[quote]goochadamg wrote:
[quote]JFG wrote:
[quote]jskrabac wrote:
How is this not 5/3/1? lol
I often wonder what it means when a program that uses 5/3/1 “isn’t 5/3/1.” Because it doesn’t exactly align with one of JW’s suggested templates? JW added those templates precisely for the people who need everything written out. If you’re doing 5/3/1 progression model on your main movements everyday, you’re doing 5/3/1. Choose the accessory work that best suits your goals. Period. There’s literally nothing wrong with what you wrote up. Try it and see how you respond. [/quote]
I do not disagree with “how is this not 5/3/1”.
Having said that, have you ever tried doing 5x5 at 80% after giving it your all at 5/3/1. That (IMO) is combining two programs in one. Again, IMO, this is a classic case of doing too many things at once. 5/3/1 and accessory or 5x5 (whatever template) and accessory would be more then enough to get where he wants to go.
On a side note, OP’s name is offensive.
[/quote]
It’s 80% of training max. If he’s calculating training max as recommended, e.g. 90% of ‘true’ max, that’s actually only 70%. That’s not a lot. I also don’t see it as being too much; the 5x5 lifts serve as a heavy compound accessory. You know, a compound accessory like close grip bench, or front squat, that you might do at 70% of 1RM for 3x8. Wait a minute… that’s 24 reps at 70%!
And if it is hard: good. When is lifting weights supposed to be easy? [/quote]
But if the assistance work has that much volume based on percentages of TM there’s no way to autoregulate the program. What happens when he starts missing reps on assistance lifts? You should rarely miss reps on the main lifts let alone the assistance work
Don’t get me wrong these look like good workouts. But if he plateaus after 3-4 cycles it is not a good program and it is not what 5/3/1 is supposed to be