My guess is if Rip thought 5x5 was better for the novice program he would have designed it that way. 5x5 seems suited more towards the advanced novice or intermediate.
My guess is if Rip thought 5x5 was better for the novice program he would have designed it that way. 5x5 seems suited more towards the advanced novice or intermediate.
If Rip, based on his extensive training and experience, thought 5 X 5 would be better, wouldn't he have written the program that way?
These questions have been coming up a whole hell of a lot lately, and the thing is, none of these questions (or fewer of them) would come up if everyone would just read the books (especially Practical Programming, which discusses programming, the whats, whys, whens, wheres and the hows of it, very thoroughly). Right now, a lot of the posters here are expecting the rest of us, who've spent the time reading, understanding and putting into practice the things written about in the books, to spoon feed them the answers, when you should go to the trouble of digging them out yourselves.
-Stacey
dude- i read ss 2nd ed and pp 1st ed. i understand ye are from the church of Rip almighty. but what i am asking why did ppl like reg park bill pearl value 5x5. i know the 3x5 is rip's pov and experience. im trying to think out of the box a little.
You have to look at the volume of both and the effect on the tonage of the workout. Novice can grow on 3x5 and 5x5, however the question is, how long can each be sustained?
I am guessing that the extra volume might have been more advantageous for bodybuilders. Also, I presume that training methods for the above named individuals represent programming for elite competitors at the peak of their status.but what i am asking why did ppl like reg park bill pearl value 5x5
Many 5x5 programs aren't sets across. They're ramped.
With the warmups, SS pretty much emulates this.