Here you go. If you lack the fundemantal fact that volume drives hypertrophy, I will give you a link to a study that states that as true.
I apologize, but I do not find that making it excusable, in the same way I would not appreciate racial slurs from someone I shared a race with. The language is un needed and harmful.
I disagree with you, as does the program creator. Is there a reason I should hold your opinion on 5/3/1 in higher regard than the program creator’s opinion? Especially since, by your own admission, you have read none of the books?
1 Like
I wouldn’t really consider that a gay slur since it could also be used to against women. It is a way of saying somebody is dominating you, not calling you gay.
And here. We are talking at eachother. I suggest that we take turns explaining our points, but we do it a small amount at a time. While you explain your points, I will say nothing other than “go on” to accknowledge that what you said was ready. Same thing with the vice versa. Would you be open to that?
Sorry dude but did you read that study? Your arguing that volume drives hypertrophy is actually disproved when comparing a volume (VOL) group with an intensity (INT) group.
“Compared to VOL, greater improvements (P < 0.05) in lean arm mass (5.2 ± 2.9% vs. 2.2 ± 5.6%) and 1RM BP (14.8 ± 9.7% vs. 6.9 ± 9.0%) were observed for INT.”
“Furthermore, 93.3% of participants in INT experienced a change in lean arm mass that was greater than the minimal difference (MD = 0.23 kg) for this measure. In contrast, only 64.3% of participants in VOL experienced such a change.”
“Significant improvements in 1RM bench press were observed in both VOL (PRE: 104.5 ± 19.2 kg, POST: 110.9 ± 17.5 kg, P = 0.018) and INT (PRE: 108.8 ± 31.8 kg, POST: 123.8 ± 34.1 kg, P < 0.001) groups, however the increase was significantly greater for INT than VOL (see Fig.Fig.1A).1A). These findings were consistent when expressed relative to body mass”
“It appears that high-intensity resistance training stimulates greater improvements in some measures of strength and hypertrophy in resistance-trained men during a short-term training period.”
This was from the study you just presented me.
1 Like
I apologize; my question was not rhetorical. Why should I hold your opinion on what is and is not 5/3/1 in higher regard than the program creator’s opinion on it, especially when, by your own admission, you have read none of the books?
If you can provide me a compelling reason, I will listen to you. If not, I once again suggest reading 5/3/1 Forever for a good overview on the program.
I will admit that I didn’t fully read the study, but instead clicked on the first one that showed up. That was lazyness on my part and I appologize for it. If I saw that they considered 4x12 to be high volume then I wouldn’t have chose it. I wouldn’t consider that to be high volume, and many shiuldn’t when considering that majority if people do more than 48 reps for a muscle in all. I will find another two that better fit high volume.
Again, I appologize for my lazyness. Here are two other studies. And fun fact, a lot of studies that I found were actually for rats? I didn’t use them, but thats weird right?
Shit. Here are the links
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C43&q=high+volume+vs+low+volume+training+for+hypertrophy&btnG=#d=gs_qabs&p=&u=%23p%3DPOZEdgsBkeUJ
The answer is that you shouldn’t hold either with a seperate weight shen determining what pros and cons of the systems are. Without that, you hold bias.
But that was not my question.
None of my dialogue has been in regards to the pros and cons of the system; it has been in regards to there being a “base program.” It appears this may be the root of the confusion. I have no interest in debating the pros and cons of 5/3/1 with you. This was purely about the existence of a base program, of which your definition conflicts with the program creator’s. I am sure you will observed this if you re-read all of my posts.
I am glad we have cleared up the confusion, and am confident you now understand the situation and why one would be more compelled to listen to the program creator about what is and is not the program.
1 Like
Okay, I had a miss understanding there. I apologize. I still believe in the base though. Not that it was labeles a base, but that it is one due to it pretty much being the most simplified version of the main work across what is seen as the main work of the other existing variations. I see it as such because variations need a base. There was an Original concept that had to be altered to create the variations after all. I see what I called the base form as that due to the simplicity that it has and that it is the only portion that has ties to all of the other variations.
This is fine. Humans have the freedom to believe whatever they want. Just be aware that your belief conflicts with what the program creator has said.
2 Likes
I’m not referring to the jack shit variation itself as the base, but the concept of that basic mainwork as is. An example would be the monolith. You can kinda have the monolith without the assistance work. It is a shell of itself, but it is still the monolith. You cannot take away the portions that are set up with reps of 5, 3, and 1 amd it still be the monolith though. That is what makes it what it is. The most simplistic form, or the most basic form, is the one that I named already. We can probably agree that it has the least variability and is very straight forward. That being said, it is the most basic form. With base being the base of basic makes it by definition the base. That it why I called it the base form. That and it is the most popularized form of it.
I will be going to be now. I got a bit to do tomorrow, but I will do my best to get online again.
You could, but that would be it’s own program and therefore no longer a 5/3/1 program, which would make discussing it as 5/3/1 immaterial.
But the basic framework of 5/3/1 is mainwork, supplemental, assistance, conditioning, jumps and throws. The creator of the program has said this many times.
uhm… can you?
If I say to eat a diet focused around steaks, and then give a list of vegetables, fats, etc to fill out your micro-nutrient profile, then that is the diet. If you choose to eat a ton of steak but then sub out the laid out secondary foods for twinkies and ho hos, then I would not find it fair to still say you are following the diet.
I think this can be equally applied to the program. Jim said building the monolith is when you do x, y, and z. If any single portion of that is changed, it is no longer building the monolith, rather your own personal variation. Which is fair, you can easily claim to run your own variation of a program, but it is in fact yours at this point, not the creators planned intent.
3 Likes
Well, there’s a few possibilities here.
You have all the facts and everyone is running around being irrational because… they’re morons? Maybe?
You don’t have all the facts but you think you do and you’re making an idiot of yourself.
From your perspective, you wouldn’t be able to tell the difference. Given your posting history, I know where my money is.
3 Likes
I am running a 531 program. Here’s what I did today, following the program to a T:
Warm up/mobility (15 minutes). Jumping jacks, agile 8, calisthenics.
10 box jumps / 10 throws
6x5 Bench press, working up to 235 lbs x 5. This was the heaviest set, but was done explosively and not near failure. (this is the warmup and working sets)
5x10 bench press @ 185 lbs. (this is the supplemental)
So, 11 total sets and 80 total reps.
Between each set, rotated: 5x10 straight leg deads with 55 lbs DBs; 6x10 DB squats with 90 lbs. (these were the assistance)
Total time of workout, not counting warmup/jumps = 38 minutes.
Then, I did 4x15 face pulls as a cool down/pre-hab. I do these or pull aparts each workout.
I was covered in sweat, but felt strong and energized to shower and get back to the lab.
2 Likes
I don’t follow 5/3/1 so don’t try to say I just have JW’s dick down my throat. Plain and simple, you don’t know how to run 5/3/1. You don’t understand the purpose of how it’s designed or how different people might choose templates to meet specific goals. So we don’t have a situation where you are stating facts that others are refusing, we have a situation where many of the statements you are making, regardless of their truth, are completely irrelevant to whether or not 5/3/1 can be an effective program for strength or hypertrophy.
A 5/3/1 approach by itself without any supplementary exercises, would indeed not be the most effective system to use. It would still be effective for many people though.
The strength of the 5/3/1 system relies on your ability to personalize it to your own needs in terms of volume.
I’m curious about your age, how many years training you have under your belt, and what your goals are?
Are you studying sports/exercise science?
What are your credentials?
What are these studies you refer to?