starting strength gym
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 44

Thread: Into the Great Wide Open: The Texas Method and 5/3/1

  1. #11
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    327

    Default

    • starting strength seminar april 2024
    • starting strength seminar jume 2024
    • starting strength seminar august 2024
    Good article, I enjoyed it.

    I do not contest anything said in the article, but I see here something that I see often in other surroundings, namely, that of a different level of abstraction that one uses causing different interpretations of the "same thing".

    I have come to think of 5/3/1 not really as a program in and of itself, but something a bit more abstract. It is not really "a program" until you actually include the assistance work to it, and in the article you mention this too. The Triumvirate-template uses assistance exercises that are different from the main lifts, and because the article compares this to TM and SSLP, so it has to make the adjustment to the volume. But if you take something like Boring But Big, you will get a *very* different program indeed. (I will refer to this as "BBB")

    If you compare BBB with a 4-day TM, the difference is not very large in terms of total volumes, if you think of the 5/3/1 main lift as "intensity". The difference is mainly in the rate of progression and a fixed rep-range change every week, and a *massively* larger DL volume. The BBB assistance for press is a 5x10 bench and vice versa, and the assistance for DL is a 5x10 Squat and vice versa. So, the rep range is higher and volume is absolutely enormous. In addition, Wendler's BBB has 5x10 Chins on press day, 5x10-20 ab wheel on DL day, 5x10 rows on Bench day and HLRs on squat day.

    But, if you take BBB, cut off a bit of the volume from the other main lift sets except the heaviest, change the assistance and volume rep range to 5x5 and replace DL with cleans as "volume" work, the it starting to look a lot like the 4-day TM.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    10,199

    Default

    The problem with BBB is that there is a lot of volume with actually a huge difference between TM and the BBB template. It is also at a very low intensity so it's not very useful (read: not) for strength because of the low intensity and the huge potential for soreness. Better for hypertrophy...sure, but that's not hard to do. The Wendler version of BBB looks awful for both though.

    Basically, in order to make 5/3/1 "work" a lot of modification has to be done and none of the ones suggested are okay without further modification, which brings me to the point of the article- people need to assess what they're doing in the gym and many do not have the tools to do so objectively for themselves.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jordan Feigenbaum View Post
    The problem with BBB is that there is a lot of volume with actually a huge difference between TM and the BBB template. It is also at a very low intensity so it's not very useful (read: not) for strength because of the low intensity and the huge potential for soreness. Better for hypertrophy...sure, but that's not hard to do. The Wendler version of BBB looks awful for both though.

    Basically, in order to make 5/3/1 "work" a lot of modification has to be done and none of the ones suggested are okay without further modification, which brings me to the point of the article- people need to assess what they're doing in the gym and many do not have the tools to do so objectively for themselves.
    I still feel that empirical evidence I've seen is too strong for the favor of the 5/3/1. Even that it is not "Optimal" in strength training theory (which tells us something about the futility of seeking the optimal").

    The BBB and FSL work are good examples, because in the strength training theory the weights should be too light for strength gains, but in practice this does not seem to be the case. Maybe we should recheck our assumptions about optimal weights for strength training?

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    43

    Default

    PS. to give extra example for this:

    I got my my deadlift from puny 380lbs to 510+lbs in less than a year using 5/3/1 variations (also just the 5/3/1).

    I know several similar examples where people have progressed really well with 5/3/1.


    This shows us two things:

    - "too light" weights can possibly build strength as good as "Optimal weights".

    - Slow progress in the program has nothing to do with the progress it yields in reality.

    These are also things Wendler have said many times.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    327

    Default

    My experience with 531 was also that I got a pretty decent progress from it. It is hard to say definitely what was going on, but I was doing TM after my LP ended at about 330lbs, but I didn't progress to more than 350 because I was too old and got absolutely beaten trying to do it. I took it back a bit and gained another 20lbs doing the 4-day TM until my first failure to increase weekly, after which I tried 531/TM mix similar to what I suggested in my previous comment, gaining yet another 20lbs. So, hard to say. I definitely do not think my experience is any kind of evidence, and a weakling that I am, definitely doesn't say much, but: The volume in 531 seemed, to me, more manageable.

    (Recently after a reset I am back to more vanilla 4 day TM program with higher reps on volume. Simply due to getting bored.)

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    10,199

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cmmm View Post
    I still feel that empirical evidence I've seen is too strong for the favor of the 5/3/1. Even that it is not "Optimal" in strength training theory (which tells us something about the futility of seeking the optimal").
    I disagree in non novice populations to the former and the latter sentiment seems a bit reductionist to me...

    The BBB and FSL work are good examples, because in the strength training theory the weights should be too light for strength gains, but in practice this does not seem to be the case. Maybe we should recheck our assumptions about optimal weights for strength training?
    I think that what you're reporting is easily explainable. You have a novice or previously untrained person do more training and they get better. Kind of obvious what's going on there. Additionally, there are multiple confounders when looking at long term training that need to be addressed besides just saying "BBB and FSL work are good examples", which is why it took me nearly 7000 words to unpack my thoughts on relatively simple programming.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cmmm View Post
    PS. to give extra example for this:

    I got my my deadlift from puny 380lbs to 510+lbs in less than a year using 5/3/1 variations (also just the 5/3/1).

    I know several similar examples where people have progressed really well with 5/3/1.
    This represents a novice progression. It does not suggest 5/3/1 is near optimally effective IMO.



    - "too light" weights can possibly build strength as good as "Optimal weights".
    By definition, this cannot be true.

    - Slow progress in the program has nothing to do with the progress it yields in reality.
    What does this mean?


    Quote Originally Posted by Tiedemies View Post
    My experience with 531 was also that I got a pretty decent progress from it. It is hard to say definitely what was going on, but I was doing TM after my LP ended at about 330lbs, but I didn't progress to more than 350 because I was too old and got absolutely beaten trying to do it. I took it back a bit and gained another 20lbs doing the 4-day TM until my first failure to increase weekly, after which I tried 531/TM mix similar to what I suggested in my previous comment, gaining yet another 20lbs. So, hard to say. I definitely do not think my experience is any kind of evidence, and a weakling that I am, definitely doesn't say much, but: The volume in 531 seemed, to me, more manageable.

    (Recently after a reset I am back to more vanilla 4 day TM program with higher reps on volume. Simply due to getting bored.)
    Yea I actually think the deload you did on 5/3/1 wrt to volume, tonnage, and frequency allowed you to realize previous strength developed on TM tbh.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    43

    Default

    I'm too busy to comment here. I think this discussion came to an end in other thread.

    Only think what interests me: I agree that my progression was nothing spectacular, and could have been achieved in many ways. But if I recall right you were talking about intermediates in the article? If I could get that progression using 5/3/1 and deadlifted only once in 7-10 days, why should I do it more? This way I was also able to build my conditioning and did a lot of running, could devote to my work and to my family without spending hours in the gym.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    327

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jordan Feigenbaum View Post
    Yea I actually think the deload you did on 5/3/1 wrt to volume, tonnage, and frequency allowed you to realize previous strength developed on TM tbh.
    Well, yes/no. I started the 531 with heavier worksets than prescribed by Wendler. He suggested using 80% of 1RM for the working weight, but as I had just been doing 5, then 3 then 1RMs a week before, I actually set the working weight to my actually tested 1RM. The progress was slow, in essence, monthly increases. But I kept breaking mys records as soon as the progression of the program took me there, which was in the second cycle. I didn't cut tonnage or volume that much, because I initially kept the volume day weight as "assistance". The only difference really was that the intensity day weight was following the 531 template; when the weights got heavy I cut the assistance with the idea that if after the "main lift" I was too tired, I would not push too much.

    Perhaps the main argument I am trying to make is that the idea of having one "lift of the day" which you do heavy with no compromise works for most people, and for 40+ intermediates, i.e. people who can make at most weekly progress and who may have trouble recovering from high volume, this idea makes it possible to manage the volume. It makes it possible to track progress steadily, and cut down on work that you don't recover from.

    All in all, I feel that psychologically it is quite a big plus cycling your heavy sets between 5s 3s and 1s. This idea to me seems the most satisfying aspect of 531: it is easier to set records every week without failing. Of course, no program can achieve this indefinitely.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    10,199

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cmmm View Post
    I'm too busy to comment here. I think this discussion came to an end in other thread.
    Look man, it's okay that we disagree. Really. I know that you are not "too busy" to post here, as you have been commenting in the other thread continuously. I am not sure, again, what your specific beef with the article is. Do you disagree with the volume, intensity, frequency, and SRA principles I outlined? If so, why? If not, I think we would agree that you may think I bashed Wendler in my article, which I did not in any way, shape, or form. I took an example of his program that he recommended and showcased why it was inappropriate based on the science and my experience. An interesting aside, who do you think has actually coached more folks, me, Wendler, or Dave Tate? Do you think this experience is useful?

    Only think what interests me: I agree that my progression was nothing spectacular, and could have been achieved in many ways. But if I recall right you were talking about intermediates in the article
    Yes.

    If I could get that progression using 5/3/1 and deadlifted only once in 7-10 days, why should I do it more? This way I was also able to build my conditioning and did a lot of running, could devote to my work and to my family without spending hours in the gym
    If you could make your deadlift progress 3x as fast in a given time period, wouldn't you want to do that? I think this is indepdent of the opportunity cost related to outside the gym activities and conditioning, which I could argue would benefit from the most efficient programming...


    Quote Originally Posted by Tiedemies View Post
    Well, yes/no. I started the 531 with heavier worksets than prescribed by Wendler.
    So, not 5/3/1....

    He suggested using 80% of 1RM for the working weight, but as I had just been doing 5, then 3 then 1RMs a week before, I actually set the working weight to my actually tested 1RM.
    Again, not 5/3/1, right?

    The progress was slow, in essence, monthly increases. But I kept breaking mys records as soon as the progression of the program took me there, which was in the second cycle. I didn't cut tonnage or volume that much, because I initially kept the volume day weight as "assistance". The only difference really was that the intensity day weight was following the 531 template; when the weights got heavy I cut the assistance with the idea that if after the "main lift" I was too tired, I would not push too much.
    So, you modified the program based on your subjective interpretation of your recovery and presumed needs as a lifter, ultimately deviating from any 5/3/1 template or recommendation that's been published and around the 6-8 week mark, you broke some PR's?

    I'm not trying to be obtuse here, I'm blatantly stating that you didn't do 5/3/1 and further that I think if you objectively reflect on your training you will see room for improvement on how the meaningful variables (outlined in the article) can be tweaked to optimize progress within the confines of your training resources.

    Perhaps the main argument I am trying to make is that the idea of having one "lift of the day" which you do heavy with no compromise works for most people, and for 40+ intermediates, i
    I vehemently disagree that this works for non novices or people re-training lost strength.

    people who can make at most weekly progress and who may have trouble recovering from high volume,
    This is another large disagreement I have and an assumption I would not make. Intensity matters here as does what we define as "high" volume. I find that using intensity to drive the boat is a common, yet often critical mistake people make when programming for older folks. I also find that people will inappropriately increase volume too much, vs. intelligently layer it in over time. For instance, going from 3 sets of 5 to 5 sets of 5 or 1 squat session per week at 5 sets of 5 to 2 squat sessions per week with one at 5x5 and one at 3x5. I don't like to move volume by more than ~10% total in older or less trained folks. I think another issue is people get married to rep schemes, eg. 3 sets of 5 or 5 sets of 3 by convention, whereas it is actually possible to do sets of 4 or 6 even....strange I know.


    All in all, I feel that psychologically it is quite a big plus cycling your heavy sets between 5s 3s and 1s. This idea to me seems the most satisfying aspect of 531: it is easier to set records every week without failing. Of course, no program can achieve this indefinitely.
    Again, I think this is something I would nearly absolutely disagree with. Cyclinc 5/3/1 rep ranges seems more like moving the goal posts than getting stronger. I am not sure if any records are being broken really unless someone is breaking an absolute 5, 3, or 1RM. If they had not previously tested it, then I'm sure someone could "make progress" on 5/3/1 for a few months in their brain but not really be doing anything objectively with respect to strength improvement.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    43

    Default

    starting strength coach development program
    Uhh... I was maybe trying to end this conversation with spreads out in too many directions. In here and on the other thread. I actually do not enjoy debating training so much. I might started stuff with the wrong foot, so I'll try to explain myself.

    - I do not think you're bashing Wendler. I trust that you're professional. I think experience is really useful and you might have (or might not, who has the numbers?) coached more people than them, and they're probably been training longer and we're stronger (again, I don't know your stats) than you are yet. Anyway, none of this really matters because I believe you all know your stuff and do a good job as a coach.

    - I don't think you're wrong pointing out the frequency/intensity etc. differences in the article. It is a well made comparison which happens in a vacuum. My criticism was pointed out to the assumption that one can point out optimal dozes of there variables done in real life. You know that 3 times week squatting might be good thing to other trainer, but terrible choice to the other. Or lets take other example - some people are just more efficient using their muscles and do not need as much volume as others.

    - I also think that you should have done more background work with the 5/3/1. I do not mean pointing out every variation, but getting to know the core principles in 5/3/1 and Wendlers thinking. 5/3/1 was not done to be the optimal program for powerlifting intermediates. It was done to be the simplest way to build strength, Jim made it personally for himself at first. Intermediates who uses 5/3/1 do often something much different than "the triumvirate". I have never done that and I have used 5/3/1 3 years. But there is nothing kind of "wrong" in triumvirate either. Is it the most efficient program for the majority of intermediates? Probably not. But training is more than just optimal. PR sets are fun and teach you a lot, I'm also positive that most would progress with it anyway, which is kind of Wendlers point too. Most people are, or should not be, in a rush.


    - 3x? So you claim I would have gotten almost 400lbs to my deadlift under a year? I'll doubt that even Coan had such progress. I'm not sure would I be willing to do this even if I could get such poundages in such a short time, the strain would be too much.

    Anyway, I might have had better progress with something else, but I don't mind. This was good for me, since I was rarely beat up, had
    time for my family, job and thesis while I was getting stronger. I don't really care will I pull 600lbs in 3 or 4 years now.


    One thing I'm astonished that you're not willing to admit people actually progress with 5/3/1. Probably it deviates too much from your thinking. I might repeat myself, but I know individuals who have gotten to 1500/1600 totals with 5/3/1 that is fine enough for me, besides the fact that I'm getting stronger.

    So in short - I think my criticism has very little to do with your article, just trying to point out how I think your standing point is kind of limited.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •