Caltene sounds like a calcium supplement
[quote]Caltene wrote:
[quote]Reed wrote:
[quote]casperthegst wrote:
[quote]scottkoscielniak wrote:
science does not agree with your philosophy [/quote]
Iif you do not agree with my.programming recommendations then do not follow. This is by far the most fun I have had in a forum. Thanks for the entertainment guys.[/quote]
No one agrees with your programming reccomendation because they are shit. Anyone who does is undertrained and uneducated and your basically leading them to mediocrity at best and injury at worse.[/quote]
You call him uneducated, yet you can’t tell the difference between “your” and “you’re”.[/quote]
He is uneducated.
…
1X5+ @85%
3X1 @90%
1X5 @85%
…
The above scheme is absolutely retarded. 85% is about most people’s 5RM, so he’s telling someone to go balls to the wall at 5+ @85%, do 3 singles at 90%, then hit their 5RM after they’re already tired as fuck. He should not be giving advice, somebody who doesn’t know better might get hurt. The last time I check, nobody ever got hurt as a result of bad grammar. Moral of the story: shut your fucking face Caltene, as you are just arguing for the sake of arguing right now.
For those of you who want to know what this is about, there’s a thread in the Bodybuilding section about some guy who wants to look like a fitness model, and this guy got all butthurt because the BBers didn’t advise a 5x5 based program or some shit like that and decided to bitch about it here. Read the thread if you want the details.
[quote]Apoklyps wrote:
[quote]Caltene wrote:
[quote]Reed wrote:
[quote]casperthegst wrote:
[quote]scottkoscielniak wrote:
science does not agree with your philosophy [/quote]
Iif you do not agree with my.programming recommendations then do not follow. This is by far the most fun I have had in a forum. Thanks for the entertainment guys.[/quote]
No one agrees with your programming reccomendation because they are shit. Anyone who does is undertrained and uneducated and your basically leading them to mediocrity at best and injury at worse.[/quote]
You call him uneducated, yet you can’t tell the difference between “your” and “you’re”.[/quote]
Thank ya
He is uneducated.
…
1X5+ @85%
3X1 @90%
1X5 @85%
…
The above scheme is absolutely retarded. 85% is about most people’s 5RM, so he’s telling someone to go balls to the wall at 5+ @85%, do 3 singles at 90%, then hit their 5RM after they’re already tired as fuck. He should not be giving advice, somebody who doesn’t know better might get hurt. The last time I check, nobody ever got hurt as a result of bad grammar. Moral of the story: shut your fucking face Caltene, as you are just arguing for the sake of arguing right now.
For those of you who want to know what this is about, there’s a thread in the Bodybuilding section about some guy who wants to look like a fitness model, and this guy got all butthurt because the BBers didn’t advise a 5x5 based program or some shit like that and decided to bitch about it here. Read the thread if you want the details.[/quote]
[quote]Apoklyps wrote:
[quote]Caltene wrote:
[quote]Reed wrote:
[quote]casperthegst wrote:
[quote]scottkoscielniak wrote:
science does not agree with your philosophy [/quote]
Iif you do not agree with my.programming recommendations then do not follow. This is by far the most fun I have had in a forum. Thanks for the entertainment guys.[/quote]
No one agrees with your programming reccomendation because they are shit. Anyone who does is undertrained and uneducated and your basically leading them to mediocrity at best and injury at worse.[/quote]
You call him uneducated, yet you can’t tell the difference between “your” and “you’re”.[/quote]
He is uneducated.
…
1X5+ @85%
3X1 @90%
1X5 @85%
…
The above scheme is absolutely retarded. 85% is about most people’s 5RM, so he’s telling someone to go balls to the wall at 5+ @85%, do 3 singles at 90%, then hit their 5RM after they’re already tired as fuck. He should not be giving advice, somebody who doesn’t know better might get hurt. The last time I check, nobody ever got hurt as a result of bad grammar. Moral of the story: shut your fucking face Caltene, as you are just arguing for the sake of arguing right now.
For those of you who want to know what this is about, there’s a thread in the Bodybuilding section about some guy who wants to look like a fitness model, and this guy got all butthurt because the BBers didn’t advise a 5x5 based program or some shit like that and decided to bitch about it here. Read the thread if you want the details.[/quote]
Have you run this program? Where is your evidence that it hurts people? 75% of your your actual max is equal to your 5rm? You could always use the vanilla 531 and be lazy. I would suggest doing more work though.
[quote]Apoklyps wrote:
[quote]Caltene wrote:
[quote]Reed wrote:
[quote]casperthegst wrote:
[quote]scottkoscielniak wrote:
science does not agree with your philosophy [/quote]
Iif you do not agree with my.programming recommendations then do not follow. This is by far the most fun I have had in a forum. Thanks for the entertainment guys.[/quote]
No one agrees with your programming reccomendation because they are shit. Anyone who does is undertrained and uneducated and your basically leading them to mediocrity at best and injury at worse.[/quote]
You call him uneducated, yet you can’t tell the difference between “your” and “you’re”.[/quote]
Thank ya
He is uneducated.
…
1X5+ @85%
3X1 @90%
1X5 @85%
…
The above scheme is absolutely retarded. 85% is about most people’s 5RM, so he’s telling someone to go balls to the wall at 5+ @85%, do 3 singles at 90%, then hit their 5RM after they’re already tired as fuck. He should not be giving advice, somebody who doesn’t know better might get hurt. The last time I check, nobody ever got hurt as a result of bad grammar. Moral of the story: shut your fucking face Caltene, as you are just arguing for the sake of arguing right now.
For those of you who want to know what this is about, there’s a thread in the Bodybuilding section about some guy who wants to look like a fitness model, and this guy got all butthurt because the BBers didn’t advise a 5x5 based program or some shit like that and decided to bitch about it here. Read the thread if you want the details.[/quote]
You see pro bodybuilders doing a large amount of pumping with sissy weights but then you also see them benching 500+lbs and stuff like that.
Pretty obvious you arent going to be huge unless you are also moving huge weights for alot of reps.
[quote]Reed wrote:
[quote]Caltene wrote:
[quote]Reed wrote:
[quote]casperthegst wrote:
[quote]scottkoscielniak wrote:
science does not agree with your philosophy [/quote]
Iif you do not agree with my.programming recommendations then do not follow. This is by far the most fun I have had in a forum. Thanks for the entertainment guys.[/quote]
No one agrees with your programming reccomendation because they are shit. Anyone who does is undertrained and uneducated and your basically leading them to mediocrity at best and injury at worse.[/quote]
You call him uneducated, yet you can’t tell the difference between “your” and “you’re”.[/quote]
Lol really. Ok I apologize for not wanting to take the time to spell it out perfectly even though everyone could tell exactly what was being said. Also he was never being bashed on his grammer.
[/quote]
I just love how people on internet forums, who try to insult the intelligence of others, are always the ones who themselves can’t even type properly. Irony at it’s best. 
[quote]spar4tee wrote:
Caltene sounds like a calcium supplement[/quote]
I actually created the name a long time ago completely by random for a video game. It turns out that it’s a reference to a snack bar mentioned in the Mean Girls movie, although I did not realize that until a few years after the fact.
[quote]Caltene wrote:
[quote]spar4tee wrote:
Caltene sounds like a calcium supplement[/quote]
I actually created the name a long time ago completely by random for a video game. It turns out that it’s a reference to a snack bar mentioned in the Mean Girls movie, although I did not realize that until a few years after the fact.[/quote]
Ah yes, I remember now
[quote]Caltene wrote:
[quote]Reed wrote:
[quote]Caltene wrote:
[quote]Reed wrote:
[quote]casperthegst wrote:
[quote]scottkoscielniak wrote:
science does not agree with your philosophy [/quote]
Iif you do not agree with my.programming recommendations then do not follow. This is by far the most fun I have had in a forum. Thanks for the entertainment guys.[/quote]
No one agrees with your programming reccomendation because they are shit. Anyone who does is undertrained and uneducated and your basically leading them to mediocrity at best and injury at worse.[/quote]
You call him uneducated, yet you can’t tell the difference between “your” and “you’re”.[/quote]
Lol really. Ok I apologize for not wanting to take the time to spell it out perfectly even though everyone could tell exactly what was being said. Also he was never being bashed on his grammer.
[/quote]
I just love how people on internet forums, who try to insult the intelligence of others, are always the ones who themselves can’t even type properly. Irony at it’s best. :)[/quote]
That’s funny, because twice now you’ve used “it’s” where you should have used “its.” What were you saying about irony again?
[quote]spar4tee wrote:
[quote]Caltene wrote:
[quote]spar4tee wrote:
Caltene sounds like a calcium supplement[/quote]
I actually created the name a long time ago completely by random for a video game. It turns out that it’s a reference to a snack bar mentioned in the Mean Girls movie, although I did not realize that until a few years after the fact.[/quote]
Ah yes, I remember now[/quote]
Mean Girls is a great movie
they’re some type of peanut bar that have 1000+ calories in them, epidemiologists give them out to starving African kids to gain weight fast
in before someone recommends caltene bars and 5x5 squats for bodybuilding
[quote]casperthegst wrote:
[quote]Apoklyps wrote:
[quote]Caltene wrote:
[quote]Reed wrote:
[quote]casperthegst wrote:
[quote]scottkoscielniak wrote:
science does not agree with your philosophy [/quote]
Iif you do not agree with my.programming recommendations then do not follow. This is by far the most fun I have had in a forum. Thanks for the entertainment guys.[/quote]
No one agrees with your programming reccomendation because they are shit. Anyone who does is undertrained and uneducated and your basically leading them to mediocrity at best and injury at worse.[/quote]
You call him uneducated, yet you can’t tell the difference between “your” and “you’re”.[/quote]
He is uneducated.
…
1X5+ @85%
3X1 @90%
1X5 @85%
…
The above scheme is absolutely retarded. 85% is about most people’s 5RM, so he’s telling someone to go balls to the wall at 5+ @85%, do 3 singles at 90%, then hit their 5RM after they’re already tired as fuck. He should not be giving advice, somebody who doesn’t know better might get hurt. The last time I check, nobody ever got hurt as a result of bad grammar. Moral of the story: shut your fucking face Caltene, as you are just arguing for the sake of arguing right now.
For those of you who want to know what this is about, there’s a thread in the Bodybuilding section about some guy who wants to look like a fitness model, and this guy got all butthurt because the BBers didn’t advise a 5x5 based program or some shit like that and decided to bitch about it here. Read the thread if you want the details.[/quote]
Have you run this program? Where is your evidence that it hurts people? 75% of your your actual max is equal to your 5rm? You could always use the vanilla 531 and be lazy. I would suggest doing more work though.[/quote]
Most of us here do more work than what you think. After you work out consistently for more than a year you will understand that going to an all out max for reps and then going into the 90% range is a formula for injury due to fatigue. Furthermore to do 3 90% singles after this would be ugly to say the least. Let me put numbers to this.
Using a max of 500 for squat, your suggestion is to basically do 425 for 5+ then do 3 singles at 450. Then go back down to 425 and do 5 more. I will tell you that I certainly do not want to put 450 on my back after just going max effort basically at 425.
But I am sure I just wasted 5 minutes of my life just to get the answer of “do not use my recommendation, or do not be a pussy.”
My suggestion casper is to go up to the log section at the top of the screen, create a log with videos, and show us how these recommendations work. You call people lazy and put up asinine recommendations when you have nothing up here showing that you even lift. So make a log and prove it. Until then stop recommending shit because as stated before, a newer lifter could really hurt themselves with these recommendations.
[quote]scottkoscielniak wrote:
[quote]casperthegst wrote:
[quote]Apoklyps wrote:
[quote]Caltene wrote:
[quote]Reed wrote:
[quote]casperthegst wrote:
[quote]scottkoscielniak wrote:
science does not agree with your philosophy [/quote]
Iif you do not agree with my.programming recommendations then do not follow. This is by far the most fun I have had in a forum. Thanks for the entertainment guys.[/quote]
No one agrees with your programming reccomendation because they are shit. Anyone who does is undertrained and uneducated and your basically leading them to mediocrity at best and injury at worse.[/quote]
You call him uneducated, yet you can’t tell the difference between “your” and “you’re”.[/quote]
He is uneducated.
…
1X5+ @85%
3X1 @90%
1X5 @85%
…
The above scheme is absolutely retarded. 85% is about most people’s 5RM, so he’s telling someone to go balls to the wall at 5+ @85%, do 3 singles at 90%, then hit their 5RM after they’re already tired as fuck. He should not be giving advice, somebody who doesn’t know better might get hurt. The last time I check, nobody ever got hurt as a result of bad grammar. Moral of the story: shut your fucking face Caltene, as you are just arguing for the sake of arguing right now.
For those of you who want to know what this is about, there’s a thread in the Bodybuilding section about some guy who wants to look like a fitness model, and this guy got all butthurt because the BBers didn’t advise a 5x5 based program or some shit like that and decided to bitch about it here. Read the thread if you want the details.[/quote]
Have you run this program? Where is your evidence that it hurts people? 75% of your your actual max is equal to your 5rm? You could always use the vanilla 531 and be lazy. I would suggest doing more work though.[/quote]
Most of us here do more work than what you think. After you work out consistently for more than a year you will understand that going to an all out max for reps and then going into the 90% range is a formula for injury due to fatigue. Furthermore to do 3 90% singles after this would be ugly to say the least. Let me put numbers to this.
Using a max of 500 for squat, your suggestion is to basically do 425 for 5+ then do 3 singles at 450. Then go back down to 425 and do 5 more. I will tell you that I certainly do not want to put 450 on my back after just going max effort basically at 425.
But I am sure I just wasted 5 minutes of my life just to get the answer of “do not use my recommendation, or do not be a pussy.”
My suggestion casper is to go up to the log section at the top of the screen, create a log with videos, and show us how these recommendations work. You call people lazy and put up asinine recommendations when you have nothing up here showing that you even lift. So make a log and prove it. Until then stop recommending shit because as stated before, a newer lifter could really hurt themselves with these recommendations.
[/quote]
A well thought out response probably the best I have seen so far. Unfortunately it is still a bridge too far. I have seen people use this particualr setup and others like it with success. Have fun proving that it is going to get somebody hurt.
Also another reccomendation. If you do this setup and feel that the down sets are too much with the main lift you could substitute a different exercise (ex. Front squats for squats, trap bar for conventional deadlifts). But for the rest of you have fun with your one all out set per week.
By the way 375 is 75% of 500.
[quote]casperthegst wrote:
By the way 375 is 75% of 500.[/quote]
Your recommendation had nothing do with 75% for 5 reps it was 85% for 5+ reps which 425.
[quote]Reed wrote:
[quote]casperthegst wrote:
By the way 375 is 75% of 500.[/quote]
Your recommendation had nothing do with 75% for 5 reps it was 85% for 5+ reps which 425.[/quote]
Apparently you do not know to use a training max at 90% of your real max. Now that I think about it you could actuslly use your real max and not do amrap. This would essentially be westide max effort method of course you would have to change exercises each cycle but I digress.
Now he’s changing the scheme in order to keep arguing, since it’s already been explained multiple times why it’s shit programming. Do I smell a troll?
[quote]casperthegst wrote:
By the way 375 is 75% of 500.[/quote]
Dost thou even arithmetic?
[quote]casperthegst wrote:
Also another reccomendation. If you do this setup and feel that the down sets are too much with the main lift you could substitute a different exercise (ex. Front squats for squats, trap bar for conventional deadlifts). But for the rest of you have fun with your one all out set per week. [/quote]
I have a recommendation to everyone reading his recommendations. Only take recommendations from people stronger/bigger than you. More than likely, casperthegst is neither.