Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 0311
Eric's an example of one extreme continuing to progress with single factor 5 x 5 for what seems to be a hundred years now ,
|
Ha, ha, ha! Can't help it I'm an animal. That hasn't been ALL I've been doing, though! I've been off 5x5 on an upper/lower for weeks
. I give refining my weaknesses that way plus then RESETTING the weights back for the 5x5 the credit. But times they are a changing.
Well, Anuj, I waited to reply hoping the other guys would answer and I got my wish. 0311 and Kane said what I was gonna say.
Talking about how Rip and Pendlay says it's not a static program is interesting cuz I've read a few interviews....but I haven't read the book so I don't know. But I can take a guess based on what I do know about their methods that what 0311 said is true.
The fact is these guys would put trainees on a '5x5' method for years. Notice I said method not program. We tend to view it as this 5x5 program or that one because of all the endless internet varitations with this stamp or that stamp on it. But they viewed it more as a continuum of training based around 5x5 reps.
Rip did not start everybody out on 3x5, stop. Then do some 5x5, stop. Etc. and so on. A person might start on a 3x5 and then plateau and maybe go try to go to 5x5 or perhaps 5x5 one day and ramping up to a top set another. And then when that peters out another change. All designed to keep things moving forward for as long as possible. I NEVER read them say, when our guy got tired of this or that we'd throw in some 4x10 pulldowns instead
. Another guy might start doing 5x5.
In fact one reason I progressed so well on the "single factor program" is that I DIDN'T view it as a static program. What that means is I made small changes in order to progress past plateaus with the intention of managing workload so as not to overreach while still lifting progressively heavier weights. 0311 mentioned it not being an art? Well that shit is all about mathematics
.
So, as I said I haven't read that book, but I have a feeling that what I've tried to describe is more what they mean by it not being a static program.