Weekend archives: Andy Baker -- 5 Ways to 5 x 5

[Mark Rippetoe]

5 Ways to 5 x 5 | Andy Baker

[Scaldrew]

Invaluable asset to anyone's training repertoire. I put a guy on descending sets just for compliance. They won't eat and they won't spend more than an hour in the gym? Get them to leave you alone by putting them on the volume train and check back in 3 months to see if they still care to keep paying their gym dues. You can't tell them to go fuck themselves when they're in your group of friends. Well, you can, but that would make it weird for a while.

Descending 5x5 is what I'd do anyway if I wasn't out of my mind in running the Texas Method. In your experience, have people been more successful completing their VD on ascending or descending 5x5? The HLM model of working up to a top heavy set after 4 sets of volume seems counterintuitive to me, but I know better than to write off Starr's coaching experience and yours in including the template in Practical Programming.

[Andy Baker (KSC)]

Descending sets better as you can cluster a higher workload around the top end, but ascending sets are sometimes more practical to implement and it shortens the workout quite a bit.

[Scaldrew]

Thanks, Coach. I honestly hadn't considered the time spent training. I can see what you mean by more practical. Someone who's using, say, 225 as a top heavy set won't be as stressed as someone working with 315 as a top heavy volume set, so simply turning warmups into 5-rep sets is easier than warming up to a top heavy set of 225 and then taking weight back off. Unless I'm just talking bullshit, in which case do correct me.

What about when you fail your 5x5 on the bench and, instead of adding weight, you redo the same weight, but pause the last rep on every set? I've done this twice now and it seems to be working alright; I haven't failed my ID bench in doing this and it leaves the weight lowered for next week. I don't see it working for press and can see it failing on squat because of the heavier weights and the fact that a paused rep on the squat is going to be more difficult than a paused rep on bench. Your thoughts, as always, would be appreciated.

[Alchemist]

Andy,

In the last scheme, you show this:

Week 1 405 x 5 405 x 5 405 x 4 405 x 4 405 x 3
Week 2 410 x 5 410 x 5 405 x 5 405 x 4 405 x 4

In set 4 of the week 2, why didn't the reps at 405 go from 4 to 5? Was the goal 5 but not reached?

[Andy Baker (KSC)]

Yes. I was trying to illustrate a purely hypothetical example of what might happen.

That table is NOT a prescription. Good Lord.

[Mark Rippetoe]

It is almost as if people don't understand this. I wonder why.

[Alchemist]

Yes. I was trying to illustrate a purely hypothetical example of what might happen.

That table is NOT a prescription. Good Lord.

Good lord is right. I was not taking it as a prescription. I got that it was hypothetical. Hell, you said it directly above the example. Nor was I trying to find a flaw. I was just making sure I understood it. Cool?

But my question holds. Hypothetically, if I were in the gym, am I correct in understanding since the previous week for set 4 was 405x4 I would be trying for 405x5 but since it is what 'might happen' it is a record of of what the lifter did, not attempted. Basically, this represented a missed rep. Yes?

[Giri Kotte]

Yes. I was trying to illustrate a purely hypothetical example of what might happen.

That table is NOT a prescription. Good Lord.

Meaning, one can mix and match so that the individual would experience the physical stress in the ball park of what a 5 x 5 would produce, to drive the 1~5RM up?

It is almost as if people don't understand this. I wonder why.

For the same reason why cults/organised religions were popular throughout human history. We rather have a template that could be followed blind, requiring no use of thought or commonsense