This is also why I never listen to someone when they are talking about how many sets they use per bodypart.
It’s a stupid way of talking about how much volume is used when hardly ANYONE fucking talks about sets in the same way.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
maraudermeat wrote:
…most people don’t know how to perform a 5x5 or 3x3 correctly…
bench press
495x5
495x4
495x4
495x3
495x2
this is what a good 5x5 would look like.
I’m not disputing that this is a good method of training. Not my point at all.
What I am calling into question is why you call this 5x5.
It is not.
Now, those who care to do so can use words any way they want. They can call curls “extensions,” squats “deadlifts,” cats “dogs,” the number two “seven,” and so forth.
But it makes communication damned difficult and is pointless.
What you describe is five sets.
Not 5 sets of five.
Nor is it striving for 5 sets of five though sometimes falling short on reps, with a new weight, and then striving to add reps to get back up to it. Rather, what you describe is planning absolutely NOT to do 5 sets of five.
A fine method of training – not in dispute – that’s not the point. [/quote]
tell me how you really feel.
In my opinion, 5x5 is only a guideline. you definitely do 5 sets but the reps can range from 1 to 5 reps. from much experimnetation this way of doing 5x5 has given me the best results. The only reason i post on these boards are to give my best educated opinion on things- things that work for me.
in my experience getting all 5 sets of 5 reps does NOTHING for getting me stronger because the weight is too light. Also, if i can’t get all five reps and then drop the weight… again… it does nothing to get me stronger. the way i do 5x5 gets me stronger. if it makes you feel better i’ll call it the “Better than 5x5” routine.
[quote]futurepharm wrote:
Interesting.
I always thought you were supposed to stay at a certain weight until you could do all sets at 5 reps, then you progress. I don’t know why I thought that, I guess I just assumed from the name that you determined progression by the ability to do that.
Lately, I’ve been doing 6 sets, but progressing when I can get at least 25 reps out of 5 sets, if that makes any sense to anybody.
Today, for instance, looked like this:
265X5
265X4
265X4
265X4
265X4
265X3
Based on what you said, might I get better results by moving up to 275 next time around, and progressing when I get 275X5 for the first two sets? Not that I’m complaining about my current results, I’m just interested in seeing if I can do better…
I’ve been progressing in weight about 10 lbs every week and a half to two weeks, but I know that won’t last forever.[/quote]
there are more than one way to do a 5x5. like you said, you can do all five sets for five reps. you can stick to the same weight until you reach all five sets of five reps OR you can do it the way that i’ve developed. my way has given me great results.
I’m call’n it “The better than 5x5” routine- trademark pending:)
give it a try and let me know how it works for you.
i typically stick with the same movement for four weeks doing the rep progression like i outlined, continually adding weight when i get that first two sets for 5 reps. after the fourth week i do a deload week and retest.
The guideline you suggested is not, however, 5 sets of five.
There is indeed a guideline another person can mean, indeed most persons when they say 5 sets of five do mean, where five sets of 5 indeed means aiming for 5 sets of – well – five.
That another expression for what you describe is called for, has nothing to do with what I feel, though for some reason you seem to think it does.
You’re entitled to personally call 5 sets that aren’t five and aren’t even planned to be anywhere near it anything you want. I made that clear in my post above. You can call it fourteen sets of 20 if you like.
But it doesn’t help communication and any concept that something that isn’t five sets of 5 (or any other stated method) is “five sets of 5” is just unclear thinking. I would recommend calling it something descriptive of what it is. If trying to have a discussion about it. Priviately, you can call it a bazillion sets of a gajillion – doesn’t matter to me at all.
Your method sounds to me like 5 sets at 6RM, leaving each time a rep “in the tank” as you put it.
[quote]maraudermeat wrote:
futurepharm wrote:
I’m call’n it “The better than 5x5” routine- trademark pending:)
[/quote]
I’d suggest you call it:
The ‘I can’t believe its not 5 sets of 5reps’ routine.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
The guideline you suggested is not, however, 5 sets of five.
There is indeed a guideline another person can mean, indeed most persons when they say 5 sets of five do mean, where five sets of 5 indeed means aiming for 5 sets of – well – five.
That another expression for what you describe is called for, has nothing to do with what I feel, though for some reason you seem to think it does.
You’re entitled to personally call 5 sets that aren’t five and aren’t even planned to be anywhere near it anything you want. I made that clear in my post above. You can call it fourteen sets of 20 if you like.
But it doesn’t help communication and any concept that something that isn’t five sets of 5 (or any other stated method) is REALLY “five sets of 5” is just unclear thinking. I would recommend calling it something descriptive of what it is. If trying to have a discussion about it. Priviately, you can call it a bazillion sets of a gajillion – doesn’t matter to me at all.
Your method sounds to me like 5 sets at 6RM, leaving each time a rep “in the tank” as you put it.[/quote]
i’m not going to argue with you.
for those of you that want to get stronger give it a try. call it whatever the hell you want to. i don’t give a fuck.
[quote]maraudermeat wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
The guideline you suggested is not, however, 5 sets of five.
There is indeed a guideline another person can mean, indeed most persons when they say 5 sets of five do mean, where five sets of 5 indeed means aiming for 5 sets of – well – five.
That another expression for what you describe is called for, has nothing to do with what I feel, though for some reason you seem to think it does.
You’re entitled to personally call 5 sets that aren’t five and aren’t even planned to be anywhere near it anything you want. I made that clear in my post above. You can call it fourteen sets of 20 if you like.
But it doesn’t help communication and any concept that something that isn’t five sets of 5 (or any other stated method) is REALLY “five sets of 5” is just unclear thinking. I would recommend calling it something descriptive of what it is. If trying to have a discussion about it. Priviately, you can call it a bazillion sets of a gajillion – doesn’t matter to me at all.
Your method sounds to me like 5 sets at 6RM, leaving each time a rep “in the tank” as you put it.
i’m not going to argue with you.
for those of you that want to get stronger give it a try. call it whatever the hell you want to. i don’t give a fuck.
[/quote]
Lol
Thanks MM for your insight - i’m glad it’s worked for you and it’s always good to hear about a routine that’s given results to someone your size.
[quote]maraudermeat wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
The guideline you suggested is not, however, 5 sets of five.
There is indeed a guideline another person can mean, indeed most persons when they say 5 sets of five do mean, where five sets of 5 indeed means aiming for 5 sets of – well – five.
That another expression for what you describe is called for, has nothing to do with what I feel, though for some reason you seem to think it does.
You’re entitled to personally call 5 sets that aren’t five and aren’t even planned to be anywhere near it anything you want. I made that clear in my post above. You can call it fourteen sets of 20 if you like.
But it doesn’t help communication and any concept that something that isn’t five sets of 5 (or any other stated method) is REALLY “five sets of 5” is just unclear thinking. I would recommend calling it something descriptive of what it is. If trying to have a discussion about it. Priviately, you can call it a bazillion sets of a gajillion – doesn’t matter to me at all.
Your method sounds to me like 5 sets at 6RM, leaving each time a rep “in the tank” as you put it.
i’m not going to argue with you.
for those of you that want to get stronger give it a try. call it whatever the hell you want to. i don’t give a fuck.
[/quote]
I’ll give it a try on front squats… That’s the one big movement where 5/3/1 doesn’t quite seem to do it for me.
If your “better-than-5*5-method” doesn’t work, I’ll sew you, you know 
[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
maraudermeat wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
The guideline you suggested is not, however, 5 sets of five.
There is indeed a guideline another person can mean, indeed most persons when they say 5 sets of five do mean, where five sets of 5 indeed means aiming for 5 sets of – well – five.
That another expression for what you describe is called for, has nothing to do with what I feel, though for some reason you seem to think it does.
You’re entitled to personally call 5 sets that aren’t five and aren’t even planned to be anywhere near it anything you want. I made that clear in my post above. You can call it fourteen sets of 20 if you like.
But it doesn’t help communication and any concept that something that isn’t five sets of 5 (or any other stated method) is REALLY “five sets of 5” is just unclear thinking. I would recommend calling it something descriptive of what it is. If trying to have a discussion about it. Priviately, you can call it a bazillion sets of a gajillion – doesn’t matter to me at all.
Your method sounds to me like 5 sets at 6RM, leaving each time a rep “in the tank” as you put it.
i’m not going to argue with you.
for those of you that want to get stronger give it a try. call it whatever the hell you want to. i don’t give a fuck.
I’ll give it a try on front squats… That’s the one big movement where 5/3/1 doesn’t quite seem to do it for me.
If your “better-than-5*5-method” doesn’t work, I’ll sew you, you know
[/quote]
let me know how it works. i would recommend making that your first movement of the workout. try it for four weeks… deload and then retest. for front squats, i would go up by 10lb increments once you hit that first two sets of five reps.
instead of suing, you can just come on the boards and argue with me:)
good luck hoss.
[quote]maraudermeat wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
maraudermeat wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
The guideline you suggested is not, however, 5 sets of five.
There is indeed a guideline another person can mean, indeed most persons when they say 5 sets of five do mean, where five sets of 5 indeed means aiming for 5 sets of – well – five.
That another expression for what you describe is called for, has nothing to do with what I feel, though for some reason you seem to think it does.
You’re entitled to personally call 5 sets that aren’t five and aren’t even planned to be anywhere near it anything you want. I made that clear in my post above. You can call it fourteen sets of 20 if you like.
But it doesn’t help communication and any concept that something that isn’t five sets of 5 (or any other stated method) is REALLY “five sets of 5” is just unclear thinking. I would recommend calling it something descriptive of what it is. If trying to have a discussion about it. Priviately, you can call it a bazillion sets of a gajillion – doesn’t matter to me at all.
Your method sounds to me like 5 sets at 6RM, leaving each time a rep “in the tank” as you put it.
i’m not going to argue with you.
for those of you that want to get stronger give it a try. call it whatever the hell you want to. i don’t give a fuck.
I’ll give it a try on front squats… That’s the one big movement where 5/3/1 doesn’t quite seem to do it for me.
If your “better-than-5*5-method” doesn’t work, I’ll sew you, you know
let me know how it works. i would recommend making that your first movement of the workout. try it for four weeks… deload and then retest. for front squats, i would go up by 10lb increments once you hit that first two sets of five reps.
instead of suing, you can just come on the boards and argue with me:)
good luck hoss.
[/quote]
Ha, thanks.
(what would you use as an alternative exercise to switch to once you stall out on front squats on that system? Free-weight hacks?
I’m leaving back squats out as I’m rack pulling from below the knee on 5/3/1 and that does my lower-back in as it is…)
/end hijack
Note to self: I’m becoming more and more… American.
Mixing up sue and sew already… Where will it end.
This just in: There is no Magic Bullet of sets and reps that will make everybody jacked.
But the Classic Gymrat Pyramid is a disaster for both Hypertrophy and Strength Building. By Gymrat Pyramid I mean a few high rep warmup sets then adding weight and dropping reps and each set to failure then a few forced reps with help from the spotter.
I covered this subject a bit in this article:
5x5, 3x8, either with static, undulating, or climbing loads are all good workouts. The sheiko Wednesday BP marathon is great too. Downsets after a top set are interesting in that you can do more reps on the way down with a given weight after a 1RM or 3RM.
Bottom Line:if you ever hear a mullet yelling “It is all you!”, with the same weight you did last week and the week before, you are doing it wrong.
[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
maraudermeat wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
maraudermeat wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
The guideline you suggested is not, however, 5 sets of five.
There is indeed a guideline another person can mean, indeed most persons when they say 5 sets of five do mean, where five sets of 5 indeed means aiming for 5 sets of – well – five.
That another expression for what you describe is called for, has nothing to do with what I feel, though for some reason you seem to think it does.
You’re entitled to personally call 5 sets that aren’t five and aren’t even planned to be anywhere near it anything you want. I made that clear in my post above. You can call it fourteen sets of 20 if you like.
But it doesn’t help communication and any concept that something that isn’t five sets of 5 (or any other stated method) is REALLY “five sets of 5” is just unclear thinking. I would recommend calling it something descriptive of what it is. If trying to have a discussion about it. Priviately, you can call it a bazillion sets of a gajillion – doesn’t matter to me at all.
Your method sounds to me like 5 sets at 6RM, leaving each time a rep “in the tank” as you put it.
i’m not going to argue with you.
for those of you that want to get stronger give it a try. call it whatever the hell you want to. i don’t give a fuck.
I’ll give it a try on front squats… That’s the one big movement where 5/3/1 doesn’t quite seem to do it for me.
If your “better-than-5*5-method” doesn’t work, I’ll sew you, you know
let me know how it works. i would recommend making that your first movement of the workout. try it for four weeks… deload and then retest. for front squats, i would go up by 10lb increments once you hit that first two sets of five reps.
instead of suing, you can just come on the boards and argue with me:)
good luck hoss.
Ha, thanks.
(what would you use as an alternative exercise to switch to once you stall out on front squats on that system? Free-weight hacks?
I’m leaving back squats out as I’m rack pulling from below the knee on 5/3/1 and that does my lower-back in as it is…)
/end hijack
Note to self: I’m becoming more and more… American.
Mixing up sue and sew already… Where will it end.
[/quote]
I’d be way more afraid of someone who was going to sew me than someone who was just gonna sue me.
[quote]jackreape wrote:
This just in: There is no Magic Bullet of sets and reps that will make everybody jacked.
But the Classic Gymrat Pyramid is a disaster for both Hypertrophy and Strength Building. By Gymrat Pyramid I mean a few high rep warmup sets then adding weight and dropping reps and each set to failure then a few forced reps with help from the spotter.
I covered this subject a bit in this article:
5x5, 3x8, either with static, undulating, or climbing loads are all good workouts. The sheiko Wednesday BP marathon is great too. Downsets after a top set are interesting in that you can do more reps on the way down with a given weight after a 1RM or 3RM.
Bottom Line:if you ever hear a mullet yelling “It is all you!”, with the same weight you did last week and the week before, you are doing it wrong.[/quote]
Dead-End #1: Pyramids
This poor excuse for a training approach is the bad combination of lack of training information coupled with reading too many bodybuilding magazines.
…What?
So you are saying every single bodybuilder uses a poor excuse for a training approach?
I don’t know about you, but when I ‘pyramid up’ to my final set, I am in no way fatigued.
Perhaps you are analysing the wrong people when you are shitting on this training method?
If you look at how bodybuilders use it, they usually use the bar, then a 1/3rd of what they will use in their final set, then 1/2, then 2/3. They don’t go to failure and they usually use the same amount of reps for each set.
[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
maraudermeat wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
maraudermeat wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
The guideline you suggested is not, however, 5 sets of five.
There is indeed a guideline another person can mean, indeed most persons when they say 5 sets of five do mean, where five sets of 5 indeed means aiming for 5 sets of – well – five.
That another expression for what you describe is called for, has nothing to do with what I feel, though for some reason you seem to think it does.
You’re entitled to personally call 5 sets that aren’t five and aren’t even planned to be anywhere near it anything you want. I made that clear in my post above. You can call it fourteen sets of 20 if you like.
But it doesn’t help communication and any concept that something that isn’t five sets of 5 (or any other stated method) is REALLY “five sets of 5” is just unclear thinking. I would recommend calling it something descriptive of what it is. If trying to have a discussion about it.
Priviately, you can call it a bazillion sets of a gajillion – doesn’t matter to me at all.
Your method sounds to me like 5 sets at 6RM, leaving each time a rep “in the tank” as you put it.
i’m not going to argue with you.
for those of you that want to get stronger give it a try. call it whatever the hell you want to. i don’t give a fuck.
I’ll give it a try on front squats… That’s the one big movement where 5/3/1 doesn’t quite seem to do it for me.
If your “better-than-5*5-method” doesn’t work, I’ll sew you, you know
let me know how it works. i would recommend making that your first movement of the workout. try it for four weeks… deload and then retest. for front squats, i would go up by 10lb increments once you hit that first two sets of five reps.
instead of suing, you can just come on the boards and argue with me:)
good luck hoss.
Ha, thanks.
(what would you use as an alternative exercise to switch to once you stall out on front squats on that system? Free-weight hacks?
I’m leaving back squats out as I’m rack pulling from below the knee on 5/3/1 and that does my lower-back in as it is…)
/end hijack
Note to self: I’m becoming more and more… American.
Mixing up sue and sew already… Where will it end.
[/quote]
some of my favorites are zercher squats off of pins, hack squat machine, trap bar deads and free weight hacks.
[quote]Goodfellow wrote:
jackreape wrote:
This just in: There is no Magic Bullet of sets and reps that will make everybody jacked.
But the Classic Gymrat Pyramid is a disaster for both Hypertrophy and Strength Building. By Gymrat Pyramid I mean a few high rep warmup sets then adding weight and dropping reps and each set to failure then a few forced reps with help from the spotter.
I covered this subject a bit in this article:
5x5, 3x8, either with static, undulating, or climbing loads are all good workouts. The sheiko Wednesday BP marathon is great too. Downsets after a top set are interesting in that you can do more reps on the way down with a given weight after a 1RM or 3RM.
Bottom Line:if you ever hear a mullet yelling “It is all you!”, with the same weight you did last week and the week before, you are doing it wrong.
Dead-End #1: Pyramids
This poor excuse for a training approach is the bad combination of lack of training information coupled with reading too many bodybuilding magazines.
…What?
So you are saying every single bodybuilder uses a poor excuse for a training approach?
I don’t know about you, but when I ‘pyramid up’ to my final set, I am in no way fatigued.
Perhaps you are analysing the wrong people when you are shitting on this training method?
If you look at how bodybuilders use it, they usually use the bar, then a 1/3rd of what they will use in their final set, then 1/2, then 2/3. They don’t go to failure and they usually use the same amount of reps for each set.[/quote]
I don’t think jack was referring to our kind of ramping up.
Some people just go to failure on pretty much every set while still ramping, that’s obviously rather idiotic.
This was more popular in Arnold’s time, too (they ramped but used way more sets than we do now, often going to failure on the last 3 or so ramping sets while increasing weight until they could only get 4 reps or so)… We’ve since moved on and only go to failure on the last set on standard BB ramping… As you mentioned.
That being said, there are so many ways to go about this… Many do indeed use the same amount of reps on every of their warm-up ramping sets (without going to failure on them), but a lot nowadays reduce reps to save energy for their work-set:
(bar12)
1358
2255
3153
working weight * 8 or whatever.
[quote]maraudermeat wrote:
Ha, thanks.
(what would you use as an alternative exercise to switch to once you stall out on front squats on that system? Free-weight hacks?
I’m leaving back squats out as I’m rack pulling from below the knee on 5/3/1 and that does my lower-back in as it is…)
some of my favorites are zercher squats off of pins, hack squat machine [/quote] HA! LOOK HERE! THEM POWERLIFTERS USE PUSSY-MACHINES TOO! [quote], trap bar deads [/quote] Shame, don’t have a trap bar[quote] and free weight hacks.
[/quote]
Never tried zerchers before, those look awkward… I’ll try some light zerchers as my quad assistance exercise next front-squat day.
So if you don’t see me posting for the next 3 weeks, it’s because I followed meat’s advice and ended up shearing the skin of my biceps and forearms on zerchers.
Thanks dude.
The key word is this atrocious phrase, “go to failure” or “going to failure.”
For some reason people use this when they mean not going to failure – that is to say, not in fact reaching a point of failing – but rather for extreme effort where another rep is expected to be almost definitely or definitely impossible (without pausing for rest, anyway.)
Of course it is very variable as to whether a given person means the final rep burning out the dilithium crystals and blowing the circuit breakers, so to speak, or just trying “pretty hard” and it seems like a further rep isn’t in the cards. In neither case actually going to failure in any sense according to what the words mean, as failure does not occur.
So as to the statement that pyramiding while “going to failure” is a recipe for poor results, it is in either the case of:
-
Not going to failure, but all reps are successfully completed, but the dilithium crystals “are ccmpletely burnt oot: she cannae take any more.”
-
Actually going to failure (but this is rarely meant), where in each set reps are attempted until despite the nervous system emitting smoke, the weight is stuck, and strained against and strained against but failure to complete the rep remains the case.
Either of these, and even moreso the second way, is NOT the way to pyramid for good results.
[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
maraudermeat wrote:
Ha, thanks.
(what would you use as an alternative exercise to switch to once you stall out on front squats on that system? Free-weight hacks?
I’m leaving back squats out as I’m rack pulling from below the knee on 5/3/1 and that does my lower-back in as it is…)
some of my favorites are zercher squats off of pins, hack squat machine HA! LOOK HERE! THEM POWERLIFTERS USE PUSSY-MACHINES TOO! , trap bar deads Shame, don’t have a trap bar and free weight hacks.
Never tried zerchers before, those look awkward… I’ll try some light zerchers as my quad assistance exercise next front-squat day.
So if you don’t see me posting for the next 3 weeks, it’s because I followed meat’s advice and ended up shearing the skin of my biceps and forearms on zerchers.
Thanks dude.
[/quote]
i’m a machine whore as well. i use the hack squat machine all the time. when my lower back is fried i’ll go to that or the leg press.
i’ll post a vid of one of my zercher’s off of pins. they are brutal but carry over well to squats and deads.
[quote]maraudermeat wrote:
i’m a machine whore as well. i use the hack squat machine all the time. when my lower back is fried i’ll go to that or the leg press.
i’ll post a vid of one of my zercher’s off of pins. they are brutal but carry over well to squats and deads.
[/quote]
I just hope my forearms won’t tear off my elbows when I do those (seriously, is there any trick to holding the bar there? I guess arm-musculature is the one thing I’m not lacking for that kind of stuff…). Nice lift.
[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
maraudermeat wrote:
i’m a machine whore as well. i use the hack squat machine all the time. when my lower back is fried i’ll go to that or the leg press.
i’ll post a vid of one of my zercher’s off of pins. they are brutal but carry over well to squats and deads.
I just hope my forearms won’t tear off my elbows when I do those (seriously, is there any trick to holding the bar there? I guess arm-musculature is the one thing I’m not lacking for that kind of stuff…). Nice lift.
[/quote]
the trick is getting the bar over your hips and keeping the bar close to your body. get it into the crook of your arm and then get your hands under your chin. lift from the hips. get your hips under the bar and start with the chest really high and the back arched. force your knees out hard as you lift the bar off the pins. as the bar starts to move off the pins, forcfully push your hips through and flex your ass.