What *has* Westside done for powerlifting?

[jbackos]

But you are not sure why 1x per week is optimal. You are just giving your experience based on your results. How can you determine that it takes you a week/2 weeks to recover squatting and be absolutely sure without scientific evidence? If training was only based on experience alone you may as well tell people to program however they want to program and whatever the results are changes are made or not made. Without being able to give a scientific reason why something works then it is just voo doo. Your MPS spikes, recovery rate, loading parameters are then just a guess as to why it works. I think that is one of the hallmark of some of the Coaches here is they are able to explain clearly why something works.

Right. Those of us who have lifted and COMPETED long enough have enough EXPERIENCE to know what works for US. The rest of the recreational lifters like you can read the "science" and proceed accordingly. We cant let the bosu balls and wobble boards get dusty.

Isn't the formulation of a theory (program) , the testing of that theory (cycle and competition), and the evaluation of the results the basis of the scientific method? Spend more time under the bar and actually compete for some years, then you will have earned the right to evaluate whether a program MAY work for a certian individual. Placing yourself (with your limited experience) in a position to critique Louie Simmon's methods is arrogant at best and ludicrous at worst.

[Tim K]

You have to keep changing the trends or else people catch on. Note the changes around here as examples

RPE used to be a trend in the logs. Then things fell through with Mike behind the scenes? Don't know. But now it's your TRT numbers

Callador 4x4 is another example. Everyone was doing 3x5 an 5x5 at the time, back then it was the sets and reps, so you had to choose different numbers to stand out.

lol Remember back when 5 reps was for strength and 8 reps was for hypertrophy? I bet that will be back at some point, not too soon though. You have to wait for people to forget.

Can't someone ban this asshole already? His post count/history make it clear that he's a duplicate-account troll.

[manveer]

What it is that people go so nuts about frequency nowadays? I mean sure it works, since it has been used by PL and WL population for ages, and there are a lot of evidence behind it. But it is not a necessity for getting stronger? What I mean, that people are going wayyy overboard with this one, and I see guys telling each others that you CAN NOT get strong with 1x week (or lower) frequency. Which is, or course, utter bullshit. Frequency is only a one factor.

"Strong" is relative, so it's kinda hard to argue for/against whether you can get "strong" with 1x/week frequency. It also depends on which lifters you are talking about. If you are a SHW, then sure, you can use 1x/week frequency and make progress (and probably better progress than 3x/week if we use squatting as the example). If you are a 120-lb woman, you probably can't get enough stimulus from, as an example, 1x/week benching to make progress. In that case you could argue that more frequency is necessary to make any progress.

Also, as has been mentioned, if you're on drugs, less frequency is required.

[MBasic]

( . . . .it seems like the general consensus "down here" in that drugs/PEDs are quite the confounding variable.

It's strangely convenient certain people ignore this factor with regards to certain subjects.)

[manveer]

( . . . .it seems like the general consensus "down here" in that drugs/PEDs are quite the confounding variable.

It's strangely convenient certain people ignore this factor with regards to certain subjects.)

Not sure who the "certain people" are... but yeah, it does seem to be ignored. With respect to body composition and programming.

This has been beaten to death, but Westside programming has so many confounding variables if you're talking about applying it to raw, natural lifters:

1) Training gear
2) Drugs
3) "You're not doing Westside unless you train AT Westside. Westside isn't a program, it's Louie Simmons coaching you in person day in and day out."
4) Most/all of the Westside guys have ridiculously good genetics for strength because they only accept people who are already freakishly strong.

Even if Louie is a fucking scientist with meticulous records, there's only so much that will carry over from what he's learned to raw, natural lifters with a more average genetic endowment.

[Les Hahn]

"Strong" is relative, so it's kinda hard to argue for/against whether you can get "strong" with 1x/week frequency. It also depends on which lifters you are talking about. If you are a SHW, then sure, you can use 1x/week frequency and make progress (and probably better progress than 3x/week if we use squatting as the example). If you are a 120-lb woman, you probably can't get enough stimulus from, as an example, 1x/week benching to make progress. In that case you could argue that more frequency is necessary to make any progress.

Also, as has been mentioned, if you're on drugs, less frequency is required.

I agree with this as well. I was just trying to defend my style of training as being valid for certain populations. Tom is doing my programming right now, so maybe he will chime in about it just being random voodoo. :-)

I've trained a few women, ranging from their 20's to 40's. And depending on their backgrounds, I started them on 2x to 3x per week squatting right away. Something that was basically akin to SS with a little more deadlifting. All of them hit 2 plate + squats for 5's and mid 2 plate (one was 275) for 5's on deadlift in a very short period of time. I wouldn't just throw someone on a 1x per week program right out of the gate as a newbie. Because practice is part of the equation. Even a new SHW lifter I would probably have them squat 2x per week.

[manveer]

Right, as a new lifter you are making significant strength gains just from getting the technique down and more frequent exposure is helpful there. Also, you're not strong enough to dig yourself into a recovery hole yet, so squat 3x/week or whatever. My comments were more aimed at experienced (say mid-intermediate and beyond) lifters.

Izzy is probably tired of repeating the same stuff over and over only to be met with bullshit arguments and appeals to authority.

[pstein]

5/3/1 with a lot of volume is vague. And I doubt he got as strong as he is doing 5/3/1.

And sure, if I was already lifting at an elite level while on steroids, I could probably train my lifts once a week.

5/3/1 can be a very effective system for getting people stronger over a long period of time, and of course it's vague. I wouldn't recommend doing what Coan and his cohort did, but the point is it works. Yes, it probably works far better with steroids; natural lifters need more volume than enhanced ones.

That's my main point of contention with steroid use, actually. It's a confounding variable, and not one you can write off as unimportant, as some people like to pretend. You're changing the underlying physiology, so how can you know whether your theory still works for non-enhanced lifters? Sure, the basics of SRA will remain true, but the rest?

For instance, I read Marty Gallagher's book about Ed Coan recently, and he advises training just like him. After all, it worked for the greatest, why would it be any different for people lifting less? But Coan failed three drug tests, one for deca and two for T-to-E ratio in excess of 6:1. Meaning he already had plenty of stimulus for growth in his blood stream, so maybe it wasn't important for him to hit the lifts more than once a week. Then again, maybe that had nothing to do with the drugs, but how do we know?

Steroids complicate the validity of a lot of lifters' advice.

No doubt there. Marty Gallagher is generally an engaging writer, but constantly neglects steroids. Doug Furnas had heart problems that generally aren't seen in 51 year old men when he died, so that speaks as to his own use/abuse. My point was not that western periodization is a great training method, because I don't think it is. My point was that pretty much everything logical can work up to a certain point. However, we should be concerned with what is optimal, rather than simply what works. Ken Leistner wrote a very good article years ago in PL USA about this issue.

On another note, I love how Gallagher tries to get around Coan's failed T/E ratio tests. Either Ed Coan is a total genetic freak in testosterone production (as in above the 5.25/1 99th percentile), or he's using steroids. Coan's explanations for the failed tests are about as feeble as Marty Gallagher's.

[Cmmm]

Right, as a new lifter you are making significant strength gains just from getting the technique down and more frequent exposure is helpful there. Also, you're not strong enough to dig yourself into a recovery hole yet, so squat 3x/week or whatever. My comments were more aimed at experienced (say mid-intermediate and beyond) lifters.

Izzy is probably tired of repeating the same stuff over and over only to be met with bullshit arguments and appeals to authority.

Yeah. The beginners are another story.

And yes. The need for frequency varies. The woman you descripted needs a whole different frequency than a heavyweight elite powerlifter.

But the problem I see is that the high frequency is recommended as a general rule. I personally see it as a very focused peak (you're not most likely using high frequency for all lifts), and there is huge problems if you form is not 100% all the time (problem even among advanced lifters) and your recovery is not spot on. Now, I want to say it once more - I don't have anything against frequency training, just don't see why it is often recommended straight at hand. I would preferably use low/medium frequency for the most part of the year and then (maybe!) increase it if the meet comes closer (if were speaking about PL - otherwise I would not most likely do high frequency training).

PS. and there are many high volume 5/3/1 programs. They resemble very little the OG, but are under same family.

[jbackos]

5/3/1 can be a very effective system for getting people stronger over a long period of time, and of course it's vague. I wouldn't recommend doing what Coan and his cohort did, but the point is it works. Yes, it probably works far better with steroids; natural lifters need more volume than enhanced ones.



No doubt there. Marty Gallagher is generally an engaging writer, but constantly neglects steroids. Doug Furnas had heart problems that generally aren't seen in 51 year old men when he died, so that speaks as to his own use/abuse. My point was not that western periodization is a great training method, because I don't think it is. My point was that pretty much everything logical can work up to a certain point. However, we should be concerned with what is optimal, rather than simply what works. Ken Leistner wrote a very good article years ago in PL USA about this issue.

On another note, I love how Gallagher tries to get around Coan's failed T/E ratio tests. Either Ed Coan is a total genetic freak in testosterone production (as in above the 5.25/1 99th percentile), or he's using steroids. Coan's explanations for the failed tests are about as feeble as Marty Gallagher's.

Coan also mentioned that earlier in his career he used higher volume, but claims that he no longer needed it. As for the test issue who knows. He squatted high 400's and deadlifted 500 at 148 in high school so I think its safe to say he is a freak.

I trained that way for quite a while and found it to work but also found a drop off in strength after the first week of threes which would indicate a lack of volume. The program also requires a huge commitment and lifestyle manipulation to be able to make weights week after week. Lets not forget that Coan lived in his parents basement and had his entire life structured around his lifting - no day job to get in the way. Not to take anything away from him but most of us don't have that lifestyle.