If I did those three days a week, all three in every work out, but just alternated the order…my thinking is that if I did a short time, say 6 weeks, I could add on quite a bit of strength, which is the ultimate goal. Is this completely hairbrained, or a decent idea?[/quote]
I’d like to say it’s completely hairbrained, but only because you don’t often get a chance to say ‘hairbrained’ nowadays.
In the long term, such a minimal format is setting you up for serious muscle imbalances. (Deadlifts are a great exercise, but they’re not an actual substitute for bent arm rowing.)
In the short term, and I think 6-weeks is just barely “short term” , it could serve as a plateau buster/boredom-breaker.
There was another thread not too long ago with many different points of view:
However, Charles Staley did recommend a similar type of program in his article:
12 Tips From A Beginner (At Heart)
[quote]7) Confused About What To Do? Try “The 3-5 Method.”
This method has been around forever, but has recently been popularized by Pavel Tsatsouline in his book Power To The People. Understanding The 3-5 Method couldn’t be simpler: it calls for 3-5 workouts a week where you perform between 3-5 sets of between 3-5 reps per set, using 3-5 exercises per workout, resting 3-5 minutes between sets.
Now there are many, many different ways to train, and some of them involve parameters that fall outside of these recommendations, but that being said, it’s pretty hard for anyone to screw up using these guidelines. They’ve worked for countless bodybuilders and strength athletes for several decades, so don’t tell me they won’t work for you, because they will.[/quote]