I am currently in the deload week of my 2nd cycle of this program. I have had some issues with the bench press and am thinking about resetting it. The other 3 lifts are still progressing along. These have been my lifts for the first two cycles
Just to give an idea where I am at with my other lifts in the 5/3/1 week of Cycle 2 (all PRs):
Press - 100x10
Deadlift - 225x6
Squat - 170x8
I don’t think I was eating enough for the first 5 weeks so I started tracking my calories and bumped it to about 2500/day. I weight 205lbs with about 17-18% bodyfat.
[quote]Embrau wrote:
I am currently in the deload week of my 2nd cycle of this program. I have had some issues with the bench press and am thinking about resetting it. The other 3 lifts are still progressing along. These have been my lifts for the first two cycles
Just to give an idea where I am at with my other lifts in the 5/3/1 week of Cycle 2 (all PRs):
Press - 100x10
Deadlift - 225x6
Squat - 170x8
I don’t think I was eating enough for the first 5 weeks so I started tracking my calories and bumped it to about 2500/day. I weight 205lbs with about 17-18% bodyfat.
Any thoughts? Thank you![/quote]
No reason to spin your wheels any longer than necessary. Perhaps you started too high? Uh nevermind … why the drastic drop off? What are you doing for accessory work?
[quote]Embrau wrote:
I am currently in the deload week of my 2nd cycle of this program. I have had some issues with the bench press and am thinking about resetting it. The other 3 lifts are still progressing along. These have been my lifts for the first two cycles
Just to give an idea where I am at with my other lifts in the 5/3/1 week of Cycle 2 (all PRs):
Press - 100x10
Deadlift - 225x6
Squat - 170x8
I don’t think I was eating enough for the first 5 weeks so I started tracking my calories and bumped it to about 2500/day. I weight 205lbs with about 17-18% bodyfat.
[quote]Embrau wrote:
I am currently in the deload week of my 2nd cycle of this program. I have had some issues with the bench press and am thinking about resetting it. The other 3 lifts are still progressing along. These have been my lifts for the first two cycles
Just to give an idea where I am at with my other lifts in the 5/3/1 week of Cycle 2 (all PRs):
Press - 100x10
Deadlift - 225x6
Squat - 170x8
I don’t think I was eating enough for the first 5 weeks so I started tracking my calories and bumped it to about 2500/day. I weight 205lbs with about 17-18% bodyfat.
Any thoughts? Thank you![/quote]
That one is kind of odd, 11 to 3 reps after a 10lb increase. Maybe give it 1 more cycle and see what happens. Your getting 10+ reps on week 1 which is good and shows you do have some strength. This is a strength program so lower reps is not necessarily bad as long as its not all 3 weeks of a cycle.
[quote]Embrau wrote:
I am currently in the deload week of my 2nd cycle of this program. I have had some issues with the bench press and am thinking about resetting it. The other 3 lifts are still progressing along. These have been my lifts for the first two cycles
Just to give an idea where I am at with my other lifts in the 5/3/1 week of Cycle 2 (all PRs):
Press - 100x10
Deadlift - 225x6
Squat - 170x8
I don’t think I was eating enough for the first 5 weeks so I started tracking my calories and bumped it to about 2500/day. I weight 205lbs with about 17-18% bodyfat.
Any thoughts? Thank you![/quote]
I would give it another cycle at least before changing anything. I had a couple cycles I had to grind through and only got a couple reps. Then suddenly it clicks again on the next cycle and I hit 7.
It also could be related to food, work, scheduling, stress, or anything. Give it one more cycle.
[quote]Airness wrote:
ThirdUncle wrote:
Airness wrote:
Time for a new thread.
My question from the previous thread:
Can you ramp up to the final set and then perform the supposed earlier sets as ‘back off’ sets for extra volume?
What I mean:
Warmup sets
40% x5
50% x5
60% x3
70% x1 Feel set
80% x1 Feel set
Working Set
85% x5+
Back off sets
75% x5
65% x5
Because from personal experience, I don’t seem to work as well as I am able to (especially on the bench) without these ‘feel sets’.
What I did for my squat was I worked up to my 3RM and then went back down to my 85% set and that worked extremely well. I got 13 reps. Even though technically I wasn’t doing 5/3/1 then but I think what matters ultimately is that you get rep pr’s for the last set. Sure, I think the prescribed reps are important but I think if you calculate your numbers well (and even then, it’s probably not all that accurate anyway because your strength levels are different each time-- but that’s what the 90% is for so this is not my point really.)
Personally, I feel like it benefits me more if I ramp up to the last set by warming up and then doing feel sets and then ‘back off’ and do the 65% x 5 and 75% x 5 for extra volume.
I think this was answered in the previous thread, but if I’m mistaken, I’ll say now that it would probably not be recommended. Why not try using the BBB template if you feel you need more volume?
It’s actually not that I need extra volume but more so that I feel like I can bang out more reps if I do it this way as opposed to the original way.
[/quote]
because that is not the point. the point is to go all out on the last and final set. jim just answered this question on elitefts. its a mental block you need to get over and do the program the way he laid it out.
The thing that puzzles me with this program are the percentages of 1RM used. Cressey and many other strength coaches recommend that a person with long strength training experience should train mainly at intensities above 90%, if looking to increase maximal strength. Even with the 1+ set, the intensity will be around 85% of true 1RM. I’m not arguing that the program won’t work, but this contradiction concerns me. Is the intensity high enough for a guy with efficient CNS?
[quote]harrimark wrote:
The thing that puzzles me with this program are the percentages of 1RM used. Cressey and many other strength coaches recommend that a person with long strength training experience should train mainly at intensities above 90%, if looking to increase maximal strength. Even with the 1+ set, the intensity will be around 85% of true 1RM. I’m not arguing that the program won’t work, but this contradiction concerns me. Is the intensity high enough for a guy with efficient CNS?[/quote]
I don’t know if any of those guys said you should train “mainly” in the 90+ percentage range. It should definitely be included, but not at the exclusion of other ranges.
Besides, by the third or fourth cycle, you should be in the 90+ percent range in the 1+ week. And it only goes up from there. So if you run this program a good 6-8 cycles, you will get plenty of 90% and greater lifts in there.
[quote]malonetd wrote:
harrimark wrote:
The thing that puzzles me with this program are the percentages of 1RM used. Cressey and many other strength coaches recommend that a person with long strength training experience should train mainly at intensities above 90%, if looking to increase maximal strength. Even with the 1+ set, the intensity will be around 85% of true 1RM. I’m not arguing that the program won’t work, but this contradiction concerns me. Is the intensity high enough for a guy with efficient CNS?
I don’t know if any of those guys said you should train “mainly” in the 90+ percentage range. It should definitely be included, but not at the exclusion of other ranges.
Besides, by the third or fourth cycle, you should be in the 90+ percent range in the 1+ week. And it only goes up from there. So if you run this program a good 6-8 cycles, you will get plenty of 90% and greater lifts in there.[/quote]
Appreciate your answer. Though as your 1RM increases, or should increase, during every cycle the weights are not above 90% of your 1RM at that time.
To clarify, I meant that during a maximum strength phase it is often recommended to do multiple sets above 90% of 1RM. Again, I’m not saying that the program won’t work and will try it anyway. Personally, training above the 90% has not produced the desired results. Hopefully this program does.
I don’t see 5/3/1 as a “maximal” strength program but more like a “continual” strength program. If I needed to increase my lifts in a short time, I would be doing something different than 5/3/1 but I would rather go slower and possibly end up with greater increases over the long haul.
[quote]harrimark wrote:
The thing that puzzles me with this program are the percentages of 1RM used. Cressey and many other strength coaches recommend that a person with long strength training experience should train mainly at intensities above 90%, if looking to increase maximal strength. Even with the 1+ set, the intensity will be around 85% of true 1RM. I’m not arguing that the program won’t work, but this contradiction concerns me. Is the intensity high enough for a guy with efficient CNS?[/quote]
First, there isn’t a contradiction. There might be if this were Ed Cressey’s 5/3/1, but it is Jim Wendler’s program. Many strength coaches recommend training 3 days per week, but 5/3/1 advocates training 4 days per week with some exceptions. Is this a contradiction, too? No; just different training methods.
As for intensity not being high enough, if you workout 4 days per week, give it your all with your final set of the day, and put some effort into the assistance lifts, I guarantee you’ll get all the intensity you need to get stronger.
[quote]rogernh wrote:
Stupid question perhaps, but I couldn’t make it out from the manual: When progressing, do you just add 5/10 pounds to the original 90% of max, or do you add the pounds to the original 100% and then calculate a new 90% 1RM?[/quote]
Look at the Excel spreadsheets in the book. This has your answer.
[quote]harrimark wrote:
The thing that puzzles me with this program are the percentages of 1RM used. Cressey and many other strength coaches recommend that a person with long strength training experience should train mainly at intensities above 90%, if looking to increase maximal strength. Even with the 1+ set, the intensity will be around 85% of true 1RM. I’m not arguing that the program won’t work, but this contradiction concerns me. Is the intensity high enough for a guy with efficient CNS?[/quote]
Everytime you mention the word “CNS” you sink deeper into that part of the land Jim wants us to leave…
[quote]evitagen wrote:
harrimark wrote:
The thing that puzzles me with this program are the percentages of 1RM used. Cressey and many other strength coaches recommend that a person with long strength training experience should train mainly at intensities above 90%, if looking to increase maximal strength. Even with the 1+ set, the intensity will be around 85% of true 1RM. I’m not arguing that the program won’t work, but this contradiction concerns me. Is the intensity high enough for a guy with efficient CNS?
First, there isn’t a contradiction. There might be if this were Ed Cressey’s 5/3/1, but it is Jim Wendler’s program. Many strength coaches recommend training 3 days per week, but 5/3/1 advocates training 4 days per week with some exceptions. Is this a contradiction, too? No; just different training methods.
As for intensity not being high enough, if you workout 4 days per week, give it your all with your final set of the day, and put some effort into the assistance lifts, I guarantee you’ll get all the intensity you need to get stronger.[/quote]
Intensity means how close to your one rep max you’re training, not how hard you’re training. Also, I would’t compare the number of training days per week with training intensity. Most strength coaches recommend rep range of 1-5 (~85-100% of 1RM) when training for maximal strength. This program seems to be geared toward strength increases through increasing muscle size, as the intensity is less than 85% of true 1RM most of the time.
[quote]harrimark wrote:
Appreciate your answer. Though as your 1RM increases, or should increase, during every cycle the weights are not above 90% of your 1RM at that time.
[/quote]
The poundages you use will increase at a faster rate than your 1RM, therefore putting the weights above 90%. If they didn’t increase faster than your 1RM, you could run the program forever without ever scaling back, which we both know isn’t true.
Intensity means how close to your one rep max you’re training, not how hard you’re training. [/quote]
All I said was the intensity was high enough to promote strength increases.
I didn’t. But if you think you can get the same workload in three days that 5/3/1 devotes to four days, then you are blessed.
[quote]Most strength coaches recommend rep range of 1-5 (~85-100% of 1RM) when training for maximal strength. This program seems to be geared toward strength increases through increasing muscle size, as the intensity is less than 85% of true 1RM most of the time.[/quote] Can you gain muscle with 5/3/1? Yes. Do you have to to gain strength? No.
Really, who cares what anonymous strength coaches say? The program works.
Sheiko routines like 29 or 37 (didn’t mention the others because I don’t know them) don’t have very high percentages for powerlifting programs yet they are effective at increasing strength in the three power lifts.
The beauty about 5/3/1 is that you don’t have to operate at your true max and also don’t have to max out all the time to PROGRESS on your four main lifts. Plus it’s relatively easy on the joints and tendons compared to others “strength” program.
Having a well thought plan with a logical progress scheme is the key here, not going over 90% of your true max.
[quote]harrimark wrote:
The thing that puzzles me with this program are the percentages of 1RM used. Cressey and many other strength coaches recommend that a person with long strength training experience should train mainly at intensities above 90%, if looking to increase maximal strength. Even with the 1+ set, the intensity will be around 85% of true 1RM. I’m not arguing that the program won’t work, but this contradiction concerns me. Is the intensity high enough for a guy with efficient CNS?[/quote]
I think a key part of your statement is “long strength training experience”. If you can still make strength gains with submaximal weights (which includes almost everyone) then why not hold the really heavy sets in reserve for when you either need to peek for a contest or for when the submaximal stuff no longer works.