Improving the SF 5x5?

[Protobuilder]

Before you tear off my head, let me explain. I'm wondering if there's some way to add in some periodization to the single-factor 5x5 to improve the results. I understand that this is the key distinction between it and the dual factor version. But, there are various ways to periodize and it's pretty much widely acknowledged that SOME form of periodization (even plain vanilla linear periodization) is better than NONE. If that's the case, wouldn't it be better to add some kind of periodization? [And note that I'm not saying you need to go to full-on dual factor here (overreaching followed by deloading) . . . just adding in SOME kind of periodization.]

From what I've read (and not just talking typical stupid BB'ing stuff), it's pretty rare to stick with an exercise for weeks on end. Often, you rotate the exercise out, or maybe change the rep range every few microcycles. I mean, conjugate periodization seems to work pretty well so why not work max strength AND power at the same time? Or why not alter the rep ranges, but keep all other principles the same (e.g., progressive resistance, frequency, etc.)?

I understand one reason this isn't discussed much is just for practical purposes. People are taking baby steps, learning theory for teh first time, and just starting to de-learn the BB'ing garbage . . . so madcow doesn't want to complicate things. But for us folks that aren't advanced enough to NEED dual-factor to make progress, but ARE smart enough to figure out how to build better programs, wouldn't it be a good option to work in SOME kind of periodization?

Any ideas on how to periodize the 5x5 to get better results? Here's one approach -- http://www.marunde-muscle.com/fitness/askem_5x5_principle.html

Or am I just looking a gift horse in the mouth?? LoL

 

[RipStone]

Fair enough man.

I think for those of us who dont need to use the DF program and can still progress linearly, maybe a SF 5x5 "advanced" version would be nice. But making changes in order to keep progressing lineraly is so individualized, so I am not sure if a cookie-cutter program would work. Madcow has said this before, but you just have to make some change in order to keep progressing. It could be dropping volume from the bottom sets, doing triples for a few weeks, etc, etc.

 

[Cynical Simian]

But, there are various ways to periodize and it's pretty much widely acknowledged that SOME form of periodization (even plain vanilla linear periodization) is better than NONE.

NO. This simply isn't correct as a blanket statement applied to people at various levels and types of training.

You're misunderstanding the whole idea of periodization and the reason it's not explicitly included in the description. It's not something that acts on programs to make them automatically better or worse; it's a way of regulating your body's response to said programs.

Coming from most other styles of training or none at all, something like the SF 5x5, as it is, is a good program and trying to incorporate periodization would only dilute the results. In turn, the SF 5x5 itself isn't even optimal for someone completely new. Something like Rippetoe's "put weight on the bar every workout" program of core lifts that's outlined a few places on this forum would allow even faster progress. Periodization, even if done by feel (by reramping, changing rep ranges, set numbers, etc.) rather than explicitly and planned in advance as in the DF version, already is a part of an extended run that starts with the SF 5x5. Even the one-bodypart-per-week, train-to-failure bodybuilding world periodizes to some extent, even if they have no clue why or that they're even doing so, when they completely switch their exercises every 8 weeks to "surprise their muscles".

 

[Anthrax Invasion]

When single-factor stops working, start back a few intervals, ramp up over a few weeks, hit new maxes, continue to break records until you plateau. Repeat.

 

[Madcow2]

The final weeks with major lifts hitting failure will be more fatiguing by their very nature, a reset is less fatiguing. So there is something implicitly built in. As well, when one makes a change the body is less adapted to the change and therefore builds potential and acclimates over a time period to the altered stress (less fatigue potential to more fatigue potential).

First - the exercise rotation thing in BBing is shit for the most part. Don't work off that model. This is basically the definition of what Glenn refers to as changing the "means" of training rather than the training itself. Every time you swap exercises the body acclimates/reacclimates to a new stress thus the weights and performance increase. This can give a false sense of progress when in fact it's just the body reacclimating to the new lifts or new rep range. This is why you have guys swapping crap all over the place thinking things are working yet at the end of the year they are still squatting, pressing, and pulling pretty much the exact same weight for their X rep max and look exactly the same.

This is where carryover comes in. If true fundemental gains were made, one should be able to reacclimate to the base or benchmark lifts/rep ranges and set new PRs in a fairly short time frame. And these benchmark lifts/rep ranges should match the goal of the lifter specifically (1RM in bench/dead/squat for PLs, 5x5 or 5RM in bench/squat/dead/overhead/row for a lot of you guys). These can be used to track progress, evaluate success of methods, and evaluate carryover over time periods.

So - if you can make linear progress in the most specific exercises and rep ranges to your goal, don't screw with things too much and start rotating the "means" of training. Train for the goal. Don't think that Louie Simmons wouldn't drop all that ME/DE and specialized work if he could go into the gym squat, bench, dead, and put weight on the bar setting new PRs for stretches on a weekly basis. Unfortunately, he has to make the best of limited resources and train around the body's limits for each increase - and this is the difference between novice/intermediates and advanced lifters (or at least how we've approached classifying this which IMO makes advanced overly broad but it's more workable for the people that need this stuff who typically aren't advanced and don't know much about training theory).

I'm not saying don't change anything. What I'm saying is that you need to be very very careful. A lot of programs with different rep ranges are all trying to "cover their bets" and throw everything and the kitchen sink at once. There are some major fundemental differences in the adaptations and the body can't do everything optimally at once (although at the raw beginner level you see broad adaptation just because they are so maleable). You choose the most specific and make progress (even in changing training the goal is still to come back and be better at the most specific). Getting better at 5's in the short term is not best done by doing 1 set of 5's, 10's, and then 15's all at once - you train 5's for a period and give the body one focused goal and drive adaptation straight at it. Westside's purpose in rotation of ME work is to be sport specific in doing heavy max work but not to overburden the system. Like I said, if they could make this work fully equipped maxes in the squat, bench, dead all the time and have it work for them, they would.

Now if you really have the urge to mess with the template I'd look at HST's system. Here you have training blocks each with a specific rep range. Over time the rep ranges decrease. Sort of like linear periodization but with what might be termed separate mesocycles of less fatiguing upon initiating and then more fatiging work as people build to their PRs in that given range and then step back to a new rep range.

Essentially - what I'm saying is, don't be in a hurry to move away from specificity. You train for your goal and when training is altered it is also with your goal foremost in your mind. If swapping crap around constantly worked well, there'd be a ton of guys in the gym making a lot of progress. Don't think I as well as countless others haven't proven this and beat it into the ground - I tried it, doesn't work. You want to get good at the squat, you squat. You want to change something, find something that will specifically carryover and improve your squat - being more effective than just straight squatting and likely addressing a given issue in your lift. And for most people on these boards, there's nothing they can do that's better for their squat than to just keep hammering away and posting increases as often as possible.

 

[Protobuilder]

Awesome replies guys. Thanks. I'm still digesting it all. . . .

Any other thoughts?