Is My Program Legit?

[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%! :wink:

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

If it works for 4 months it’s not a good program?

Before E-books, there were no programs that lasted longer than 16 weeks. When monthly magazines were “it” for training info, programs were all like 4 weeks long.

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:

[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%! :wink:

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[/quote]

What do you mean there’s no way to autoregulate? Just lower the weight if it’s too much. There’s nothing stopping him from doing that. It’s the same with any program.

And really. 5x5 at ~70% is too much? I’m surprised this is even being discussed. 70% is like a 12RM! Will it eventually become too much? Of course it will. Just like the top sets will eventually be too heavy. You reset the weight when that happens.

Meh. I don’t even like 5/3/1, so when you say “it is not what 5/3/1 is supposed to be” it’s not an argument in your favor. My thought is, “Good.” Heh.

Aside from how trivial the arguments in this thread seem to be…

Does anybody actually believe the OP just ‘accidentally left off the g?’ That’s like 100% impossible, lol. He was gonna be grape69 instead?

Anyway, I’ve always been under the impression that lifting heavy weights with intensity and consistency is the best way to get bigger and stronger. I feel like some of you guys would shit a brick if you saw how erratic my training looks on paper.

I think it has something to do with Carl, the human genius, from Workaholics.

Good point about getting stronger in the gym, not with calculators and spreadsheets.

[quote]goochadamg wrote:

[quote]dagill2 wrote:

[quote]goochadamg wrote:

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:

[quote]goochadamg wrote:
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%.[/quote]

Meathead Arithmetic.
[/quote]

Blame Wendler. People should just do my version. It’s called “10/6/3”. With this version, you don’t use a training max set at 90% of your true max. :wink: [/quote]

He’s saying that 80% of your TM is not 70% of your 1RM, even if your TM was exactly 90% of your 1RM (which after the first cycle, it probably won’t be)[/quote]

Ugh. Ok. It’s 72%. Same difference. [/quote]

NO. We have already established that Jim is a genius strength coach. It will make a huuuge difference…

[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]

I’m not a 5/3/1 cult follower like a lot of people, but do you have to ‘give it your all’ on the 5/3/1 sets? I thought you could kind of save some, just hit the minimum, go to failure, pretty much vary that depending on the day or your goals?

JW also has a 5x5 BBB variation, so it’s not like 5/3/1 and 5x5 are incompatible, when the cult’s deity specifically recommended it.

If you think a few chins ups and rows after that will kill this kid, well, idk what to tell you. That minimalist volume/intensity strategy of acting like the human body is so fragile is what’s given me shit progress for awhile, and it’s only when I’ve actually used some volume (like most high level PLers or BBers do) did I start making any progress.

[quote]Spidey22 wrote:

I’m not a 5/3/1 cult follower like a lot of people, but do you have to ‘give it your all’ on the 5/3/1 sets? I thought you could kind of save some, just hit the minimum, go to failure, pretty much vary that depending on the day or your goals?

[/quote]

It’s not a requirement that you give it your all, or even give it 50%. It’s also not a requirement that you make progress. If you regularly ‘just hit the minimum’, your results will reflect this.

I think most beginners are well served by learning to attack the weight room with the greatest intensity possible, as often as possible, as this is most often the quality that beginner lifters, and shitty lifters, lack. Introducing the notion of backing off early in one’s weightlifting career is often detrimental. You rarely hear of anyone working too hard to reach their goals. my programming was dumb as hell when I started, but I still made more progress than the people around me. I attribute this to simply showing up more at the gym, paying more attention to what I ate, and working harder. It’s not rocket surgery, ya know.

a rape 69 sounds like the worst afternoon ever. Get off me! Get that out my mouth! Blargh!

I don’t know why this argument even started.

“Boring But Big, 5x5 Variation
This is a different variation of Boring But Big that uses 5 sets of 5 reps, rather than the standard 5x10. The 5 sets of 5 reps are done with 80% of your training max.”

It’s a variation directly from Beyond 5/3/1. Whoever said about it being too much accessory work should read Jim’s book before replying about a 5/3/1 program.

Straight out of the book!?

Incredible!!

No wonder everyone who is strong says “stay out of the fourums!”

[quote]PhiKappaGuy wrote:
I don’t know why this argument even started.

“Boring But Big, 5x5 Variation
This is a different variation of Boring But Big that uses 5 sets of 5 reps, rather than the standard 5x10. The 5 sets of 5 reps are done with 80% of your training max.”[/quote]
You also didn’t read the whole program. There is a reason why he starts with 5x10, deload, then 5x5. Heck he also has 5x3 and 5x1. Again, both templates are progressions. For a reason.

Again (IMO), the OP should choose 5/3/1 OR 5x5. He is not reading the template properly (like you did), he has the mind set of “More is better” or just wants to do, what he wants to do. Too many people start their own programs without thinking of the big picture.

At the end of the day, he can do what he wants. It was mentioned here that all he needs to do is show up, give his all in the gym and mind his diet. Pretty sure that after 3 months, he will know if it is a good program for him or not.

And really? Grape is a vegetable?

[quote]Yogi wrote:
a rape 69 sounds like the worst afternoon ever. Get off me! Get that out my mouth! Blargh![/quote]

Depends really…

[quote]PhiKappaGuy wrote:
I don’t know why this argument even started.

“Boring But Big, 5x5 Variation
This is a different variation of Boring But Big that uses 5 sets of 5 reps, rather than the standard 5x10. The 5 sets of 5 reps are done with 80% of your training max.”

It’s a variation directly from Beyond 5/3/1. Whoever said about it being too much accessory work should read Jim’s book before replying about a 5/3/1 program.[/quote]

There’s a reason the Bporing but Big variations have ONLY the main lifts as assistance work.

5x5 at 80% TM of the main lift sounds great. But then 3 sets of weighted dips, pullups followed by bw sets to failure, twice a week, then the extra assistance work on squat and DL days, it seems like a bit much.

I’m really not the type to say that a program is too hard. I’m just saying he’ll stall after only a few cycles. 12-16 weeks. Or he won’t do the program with the percentages and volume he’s written. So why write a program that you’re only going to scale down in practice? And he’ll gain relatively little because the prgression of the 5/3/1 sets is soooooo slow. If he wants better gains in 12-16 weeks focusing on bench and squat, that’s not what 5/3/1 is for, run sheiko 29-32 or something

[quote]Yogi wrote:
a rape 69 sounds like the worst afternoon ever. Get off me! Get that out my mouth! Blargh![/quote]

That’s what teeth are for, right?

I have no contribution for the thread.

It’s really surprising OP’s screen name hasn’t been flagged yet.