All of this is easily google-able. I would safely say that I am a stronger than Tate or Wendler Raw for total with a below parallel squat and I weight >100 and 80lbs less. This (strength) doesn't make the coach, but it's hard to fathom why people think these guys are so impressive. I am not impressed by the above parallel, canvas suit squat done in the IPA with a 700lb DL in a suit (Wendler) or 740 in a suit as a SHW(Tate). For reference, I've pulled 725 in a meet, conventional, at 196 BW at weigh ins. Again, this does not make me a better coach, but it's certainly not an advantage for them.
I also agree that no one has the numbers, but given the amount of people I've coached and the amount of years I've actually been doing it vs their easily accessible histories on the net, I think I have the advantage there than you are yet.
Copy that.Anyway, none of this really matters because I believe you all know your stuff and do a good job as a coach.
What does point out optimal dozes of there variables done in real life mean?- 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.
For the lifter, there's pretty clear evidence that number of exposures with sufficient volume at the appropriate intensity= optimal results. There is data on this. 5/3/1 does not comport with this data on any level until modified into something that is not 5/3/1-esque. Also, I would disagree that the people who don't need as much volume are more efficient with their muscles, but rather there are other things going on, e.g. they are gaining weight, are still novices, are taking drugs, or form improves markedly.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.
Is 5/3/1 not based around the core percentages, volume, and AMRAP sets for the main lifts discussed in the article even though things like FSL and the joker sets exist (but are still unlikely to be optimal)?- 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.
The article was not about programming for a powerlifting intermediate.5/3/1 was not done to be the optimal program for powerlifting intermediates
I find it fascinating that people think Wendler actually did this program, tried it on people, and then published the book. What's more fascinating is that you could argue for monthly progression OR weekly progression in the context of increasing the training max used or estimated 1RM increases via the AMRAP sets. Neither of which seem to be the "simplest way to build strength", which would be to add weight to the bar each session without changing rep ranges or using a training max (see novice LP).It was done to be the simplest way to build strength, Jim made it personally for himself at first
For an intermediate, that won't work obviously, but in no world without the above criteria (e.g. weight gain, still novice, marked form improvement, or drugs) does less volume/tonnage/frequency work to continue progressive overload from the novice stage if running a program like novice LP prior to it.
I think this is a fundamental disagreement here. In my estimation, the supposition that people will "make progress anyway" is emphatically not the case unless meeting one of the aforementioned criteria. There needs to be a change in the variables contributing to training improvement in a way that is known to increase strength in order for strength to increase. Without doing so, you spend years farting around and never getting better unless meeting one of those criteria. I do not think there is evidence of people just casually training for years after completing a no-shit novice LP without increasing progressive overload (by the appropriate means) and getting much stronger, which is why 5/3/1 has a low likelihood of working for folks not meeting the above criteria.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.
You misunderstand. You would've made that progress in much less time, which gets you to the next level of training requiring more complex programming and more time to accumulate training, which you can now initiate vs waiting the extra time it may take (if ever) to get their pulling once every 7-10 days.- 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.
Hey, 600lbs is a good tug regardless of the road to get there. I think the opportunity cost of protracting the training period required to do that is too great for most folks, but hey that's just my own bias.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.
I've legitimately never said that. I am sure people are "doing 5/3/1" and making some progress, especially if fitting into the caveats listed above. That said, I would state that 5/3/1 as published (it's not a set of principles chiseled in stone by Lord Wendler) is not compatible with long term development of strengthOne thing I'm astonished that you're not willing to admit people actually progress with 5/3/1.
If you know of people who have not self modified 5/3/1, who were not novices, who did not gain a bunch of weight (perhaps reverting them to novice-ish status), who did not introduce a lot of gear, and who did not have glaring form issues that got fixed via training exposures or coaching, then I want to know about them. I legitimately know zero competitive powerlifters who use 5/3/1. I grant you, I do not know all powerlifters, but a 1600lb total is stout for the 93kg class and national level for the 83kg class and I do know what those lifters who have those totals in those classes run and it's not 5/3/1 or based upon "principles" of 5/3/1 either.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.
Well, okay. I hadn't considered that.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.