I am a fan of Mike, but only use his advice when considering periodization and peaking volume through sets. I did not believe in his generalization of volume since he has given no actual source as to how he found the information. I would say I am a fan of his probably because I have studied how he has though. I am an exercise science major, and he is one of the most technically driven people I could find. I am also a fan of Jeff Nippard though. Only reason why I mentioned Mike earlier is because he has the biggest name that I can think of in terms of volume.
As to your responce starting with 70% and 90%. That was a relative load. Relatove loads do not show how volume shines though. 4x5@80% has the same relative load as 4x12@65% (or atleast extremely similar since many cases will not be exact). The issue I have with that, is it doesn’t show what I was trying say though. I don’t refer to shear number of reps as volume, but instead I go by sets. Why not use 6x12@65% over 3x5@72%? That was what I was trying to use the term volume for. I explain that above, but apparently not well enough.
Look up. I was arguing with many why the volume just doesn’t hold up in jack shit. There were people trying to say the volume doesn’t matter. That is also why I originally got on the topic of 5/3/1 on the precious post. Somebody said that it is great for hypertrophy. He just said 5/3/1, so I imagined he meant the version that was popularized for who knows why. (If you google 5/3/1, majority of the first results will be jack shit, and sometimes will have bbb as assistance. That is my theory on why it was so popularized.) I argued my point for it, and idk how many people argued that I was wrong because jack shit has plenty of volume for growth and has a great load according to some of the people argueing against me.
I realize that there is more to 5/3/1. I knew that before I made this account, and have stated that I understand that above I believe. I refered to jack shit as 5/3/1 because it firstly is a part of 5/3/1, and because if it an extremely popularized form of 5/3/1. In fact, if you google 5/3/1, most of the top results are jack shit. Some of them include bbb as well.
None of the websites on Google up to the “More Results” button have 5/3/1 with no supplementary or assistance work.
Anyway, the lesson you should take, if you ignore the above, is that you should get your information from the source not some mechanism you believe rates it’s popularity.
You may have been too young to be easily putting on mass, but for sure your gymnastics background helped with MMC. I suspected that when I saw your pictures.
BTW, you look like you could be one of my brothers. Both are about 5’5" and muscular. One only weighed about 105 at nineteen, and his mature muscle mass was a real detriment as a professional jockey. He had to retire earlier than he would have liked.
This.
You look just gorgeous, young man.
Alright, let’s just say I disregard the previous post and go with this. Let’s say I go with your intent instead of just the words used and the way you are explaining things.
You assert that the existence of a study supporting your argument makes it FACT. (Actually you didn’t. Your assertion is that someone on youtube interpreting and selectively using studies that support your argument makes it fact, which is absurd. I’m giving you that much leeway.)
Where are the studies?
Can you debunk the counter studies?
Remember, your claim is that this is all FACT and not simply an opinion, informed or otherwise. And your contention is that this entire forum is filled with deep throating sycophants “refusing facts”.
Result 1
Gives a the main work of jack shit, then follow with a few assistance sets. 10 to be exact. Not suitable at all for what I was arguing the faults of (keep in mind that the very first time I said anything about 5/3/1 was when somebody recommended it to a noob for arm growth on the previous topic).
Result 2
Pretty much the same thing. Only differences really are the inclusion of a “widowmaker set,” the assitiance is given the same amount of love, but it done in total reps as opposed to sets, and includes about work and warm ups.
Result 3
A Hardcore Look At Wendler’s 5/3/1 Powerlifting Routine on Muscle & Strength
This one I like more than what I have seen so far. It gives variety and doesn’t tell you that what they prescibe is 5/3/1, but that there are variations.
Result 4
Jim’s blog
Result 5
Wendler’s 5/3/1 on lift .net
Has yet again the jack shit protocol and gives bbbs. Along with that, it also uses the triumvirate. I know it is not bbbs, but runs into the same issues as bbbs di with the subject that I was reaponding to. It also has a writen portion containing only jack shit and calls that the program.
Result 6
Amazon (I apparently need to cancel prime)
Result 7
Training Style to Know: 5/3/1 Method on Men’s Journal
Jack shit along with bbbs, again. Also have a version of the triumvirate.
Result 8
I like this one. It would probably scare away a noob, but a curious one not so much. It has options to add jokers and down sets (shich I did myself) ontop of the basis of jack shit. It also has an option to do away with the training max (I did this also) and a few more options.
Result 9
GET SUPER STRONG WITH 5/3/1 TRAINING on Muscle and Fitness
100% jack shit
I feel like there was supposed to be 10? I don’t know which on I missed or if google only pulls 9 each page or whatever else it could be. If you guys know the answer for that I would be curious.
I was 18. And it definitly helped me learn how to control my weight, but 97@ 5’5 doesn’t seem to be doing much but aid in neuro effeciency. Thank you for the compliment btw.
What I have said is fact. There were studies shown above for that, as well as the opposition. They both debunk eachother. With that said, fact is strange in this field because where there is evidence that makes one thing fact, there is also evidence making an oposite claim fact as well. Let’s take biceo curls as an example. Many claim that extremely heavy curls are best to grow your arms. Many ithers claim that biceps get their heavy work on back day, so they need to be trained light. There is evidence to support both, so both are fact by definition. The only time one is no longer fact is when it is out of it’s playing field. An extreme example would be 3 heavy total sets a week vs 50 moderate total sets a week. Chances are that the 50 moderate weighted sets will be better than 3 heavy. The vice versa happens as well. 3 heavy sets a week are better than 3 moderate sets. Both were used in differing fields, and gave different results. The more volume based week had taken advantage of it’s volume when the heavy week didn’t take advantage of its own strengths. The low volume week had done better in it’s victorious scenario when it was able to take advantage of it strengths and the more volume based did not.
It is subjective to training, but, for hypertroohy reasons, the 5/3/1 form that I explained has much work to improve on.
This is getting too meta for me lol.
Anyway, nice physique. Stick around but please stop with the references to Wendler’s penis. It’s not a nice mental image to have.
Dude, let it go. Stop using this strawman. NO ONE here does this form of 5/3/1, nor will they claim it’s good for hypertrophy. Phil Heath doesn’t only do 7 sets of flyes for his chest when he’s using FST-7.
This is like saying “My mile run was pretty much like doing marathon. Only difference would be the inclusion of 25 miles”.
And this is often why people refuse “facts”. They have preconceived notions that they would prefer to cling to rather than accepting alternate possibilities. Once someone starts thinking that a particular type of thinking makes them better than others then the ego becomes invested and it would require a hit to the ego to release the mind from that clinging.
Not always, but often.
I’ve used the jack shit program before and got very efficient results with it. Meaning that I wasn’t exercising much, eating much, or sleeping much, yet continued to slowly but surely get stronger. At the time I was not pursuing optimal hypertrophy.
They literally all have sections on assistance work.
The problem seems to be that you’re not actually reading the articles. You’re either assuming or misinterpreting. For example, from the first 2 links:
"Along with the bench press, squat, shoulder press, and deadlift, 5/3/1 includes assistance exercises to build muscle, prevent injury, and create a balanced physique. My favorites are strength-training staples like chin-ups, dips, lunges, and back extensions.
But don’t go ape-shit with supplemental exercises. They should complement the training, not detract from it."
“Main Lift: Squat
Warm-up
65% x 5
75% x 5
85% x 5+ (PR set)
65% x 20 reps (widowmaker set)
Assistance:
Dip, push-up, or dumbbell bench/incline/press (choose one) – 50-100 total reps
Pull-up, row, lat pulldown, inverted row, curl, shrug (choose one) – 50-100 total reps
Any abdominal, low back, single-leg movement, kettlebell swing, kettlebell snatch (choose one) – 50-100 total reps”
Now you can tell the first wasn’t written by Jim as it confuses supplemental work with assistance work. Something he’d never do.
So, to recap, you are using a completely wrong method of deciding what 5/3/1 is instead of choosing the authoritative source. You are hallucinating about what you are actually seeing.
How can we trust anything you construe as “fact” when you simply don’t see what’s infront of you?
I will refer you back to the previous topic, where it was argued that it is a great hypertrophy system, evsn after I explained which version of 5/3/1 that I was talking about.
Since it was a single set, it is more like saying that you ran a mile in intervals, and made one interview last longer. The widow maker sets were included only ince a workout.
I have provided proofs as to how this version of 5/3/1 can be improved, and have acknowledged that there are evidence for both sides. If you still think that those versions of 5/3/1 that I have linked have no room to improve for hypertrophy purposes, then why don’t you just go run it yourself?
The issue with what you claimed is that I have accepted that there are two sides that have both proven themselves to be self evident. My arguement wasn’t that low volume doesn’t work, because it has when people use an adequate load for it, but instead that the versions of 5/3/1 that I linked have plenty of room for improvement for when I comes to hypertrophy (especially for arms, since this whole thing started when I said the programs that I desrcibed are not optimal when simebody asked how to grow their arms and simebody gave them that advice).
I forgot to respond to the last section of what you said. I also ran jack shit. I ran it for a small amount of time before learning that I can add bbbs to it, then I ran that for around 6 months. I made progress, but when I changed it to lesser the flaws that I saw in the program, I began to see my maxes go up faster. My arguement wasn’t that it doesn’t work, but that there are better ways to do such (yet again, especially for arms).