The problems here seems to be that you didn’t read at all what I had said when I placed those links.
I stated, in a spark notes version, what programs the given link gave. I even mentioned the one that you posted. I said, “Gives the main work of jack shit, then follow with a few assistance sets. 10 to be exact.”
Why do you feel the need to restate what the articla said?
And I think you were reffering to the second link. This is the same as the first one, but instead of sets and reps it js given as total reps, includes ab work, and has a prescribed warm up.
When somebody says “Use 5/3/1,” then does not proceed to state which variaition, I will assume the popularized versions, which were those. Reason being, a person that doesn’t know who Jim is could still very easily find 5/3/1 because when a noob goes online and searches for something along the lines of workout programs for beginners it will likely be one that is mentioned. I should state that I don’t know how or if it will show up with that exactly sesrch, but I remember first getting into lifting and running stringlifts 5x5. I thought it was boring after given not a long time, but long enough to figure out where my strength was since I remember maxing out a handful of times before changing over. When I decided to change, I changed over to 5/3/1 after searching for programs in some way shape or form.
I have stated what is in front of me. You repeated what I said, granted in a more specific and altered way, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is what I said.
It wasn’t fully intended as a claim directed at you, but I understood the possibility that you would perceive it as such. Now you are defensive.
I wanted to try and answer the thread title - the thread title is what pulled me in
You have an interesting perspective. You’re OP says
But then here you seem agree that even the Jack Shit/basic form works
Now you seem to be shifting into saying that Jack Shit is not the best program ever for maximal arm development. Duh. You’re all over the place. Calm down. Breathe. I don’t know what happened in the other thread but I’m pretty sure that in a few weeks you will have forgotten it. There’s no need to get hostile with hordes of strangers over the internet
This is the problem, you wrongly believed that when people said 5/3/1 they meant the jack shit version. The reality is not one person was talking about the jack shit version and no one was arguing that version has enough volume for growth. This is your mistake.
It’s best to go by the books and not some random google searches, some of those weren’t even written by him. If you had read the books you would have better understanding of what you are talking about.
Before you call me a fan boy, I haven’t ever done 5/3/1 and don’t plan on trying it.
You shouldn’t use your broken logic to judge anything. That’s where you’re having trouble.
Ok mate, 1st up please read this as me not being hostile at all. I don’t mind debates but defensive and hostile arguments make me tired and disinterested.
2nd, I think you have got to pick your fights. I’m not sure if you realise but you are all over the place. I understand why though, you are trying to debate with 5+ intelligent and experienced people all at one (I’m not one of them lol).
3rd, you seem to have a good grasp of most things but it would be cool if you listened more than talk. There is much to learn from the people you are interacting with and they are more than happy to share if you are happy to learn.
And finally, just try to be a little less defensive. Most of the people in this thread I have communicated or at least read their thoughts on a near daily basis for over a year and they (usually) just like to share their wisdom which is super hard with you beating a dead horse repeatedly so to speak.
Is it wrong to call me defensive on the subject when virtually everybody in this topic here is trying to debate me on the subject?
My OP doesn’t say that it won’t work, and my arguement even since the previous topic was about it no being as good as it could be. I used the word “optimal,” but apparently people seem to be offended when I say that 5/3/1, just like every program, has issues and can be better optimized.
That was what it was originally about. Not being best for arm development. Then I was asked why, and I brought up the issues with jack that would be issues for that situation. Then I was asked why that is, so I responded that it could have a changed volume or load to improve it. Then I had to explain why that was. That is why it has turned into talking about thebissues with it period.
I will appologize for my behavior as well. Not all has been well in my personal life, so I was prescribed medications for anxiety and depression that often give me mood swings. I am generally a very kind and polite person, as would would see very early in the other post, but I am still getting used to the new meds.
Let me run you through a scenerio.
If I told you that I run stronglifts 5x5, what would you thnk I run?
Just because my logic differs from what you believe doesn’t make it broken.
I’ve never run Stronglifts, or even looked at the program. All I know it involves 5x5. I wouldn’t have strong opinions on what you have run without doing some research. This is where you went wrong with 5/3/1.
I’m not sure where you are going with this.
I agree, that it’s different to mine is the least of the problems with your thought process.
I realize that I am all over the place. In one convo I am argueing why 5/3/1 isn’t optimal. In anither I am argueing why it would makes sense to believe somebody is talking about the popularized version when he uses the name without naming a variation. Then in others I am argueing these same things, but answering different questions.
The issue with listening to many of these people is that majority are running programs that were written by somebody they never met is because they don’t know how to program themselves. If they can give me an inteligent explanation as to why it is better to run a cookie cutter program as opposed to one that was written for their specific needs, then I would listen to the knowledge that they possess, in terms of training. And I really feel as though I have been reading what has been said and then analysing it. That is why it has changed subjects so much, or at least a reason. Each person had a different quarrel, and I responded thusly. On the subjects that aren’t really up for debate (eg 5/3/1, along with all other programs, have room for improvement since nothing is perfect.) I have reiterated it multiple times. That is because it is a simple truth. Anything can be improved upon, even if a person is a fan of the subject.
I believe I am coming off as defensive because I am defending what I have said. Is that defensive? Yes! Of course! I will not deny that. I will continue to do so until somebody proves to me that these programs are perfect, thusly disproving my point. And what you said last is strange. I have shared my knowledge for multiple others to beat it like a dead horse. How is it any different?
No no no. I am running you through a scenerio. Just answer what I ask so that we can hopefully reach a conclusion here.
I told you that I am running stronglifts 5x5. I gave you no more information. What do you think I run?
Just because you cannot comprehend my process doesn’t mean it is flawed. I can comprehend yours, and I saw a flaw. It could just be me being the perfectionist I am (not claiming to be perfect btw. I am far from and so is everybody and everything else), but I saw a flaw in your logic, and adjusted it to create mine.
I don’t think I’ve ever come across anyone who makes stuff up to the degree you do. I understand your thought process, and it’s beyond flawed, it’s fucked up.
You are truly bizarre dude. You start threads about facts and then go on an extended exercise demonstrating an incredible ability to misinterpret even the most basic things.
Here’s the problem:
FACT/ PROOF
-
You refer to your opinions as FACT. A FACT implies that there are no valid counter arguments in existence. Which means you have not even opened the floor to a debate on the subject.
-
You posted a video of some unknown dude stating the problems with 5/3/1 and called it PROOF. PROOF is evidence that supports your argument such as a study, not someone making a more concise argument in your favor.
These are the wrong choice of words if you want to make a point that conflicts with the opinions of others.
5/3/1 Articles vs Reading the books
-
You were told multiple times that articles written by others aren’t accurate representations of 5/3/1 and that you should read the BOOKS written by Wendler himself. But you are still making your arguments based the perception you have derived from the articles which is why you are being told you are using a straw man.
-
Some of the people arguing with you have probably never read the books but they seem to have grasped the principles behind 5/3/1 with sufficient accuracy so the problem does not completely lie with the articles.
A pretty shitty program.
I did answer in my last post. I don’t know anything about stronglifts, so I wouldn’t know what you have run. I would have to do some research first. I don’t have opinions on things I know I’m ignorant about.
This is where you went wrong with 5/3/1. You had an idea in your head of what 5/3/1 is and assumed you were correct and that other people thought the same thing as you did. You should have done some research before having an opinion on the program first.
This fucking thread… 
5/3/1 Forever pg 24
Assistance Work
“The general recommendations for the base 5/3/1 program are:
Push - 50-100 total reps
Pull - 50-100 total reps
Single Leg/Core - 50-100 total reps”
But, hey, what does Wendler know about 5/3/1
I’ve read about 5 posts - is it still about what it was about at first? If so, damn son.
Apparently it’s about what’s the most basic template of 5/3/1 that exists because idk…