A phrase not often encountered on weightlifting websites.
5 Likes
Me understand 4 word in sentence.
6 Likes
Such meaningful words have never been spoken in such a forum…but it totally relates to weightlifting haha
2 Likes
Yeah. I had to reach into my own mental way back machine for that one. 
1 Like
dephosphorylation? Is that to do with chopping down trees?
1 Like
Only if you didn’t buy a Stihl. (see things that piss you off thread for details 
)
4 Likes
They used to be. ( is there an emogee for ambivalence? )
1 Like
There are way too many people for me to respond directly at the moment, but I will admit that there are studies that go against what I said, but there are also studies that go with what I say. A common issue that I have found in what I have looked at is what dictates volume. When the same relative load is used, 4x5 I more effective than 4x12. It is my fault for this, but that is not what I meant by volume, even though it is by definition a much higher volume. My main arguement against 5/3/1, the most simplified and basically for of it, only has 3 sets for the whole workout. That adds to 12 total a week. If you increases the number of sets, but maintained the load as opposed to relative load, then majority would see a larger jump in hypertrophy.
I personally train in several rep ranges, depending on the muscle and what mesocycle I am in, but typically like to stay around towards 5-8 reps. It is where I typically have my best workouts, but that is irrelevant. If you feel as though this is incorrect thinking, then you should use only 3 sets each workout. You will probably see what I was referring to.
And I will thank @flipcollar for the compliment on my physique. It is appreciated.
Only the Jack Shit program does. It is a strawman to argue against this approach for hypertrophy, as no one is arguing for it.
1 Like
Why are you so insistent to define 5/3/1 as something it is not? 3 sets per workout has to be the most clueless way I’ve heard it described. Is this just so you can keep arguing with people?
I said the most simplified and basically form of it. Hence, the jack shit protocol. I call is the base, because it is the most basic of them.
I made this post about a previous post. There people argued against what I said.
Here as well.
Can you please show me where someone argued in favor of the Jack Shit program for hypertrophy? Those people would be disagreeing with the program creator, which would mean their opinion of 5/3/1 wouldn’t hold much weight.
2 Likes
Agreed. I think most of us were a little arrogant in our youth(I know I was).
To give him credit, JT has worked out what works for him, and he has a fine natty physique, well balanced, and only going to get bigger and better. Great front double biceps dude.
Many different approaches to training will work. Not all will work well for everyone that tries them.
I personally like 5/3/1, but I don’t use it all the time.
2 Likes
Dude, you are dying on a strange hill here.
I understand you believe the Jack Shit protocol to be the most basic form of 5/3/1 programming, which is true. It’s very basic in practice too as one might imagine. But it is a specifically laid out exception of 5/3/1 programming. That would make it not the “base”.
5/3/1 =/= simply the progression model, even in its most “basic” form, is what’s being argued.
2 Likes
He does have a good physique. But is it because he’s ‘worked out what works for him,’ or because he’s an ex-gymnast, and had a good physique before he picked up his first weight?
3 Likes
Did you think this was not the case from the start?
But the first study you posted used 70% for volume and 90% for intensity. It does not support this.
The second study(both used 80% of 1RM to failure), which you posted in support of your previous assertion which was disproved by the first study you posted, actually disproves your current assertion if volume measured by total reps(your own definition) is used as the main factor determining the potential training effect.
1 Like
You are just another Renaissance Periodisation fanboy who is parroting everything Isreatal writes and thinks it’s all “fact” without at least reading the sources cited. I already gave hints that I was aware of this and told you the problems with this way of thinking during our first exchange 2 days ago.
2 Likes
I weighed 97 lbs at 5’5 when I quit gymnastics. It did not help my phisique much at all, even though I was very competitive.
As a reference, I weighed in at 153 this morning and I am still 5’5.
1 Like