Crossfit - Page 7

Also if all you're looking for is some decent size and low-BF, you don't need to lift anywhere near 4/3/5.

Please present me with a well researched program that fits more easily into the lives of regular people than 5/3/1.

Once you've finished that please explain how moderate intensity/high volume assistance wouldn't be highly effective at creating hypertrophy/correcting imbalances.

If you're into the strung out rock star thing...

both of the things you have argued that make 5/3/1 "the best" are not exclusive to 5/3/1. moreover, the mere act of regulating intensity through working with percentages of one's 1RM does not magically make a program "fit more easily into the lives of regular people," whatever that is supposed to mean. i can think of lots of programs that fit into the lives of regular people, and none of them have anything to do with wendler. moderate intensity/high volume assistance work is also nothing new and was present long before people started drinking from wendler's nut cup. as far as "well-researched" goes - pretty much every notable program worth anything that has come from any coach worth mentioning has been researched in the sense that it has been based upon experience, which is how 5/3/1 came about.

im not saying its a bad program, far from it. its a good program, albeit one that encourages overthinking a little. im saying that its ridiculous for someone to take a group of people as large and diverse as "natty lifters" and say that working with %1RM and only a particular assistance setup (triumvirate) is the best, because it isn't. you could call it a bunch of other nice things that i would agree with, but the best is a pretty lofty claim.

in my own experience, i spent months making miniscule progress and plateauing on 5/3/1/triumvirate and then i started doing 2x5s at max effort with a different assistance setup and voila, progress. does that mean 2x5 and different assistance work is better than 5/3/1? no. its different. the mere fact that you are preaching a particular program with a particular assistance setup as the best for all natty lifters everywhere shows you have a hefty case of confirmation bias.
Edited by jarude - 8/27/12 at 4:58am

I thought this thread was about Crossfit...

Also, using 5/3/1 to pack on muscle is a pretty lulzy way of going about it. It's great for packing on that initial strength but definitely not super efficient if you're lifting for looks.

You're the one making outlandish claims: the onus is on you to provide proof. Please tell me how it's "inefficient" for all people of all body types (height, frame size, etc) to keep a certain BF without 4/3/5. After all, this is your claim.

Also, solid appeal to accomplishment, e-bro.

This is not how I interpreted it because that isn't what he said. I don't disagree with that in spirit, though. Obviously if you train long enough to keep putting up big numbers (relative to your bw, I don't necessarily think 4/3/5 in itself is anything useful.) then you'll look more muscular. This is so fucking obvious it's not even worth stating.

Just please don't go to crossfit gyms... The only crossfitters I've been able to stand are the ones that do it in their garage/at their normal gyms...Ex-cops cheering you on while you vomit doesn't really sound like my idea of a good work-out. I know people that have good results alternating crossfit with more traditional lifting, though

Hi. I'm a big fat fatty pants and I'm a lazy SOB. I loathe working out alone and every time I've tried to it never works out. I'm just not that kind of guy. I do well with coaches yelling at me to make sure I finish a workout and I also am much more likely to put in the effort if there's a competitive angle. I don't care to get ripped or cut, but I do want to lose like 30 lbs and relatively quickly. Crossfit sounds like a solid fit if I can find a gym that's not too douchey. Does this sound about right?