewhere in the middle and they actually lose count of whether that last rep was rep 4 or rep 5? I tend to give myself the 5 on all but the last sets where I'll grind out another for good measure, if I can, but I wonder overall both what others do, and more importantly, of how much consequence it is.
Reading this article and thread make me realize how important it is to review volume/intensity/frequency when programming for intermediates and manipulate variables to make the program work for each individual. Templates are a starting point. They are not graven in stone. Finding out what works best for each lifter is critical.
Or I can just do what some book says and not think. That way it won't be my fault when it doesn't work.
To be fair:
Wendler promotes Starting Strength (e.g., here: https://jimwendler.com/blogs/jimwend...d-get-stronger )
And Jordan a) praises Baker in his article, and b) is in business with Baker and Rippetoe.
And a pretty good analogy of how medicine works in the Resuscitation bay at 2am. In a shit-show fire-fight like that, the science is far from useless...but not the be-all and end-all. Judgement, experience, and science together can be a beautiful thang. So it can be done.