Jim, If after several cycles you can see a stall/reset happening in the near future, is there any harm in keeping the TM the same (aka running the same numbers) for several cycles and just trying to get the Rep PR’s up a bit before continuing on? Or does this violate the integrity of the program? I feel like this takes “Start too light” and extends it to “keep it too light” a bit.
How says Wendler? Keep it light or keep marching on until shit gets heavy.
He has said recently do just do 5 cycles on, 3 cycles back, repeat. This is good to keep momentum going in training. I am doing 5/2, since I am not very strong yet, and progress more quickly.
I don’t know why someone would do that if they don’t have to.
“He has said recently do just do 5 cycles on, 3 cycles back, repeat.” – I know Jim says “5 steps forward, 3 steps back” regularly, but I do not think he anywhere says it as a literal 5/3 recommendation. The point is just that sometimes you have to reset a bit but you can see that you are still moving forward. If you do not need to reset, I think you just keep moving up.
I sometimes use the same TM for two cycles in a row, particularly with the press. It has seemed to serve me well, but I will be interested to see what Jim says.
I do every cycle twice. Just thinking long term.
Usually I will keep the same TM for my 6 week cycles and try to set better rep records. So for instance if on week one I hit 12 reps week 2 I hit 8 and week 3 I hit 5 then the next 3 weeks I’ll try to at least hit 2 or 3 reps over my current rep records. If I do then I’ll boost my TM by the 5 and 10lbs.
I would run 5 cycles, take new maxes and base my percentages off that. I’m now going to give 85% a try though to keep it running maybe longer than 5 cycles.
I think that everyone kind of knows the TM has zero to do with your strength and progress - there are too many variables that you can do. The smarter the lifter, the less % or the TM. That’s been my experience with thousands of lifters.
The same TM does not mean the same weights - that is apparent to everyone. So do what thou wilt.
I thought there’s even programs in the new book suggesting two times through a cycle, no? It might have been a challenge though. Don’t make me read it again …
[quote]barbedwired wrote:
I do every cycle twice. Just thinking long term.[/quote]
This is actually another variation I was thinking of doing. It just seems like you dont get enough attempts at the same weights (3 cycles and you never get to try to same rep PR again until the reset) to really break rep PR’s, which is what I like to do. If I can literally double the length, or more, of the results before having to reset that sounds like absolute win to me.
“The same TM does not mean the same weights - that is apparent to everyone.”
thanks
(edited to conceal my stupidity)
I’m in the same boat as you, tokon, but I think it may be the OP means to say “keep the same weights” through multiple cycles. As you’re getting stronger the training max you’re programming with becomes a smaller percentage of your actual strength. Say your actual max is 150lb on overhead press. Your training max is 135 (using 90% for the modifier). Once you’re done the cycle and your actual max is 160lb, keep the same “training max” means the next cycle is based on 145lbs.
If you used 135lbs (same weight, not training max) for the next cycle it would be the equvalent of having an 85% modifier.
But already it’s becoming too complicated. Keep adding weight each cycle until you can’t maintain those numbers and then drop it to a more manageable number. It gives your body a bit of a break from the stress of the heavy lifts your stalled at, and it gives you a psychological break from obsessing with the numbers. You get more work capacity on the light cycles to get ready for the more stressful cycles, and if you really need to push it a bit physically and mentally, there are templates for that. Joker sets, FSL, etc…
The core of 5/3/1 creates simpliciy, consistency, and discipline. The templates are catered to your particular personality.
Yes, I over think shit but 5/3/1 is not about over thinking. I don’t mean to sound like a rant but 5/3/1 is tricky like a zen koan. It’s simple, then it becomes complex, and once again it is simple.
What I meant was to NOT modify the TM… As in your example with the overhead press I would indeed keep the training max at 135. I tend to like to keep my 5+ reps in the 8-12 range, the 3+ week in the 5-8 range and the 1+ week in the 3-5 range… So when I approach those number I would rather keep the TM the same, get my rep maxes higher, and then restart increasing the TM instead of stalling/resetting/“2 steps back”
Example using 5’s week
Cycle 6: 7 reps
-increase TM as normal
Cycle 7: 6 reps
Cycle 8: 7 reps
Cycle 9: 8 reps
Cycle 10: 10 reps
I guess in a way this does “reset” the TM to 85% or so since my actual max is higher and I’m not compensating for that by increasing the TM, but to me its more about increasing the reps in the final set then the percentage of training max
Thats also why I like to idea of doing every cycle twice, it lets you gauge progress a bit better especially on the OHP as the increases are so hard to come by after a while.
"I’m in the same boat as you, tokon, but I think it may be the OP means to say “keep the same weights” through multiple cycles. As you’re getting stronger the training max you’re programming with becomes a smaller percentage of your actual strength. Say your actual max is 150lb on overhead press. Your training max is 135 (using 90% for the modifier). Once you’re done the cycle and your actual max is 160lb, keep the same “training max” means the next cycle is based on 145lbs.
If you used 135lbs (same weight, not training max) for the next cycle it would be the equvalent of having an 85% modifier."
Yes, that now makes it completely clear what Jim meant; and I feel as stupid as my post makes me look! Thanks.