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.”
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.”
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.”
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.