I’ve been lurking around the T-Nation forums for some time now, reading on the methods of others regarding everything training. I have a 5/3/1 question regarding its conditioning component, do i figured this would be the right place to put it.
Now, I know that I have to prioritize, and with this Rugby season coming up(Tighthead prop), its only logical that I focus on the conditioning aspect primarily. My question is if conditioning is the principal focus, could complexes be used as the assistance work. I was thinking of complexes in the style outlined in the Training lab article regarding complexes for fat loss: http://www.T-Nation.com/...ning-topics/454
I’m open to any and all suggestions. Just figured id bounce the idea around, see if its been done before
Using a % based approach to the ‘Money’ lift and following it with complexes is a fine way to increase conditioning volume. Lifters have used routines like that at various times for many years. Of course you can serve only one master at a time, so top end strength may take a hit at some point. It is up to you to balance the load so you get the result you desire. This is not 5/3/1. 5/3/1 is a very specific program. Nothing wrong with what you propose, it may be perfect for your goals, but it will not be 5/3/1.
Right on, it would definetly be a train to maintain in the strength component, i know it’ll take a hit in some aspects.
On a side note, it’s Practically 5/3/1 by definition. Stretch,lift,sprint. Foam roll/dynamic warm-up, lift in compound movements, using complexes with a strength-endurance component as assistance, and finishing with hill sprints,tire flips,ect.
And how is 5/3/1 “a very specific program” exactly? I don’t mean to argue or step on toes, and i do thank you for your help, but i don’t really see it.
You are talking about doing conditioning work in place of the weight training assistance work in 5/3/1. 5/3/1 is the main movement, assistance and conditioning.
Conventional complexes as assistance exercises would not be Full agreement there. But these not being conventional complexes, like javorek complexes,ect. These complexes are closer to being circuits, heavy to light, 45-60 seconds between exercises.
Wendler himself in a recent article indicated that when conditioning is the main focus to train to maintain in the strength department and to skip rope between sets of assistance exercises, then move on to more straightforward conditioning exercises(ex:prowler,hill sprints,sled drags,ect.) Being that this is a form of interval training, would it not make sense to implement other forms of interval training for the assistance portion ie: barbell circuits.
[quote]Iron_Acadian wrote:
Conventional complexes as assistance exercises would not be Full agreement there. But these not being conventional complexes, like javorek complexes,ect. These complexes are closer to being circuits, heavy to light, 45-60 seconds between exercises.
[/quote]
Circuits w/a rest interval would come closer to compliance, but still fall short. The assistance work in 5/3/1 is designed to ‘assist’ the progression of the ‘Money’ station. The choices on the list are there for a specific purpose. Your arrangement has conditioning as the priority, and this is appropriate considering your goal. Any strength benefit in the 1-5 rep. range received from the circuits would be short lived at best, and as I mentioned in my first post, the circuits are more likely to cost reps. in that range. If you were working your main station in the 12-20 rep. range, things would be different. Keep in mind that % based programs have been around for over 40 years, just because a program uses % programming does not mean it’s 5/3/1.
Honestly, after I replied,I thought it might be a good idea toread my copy of the book over, and yeah, it’s not Wendler’s 5/3/1 by definition. I’ll concede that one. Thanks for pointing it out, i would not have read it again if you had not. Please, allow me to rephrase my original question;
If i worked in cycles, with the same percentages as outlined in 5/3/1, but used circuits as assistance work, would this work to increase work capacity while maintaining current strength levels?
You’ve already answered this of course, im just making a point to correct myself.
“Your arrangement has conditioning as the priority, and this is appropriate considering your goal. Any strength benefit in the 1-5 rep. range received from the circuits would be short lived at best, and as I mentioned in my first post, the circuits are more likely to cost reps. in that range.”
[/quote]
Do you think I’d lose much strength, or what? I know i’m not gonna have a perfect maintenance of strength, just looking to minimize loss of strength while I’m getting ready for Rugby Season.
“If you were working your main station in the 12-20 rep. range, things would be different.”
[/quote]
I’ll bite. Could you elaborate futher? I’m new to this conditioning thing lol.
“Keep in mind that % based programs have been around for over 40 years, just because a program uses % programming does not mean it’s 5/3/1.”
[/quote]
I know that much. i like the progression of 5/3/1. But i know there’s alot more out there, i don’t just conclude that 5/3/1 is the only thing out there. Sorry if I sounded so close minded on the subject of strength and training.
“If you were working your main station in the 12-20 rep. range, things would be different.”
[/quote]
I’ll bite. Could you elaborate futher? I’m new to this conditioning thing lol.
[/quote]
High rep. work is more aerobic in nature (specific muscular endurance/conditioning) to start with. It is unlikley the circuits would negatively affect the progession of this type of work. Using the rest intervals you mentioned would make the entire routine aerobic and reduce the time required to get into the desired state of condition. The trade-off would be your ‘Top-End’ strength levels. In most lifters the decrease is noticed in upper-body training more than lower. If you decide to stay with the % based approach, the amount of strength loss will depend on what type of condition you are talking about. A 5k in under 25 minutes, perhaps very little. An hour on the field running the full length back and forth, the ‘Top End’ will take a hit. You can only satisfy one master at a time.
Yeah it’s a good article, that’s where I saw the interval training idea that I started the thread with his “conditioning Workout” template as a premise.