Program recommendations?

[mgil]

@CaptainAwesome, like I mentioned before, write out the two weeks of Texas method programming where you hit every set and rep. List the scheme across days and the weights.

Not to be a pedant, but some of this stuff matters.

[alek]

Not sure its for me. Seems like powerlufting focused, and thats not my bag.

It doesn't have to be powerlifting focused. MM is based upon daily undulating periodization (DUP) where every week you do hypertrophy (H), strength (S), and power/peaking (P) work; I think the order is HPS for MM. The actual exercises don't have to always be comp squat, comp bench, comp deadlift, etc. For hypertrophy squat, you might do SSB squat, high bar squat, front squat, leg press, etc.

So an example week may be SSB squat for hypertrophy on Monday, comp squat doubles/triples on Wednesday for power, and paused/pin squat for sets of 5/6 on Friday for strength.

Im also not keen to be in the gym 5 days, even if the sessions may be shorter. I do like to look at and think about effective programming though, so maybe stuff there will be useful to me in the future. Given whats been said, i think ive been fucked by two things generally:

I only ever did 3 days per week--maybe 4 once or twice.

2. Using power clean/snatch for deadlift volume. I am not even able to do one of these for 200, i dont think using them is helping my 400+ deadlift.

Yeah, there are much better options for volume deadlift: RDLs, stiff legged DL, paused DL, snatch grip DL, deficit DL, etc.

[JohnHelton]

I'm not even sure I know what powerlifting focused means. I know what strength biased vs hypertrophy biased means.

[ChasingCurls69]

You can employ amrap sets regularly. Also you may find that you make progress just fine with consistently inaccurate RPEs.

Maybe, but i like baby steps when it comes to programming changes. Rpe feels like a change not only in programming but in mindset. Id rather try something like programming not rpe based and just rating my sets without the ratings guiding the program before jumping into programming with it.

That's understandable and a pretty common barrier for people switching to RPE based programs. I agree with @dw and think something like a top set that is RPE-based and then using a % of estimated max and the occasional AMRAP to double check your ratings would be a good way to introduce it.

Something more aligned with your current approach would be to do the Baker program but start logging your RPE for sets that are 8-10. When you are good at that, try rating 6-7's too. You can also reference the RPE+percentage chart as a guide while doing this. The program won't change based on this, but you get low-pressure practice.

[MarkKO]

The whole rest between sets thing is silly. If you get accustomed to it, you can go somewhere between 60 and 90 seconds between reasonably hard sets. What I like to do is give myself a maximum time of 10 minutes to complete 5x5, for example. You do that for a while and then if you have a really tough set coming up you rest for three minutes or so and you're completely recovered.

How would you recommend doing this? Just 5x5ing with quicker rests at lighter weight and work up while keeping the rests short?

Sixty per cent tends to be a good place to start. The way I do it is to focus on acceleration throughout each rep. Then if I want to add weight, I have to complete the 5x5 in 10 minutes or less. If I do, I add around 2.5%.

[asdf]

How would you recommend doing this? Just 5x5ing with quicker rests at lighter weight and work up while keeping the rests short?

Rather than timing rest between sets, I like to keep pace by starting each set at a fixed interval. I often lift with my wife, and using 2 minute intervals allows us enough time to alternate, get all the plates switched, and still get some rest. So, for a 5 x 5, I'd start the sets at 0, 2, 4, 6, and 8 mins. If you want to go faster, rather than using 1 min rest after each set, I'd just go every 1:30 or 1:15.

[CaptainAwesome]

I'm not even sure I know what powerlifting focused means. I know what strength biased vs hypertrophy biased means.

Well, the programming included "comp. bench press", and generally seems focused on squat/bench/deadlift.

@CaptainAwesome, like I mentioned before, write out the two weeks of Texas method programming where you hit every set and rep. List the scheme across days and the weights.

Not to be a pedant, but some of this stuff matters.

The thing is, I more or less hit every set and rep of the entire thing. The baked in resets kept the volume workouts from turning into death-grinds, which I imagine is probably the thing that destroys people on texas method style programs. But the intensity work proceeded well. I had to adjust my squat volume quite a bit down to 3x5 though, because again, this problem I have with the damn things. Comparing it to other lifts, I think the upping rest intervals is what let it get to this point. Problem was never not hitting weight targets though. In fact when I got down to the one heavy single attempt for squat, bench, and press, they all were surprisingly fast and easy. Deadlift's single was a grind, though. The lifts also didn't all "mature" at the same rate as well, so a 2 week snapshot of the end would look weird.

[JohnHelton]

I'm not even sure I know what powerlifting focused means. I know what strength biased vs hypertrophy biased means.

Well, the programming included "comp. bench press", and generally seems focused on squat/bench/deadlift.

Got it. I think @alek addressed this, but it is more of a template in the sense that you could swap press and bench, if you were more interested in overhead press. Also, squat and deadlift could be any form of those two movements (e.g. SSB squat or hack bar deadlift). The program is compound lift focused as opposed to machine focused. A good portion of those on this forum lift in their home gyms and don't have access to machines. It also probably has a strength bias, but the lower intensity (% of 1RM) work will certainly create hypertrophy while still having a positive affect on absolute strength.

[mgil]

I'm not even sure I know what powerlifting focused means. I know what strength biased vs hypertrophy biased means.

Well, the programming included "comp. bench press", and generally seems focused on squat/bench/deadlift.

CaptainAwesome, like I mentioned before, write out the two weeks of Texas method programming where you hit every set and rep. List the scheme across days and the weights.

Not to be a pedant, but some of this stuff matters.

The thing is, I more or less hit every set and rep of the entire thing. The baked in resets kept the volume workouts from turning into death-grinds, which I imagine is probably the thing that destroys people on texas method style programs. But the intensity work proceeded well. I had to adjust my squat volume quite a bit down to 3x5 though, because again, this problem I have with the damn things. Comparing it to other lifts, I think the upping rest intervals is what let it get to this point. Problem was never not hitting weight targets though. In fact when I got down to the one heavy single attempt for squat, bench, and press, they all were surprisingly fast and easy. Deadlift's single was a grind, though. The lifts also didn't all "mature" at the same rate as well, so a 2 week snapshot of the end would look weird.

Did you log your sessions?

Looking for numbers and percentages to somewhat get a feel for the execution of the Rx. Obviously not getting that at this point.

[Hanley]

Well, the programming included "comp. bench press", and generally seems focused on squat/bench/deadlift.

None of my templates are powerlifting templates. They're "getting strong primarily with barbells" templates. "Comp" just means "tested" or "primary".

I have to admit, I very much dislike powerlifting.

[JohnHelton]

Yeah. Powerlifting is just a sport where you display strength in a onesie while being judged against certain criteria. It isn't a style of training.

[CaptainAwesome]

Did you log your sessions?

Looking for numbers and percentages to somewhat get a feel for the execution of the Rx. Obviously not getting that at this point.

I have a log on the SS site. It's long and meandering, full of my own personal notes. It's also punctuated here and there with deloading weeks, which usually happened when I pushed a particular rep scheme too hard on intensity day. It's still ongoing at the moment. I'm not entirely sure what you're looking for, like what percentages of 1RM I was working with? I didn't really have any good 1RM data until the end of the thing. Anyway, if you're really keen on boring yourself, here it is: https://startingstrength.com/resources/ ... 022-a.html

None of my templates are powerlifting templates. They're "getting strong primarily with barbells" templates. "Comp" just means "tested" or "primary".

I have to admit, I very much dislike powerlifting.

Yeah, not my thing either. I'm just a guy who's fallen in love with making himself stronger, and wants to keep doing it. I was just going off that one template I saw linked, which I read while I was at work.

[mgil]

@CaptainAwesome, thanks for the link. It’s useful.

Have you looked at Andy Baker’s spin on TM? He spreads 3 day TM over 10 weekdays, iirc. This might be a better first transition for you. I don’t know if Andy is still offering his group training, but if he is, and it’s still as inexpensive as it was, you might want to sign up for that for a few months or so.

My take is that you need to figure out why you’re grinding yourself down. But making a stark difference in your programming might not be helpful.

[CaptainAwesome]

@CaptainAwesome, thanks for the link. It’s useful.

Have you looked at Andy Baker’s spin on TM? He spreads 3 day TM over 10 weekdays, iirc. This might be a better first transition for you. I don’t know if Andy is still offering his group training, but if he is, and it’s still as inexpensive as it was, you might want to sign up for that for a few months or so.

My take is that you need to figure out why you’re grinding yourself down. But making a stark difference in your programming might not be helpful.

I have looked at it, baker barbell 5x5 right? I've bought it as well as his hypertrophy program. The hypertrophy one is a fucking bargain, it's practically a mini e-book in and of itself of useful info on hypertrophy programming. It's basically what I'm doing now, the 4 day TM on a 3 times a week schedule. The one thing I'm not doing right now is a volume cycled intensity workout, I am doing another "run it out" to see how my progress with this schedule and added assistance work compares to the first time through with the normal 4 day schedule and none of that assistance. I've really grown to like Andy as a resource, both reading his articles and listening to his podcasts. His takes seem to line up a lot with what I've experienced in my own training.

[CheekiBreekiFitness]

If you are relatively "new" to programming, in the sense that you have not tried a lot of programming styles, I feel that the best way to go about this is to give yourself a period of time, say 1 or 2 years, when you experiment and monitor response, so that you actually have an idea of what works for you. Find a set of reasonable programs from reputable sources, and run each of them for say 12 weeks, and see what they do for you: monitor which lifts are increasing, whether or not you like doing them consistently, whether or not you get injured etc.

My opinion on what makes a program reasonable would be:

- the program was made by a reputable person: the person is strong, has been making many other people strong, and has a tolerable personality (in the sense that they do not act like a cult leader or a used car salesman)
- you practice the lifts that you want to get better at: if you want to get good at squatting you need to squat at least sometimes
- a significant part of the program is hypertrophy work: if you do not get bigger your strength will be capped
- you do some form of conditioning to bring up your work capacity (otherwise you will not be able to perform all of the hypertrophy work and recover)
- some form of reasonable progression is implemented: for instance training maxes are increased by a small amount each week or you use amraps to decide when to add weight, or there are RPE targets etc.
- every session is not designed to feel like an out of body experience where you leave the gym completely destroyed

For instance in your current program you do so much of your main lifts that you have no energy for your hypertrophy work, so this is a problem.

Some examples of programs that I would consider reasonable and that I have tried in the past are:

- Barbell Medicine
- RTS
- Stronger by Science
- 531

There are many other reasonable programs that I have not tried, such as the ones cited on the thread, (Andy Baker programs, Hanley's programs etc.) all look very reasonable for instance. I would not consider Starting Strength and its derivatives to be reasonable, also.

Some of the programs will work, some will not, but the information you gather doing them can guide you after you are done experimenting (so it's not wasted time). I think that the amount of variability in response to programs is very underestimated, there are programs that are sound but will simply not work for you. There are also people who do really well on programs that are "not supposed to work". This is also why I feel that program reviews have a small but limited value (even worse if the person reviewing the program has not done the program).

[JohnHelton]

Great response, @CheekiBreekiFitness. I totally agree with this.

[CaptainAwesome]

If you are relatively "new" to programming, in the sense that you have not tried a lot of programming styles, I feel that the best way to go about this is to give yourself a period of time, say 1 or 2 years, when you experiment and monitor response, so that you actually have an idea of what works for you. Find a set of reasonable programs from reputable sources, and run each of them for say 12 weeks, and see what they do for you: monitor which lifts are increasing, whether or not you like doing them consistently, whether or not you get injured etc.

My opinion on what makes a program reasonable would be:

- the program was made by a reputable person: the person is strong, has been making many other people strong, and has a tolerable personality (in the sense that they do not act like a cult leader or a used car salesman)
- you practice the lifts that you want to get better at: if you want to get good at squatting you need to squat at least sometimes
- a significant part of the program is hypertrophy work: if you do not get bigger your strength will be capped
- you do some form of conditioning to bring up your work capacity (otherwise you will not be able to perform all of the hypertrophy work and recover)
- some form of reasonable progression is implemented: for instance training maxes are increased by a small amount each week or you use amraps to decide when to add weight, or there are RPE targets etc.
- every session is not designed to feel like an out of body experience where you leave the gym completely destroyed

For instance in your current program you do so much of your main lifts that you have no energy for your hypertrophy work, so this is a problem.

Some examples of programs that I would consider reasonable and that I have tried in the past are:

- Barbell Medicine
- RTS
- Stronger by Science
- 531

There are many other reasonable programs that I have not tried, such as the ones cited on the thread, (Andy Baker programs, Hanley's programs etc.) all look very reasonable for instance. I would not consider Starting Strength and its derivatives to be reasonable, also.

Some of the programs will work, some will not, but the information you gather doing them can guide you after you are done experimenting (so it's not wasted time). I think that the amount of variability in response to programs is very underestimated, there are programs that are sound but will simply not work for you. There are also people who do really well on programs that are "not supposed to work". This is also why I feel that program reviews have a small but limited value (even worse if the person reviewing the program has not done the program).

I agree with a lot, especially on experimentation. Thats the spproach ive been settling into. I wouldnt say ss derived programming sucks, a lot of andy bakers stuff is ss derived (he co wrote practical programming after all). A lot of the sscs ive followed also seem to use him as a programming resource. Ive come to the conclusion going to their forums looking for post novice training advice is a terrible idea though, youre likely to get a canned link response or someone trying to convince you youre still a novice. Ive already gotten better discussion/advice in this thread alone.

Not sure what you mean by the main lifts being overworked to the exclusion of assistance, since i recently started adding them to my upper days theyve been alright. Lower days have been a trickier matter, but im optimistic about using the squat to condition for the squat as suggested earlier. I havent found cardio type work to give me much bang for my buck in terms of making volume squatting more manageable. Time is a big factor on my lower days, especially since i need to drive farther to use a location with proper equipment for floor pulling.

[CheekiBreekiFitness]

If you are relatively "new" to programming, in the sense that you have not tried a lot of programming styles, I feel that the best way to go about this is to give yourself a period of time, say 1 or 2 years, when you experiment and monitor response, so that you actually have an idea of what works for you. Find a set of reasonable programs from reputable sources, and run each of them for say 12 weeks, and see what they do for you: monitor which lifts are increasing, whether or not you like doing them consistently, whether or not you get injured etc.

My opinion on what makes a program reasonable would be:

- the program was made by a reputable person: the person is strong, has been making many other people strong, and has a tolerable personality (in the sense that they do not act like a cult leader or a used car salesman)
- you practice the lifts that you want to get better at: if you want to get good at squatting you need to squat at least sometimes
- a significant part of the program is hypertrophy work: if you do not get bigger your strength will be capped
- you do some form of conditioning to bring up your work capacity (otherwise you will not be able to perform all of the hypertrophy work and recover)
- some form of reasonable progression is implemented: for instance training maxes are increased by a small amount each week or you use amraps to decide when to add weight, or there are RPE targets etc.
- every session is not designed to feel like an out of body experience where you leave the gym completely destroyed

For instance in your current program you do so much of your main lifts that you have no energy for your hypertrophy work, so this is a problem.

Some examples of programs that I would consider reasonable and that I have tried in the past are:

- Barbell Medicine
- RTS
- Stronger by Science
- 531

There are many other reasonable programs that I have not tried, such as the ones cited on the thread, (Andy Baker programs, Hanley's programs etc.) all look very reasonable for instance. I would not consider Starting Strength and its derivatives to be reasonable, also.

Some of the programs will work, some will not, but the information you gather doing them can guide you after you are done experimenting (so it's not wasted time). I think that the amount of variability in response to programs is very underestimated, there are programs that are sound but will simply not work for you. There are also people who do really well on programs that are "not supposed to work". This is also why I feel that program reviews have a small but limited value (even worse if the person reviewing the program has not done the program).

I agree with a lot, especially on experimentation. Thats the spproach ive been settling into. I wouldnt say ss derived programming sucks, a lot of andy bakers stuff is ss derived (he co wrote practical programming after all). A lot of the sscs ive followed also seem to use him as a programming resource. Ive come to the conclusion going to their forums looking for post novice training advice is a terrible idea though, youre likely to get a canned link response or someone trying to convince you youre still a novice. Ive already gotten better discussion/advice in this thread alone.

Not sure what you mean by the main lifts being overworked to the exclusion of assistance, since i recently started adding them to my upper days theyve been alright. Lower days have been a trickier matter, but im optimistic about using the squat to condition for the squat as suggested earlier. I havent found cardio type work to give me much bang for my buck in terms of making volume squatting more manageable. Time is a big factor on my lower days, especially since i need to drive farther to use a location with proper equipment for floor pulling.

For your lower body lifts (as you are currently doing them) what I meant was that, if they generate so much fatigue that you can't complete the rest of the volume that you need to do in order to grow, then it might be a problem. Now I might have been unclear by what I meant by "hypertrophy work", I did not mean that you can't use the squat as hypertrophy work, to the contrary. However there is a difference between doing all of your squatting with sets of 5 at RPE 9 (that's the starting strength approach in a nutshell) and doing a variety of rep ranges, using variants (front squat, high bar squat, ssb squats, belt squats and so on). For instance, doing 5 sets of 10 reps on the high bar squat will certainly be considered hypertrophy work. Would you get hypertrophy if you only did sets of 5@9 on the low bar squat ? For sure, but the fatigue cost might be much higher than using a more balanced approach.

Lower body main lifts generate more fatigue than upper body because of axial loading so this is why fatigue management is more critical. You can do a lot of benching without creating that much fatigue (in all gyms of the world you see bros doing bench press marathons, and they seem ok).

You mention your lower body sessions being too long, it might be your conditioning holding you back. If you increase your conditioning you can rest less and do more work per unit of time, which eventually becomes a necessity when you need high volume to make progress. As much as Starting Strength loves to make fun of bodybuilders, I don't think any of them would survive a bodybuilding style leg day without passing out. Also as far as conditioning is concerned, it does not have to be low intensity cardio: you can do prowler pushes, air bike tabata, sled drags, hill sprints, jumping rope, strongmen medleys etc.

[DCR]

As much as Starting Strength loves to make fun of bodybuilders, I don't think any of them would survive a bodybuilding style leg day without passing out.

This reminded me of one of Rip’s rare moments of rationality in the past few years. Although he questions the sanity and sexuality of bodybuilders, there was a thread in which some clown opined that bodybuilders don’t work hard, and he responded that, “They work very fucking hard.”

[CheekiBreekiFitness]

As much as Starting Strength loves to make fun of bodybuilders, I don't think any of them would survive a bodybuilding style leg day without passing out.

This reminded me of one of Rip’s rare moments of rationality in the past few years. Although he questions the sanity and sexuality of bodybuilders, there was a thread in which some clown opined that bodybuilders don’t work hard, and he responded that, “They work very fucking hard.”

That's interesting, I did not know that. I kind of have a better opinion of him now.