Chaos and Pain Discussion

[BendtheBar]

Feel free to discuss these quotes. I think they are inherently worthy of discussion.

5x5 will produce mediocre results for most, but that's inherent in the philosophy, as it's a low risk, low reward sort of enterprise.

There are no off weeks, as “elite athletes cannot afford complete passive rest for more than three days in a row”, and most Eastern European coaches limit consecutive rest days to two.(Science and Practice 4)

[BendtheBar]

Strength and power...

following a strength exercise immediately with a power exercise increases test levels drastically, so training strength exercises followed by power exercises appears to be the most effective way to increase strength and power.

[BendtheBar]

Dynamic before slow.

In my conceit/loss aversion delusions, I ignored Zatsiorsky's recommendations for structuring one's workouts with this priority:
1. Main sport exercises
2. Dynamic before slow exercises
3. Larger groups before smaller

Dynamic before slow is one of the points Glwanabe was trying to get through my skull when programming using a pull, squat press workout structure.

Having looked at both Siff and Zatsiorsky, I noticed that both authors recommended doing dynamic/strength lifts prior to static or semi-static/power lifts.

[Off Road]

First he says to do strength movements before power movements. Then he says to do dynamic movements before slow movements. In my world, dynamic movements build power and slow movements build strength. So which one comes first?

Maybe this is the chaos he's talking about.

[MikeC]

Why does he dislike Rippetoe and 5x5s? They are much better than most typical split programs, aren't they?

[BRaWNy]

Originally Posted by MikeC

Why does he dislike Rippetoe and 5x5s? They are much better than most typical split programs, aren't they?

Off course they are better than most typical splits etc, but I think he means after all, that they aren't optimal as they should be, especially as someone getting more advanced.
And if it's so, I tend to agree.

[Fazc]

5x5 will produce mediocre results for most, but that's inherent in the philosophy, as it's a low risk, low reward sort of enterprise.

Although he has his obviously exaggerated way of saying things, it is an important concept to note. I'll always refer back to Starr in conversations to do with 5x5. Never was it intended for people to always do 5x5 continuously. And there was never the assumption that 5x5 was all that was needed to get to the advanced stage. If it was, then great! But that was an oddity (like Bernardski as noted in Defying Gravity).

The progression was always from 5x5 to a more varied rep scheme which included singles, more than 3 workouts a week, varied exercises, frequent lifting and periodisation of sorts.

5x5 is the entry level routine, a very good entry level one but still an entry level routine. Once that has produced results and people are stalling (after having considered other factors) the intention is to vary the routine. Mostly via volume and frequency as in both go up!

Why do people get stuck on 5x5? Well like anything people will form an emotional attachment to a routine and a *name* and identify themselves with it. (WESTCYDE 4 LYFE anyone?) People are also inherently lazy and would rather stick to what they know even if it isn't producing results rather than something which looks more complicated initially to understand and requires them to bust ass more.

[Tannhauser]

5x5 will produce mediocre results for most, but that's inherent in the philosophy, as it's a low risk, low reward sort of enterprise.

I think it depends on what sort of results we're talking about. I think for a lot of people, 5 X 5 will produce significant hypertrophy and strength increases. Maybe there are better specialised strength programs out there, but there's enough volume on the big lifts to grow some serious muscle. And while I'm sure it's possible to grow on multiple sets of low reps, personally I do better on 5+ reps.

With regard to low risk - well, a lot of Jamie's schtick seems to be sneering at that, plus anything he doesn't regard as 'manly'. But there's something to be said for continual steady progress. Most people seem to follow cycles of:

excellent progress -> injury or demotivation -> regression -> excellent progress etc.

Anyone who can consistently make even creeping, mediocre progress would, with a bit of patience, make some incredibly impressive gains. 5lbs a month on bench press, every month, would take a 200lb presser to 440lb in four years.

I agree that sooner or later, the gains will stop on 5 X 5, just as they will on anything - including his own protocols. If that wasn't true we would all be elite after ten years of training.

[Tannhauser]

Just to add: I bought his ebook yesterday and spent a good 3-4 hours absorbed in it, and there's still plenty to go at. Ironically, his repeated calls for logical thinking and stepping away from the herd reminded me of the person he professes to despise the most: Mike Mentzer. But Mike Mentzer with Tourette's Syndrome.

Neverthless, if you can put up with all the silly macho nonsense, there's some really good and interesting stuff in there. There's loads of things he mentions that I can't wait to try out. Recommended.

[Off Road]

Originally Posted by Tannhauser

Mike Mentzer with Tourette's Syndrome.

Good imagery.