I wouldn’t even say that, you can’t forecast gains. Just add weight to the bar each week/workout and keep the same set and rep scheme, once you stall then move onto something else. The biggest problem with 5/3/1 is the AMRAP sets, if your technique is lacking then you are sure to have several ugly reps at the end of the set and it will not help to improve your technique. I’m speaking from experience, I did 5/3/1 a few years ago when I first started to gravitate towards powerlifting. I had been doing bodybuilding-style training on and off for years, which included high squats because that’s what I learned from people around me (including some high level bodybuilders believe it or not). When I started 5/3/1 and learned that my squats wouldn’t pass anywhere except SPF I started trying to go deeper, which was an unfamiliar movement pattern. When I did AMRAP sets, the last few reps would look like good mornings with some quad involvement. It took me a long time to get a half-decent squat, including a period where I switched to high bar.
No. You just can’t predict progress at all. Some people reach an elite level within a few years and don’t go far after that (Mike Tuchscherer said he had a 600 raw squat at 19 years old but was barely squatted over 700 almost 15 years later) and others will make slow progress for a long time. Obviously the fast gains are more motivating, but the end result could well be the same.
Once progress slows down, the main thing is that you actually are making some progress, whether month to month or year to year.
I don’t see how this:
and this:
are at all compatible.
Sure, share your experience.
Which posts of dt79 and T3hPwnisher are you talking about, can you link that? I found dt79’s post where he is saying that hypertrophy is the base of strength. That’s 50% true, the other 50% is neural factors and largely explains why two people with the same body composition an leverages can have totally different levels of strength. In my case, I’m more muscular than I am strong and I have no desire to get any bigger. At my last meet I met a man over 50 years old (he was coaching a couple people and helping in the warmup room) who holds multiple IPF world records, including the bench record in the open class which he set a couple of weeks ago. He has only been competing in powerlifting for a few years and has made a lot of progress, which is very impressive at his age, and he hasn’t been moving up through the weight classes either. He is actually the same height and weight as me, with similar proportions, but he has more than 300lbs. on my total.
You sound like you just want to argue over small details without comprehending the big picture.
A new lifter or someone coming back from an extended layoff will make faster progress on 5x5 or similar program than something percentage based with low frequency simply because they can add weight to the bar every workout, and they can probably repeat the same workout more than once a week. BUT - how long can they keep doing that and how much progress will they make? It’s impossible to predict, and the only way you will find out is by doing it.
“Fast gains” is a pretty vague concept, the implication is that you will make progress on a week to week or workout to workout basis. It won’t last forever, no matter what you do, and there is absolutely no way to know when it will stop.
Are you looking for one of those “Add 50 lbs. to your bench in 6 weeks!” programs?
No, I’m just trying to understand where you see the faster progress and I think we’re miscommunicating the key points to each other. It’s no big deal.
I’ll write something up tomorrow about where I think LP fails for some people.
Linear progression is the ticket. Here’s why
- The OP no longer has a 1RM so calculating percentages would be foolish and risky.
- This would allow him to start lighter than he thinks he needs to perhaps as low as 135-185. If its way too light he can add 10-15 lbs a session until he begins to work and then add 5 per session until stall.
- This would allow the slow accomodation of connective tissue.
- This would allow the gradual re-learning of motor patterns.
I recently came back after a long (9 year) layoff and I should have followed the above. I tried 5/3/1 and the AMRAP sets were beating my ass and causing injuries. I went back to three months of linear, healed up and am now training conjugate.
I second this
[quote]
Linear progression is the ticket. Here’s why
The OP no longer has a 1RM so calculating percentages would be foolish and risky.[/quote]
He can spent a session working out a weight he can hit 5 solid reps with on each lift and use that as a training max. As he is not a beginner who doesn’t know how to squat - just out of practice - this is neither foolish or risky.
If we’re trying to oversome some shortcomings of LP by kludging a start weight that is so low, it wont result in a training effect - then what is the point of chasing this supposed fastest, most optimal progress?
[quote]
This would allow him to start lighter than he thinks he needs to perhaps as low as 135-185. If its way too light he can add 10-15 lbs a session until he begins to work and then add 5 per session until stall.
This would allow the slow accomodation of connective tissue.
This would allow the gradual re-learning of motor patterns.[/quote]
Don’t see this as an issue with a 5/3/1 style program that is addressed by LP. I actually think the opposite.
How do you know things wouldn’t be worse if you had taken a different route? I’m actually pretty puzzled by how many people recommend things they didn’t do.
Edit: stuffed the quoting
Why are you so against linear progression? I don’t get it. There is nothing magical about 5/3/1. AMRAP sets are a bad way to improve technique for someone either new to lifting or coming back from a long break and are a high risk for injury.
[quote=“chris_ottawa, post:31, topic:232297, full:true”]
Why are you so against linear progression? I don’t get it.[/quote]
I’m not, I just didn’t think any of the points made applies to LP more than a different approach. Happy for you to show me where that isn’t the case?
I’m not the one suggesting guaranteed fastest gains.
I don’t know if that is true or not or if the risk of iniury is higher on LP but the + set is not always an AMRAP set (at least not in 5/3/1) so it doesn’t matter either way.
Look at it this way: more reps = more technical breakdown = more chance for injury. Same thing when you push closer to failure. There are lots of well known coaches (let’s take Matt Gary and Boris Sheiko for example) who almost never program sets of more than 5 reps for those exact reasons. If you do a set of 10 (which will happen often on 5/3/1) do you really expect the last rep to look just like the first one? If you haven’t been training consistently then technique will be at least as big of a weakness as strength.
Well, if you haven’t been training consistently and are incapable of making linear gains then you have a problem, and it’s not one we can help you with on this forum.
If you or anyone else is determined to use 5/3/1 for someone new or restarting training, I suggest you look into “5’s progression” in beyond 5/3/1
“If you are coaching beginners, the 5’s Progression is ideal. As a coach, you know that a lifter going for max reps can sometimes be a cluster fuck, especially the squat and deadlift. However, with beginners, I HIGHLY recommend that you, the coach, set the training max fairly low and simply use Joker sets (in 10% increments for sets of 5 reps) to help the athlete build up their confidence and add in some extra work when their form and strength dictate it. This allows you to keep the athletes progressing slowly with their TM at 90%, give them the opportunity to have good and bad days and challenge them when they need it”
I’m not going to post the whole book, buy it if you want. So it goes like this: 5/3/1 percentages but only sets of 5 and make 10% jumps beyond that (aka Joker Sets) if you feel good. Just stay the hell away from failure.
I still don’t think that’s better than linear progression in this case.
I don’t really see this as more risky. All LP programs push you to do a 5RM (or whateverRM) with a weight that is too heavy for you - that’s what a stall is. Nearly everyone without a coach will hit bad reps to try keep the progression going.
It’s just a different set of risks.
The difference is that you won’t be anywhere near a 5rm with linear progression for quite a while since you will be using a weight you can do multiple sets of 5.
Anyway, this debate has gone on too long. There is really nothing more to discuss, if you don’t like LP then don’t do it. I thought I was too advanced for LP from doing bodybuilding-style training on and off for years, I jumped on 5/3/1 and developed terrible squat technique that took a long time to fix.
You would do yourself well to take a few reading comprehension refresher courses, because nowhere does Jim advocate pushing sets to technical failure. If your squat was shit, that is on you. I think when you interpret material, you think that your interpretation is the only interpretation, whether accurate or not and when one doesn’t want to play by your rules and agree with your misinterpretations, you have a tendency to want to take your ball and go home. Hence, ending the conversation and blaming the program for your shitty squat technique.
Yes, my squat was shit. AMRAP sets didn’t help it at all. Something like the 5’s progression that I quoted from above would have been better.
Am I not allowed to drop out of a conversation if I have lost interest? Sometimes you just have to agree to disagree. On the other hand, I have yet to hear anything remotely intelligent from you.
Gentlemen,
Sets of 8,10,12, etc. do NOT reinforce technique. Very few people have the same technique in a set of ten that they do in a single.
Wendler himself said that 5/3/1 was intended to be a reaction against traditional powerlifting and was supposed to make trianing more holistic such as for training athletes. He only revised it later for powerlifting based on lifter feedback. NOWHERE did I say it dowesn’t work. I simply said it didn’t work FOR ME. If it works for you, knock yourself out.
Lets all be careful however in elevating training styles to mythical status and their programmers as Gods, and then insulting anyone who dares to question their programs.