"TEXAS METHOD, not recommended for Inter"

[Andy Baker (KSC)]

Someone sent me the link to this thread and with a note implying that I was somehow under attack here. I don't see that. But anyways.....my abbreviated thoughts......(and this should probably be a video or an article)

Here is how I think about programs when I write about them. They are an abstraction, by and large. If I draw you a picture of a tree that looks kinda like a Lollipop (tall brown trunk, bundle of green leaves at the top) you KNOW that is a tree. Yet there is not one single tree on Earth that looks like that. That is KINDA what happens when you write out a program template that is not specific to any one person or any one group. You have to SHOW the audience very clearly what you are trying to illustrate with the specific program. Often times I may leave out certain elements that I may include in someone's ACTUAL program because if I showed it in the example model it would confuse people and they'd get hung up on something that was besides the point / didn't matter.

After doing this shit online for as many years as I have I KNOW EXACTLY HOW PEOPLE READ THINGS. Especially the SS online crowd that leans towards being detail oriented or even a little OCD at times....they will not see the bigger picture you are trying to illustrate if you nuance things. People tend to get hung up on details that don't matter and don't have good understanding of why they do what they do from a big picture view.

This goes back to something Austin said here in a previous post about Intermediate lifters needing a coaching after SSLP. I tend to agree. Most/many of the people I work with have no experience in the gym outside of their brief run of the SSLP which is pretty much laid out for them step by step. So they read a TM or an HLM program somewhere on the web and do EXACTLY what the program examples says, set for set, rep for rep with blinders on. You can't do that with any program. I think a lot of people do that with the Texas Method and there is less success on the program than there otherwise could be if they more intelligently were guided through the program, particularly on the front end.

I've had lots of success with the TM type programming for my clients over the years on both the 3-day and 4-day versions, although now I would almost always prescribe the 4-day version. Mostly for the reasons that have been stated here......most do better with more volume of pulling and pressing than can be reasonably be done with the standard 3-day model.

[platypus]

They didn't run TM proper- it was heavily modified and coached.

Could you give us a brief description of the modifications the 70s big crew were using?

I'm curious because I remember his Texas method ebook describing basically the same thing as practical programming. I haven't read his advanced Texas method book though; that might explain more.

[Eric Larousse]

well i just sent you a couple of questions and that answers it...thanks as always Coach Andy

[Eric Larousse]

Could you give us a brief description of the modifications the 70s big crew were using?

I'm curious because I remember his Texas method ebook describing basically the same thing as practical programming. I haven't read his advanced Texas method book though; that might explain more.

You need to read the second book. The way he runs it is actually far different than the way that is described in PPST3 and amongst the Coaches here.

[platypus]

You need to read the second book. The way he runs it is actually far different than the way that is described in PPST3 and amongst the Coaches here.

Thanks Eric, will do

[Michael Wolf]

Someone sent me the link to this thread and with a note implying that I was somehow under attack here. I don't see that. But anyways.....my abbreviated thoughts......(and this should probably be a video or an article)

Here is how I think about programs when I write about them. They are an abstraction, by and large. If I draw you a picture of a tree that looks kinda like a Lollipop (tall brown trunk, bundle of green leaves at the top) you KNOW that is a tree. Yet there is not one single tree on Earth that looks like that. That is KINDA what happens when you write out a program template that is not specific to any one person or any one group. You have to SHOW the audience very clearly what you are trying to illustrate with the specific program. Often times I may leave out certain elements that I may include in someone's ACTUAL program because if I showed it in the example model it would confuse people and they'd get hung up on something that was besides the point / didn't matter.

After doing this shit online for as many years as I have I KNOW EXACTLY HOW PEOPLE READ THINGS. Especially the SS online crowd that leans towards being detail oriented or even a little OCD at times....they will not see the bigger picture you are trying to illustrate if you nuance things. People tend to get hung up on details that don't matter and don't have good understanding of why they do what they do from a big picture view.

This goes back to something Austin said here in a previous post about Intermediate lifters needing a coaching after SSLP. I tend to agree. Most/many of the people I work with have no experience in the gym outside of their brief run of the SSLP which is pretty much laid out for them step by step. So they read a TM or an HLM program somewhere on the web and do EXACTLY what the program examples says, set for set, rep for rep with blinders on. You can't do that with any program. I think a lot of people do that with the Texas Method and there is less success on the program than there otherwise could be if they more intelligently were guided through the program, particularly on the front end.

I've had lots of success with the TM type programming for my clients over the years on both the 3-day and 4-day versions, although now I would almost always prescribe the 4-day version. Mostly for the reasons that have been stated here......most do better with more volume of pulling and pressing than can be reasonably be done with the standard 3-day model.

This is a good post, and reminds me yet again of a concept that I see frequently: missing the forest for the trees. You can be extremely smart, dedicated, and detail oriented but if you can't take 5 steps back and analyze things from a big picture perspective, you're going to have a lot of trouble making tweaks to base templates that are intended to convey broad concepts, not be precise prescriptions.

If someone on the 3 day TM plans to rotate a new 3RM, 2RM, 1RM on intensity day while also pulling 2 sets of 5 @75-80% of 5RM on volume day, and doing no power cleans, are they no longer "doing Texas Method" because they've added these deadlifts and aren't doing any olympic lift variations? What about someone who realizes that their body doesn't adapt on a perfect 7 day cycle, so uses the TM concept but does a "heavy but not PR" workout on intensity day one week, while alternating with a PR level effort the next week, so is only setting a PR once every two weeks, but is doing a volume, recovery, and intensity day every week - is that not the TM?

That seems absurd to me. But it seems that's how many people think. It's a broad method of training organization, not a prescription.

[Jordan Feigenbaum]

If you're talking about modifying a program that's defined and suggesting that it requires a higher level of assessment and management, then you're talking about coaching a lifter through a program with substantial deviations from what is published to the masses.

By suggesting that there needs to be a higher level of understanding in order to run a program and that without it, the program does not have high levels of success, that seems to confirm that the base template is inappropriate and does not have adaptability built into the program provided. A TM proper template with the modifications Wolf identifies above would be a more useful TM, perhaps one that can be recommended routinely. That said, it is currently not that and offers minimal adaptability for different cohorts and situations.

Similarly, and as I posited in my article Into the Great Wide Open- what is TM specifically and by extension, what is not? I would argue that TM as currently described would not allow for a 2 week microcycle. Further, I would argue that doing a Volume, Recovery, and Intensity day does not define TM- rather this can be seen in other programming models most decidedly "not" TM, e.g. DUP or HLM setups, though admittedly they call the rose by a different name.

And further to stir the pot, the more broad a training organization the less useful it is without a trained set of eyes. The more narrow the recommendations, perhaps allowing for the heterogeneity of the end user, the more useful. Therefore, I continue to maintain that TM proper is an inappropriate program for optimal results for any cohort I can conjure up. If you get to work with a coach while "running TM", then sure- it can be very powerful, but those recommendations should be distilled into the method that is referred to when people say "TM".

[Dlk93]

So it needs to be made clear what defines a program. Necessary and sufficient conditions if we want to pedantic about it. So then we can say when confronted with a program, "Oh yeah that's TM" or "That's HLM." So what is the essence of TM? (Who wants to write a book on the metaphysics of strength training??)

On the one hand, this seems like a waste of time because we know in a general sense what an intermediate program should and shouldn't look like, so long as someone is doing something like that, he or she will progress. But on the other hand, if we want to optimize progress, we want to zoom in and see what details make for optimal progress.

[marcf]

So then we can say when confronted with a program, "Oh yeah that's TM" or "That's HLM." So what is the essence of TM? (Who wants to write a book on the metaphysics of strength training??)

TM and HLM aren't programs, they're templates. Trust me, it's annoying AF when I hear or read that "it's a template" phrase because each of those templates are often shown in more detail than they should be, so a lot of folks confuse them as complete programs rather than templates. Both TM and HLM could be described as concurrent styles of training, where you have a heavy/intense day, light day, and medium/volume day each week, training neuromuscular efficiency and technique on your heavy day, and building muscle and work capacity on your volume day.

On the one hand, this seems like a waste of time because we know in a general sense what an intermediate program should and shouldn't look like

Do we?

so long as someone is doing something like that, he or she will progress

Lots of the people in my gym just fuck around and train instinctually and are making progress. They're probably not making optimal progress, but they're progressing nonetheless.

[Dlk93]

1) Purely semantical point and a distraction from my point
2) Is SS an intermediate program? Does an intermediate need to periodize in blocks?
3) Nothing to do with my point