Jordan Feigenbaum MD SSC: The Texas Method and 5/3/1.

[Barry Charles]

Agreed, except I'm unconvinced it's as useful for even advanced lifters as people think it is. It very well may be, and people swear by it. I get it. But I'm skeptical.

But since I'm not an advanced lifter, and never will be, and don't coach any, I'm sure my skepticism will be regarded with skepticism.

Especially in light of all the well controlled, well powered, peer-reviewed, carefully obtained experimental data in appropriate subjects showing that RPE programming is clearly superior to well matched non-RPE programming.

Not at all. This scientist appreciates skepticism.

Have you considered the analogy to your patients or clients telling you how much something hurts? This would be a tough experiment to do as well.

[John Hanley]

But since I'm not an advanced lifter, and never will be, and don't coach any, I'm sure my skepticism will be regarded with skepticism.

No. But, I do find your snark annoying and condescending.

If you've got approaches to advanced programming that meet the standards detailed in the third sentence of your post above, please share. Please.

[DirtyRed]

When I did the TM, I deadlifted on volume day and preferred them that way. However, I am a better deadlifter than I am a squatter. I hit PRs on both the squats and deads during that time.

I guess this makes sense. I seem to be freakishly good at squatting relative to my ability to deadlift (though programming might also be a factor in my lagging deadlift). When one squats 80 lbs more than they deadlift, the tonnage of volume squats would leave them beat to hell afterwards.

Also, a recurring theme with some of the respondents that deadlifted heavy on Intensity Day with reasonable success is the presence of things like "wives" and "real jobs that don't involve asking 'would you like a drink with that'" and other lame bullshit that distracts from spending an hour and a half just on volume squats, leading them to adjust the 5x5 to something less miserable.

Agreed, except I'm unconvinced it's as useful for even advanced lifters as people think it is. It very well may be, and people swear by it. I get it. But I'm skeptical.

Its obviously subjective nature would make it less than ideal for third party coaching. If you asked a sissy little girl, DirtyRed, and a Navy SEAL what an RPE of 8 was, you'd get drastically different answers. As such, writing a program template with "RPE 8" sets or the like probably wouldn't work except by dumb luck.

"Advanced" or "elite" type powerlifters themselves have been at it long enough that they have a decent idea of what "RPE" they need in order to progress. They are also likely talented enough that the minutia aren't super important.

[Matt Jones]

I had to join to comment on this article. I would have liked some research to have been done on 5/3/1 before doing this and not just go by an article from 2009. You're ignoring every other template and everything that has come out since. It doesn't make sense to review 5/3/1 while not considering recent programming, and by recent, I mean the past few years. A lot of your criticisms only apply to the template you picked,

It makes me question your integrity and why you have done this article. Is it to give an honest review and to help people? Were you just being lazy? Or is it because he has a new book out today and you thought this was a good way to get attention?

I haven't done 5/3/1 and never intend to. I don't care if you give it a bad review but I expect better than this.

[RussB]

Jordan, I'm interested in the decision to use the triumvirate as the basis for this analysis, if you get a minute to explain.

Wouldn't the addition of joker sets, boring but big assistance, and using the schedule that puts squat assistance on deadlift day, with deadlift assistance on squat day, substantially change the results of your analysis? I've already heard criticism of your article because the triumvirate is not recommended any longer.

Personally, I think there are things to like and plenty to criticize about 5/3/1 even with those additions. It just seems the relevance of the analysis would have been greater if a more widely recommended template was chosen instead of the original.

[Jonathon Sullivan]

No. But, I do find your snark annoying and condescending.

If you've got approaches to advanced programming that meet the standards detailed in the third sentence of your post above, please share. Please.

I don't. Do you?

Not at all. This scientist appreciates skepticism.

Have you considered the analogy to your patients or clients telling you how much something hurts? This would be a tough experiment to do as well.

Oh, yes, I have considered it, and I think I talked about this analogy in one of our science reviews. FWIW, I'm pretty unconvinced by VAS for pain, too.

I'll freely admit that research on matters like this would be challenging. I get it. Science is supposed to be hard.

Its obviously subjective nature would make it less than ideal for third party coaching. If you asked a sissy little girl, DirtyRed, and a Navy SEAL what an RPE of 8 was, you'd get drastically different answers. As such, writing a program template with "RPE 8" sets or the like probably wouldn't work except by dumb luck.

"Advanced" or "elite" type powerlifters themselves have been at it long enough that they have a decent idea of what "RPE" they need in order to progress. They are also likely talented enough that the minutia aren't super important.

Agree with all of this, including the perfectly placed scare quotes.

[Mark Rippetoe]

It makes me question your integrity and why you have done this article. Is it to give an honest review and to help people? Were you just being lazy? Or is it because he has a new book out today and you thought this was a good way to get attention?

It's obviously for the money. We pay pretty well, and after all, he is Jewish.

Kind of a shitty first post, Matthew. I've had the article for about 6 weeks.

[Aslin]

Jordan I see you recommend a 4 day upper/lower split in place of the Texas Method or 5/3/1. I have looked at the programs in Practical Programming and I'm wondering what you would put an advanced intermediate trainee on?

"Advanced" or "elite" type powerlifters themselves have been at it long enough that they have a decent idea of what "RPE" they need in order to progress. They are also likely talented enough that the minutia aren't super important.

Exactly. There comes a time when you know intrinsically what to do and how the body will adapt. The first time I heard of RPE was reading Jordan's website the other day. My first thought is that it is a nice way to give the more inexperienced lifter an idea of the nuances of recovery. I feel most successful advanced lifters do this automatically by leaving out sets when they feel burnt out.

[kanahan]

I had to join to comment on this article. I would have liked some research to have been done on 5/3/1 before doing this and not just go by an article from 2009. You're ignoring every other template and everything that has come out since. It doesn't make sense to review 5/3/1 while not considering recent programming, and by recent, I mean the past few years. A lot of your criticisms only apply to the template you picked,

It makes me question your integrity and why you have done this article. Is it to give an honest review and to help people? Were you just being lazy? Or is it because he has a new book out today and you thought this was a good way to get attention?

I haven't done 5/3/1 and never intend to. I don't care if you give it a bad review but I expect better than this.

He's right Jordan, why didn't you make an exhaustive study of every single possible variant of TM, HLM and 5/3/1? I'm sure you could have fit that little work between your lifting, coaching, and residency. Just lazy IMO.

[cph]

Its obviously subjective nature would make it less than ideal for third party coaching. If you asked a sissy little girl, DirtyRed, and a Navy SEAL what an RPE of 8 was, you'd get drastically different answers. As such, writing a program template with "RPE 8" sets or the like probably wouldn't work except by dumb luck.

Really? Anyone who's trained to failure a handful of times should have a pretty good idea of how realistic it is to go for another rep. (And anyone who DTP gets experience failing reps.) At the very least, a late novice/early intermediate should be able to tell: "that was a grind, I'm definitely going to miss the next rep," "that was a grind, but I might be able to get another rep," "I could definitely get another rep, maybe 2," and "I can get 2 or more reps for sure."

I have no judgment on the efficacy of RPE-based programming because I've never tried it, but as far as I understand it, the RPE scale applies numbers to those judgments above as a shorthand.