Come on, your greatly exaggerating the knowledge required to design your own program.
my experience is that most trainers cant even design a decent program. they may make a decent workout, but not a program. its easy to do something hard, but will it get to the person's goals? does it have a progression plan? how does it deal with failure and the need for resets? most people, even supposedly educated trainers dont know how to do that.
then there is the thought of, why recreate the wheel. there is a reason why a proven program is proven. part of what makes it proven is how it allows for adaptation of accessory work to fit the specific lifter and their goals. that does take education and experience. in the end, it is a matter of opinion on this. you have yours, i have mine.
If your under the misconception that everyone's anatomy and physiology are even remotely close to the same then your are severely disillusioned.
let me ask you this then. do you have a published anatomy and physiology (A&P) based upon you and you alone? does your doctor have a copy? have you seen my anatomy and physiology book? probably not as they dont exist. let's take a gander that doctors can be an anatomy and physiology experts. when they go to medical school they study the A&P of homo sapiens. NOT of each and every human alive. now that just sounds silly doesnt it? its how your idea that we all have different A&P sound.
our A&Ps are so similar to not just other homo sapiens but to other animals, namely rats, that they are used in testing. why do you ask. as they are that similar to ours. A&P are similar enough that even vets, in a crunch could technically deal with human medical issues as they have a base understanding of A&P. now if you are right and even between homo sapiens our A&P are so different this could not happen.
now you have made a claim. i have shown some examples how your understanding is wrong. can you please explain how you are right.
Ruling out the fact that individual muscle insertion distance from the joint suit certain people better for this program you still have to consider individual differences in fiber orientation and composition. This is why some people respond better to higher reps while others benefit more from lower rep based programs. Plus the fact your not even considering training experience rules out everything you've said.
insertion and origin points only alter small things like best width of stance for squats, sumo vs conventional deads, etc, but does nothing on effecting program design. unless you have a more in depth explanation to help us all understand as honestly i am lost on why.
fiber orientation.... you read that somewhere but didnt fully understand it, right? probably. like most people you got some buzz words and thought you would sound cool using them. did you know that some fibers can change their traits based upon training? that can minimize or even negate this huge difference you claim. unless you have some other piece of knowledge that i dont, which is possible. can you please explain the mechanisms of this fiber differences causing a difference in training? how a difference in fiber mix changes the mechanisms behind exercise stimulus and adaptation.
as for the response of lower vs high reps, this has been tested ad nauseam and well understand. we know for a fact that new lifters respond to nearly all rep ranges but a workout like 3 sets of 10 work very well. as they progress in experience 30 reps for their main lift works, but the rep set scheme alters. given enough years the same desired effects can be reached with 10 sets of 3. its still 30 reps but a major variance in intensity and yet has a similar effect. the mechanisms are the same behind stimulus and response though. the main difference is neuromuscular efficiency levels. you didnt mention that as a difference. are you familiar with those buzz words? charles poliquin writes a lot about this and he has far more education and experience than both of us.
there is something else i am a huge believer in and that is just that, belief. jim wendler writes about this as well, another far more experienced lifter and coach than both of us. he writes a lot about how belief can make or break a program. basically if you dont believe in the program you wont put much effort in it, therefore you wont get much out of it.
i know zir red has posted research showing that for size, reps dont matter as much. as long as it is between 5 and 20 and lift till failure you will stimulate mass adaptation. he is another one with far more experience than both of us.
would you like to respond on how those that are more educated and experienced than us are wrong and you are right. you have made some claims and i would like to know so i can at least learn myself and it would be nice for others to learn as well. please and thank you.
Using a cookie cutter program like 5/3/1 limits individuals creativity and ability to work on strengths and weaknesses. Beginners rarely have to deload early in training as neural adaptations and then hypertrophy will follow easily, allowing them to train for longer periods of time while continuing to make gains. The problem is a cookie cutter program like this may provide too much volume for a beginner and too much intensity. It is well known that beginners respond to less % intensity then experienced lifters. Advancing intensity too early can lead to plateaus later on in programming. On the other sided advanced and elite level lifters often train with much greater % intensity then this provides. No program can be used for years, sorry, that's why block periodization is so popular with elite olympic athletes.
you clearly dont know what 5/3/1 is. as it is NOT about most of what you wrote above. the deload is a recommendation and should be taken as needed. the first book was written very exact as many people, especially newbs need that kind of help as they have no clue. but it is very adaptable and that is covered in the second edition and the beyond book and his forum section on t-nation.com. he clearly proves most of your understanding on 5/3/1 above wrong.
the only cookie cutter part is the main lift and its 5/3/1 scheme and for the record, that is a form of block periodization that you claim that elite lifters use. more proof that you dont quite understand this cookie cutter program. as for volume and intensity, again, your knowledge of the program is lacking. it starts of light and builds up till you as an individual lifter cannot handle it. it even explains how to deal with resets. therefore it has the intensity and volume needed for the lifter and its goals. something a cookie cutter program does not have. it has also been shown by many thousands of lifters how 5/3/1 can be used for years and still progress. i train with national level strongman and powerlifters that total elite and they have all used 5/3/1 for long periods and have gained results. that does not sound so cookie cutter to me. can you please explain how it is cookie cutter so i can point you in the right direction. instead of that, how about you get the second edition book and the beyond 5/3/1 book. if there is anything you dont get yet, read them again. they will show that your assumptions of the program are wrong.
Are you talking the biggest natural guys? or just the biggest guys?
is there were you try and take the 0.1% of the population and try to use them in an example. as that would apply best to only that 0.1%, sure go ahead and build a foundation on that. ill build mine on the other 99.9%. who do you think has a greater chance of being right?
Ronnie, Arnold, heath, etc hardly ever trained less than 5RM, just sayin even with hormonal usage
this was covered above by my response including the research posted a while back in this forum from zir red. their goal was mass so a mass based program was best for them. also, i will go back to 5/3/1, and even cube to prove my point even more so. the main lift is done with a total reps for the workout of 15-25 reps. even with that many sets are done for more than 5 sets. after that, accessory work is done as many reps and sets as needed. anywhere from 5 to 20+ reps per set. maybe as high as 50 reps for a set.
if you do want to include more of that 0.1% and the greats of that game even lets include franco columbo and mr aint nothing but a peanut ronnie coleman. they came from a powerlifting background. its easy to understand how getting strong can help in getting big. volume is a big key to getting big. if you can lift 200lbs for 3 sets of 10 and i could lift 250lbs for the same reps and sets who did more volume? who do you think stimulated more growth? simple right.
