Push/Pull

[Matt Hatchett]

Noticed a lot of training logs where people are, for example, doing chest/Bicep exercises on the same day. Are there any advantages of this over the push/pull split or is it personal preference?

 

[bobbymac]

I personally feel like it's best to try different routines and see what your body responds to the best. I can tell you after almost 20 years of training, my body does the best training chest/back together, biceps and triceps together, and doing legs by themselves.

 

[Matt Hatchett]

I personally feel like it's best to try different routines and see what your body responds to the best. I can tell you after almost 20 years of training, my body does the best training chest/back together, biceps and triceps together, and doing legs by themselves.

So it's just personal preference? I was doing some reading the other day and came across some information about upper back and chest working together to increase bench. Obviously I'm still learning as I go but to me the push/pull kinda split seems like it would allow you to focus on muscles more individually instead of working muscles with opposite movements hence the push/pull. It just looks counterproductive to me, I was just curious I guess.

 

[bobbymac]

Arnold was a BIG believer in chest/back training. Whether you realize it or not, your back plays a huge role in chest/bench work. So when you superset chest/back, your chest is getting a phenomenal workout. If you have never tried this type of routine, I would HIGHLY recommend it.

 

[Matt Hatchett]

The whole reason I came across that info was because I'm start the 5/3/1 program. I bought the Ebook and it is packed with info. Although it doesn't make sense to me, now that I think about it I keep seeing posts on doing Kroc rows on chest day to increase your bench. Learning something new every time I log into this site!

 

[Rodja]

The whole reason I came across that info was because I'm start the 5/3/1 program. I bought the Ebook and it is packed with info. Although it doesn't make sense to me, now that I think about it I keep seeing posts on doing Kroc rows on chest day to increase your bench. Learning something new every time I log into this site!

5/3/1 is not a program that is based on muscles; it is based on movements. To classify bench as a chest lift is incorrect.

 

[Matt Hatchett]

Not a chest movement? Please explain

 

[Rodja]

Not a chest movement? Please explain

The bench press is a full body exercise that requires tightness from your calves to your upper traps. Leg drive and lats are critical for the initial portion off of the chest and triceps take over between 4-6" off of the chest. Benching is more about lats, traps, and triceps than pecs. 5/3/1 is not a BB'ing program and if you go in with that mentality, you're selling yourself short and wasting time. Technique is the most critical aspect of PL'ing and it is very different from BB'ing "technique."

 

[Matt Hatchett]

That makes sense. I never would have guessed it took all of that to do bench press properly. The main reason I'm trying the 5/3/1 is to increase some of my lifts after being stuck at the same weight for some time now. After reading Wendler's Ebook and what you just said it seems I still have a lot to learn but that's part of it. I appreciate the info!

 

[Rodja]

 

[Mafesto31]

The bench press is a full body exercise that requires tightness from your calves to your upper traps. Leg drive and lats are critical for the initial portion off of the chest and triceps take over between 4-6" off of the chest. Benching is more about lats, traps, and triceps than pecs. 5/3/1 is not a BB'ing program and if you go in with that mentality, you're selling yourself short and wasting time. Technique is the most critical aspect of PL'ing and it is very different from BB'ing "technique."

The boring but big layout for 5/3/1 would be a nice bodybuilding routine for a few weeks imo

 

[Rodja]

The boring but big layout for 5/3/1 would be a nice bodybuilding routine for a few weeks imo

Not a fan of that assistance template since most people's technique sucks for 3 reps much less 10. It does more harm than good since it reinforces bad technique.

 

[napalm]

The boring but big layout for 5/3/1 would be a nice bodybuilding routine for a few weeks imo

No it wouldn't. Any routine will have minimal, if any impact over the period of a couple weeks. The bbb template is to be used over months, not weeks. As rodja mentioned, 5/3/1 wasn't designed with bb'rs in mind. Can bb'rs use it with success? Maybe, but it would need to be tweaked alot and once that's done, it's not 5/3/1 anymore. I'm currently doing bbb with some pretty good results, but I'm not a bb'r.

<---did squats yesterday, had a good bit of trouble getting off the toilet this morning.

 

[Mafesto31]

No it wouldn't. Any routine will have minimal, if any impact over the period of a couple weeks. The bbb template is to be used over months, not weeks. As rodja mentioned, 5/3/1 wasn't designed with bb'rs in mind. Can bb'rs use it with success? Maybe, but it would need to be tweaked alot and once that's done, it's not 5/3/1 anymore. I'm currently doing bbb with some pretty good results, but I'm not a bb'r.

<---did squats yesterday, had a good bit of trouble getting off the toilet this morning.

Sorry I was meaning to say a couple months and yes I've had success as far as mass gains using 5/3/1 adding more reps/sets after the initial lifts.

 

[ZiR RED]

The whole reason I came across that info was because I'm start the 5/3/1 program. I bought the Ebook and it is packed with info. Although it doesn't make sense to me, now that I think about it I keep seeing posts on doing Kroc rows on chest day to increase your bench. Learning something new every time I log into this site!

There's also some research that shows training agonist/antagonist results in greater performance and strength. Some of it is motor programming, some of it is the repetitive inhibition of the antognist.

WRT to 5/3/1 and bodybuilding, I had an interesting conversation with a client this morning. He asked why I had him doing a few blocks of 2-4 rep work after he read in NSCA that hypertrophy rep range was much higher. I replied that by increasing strength now, it would translate into a greater load used during hypertrophy based training, resulting in greater gains during the hypertrophy blocks.

Br

 

[Rodja]

There's also some research that shows training agonist/antagonist results in greater performance and strength. Some of it is motor programming, some of it is the repetitive inhibition of the antognist.

WRT to 5/3/1 and bodybuilding, I had an interesting conversation with a client this morning. He asked why I had him doing a few blocks of 2-4 rep work after he read in NSCA that hypertrophy rep range was much higher. I replied that by increasing strength now, it would translate into a greater load used during hypertrophy based training, resulting in greater gains during the hypertrophy blocks.

Br

This is the reason why I am so frustrated with the NSCA. Their whole Western periodization scheme drives me nuts.

 

[ZiR RED]

This is the reason why I am so frustrated with the NSCA. Their whole Western periodization scheme drives me nuts.

Indeed, especially in most cases where they try to squeeze a 4 year olympic training model (designed for a single peak period) into 16 or 20 weeks.

On the other hand, I think if you are working with inexperienced athletes (those with young training ages...especially high school) then adopting the olympic model (as a full 2-4 year plan) and spending a significant amount of time on remedial and work accumulation, and planning for an overall peak the senior season is a great idea.

Br

 

[Rodja]

Indeed, especially in most cases where they try to squeeze a 4 year olympic training model (designed for a single peak period) into 16 or 20 weeks.

On the other hand, I think if you are working with inexperienced athletes (those with young training ages...especially high school) then adopting the olympic model (as a full 2-4 year plan) and spending a significant amount of time on remedial and work accumulation, and planning for an overall peak the senior season is a great idea.

Br

Agreed. S&C coaches at that level should have long-term, yet adjustable, plans for the athlete depending on their growth, injuries, and particular sport(s). For freshman, the entire year should be about nothing but technique with an occasional arm day to give them a reward for their work.

 

[napalm]

This is the reason why I am so frustrated with the NSCA. Their whole Western periodization scheme drives me nuts.

rodja, and br for that matter, can you guys expound on this a little? i'm thinking very seriously about taking the cscs

thanks,

steve

edit: i understand western periodization, i'm interested why you're frustrated with the nsca about it

 

[Rodja]

rodja, and br for that matter, can you guys expound on this a little? i'm thinking very seriously about taking the cscs

thanks,

steve

edit: i understand western periodization, i'm interested why you're frustrated with the nsca about it

It is a very flawed system that trains a specific skill set for only a small amount of time instead of integrating them concurrently and waving the percentages/loads. Also, there is no incorporation of the dynamic effort at any point.

 

[napalm]

It is a very flawed system that trains a specific skill set for only a small amount of time instead of integrating them concurrently and waving the percentages/loads. Also, there is no incorporation of the dynamic effort at any point.

agree with the dynamic effort - but even i don't incorporate DE or ME into my training. prolly cause i'm a geezer and my joints can't really handle ME that frequently after 13 orthopedic surgeries. regarding WMP, it's my understanding, and admittedly i got my understanding of WMP from dave tate, is that it's really a 17 week 'cycle' for lack of a better term, broken into hypertrophy, strength, power and peaking mesocycles. from a PL perspective - and that's really the only perspective i have, it's a perfect amount of time to get ready for a meet. please explain how you think that's a small amount of time. i'm not disagreeing, but i'd like your perspective. also, is this something the nsca shoves down your throat without allowing for any deviation?

thanks...

 

[ZiR RED]

rodja, and br for that matter, can you guys expound on this a little? i'm thinking very seriously about taking the cscs

thanks,

steve

edit: i understand western periodization, i'm interested why you're frustrated with the nsca about it

Its a good set of letters to have, and something that many jobs require. Beyond that, the CSCS basically just tests your competency in exercise science and the most basics of exercise testing and prescription for an athletic population. If you take it for what it is, and if employers/clients did the same, it wouldn't be a big deal. The problem resides in the fact that many who get their CSCS stop there, and the CEU's are very vague (such as taking a simple test from the S&C journal) versus actually increasing your knowledge via seminars/conferences.

My major issue with the NSCA is the research that they publish. Ever since they switched to monthly paper publications, the quality of research and the type of research has (IMO) gone down hill. The need to "bridge the gap" has turned into much more theoretical publications with very little application to the world of strength and conditioning. For example, there is a lot of reports detailing the fitness levels of various team sport athletes, and even more reporting on post activation potentiation.

And then there are just poorly designed studies. Like comparing barbell vs. kettlebell training on strength, but, not matching intensity of load (i.e.: 80% barbell squat and 80% kettle bell squat for reps) and then at the end just testing increases in barbell strength, rather than seeing what kettle bell training does for both barbell and KB strength, and what barbell training does for KB and BB strength.

Br

 

[ZiR RED]

agree with the dynamic effort - but even i don't incorporate DE or ME into my training. prolly cause i'm a geezer and my joints can't really handle ME that frequently after 13 orthopedic surgeries. regarding WMP, it's my understanding, and admittedly i got my understanding of WMP from dave tate, is that it's really a 17 week 'cycle' for lack of a better term, broken into hypertrophy, strength, power and peaking mesocycles. from a PL perspective - and that's really the only perspective i have, it's a perfect amount of time to get ready for a meet. please explain how you think that's a small amount of time. i'm not disagreeing, but i'd like your perspective. also, is this something the nsca shoves down your throat without allowing for any deviation?

thanks...

If you are peaking for one competition, like a power lifting meet, olympic meet, or final track meet, then WMP is viable. You also only need to peak on specific form of fitness in these: strength, power, speed, etc.

But if you are an athlete with a long season, such as football, basketball, rugby, track, etc. Then its not a very good program. You need to peak athletes and then maintain or even increase during the season, and there are a number of different forms of fitness that need to be maintained (strength, power, conditioning, muscular endurance, size, etc.). This is why conjugated or undulating periodization is so effective.

Br

 

[Rodja]

agree with the dynamic effort - but even i don't incorporate DE or ME into my training. prolly cause i'm a geezer and my joints can't really handle ME that frequently after 13 orthopedic surgeries. regarding WMP, it's my understanding, and admittedly i got my understanding of WMP from dave tate, is that it's really a 17 week 'cycle' for lack of a better term, broken into hypertrophy, strength, power and peaking mesocycles. from a PL perspective - and that's really the only perspective i have, it's a perfect amount of time to get ready for a meet. please explain how you think that's a small amount of time. i'm not disagreeing, but i'd like your perspective. also, is this something the nsca shoves down your throat without allowing for any deviation?

thanks...

Although the timeline is about what it should be for a meet, the problem is that each phase is an individual skill set and you cannot train for a short period of time and expect the progression to not recede throughout the cycle. My dislike has nothing to do with the timeline that is recommended, but rather the inefficiencies of this style of training. Think of it this way: if you haven't done a full 1RM in several months, then you can't expect to match your PR due to the lack of specific training for that purpose because the CNS and motor units are not fully firing.

Another problem is that it is a percentage based system. Unless the max is consistently tested, the percentage can be highly inaccurate and the first 2 mesocycles don't do much for maximal strength development. They're great for shoring up weaknesses in the kinetic chain, but why would you take a break from training the actual movements in a ME fashion? You also don't get feedback in the form of strength increases until weeks down the road once the microcycle has been completed, so how do you know the lifts that you chose helped or hindered?

These are just some of the examples of the problems that I have with it and the NSCA does not want to deviate from it.

 

[napalm]

Its a good set of letters to have, and something that many jobs require. Beyond that, the CSCS basically just tests your competency in exercise science and the most basics of exercise testing and prescription for an athletic population. If you take it for what it is, and if employers/clients did the same, it wouldn't be a big deal. The problem resides in the fact that many who get their CSCS stop there, and the CEU's are very vague (such as taking a simple test from the S&C journal) versus actually increasing your knowledge via seminars/conferences.

My major issue with the NSCA is the research that they publish. Ever since they switched to monthly paper publications, the quality of research and the type of research has (IMO) gone down hill. The need to "bridge the gap" has turned into much more theoretical publications with very little application to the world of strength and conditioning. For example, there is a lot of reports detailing the fitness levels of various team sport athletes, and even more reporting on post activation potentiation.

And then there are just poorly designed studies. Like comparing barbell vs. kettlebell training on strength, but, not matching intensity of load (i.e.: 80% barbell squat and 80% kettle bell squat for reps) and then at the end just testing increases in barbell strength, rather than seeing what kettle bell training does for both barbell and KB strength, and what barbell training does for KB and BB strength.

Br

thanks br, since i'm not a member, i don't have access to their journal - i think. the only articles i've seen from their journal have been in references - i haven't seen the actual study. fwiw, i'm a CCRP - certified clinical reseach professional. i've been doing medical research for 15 years, and have a pub where i'm the first author, so i understand your concerns re quality of research, study design etc...

in your opinion, would it be worth the 650 bucks or so to join, get the study materials and then take the cscs? at this moment in time i have a job and my interest in the cscs is at this point strictly for knowledge, and possibly also having something to fall back on just in case. a stupid goal of mine is to be the strength coach at a high school. no grand plans or anything like that.

thanks...

 

[napalm]

Although the timeline is about what it should be for a meet, the problem is that each phase is an individual skill set and you cannot train for a short period of time and expect the progression to not recede throughout the cycle. My dislike has nothing to do with the timeline that is recommended, but rather the inefficiencies of this style of training. Think of it this way: if you haven't done a full 1RM in several months, then you can't expect to match your PR due to the lack of specific training for that purpose because the CNS and motor units are not fully firing.

Another problem is that it is a percentage based system. Unless the max is consistently tested, the percentage can be highly inaccurate and the first 2 mesocycles don't do much for maximal strength development. They're great for shoring up weaknesses in the kinetic chain, but why would you take a break from training the actual movements in a ME fashion? You also don't get feedback in the form of strength increases until weeks down the road once the microcycle has been completed, so how do you know the lifts that you chose helped or hindered?

These are just some of the examples of the problems that I have with it and the NSCA does not want to deviate from it.

a couple more questions...

what was this thread about?

1. how often would you test 1rm's? for me, i only test 1rm at a meet, i don't want to waste a pr in the gym. for that reason, percentages are very important to me, i base everything about my training around them. i can predict how strong i am (or aren't ) by my best triple for all three movements based on percentages.

2. don't you think the first 2 mesos set a base for the last 2? i'm not arguing, i really want to hear what you and br have to say about this. am i wrong in thinking if your going at high intenisty for a length of time say 2-3 months, without a break you're going to break down? my thoughts are the first couple mesos, at a lower intensity but increased volume set you up for the last two. then following a meet (using my example) i just deload for a few weeks. or, are you thinking that a lot of lower intensity (and increased volume) for a greater part of the year with say monthly testing of 1rm is the way to go? i've been breaking the year up into thirds, with 1 1/2 or so months ramping up volume, another 1 1/2 month or so of decreasing volume and upping intensity, finally a week of prs = a meet. i've been doing this for ~ a year and a half and have managed to stay injury free.

3. what does the nsca do if you 'deviate'? and the ceu's have caught my attention. i think the easiest way to do it is to pony up and go to a couple conferences or something like that - big chunks of the ceu's.

steve

 

[napalm]

But if you are an athlete with a long season, such as football, basketball, rugby, track, etc. Then its not a very good program. You need to peak athletes and then maintain or even increase during the season, and there are a number of different forms of fitness that need to be maintained (strength, power, conditioning, muscular endurance, size, etc.). This is why conjugated or undulating periodization is so effective.

Br

i think i may be looking at this myopicly, if that's even a word...

must

read

more

 

[ZiR RED]

thanks br, since i'm not a member, i don't have access to their journal - i think. the only articles i've seen from their journal have been in references - i haven't seen the actual study. fwiw, i'm a CCRP - certified clinical reseach professional. i've been doing medical research for 15 years, and have a pub where i'm the first author, so i understand your concerns re quality of research, study design etc...

in your opinion, would it be worth the 650 bucks or so to join, get the study materials and then take the cscs? at this moment in time i have a job and my interest in the cscs is at this point strictly for knowledge, and possibly also having something to fall back on just in case. a stupid goal of mine is to be the strength coach at a high school. no grand plans or anything like that.

thanks...

Most job postings for high schools I've seen do require the CSCS.

There are some good journals by the NSCA, being the sports performance journal and the strength and conditioning (not research) journal.

If your goal is to learn, the nothing beats attending seminars, work shops, and conferences (conferences to a certain extent). Check out some of Mike Boyles seminars for starters.

Br

 

[Rodja]

a couple more questions...

what was this thread about?

1. how often would you test 1rm's? for me, i only test 1rm at a meet, i don't want to waste a pr in the gym. for that reason, percentages are very important to me, i base everything about my training around them. i can predict how strong i am (or aren't ) by my best triple for all three movements based on percentages.

2. don't you think the first 2 mesos set a base for the last 2? i'm not arguing, i really want to hear what you and br have to say about this. am i wrong in thinking if your going at high intenisty for a length of time say 2-3 months, without a break you're going to break down? my thoughts are the first couple mesos, at a lower intensity but increased volume set you up for the last two. then following a meet (using my example) i just deload for a few weeks. or, are you thinking that a lot of lower intensity (and increased volume) for a greater part of the year with say monthly testing of 1rm is the way to go? i've been breaking the year up into thirds, with 1 1/2 or so months ramping up volume, another 1 1/2 month or so of decreasing volume and upping intensity, finally a week of prs = a meet. i've been doing this for ~ a year and a half and have managed to stay injury free.

3. what does the nsca do if you 'deviate'? and the ceu's have caught my attention. i think the easiest way to do it is to pony up and go to a couple conferences or something like that - big chunks of the ceu's.

steve

*Note: this is from a PL perspective*

1. Ideally, the athlete works up to a 1RM every week. Once for some form of bench and once for some lower body movement. Now, this does not mean that they same lift is done every week as that would lead to stagnation and burnout. This is why it is ideal to have some form of rotation for ME movements even if it's just changing the grip or using a different type of bar (e.g. cambered, safety-squat, Buffalo, etc.). The reason for this is that a meet is based upon your max single, not your max double, triple, etc. There are other ways to alter the lift with bands/chains a la circa max as well. Regarding percentages, using a PR from 3-4 months ago is going to be inaccurate, so it makes the percentages for the waves inaccurate. Motor abilities are lost at different rates and up to 10-15% of maximal strength can be lost in a few weeks if not trained.

2. IMO, the first two do not set a base because the rep range and, again, the inaccuracy of the percentages in addition to the loss of the abilities throughout the cycle (e.g. the hypertrophy built will slowly subside throughout the cycle). You are correct in saying that training at a high intensity for an extended period of time can lead to, at best, decreased performance and, at worst, injury, but there is a caveat and that is the aforementioned rotation of ME movements. I'll leave out the specifics of peaking for a meet since that's a very different discussion.

3. The NSCA won't reprimand you for not complying with their recommendations or anything like that. They're chiefly a business now and, as Zir said, their research quality has lowered considerably over the years. However, a CSCS is still mandatory as a S&C coach at pretty much any school/team.

 

[napalm]

*Note: this is from a PL perspective*

1. Ideally, the athlete works up to a 1RM every week. Once for some form of bench and once for some lower body movement. Now, this does not mean that they same lift is done every week as that would lead to stagnation and burnout. This is why it is ideal to have some form of rotation for ME movements even if it's just changing the grip or using a different type of bar (e.g. cambered, safety-squat, Buffalo, etc.). The reason for this is that a meet is based upon your max single, not your max double, triple, etc. There are other ways to alter the lift with bands/chains a la circa max as well. Regarding percentages, using a PR from 3-4 months ago is going to be inaccurate, so it makes the percentages for the waves inaccurate. Motor abilities are lost at different rates and up to 10-15% of maximal strength can be lost in a few weeks if not trained.

2. IMO, the first two do not set a base because the rep range and, again, the inaccuracy of the percentages in addition to the loss of the abilities throughout the cycle (e.g. the hypertrophy built will slowly subside throughout the cycle). You are correct in saying that training at a high intensity for an extended period of time can lead to, at best, decreased performance and, at worst, injury, but there is a caveat and that is the aforementioned rotation of ME movements. I'll leave out the specifics of peaking for a meet since that's a very different discussion.

3. The NSCA won't reprimand you for not complying with their recommendations or anything like that. They're chiefly a business now and, as Zir said, their research quality has lowered considerably over the years. However, a CSCS is still mandatory as a S&C coach at pretty much any school/team.

i have to say this before i forget...kids..dinner...etc...

1. every time i do my 'mini 2-3 month cycle', i up the base that i used the previous 'cycle.' bands/chains don't interest me, my feeling is you wanna get stronger, put more weight on the bar. that way, my pr from june will be better than march/sept pr will be better than june. with 5/3/1, it's easy to keep track of my percentages. i get that bands/chains work diff parts of the movement etc... but where i train, it's not an option and to me, not that important. my thoughts are if you keep training you're main movement: you'll get better at it. i don't see the need to rotate movements. again, i'm probably looking at this myopicly - something that has to change if i wanna train kids.

great topic for conversation!! somewhere there must be a thread....

2. ack!!!, we disagree on the setting the base concept. i'm in the camp that volume does help intensity later in the cycle. my feeling is that if the percentages don't work for the trainee, something has been overlooked.

3. txs for your thoughts!

 

[Rodja]

i have to say this before i forget...kids..dinner...etc...

1. every time i do my 'mini 2-3 month cycle', i up the base that i used the previous 'cycle.' bands/chains don't interest me, my feeling is you wanna get stronger, put more weight on the bar. that way, my pr from june will be better than march/sept pr will be better than june. with 5/3/1, it's easy to keep track of my percentages. i get that bands/chains work diff parts of the movement etc... but where i train, it's not an option and to me, not that important. my thoughts are if you keep training you're main movement: get better at it. i don't see the need to rotate movements. again, i'm probably looking at this myopicly - something that has to change if i wanna train kids.

great topic for conversation!! somewhere there must be a thread....

2. ack!!!, we disagree on the setting the base concept. i'm in the camp that volume does help intensity later in the cycle. my feeling is that if the percentages don't work for the trainee, something has been overlooked.

3. txs for your thoughts!

With conjugate periodization, you integrate all aspects at the same time: ME, DE, and RE. By training all aspects concurrently, you keep the ability level high and have the flexibility to adjust the accessory lifts as weaknesses come to light. 5/3/1 is a bit of a different beast as you're rarely, if ever, really training near 100% and it also doesn't incorporate the DE (although you can weave it into the template).

 

[ZiR RED]

i have to say this before i forget...kids..dinner...etc...

1. every time i do my 'mini 2-3 month cycle', i up the base that i used the previous 'cycle.' bands/chains don't interest me, my feeling is you wanna get stronger, put more weight on the bar. that way, my pr from june will be better than march/sept pr will be better than june. with 5/3/1, it's easy to keep track of my percentages. i get that bands/chains work diff parts of the movement etc... but where i train, it's not an option and to me, not that important. my thoughts are if you keep training you're main movement: you'll get better at it. i don't see the need to rotate movements. again, i'm probably looking at this myopicly - something that has to change if i wanna train kids.
.

Did you get my powerpoint re training hs athletes using a quadrennial approach? If not, PM me your email and I'll send you the slides.

Br

 

[MuscleGauge1]

I personally feel like it's best to try different routines and see what your body responds to the best. I can tell you after almost 20 years of training, my body does the best training chest/back together, biceps and triceps together, and doing legs by themselves.

I think this is correct. you really have to judge it by what your body responds to best

 

[Matt Hatchett]

I think this is correct. you really have to judge it by what your body responds to best

I agree as well. The frustrating thing is that there is so much assistance work out there that it's difficult to judge what works best when it's almost impossible to have tried everything. I guess that's where experience comes into play.

 

[Rodja]

I agree as well. The frustrating thing is that there is so much assistance work out there that it's difficult to judge what works best when it's almost impossible to have tried everything. I guess that's where experience comes into play.

Assistance work is contingent upon weaknesses in the kinetic chain.

 

[mattrag]

Assistance work is contingent upon weaknesses in the kinetic chain.

Yea assistance is just that. That's why I feel proper coaching is essential for seeing weaknesses you may not be aware of. I like to submit 1 rms to get criticism as not many here in japan are very critical about form here.

 

[Matt Hatchett]

Good point.. Thanks for the info

 

[napalm]

Did you get my powerpoint re training hs athletes using a quadrennial approach? If not, PM me your email and I'll send you the slides.

Br

You should have it, you sent me an article last week starts with sdc

 

[Andreywhites]

I'm learning more & more on this topic, for me the push/pull kinda split seems like it would allow you to focus on muscles more individually instead of working muscles with opposite movements. Basically i am taking help of my trainer, he is a well experienced guy and i like to take his advice always. I will ask him what he suggests for this good topic. If you have never tried this type of routine, please take the suggestions of the experienced trainers.

 

[Rodja]

I'm learning more & more on this topic, for me the push/pull kinda split seems like it would allow you to focus on muscles more individually instead of working muscles with opposite movements. Basically i am taking help of my trainer, he is a well experienced guy and i like to take his advice always. I will ask him what he suggests for this good topic. If you have never tried this type of routine, please take the suggestions of the experienced trainers.

The thread title is misleading, though, as it's not about "working the muscles." 5/3/1, which is a powerlifting template, is really the topic and not anything related to BB'ing.

 

[Matt Hatchett]

The thread title is misleading, though, as it's not about "working the muscles." 5/3/1, which is a powerlifting template, is really the topic and not anything related to BB'ing.

I actually started this thread because I see workout logs where people are working biceps with chest for example. I don't see any advantage to that? I've always done the push/pull kinda split so I was curious.

 

[Matt Hatchett]

5/3/1 was not meant to be the topic. That was just where the question came from to clarify that a little better. Kinda just got off topic.

 

[Rodja]

5/3/1 was not meant to be the topic. That was just where the question came from to clarify that a little better. Kinda just got off topic.

BB'ing routines are not applicable to PL'ing routines. Until you stop having that mentality, your success with 5/3/1 will be limited.

 

[Matt Hatchett]

I'm not looking for a bodybuilding routine. I was just wondering if there were advantages of working certain muscles with others instead of the push/pull method.

 

[Rodja]

I'm not looking for a bodybuilding routine. I was just wondering if there were advantages of working certain muscles with others instead of the push/pull method.

I never said that you were, but you used the chest/biceps routine as an example, which would be something for BB'ing.

 

[Matt Hatchett]

I never said that you were, but you used the chest/biceps routine as an example, which would be something for BB'ing.

What makes that something for bb'ing? That's the kinda thing I'm trying to figure out.

 

[Rodja]

What makes that something for bb'ing? That's the kinda thing I'm trying to figure out.

Athletes work movements; BB'ers work muscles.

 

[Matt Hatchett]

Athletes work movements; BB'ers work muscles.

Never thought of it that way, but it makes sense. Makes me rethink what my goals are.