I am genuinely annoyed right now. I mentioned that 5/3/1 (the basic form of with without any variations since apparently fanboys will go balistic if that isn’t mentioned) lacks load for strength and volume for hypertrophy. I have explained why this is, and how this is, using what has been proven as fact. Would you call it idiocracy, or that they just have Jim’s dick too far down their throats?
I think everyone can be dogmatic every now and again but once you start talking in absolutes, that is when you get undone.
2 Likes
Ie. This is talking in absolutes. It may not be enough volume for you to grow, but I’m sure it has built mass for people out there.
1 Like
Everyone thinks they have facts on their side.
2 Likes
There are numerous studies that you can find that state that 12 sets (total sets, not for each movement) each week is nowhere near the optimal amount of hypertrophy for anybody, unless they have an illusion that prevents them from being able to recover from more than that.
They were not on yours.
That’s what someone who thinks they have all the facts believes
2 Likes
Which one is that?
1 Like
The most basic form of 5/3/1. That being a program that has a 90% training max, lasts for 4 weeks with the 4th being a deload, and following a basic protocol such as: week 1, 1x5@65%TM, 1x5@75%TM, and 1x5+@85%TM, week 2, 1x3@70%TM, 1x3@75%TM, and 1x3+@80%TM, week 3, 1x5@75%TM, 1x3@85%TM, and 1x1+@95%TM, week 4, 1x5@40%TM, 1x5@50%TM, amd 1x5@60%TM.
Oh, you mean the jack shit program.
Yeah, the program creator never recommended running that for more than a cycle or 2 at most. Usually it was just done for a single workout, and usually if you were particularly burnt out. Definitely not for hypertrophy.
Stick with BBB or Building the Monolith. Those are 5/3/1 programs designed for hypertrophy. Using the wrong program for the wrong goal is a pretty common mistake.
2 Likes
It is the basis of 5/3/1. Argueably the main portion of the program, but lacks volume and load. And I won’t do either of those. There are programs that are leagues better than those that can be used. Fan boys riding Jim’s dick may not realize it, but the core of 5/3/1 is majorly flawed. Plus, BBBs still aren’t the best for hypertrophy since different muscles need different stimulii to elicit maximum results. Then building the monolith is a bit better for hypertrophy, but more as a powerlifting hypertrophy. You won’t build a balanced physique that would score well with it.
No, that is just the progression model for the mainwork. The basis of 5/3/1 is mainwork, supplemental work, assistance work, conditioning, jumps and throws. Pretty much every 5/3/1 program has those.
Check out 5/3/1 Forever for a real good explanation on the system.
1 Like
Lol. You are impossible man. It doesn’t matter what the assistance or any other bs is. The core of 5/3/1 is the system that you accepted as the main work. Averything else changes from variation to variation, but this doesn’t much at all. The only times it does is to add volume, and that sides with my arguement. The core of the main work, which is what has given 5/3/1 its name and made 5/3/1 5/3/1, lacks volume and load. These variations change the volume and load for a reason, and that is because it is lacking in those areas.
I apologize that you disagree with what the author of the program has said about his own program, but in a thread where you wonder why people refuse to accept facts, don’t you find this ironic?
16 Likes
I have given facts as to why that base is not as good as it could be. If Jim’s dick is so far down yohr throat that you cant see that, then I am horendously sorry for the progress that you are putting out into the ether.
Jt: it’s a fact that the common sausage dog is actually a feline.
Person 1: get out of here, of course they arnt!
Person 2: you’re having a laugh you are!
Person 3: can you provide us with a link to this fact?
Jt: I owned one and it was just like a cat.
Person 1: I have a lot more experience with this and I can tell you they arnt…
Person 2: stop having a giggle son, you’re obviously a troll.
Person 3: like seriously any type of link would be fine, just start giving some evidence.
Jt: you make me so annoyed, why can’t you just listen to my facts!?
Person 1: obviously they arnt facts
Person 2: I’m don’t wasting my time.
Person 3: will someone listen to me and provide the fucking facts!
Jt: fuck it I’m starting another thread detailing how no one listens to facts!
Person 1: you’re a douche
Person 2: I’m hungry, can I have a sandwich?
Person 3: …
(clearly person 2 is British, please read his dialogue as such).
5 Likes
There is no need to resort to homophobic slurs. I have been nothing but civil to you.
I agree with you that the Jack Shit program is a poor choice for hypertrophy. Everyone agrees with that, to include the program creator. No one advocates running that program for hypertrophy. This is a strawman.
However, that is not the base 5/3/1 program. That is a specific 5/3/1 program with a specific purpose. Running it for the wrong reason is user error.
2 Likes
The issue is that that is not what is occuring. I will state my facts. If you find them hard to believe then you should do research on it. I haven’t made a claim like “I have done it so it doesn’t work.” I made a claim that I have done it, I changed it, I had better results, research has been done to show that hypertrophy is driven by volume. That is the main change that was made. Your little scenerio is false.
Please do. So far all I have read are your opinions being projected as facts.
You keep saying this but it gives you a way out. If I don’t find the study that proves you right, than you can simply say that I found the wrong facts.
Myself and other people would like to see the facts that you are toting come from you.
I’m gay. Dont worry about homophobia. And really? Lets walk through it again, but differently. This is the most basic form of that progression, which is easily the reason why 5/3/1 is 5/3/1. It isn’t 5/3/1 because it has a variation that includes 10 sets of 10, or x amount of pull reps, or whatever combination of added work that creates a variation of this. Each of these have a version of this variant. Since this is the most basic form of these variants, it is easily the base form of the program. Yes, there are many versions that changed and added to it. Doesn’t change that it was a variant of this, which by definition makes it a base form.